Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate: Departmental Appointments. – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Tuesday, 23 Oct 1973

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate: Departmental Appointments.

Mr. Dowling

I am raising this matter because I felt the Minister today was arrogant and failed to answer my question in a satisfactory manner. He did not answer my question fully in regard to the Press officer. My question was:

To ask the Minister for Labour the appointments made in his Department since 15th March, 1973, other than through the Civil Service Commission; and if he will state in respect of each appointment (a) the grade (b) the title of the post (c) the qualifications required (d) the salary and (e) the terms of employment.

That is a reasonable question and the Minister should have replied in a straightforward way. I was not really concerned about the question of the personal assistant. I was not concerned that a previous vice-chairman of the Labour Party was seconded as the Minister's personal assistant. That was not the purpose of the question. I know the situation as it is. This man may be a very well qualified and highly suitable person for the job. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask whether appointments were made by the Minister other than through the Civil Service Commission.

The Minister will save himself a lot of time and trouble and I will be very brief if he is prepared to answer my questions now. The Minister said a Press officer was engaged for a short period but is no longer employed. It will save me putting down further probing questions if the Minister will tell me if the Press officer was dismissed because he was politically unsafe, if he was dismissed because he was a security risk, if he was dismissed because he was a member of a national organisation of a foreign country. I would like the Minister clearly to indicate whether this is so or not. This has been said of the man and I want to protect him here in the House. The Minister was responsible for the hiring and firing of this man and I would like to know if there is any substance in the rumours prevalent in this city and in the House that the dismissed officer was politically unsafe, was a security risk and was a member of a national organisation of a foreign country. If the Minister does not answer this question tonight he will probably have to answer it on some other occasion in greater depth.

In relation to the jobs for the boys, the Minister's personal assistant was a vice-chairman of the Labour Party and is now seconded to him at a substantial salary of £3,500 or so. I have no axe to grind with that other than to say that when the Minister was on this side of the House I heard him say that this was corruption. Has power corrupted the Minister? I am in no way questioning his right to make these appointments if he so desires. Why was this officer dismissed and what information did the Minister have in relation to him? During his period as Press officer did he have access to information that could be used outside? I would ask the Minister to answer those questions now to save me and other people putting down further probing questions. I would like those questions answered fully, fairly and truthfully by the Minister.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

It is well established practice that each Minister is entitled to a personal assistant and where such assistants are drawn from outside the ranks of the Civil Service it is customary for the Civil Service Commissioners to grant an exclusion order. During the period from 1st June, 1967, to 14th March, 1973, the Civil Service Commissioners issued 167 exclusion orders to Ministers of the former Government. A Minister may not appoint an officer to his Department otherwise than through the normal channels of the Civil Service Commission except where he seeks a specific exclusion order from the commissioners to enable him to fill a particular post otherwise than through the commission. Any such order granted by the commission can apply only to a non-established or temporary position and every such order granted by the commissioners must be published in Iris Oifigiúil.

In the case of my personal assistant it was necessary, having got the exclusion order, to seek from the Minister for Finance an exception order under the Civil Service (Regulations) Acts and the appointment could not be made until this order had, in fact, been obtained. The need for the exception order in this case was due to the fact that the officer in question is a married woman. The necessity would not arise now since the Dáil has decided to remove the marriage bar in the public service.

In the case of the personal assistant on industrial affairs the person in question is on secondment from a semi-State body and has not been appointed to the Civil Service at all. He is seconded to my Department for specific duties in relation to industrial affairs. He is paid his normal salary by his employer who is in turn recouped the amount by my Department; that is to say, he receives no more now in salary than he would receive had he remained in his previous semi-State employment. His secondment is purely temporary, limited to the tasks I assign him. The conditions of his secondment require him to conform to rules which apply to civil servants in general, even though he is not a civil servant.

In the case of the Press officer he was engaged on a fee basis at a daily rate until his assignment ceased last June. I might add that I discussed the matter of the appointment of the personal assistant on industrial affairs with the staff association concerned.

Before I leave this matter, which is an important matter in its general principle, and I rather regret that Deputy Dowling should bend his undoubted intelligence and ability to the kind of remarks he made here tonight, I would say that a Minister should be in a position to appoint, in consultation with those involved, a person possessing special skills for a particular assignment where the appointment constitutes no threat to recognised promotion procedures or where the Minister concerned is convinced of the usefullness of such an appointment. Modern government requires that such a power should lie with a Minister and that it should be utilised when necessary. I need scarcely add that the use of this power and any appointments which may flow from the use of this power is complementary to the work of the regular staff of any Department whose excellence in the case of my own staff in the Department of Labour I can personally vouch for.

Examples of the use of such appointments abound in other Governments in other countries. They are too numerous to go into. No one will deny that the former Taoiseach was both entitled to and right in appointing an economist to his personal staff. The general desirability of mobility within the various sectors of the public service from semi-State bodies, local authorities to the Civil Service proper was endorsed by the Devlin Report on the public service. Indeed, one might say that an early Act which sought to facilitate such mobility within the public service was the Superannuation Act, 1963.

I had thought that the material requested by Deputy Dowling in his question today was given adequately. I am happy that with these further facts any problems he had in relation to the appropriateness of these appointments were set at rest.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Oct 1973