asked the Minister for Finance if it is in accordance with the role of the Civil Service that civil servants should take part in meetings in various areas of the country in order to explain Government policy, such as that on community schools, particularly when such policy is politically controversial and involves important social and religious issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Role of Civil Service.
14.
Civil servants attended the meetings referred to in order to explain and clarify, as necessary, the proposals already made by the Minister for Education, to listen to the views of parents and other interested parties and to report back to the Minister for Education. This procedure does not contravene the accepted role of the Civil Service in such a matter.
Would the Minister not agree that this is a new departure in so far as these people appear to have been directed by the Minister to engage in a national campaign in a politically highly charged and controversial subject? These people must find themselves subject to criticism and possibly attack and, in turn, find that they are attacking and criticising, thus losing the traditional non-political role of civil servants? Would the Minister not consider that there is a danger they may find themselves in conflict with Deputies, councillors and people who may form the Cabinet in a subsequent Government, should there be a change of Government? In fact, they may find themselves in an invidious position.
The basic issue is the distinction between the enunciation of policy, which is a matter for the political head of the Department—the Minister—on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the explanation and clarification of aspects of such policy as enunciated by the Minister. In cases where clarification is necessary the technical and specialised knowledge of the matter which would be available to civil servants comes into play. This distinction has been drawn in instances in the past where somewhat similar cases occurred. I might draw the attention of the House to something that bears out what I have said. In the Irish Press of 24th June, 1971, there appeared an article by Father Joseph Nolan, Dean of Studies at Rockwell College, in the course of which he said:
The Department was extremely well served in the officers chosen to administer this consultation. The exercise was carried out in exemplary fashion. There was no effort to push departmental policy, only to state it, clarify it where necessary, and listen. There was on their part courtesy and a clear wilingness to listen, and possibly to learn. They had come not to impose a view but in search of views. They would report back, they said, to the Minister. They were in the best tradition good civil servants.
That applies to only one side of the House.
That is not true. Ministers are allowed to quote——
That is what I said.
——and the Deputy should not question the Chair's decision.
The Deputy does not know the rules.
They can quote and we cannot.
What the Minister quoted is one man's opinion and it has nothing at all to do with the question. We could get 50 to disprove that.
(Interruptions.)
I understand the general principle is as laid down by the Minister. This appears to be an unusual departure from precedent. Apparently these meetings are tending to become controversial in which case one is likely to face a situation in which a civil servant may say something he should not say and may find himself subject to criticism, something all of us have tried to avoid up to now in relation to civil servants because they are not in a position to defend themselves. Would the stand taken by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Collins, who has gone to public meetings himself, supported by his staff, and explained there the activities of his Department, not be very much more in line with the general practice in regard to the use of civil servants?
This could be, but the Deputy will appreciate that in this case there were five meetings involved in one week.
Not in one week, in a period of weeks.
In a very short time and what the Deputy suggests would not be physically possible. I would agree certainly that it is important to ensure that civil servants are not, to put it crudely, involved in politics. I would certainly agree with that and I tried to indicate that in the reply I gave. I also tried to indicate by the quotation I gave from an independent source, a source I do not know, that it would appear that the assessment of that independent source is that the civil servants in question in this particular issue acted strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down.
I wonder is the Minister aware that, in spite of the efforts by vested interests to contrive and stage manage these particular meetings, there is a growing feeling amongst thinking people in the areas concerned that the meetings were well worthwhile and the parents are now anxious that the broader curriculum envisaged in the proposals should be available to their children?
We cannot discuss the question of community schools.
In reply to the Deputy, I am so aware.
May I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that when a civil servant takes the chair at a meeting and rules a vote out of order, or attempts to rule it out of order, that very action is of its very nature of a political kind? When there is a controversial issue and a civil servant takes the chair and rules there shall not be a vote that ruling of its very nature is a political act and would the Minister not agree there is a divergence of practice here? In some Departments the permanent head ensures that civil servants do not take decisions of this kind and would he not consider, having thought it over, that it might be worthwhile to achieve uniformity in this respect?
The answer to the first part of the question is "No" and, to the second part, it is not possible, I think, to attain uniformity in a matter like this because circumstances can vary so much from Department to Department and even from case to case within a Department.
That seems to be in conflict with what the Minister said at the outset; he said there is a uniform practice.
The principles are clear. The Deputy is talking about the practice.
Would the Minister not agree that he spoke in his first reply about proposals before the meeting and would he not agree that those published last May differ substantially from those that emanated from the Department of Education? Would he not agree that Deputy Dr. Browne is perfectly correct when he says that the Minister is placing civil servants in a most invidious position in asking them to sell proposals which they do not want?
Which who do not want?
The people attending the meeting referred to.
If the Deputy had paid attention to what Deputy Power said he might do better, if he wants an accurate picture of what is happening.
Wishful thinking.