Private Members' Business . - Public Sector Application Charges: Motion . – Dáil Éireann (24th Dáil) – Tuesday, 19 Apr 1983

Private Members' Business . - Public Sector Application Charges: Motion .

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to withdraw immediately the charges imposed on job applications in the Public Sector.

I wish to thank the Chair for the opportunity of moving this very important motion in my name and that of my colleague, Deputy Calleary, on behalf of my party. The importance of the debate this afternoon and the issues raised by the protesters who have legitimately been making their views known outside this House today may have meant that somewhere along the line the social implications of this penal decision by the Government may have been lost in the publicity stakes because of the number of other current problems. I want to emphasise how seriously we view this reactionary step by this reactionary Minister, supported by this reactionary Government.

Before I deal with our motion I want to scoff at the terminology of the amendment proposed by the Minister. The amendment states:

recognises that in present financial circumstances it is desirable that the cost of some State services be borne to at least some extent by those making use of the services.

We must remember we are talking about school-leavers, about the unemployed and about people who may have genuine reasons to seek a change of employment. I say to the Members opposite, particularly to the members of the Labour Party, that voting for our amendment will not bring down the Government. What it will do is to give the Government a message that new ideas with regard to employment are needed urgently, not the kind of retrograde decisions that have been taken in areas such as we are discussing now.

In case it may be thought we are the only people who scoff at the Government's decision, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the April issue of the publication Liberty, the magazine of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, which I am sure is read each month by Members of this House. In that publication there is a cartoon by the distinguished cartoonist, Bob Fannin, which is worth looking at. It depicts two obviously unemployed people walking along and nearby is a notice board with the sign “application fee for Government jobs”. The caption underneath shows one unemployed person saying to the other “next step — auctioning off jobs to the highest bidder”. They are telling the Minister that is the only move left for him to make. That is not a production of Fianna Fáil but appeared in the official magazine of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union.

When I raised this matter on the Adjournment on 3 March last as a result of advertisements that appeared in the national newspapers the previous day, I said then that the first intimation we had that this move was being contemplated was not contained in the budget speech of the Minister for Finance but appeared immediately afterwards in the now famous pink papers. They were handed to Members of this House and were entitled "Principal Features of the Budget". They included the principal features but they also included other items not mentioned by the Minister. They gave some frightening details. On page three of that document there was reference to fees to be charged by the Civil Service Commission for civil service examinations. I tabled a question in the hope that the Government would have some common sense about the matter. They were trying to collect a small amount of revenue at the expense of unemployed young people.

On 2 March the national newspapers gave details regarding this charge in the column dealing with careers in the public service. A statement in that advertisement stated:

There is an application fee for all competitions announced by the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissioners after 1 March 1983. Instructions as to how the fees are to be paid are contained in the documentation issued with application forms. It is regretted that because of the arrangements necessary for the handling of the fees, completed application forms can only be received in the headquarters office. The issue of application forms will also be centralised at that office.

That has two implications. It means we have gone back to the 1960s in that we are imposing a charge and we have done away with the idea of decentralisation. We are centralising everything and we are emphasising that in our advertisements for the public service.

Although the advertisements did not state so categorically, the Minister told us that it meant one fee of £10 for each group of jobs advertised. It was not clear from the advertisement if that was the intention but if it is an improvement on what was first intended at least the efforts on that day bore some fruit. However, if two, three or four members of a family have to apply, they will have to find £20, £30 or £40 and it may be that there may be no one employed in that house. I wonder if the Minister and I live in the same country? Does he think that is justified?

It is well known that the Leader of the Labour Party was not happy with the decision taken and that he made strong efforts to change the situation because of pressure from his supporters. To date he has been unsuccessful in getting the £10 charge abolished. I will quote from The Cork Examiner of 13 April 1983 in which the following notice appeared: “Details regarding the application fee will be given in the documents issued with the application forms”. All that is stated is that details are available, which is a new type of advertisement.

Where does all of this leave us? One could say that it is typical of the Government's approach to employment and unemployment. We were told about the long deliberations in Barretstown Castle, yet the Taoiseach on the radio this morning did not make any comments on the economic problems which were reported to have been discussed there. We do hear of kites being flown in all directions, but that is of little consolation to those about whom I am concerned— many coming on the employment market in the next two months in an already high unemployment situation difficult for any Government in any western country. The problem is extremely difficult here because of the size and growth of our young population and of the work force. A miserable defence was raised by this Minister on the occasion of our Adjournment debate. He told me that my memory was not right, that colleagues of mine had been in Government as Ministers for Finance when such fees existed. I never served in this House under either of the two Deputies mentioned, both respected members of my party and respected Ministers of this House and this country who gave excellent service over many years. I refer to Dr. Jim Ryan and Mr. Seán MacEntee, both of whose names were mentioned previously by the Minister opposite. During their terms as Minister, charges did apply but surely that only strengthens my argument that this Minister is reactionary enough to go back to the dim days of the late fifties or early sixties.

He also referred to my not being sincere in my comments if I was Minister for Labour and Public Service who prepared the Estimates for this year. He was kind enough to say that they were genuine Estimates, pared to the bone. I do not deny that. He said that he must provide the money elsewhere. I do not believe all that I read in the newspapers. Over the weekend, I read some alarming comments on how money might have been spent, but I am not sure whether these are accurate or inaccurate and I do not wish or expect the Minister to comment on them.

I ask the Minister not to put a charge on school leavers in respect of applications or interviews. These count as experience and education and are helpful, even if not successful. They give school leavers some assistance, training and hope for the future. We are told that the revenue involved is somewhere in the region of £400,000. Again, one cannot be sure how this figure is arrived at. We are told that there are different fees and the Minister went to some length in his previous reply to say that there was a cost to the State. Of course there is, but one can look at this whole thing from two points of view. It could be regarded as part of Fine Gael's employment policy, although I am not sure what that is and it is not clear who enunciates it. It could also be seen as part of this much flaunted new idea about which we hear so much — the Minister's programme for public service reform.

We hear a lot about Dáil reform and public service reform. I understand on good authority that most of this is top of the head talk. I support Dáil reform and public service reform, but question the sincerity of some members of the present Government where that is concerned, with particular reference to Dáil reform. I am not offering criticism to the same extent with regard to public service reform. I am satisfied that the commitment to Dáil reform is more an effort to fly a kite and create a smokescreen than a genuine commitment. I mean that because I know that to be so.

The main thrust of the Fine Gael employment policy — if policy one can call it — seems to emerge as one to reduce the demand for employment. We have heard a number of initiatives offered publicly. One member of that party suggests that young people should, if possible, emigrate and seek work abroad. He does not stipulate where. Of course, some jobs are available in Europe and I support the efforts of those interested in getting those jobs but let us not get away from the fact that there is an unemployment problem which is not confined to this country. This former Cabinet Minister says young people must emigrate and look for work abroad, even if there is not any. I presume he thinks it more desirable to say that rather than see the politicians here being embarrassed at the magnitude of the task which is not being tackled.

Another prominent member of the Fine Gael Party enunciated the one family, one job dictum. Is this more of their emerging policy? In practical terms, as told by many of the commentators, he appears to be saying that all married women at work should go home but, of course, all the mayors, company directors, TDs and so forth appear to be exempt.

The next plank in the Fine Gael employment policy appears to be one to discourage people from applying for public service jobs, which is the specific problem before us at the moment. If the people cannot afford £10, then they do not apply, so that the problem is not as obvious as it should be. Looking at it from another point of view, the £10 charge on school leavers could be viewed as part of the reform of the public service. The object of the Government's economic policy is to isolate the public service from the recession. One wonders what all these exercises are in aid of and what they hope to achieve. In future entry to the public service is to be made more difficult, because now there will be a charge. We have a reactionary Minister and we have gone back 20 years.

Public service jobs are to be available only in Dublin, because the decentralisation programme has been done away with. To consolidate the position, the Government say in the advertisements for new recruits that the central office will deal with all applications and all fees. I am sure that the Minister, being confined to a Dublin constituency, is not aware of the hardship of my constituents in having to travel to attend interviews and examinations, with the cost, the time factor and the necessary subsistence, that money not being available from any other source but the individual or the home. In addition to that, they are charged £10 extra. Surely one must have a conscience for the people who must travel and at a cost.

At present one might well wonder if the major plank of public service reform is the performance of Ministers abroad. I want to know from the Minister is it correct to say that he intends undertaking a tour of EEC capitals to help the reform programme, in an endeavour to establish what is the position in each of the EEC Governments? Are study trips abroad being organised? That would appear to be the case because every week or 10 days we hear of Ministers being somewhere.

Then there is this miserable £10 fee on young people attending interviews or examinations. The Minister, in a very patriotic comment, asked for a day's work for Ireland. I say to these Ministers: show their commitment to the home scene. We have a Taoiseach who, we understand, for the second time since this Government were elected, was abroad for a few weeks.

An Ceann Comhairle

: Would the Deputy relate his remarks to the motion before the House?

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: Of course I shall. I am saying that whatever revenue the Taoiseach spent abroad, if spent at home would be useful to our economy rather than putting a charge on the school-leaver. That is why I think my comment would be in order.

The reasons given by the Minister in his reply to me on 3 March last were absurd to say the least. He said that some applications were frivolous, that they would cost about £30 to process. If the Minister is saying that it costs £30 to process an application from an unqualified person, or that it is a frivolous application, then surely there is something wrong with the system. In other words, there is room for improvement and let that improvement be effected. Those are the public service reforms needed.

There was also a comment that people who will occupy highly-paid jobs can afford to pay. One could extend the logic of that defence to an enormous degree, to a degree that would be even stupid in its dimension. What I should say is this: remember that the majority of applicants — and I ask the Minister to give the statistical information to the House — will be young school-leavers or people at present unemployed. They will be the people who for the most part will pay this fee. Therefore, do not let us defend those people who transfer for the sake of improving their income substantially. If that is happening it is a different situation and constitutes the minority of applications. It constitutes the minority of jobs advertised because the majority relate to the young school-leavers or unemployed persons going perhaps into the postal service.

It is interesting to hear the Minister defend it because it existed in the past. Surely this is what draws my charge of his being a reactionary Minister and the Government being a reactionary Government. It was abolished in the 1960s. In fact I think it was our party leader, Deputy Haughey, who presided over that abolition. I would regard that as progress.

I look forward to hearing what the Labour Party members have to say on this issue. They must realise that there is being imposed here on the ordinary person seeking employment a new charge — and when I say new it is not sufficient for me to be told it existed 20 years ago. It is new in the context of the Ireland of today. It is a miserable imposition that will bring in a small amount of revenue which, in my opinion, will cause discrimination against an already over-taxed group in our society. The people who can least afford to pay this £10 are those who have already run out of patience with the performance of this Government to date. When the marches of last week were taking place I remembered a few short years ago some members of the Minister's own party who took part in those earlier marches. They were far away from them last week. But it is actions of inequity, of creating divisiveness, of worsening inequity, it is decisions like these which cause the present unrest.

I listened with interest to Deputy Blaney make the point about what we all know to be an added problem. I shall not go into that because I appreciate I could be brought to order. But all of these actions are creating a new divisiveness in our society, constituting a new imposition on the biggest sufferer. Who are the biggest sufferers in regard to this charge? They are the children and relatives of the PAYE people. I know the Tánaiste would probably say now that he did not like the timing or the tone of the Minister's announcement but — and the "but" would be that it would be an option he would have to consider and vote for. That would probably be the approach. I would say to his party members that here they are afforded an ideal opportunity to deliver a lesson to the Government, a lesson that will not defeat the Government but at least affords them the opportunity of saying: "you are doing a hell of a bad job, we want to see you do better". If they do not do that one has to question the sincerity of the comments one hears from time to time. I believe that, of all the decisions taken to date — some of them having received much greater publicity — this is the most unacceptable, most insensitive, insensitive in the sense that it hits young people, school-leavers, at a time when youth unemployment and unemployment generally is of grave concern.

We forecast the problems the budget would create when we heard the statement of the Minister for Finance. We were told by some that it was totally unacceptable to the Labour Party. The timing might not have been right, the tone might not have been right but they trooped into the lobbies to support it. This is their opportunity, not to bring down the Government, but for each member of the Labour Party to say to himself or herself: "I can on this occasion go through the lobbies and support what is a very sensible motion in this House. I can do so knowing that it will not defeat the Government but will deliver a message saying: `Get your house in order, do your job a bit better, lay off the young people'." I am even prepared to compromise if the Minister is sensible in this House and to say: Discriminate in your job applications, discriminate in your job advertisements, think about where there are promotion opportunities for an already-employed person, discriminate there as distinct from the unemployed person or, above all, the school-leaver. But for God's sake remove it, and remove it fast in the case of school-leavers.

I wonder how members of the Labour Party felt yesterday. I read with interest a comment of a former Member of this House, a former Minister for Finance, now a member of the European Parliament, Mr. Richie Ryan. What did he say? He said that socialism was the source of all our ills. That is the comment of a former Minister for Finance in a Fine Gael/Labour Coalition Government. But, wait for it — and this is what I want the Labour Party to listen to particularly — he said that Fianna Fáil have been carrying out socialist policies since 1977.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: That has little bearing on the motion before the House. The Deputy should confine himself to the terms of the motion.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: I can understand the Leas-Cheann Comhairle being a little touchy on this subject.

Mr. Carey

: Deputy Fitzgerald should be relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: The Deputy should deal with the motion and leave the European Parliament out of the debate. The Deputy is doing well and he should keep on the lines he was on.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is a Member I respect and because of his request I will be brief in referring to that. I am anxious to point out the reasons why the Labour Party have an obligation to vote for this motion in the interests of our young people. I can understand Deputy Carey being concerned about former Deputy Richie Ryan describing Fianna Fáil as a party who introduced socialist policies.

Mr. Carey

: My only concern was that the Deputy should be relevant to the motion.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: I would welcome the Deputy joining us tomorrow to vote against the £10 fee that all school leavers will be charged when applying for positions in the public service. The Deputy should listen to what I am saying because the voters in Clare will be looking closely at what he decides tomorrow night. They will wonder why the Deputy, a sensible person, did not vote against that charge. We are all aware of the disarray on the Government side in regard to business which will come up for discussion next week and the decision to introduce a charge of £10 for public service job applications has been lost in the publicity about all the other issues. Important though those issues are the matter under discussion is equally important because it hits at the core of our society and will affect young people for generations.

Responsible and sensible Members whose constituents must pay the cost of transport and subsistence for their children who sit public service examinations must question this new charge. If more than one member of a family applies for a position they must also pay the £10 fee. The decision to introduce that charge is an indication of the small mentality of the Government, a Pale mentality. The charge should be forgotten. Government Deputies should remember that if by their support our motion is adopted it will not mean the end of the Coalition Government. We are opposed to this tax on the unemployed. I ask the honourable and respectable Members of the Labour Party to support our motion tomorrow night.

In the course of my contribution on 3 March I referred to the views of many commentators. I pointed out that the decision to introduce this charge was the thin end of the wedge and what frightened me particularly was the position of young unemployed and school leavers. On 3 March I referred to an article in The Cork Examiner— I apologise for being parochial but one cannot but be interested in one's local paper — in regard to an advertisement which had appeared on 2 March. The newspaper had checked the facts with the GIS and reported:

Those applying for the Garda Síochána are not required to pay a fee with their application. However, the GIS spokesman said yesterday, that it is believed a compulsory application fee will be introduced in this sector shortly.

This is the thin end of the wedge by a reactionary Minister in a reactionary Government. Where will the Government go next? Will they go to the State boards? Will apprentices now be charged £50? Will the situation be similar to that portrayed in the cartoon in Liberty, auctioning off jobs to the highest bidder? That is the risk we are running. That cartoon may be jocose but there is a dangerous element in all this. What about AnCO? Will they be asked to charge their trainees a fee? What about the other training agencies?

I am aware that examination fees and course fees have been increased, but are we going to defend those increases, and the introduction of the public service fee, by saying that all services must be paid for? The Minister has challenged me to tell the House where the £400,000 can be got. In November, prior to the election I, as Minister for the Public Service, decided with the Government what the Estimate for that Department would be for 1983. Any change made by the Government is not a matter for me and I should not be challenged on it. We had outlined our Estimates clearly prior to the election. In fact, the Minister complimented me on my Estimate saying that there was nothing dishonest about it and that it was properly prepared. Any changes since then are matters for the Minister.

I know how the people in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's constituency feel about this hurtful, insensitive and blatant attack on school leavers. I ask the reasonable and honest Members of the Labour Party whose supporters are seething because of this miserable £10 charge to support us tomorrow night. The Government will not be brought down but success for our motion will deliver a clear message to them to govern with concern for the ordinary people from whom the Labour Party and I draw our support. The Labour Party cannot expect to retain that support unless their Members take seriously what I say on issues such as this. I am prepared to compromise and listen to the Minister if he says that some jobs in the public service that attract a high salary should be subject to this £10 charge. That fee on school leavers and the unemployed in 1983 is the most disgraceful decision taken by any Government since the thirties. It is reactionary and will always be considered to be so. I will not allow the House forget it. Labour Party Members tomorrow night will have an opportunity of redeeming some of the credibility that is slipping so fast from them.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

: I move:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute: "recognises that in present financial circumstances it is desirable that the cost of some State services be borne to at least some extent by those making use of the services."

It is always an experience to be present when Deputy Fitzgerald makes a contribution and I do not think I could say much more than that about what he said tonight. At the outset Deputy Fitzgerald chose to scoff at the terminology of the amendment. Perhaps it might have been more appropriate if he had referred to the fact that the wording of his motion is totally fallacious and misleading. The motion refers to charges imposed on job applications in the public sector. I would have thought that a former Minister for the Public Service would have had some comprehension of the definition of the public sector, the public service and the civil service. I would have expected him to realise that the charges which have been introduced apply only to the civil service.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: Nobody knows what has been introduced. It is only hit and miss.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Boland

: The Deputy adopted a very hurt and pained expression when he had a gentle reminder from a Deputy on this side that he should address his remarks to the motion. Perhaps he would now allow me to make my contribution.

The charges apply only to jobs to be filled by the Civil Service Commission and this was made clear when these charges were originally published in the document issued in conjunction with the Budget Statement. It was also made abundantly clear by me when the Deputy raised this matter on the Adjournment on 3 March last.

I should like to thank the Deputy for his endorsement of my suggestion made some weeks ago in Cork that people might consider voluntarily working a day for Ireland and it was heartening to hear the Deputy describe that suggestion as a "patriotic comment". I thank him for his support of the concept I outlined. It is indeed heartening that he should have deverged slightly from his motion to acknowledge that fact. It was less heartening to hear him consistently mislead the House by referring to a £10 application fee because I was at pains to point out to him on 3 March that there are two levels of fee, £7 and £10. Almost three-quarters of all jobs advertised in the civil service carry a £7 application fee whereas only a quarter would be charged at the rate of £10.

I want to say, at the risk of stating the obvious, that it gave no pleasure to me or my colleagues in Cabinet to re-introduce fees, fees at even this modest level, in respect of jobs advertised in the civil service. It is patently obvious that politicians generally prefer to do things which will be perceived as being popular. They prefer to do things which are easy, which win soft acclaim and popular support. They prefer to spend money and get the clap on the back. This is the "hail-fellow-well-met" syndrome which, as it paraded down its dizzy way in the last years of the seventies, brought this country to the brink of disaster. It has meant that we as a Government and the entire population have had to suffer the imposition of what all would agree was a budget of a very harsh and severe nature, the imposition of charges in respect of some State services and the reduction, changing or elimination of other State services. All those things have had to be done because of the spendthrift and reckless approach adopted by Deputy Gene Fitzgerald and his colleagues when they were in Government in the late seventies and the turn of the decade. It ill behoves him now to advocate a return to the days of spending money borrowed abroad at the expense of the charges to be borne by the population in the years ahead. The years ahead have arrived and we are now paying for the sins of the Deputy and his colleagues.

I was asked by Deputy Fitzgerald to give some statistical information. This might be of particular interest because the numbers who apply for jobs advertised greatly exceed the number of jobs available. That is probably the greatest under-statement I have ever made in this House. During 1982 the Civil Service Commission filled very few jobs, yet they advertised what appeared to be a substantial number. Approximately 80,000 people were called to sit for written examinations while only 1,400 jobs were filled. I will give some examples. In respect of the position of post office clerk, 26,768 forms were issued, 16,000 forms were returned and 14,400 applicants were found to be eligible to sit the examination. When the examination was held 12,055 attended and of those 116 were offered appointment. The total cost of that exercise was £173,500. For the executive officer position, a grade for school-leavers, 9,452 people were eligible, 8,478 sat for the examination and 139 were offered appointment. Even in respect of a relatively junior position as key punch operator 1,184 people were eligible, 544 attended and 35 were offered appointment. A total of 1,431 sat for the examination for a junior postman and 46 were offered appointment. In respect of the position of trainee technician, 8,036 attended for examination and 369 were offered appointment. The numbers I have given as being appointed represent the numbers who have been offered appointment and not all have taken up duty as yet.

We need to have a fundamental look at the system whereby so many people every year apply for jobs in the civil service. Approximately 80,000 people were called for written examination by the Civil Service Commission last year in respect of some 1,400 jobs. It might have been more honest and fair if the applicants were given some indication of just how few opportunities there really were of obtaining gainful employment. It might be suggested that the whole operation of the Civil Service Commission in certain areas where so few jobs were available was deceitful and fraudulent because the unfortunate applicants were given the impression that there were real opportunities for jobs. So many apply that examinations must be held in a multitude of centres. We must acknowledge the right and desire of people who are eligible for a position to put their hat in the ring and apply for consideration. We also have a duty to those people to make them aware of what the possibilities of employment actually are.

There are many other examples which I could give in respect of other examinations which the Civil Service Commission conducted. They are not the only large public body who interview large numbers of people in respect of jobs which are not there. I inquired today of Dublin County Council about the numbers they called and examined during last year. In regard to a position they advertised for clerical officers, they had 3,033 applicants and the council appointed three. Is that not really a charade? No matter how excellently conducted the examination was — I have no reason but to believe that it was conducted fairly — even God would be put to the pin of His collar to decide which three out of 3,033 people were best. In regard to a clerk-typist position, 1,409 applied and one was appointed. In regard to a library assistant, 1,843 people applied and one was appointed. In regard to a Dublin Corporation clerical officer position, 2,624 people applied and 56 were appointed. In the previous year, for a clerical officer position, 2,100 people applied and 80 were appointed. In the previous year they had 937 applicants for a typist position of whom they called 48 and 25 more this year, because Dublin Corporation did not conduct any examination for typists this year.

Perhaps Deputy Fitzgerald would have preferred, when we decided there were savings which had to be made, that we would not conduct any examinations at all this year but used the panels set up last year. That would at least have allowed those who were on last year's panels some opportunity of being offered the few jobs which will occur this year, but it would have been patently unfair to those school leavers who will come on stream later in the year and who should get their opportunity, however slight it is, of applying for whatever positions are on offer.

I believe we must find ways to make the numbers who are actually examined more relevant to the numbers of jobs available while at the same time allowing all people who are eligible in some way to make initial applications and have those applications screened. I believe, on balance, that would be a fairer way to all applicants. It would certainly be fairer to those who eventually would come to be examined and who would realise they had some chance of getting those jobs. There are many young people now who must feel despondency in their hearts as they go from one written examination of the Civil Service Commission to the next and who intersperse them with examinations and interviews for the corporation, the county council, the banks, the health boards and the rest, for jobs that are not there. Imagine one clerk-typist being appointed out of 1,400 hopefuls who were interviewed. Is it not really a charade?

The total number of applicants to the Civil Service Commission were more than 100,000 for fewer than 7,000 jobs. We need to let people know what those figures are and to let them realise when they are applying that they have a very limited opportunity of success.

It is my intention to ensure that more equity will be introduced into the system so that those who come to be examined will realise there is some meaningful possibility that if they do well at the examination there may be jobs for them at the end of the line. It gave neither the Government nor me any joy whatsoever to have to introduce the £7 charge and in certain cases the £10 charge this year. There are very few opportunities open to Governments. Those are the harsh facts of life. The opportunities for a Government to raise revenue to run the country amount to increases in taxation or reductions in expenditure. Reductions in expenditure amount to either the elimination or reduction of services or the charging for services. It goes without saying that we all feel there have been quite enough levels of increases in taxation imposed this year. We have seen the reaction of people in relation to this. We have also seen many of Deputy Fitzgerald's colleagues fulminating when the Government made some attempt to reduce or change services. The only other option is to charge for some services, for partial offsetting of some of the costs.

I gave a figure for the average cost of applying for a job in the Civil Service Commission. It is £30 per application. In respect of 75 per cent of the applicants who will be applying, an application fee of £7 is less than one-fourth of the total cost and the remaining cost will be borne by the taxpayer. The taxpayer represents quite a number of those constituents in Cork that Deputy Fitzgerald referred to. My duty is to them as well as to the applicants for civil service posts. They are not mutually exclusive groups. Those who apply for civil service posts are taxpayers or they are the sons and daughters of taxpayers. I imagine that in most instances, if they are the school leaving sons and daughters, it will fall on the parents who are taxpayers to pay the fees. We must realise there is that responsibility for all of us.

It is my intention, in conjunction with the office of the Civil Service Commission, to bring about a change in the entire operation of the commission, which was hinted at by Deputy Fitzgerald in one of his more lucid moments, during the course of this year in order to secure a reduction in the operational costs of the commission by a reduction in the way in which applications can be screened next year, which would equate to the amount of money raised by the fees this year.

I have already outlined that the only way in which Governments can operate is by more taxes, reduced services or charging for services. I have just suggested that if we can in some way change the operation of the Civil Service Commission to bring about a saving of the equivalent of the £400,000, which will be raised through the fees this year, there will not be any necessity for the continuation of the fees during 1984 or thereafter. I cannot over-emphasise the need which fell on the Government to take fire brigade action on assuming office following the adoption of Estimates of the outgoing Government last November which, as I said the last day in respect of the Department of the Public Service, were prepared in a genuine and straightforward way and which had, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, no fat contained in them. The total cumulative effect of those Estimates was far in excess of anything which could be thought to be an acceptable current budget deficit. It was necessary for further savings of an extraordinarily high nature to be found within the Estimates again. There were, because of that, a number of fire brigade actions which had to be taken by the Government. Now as we move into our five years in office we have the opportunity carefully to examine the ways in which certain operations are carried out and to see where savings can be effected or changes brought about in different ways. I am suggesting that through a fundamental re-appraisal of the way in which so many people are called and given false hopes for non-existent jobs, while still safeguarding the right of every person to apply and be examined and for a certain number to go through the process and be chosen, there could be a substantial saving in subsequent years which would be equivalent to the revenue derived from the fees this year.

I thought it ironic to hear Deputy Fitzgerald fulminate again at the system and say the Minister should do something about it. No one has served longer as Minister for the Public Service than Deputy Fitzgerald and he had responsibility for the operation of the commission.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: And handled it well and properly. The Minister should take a few lessons from me. Take a leaf out of my book.

Mr. Boland

: The commission operates efficiently. There have been suggestions that it was inefficient but it uses electronic multiple choice scanning equipment, computers and the most modern technology. Given the enormous number of applicants for whom it must provide a competitive test I am impressed by the way it operates. The commission managed to achieve a staff saving of 13 per cent which is more than has been achieved by other Departments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Boland

: If I were the Deputy I would not go very far down that road.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

: Please keep to the same road, both of you.

Mr. Boland

: I remember during the last crisis in that party some of them hid in Bangkok.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: That has often been bandied about the House.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

: The Deputy cast doubt on the sincerity of the Government in relation to reform. I ask him if he doubts my sincerity to the concept of public service reform and if he does to say so now. He will then have the opportunity over the next five years of eating his words.

One of the areas of reform I have introduced relates to the Civil Service Commission. In the past, certain Ministers conspired with public representatives to give the impression that the Minister could interfere with the commision and get an applicant a job to which he or she was or was not entitled. The public representative would write to the Minister and the Minister would write back to the applicant giving him details which he could have got himself anyway. He would finish the letter by saying he was sorry he did not have better news on this occasion, giving the impression that perhaps on the next occasion the applicant would be successful. The impression was created that in some way he had some hold over the commission and could get a job for a person to which he or she was not entitled. If the person was successful a letter was written from the Minister giving the impression that the applicant should be grateful to the Minister. I have stopped all that.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: The Minister has done other things too.

Mr. Boland

: I have written to public representatives and to applicants who write directly to me explaining that it would be wrong of me to appear in any way to interfere with or influence the commission.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

: I see the halo shining.

Mr. Boland

: I tell them that applicants will be recruited on their merit. This has always been the case. It is one reform of which I am proud.

: The intention of the Government is that the fees will operate partially to offset some of the cost to the taxpayer of the operation of the commission. Perhaps the debate will bring to the attention of those unfortunate people who are looking for jobs the real facts in respect of their chances.

As regards the major examinations last year, it cost an average £650 per job filled. Some jobs cost well over £1,000. Many thousands of young people were needlessly misled into attending at examination centres and competing in examinations for which they had no chance at the outset because there were virtually no jobs on offer. I intend to see that that system is changed and made fairer on behalf of the applicants generally and, in doing so, also to bring about such a change which will mean that the charges will not have to be imposed after this year.

Mr. Calleary

: I am glad we have succeeded in helping to twist the Minister's arm and the arm of the Government in the latest change they have made in this very foolish, savage and unjust charge. The Minister got quite annoyed at times. He seemed to feel that Deputy Fitzgerald was casting some doubts on his intention to reform the public service. He is being less than honest because he should be the first to know, from his three or four months as Minister, that Deputy Gene Fitzgerald went a long way towards reforming the public service. I am sure if the Minister wants to inform himself, he will get the information quite readily. He succeeded in clouding the issue.

: Deputy Calleary should be allowed to continue without interruption.

: It is pinching. It is hurting him.

Mr. Calleary

: I heard it and quite a number of teachers heard it because they asked their pupils who were filling up application forms not to send the £10. Unfortunately, the commission soon reminded many of those young people that their £10 was not enclosed. Let us not say that I am a mischief-maker.

Mr. Boland

Mr. Calleary

: Then that is fine. These young people are being asked to pay a fee, a levy, a charge. These are words that we all have heard in the last few weeks and days in relation to tax, rates and so on. These words are in vogue in the county councils. People are being asked to pay this fee for the privilege of getting an application form for a job. They have no option but to use that service because they cannot join the public service in any other way.

I agree with the Minister's figures and with some of his sentiments with regard to the number of young people applying to the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission, but I cannot see how else he can screen. I agree with him that if you state basic qualifications the Civil Service Commission is the one way through which you can process job applications. At least it means that those who apply know that they must be best before they can get the job. I do not like to hear the Minister talking about the screening process.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 19 Apr 1983

Private Members' Business . - Public Sector Application Charges: Motion .

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Apr 1983