Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1984

Vol. 348 No. 4

First Report of Committee on Public Expenditure: Motion.

Mr. Keating

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the First Report of the Committee on Public Expenditure; Recruitment by the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission.

As Chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditure I am pleased to have the opportunity to lay before the House the committee's first report and to have some brief time allocated to a subject where the debate may be useful to the House and may be considered timely.

The purpose of the discussion is to consider recommendations in a series of deliberations which the committee held in relation to the possibility of improving selection procedures in the public service generally and specifically in relation to the Civil Service Commission. The report is an interim one but nevertheless it makes solid recommendations on specific changes we would like to see introduced at an early stage. It deals with the committee's examination of recruitment procedures by the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission. The final report will be more comprehensive and will deal, among other things, with the possibility of instituting a centralised agency not merely for public sector recruitment but with much wider and more important areas relating to employment and training and the potential for the working population.

At the moment the committee is meeting with the agencies and the interests involved in the area of selection and recruitment of personnel. There is evidence to indicate there are significant areas of overlap and duplication which lead the committee to the inescapable conclusion that there are opportunities where we can increase efficiency and save public money while at the same time do a service to the quality of recruitment.

The committee, which was appointed in June 1983, had its first meeting last September and has met regularly since then. We decided in December we would meet on a weekly basis and I am pleased to say this has been welcomed by the committee and it has guaranteed continuity and progress in our work schedule. As Deputies will know, the Committee on Public Expenditure was established:

to review the justification for and effectiveness of ongoing expenditure of Government Departments and offices and of non-commercial State-sponsored bodies in such areas as it may select and to report thereon to the House recommending cost effective alternatives and/or the elimination of obsolete programmes where desirable.

The terms of reference of the committee are wide-ranging and include the power to send for such persons, papers and records as will enable the committee to complete their inquiries.

Our sittings to date, and I am appreciative of this, have revealed genuine co-operation on the part of the officials with whom we have been in contact. I am very heartened at the willingness to facilitate the committee and the fulsomeness of the response of all those agencies and individuals with whom we have been in contact. This is very encouraging. We have received many unsolicited practical ideas which have been of great assistance to us in this Oireachtas review of public expenditure.

The committee work in an atmosphere which is unusual and which has been underscored as late as this morning in terms of its uniqueness. We have met very regularly — weekly during the last number of months — and I cannot remember one partisan party political remark during those deliberations. The environment created in the committee by the members, by their very active attendances and contributions, is of great encouragement to me as Chairman. It should not go unappreciated by the House. It is the ideal environment in which constructive solid work on behalf of the House and the people of Ireland can be done. I have no doubt that the mood thus generated will result in genuine substantial progress in due course. The vice-chairman, Deputy O'Kennedy, and the other members have attended meetings regularly and I am happy that collectively we are beginning to prove the value of the committee in the areas of public expenditure which we have looked at to date.

One regret I have about the committee, and it is shared by my colleagues, is the loss to the committee of the late Deputy Colley who unfortunately died before our work really got off the ground. I have no doubt that he would have made a positive contribution to our work because of his wide experience as a former Minister for Finance and in other important Departments.

The main developments to date in our work have been to seek to review in a systematic manner the expenditure programmes of all Departments, offices and other organisations which come within our general terms of reference. The committee can, will, and have done so in some cases, examined urgently individual areas of expenditure; but our principal objective will be an in depth review of the programmes and the budgetary approach of each Department. With that in mind we drew up a comprehensive series of questions which have been sent to the Secretaries or CEOs of the relevant Departments and organisations, including non-commercial semi-State bodies. The details sought in the questionnaire are such that the committee will have the kind of responses which we have been getting to date in the form of a detailed document which should outline the functions and the financial and administrative procedures operated by each body. This information will enable us to put the various bodies into some order of priority for further examination by the committee. Replies to the questionnaire are anticipated about now. I expect that by the beginning of next month we will be in a position to have a solid body of work which will occupy us usefully and fruitfully for the foreseeable future. We should then be able to press ahead with the systematic review to which I referred earlier.

Those questions are being asked to see whether we can get an insight as public representatives into the factual situation. There is no desire on the part of the committee to embarrass anybody or to cause difficulties for anybody; it is simply an honest inquiry which in some cases may elict responses along the lines of the controls referred to — for example, in specific questions where they do not operate at present or at all. This will allow us to indicate areas where they might be operated or where some new procedures might be warranted. The point is that our object is to seek factual information and in a co-operative spirit to work on that and make recommendations to the House in due course. These reviews will consist of a preliminary briefing for the committee on each organisation, which will be followed in the normal way by a series of meetings with the relevant administrators and professional staffs involved. At the beginning these meetings would consist of positive question and answer sessions which would help the committee to understand existing practices, restrictions and so on.

As a result of these interviews we will be able to deliberate and to submit reports to the Dáil with the recommendations we will think appropriate, if such recommendations are warranted. The Dáil and the Minister will then be in possession of the committee's considered views on steps which they feel should be taken to obtain better value for the public money being expended on particular services. When considered necessary the committee will seek outside expert advice. I should like to put on record our appreciation of the financial resources which are available to provide that service. It is important that that service be utilised. Perhaps it would be asking too much from individuals, including ourselves or Government Departments, to be absolutely factually objective all of the time when it comes to self-scrutiny or self-evaluation. That potential to engage outside expertise is essential in my view. It will also ensure that in regard to efficiency and cost effectiveness the recommendations made by the committee will be based on the best advice available.

Of course, there are circumstances when we will be very happy if advice is proferred and we do not have to pay for it. The task of getting better value for public money is not merely for a Government, a Minister or the House but for all of the people of Ireland, including particularly those with professional expertise and qualifications who may have insights and valuable contributions to make of one kind or another and whose advice would be welcomed. We must therefore underline our desire to have a response from professional organisations, whether they be economic or cost-effective. We will be very happy to receive their contributions.

We hope the recommendations the committee will make in their reports will be acted on. Because of the way in which the committee were set up by the House, we have reason to be hopeful about that. It would be extremely inhibiting and depressing if a series of recommendations were simply to be noted by the House without action being taken on them. I do not expect that will occur. We are all aware of the disquiet that has been expressed by the public from time to time about reports which had been allowed to be just noted and which then disappeared into some kind of limbo. I do not expect that will happen in this case. We will do our best to ensure that concise and constructive reports will be produced and debated as quickly as possible.

Recently we sought public opinion in regard to areas which the public consider should be a priority for us in our work. The response to date has been encouraging. It is important to reiterate that we are open to hearing from individuals and organisations their views on how public expenditure can be evaluated so that we will get better value for it.

The specific report before the House deals with recruitment procedures to the public service by the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission, and we make a number of comments and recommendations. I have been perturbed in recent years about the increasing difficulty of trying to get better value for public money and this may result in a perception by people in the public service that they are to be scapegoats. I do not take that view. I believe that if there are problems and deficiencies in the public service and if there is room for improvement — and I believe there is — in relation to value for money and public expenditure generally, this House has to accept responsibility. Politicians of different generations have been the creators of the shape and the nature of our present public service.

I should like to underscore that it is in no way intended, nor would we wish, that any public servant would feel somehow that he or she was being pointed at, but rather that we were trying simply to improve the environment in which they work. If there is a fundamental problem in relation to the manner in which the public service does its work, I venture to suggest that it appears to be that they operate in an environment which has for them no clear targets or goals, either globally or individually, and nobody can work to maximum efficiency without having some idea, preferably very clear, of precisely what they are working towards.

The report before us is one based on an initial request from our committee to consider what appeared, at least on the surface, to be an extraordinary circumstance — a circumstance which seemed to seek to have examined in an expensive manner over 14,000 applicants, which ultimately distilled in the order of a few dozen people actually appointed. The course of the examination itself involved very major expense and it was reasonable to ask whether or not the public were getting value for money in terms of the actual selection techniques, how effective these were and whether they were, per capita, more expensive than was desirable or essential. Our conclusion is that they were and that we should introduce systems which would ensure much more rapid, less expensive, cost effective and improved selection of people for public sector work.

Last November, the committee invited the secretary of the Civil Service Commission and some of his colleagues to appear before the committee to discuss recruitment procedures in the case of the 1982 post office clerk competition, the one to which I refer, the general question of recruitment procedures and the costs and implications involved. In the case of the former, the committee were concerned to note that 12,088 candidates were admitted to a costly written examination, but only six candidates had actually been considered for employment by the end of 1982. It is fair to say that such a situation would never arise in the private sector — which does not, of course, necessarily make it absolutely right. However, it is an indication that something may have been out of scale.

After a very full and frank discussion with the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Seán de Búitléir, and his colleagues to whom I extend my gratitude for their co-operation the committee deliberated on the evidence heard and the result is contained in the views and recommendations set out in the report which had already been tabled before the Dáil. I should say that the secretary and his staff— and incidentally, Mr. de Búitléir and his staff are also the secretariat to the Local Appointments Commission — were very helpful to us, both at the actual series of discussions and subsequently when we wanted further information.

While the 1982 post office clerk examination may have been somewhat an exception because of the volume of candidates involved, nevertheless the committee felt — and those interviewed accepted — that the cumbersome procedures adopted were symptomatic of practices which could be improved. It is our view that such practices are out of touch with the value for money approach which is imperative in the private sector and should be imperative also in the public sector. The committee felt that there was an urgent need for new measures to improve cost effectiveness and efficiency of the public sector recruitment processes generally.

Some means must be found to short-list the candidates so that, having full regard to fair and equal treatment for all, an unnecessarily large number are not processed at great expense to the taxpayer, not merely from the point of view of the huge cost involved but also of the totally unrealistic expectations that such procedures build up amongst thousands of applicants, many of whom have not the slightest possibility of getting a job but all of whom may have achieved the minimum qualifications. Accordingly, some method of short-listing which will take account of development factors and which will allow for evaluation by a group of responsible and intelligent people is essential. We are recommending, therefore, that improved procedures be introduced as quickly as possible to bring existing practices at least into line with those operated in the commercial sector in Ireland and, perhaps, the public sector in other countries.

We believe that the Civil Service Commission, the National Manpower Service and other agencies should get together to see what can be done to strengthen and improve existing procedures. This aspect suggested itself to the committee. It is so obvious that it is somewhat surprising that this type of close co-ordination and liaison has not taken place before this, although I do know that there is some co-ordination and consultation. That has emerged in our discussions since our report, but it is informal and relatively casual and in no way structured or organised.

I hope, now that public attention has been focussed on the important area of public service recruitment, that immediate steps will be taken to eliminate out of date practices and procedures so that the taxpayers will get maximum value for money and the individual candidates to the public service appointments will be screened and processed more quickly and efficiently than has evidently occurred in the past, in the case of at least certain examinations and specifically in the case of the one which we examined. Since the review of Public Service Commision and Local Appointments Commision procedures took place, we have continued that line of work and initiated an investigation into the possibility of introducing a co-ordinated or centralised agency which would provide a service for persons registered for, or offering, employment or training facilities. These inquiries are still under way on this possibility, and we hope to be able to conclude our deliberations and interviews with various Government Departments quite shortly.

It appears, even at this tentative stage — and this is admitted by every one of those agencies with whom we have had discussions — that there is duplication and overlapping and, therefore, unnecessary waste of money. We believe that there are strong grounds for, at least, having one umbrella organisation, or grouping, or arrangement of organisations with which school leavers and other prospective employees could register. It appears nonsensical, to some of us at least — and I offer this comment somewhat tentatively as we have not concluded our deliberations — that there are at least three separate registers of the same people — one at the Department of Social Welfare, one at the National Manpower Service and another possibly at AnCO, all of them reflecting different aspects of the labour market, but clearly all based on the same essential data.

I strongly urge that the maximum computerisation be introduced at the earliest possible date, so that we could get efficiency of response and a saving of public money, where possible. Apart from that, it would mean that the labour market would be more responsive to inquiries from employers, and a peripheral but not insignificant advantage would be that it would help to reduce significantly abuse of the social welfare system. The significance, therefore, of such a single point of contact, however structured or organised, cannot be over-estimated, given the importance of improving any and all procedures to assist those seeking employment or training, especially the young people. I hope to have this report before the House within the next month or two.

I very much welcome this opportunity to present this first report. It is fair to say that we understand it is the first report from any of the new Dáil committees and we are pleased to be in early, as it were. I trust that it will provide food for thought and provoke comment by the public on other areas of public expenditure which appeared to warrant the attention of the committee. The House should note that the committee's work programme and the pattern of our meetings are now well established and that there is a very high attendance, indeed. Inevitably, therefore, positive results will follow quickly from recommendations and evolve from these deliberations. I stress, however, that we are at the early days of our work and, therefore, we may make mistakes and chase the wrong question on occasion. We are fallible, we are simply public representatives seeking to do a job of work. I want to say a sincere thank you to my colleagues on the committee. On a personal level, I find it extremely satisfying, indeed, to work in an environment which manages so easily and readily to lay aside some of the Pavlovian responses which I always associate with the political party structure. We find this a very good environment in which to work and think it will yield results.

Lastly, in these inquiries, and particularly in relation to the responses to the questionnaires which we have sent to Government Departments, I would appeal for maximum co-operation from those Departments and would underline the committee's determination to ensure that nothing will stand in the way of their doing solid work on behalf of this House. Accordingly, I would ask the Departments to respond as soon as possible, even if those responses be inadequate or incomplete or if, for some reason or other, there is not a possibility of such a response, we would like to know as soon as possible so that we can help the Departments to organise that response. That honest search for information will be the foundation stone on which the work of our committee over the next year or two will be based. I hope the report before the House today will result in a change in the procedures along the lines I have recommended and therefore a more efficient system of selecting and recruiting staff and also less waste of public money.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I, too, welcome the opportunity, as Deputy Keating, chairman of this committee has welcomed it, to lay this report before the House and to make some comment both as to the work of the committee generally and the issues which arise from this report. The terms of reference given to the committee established on 21 June 1983 are very wide, unprecedented and challenging in respect of the committee's role but also in respect of the role of the House. The committee are merely a subcommittee of the House and cannot have any powers except what the House delegates to them. That is the reason why the first report of the committee is coming before the House this morning.

The committee, basically, were asked to review the justification for and the effectiveness of ongoing expenditure for Government Departments — that is a very wide-ranging term of reference — and of non-commercial State sponsored bodies in such areas as it may select and then to report to the House recommending cost effective alternatives and, or, the elimination of wasteful or obsolete programmes where desirable. This, therefore, entitles us to look at what is seen to be wasteful expenditure and to make recommendations in relation to this. It is significant to note that there has been the kind of atmosphere which the chairman, Deputy Keating, has mentioned, in the committee. Every one of us want to approach this in terms of our responsibility whether we represent a party in Government or out of Government.

I may be forgiven for saying that it is particularly unique for an Opposition party to be prepared to agree to serve on this kind of committee. Normally we leave it to the Government to make the proposals to curtail public expenditure, and for those who have been in Opposition for some time there is a certain luxury attached to the Opposition position that you complain about a Government not spending more in relation to individual Ministers. I want to indicate at this point that the main Opposition party are ready and happy to discharge their role, and this departure is evidence of our readiness as an Opposition to co-operate effectively in areas like this. I would not like it to be seen that we only co-operate when it suits. There are matters which are very different. So far as one can make comments in relation to our experience in the House during the last few days and this morning as well these are entirely different matters where an Opposition have an obligation. I do not want to go beyond that at this point, but one should not contrast what one might say is the reasonable approach which we are all adopting on this committee to what might sometimes be suggested as being a different kind of approach on other issues.

When we approached our terms of reference we had, first of all, to decide a preliminary theological point for ourselves, whether we would take a broad ranging analysis of public expenditure generally or, alternatively, whether we would concentrate on specific areas, tease out particular problems and try to act the role of the Socratic wasps, to sting here and there and to create an awareness in the public service of our role in questioning. In the early stages it seemed to some of us that these two were mutually exclusive but as things are working out they are not at all mutually exclusive. The two complement each other. There is a broad range of approach which enables us to look at broad ranging areas of Government expenditure growth.

The growth of the current budget in any year is a matter of great concern and has been so expressed in the committee. It is fairly clear why we are focussing on certain Departments — I am not saying that the idea is that they would come and have an opportunity of justifying the growth — where there has been particularly significant growth either within the Department or indeed within agencies under the aegis of that particular Department. All of us want to see the most productive return, particularly at a time when resources are limited, for whatever funds are available to us. We want to ensure that every penny spent in the administration is justified, because a lot of people in the private sector, with some degree of justification, are noting with some degree of concern the growth of the public sector and the fact that so much of the funds available in the economy are being sucked into the public sector while the level of money available for investment in the economy generally has never been as low. It is something of the order of 22 per cent of GNP this year. This is a matter of very considerable concern. The one focus all of us have, which is the end product of this committee's work, is to ensure that the role and function of Government, the agencies and the Department who represent Government in the broader sense, not just partisan Government, are clearly defined to ensure that this creates a proper climate within the public service and allows the private sector to generate the activity we require, to create opportunities for sustained continuing and secure employment.

It is for that reason, because of the imbalance within the growth of the public service by contrast with the constraints within the private sector, whether it is agriculture or business, and the taxation required to fund the growing public service out of the private sector, that the role of this committee becomes very important. It cannot be isolated. We are not there to live in isolation from the reality outside of the committee or the reality outside of this Dáil. The reason why we are there is to create that climate and to look, so far as we can, at the manner in which the public service generally discharges its responsibilities, how public expenditure generally is justified and where it is not justified. There have been some examples even from our early considerations where prima facie it would not appear to be administered in the most efficient way. As a result of the spirit of co-operation and approach of the committee, which I would like to reciprocate from this side to the chairman and the members from the Government side of the House, it has been possible, and will continue in that way, to take an entirely objective approach in relation to the issues before us. It is interesting that a degree of consensus emerges. Hopefully, this will be reflected here not just on the issues we debate but in a broader sense on the responsibilities of Members of the Oireachtas.

Everyone welcomed the establishment of the committees. Speaking as a member of a committee, it adds to the workload of Deputies. The effective discharge of our role requires support and back-up facilities. There was public reaction in the past to the fact that each Deputy had the facility of a typist. As Opposition spokesman on finance that is the only facility I enjoy. A typist is not a researcher. A typist will only type what is dictated. I am not making a special case for an Oppostion spokesman but there is no comparison with the level of research and personal or other assistance available to a Government Minister——

Mr. Boland

We all had to take those downs.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not regard it as a down. To be in Government is not the be-all and end-all. I am asking that no matter where one sits in the House a reasonable service should be provided to enable one to discharge one's role.

I hope this point will not be taken as being too political, but when one looks at the consultancy and public relations support available for the Government this year, there is a cogent case to be made for providing a reasonable proportion of the same kind of service for the Opposition. There is no such thing as permanent Government or Opposition. It is important that the public relations facilities and consultancy services available to the Government should, in some measure, reflect on what is available for the Opposition. Otherwise the great new world we wish to give effect to on these committees will remain in the dim and distant future. In the course of a day an Opposition spokesman has a whole range of matters demanding his time. There are front bench meetings, committees both party and internal and so on. We would be deluding ourselves if we said we would do the job effectively without the necessary back-up facilities. If we are not given the facilities it will be difficult to maintain the level of commitment we want to give to these committees and maintain their effectiveness.

In relation to the committees, the chairman and members would like me to indicate that we appreciate the work which our own very limited secretariat — limited in numbers but not in quality — have done for us. The secretariat seem to welcome the challenge as much as the members when something new is being developed. I have found this on a number of committees on which I have served. They give the type of commitment we would like to promote throughout the public service.

I have made a number of comments on the public service and public expenditure but I want to make it clear that I am not in any way criticising the personnel in the public service. Far be it from me, having worked with them and having had the benefit of their support both in Government and on these committees, to make that kind of comment. What we must do is create an environment in which the people in the public service will most effectively be able to discharge their role. They are servants of the public. The structures, gradings, habits and traditions are not such as enable individual public servants to discharge their role effectively. The relevance of the public service is often questioned. Down the years those who applied and were appointed to the public service were the élite in their schools. They were the ones who got the top grade. More than ever now we want to generate something new, exciting and positive but we have not succeeded in promoting new ideas, a new climate for investment and activity. There seems to be a wall between the private and public sector. Attempts have been made to break down this barrier and it is vital that it is done.

I invite anyone to look at the year book with the gradings of the public service and inquire if it is necessary to have such a wide range of grades from clerical assistant to clerk typist, junior executive officer, higher executive officer, staff officer, assistant principal, principal, assistant secretary and so on. There are Departments and sections of Departments where there are up to 40 grades. There must be a justification not just in terms of status but of workload or responsibility for the difference between grades A and B, C and D and so on. The Minister must look at this and we will co-operate with him on the committee to ensure that these grades, which may be reflected in salary linkages and so on, are relevant to the development of the public service.

As regards some of the limitations we have come across since we started, are we entitled to look into matters concerning local authorities? It is important to recall that most of the money spent by local authorities is channelled through central government which means, basically, the taxpayer. For that reason — and this has emerged from the committee's considerations — we are entitled to look into wastage where it occurs. I do not want to refer to specific areas although some have been referred to already in the newspapers but local authorities must be relevant in this new era of development priority. They must not be allowed to act as administrative agencies, they must be developmental entities, justifying every penny they spend, creating new ideas and generally supporting the people who are creating the climate and activity for creating and maintaining jobs for our young people. I am not criticising individual members of local authorities — quite the opposite — but I want to see all their energies released into something positive. The administrative preoccupation which has been a characteristic of the public service generally perhaps could be cast aside if we realised that the main responsibility is developmental and that there is no satisfaction in passing responsibility from one administration to the other. The real responsibility is creative and that is what we must try to promote in this committee.

Of course we are only at the early stages of our work and I hope we will reach a consensus on the need to promote the developmental concept of the public service in all its forms. It is sometimes forgotten that the Civil Service represents only something in the order of 27 per cent or 28 per cent of the total public service. If you include local authorities, health boards, teachers, gardaí——

Mr. Boland

Since An Post and Bord Telecom came into being it is now 10 per cent.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I had forgotten about that. I do not think any member of the committee would be satisfied if we were confined to looking at 10 per cent of the public service. For that reason our remit in looking at personnel, expenditure and programmes must be interpreted as extending over the whole range of the public service. Before the delegation of responsibility to An Post and Bord Telecom, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were subject to the scrutiny of the Ombudsman and I believe that a very considerable number of the complaints referred to him pertained to that Department. Much of the Ombudsman's time in the early months will be taken up by examining complaints in respect of Departments that are not now his responsibility. I make that point to stress the need to ensure that the simple fact of becoming a semi-State body does not and must not mean that the semi-autonomy that semi-State bodies have means they are protected from any kind of scrutiny. If that were the case then our capacity to inquire into public expenditure with regard to semi-State bodies would be limited.

We must always be answerable to the people and if they do not like how we operate they have an answer. The fact that people are working in a State or semi-State structure should not mean they have total protection against any degree of inquiry, much less attack, from public representatives. Public representatives can be difficult if the occasion demands but they have an immediate and direct responsibility to the people. I hope there will be no presumption on the part of new boards that they are cast-iron proof from any degree of inquiry. Perhaps Deputies may make inquiries to which there are no easy answers but we are the protection for the individual person who, for one reason or another, cannot cope with the establishment. We must ensure that we will not be issued with standard replies implying that it is none of our business. If that is the case the protective shell becomes almost a coat of mail which no one can pierce and everyone inside that coat is immune to any degree of response to relevant concern and comments from public representatives.

The particular issue with which we are concerned in this report is the recruitment pattern operated by the Civil Service Commission. One would be tempted to adopt all the committee's recommendations as one's own but they are the conclusions which we all reached and, therefore, there is no need to repeat them. The report has been available for some time now and the press have given fair and objective coverage of our proceedings and to this report.

In paragraph 5 (1) in relation to public service recruitment it states:

The committee was advised by the Secretary of the Commission, namely, the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission, that the Department of the Public Service decides the recruitment policy for the civil service and monitors the recruitment process generally while the Civil Service Commission implements policy.

That being so prima facie at least there is a case to answer on the part of the Department of the Public Service in monitoring competitions. How did this happen? The Department of the Public Service is there to monitor and I am sure it has a pretty large budget. The Minister will probably be able to tell me the order of the budget. I think it is in the region of £10 million. Now there is a diminution in the numbers recruited to the public service. I shall not go into that now, but it seems to me that the Department most involved should itself be looking at the justification for these procedures — examinations, accommodation, interviews and so on in relation to every single Department of State.

There are very few growth industries at the moment, but one of the few is that of interviews, training, travelling to interviews, travelling back from interviews. It has become quite an industry and it is a very considerable part indeed of the whole process. At the end of 1983 out of a total of 14,122 applicants the total number appointed was 88. Up to the end of 1982 it was only six. That was the breakdown. Look at that breakdown in the context of the cost involved: direct staff costs £20,000; cost, excluding staff costs, £80,000. Take the breakdown of that £80,000: fees to examiners £18,000; cost of hiring halls £13,000; superintending examinations £15,000.

Where is the employment? It is in examining, superintending, travelling to examinations. Then there is the provision of furniture at £14,000. There is travelling and subsistence at £7,000. Is there not something radically wrong in this? Did we really have to wait for this committee to discover this extraordinary position?

Now there was and is a Department which has a direct responsibility, the Department of the Public Service, the alleged co-ordinating Department. Where is the co-ordination? How come? This pattern is proliferating. You have examinations, interviews, the cost of interviewers, the cost of examiners, the travelling expenses, the subsistence and so on in many other Departments of State. Here this morning the Tánaiste talked about setting up yet another State agency. We are engaged in discussing public expenditure and we want to ensure that the Government of the day — I want to be objective about this — will not envisage new agencies which will only result in increased expenditure unless those agencies and that expenditure can be justified totally and specifically by the Government of the day, and when it comes to our turn again, I shall be quite prepared to subject myself to the same kind of examination as I am conducting now.

The degree of co-ordination in the activities of the Department of the Public Service is important. Our chairman, Deputy Keating, referred recently to co-ordination of manpower policy generally. I must say initially that the word "liaison" covers a great deal. There is liaison between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Labour and various agencies. But it is not enough to have just liaison. There must be a central direction. There must be a total obligation to ensure that all the relevant information the Manpower Service has will be available to the employment exchange. Note the title — Employment Exchange. It is possible that over the years the employment exchange has come to be seen as a place where you just sign on and take your money. People have commented on the indignity of having to go to the employment exchange and, with growing unemployment, we must ensure that the dignity of the citizen is protected and maintained. The citizen is not just going to the employment exchange to get a handout. It is an employment exchange, and if it is merely regarded as something that pays out then there is something radically wrong.

We have two agencies now, the Manpower Service and the "Labour" Exchange, both doing the same job. My view, and the view of most members of the comittee, is that we should be working towards one central agency and the real purpose of that agency should be placement in employment and preparation for employment. These should be fundamental, so that applicants will not be going in there merely to queue up with the growing number of unemployed to draw whatever benefit they are entitled to. That is just one further indignity. Too often we talk too generally and too critically of people in that situation. Those who do not get the habit of work early on often find it very hard to adapt later. Those crucial early years are of vital importance. We all know people who found themselves at working age with no work available for them who subsequently found they were almost incapable of working. These co-ordinating agencies will have to be used effectively to train, advise, direct and help in every way possible. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Labour will be more effective in co-ordination. Actually there are three different Departments involved if one takes into account the Department of the Public Service. Where are they going? Is there need for an overview and a central direction?

That is all I will say on behalf of this side of the House this morning. I welcome the opportunity of making these general comments on the basis of our first report. I join with our chairman, Deputy Keating, in expressing the satisfaction of the Members of this side of the House for the environment that pertains in that committee. I assure the House that to the extent that is both reasonable and necessary that environment will continue to be supported by us on this side.

Mr. J. Doyle

The chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditure, Deputy Keating, has already outlined to the House the background of the report on recruitment by the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission. It is clear from an examination made by the committee that recruitment procedures operated by the Civil Service Commission in at least one area of their operations, namely the post office clerks' examination, was too cumbersome and costly from any point of view. Firstly, there can be no justification for calling 12,000 candidates to an examination. The cost of that to the Exchequer is £100,000. This figure is broken down under a number of headings on page 6 of the report and it has been dealt with at length by Deputy O'Kennedy. Secondly, there can be no justification for the calling of over 12,000 candidates to an examination, in effect giving a large proportion of that number of young people the expectation of jobs in the civil service that do not exist, and then taking on fewer than 90 people per year. If nothing else is to be achieved in this area, the Committee on Public Expenditure have done a good day's work in highlighting practices which are difficult to justify when Exchequer resources are so constrained.

While I have no reservations about the professionalism and expertise of the staff of the Civil Service Commission, it must be said that they and indeed the staff of the Department of the Public Service must be extremely vigilant at all times to ensure that the public get good value for money. The committee will return to this concept again and again. Taxpayers deserve to be reassured that their hardearned money is being used to the greatest possible effect. The terms of reference of the Committee on Public Expenditure will ensure that those interests will be protected through the systematic reviews of public expenditure being undertaken by the committee. We have been told that about 50,000 school leavers enter the labour market each year. Approximately 75 per cent of these find jobs in the first year and about 25 per cent, unfortunately, are unemployed for a longer time. I will return to this aspect later. The latest public statistics reveal that in 1982 about, 3,000 people entered the public Civil Service and about 500 senior staff were recruited to the local authorities by the Local Appointments Commission.

The importance of ensuring that the best people are taken on by the Civil Service Commision and Local Appointments Commission cannot be over-emphasised. At present it could be said that those who succeed in getting jobs in the public service are in a truly enviable position. They have secure jobs, good salaries and guaranteed pensions. Every young person who has talent and ambition has the potential to rise to the top of the Department or office to which he is appointed. It is a great credit to our civil service that many people have entered at the very lowest level of a Department and have ended their careers in the public service as heads of Departments. Given the current level of unemployment the competition for jobs in the Civil Service will be much more intense than in previous years. The outcome of this development is that overall the Civil Service will tend to get a more highly educated person than in the past, and conversely those who would have obtained jobs in the Civil Service in previous years are now virtually debarred by virtue of their lower grades in the intermediate and leaving certificate examinations. This was one reason for the huge number of applications in 1982 for the post office clerks' examination for which no qualifications are laid down but the age limits of 15½ to 17½ years.

The Civil Service Commission must find some mechanism for ensuring the balance between getting the best people into the public service and at the same time ensuring that a fair proportion of young people who may not be brilliant academically will have an opportunity of taking up careers in the service. We know of people who have been successful in all walks of life without benefit of a formal education. I am convinced that it is not outside the capabilities of the Civil Service Commission in consultation with the Department of the Public Service to devise some form of approved selection process using the most modern psychological tests, and to distribute the available jobs in the Civil Service more evenly than in the past. On-the-job training provided by the Civil Service training centre should overcome any unevenness that might exist among those appointed under such revised arrangements. I would be glad if the Minister for the Public Service would comment on my suggestion, and perhaps he will have its merits examined in his Department. I am sure that the Committee on Public Expenditure would be interested to hear the outcome on any examination of methods of improving existing procedures.

As the chairman said earlier, the committee are at present considering whether grounds exist for the establishment of some form of centralised agency for job seekers and employers. Without wishing to pre-empt the final report or recommendations of the committee on this, it is fair to say that there is evidence of duplication of some functions of a number of existing agencies. For example, AnCO and the Department of Education are both involved in the provision of pre-employment courses. Another instance that I am aware of is that AnCO and the National Manpower Service are involved in recruiting people for employment and training. To a lay person it is difficult to justify any kind of duplication in the important areas of the provision of work or training. A second but equally important angle on this is that duplication must cause great confusion to job seekers and to employers also. These are the people the service is designed to help, and is seems that it is found wanting in some respects. I will be recommending to the committee that our report should contain proposals for the urgent elimination of duplication of function or services if it is found to exist. Our aim will be to reform the present agencies so that the user, the man, woman, boy or girl who pays for these agencies, will benefit from a smoothly run system best designed to meet his or her needs.

The chairman referred to submissions to the committee from the public. The public should avail more intensively of the opportunity to make such submissions. The committee welcome any suggestions or proposals that will reduce public expenditure or improve existing programmes. All submissions will be taken seriously. Already we have received practical proposals which will be before the committee in their deliberations on individual Departments, offices and the non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. The State bodies sector has not received the attention it deserves. Additional submissions which touch on the non-State bodies will be welcome.

There are also a number of organisations in the private sector who help to cut down on public expenditure. Last summer I had the privilege to be present at the launching of the Young Ireland Movement whose aim is to motivate young people to buy good quality Irish goods and, as a result, improve employment opportunities for young people at no expense to the State. When one compares this with previous Buy Irish Campaigns which were funded by the taxpayer and often without the desired effect one can see the value of a movement such as it. I trust that the first report of the committee, and the debate on it, will impress upon the House and the public that reviews of public expenditure are well under way and that the committee are determined to make a significant impact in obtaining value for each pound spent by the Exchequer on behalf of our taxpayers. As a member of that committee I am happy that we achieved this and that I played a part in it.

At times in this House, particularly in recent days, I became frustrated because many of the antics that take place here are irrelevant to the problems of the people we represent, high unemployment and the fact that those who have a job pay high taxes. However, when I attend meetings of the committee under discussion in some way my political batteries are recharged because that committee, which represents all sides, reaches consensus in a spirit of goodwill. I join with Deputy O'Kennedy in expressing the hope that that consensus and spirit of goodwill will eventually find its way into the Chamber. I should like to pay tribute to the Secretary of the committee for his dedicated service. The committee's first report is the first small step in what I have no doubt will be a major influence on the better use of public expenditure in the future.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It is good that an all-party committee of the House can look at an area of the public service where there is room for improvement and produce an agreed report. I do not agree with all the comments of the last speaker, because it is important that there should be an Opposition in the House to watch the day-to-day activities of any Government. Democracy being what it is, the Opposition of the day are probably more important for that reason than the Government. It is encouraging that an all-party committee can produce recommendations for an area where practices are outmoded. I should like to refer to my experience as Minister for the Public Service, and in doing so I am anxious to make it clear that the present Secretary of the Commission was not in charge then. The person responsible has long since retired.

While I was in that office political capital was made in the House by Members who now hold high office — not the Minister present — when I in good faith felt there was a need for some modernsation in the Civil Service Commission. Bureaucratic institutions resisted by various efforts. There were leaks to the Press by sources I failed to establish and they slanted in the direction that my involvement was a political one. I should like to assure the House that my involvement was in the interests of the ordinary people of Ireland, the people who matter most, those who elect us. Those who were to the forefront then are not there now. I do not have any idea who leaked the stories or how details of certain meetings were given to the Press, but I am satisfied that they were distributed and were not intended to help improve procedures or prevent alleged political interference. It is my view that they were leaked to create a device by which the Commission could defend itself against all politicians by saying that the interference by the Minister of the day was for political purposes. That was not the case.

I welcome the recommendations of the committee. We are living in changing times when recruitment to all posts spells out great problems for all interview boards. Whatever post is advertised the number of applicants is enormous. That is one of the reasons why there is a need for a more modern approach by the Civil Service Commission, or the Local Appointments Commission, to the needs of the day. I can recall a question and answer session here between the Minister for the Public Service and Deputy David Andrews in regard to the provision of typewriters for civil service examinations. I understood the difficulty the Minister was in as to how the tests could be set up.

The question of interview boards has concerned me for many years, because I am convinced that any person who sits on such a board must have a commitment to come up with what they believe to be the right answer. Of course, there was always a difficulty in trying to get consistency. Human nature being what it is we all differ in what we regard as the most suitable criteria for any appointment. That will continue to be a difficulty. The independence of such boards is sacred. There should not be any interference from politicians, and I know all worthwhile politicians share that view. However, there should not be any favouritism by the bureaucratic institutions. There is a danger that interference in that direction can be greater than interference from politicians. It may be taken that I am speaking with a little chip on my shoulder from my past experience, but I am interested in the public good.

An Ceann Comhairle

The only fear the Chair has about the Deputy's contribution is that he may identify people. I am sure he will not do that.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I will not. I should like to emphasise that I do not have any idea where the leaks came from, although I am satisfied that those guilty were not acting in the best interests of the Civil Service Commission.

The fact that an all-party committee can agree on a report of this nature removes the danger of a political charge such as I experienced. The independence of the institution we are referring to must be safeguarded and protected and I believe the vast majority of politicians share that view. These institutions have served us well but we must not be afraid to modernise them and approach the business they do in a better way to meet new demands. That is a matter of extreme urgency. The committee of the House is ideally suited to a situation like this. I welcome the report and add my voice in support of it. I apologise to my colleague from Cork for having delayed him a few minutes by making this contribution.

Mr. Allen

The Oireachtas Committee was set up last year at a time when Dáil procedures and the performance of Oireachtas Members were coming under severe criticism. Today the first report of that committee is coming before the House at a time when the performance of the House is again being examined closely. As a relative newcomer to this House I would like to say that the antics we have seen here over the last few days do not inspire the people with confidence in politicians. They say we should face up to the real problems of this country — unemployment, breaking down of vested interests which control certain sections of the community and so on. While not ignoring some of the issues that were raised in the last few days, they feel we are spending too much time on minor issues.

Whenever we attempt to look at protected areas of interest or at some of the major vested interests, closed shops, monopolies and so on, attempts are made immediately to undermine our credibility, either as a group or individually. That is happening all the time. I know what Deputy Fitzgerald was talking about. I expressed my interest in becoming a member of the Committee on Public Expenditure because I had formed the opinion down the years that the standards adopted in the expenditure of public money were somewhat different from the practices adopted in the private sector. My experiences to date, unfortunately, confirm this and we only have to look at this report and the massive amount of public money spent on the filling of a relatively small number of positions to see that this report confirms my opinion.

The committee also dealt with the Office of Public Works. We looked at the vast amounts being spent on the rental of office blocks and we had a meeting with the Comptroller and Auditor General. All these activities justify the belief that vast amounts of public money are being wasted and squandered. Unfortunately, accountability by State Departments seems to be less than I had ever anticipated. The committee system, if it has achieved nothing else to date, has established the fact that public servants must now account in a very detailed way for the money at their disposal.

The Irish economy has suffered in recent years because of the different standards adopted in the public sector from those adopted in the private sector. The public sector must become hungry for success and that is not happening at present. Our semi-State bodies which did not come within our terms of reference, are becoming more uncompetitive and the time has come to call a halt to this process. From now on the attitude of directors' management and workers in the public sector must be that there will be a fire in our stomachs, coupled with a determination to succeed and an attitude to go forward with a balanced approach that will stand up to close scrutiny. While the attitude in the private sector at present is to get out, win business and take risks, the practice in the public sector is to make sure we do not make mistakes. Everybody sets out not to make mistakes but being too cautious and adopting the attitude "I am not saddled with responsibility but somebody else is", is seriously undermining the success of the public sector.

This report shows clearly that public moneys have been wasted in the very simple exercises of filling posts in the public sector. While this report identifies the problems, unfortunately it does not provide conclusive answers because as the chairman said at the outset, this is an interim report which we hope will be followed by a more comprehensive one in due course. The report reflects our inexperience of grappling with these problems. We are a young committee, young in experience, and we took a while to find our feet and to know where we were going but for the last month or so the committee have been working very efficiently.

Our committee face a major challenge in coming to grips with the gross abuse of public moneys that takes place in certain sectors. We approached our task conscious of the fact that extra scrutiny must take place on all public projects because of the shortage of public funds, over-taxing and the need to cut back on public expenditure. Our approach has at all times been constructive and the most positive thing is that our approach has ignored political divisions and has been a united one.

This is a short debate and therefore I will not go into too many details except to say that the three or four months I have spent on this committee were the most fulfilling since my arrival here in 1981. I look forward to the weekly meetings because we have set ourselves an attainable task and we go into these meetings ignoring completely political divisions which normally exist in this House.

Members have been criticised a great deal in the media, and at times rightly so, but we have demonstrated through this committee system that we are determined to take on the problems that face the people we represent. We must be determined to take on and challenge the vested interests, be they in the private or public sector. In taking on these tasks and facing these challenges we must be aware that we will be criticised and our attempts undermined at times. However, these attempts to undermine our credibility must make us more determined in our efforts in the knowledge that many of our people are living at or below poverty level and either we provide leadership for them or we succumb to other organisations and institutions.

The whole question of public spending must be looked at in depth. Value for money in the public expenditure programmes must be a priority, as the overall spending in the public sector is now an awesome burden on the economy. The activities of the committee have aroused considerable interest amongst the business community and the general public, reflected in the amount of correspondence to the secretary of the committee in recent weeks. The matter is of particular concern to the business community because of the high proportion of national resources now devoted to the public expenditure programme.

Our objectives are to identify public expenditure of major significance, to ensure that the money is spent positively and economically and that organisation and financial management is efficient within the public sector. I must express my sincere thanks to the secretariat of our committee whose efficiency, I shall not say has surprised but has amazed me. There has been a huge volume of documentation but we have done our best to tease out and identify the problems. In this task we have had 100 per cent co-operation from the secretariat. However, I detect that our efforts in other areas have been resented by a number of public bodies which has been reflected in the questioning of our terms of reference by a number of them. It must be realised that our job is to ensure that the overburdened taxpayer gets value for money. As a member of the committee I feel strongly that all public bodies must account fully for the way they spend money. I shall not go into details now because of time constraints. It may not be relevant to today's discussion and it can be done at a later date. But it must be said that massive amounts of money have been wasted in the past that could have been expended on projects of much greater benefit to our people. The critical situation confronting the country at present must force all public bodies to ensure they work in an efficient way and obliges us to ensure that any projects commenced or implemented henceforth are cost-effective and, more importantly, have a high labour content because of our unemployment problems.

I should like to extend my thanks to all my co-members of the committee who have worked so well. There has been no political division within the committee, which has been a refreshing experience, bringing a breath of fresh air into the whole operations of this House.

Mr. N. Treacy

As a member of the committee I welcome its first report. As a relatively new Member of this House I am delighted to be a member of that committee. There is a tremendous sense of unity of purpose within the committee crossing all political divides. We have a common approach to our work as distinct from the Committee on Public Accounts whose job is to justify the expenditure of public moneys, our job is to appraise ourselves and analyse the spending of public moneys. The report clearly indicates that there is much necessity for a clear policy on efficiency and cost-effectiveness within the area of the public service. I should like to pay tribute to the secretary of the committee, Mr. Judge, and his staff. Were it not for their backup it would not have been possible for the committee to have done the amount of work we have. We meet on a regular basis. I find the work very rewarding. I also find it easy to identify the problems. Indeed the committee system is a suitable forum for teasing out the problems prevailing in the expenditure of public moneys.

I should also like to pay tribute to the various representatives of the many Government Departments and agencies who have attended committee meetings, who have given of their expert knowledge, advice and assistance. All the information possible has been given freely and positively by them. Over the years the public service has taken a lot of bashing from almost everybody. As a new Member of this House I should like to place on record that I am more than happy to state that the people leading the various Government agencies and public bodies are of the highest competence and capability. They have and will make a major contribution in the years ahead. I hope that this committee — through political advice, experience and in co-operation with the leaders of the various Departments and agencies — can come up with a better system in the future, ensuring more efficient investment of public moneys in the public service.

I see that on page 7 of the report there is mention of 14,422 people having applied for jobs within the post office — now An Post — of whom 88 only were appointed at a total cost of £100,000 to run the examinations, at a cost of over £1,000 in respect of each of those 88 jobs. This clearly illustrates that the recruitment system within the public service is in need of major overhaul. This is not the fault of the people within these Government bodies, it is a system that has obtained for a long time. I suppose to some extent legislation has created this type of system. In modern times, with such demands being made on public moneys, it is now up to us to devise a more efficient system. In this task I am confident we shall have the full co-operation of all the people within the public service. I foresee the future of recruitment in the public service in the categorising of similar jobs within the public service. For example, if a particular category or grade of job suitable to all Departments was advertised the one examination would cover all those Departments and whatever number of applicants sat those examinations and passed them would be available for selection and appointment to any Government Department for which the grade or job was suitable. If we did that only, then the work of the committee would have been worthwhile.

We are still in our infancy. There are excellent members serving on the committee and we have a lot to contribute. I might pay tribute to the Minister for the Public Service himself. I know the constraints on him. Yet he, along with the leader of the House, was very co-operative in ensuring that we had sufficient staff so that the workings of the committee were not rendered prohibitive. It may not be the policy of our committee to have more recruitment within the public service but, because of the type of work in which we engage, I suspect we will need extra staff for research and such things in the years ahead. I am sure the necessary co-operation from the Minister for the Public Service and other Ministers will be forthcoming.

I feel honoured to be a member of the committee. We have a worthwhile job to do. I believe that the future investment of taxpayers' money in the State service is dependent on an efficient, cost-effective system. I believe our committee will make a major contribution in ensuring value for money to our taxpayers.

Mr. R. Bruton

I should like to join other members of the committee who have commended the secretariat and the spirit with which the people have approached the work of this committee. There is no doubt but that it can become a very useful forum for teasing out problems in the public sector. We have received nothing but the fullest co-operation from the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission who were the first people who, as it were, came under the scrutiny of the committee. The Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission have been operating somewhat at a disadvantage because of the lack of clear policy statements from the Department of the Public Service. Obviously the Local Appointments Commission have laudable aims. They recognise there is a statutory obligation on them to hold competitions. They believe also that the opportunity should be given every year to young people, that we should not have the situation where a competition is held only once in every five years because that would exclude many school leavers. They believe it should be opened to universal application, that everyone should get a chance to be examined and that the person chosen should be selected on objective grounds. Those principles are laudable, but we identified some problems and these are spelled out in the report.

The first relates to cost. The system as operated by the Commission has failed to respond to declining vacancies in the public service. In the report we cite figures by the commission where they state that the cost per appointment has increased from £325 in 1980 to £700 in 1982 at constant prices, but those figures are only a partial account of the situation because there are other expenditures not included in their estimate which are included elsewhere in the Estimates. These cover buildings, rates and so on, and they come to an extra £500,000 which must be added to the cost.

A feature that amazed us when we spoke to the commission was that what are described in their booklets as the persons selected for appointment do not add up to the number of jobs filled. In the case of the Post Office exam where figures were cited, we discovered that the number of jobs filled was about one-quarter. In other words, the figures I quoted a moment ago are not accurate: the real figures are four times that amount. This is a worrying matter. If one adjusts for those two features, the cost of filling a job by the Local Appointments Commission increased from £1,400 in 1980 to £3,700 in 1982. The expenditure of almost £4,000 on the placement of a person by the commission into the Civil Service seems an enormously high cost. While the objectives of the commission in the way they conduct exams are laudable, I do not think we can continue to do this at such a high cost.

It was surprising to discover that only one in four people offered jobs in the Civil Service actually take up those jobs. This is clear evidence that people are using the Civil Service and the Local Appointments Commission competitions as exam practice but, on the other hand, the people appointed have been through other employment networks and have got placed by the time they get an offer of a job in the Civil Service. There is a real concern that we are carrying out an unwieldy and expensive competition and that at the end of the day the people who are successful are not, in many cases, interested in taking up the positions. There is need for a change in this area.

As other speakers have said, we did not reach a complete consensus on all aspects but we agreed on two points which were important. The first is that whenever a competition is advertised there should be a statement setting out the likely number of vacancies to be filled. Many young people are entering these competitions with high hopes which will not be fulfilled, and obviously this increases the numbers who will enter. For example, if it had been stated in the case of the Post Office exam that the vacancies numbered only 88 it would have had a different effect on applicants.

We would like to see an annual publication in the form of the comprehensive programme published earlier this year, setting out the policies pursued in Civil Service recruitment, the methods used and the cost per job filled. If that were done on an annual basis it would supplement the existing annual report and it would provide information to enable people to monitor the efficiency of the system.

The central issue at question in our report is how one screens the applicants when many people apply for a limited number of places. We have identified that the present system is not ideal. It involves very heavy costs on the items we cited, including the hiring of desks and halls and the supervision of examinations. There are alternatives, but the committee did not reach a consensus on them. However, we set out some clear guidelines. We did not want detailed examination of more people than would be required to fill the jobs with the necessary qualified personnel. Secondly, we did not want short-listing on the basis of academic standards that would push the qualifications for the job far above what was needed. We identified the danger that very highly qualified applicants would take positions where others had trained themselves solely for such positions. Obviously the people who had devoted their energies to obtaining such posts would be bypassed by people who had perhaps the advantage of a third level education. We did not see that as satisfactory.

However, we did not agree on how proper screening should be done and we would like the commission and the Minister to come back to us later in the year with their suggestions as to how this could be done satisfactorily. One possibility discussed by the committee was that of a straight lottery system, that where many people applied one would simply take names out of a hat who would enter the final stages of competition, interview and screening. That did not find universal support in the committee, and it was just left as a possibility.

Another possibility which got greater support was the idea of cheaply administered multiple choice questions on subjects relevant to the vacancy in question and we would like to see that kind of option considered by the Minister and the commission. It would do two things: first, it would cut costs and, secondly, it would cut down the number of applicants. If there were a clear multiple choice of test or exam for, say, clerical officers in the Post Office, people who are not interested in that kind of vacancy would not apply.

Another point I should like to ask the Minister to examine, one the committee make, is that there seems to be a certain duplication because the National Manpower Service and the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissions operate entirely independently from one another. The committee feel that the recruitment activities of the Commissions and the placement work of the NMS in some way should be integrated. Assessments are made by officers of the NMS on the career prospects of certain individuals and the same sort of assessments are going on in the two commissions.

Therefore, it would seem sensible to have a single system of assessment, at least in the early stages of a competition for employment. Perhaps closer liaison between the commissions and the NMS would be possible. I should like the Minister to look at the NMS system of short listing candidates for selection by employers. That could be applicable to the civil service. After all, in the civil service we have very large personnel sections scattered throughout the Departments. At the moment, the civil service of about 60,000 people has personnel sections of more than 1,000. Those personnel sections do not deal with selection or interviewing and they do not deal with pay negotiations. Is there, therefore, not a possibility that those 1,000 people could take on board the final stages of choosing for employment in their respective Departments, which they do not now do? I commend to the Minister that he would consider policy in the area of recruitment to the public service. In the personnel sections in the public service we seem to have quite a lot of confusion. There are 400 people in the Department of the Public Service and a further 200 in the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissions, as well as the 1,000 scattered throughout the service. We should examine this closely to see if we are getting proper returns for public money.

Mr. Hilliard

First of all, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak on this matter. I should like to express approval of the Civil Service Commission for the valuable service they have given to the State since they were founded. They have appointed many people to many posts in the Government service and I am sure they have now reached the stage when they would accept the proposition that change is necessary and that if we do not change we will not get people of education and ability coming into our system of administration.

Our main aim should be to get the proper people for the proper jobs at the right time. Other Deputies have referred to the system of selection, but the hands of the Civil Service Commission are tied by the competitive examination system. I consider this to be holding up new initiatives, and I hope the Minister will take a serious look at this matter.

There are many other methods of deciding the capability of applicants. There is a system of examination for third-level students who do examinations which can be similar to those carried out by the Civil Service Commission. Candidates for these school examinations already have a status of education and suitability, and I suggest that the Department should look at this seriously because these different systems of examination lend themselves to duplication, at great cost to the State.

I agree that we must get the most suitable people possible into the public service. We all agree there is a waste of money in all Departments in different ways. We have people in the system who are not suitable, who are in the job just for the sake of having a job, and one could say that that could be part of the reason why we are not getting the best value for money. It could be said that because the country has a lot of unemployment, the pressure is on people to seek jobs no matter where they find them.

There is a grave danger that people who are not suitable are rushing to do examinations run by the Civil Service Commission. There is concern and pressure among parents to ensure that their sons and daughters try for this, that or the other job. Therefore, at great cost sometimes to parents their children have to travel up to 100 miles to sit for examinations.

Recommendation 4.2 of the report before the House states that 75 per cent of those sitting for examinations and who are successful do not take up the offer of employment, or they sit for examinations for practice or for other reasons. Therefore, this recommendation must be examined closely in order to find out whether the Estimate for the Civil Service Commission is being used properly or whether that money could be used for some other purpose. Perhaps we would be better off with half the amount in that Estimate. The committee are deeply concerned about better use of public money and therefore the examination system becomes relevant as a high cost factor.

I have stated at our meetings that we should look at Government Estimates for the public service. A sum of £5,581 million is divided out to the different Departments to be spent in 1984. A huge proportion of that money is for wages, salaries and so on. If we had the proper people in the proper jobs we would be able to save money. We must put the best and most suitable people in suitable jobs so that they can give a good, efficient service. If we do not examine this aspect a waste of money will result.

I have a query regarding the annual Public Services Estimates. Some of those who work on the preparation of these Estimates may have gone into employment through the Civil Service Commission and have developed experience through the different Departments. For example, the Estimate for the Revenue Commissioners/Post Office Services, at the beginning of 1983 was £11 million but the outturn at the end of 1983 was £16 million — £5 million extra. There must be some good reason for that Estimate being almost 50 per cent greater than the actual expenditure during the course of the 12 months. The Estimate for 1984 under the same heading is only £9,750,000, which is less than the Estimate for the beginning of 1983. I do not know on what basis these Estimates are made out and I do not want to cast a reflection on those concerned with this work, but if it is through inexperience or lack of information it is their responsibility to ensure that we get the use of all public money, and the Estimate to which I have referred has resulted in the taking away of £5 million.

Under Social Welfare — Post Office Savings — at the beginning of 1983 the estimate was £14 million, yet the outurn at the end of 1983 was £24 million — £10 million greater than estimated. There must be some reason for this. This money is allocated at the beginning of the year for use during that year and if we do not plan properly the use of the available public money 100 per cent, other areas in need of finance will have to do without it.

The question of having one national employment agency has already been mentioned, with which all are registered, their standard of education and suitabilty for work, the unemployed, their education and their suitability for work. If we have that type of register we will be moving into modern times with computerisation as the answer. The more rapidly we move in that direction, the better the value obtained for public money. This modernisation should not be difficult to achieve. We would have a register of the various skills of people, the opportunities arising and the people could be quickly placed in suitable positions, within the public service area.

In the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General it is stated that the Comptroller and his staff will not be in a position to keep the accounts of the various semi-State bodies up-to-date unless extra staff is supplied. Some of the accounts for 1982 are not yet up-to-date and the position will worsen. I put down a question to the Minister for the Public Service on 22 November 1983, asking if he intended to sanction the recruitment of more staff to assist the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sad to say that the reply was not favourable because of Government cutbacks, or lack of finance. If we expect our books to be kept up to date and to get full use of public money it is essential that extra staff be recruited in this area immediately.

I hope that the Oireachtas Committee on Public Expenditure, of which I am pleased to be a member, will continue the good work which they are doing and will hold the respect of the people communicating with them. The committee are not trying to knock anybody out of his or her present position. We respect their opinions and hope that they respect ours. Basically, we are trying to work in the interests of all the people towards a better standard of living, better use of taxpayers money and having the maximum number of jobs available.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I should like to say initially that I very much welcome the content of the report from the Committee on Public Expenditure. As mentioned by the Chairman when moving the motion, this is the committee's first report and it is also the first occasion on which the Dáil has had an opportunity to discuss a report from one of the new Dáil committees. I believe that the new system of committees will give an opportunity to Deputies to investigate and clarify for themselves areas of administration which they might not otherwise be able to examine to their satisfaction except, perhaps, to a certain extent through the medium of a Dáil question. In fact, in that regard I could not help reflecting on the remarks and attitudes adopted today by speakers from all sides of the House on the matter of the operation of the Civil Service Commission and the tone of the debate in March and April of last year when virtually contradictory remarks and viewpoints were expressed as to how the commission should operate and the extent to which it should provide examination opportunities to the general public.

As regards the report of the committee, I should like to mention to the House that I have written to the Chairman of the committee seeking a meeting with them to discuss the contents of the report and possible action arising out of the recommendations contained within it. Since the report was published some ten days or a fortnight ago the contents of the report have been brought to the notice of the Government and I have received their agreement to the idea that I should ask the committee for a meeting so that we could discuss the report's recommendations and see what further views the committee might have in regard to the more efficient operation of the Civil Service Commission. I hope that that is a fair indication of the attitude which the Government are trying to adopt towards the operation of committees generally. The fact that the members of the Government are prepared to indicate their anxiety to discuss with all-party committees the general attitude adopted by the committees in their reports is one which ought to be welcomed by the members of the committees and will indicate to them the attitude of support which the Government wish to adopt towards the activities of committees generally.

Before I respond to the individual recommendations I think it would be as well to point to a number of matters relating to the Civil Service Commission, not least of which is the fact that the cost of running competitions for recruitment to the Civil Service is directly proportionate to the number of applications received. Each competition involves costs incurred on (a) Examiners' fees; (b) the hire of halls at suitable venues for examinations; (c) superintending examinations; (d) printing of examination papers; (e) advertising and postage; (f) computer processing; (g) provision of desks and suitable furniture and (h) miscellaneous travel expenses. During the last month in the House I was pressed to provide additional facilities at a cost to the Civil Service Commission and the taxpayer for the benefit of people attending for examinations.

All of these expenses vary with the number of candidates applying for a particular post. In 1982, for example, over 24,000 entered for the clerical assistant competitions, over 9,000 for the clerical officers post and over 11,000 for the executive officer competitions. Deputies will appreciate that these substantial numbers of candidates must be carefully processed by the Commission, admittedly at substantial cost, irrespective of the number of appointments that eventually result from the actual competition.

In 1976 the total number of applications received for various competitions held by the Civil Service Commission was 72,648. By 1978 the total number had risen to 88,758. In 1981 the figure was 99,925. By 1982 we had managed to break the 100,000 barrier and 106,861 people applied for the posts advertised. The number of candidates selected for appointment, as a result of either examination or interview, in each of those years was 3,596, 7,967, 6,004 and 3,119 respectively.

We have to ask ourselves if the number appointed, in comparison to the total number applying, is justifiable in the context of the expense of operating the Commission. In the debate on a Private Members' Motion on 19 April 1983, when objections were raised to the application of a limited examination fee in certain cases I said at column 1306 of the Official Report:

It might have been more honest and fair if the applicants were given some indication of just how few opportunities there really were of obtaining gainful employment.

I went on to say at column 1308:

I believe we must find ways to make the numbers who are actually examined more relevant to the numbers of jobs available while at the same time allowing all people who are eligible in some way to make initial applications and have those applications screened, I believe, on balance, that would be a fairer way to all applicants. It would certainly be fairer to those who eventually would come to be examined and who would realise they had some chance of getting those jobs.

I welcome the fact that so many Deputies have, in the course of the intervening ten months, through the activities of the Public Expenditure Committee, come to share those views expressed at that time and which I venture to suggest did not receive anything like universal or all party approval at the time.

The particular examination, which drew the attention of the Public Expenditure Committee to examine the operations of the Commision generally, was that of post office clerk competition held in 1982. Notice of the intention to hold that competition was given prior to the embargo introduced by this Government when last we were in power. The brochure announcing the competition was published in September 1981 and made clear that the competition would be held in April 1982. While some of the figures that have been used are quite startling they are a little misleading in relation to the particular competition. That is still not to say that the costs have not been enormous. Because the panel appointed has continued in existence since the original competition was held the figure of six people being appointed is erroneous. So far, there have been 140 people appointed, and to do that the Commission has gone down as far as approximately the 500th place on the panel. Even on the basis of those numbers and the cost of £100,000, which was given in paragraph 6.2 of the committee's report, the cost per appointee to date has been about £700. If additional appointments are made the cost will be reduced to a lower figure depending on the further numbers appointed. At present, it is expected that about 25 more will be needed, which will reduce the cost to about £600 per appointee. That cost is still very considerable. The question has to be asked at what stage one balances the requirement to allow all of those who are deemed to be eligible to apply for public competitions for appointment while, on the other hand, balancing against that the requirements of the taxpayer that public money should be expended in the most cost effective way.

These figures give one some idea of the overall situation in relation to recruitment through the Civil Service Commision. Experience has shown, however, that the vast majority of school-leavers often apply for a range of competitions solely for the purpose of examination practice. In fact Commission statistics indicate that no more than a third of those offered positions, as a result of the various competitions, actually accept. There is therefore considerable substance to the charge that many of the applications received by the Commission are not genuine in the first instance. However, as the House well knows, the Commision is statutorily obliged to consider all valid applications as if they were genuine.

Of course the Government are concerned to ensure the greatest efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the operation of the Civil Service Commission. Those objectives must, however, be consistent with the maintenance of public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the Commission's recruitment procedures.

Needless to say the claims of individual candidates, in these competitions, must, particularly in times of economic and financial difficulties, be balanced against the cost to the already overburdened taxpayer.

I do not want to say this in any contentious way, but Deputies will remember that the Government, in an attempt to reduce the cost of competitions, introduced in 1983 — it is relevant also to point out that the report under examination was basically the report of the 1982 activities of the Civil Service Comission — application fees which, if my memory serves me right, produced a diversity of reaction from across the political divide and perhaps even from people who are now members of the new Public Expenditure Committee.

The actual result of the charging of application fees was interesting. There was a sizable reduction of at least a third in the number of applicants and there was a considerable improvement in the cost-effectiveness of the Commission evident in the receipt of £208,000 in fees quite apart from the savings on examiners and the other areas I mentioned earlier. Those fees, however, are no longer applicable because of the opposition of the public generally and because of the opposition of Members of this House.

The example of the application fees, and the attendant controversy, illustrates vividly the difficulties which the Government face, and indeed the difficulties which the Committee on Public Expenditure now faces, in attempting to reduce costs in a highly sensitive area. The committee make a number of recommendations some of which are in the area of statistical information which the Commission will supply. Others, however, are somewhat more complex.

The recommendations at paragraphs 8.2, 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9 fall into the former category and can be implemented, in the main, without difficulty. They refer, briefly, to notification of vacancies available, number of vacancies actually filled, costings relating to the Commission and computerisation.

As regards the recommendations at paragraphs 8.3 and 8.6 the suggested involvement of the National Manpower Service will, of course, be examined, but I must point out that there are major difficulties attached to this recommendation.

The functions of the National Manpower Service and of the Civil Service Commission are as they stand at present fundamentally different. The former is a referral agency which leaves the choice of the employee to the employer, whereas the latter selects the employee on behalf of the employer. The Commissioners are bound by law to make their selection on the basis of merit as determined by competition, while employers availing themselves of the National Manpower Service are not so restricted as to how they select.

The integrity of the Commissioners in applying the merit principle has never been impugned and has been the major factor in maintaining the public confidence in the selection process for civil service employment that I referred to a moment ago. The Commissioners must in law be satisfied as to the suitability of candidates and their order of merit, and they cannot therefore delegate selection to the National Manpower Service or any other agency.

As a general rule the National Manpower Service does not deal with applicants on a national basis. If a private employer in Dublin was looking to fill some non-specialist vacancies for which many people might be suitable, the National Manpower Service would be unlikely to refer him/her to job seekers registered in their Cork, Galway or Sligo offices, for example. The Commissioners on the other hand must, when asked to fill vacancies, advertise for them on a national basis and consider all applicants irrespective of where they live.

Likewise to confine a competition to persons in the National Manpower Service register would be totally contrary to the principle of open competition and would necessitate a change in legislation. In any case, once the new procedure became established, the persons who would normally apply for Civil Service posts — most of them still at school — would register with the National Manpower Service, thereby greatly artificially swelling the numbers registered and causing duplication and an increase in costs for the NMS generally. In essence the reality would then be that two agencies would be involved in recruitment instead of one. Such a situation could hardly be regarded as conducive to either improving efficiency or reducing cost-effectiveness.

I was a little taken aback when I heard of a development on the committee's recommendation in relation to this matter as expressed by two members of the committee, Deputy Bruton who had a particular interest in the suggestion and Deputy Hilliard. Deputy Bruton's idea was developed to some extent by Deputy Hilliard. It was that we would have one single placement agency in respect of both the public and private sector based on people's academic attainments and computerised records of those achievements. If those views were advanced at the committee I am not surprised by Deputy Bruton's remark that the committee were unable to reach a consensus on some of the suggestions. Such a system whereby one could only get a job if one had sufficiently high academic qualifications registered in one national placement agency in respect of any job in the public or private sector is a concept which is peculiar only to some East European regimes. It would be totally rejected and would be anathema to the general public.

It is worth examining the case that there ought to be one recruitment agency for the entire public sector. At present, the Civil Service commission deal with the civil service and the Local Appointments Commission, which utilise the same staff, recruit for the more senior echelons of the local authority and health services. The State bodies carry out their own recruitment procedures in the main. There may be a case for moving towards that concept so as to promote greater mobility within the public sector. We could examine the notion of having a public sector commission for the purpose of recruitment within the public sector. The concept of a single appointment agency for any job which exists and falls vacant in the country is unrealistic and unacceptable.

Recommendation 8.4 of the report deals with shortlisting. While the committee does not specify the basis on which shortlisting should be carried out they do say that it should not be done by setting academic standards above those necessary for the particular position.

The fact of the matter, however, is that applicants are short-listed where large numbers present themselves for an interview type competition. This is done objectively by reference to matters such as educational qualifications, length or type of experience, etc. For school-goers or school-leavers, the only objective way to short-list them would normally be by reference to their educational qualifications, and it is difficult to see what other objective criteria can be applied in their case.

Having said this, however, I would welcome recommendations from the committee as to how they would short-list applicants in a fair and equitable manner without setting excessive academic standards.

This is one of the things I had in mind when I decided to write to the chairman of the committee asking him to meet me to discuss various aspects of the report. Deputy Bruton dwelt at some length on the question of screening or short-listing and said the committee were unable to come to a consensus viewpoint as to how this might be conducted efficiently and impartially. The committee encountered some of the difficulties which have been encountered by the commission and by my Department in trying to balance a fair opportunity for people to compete with the need for the most cost effective service. The Deputy said that the suggestion of a lottery for the purpose of short-listing people had been put forward but had not received universal support.

I was being somewhat facetious ten months ago when speaking in the Dáil. I pointed out to the House that in the case of a local authority, as a comparison with the activities of the commission, Dublin County Council called and examined 3,033 applicants for the position of clerical officer in 1982. From that number they appointed three people. At column 1307 of the Official Report I asked if that was not really a charade. No matter how excellently conducted the examination was, and I have no reason but to believe it was conducted fairly, even God would be put to the pin of his collar to decide which three out of 3,033 people were best. There is a case to be made — this is the basic concept of a lottery — that if one got the 3,033 application forms and threw them up in the air and caught three on the way down, one would probably get as good three people as if one went through the lengthy examination procedure that the council engaged in. On the other hand, there would be many outraged applicants and parents who, if they thought people were being selected on the basis of catching pieces of paper out of the air, would say public moneys were not being devoted properly to allowing applicants to be given the best possible opportunity to prove they were the best people for the job. That is the basic difficulty the commission and Government have to face. It is one which the committee faced up to and identified, but I was a little disappointed that they were unable to specifically say what they believed was the solution. I hope that in our discussions next week we will be able to go a little further along that road.

In paragraph 8.9 the committee say that they would welcome an extension of the use of computerisation in the area of recruitment with a view to effecting greater cost savings. In this regard, I have been pressing for an extension of computerisation in the Civil Service with a fair and increasing degree of success. In relation to the Civil Service Commission, this is one of the divisions of the Civil Service which is most ready to adapt to computerisation and has itself endeavoured to apply computerisation as extensively as possible. The use of computers in the Commission is constantly being reviewed. Some examples of computer techniques introduced since January 1982, with annual cost savings, are: (1) the installation of computer terminal and data processing equipment in 1983 resulting in the elimination of payments to outside computer bureaux, giving a net saving of £10,000; (2) the introduction of electronic scanning equipment with consequent savings in fees for examiners, giving a net saving of £30,000; (3) the use of word processing and optical mark reading equipment at the holding of recent competition for Garda recruitment, giving a net saving of £40,000.

There has also been reference in the House to a staff of over 200 in the Civil Service Commission. In fairness, I must point out that since 1 January 1982 the number of staff has been reduced from 219 to 164, a reduction of 55 people or 25 per cent. That is probably the highest amount of staff shedding and staff deployed to other areas which has taken place in any Government Department during that period, due in the case of the commission partly to the operation of the embargo but more so because of the introduction of computerisation and electronic scanning equipment and their readiness to see staff deployed to other areas in the Civil Service where they can be used more effectively.

At paragraph 8.5 the committee refer to the need to avoid unnecessary examinations. In fact the recommendation is that the commission should consider that the statutory obligation on them to hold competitions does not preclude a flexible interpretation on how such competitions should be defined, and that, in this context, new or improved measures could be introduced to avoid unnecessary formal examination.

Section 15 of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, requires a "competition" to be held and it also provides that every competition shall consist of at least one test. I should like to assure the House that savings are in fact being achieved in this area by compressing and simplifying the nature of the tests. I should point out that if the commissioners were seen not to be adhering strictly to the law, there would always be the possibility of an unsuccessful candidate challenging the result of the competition.

While the comissioners are, of course, constantly seeking for means to avoid unnecessary formal examinations I will be reviewing the Act in the context of the proposed White Paper on a better public service.

A number of points were made by various speakers, and I will endeavour to refer to them all briefly. The Chairman of the committee referred to the co-operation which he had received from civil servants and people generally whom the committee had contacted, and I appreciate his remarks in that regard. I was anxious that the staff in the various areas in the group of Votes for which I am responsible would go out of their way to be co-operative, and the staff and I were most anxious that the committee would be aware of the difficulties and the conflicting demands upon the commission and the Government. I think the committee recognised those conflicting demands and dealt with them as fairly as one could possibly have hoped for them to do in the course of their report.

Deputy O'Kennedy spoke about matters perhaps somewhat outside the context of the report of the committee on the operations of the Civil Service Commission. However, in the course of some interesting comments he said it was important that there should be an effective discharge of public service duties and that we should examine the structures, gradings, habits and positions within the Civil Service and the capacity to release immense resources. I agree with the Deputy in that regard, and I should like to think that some of the changes which we have already introduced will be conducive to releasing the capacity to deploy those immense resources in the best possible way with the greatest degree of mobility. Obviously the questions of structures and gradings will have to be examined also in the context of the proposed White Paper.

I agree that there are what appears to be an excessive and enormous range of different gradings, many of which do not appear to be relevant or necessary at present. People have different ideas concerning that matter, and usually those in a grade feel it should be continued. However, there is need for a dispassionate examination as to the numbers and range of grades. I do not know the exact number of grades in existence but they certainly run into many hundreds, perhaps a thousand.

Deputy O'Kennedy made a very interesting point when he drew the attention of the House to the fact that, since the departure of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs which represented half of the total 60,000 approximately in the Civil Service, the Civil Service now contains about 30,000 people or 10 per cent of the entire public sector. He said he did not believe that the committee would be content to see the area of their remit confined to the activities of the Civil Service and that public expenditure in relation to the public sector generally should allow the committee to examine areas outside the Civil Service proper and, in particular, local authorities. That is a valid point, but it is no harm for the House to reflect on the fact that my Department's remit is confined to the Civil Service and only in a very limited way to the wider public service. I can, consequently, appreciate the frustrations of the Deputy and those which may be facing the committee.

The Deputy also spoke about the need to ensure that the remit of the Ombudsman was as wide as possible and to his not now having responsibility to examine areas of telecommunications and postal services. I referred to this matter in the House last week and said that once the Office of the Ombudsman had been in operation for some months it was my intention to examine, in conjunction with the Ombudsman, the extent of his remit and to honour a previous undertaking I had given to the House to come back in here if necessary to widen the Ombudsman's remit. There is already power available to the Minister for the Public Service to bring various State bodies within the remit of the Ombudsman through ministerial order. When the office has been in operation for some months and has successfully surmounted the natural teething problems I intend to discuss this with the Ombudsman and to ensure that his remit is as wide as he and I believe it ought to be. The House need have no worry in that regard.

Deputy Gene Fitzgerald referred to some problem he had had while Minister for the Public Service in relation to which I have no personal knowledge and am unable to comment. However, as the Deputy has spoken about it in the House I am sure he feels he has dealt with it adequately. His remarks did ring a particular bell for me in that — and this is an aspect of the operation of the Civil Service Commission which perhaps the committee did not advert to in their report to the extent that they might have — the Civil Service Commission have had a very high reputation over the years with regard to the impartiality of their operations and persons appointed on foot of commission recommendations have never, in my recollection, had the accusation levelled at them that they were appointed from a party political viewpoint. It is very important that the high standard and reputation of the commission is maintained and continued.

There has been a practice over the years whereby constituents approach individual Members of the House asking for their help in relation to their application for a position in the Civil Service. Up to a year ago the tradition was that the Deputy wrote to the Minister for the Public Service, who wrote to the Civil Service Commission, who in turn wrote back saying they would be making the appointment in the normal way. That letter was returned through the conduit and, if the applicant was successful, he or she might have thought it was due to help; if unsuccessful the public representative involved might or might not have said that he or she did the best for them.

I was unhappy with that situation and I was not prepared to pass on dubious queries to the Civil Service Commission. I have instead been writing to Deputies pointing out that canvassing ought to have the effect of disqualification and that were I to make even a formal inquiry from the commission it might be interpreted in that way and my intervention might be harmful both to the Deputy and his constituent. I felt that there was a need for the system to be strengthened.

For some months past I have been in correspondence with the commission asking them to make new regulations in relation to the disqualification rule. I am happy to say that they have recently sent to me new draft regulations, the effect of which will be to tighten this procedure. It is my intention when those regulations come into force to inform Members of the House and other public representatives that any representations sent to me will be forwarded to the commission and will result in the automatic disqualification of the person in respect of whom the representation is made. That is fundamental not only to the operation of a fair and impartial service but also to the realisation of that impartiality on the part of the general public. I put the House on clear notice that in the very near future any representation to me, oral or written, will have the effect of automatically disqualifying the candidate involved.

This should help to improve the reputation and standing of Members who can say clearly and honestly to their constituents that if they were to intervene in any way the candidate would be disqualified. This should serve to show up the rather deceitful attitude that has sometimes been adopted by certain people in suggesting that they were instrumental in obtaining jobs through the Civil Service Commission.

Deputy Gene Fitzgerald also spoke about the difficulty, when the commission operate a myriad of interview boards, of obtaining consistency and the fact that people may not always perform to the best of their ability while appearing before interview boards. I appreciate that point of view. In connection with the changes in relation to the appointment of senior civil servants, through the introduction of the top appointments committee and, more especially, through the introduction of an assessment procedure based on a person's day-to-day performance, I have helped to bring about a situation where people will be promoted on their performance on a daily basis rather than their performance at a 45-minute interview. That new system of appraisal and assessment is being extended to various other management grades in the Civil Service and it is my earnest hope and expectation that it will be possible for me to say by the middle of the summer that a system of appraisal and assessment obtains in relation to all management grades in the Civil Service from the position of secretary to that of executive officer. I hope to come back to the House with further details within the next few months.

Deputy Bruton seemed to be labouring under a misapprehension when he suggested that the figures published in the annual report of the commission did not accurately represent the numbers who took up employment. A certain small number may leave employment within a couple of days of being appointed. The figures contained in the report, while admittedly very high and showing an average of £700 per job filled in 1982, are correct, and the suggestion of the Deputy that they ought to be multiplied by four would bring about a situation where an extremely costly and, perhaps, over-expensive operation might be regarded as being four times more costly than is the case.

The committee's report contains a suggestion regarding the publication of the likely number of jobs to be filled. That number cannot always be gauged with accuracy. I suggest that in future the commission ought to publish the number of posts filled in that grade in the preceding year. This ought to give applicants some idea of the numbers of jobs which might fall vacant.

The Government are faced with the fundamental problem of balancing the availability of positions and the making available of opportunities to all applicants who have the necessary qualifications to throw their hat in the ring and get a fair crack of the whip. That must be balanced against the number of jobs likely to be filled and the cost to the taxpayer. The difficulties are obvious and complex, but one must accept them and come to whatever conclusions are necessary. It may well be that an amendment of the 1966 Civil Service Commissioners Act will be required, but I do not think it can mean an amendment of the basic concept that an independent body, independent of control or interference by any Minister, shall conduct some form of procedure in which the public have confidence and resulting from which posts can be filled on an impartial basis.

In relation to Deputy Bruton's suggestion, I do not think it would be appropriate or acceptable for personnel units with Departments to take on the job of making appointments. These units have quite a task of education, training and retraining to carry out in relation to existing staff.

The concept of the commission was introduced by the first Government in the early twenties. It has stood the test of time very well. The commission have been examining cost-effectiveness. I welcome the report of the committee and the fact that so many of their recommendations endorse the remarks I made in the Dáil on 19 April last. To give the House some idea of the differences that can occur in less than a year, I would refer to column 1525 of the Official Report for 20 April which states:

The Deputy quoted a figure of 17,000 applications for one grade in the Civil Service and said only 12,500 turned up for the examination. So what? Are not the young people of Ireland entitled to apply for jobs? The jobs are scarce enough. Very often job applications dates clash and they are unable to turn up for both examinations. You cannot say you have equality of opportunity unless you have access to that opportunity. Access means that you can apply for and sit for the written examination. Being sanctimonious and asking why they did not all turn up for the examination is just being mealy-mouthed.

As the members of the Public Expenditure Committee are discovering, there is a distinction between mealy-mouthed and having concern for the cost falling on the taxpayer. I hope that the report of the committee will be read by, amongst others, Deputy Mary O'Rourke.

Mr. Keating

I appreciate the interest taken by all those who have contributed and I pay tribute to the frankness and the forthright nature of the Minister's significant contribution. This is an interim report, and I gather there is no fundamental objection to any of the recommendations.

A number of extraneous matters arose in the course of discussion which are not included in the recommendations and which are, therefore, peripheral to this debate. Such a matter is the question of a lottery system. It did not emerge as a recommendation because it did not get adequate support, as the Minister hinted. Accordingly it is not formally on the table and will not be formally on the table as a recommendation from this committee.

I am pleased to note that, at an early opportunity, the Minister intends to communicate with me to discuss the contents of the report. I look forward to responding rapidly and co-operatively to that request. The Minister said the commission is statutorily obliged to consider all valid applications as if they were genuine. In terms of cost-effectiveness the question is not the number of applications, or the number of jobs which might emerge at the end of that consideration, but the process of consideration.

We are submitting that what has happened up to now is that a fairly formal arrangement of very comprehensive, extensive and expensive examinations has operated by and large. In that environment, we contend that a selective, modern, efficient short listing technique and approach which operates in other countries from which we are making inquiries will basically mean that an evaluation of an application would be made by sensible people and could result in a much smaller number being called for a formal examination. That is the kind of suggestion we are making. I agree it must be approached with great caution and taken very carefully.

Such an approach would not leave anybody open to the allegation that an application was not being considered. There is a simplistic approach prevailing at present in relation to the creaming off people at the top of an examination system which could very well result in the wrong candidate getting the position in some cases, or people who were good at doing examinations but were not necessarily qualified getting the post.

With regard to the academic question the Minister dwelt for a moment or two on the suggestion this morning that the academic criterion might be dwelt on by the committee. I can assure the Minister that is not the case. In our recommendation we say that such a short listing mechanism should not be used by setting academic standards above those necessary for the position. In other words the academic qualification should not be the criterion. The Minister said:

Recommendation 8.4 of the Report deals with shortlisting. While the committee do not specify the basis on which shortlisting should be carried out they do say that it should not be done by setting academic standards above those necessary for the particular position.

If during the morning somebody insinuated an over-emphasis in that respect, it should not be misinterpreted.

If I may take the liberty of speaking on behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister's initiative on the question of canvassing for posts in the Civil Service. I hope he will consider extending it beyond that. I would look forward to the day when seeking procurement or advancement by anybody for any post in the public sector would be seen as unethical and something which this House individually and collectively would repudiate. I would be happy to consider to what extent our committee could facilitate the Minister if he requires any support in that respect. That would be in the best interests of everyone concerned.

It places an onus on agencies affected by such a proposal to be responsive and outward-looking and to give a public service. People would be able to get information. This obnoxious practice of sending letters which are open to the interpretation that we can influence the fall of the dice is one which all decent people and right-minded people would wish to have exorcised from our system as soon as possible, if it is not already too late. I welcome the Minister's initiative.

The recommendations in our report appear to find general favour. The Minister indicated support for quite a number of them. He took the committee to task, rightly I think, for not being as specific as we might have been, and I hope will be in due course on the question of the short list. One problem we had in that respect was that our job was not the job of Government, but to make recommendations on our perceptions of inadequacies. The details of such recommendations may very well have to be worked out by the Departments, or by the Government or by the Minister involved in any case. We are not equipped or geared, nor should we be expected, to write chapter and verse on the precise formulation for the improvements.

That said, there is an onus on us to go as far as we can to try to lay as specific a set of recommendations as possible before the Minister. We will take up his gracious invitation. He said he would welcome recommendations from the committee as to how they would short list applicants. There are techniques which are used by people in the private sector who are skilled in dealing with personnel, and which do not involve processing thousands of applications for a relatively small number of jobs. They manage to sift and evaluate a fair amount of information.

I accept that they are not necessarily bound to consider every application equally, but there may be a via media between the two extremes. If that is the case, we should be able to make progress and first, reduce the cost to the taxpayer of elaborate and unnecessary competitions; secondly ensure that we get the best talent and not use simplistic criteria to pinpoint this talent; and thirdly, and not unimportantly, not build up nonsensical expectations among thousands of young people that they will procure a job when the employment potential is extremely limited.

I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to move the motion this morning. I thank my colleagues for their co-operation, and I want to put on record my appreciation of Mr. Judge and his staff who, since they came to work for us, have been extremely helpful. I look forward to coming back to the House with other reports, and I hope they will result in due course in an improvement in our approach to public expenditure.

Mr. Hilliard

I wish to say——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the motion agreed?

Mr. Hilliard

I wish to second the motion. I did not like to interrupt the Minister when he was speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time limit on the motion expires at 2.17 p.m. There was an order of the House that there should be a three hour debate. I am sorry I cannot let the Deputy in. I am looking for agreement on the motion.

Mr. Hilliard

I want to compliment the Minister on his sincerity, knowledge and interest in the matter. I do not agree that it is right to charge examination fees to cut down on applications.

Question put and agreed to.