Vol. 416 No. 6
19 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline (1) the changes, if any, which have been made to the terms of employment of departmental Secretaries in recent years and (2) the plans, if any, he has to extend these changes beyond Government Departments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
On 4 January 1984, it was announced that appointments to the posts of Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary, and equivalent non-general service posts, were to be made on the recommendation of a top level appointments committee. Secretaries appointed under the new system would serve for a period of not more than seven years and would have to retire from such posts at age 60 instead of age 65. Officers aged 55 years or over at 3 January 1984 were eligible for appointment as Secretary but, if appointed, would have to retire after five years or in any case at age 65 years.
The Government decided on 5 March 1987 that, where an appointee reaches the end of his/her term before age 60, the Government would consider the position in each individual case with a view to deciding whether to appoint the person concerned to another position elsewhere in the Civil Service. If the Government decide not to follow this course, then other options are explored, including a possible appointment elsewhere in the public service or in an international organisation. Such appointments would be by mutual agreement. Where these options are not possible, then the Government may, at their discretion, allow early retirement in accordance with the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1963. Where an appointee reaches the end of his/her term after age 60, but before the normal retiring age of 65, these provisions may also be applied. I should stress that Secretaries and Heads of Departments hold office at the will and pleasure of the Government in accordance with section 5 of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956 and that the early retirement provisions are entirely at the discretion of the Government.
My immediate area of responsibility is, of course, the Civil Service and the extension of terms on the lines of those outlined above to other areas is a matter, in the first instance, for the relevant Minister responsible for the service concerned or, in the case of State bodies, for the relevant boards. However, the Deputy may be aware that broadly similar arrangements have been made in respect of the Garda Commissioner and city and county managers.
Would the Minister agree, wearing his hat as Minister responsible for the public service, that it would be very useful to extend the seven year requirement to similar grades, such as Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary and to similar grades in the wider public service, so that people can be either reappointed on merit or make way for those from lower ranks or, indeed, outside the public service who are capable of doing the job?
I supported these measures from the other side of the House, when they were introduced. I would be prepared to look at any aspect but other arguments could be made. For example, there is a cost element in that people may be offered an attractive package at a relatively young age. The position has been radically changed. As we are all aware from discussions at committees of the House and from our involvement with Secretaries at different Departments the age profile of Secretaries and the opportunities available to them have changed dramatically. Last year the arrangements extended to the Garda Commissioner and city and county managers. Perhaps it should be looked at on a case by case basis to see if it should be extended but there can be a cost element.
Will the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to extend it not just throughout the public service to include the chief executive officers at vocational education committee and Eastern Health Board levels but to civil servants? Will he agree further that it would be a good idea to encourage civil servants, having served a seven year period, to work elsewhere in the public or private sectors and to encourage people in the private sector to enter the public service on seven year contracts? Would this not be good for the public service? Would it not stimulate competition and service?
As the Deputy will appreciate, the last part of his question presents many difficulties and I do not want to discuss that matter now. All the people who retired under the new scheme have left the public service.
