asked the Minister for Finance if he will state, with reference to the Oireachtas Reporting Staff, the number and rank of personnel, the number of current vacancies and their duration, the steps which have been taken to fill vacant posts and the success or otherwise of such steps; and what new efforts will now be made to recruit adequately qualified staff without further delay.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Oireachtas Reporting Staff.
21.
The particulars sought by the Deputy in the earlier parts of his question are set out in a statement which, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, will be published in the Official Report.
In regard to the final part of the question I understand from the Ceann Comhairle that he proposes to have further competitions held. He will also consider the introduction of a tape recording system for the Dáil if it can be established to be satisfactory.
Following is the statement:
1 The authorised permanent establishment:
1 Editor of Debates and Chief Reporter.
2 Assistant Editors.
14 Reporters.
3 Reporters (Grade II).
2 Current vacancies and their duration:
1 Assistant Editor (vacant since 1st February, 1971).
2 Reporters (1 vacant since November 1967 and 1 since June 1970).
3 Reporters (Grade II) (1 vacant since July 1965, 1 since July 1969, and 1 since September 1970).
3 Steps taken to fill vacant posts:
The Ceann Comhairle has informed me that the Assistant Editor post has been offered to all eligible serving officers but none has accepted the post as yet. At present the post is temporarily blocked by the re-employment of the officer whose retirement on pension on 1st February, 1971 caused the vacancy.
Open competitions for posts as Reporter were held in 1967, 1968 and 1969; there were no successful candidates in 1967 or 1968, but in 1969 (when the number of vacancies stood at 3) 2 candidates were successful and were appointed.
With the exception of 1969, open competitions for posts as Reporter (Grade II) were held every year from 1965 to 1970 inclusive. Two appointments were made in the period as a result of these competitions.
Can the Minister state whether it is correct that on a number of occasions efforts have been made to recruit staff and that applications were not forthcoming because the terms offered were quite unsatisfactory and not in keeping with what qualified journalists and stenographers can obtain elsewhere? Would the Minister now give an assurance that the terms to be offered will be realistic and will be such as will in the future attract into this excellent service, which has been so well equipped with qualified staff, people of similar calibre so that the National Parliament will be enabled to keep its records in proper order?
I could not agree with many of the statements made in that supplementary question by Deputy Ryan.
Would the Minister indicate if he agrees with me when I say that the attempts so far have been abysmal? Would he also not agree that as a result we are in the atrocious situation of having to import from London stenographers to do work that many Irish people are capable of performing but are unwilling to do at the slave labour rates the Minister has been offering?
I do not agree.
In view of the fact that it has been found necessary to pay English stenographers at a rate in excess of £29 per day, has the Minister now an appreciation of the great work done by the staff?
Perhaps I have had a greater appreciation of the staff for far longer than the Deputy.
You should pay them accordingly.
The Minister has said that he could not agree with the points made by Deputy Ryan. Will he give the House some reason for his non-agreement? To treat this matter in a casual manner is no solution.
I have said that a number of the details required were contained in the statement which will be circulated. I think when Deputies see it they will appreciate some of the reasons why I could not agree with Deputy Ryan's allegations.
Question No. 22 postponed.