Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1976

Vol. 288 No. 10

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Civil Service Appointment.

29.

asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will outline the circumstances in which a person (details supplied) in County Dublin was refused appointment to the civil service as an executive officer.

The relevant legislation lays down that the Civil Service Commissioners can accept a person as qualified for appointment only if they are satisfied that he or she is suitable in all the necessary respects for appointment. The commissioners were not so satisfied in regard to the applicant here concerned. Having examined the relevant papers, I agree with the commissioners' decision. It would not be appropriate to outline the reasons for it.

Would the Minister be prepared to indicate to the candidate concerned the reason she was not acceptable?

The Deputy will appreciate that in connection with making appointments the Civil Service Commissioners resort to confidential inquiries and so forth including inquiries from former employers, for instance, and other quarters and they undertake that any information supplied to them in the course of their inquiries will be treated confidentially and it would be against the best interests of both employers and employees if there was to be a breach of that confidentiality and in certain cases this could arise. So, it is not the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners to furnish the information on which they make their decision.

I am sure the Minister is aware that this candidate went through all the necessary examinations, and qualified for appointment, went through the medical examination and was given every indication right along the line that she was acceptable for this appointment only to be told quite bluntly at the last moment that she was not acceptable. Is the Minister for the Public Service not attempting to bring a new up-to-date, modern outlook to this whole question of recruitment to the public service and to dispense with the Victorian type of attitude adopted by the Civil Service Commissioners? I understood that was the attitude now prevailing in the Department of the Public Service. Will the Minister confirm that that is so, that he is hoping to drag the Civil Service Commissioners procedures into the middle of the 20th century? If that is so would he, if he is not prepared to disclose it to me or the House—I can readily understand that he might not be prepared to disclose to me or the House details of this case—not think it fair, reasonable and just that in the circumstances of this case the candidate should be given some indication as to why she was not acceptable in view of the fact that her rejection was at the very last moment, the very final stages of the whole procedure?

The requirements which must be filled by any applicant to the civil service are set out in section 17 of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, which is not the middle of the last century but the middle of the 20th century. The requirements there set out are, I am satisfied, and I am sure the House should be satisfied, requirements that any reasonable employer should ensure are fulfilled. If the Civil Service Commissioners in the exercise of their statutory responsibilities are of opinion that these requirements are not fulfilled they may not appoint the candidate in question. Unfortunately, cases arise where candidates are successful in written examinations, in interviews and indeed in medical examinations, where general unsuitability or lack of fulfilment of these requirements leads them to be excluded at the end of the examining process. The only way in which this disappointment at the end of a build up of expectation can be avoided would be not to give any indication to candidates until all the procedures and all the investigations and inquiries have been made.

That would not be possible.

In the majority of cases this would be most unfair to candidates who like to know as soon as possible whether or not they have been successful so that they may decide on their careers. It is 12 years since an issue of this kind was raised in the House and on that occasion a distinguished predecessor of mine, Dr. James Ryan, adopted the same line as myself. I consider he was right in those circumstances although he was pressed also to state the reasons and if not prepared to state them in the House to state them to the person in question. In the interests of the candidates and the people from whom the Civil Service Commissioners must make inquiries it is considered that it is undesirable that information should be given in that way.

Would the Minister at least be prepared, in view of the very serious fundamental sort of matter that this is to the candidate concerned, to indicate under which of the grounds set out in the statute the candidate was found to be unsuitable? Would he indicate this to the candidate and not necessarily to me?

I am sure the Deputy accepts that the best way to recruit people to the public service is through the Civil Service Commission and that they should have to satisfy certain requirements. It would be impossible to disclose the sources from which the Civil Service Commissioners obtain information.

The conduct of the Government would not leave one to believe that.

This ensures impartiality and objectivity.

A lot of people came in the back door during recent times.

I have no reason to believe that these high standards of impartiality and objectivity have not been maintained in relation to this particular applicant. It is a matter for the commissioners to decide what are the appropriate standards having regard to the requirements set forth in section 17 of the Act. I would not consider it proper that I should direct them in any way in relation to their conduct in that regard.

In the light of modern practice in this regard does the Minister not consider it unsuitable in this day and age that a body like the Civil Service Commission should be entitled to act in this totally totalitarian, authoritative, secretive way and have no obligation on them to disclose to anybody the reasons for their procedures or the reasons for rejecting an unfortunate candidate in this way?

I am afraid we shall have to pass on to another question.

I do not regard it as totalitarian for a prospective employer to make inquiries, for instance, from previous employers, as to their view regarding the skills, suitability, work application and so forth of a particular candidate. It would be invidious when the State gives an undertaking to former employers that any information given will be treated confidentially that the State should then breach that confidentiality by furnishing information to a disappointed applicant.

I am afraid we must pass on to the next question. I am sure the Deputy will agree I have given quite a lot of latitude.

That would involve the disclosure of particular information. All I am asking is that the Minister would disclose the grounds, not necessarily the source from which his information came, on which the decision was taken.

Even to furnish details of the grounds on which a decision was taken in many cases would give a clear indication as to the source of the information and that would be unfair.

I am calling the next question. Question No. 30.

Top
Share