asked the Minister for Education the positions previously held by non-established civil servants appointed by him and his Minister of State since 30 June 1981.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Non-Established Civil Servants.
9.
The information requested was given in the reply to Question No. 129 on Wednesday, 2 December 1981 in relation to the officers mentioned in that reply with the exception of the three appointments to the posts of personal assistant. These three officers were previously employed as secretarial assistants to the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party.
Is the Minister stating that the reply of 2 December covered all the appointments or has there been one additional appointment apart from the appointment of a personal assistant?
The information in the reply to the question of 2 December covered all the appointments up to the date referred to and the information in this reply is in relation to those appointments.
But has there been an appointment since then?
Yes. The information in the question of 2 December relates to appointments made up to 15 October but there has been an appointment since then. If the Deputy wishes I will obtain details of that appointment for him.
Why was the information not included in the original reply?
I understood that the question was an extension of the question tabled for reply on 2 December. The reply to this question was framed in the light of the answer to that question but I shall be happy to forward to the Deputy the additional information.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the question on the Order Paper which refers to appointments since 30 June 1981. There is no other date mentioned. Consequently, I would have expected the Minister to answer the question by giving the up-to-date information but since he chose not to do so I should like an explanation from him in the matter.
There was no attempt on my part to cause confusion. As I have explained the reply was framed in the light of a reply given to an earlier question. That reply apparently related to appointments made up to 15 October. There has been one subsequent appointment, the details of which I am prepared to obtain and forward to the Deputy.
Is this not an occasion on which the Minister should apologise to the House for leaving out of the reply information that he should have included? I am not saying that he misled the House deliberately.
As I have explained, the additional information was not included in the reply on the grounds that that reply was based on the supposition that the question was an extension of the one answered a fortnight ago.
I accept that, but since the Minister is appointing members of Fine Gael to his office, can he tell us if there has been any change in the rule that forbade civil servants above the rank of clerical officer from taking part in political activities?
Sin ceist eile.
All I can say is that the House is being insulted deliberately by the Minister.
You, Sir, have told the House often that you have no control over Ministers' answers, but surely you have control in regard to what is the obvious changing of a question and when a Minister infers that a date was written in though that was not the case?
It is the content over which I have no control.
In this case there was an effort to re-write the question.
Perhaps the effort was to re-write the answer.
May I have an answer to my question about the rule forbidding civil servants above the level of clerical officer to engage in political activities? Is that rule still in existence?
The proper reply to that question would be very educational but it should be directed to a different Minister.
I shall address it to the Minister for the Public Service, I might get a straight answer from him.