asked the Minister for Finance if he has sanctioned the appointment of a person (details supplied) as a member of the managerial team at the Ordnance Survey Office; if so, (a) if the post is temporary or permanent and (b) the effect the arrangement is likely to have on the promotional prospects and seniority of existing staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers - Ordnance Survey Office Appointment.
15.
The involvement in Ordnance Survey management of a professionally qualified Army officer attached to the Survey Company of the Corps of Engineers, is in accordance with a long-standing arrangement by which the officers and other ranks of the Survey Company have been assigned to assist the Ordnance Survey, working under the authority of the Director of Ordnance Survey. The arrangement referred to has ministerial sanction, and allocation of duties in line with that arrangement is the Director's responsibility.
The person referred to in the Deputy's question has not been appointed to a Civil Service position, so the seniority and the promotional prospects of Ordnance Survey staff have not been affected by his involvement in management.
Perhaps the Minister has answered my question, but I did not hear him clearly. What is the official status of this appointee and what is his relationship with existing staff at the Ordnance Survey? There seems to be considerable confusion within that office about this.
As I have already pointed out, the appointment of the person in question is made in accordance with long-standing arrangements which exist between the Survey Company of the Corps of Engineers and the Ordnance Survey. Officers and other ranks of the Survey Company have been assigned and this arrangement has been in existence for quite some time to assist the Ordnance Survey personnel and they work under the authority of the Director of Ordnance Survey. This is one in a long series of such appointments which have been made for many years. I do not accept that there is any confusion about this, since this is just the latest in that series.
A number of submissions have been made to the Ministers by staff and unions involved in the Ordnance Survey. These clearly demonstrated that there is considerable confusion existing there. Could the Minister address himself to this?
I have already addressed myself to that.
The Minister has denied that there is confusion.
The appointment to which the Deputy refers was made in full accordance with an arrangement of long standing under which——
Did the Minister sanction it?
——the Survey Company of the Corps of Engineers is put effectively at the disposal of the Ordnance Survey in peacetime. I have made it quite clear that the person in question has not been appointed to a Civil Service post, so that his appointment in no way changes the promotional prospects of any of the civil servants who are serving with the Ordnance Survey.
Is it common practice to have a serving member of the Defence Forces acting in this capacity while continuing to be a member of the Defence Forces?
The answer to that is yes. It has been the practice for many years.
There are just a couple of points which the Minister did not clarify fully and which are in the text of my question. Firstly, is this post permanent?
The person in question is a member of the Permanent Defence Forces. His post is permanent.
Who assigns to him duties and responsibilities and what authority has he to assign duties and responsibilities?
As I pointed out in my answer, officers and other ranks of the Survey Company who are assigned to Ordnance Survey work under the authority of the Director of Ordnance Survey, so that all the duties carried out, whether these people be in subordinate positions or in the line of management, are carried out in accordance with the directives given by the Director of Ordnance Survey.
Is the Minister telling me that the Director has power to authorise this staff member to, in turn, direct other staff members who are civil servants to carry out certain tasks?
The Director of the Ordnance Survey Office has full power to require any of the people at his disposal, including members of the armed forces made available in this way, to carry out whatever duties he thinks they should carry out. As I have said, that has been the situation for many years.
The Minister is not addressing himself to the question. Has he power to appoint this appointee, in turn, to direct other staff members to carry out certain functions?
Yes. He also has power to direct this appointee to accept orders from other staff members of the Ordnance Survey Office.
Is that known within the Ordnance Survey Office? Is that known to the staff members of the Ordnance Survey Office, that this staff member can be directed to accept orders from other staff members?
Yes, that is perfectly well known to all the staff in the Ordnance Survey Office since, as I keep on saying, the arrangement under which this appointment was made has been in existence for many years and has worked without difficulty for many years.
Is the Minister denying that he has received any correspondence from the Ordnance Survey in relation to this matter?
I fail to see why the Deputy should get so excited about that question since it is the first time he has asked it. I do not deny for a moment——
I have asked this on three or four occasions and the Minister has refused to address himself to it. As a matter of fact, I might say that in his opening statement the Minister led this House to believe that he had not received it. Now he says he has.
The Deputy must confine himself to a question.
I am asking the Minister to confirm to me that he has received correspondence clearly illustrating — I have studied textual documents before and I know there is confusion arising out of this document.
The Deputy cannot make a statement.
Would the Minister confirm that he has received submissions? What does he propose to do to alleviate the confusion now in existence there?
That is repetition about confusion.
I must say to the Deputy that until a moment or two ago as far as I heard him he did not seem to me to have asked me whether or not I had received representations or correspondence about this matter. I have indeed received representations and correspondence about the matter. Therefore, I have no difficulty whatever in confirming that to the Deputy.
Would the Minister agree that from the text of the correspondence and submissions there is confusion and unrest at present?
That is repetition.
Of necessity. May I ask the Minister if there is confusion and unrest in the Ordnance Survey Office if he is to accept any degree of validity attaching to the documents or submissions he has received?
That is the final supplementary. The Deputy should resume his seat.
All I can say is that, having examined the case in great detail, I can see no valid reason that there should be any confusion about an appointment which was made and was clearly seen to be made in accordance with a very long-standing practice.
Confusion would appear to be quite clear on the Minister's part in this regard.
The Minister is sidestepping the issue.
I am not sidestepping the issue at all. In fact, the Deputy is a couple of months late.
Question No. 16.
The problem is there and will not go away.
Would Deputy L. Fitzgerald please resume his seat?
The Minister was asked a direct question and he did not answer.
Question No. 16.
The Deputy knows as well as I do that what the Deputy is saying has a little bit of puff in it.
(Interruptions.)
That is not true because the representations and correspondence came a long time before the Deputy came around to asking the question.
Would Deputy L. Fitzgerald please resume his seat? I have called Question No. 16.