asked the Minister for the Public Service if he is aware of the dissatisfaction being experienced by applicants for the position of probation and welfare officers with the Department of Justice, the result of unannounced decisions being made in shortlisting candidates, who are equally competent to be considered and interviewed for these positions; if he is now prepared to review the situation and direct that all applicants be interviewed as normal practice; and if he will make a statement on the entire situation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Probation and Welfare Officers.
9.
Recruitment to the grade of probation and welfare officer in the Department of Justice is by way of open competition conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners. The regulations governing these competitions are supplied in advance to all applicants. The regulations provide that the commissioners may request the interview board to examine the applications and, having considered the report of the board, decide that a number only of the candidates should be called for interview. This has been the normal practice for some years in recruitment to this grade. I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the procedure and I do not propose to ask the commissioners to make any change in it. The Deputy will appreciate that the commissioners are independent in the exercise of their statutory functions and that I could not intervene in favour of individual applicants.
I do not accept that the Minister cannot intervene. He may have intervened, because the regulations were posted out to all the applicants, who heretofore, were always eligible for consideration to these very important posts in the Department——
A question, please, Deputy.
Why were the regulations changed and how many people were refused an opportunity to be interviewed?
Lest there be any misinterpretation, I assume the Deputy is not suggesting that changes in the regulations were initiated at my behest. Is he suggesting that I intervened in this competition in respect of an individual applicant? If so, it would be better if he clarified that now.
People applied for very important positions in this Department who, heretofore, were always eligible for consideration. The regulations were forwarded to them on receipt of their application. They were later notified that they would not be considered. That was not the normal practice heretofore so somebody must have intervened and an internal direction been given that these people would not be interviewed. Why was there an intervention and how many people were rejected before interview?
I take it that the Deputy is agreeing that he is not suggesting that I intervened in relation to an individual application.
It is a matter for the Minister to put whatever interpretation he likes on it.
If that is the insinuation, there is no point in answering the question.
If the Minister denies something that has been alleged directly or by implication, it is the usual standard of the House that that denial is accepted.
I accept what the Minister said. I am asking for information and I should like the matter clarified. I hope the way I asked the question will not be used by the Minister to deprive the House of the information I sought.
I am pleased to give the information but I am anxious that any implication concerning me should be clarified. I intervened earlier this year in relation to competitions generally when I requested the commissioners to clarify their regulations to ensure that representations made by any public representative, office holder, Member of this House or anybody else elected to public office, would have the automatic effect of disqualifying applicants for positions within the commission.
That was always the way.
If that is so, it is extraordinary how many representations came from the Deputy's party regarding applicants to the Civil Service. It is no harm to remind the public once again that any representations will lead to disqualification.
With regard to the remainder of the Deputy's question, there were 129 applicants for ten appointments and 77 of those applicants were called for interview. The Deputy is entirely wrong to suggest this was a change in the previous practice. For instance, the previous competition in relation to these posts was held in June 1982. It attracted 154 applicants of whom 88 were called for interview. I hope the Deputy and the House will appreciate there has not been a change in practice. In relation to the explanatory leaflet that was sent to the applicants who made application on foot of the advertisement, paragraph (c) of section 4 of the regulations drew the attention of the applicants to the fact that the commissioners may, having considered the report of the board, decide that only a number of the candidates shall be invited to attend before the board for interview. The fears the Deputy may have in relation to this are not based on fact. The position seems to have been that the interviews were conducted in the same fashion as heretofore. The entire question of the operation of the commission was looked into at some length by the Committee on Public Expenditure some time ago. In their interim report in February 1984 the committee, of which the Deputy is a member, specifically recommended that the commission should engage more in the practice of short-listing applicants for interview.
I will communicate with the Minister in the normal way.