asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that, at a recent interview conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners for the appointment of a public relations officer to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, one member of the board was the editor of a newspaper employing pressmen; and whether, in view of the fact that applicants for this post might reasonably be expected to be pressmen themselves, it is desirable to have an editor of a newspaper rather than somebody not actively engaged in an executive capacity in newspapers as a member of such a board.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Post Office PRO Appointment.
12.
I should perhaps say that I have no function in regard to the composition of these interview boards which are set up by the Civil Service Commissioners in pursuance of their statutory duties. They have informed me, however, that one member of the board in question was, in fact, the editor of a newspaper employing pressmen. They have explained that, as the applicants for the position to be filled included pressmen it was considered essential to have on the Board persons with newspaper experience; and that, in view of the small number of persons known to the Commissioners to be qualified to act, it would not have been practicable not to include the editor of a newspaper, even if that were agreed to be desirable; in fact, however, the Commissioners see no good reason why newspaper editors should not be eligible to serve on such boards, as they have served in the past. The Board consisted of five members. Two of these were persons unconnected with newspapers. Two were persons experienced in journalism but, as far as is known, no longer actively engaged in an executive capacity in newspapers. The other member was, as I have said, the editor of a newspaper.
Would the Minister not agree with me that, where a post is advertised for a public relations officer for a Department of State, it might naturally be expected to attract applications from amongst working pressmen and that it is the cause of unnecessary embarrassment to such applicants to find their existing employer as one of the members of the Board appointed to assess their capability for another job, their application for which may be unknown to the employer who turns up at the interview board?
Are we to take it from the supplementary question asked by Deputy Dillon that if a job is going for an engineer, no engineer is to sit on the Board; that if a job is going for a doctor, no doctor is to sit on the Board; and if a job is going for an accountant, no accountant is to sit on the Board? Are we to take it that is what Deputy Dillon wants?
I appreciate the point raised by Deputy Dillon in the case of an employee appearing before the Board of which his employer is a member but I think the Board have gone to a considerable length to show the difficulties they have in regard to these matters.
Might I ask the Minister to suggest to the Board that in similar cases arising hereafter, those who have had executive responsibility in newspapers would be much preferable to those who are actively so engaged lest the contingency to which I have referred should occur?
Could the Minister say at what stage the Board were appointed? Was it before or after the receipt of the applications?
I do not know but I think the usual practice is to appoint the Board about the time the applications are coming in.
Would it not be desirable to appoint the Board after the receipt of the applications?
That would also be open to objection.
Why?
Do not ask me to be too blunt.