asked the Minister for Local Government with reference to the post of temporary building inspector in his Department which was advertised in December last (1) the date on which the advertisement inviting applications was published in the newspapers (2) the terms of the advertisement (3) how many applications were received (4) the number of applicants interviewed (5) why the remaining applicants were not interviewed and (6) how many were appointed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Temporary Building Inspector.
34.
The particulars requested by the Deputy are as follows: (1) the advertisement was published on 8th and 9th December, 1961; (2) the terms of the advertisement were
Department of Local Government Building Inspectors Required.
Qualifications:
A good knowledge of building construction including some knowledge of measurement of quantities and preparation of estimates; ability to write a good report, keep records and read drawings.
Salary:
To be determined according to qualifications and experience will be within the range of £13 11s. 1d. to £14 14s. 3d. a week.
Age Limits:
21 to 50 years.
A successful applicant will be required to serve in any part of the country, and will require a motor car. Mileage rates and subsistence allowances, where necessary, will be paid.
Application forms (with particulars of employment), obtainable from Room 144, Custom House, Dublin; (3) 269 applications were received; (4) 75 applicants were called for interview and 41 of those attended; (5) it was not considered necessary to interview all the applicants. The 75 who appeared likely to be the most suitable on the basis of their general qualifications and experience as set out on their application forms were called for interview. (6) 15 have been appointed.
With regard to the reply to the fifth question asking why the remaining applicants were not interviewed, would the Minister say whether it was fair to the applicants who went to the trouble of filling in the application forms, and who in their own opinion and the opinion of many other people were fully qualified, that the Minister did not think it worth while to call them for interview?
The answer to the unfairness or otherwise of their not being interviewed might, I think, be related to the unfairness of calling those who appeared from their own applications and submission of qualifications to be likely to be unsuitable. It was not a question that the Minister went through those applications himself and sorted them out according to the colour of their hair. A board was set up and, having gone through the applications without any direction whatsoever from me at any stage, the board came to their own conclusions, listed the people they felt from the particulars supplied were likely to form a nucleus of the type they wanted, called them for interview, 41 turned up, and out of the 41, 15 have been accepted and appointed.
I take it the 41 is out of the 75?
Yes.
The persons I am concerned with were not called. Is the Minister satisfied that, apart from the 75 who were called, the other applicants were not as suitable or as well informed as those who were called?
What I am putting to the Deputy is that a board was set up in my Department to deal with this matter, composed of people competent to judge the type of people who would be responsible and suitable. Having gone through the applications and the qualifications stated therein by each applicant, they came to the conclusion that it would not serve any useful purpose to interview other than the 75 called.
Do I take it the Department's board short-listed the number of applicants, without consulting or interviewing all the applicants?
That is right.
Does the Minister consider that was fair to a number of the applicants who were not called?
I cannot particularise in this matter but it is not an unusual procedure, where a big number apply. Naturally, some of them have more hope of than belief in their suitability. The statement of their qualifications and their experience is left open to themselves to submit and having made the best case possible for themselves, on their own behalf, and been judged by those who are competent to deal with this matter, they should not consider it unfair if the board decides there is no point in calling them.
Is this a precedent being established in the Minister's Department?
No; I would not say so.
It has already been carried out in other instances?
I would say it is not an unusual procedure. I cannot recall any particular case.
May I ask the Minister in this connection where the 15 applicants were from who were successful? Were they all from Cork or Donegal?
They were not all from either of those counties.
Could the Minister give us some indication?
Here, there and everywhere.