I hope our German friends are not concerned about our unemployment figures. The impression given in the House is that unless one is a family member of a Minister, one would not have a chance of getting even a cleaning job in a Department. To come back to real life, the unemployment rate now stands at 4.8% with more than 100,000 foreign workers in the State. To suggest that this Bill has a provision to allow Ministers to use cronyism to get family members into a job is ridiculous. The reduction in freedom of information requests is mainly due to Departments readily——
Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill 2003: Report Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 8:
In page 14, to delete lines 41 and 42.
—(Deputy Burton).
On a point of order, I sought a recommital of earlier amendments on this issue and was voted down by the Minister of State. Now he is taking the liberty to debate an issue on which he prevented me from having my right to be heard.
We are on amendment No. 8.
I am explaining the reduction in freedom of information requests.
He is now dealing with an issue on which he has already suppressed debate. He is taking liberty with the House to present his arguments while insisting that Opposition Members do not have the right to present theirs.
We are on amendment No. 8.
I raised a point of order as to whether the Minister of State is in order in seeking to continue to address a previous amendment.
We must hear the Minister of State because Deputy Burton referred to freedom of information requests.
I wish to clarify that I did not use the word "Minister" but "managers".
Amendment No. 8 deals with fees. There was reference in this debate by the proposer to the Freedom of Information Act.
Deputy Burton made a comparison to the Freedom of Information Act which I wish to clarify.
The Minister of State continued——
Deputy Richard Bruton has made his point. I have requested the Minister of State to deal exclusively with the points raised on amendment No. 8. If the Freedom of Information Act was raised by the proposer——
I raised the issue of how charges affected the number of freedom of information requests.
——it is up to the Minister of State to reply.
The number of freedom of information requests has decreased because people now readily receive responses from Departments rather than having to use the mechanism of the Act.
This provision allows licence holders to charge candidates fees for competition. Section 16(2) of the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 provided for commissioners to charge candidate fees. While there is no intention to charge candidates, there is no reason not to retain an ability to do so in circumstances where it may be necessary. An example may be a professional grade competition where part of it may be a practical examination of the candidates' skills. This may be a costly process and it might be appropriate to discourage frivolous applications. The Minister has retained from the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 any provision that provides for future flexibility. Any fees generated under this section will not be retained by the licence holder and must be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer. Accordingly, the provision has been retained and the amendment is opposed.
I support Deputy Burton's amendment. The point of pricing is either cost recovery or rationing. The notion that to recover costs from young people seeking to apply to the public service is ridiculous and should not be entertained.
It is ridiculous.
Licence holders will be managers in local authorities or health boards and not accountable to this House. The idea that these managers can decide that it is a handy way to collect a few bob to bridge the gap in their estimates——
That cannot happen.
The Minister of State has only explained that it has not happened and not that it cannot happen. He has explained that the provision is necessary to stop frivolous applications. The notion that people will frivolously apply for jobs is so ludicrous that it does not warrant discussion. Perhaps the Minister of State has an idea that the number of people should be rationed. That is where Deputy Burton's point comes into effect. If pricing for medical card applications were introduced, fewer people would apply.
It may seem crazy that people would not pay €15 or €20 for the medical card application form but that is what would happen. Many people would not get their rights. The same applies here. People have a right to apply for a position in the public service and a right not to have obstacles put in their way. Whatever the history of this, whereby some long-forgotten and perhaps long-buried Minister thought it right to insert, why should that be sufficient justification for us to continue with this practice? Deputy Burton is right. We should not have this practice. It is not acceptable and has not been used. It should be removed from the Statute Book.
The Minister of State responded in the manner of Pavlov's dog when I talked about the Freedom of Information Act. Just as in the debate on freedom of information, he said that one of the reasons behind this move was to deter potentially frivolous applications. Where did we hear that before? That was one of the great reasons produced by the wise men, the various Secretaries General who contributed to the freedom of information debate. In her report, the Information Commissioner made clear that but for one case, there was no evidence of serial applicants in a frivolous sense making freedom of information requests. There may be people who had and still have axes to grind. We see unfortunate people outside the gates of this House from time to time. There are people who become entangled in situations and who hold grudges. We understand that, but if one considers an 18 year old who has finished the leaving certificate, how is such a person supposed to have developed a massive grudge against the public services in Ireland, unless some mad teacher was involved and the person is going to make serial, frivolous applications for jobs which he or she has no hope of obtaining?
The Minister of State said something very important. He talked about a labour shortage in this country. Why then, in council estates throughout the country, are there significant numbers of young people, particularly young men, who have left school early and who do not have jobs? Since the Government closed down community employment schemes and back to education opportunities, they are not getting into the labour force. They are precisely the kind of people who, when hopefully there is a change of Government, will be given a new chance under a new Government to get involved in this economy. These people will be deterred if they apply to a health board, a VEC and perhaps a decentralised Department. At a minimum charge for this service of €15 or €25, the fees could quickly run up to €100. That would account for more than 50% of a person's weekly social welfare payment. The Government talks regularly of inequality, which is festering while the Government promotes it. It does not promote equality. This proposal is wrong and the Minister of State should be big enough to acknowledge that.
Deputy Burton has made the point that struck me in listening to the response of the Minister of State. The word "frivolous" jumped out of what he read into the record — "frivolous" applications and "frivolous" responses under the Freedom of Information Act. The Minister of State must recognise that what is involved here is unacceptable. It needs to be nipped in the bud now. I do not need to rehearse the arguments I have put. I know many people who have made numerous applications and who were ultimately successful when they least expected it. That can often be the case. They can never explain why they succeeded on a particular occasion. If fees were involved, those people might never have applied for the opportunity on offer.
We are going to see a very warped access opportunity for many young people applying for different jobs on offer within the public service. This is unacceptable. It is a very important matter which the Minister of State must recognise. Though he is a member of the Progressive Democrats, from his experience outside it he must at least have some recollection of the ordinary decent people in this country. They still expect to see a little humanity left in the Government. I appeal to the Minister of State to have the courage necessary to drop this. He will be applauded if he does so.
Deputy Bruton said that this could be used as a means by some of the agencies to bridge a funding deficit. I made it clear that any fees charged would go directly to central Exchequer funding so there is no incentive for any agency to charge.
This was used in the 1980s for one year and was discontinued. I have not been aware of any outcry since 1956 that it was misused or abused.
It was not continued.
No, it was not.
There must have been good reason.
The Minister of State without interruption, please.
There is no intention of using it to any extent.
Then why have it?
The Minister of State is entitled to his two minutes without interruption.
I apologise.
It was used and discontinued. Clearly there is no intention to use the facility unless there are exceptional circumstances. I am told that John Boland was the Minister who introduced it. It is a flexibility that was in the 1956 Act and one the Minister would wish to have now. I see that as being good common sense if an occasion to use it arises.
Despite what Deputy Burton says, the community employment schemes have not been closed down. They still engage more than 20,000 long-term unemployed people. They have been very successful in training people in order to get them off the unemployed lists. It is wrong of the Deputy to say the schemes have been closed down.
As a result of the degree of flexibility offered and the fact that this issue created no problem in the 1956 Act, the Minister is right to carry it on.
Regarding the community employment schemes, I invite the Minister of State to step outside "Parlon country". Perhaps as a Minister of State he has managed to keep the schemes going in his area but in my constituency and many others which I visited during the recent elections, the schemes have been decimated. The result is that extremely poor people have had a blow dealt to their life opportunities.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 15, line 16, after "known" to insert the following:
"in the Irish language as An Coimisíun um Cheapacháin Seirbhíse Poiblí and in the English language".
The amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 15, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(2) The Government shall ensure that not less than 40 per cent of the Commission are men and not less than 40 per cent are women.".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that with regard to the boards being established under the new arrangements for Civil Service recruitment, the commission has not less than 40% men and 40% women. I have gone through this argument before and do not intend to delay the House. There are a large number of women working in the Civil Service. It is an insult to women that they are not guaranteed parity of esteem with regard to membership of the commission to be created. The same argument would be made by me if the commission were to be entirely composed of men and there were to be no representation by women.
The Minister for Finance has told me on a number of occasions that he has difficulty finding suitable applicants. Regarding public administration and public service, which people on this commission would presumably have to demonstrate a knowledge of, there are a large number of qualified women of all ages, ranks, religions and creeds throughout the country who could more than ably fill a 40% quota. As it is close to the commemoration of Ulysses, I want the Minister to be like Molly Bloom and say “Yes” this time.
Or the man from Del Monte.
Ulster says no.
Where did I hear that before? With regard to the Commission for Public Service Appointments, I support DeputyBurton's appeal. The primary objective of her amendment is to ensure that at least 40% of the composition of the commission is made up of women. We have gone through this argument in regard to a whole series of Bills over the past couple of years and to date, unfortunately, there has been a very limited response. It is very important, particularly given the significant number of women within the public service, that the commission must ensure gender equality. The 40% threshold is an objective which we should all seek to arrive at. I appeal to the Minister to adopt the amendment and join others in ensuring there is real reform in terms of women's access to representative roles and positions on boards, commissions and otherwise.
I support the amendment. I draw the attention of the Minister to section 8.20 of the evaluation of the strategic management initiative, which he quoted and which deals with the issue of equality in the area of human resources. It states: "This would seem to suggest that while the central policy framework is in place, it is not permeated through the service yet." It also states: "A considerable amount of work remains to be done at departmental level to implement equality policy."
It seems, therefore, that if one is appointing a board or commission which will have a heavy influence on recruitment and the way in which Departments think, and will roll out good practice in regard to recruitment and promotion, which is important for women in the public service, it is particularly important that the Minister, even if he does not accept the amendment, gives a cast iron commitment that it is his intention that women will make up at least 40% of the representation on the commission. In the work commissioned by the Minister's Department, there has already been a shot across the bows to say this is not happening. It is very important, if we are to address the issues of equality within the public service, that the Minister takes the opportunity to accept Deputy Burton's amendment. He may surprise us all. However, at a minimum, the Minister should make a commitment to have gender balance on the commission.
I am glad none of the amendments suggested a 50% split on the five man committee, which could be difficult. The amendment was more appropriate when there was a suggestion that there might be some ministerial appointments. However, given that the entire membership of the commission are ex officio members, we are dictated by the gender of those parties.
I reiterate that I am fully committed to the policy of gender equality which is set out in the programme for Government. It is not appropriate to specify in legislation that the membership of each and every State body will conform to the target. In addition, the membership of the CPSA is entirely ex officio and, therefore, the gender balance of the CPSA will depend on the gender of the holders of the relevant offices. At present, that is an 80-20 split which, in practice, means four men to one woman. That will obviously change as the holders of the substantive offices change. By providing for ex officio membership of the commission to ensure the probity of the recruitment process, it is not possible to accept the amendment.
How soon will the Minister have a second woman on the commission?
I cannot tell. However, as my party has been called to order a few times in this regard, the gender balance within the Progressive Democrats is perfect.
As is everything else within the Progressive Democrats.
I thank the Deputy for that comment.
Will the Minister explain what he means by "ex officio members”? To what are they ex officio?
The commission is made up of the Ceann Comhairle, the Secretary General of the Government, the secretary general of public service management and development at the Department of Finance, the chairperson of the Standards in Public Office Commission and the Ombudsman. These are the five ex officio members of the commission. The Ombudsman is the only female member of the commission. However, if the Ceann Comhairle were to be a woman at some future time, that would achieve the 40% target immediately.
He hardly has any plans.
The Minister is correct. Given the composition of the five person commission, only one will be a woman based on existing structures. I find this difficult to accept. Approximately 80% of the staff of the public service up to grade seven are women. However, from grade seven upwards, the participation of women drops so dramatically as to be frightening. While I realise that many positive structures have been put in place to encourage women to stay in the public service, this was only because workers were leaving the sector in their droves to go to the private sector, where better money could be earned. However, many women liked the protection of the public service structure and believed that the Government would at some stage provide child care and some kind of career structure for them if they married and had to take time out. It has not happened yet but we continue to live in hope.
I would not for a moment consider the present Ombudsman to be a token appointee, which she is not. However, it is as if she is a token woman in this instance. While I do not know the gender balance policy of the Progressive Democrats, the only reason all political parties are so anxious to have women involved is that they realise women are becoming conscious of the fact that they want women involved. It has nothing to do with an enlightenment that has suddenly overtaken political parties.
The Minister arrived in the House in a blaze of glory after having served the farming industry in a blaze of glory. However, there are times when courageous stands need to be taken, and this is one. The Minister should at least add an additional person to the commission, who should be a woman with experience of the Civil Service. It would be good for the community, society and men to have women participate on this type of board.
It is difficult to accept, in this day and age, that the old boy's club is still firmly entrenched in legislation. The likelihood of any of the other four office holders being a woman in the next ten years is remote. I see no demand on the part of the Ceann Comhairle for a sex change, which is about the only way it could happen. I ask that an additional person be added to the commission and that it be stated clearly that that person should be a woman. The Minister would probably make history if he did so. The Progressive Democrats are constantly telling us: "If you are not radical, you are redundant." They should break the mould, and in this instance, they would break it for the good of society.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 16, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(l) to establish procedures for the advertisement of vacancies, publication of criteria of qualification, interview of suitable candidates and recommendation for appointment by Government of persons to State boards;”.
We addressed this proposal on a number of occasions in different legislation. During debates on legislation and in questions to the Taoiseach, I have drawn attention to the Government's method of appointing people to a plethora of State boards and quangos of all kinds. The Minister of State will recall RTE's recent "Prime Time" programme which drew attention to this issue, particularly in regard to the so-called prison visiting boards. These are political appointments which provide no access to people outside the loop, have no proper accountability and no measurement of performance. While there are hundreds of these political appointments to boards, quangos, agencies and so on, there is continual opposition to open public competition for which no acceptable or sustainable explanation has been provided.
We have all taken part in the recent debate on the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Bill which provided for at least another 50 such appointments. However, it provided for no open competition, no advertisement and no right of anyone to apply for what are very important positions. The bad practice of the past is still inbuilt and will continue to be perpetuated. There is no willingness on the part of the Government to address this inequitable process of appointments. These positions may not equate with paid public positions but that does not take away from the fact that they are essentially part of the public service. In the absence of any action by the Government to regularise these appointments and open them up to interested citizens, it falls to Opposition Members to make this argument time after time.
My amendment seeks to give the commission for public service appointments such a role, which is important. It is a reasonable amendment which I urge the Minister of State to accept. I am disappointed he did not bring forward his own amendment on Report Stage. Nevertheless, I have done so and I urge him to accept it. I hope we can look forward to a positive response. Make no mistake about it, this proposal will have to be accepted and taken on board by the Government at some point. It is very important to have openness and transparency in appointments to all these State boards and agencies and this body will be no different. I strongly urge the Minister of State to take on board the arguments presented over a number of years so that there will be a new era of openness and transparency. There should be an open opportunity for all citizens to offer their expertise, energies and talents and it should not be confined to a clique in any particular political circle.
Appointments to State boards do not come within the scope of the Bill. The Bill deals with recruitment to the Civil Service and certain public service bodies. As I said on Committee Stage, arrangements for the composition of and appointments to the boards of State bodies are normally set out in the legislation establishing the bodies in question.
These arrangements are designed to ensure the efficient management of the individual bodies. Appointments to boards are generally made by the Minister with responsibility for the body in question, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance. In making appointments, Ministers must take into account any specific legislative or policy requirements such as those contained in the Workers Participation (State Enterprises) Act and the Government's policy on gender balance on the boards of State bodies.
Ministers seek to ensure that people appointed to the board of a State body will bring a diverse range of relevant skills and experiences to the body. Where appropriate, Ministers may consider having representation from different strands of society such as the business community, consumers, trades unions and other social partners. I was appointed by the Minister to Bord Bia as a farmer representative. The Consumers Association was also represented on the board, as were industry, the co-operatives and so on. The existing arrangements follow the routines and practices of previous Governments.
Perhaps the Minister of State will note the wording of my amendment which seeks to establish procedures for the advertisement of vacancies, publication of criteria of qualification, interview of suitable candidates and recommendation for appointment by Government of persons to State boards. Is he saying the commission will have no such function? Is that the bottom line of his reply?
The Deputy will recall my first line which states that appointments to State boards do not come within the scope of the Bill.
That is not quite the same thing. It is imperative that some vehicle is found to establish procedures in order to address what I regard as a fundamental inequality in access to all of these boards, agencies, etc. The commission can play a part in ensuring procedures are drawn up to deal with issues such as the advertisement of vacancies, publication of criteria of qualification, etc. I recommend the amendment to the Minister of State. I recommend the thrust and principle behind the proposition and hope the Minister of State will agree at some stage that it is the correct procedure to adopt. I look forward to that day.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 17, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(2) Where the Commission is of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with the principles and policies of this Act, in particular if it forms the opinion that there has been a failure to apply codes of practice, it may investigate or cause to be investigated the matter on its behalf by a person appointed under section 15.”.
There is a provision in section 14 of the Bill whereby the commission may investigate interference in recruitment practices where an individual is thought to have interfered improperly. It appears that there should be a corresponding provision whereby if the commission forms the opinion that there has been a failure by the recruiting body to comply with the principles and policies of the Act, it should equally have the power to have an investigation conducted. We must ensure there is compliance with the codes of practice, which is so important to underpin devolved recruitment. If there is any failure in respect of the application of these principles, it is important that the commission should be in a position to pursue the matter and have it investigated in the manner outlined in my amendment.
I have a concern in regard to this matter which leads me to support this amendment. There might be a tendency towards geographic preferentialism in the recruitment of staff. Convenience would suggest that it makes sense to recruit people who live or originate reasonably close to the location of the institution in question, particularly if that institution is located in a place other than the capital city. Over time, there will be a tendency for people from that locality to want to apply to work in the Department that is located close to their home.
In the case of the Garda Síochána and that other great institution, the Catholic Church, there is a policy not to post people close to their home. There are good reasons for that, including the maintenance of that necessary distance which is part of being a public servant, whether it is in a voluntary organisation such as the Church or a public organisation of the State. I am concerned that there would be a creeping tendency towards localism and particularism in the choices of staff. It is important that an antidote to that be included in the legislation. Deputy RichardBruton's amendment would be of assistance in that regard as it would provide a means at national level of ensuring this does not happen.
I make this contribution as a resolute opponent of the principle underlying this legislation. The legislation, combined with decentralisation, is the single greatest act of administrative and political vandalism undertaken by any Government in the past 50 years. It is truly appalling. We are watching the destruction of one of the greatest institutions of the State, the Civil Service. It is something we might take for granted because we inherited it from the predecessor administration in the State, the British. We can, therefore, treat it rather lightly and be more than happy to put it aside on supposedly patriotic grounds. However, I believe a unified Civil Service incarnates the nation. In that sense I am a strong nationalist. I believe in a national approach to matters in general and to the Civil Service. I deplore the tendency to break up the Civil Service which has been manifest in the Government of the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil.
I place them in that order because it appears to be their order of importance, as indicated by the absence of Fianna Fáil Deputies from the House at present. The only republican present is Deputy Ó Caoláin——
Excuse me.
——although I am a republican as well.
The Deputy arrived into the House only a few minutes ago.
I was attracted by the Minister of State's oratory. In fact, Deputy Ó Caoláin was speaking at the time. I am sorry about the passing remark I made. Republicanism is not my strong suit.
We are discussing something serious in this legislation. I deeply regret that despite my private and public efforts, I have been unable to dissuade the Government from proceeding with this approach. As somebody with more experience in this House than any Member except the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I cannot say how strongly I feel about this matter. Decentralisation is terrible in terms of the effect it will have on the Civil Service.
I am not concerned primarily about the impact on individual families, although it is an important humane consideration. I have the greatest sympathy for families who are disrupted, especially two income families where both spouses cannot be decentralised to the same location at the same time without huge personal disruption. It is an important secondary consideration but my primary concern is the impact this will have on the nation and the conduct of the nation's business. The Civil Service is not a toy with which one can play. It is a great institution of the State, like the courts and this House. It should not be kicked about but, unfortunately, that is what is happening.
While Deputy Bruton's amendment will not solve the problem in its entirety, it is a move in that direction. I hope Members will pay attention to my remarks which I make with the greatest sincerity. A serious mistake is being made. I do not blame the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, for making the best of it in his constituency. If I were in his position, I would probably do the same. One takes whatever advantages come one's way as a Minister of State and they are often infrequent, if that is not a contradiction in terms. As a concept, however, this is mad.
I welcome Deputy John Bruton to the House at this late stage and I reject, on my behalf and on behalf of the Government, his charge of vandalism of the Civil Service. It is a little rich coming from this Deputy, who got great kudos from bringing the EU veterinary headquarters to his constituency, County Meath.
I dealt fully with that argument when it was advanced by a Fianna Fáil councillor who is obviously briefing the Minister of State.
It is tremendous to have the headquarters here and there is no reason that they cannot operate efficiently in that location. Likewise, there is no reason that the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Department of Agriculture and Food would not operate efficiently in Killarney and Portlaoise, respectively.
I accept the sincere concerns expressed by Deputy Richard Bruton with regard to a failure to comply with the high standards laid down. There are three sections in the Bill to deal with that. Section 52 allows the commission to revoke a recruitment licence in a case where the licence holder has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the licence. It states:
Where the Commission forms the opinion that——
(a) a licence holder has failed or is failing to meet the terms and conditions of the recruitment licence concerned granted by them,
(b) since the grant of the recruitment licence, the circumstances relevant to the grant have changed and are such that, if an application for a recruitment licence were made in the changed circumstances, it would be refused,
...the Commission may revoke the recruitment licence.
One condition of the licence is compliance with codes of conduct issued by the commission.
Section 43 provides that the Commission for Public Service Appointments will grant a recruitment licence to an applicant only if it is satisfied that the applicant can and will observe the appropriate standards and codes of practice. The section also provides that the licence holder is responsible to the Commission for Public Service Appointments for ensuring that the terms and conditions of the licence and relevant codes of practice are fully complied with.
Section 15 enables the commission to investigate the exercise of functions under the Bill by a licence holder or a listed recruitment agency. It does not imply that there must have been any wrongdoing on anybody's part.
The proposed amendment would substantially increase the powers of the commission to conduct inquiries for failure to comply with principles and policies. This is less precise than the exercise of functions. The proposed amendment would also result in the provision being addressed to any person, not necessarily in the context of a person exercising a function under the Bill. Not only is there a vagueness of language in the concept of principles and policy, a failure to comply with a request under section 15 in this context would render a person guilty of an offence. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.
I accept there are provisions elsewhere in the Bill whereby the commission has the power to revoke the licence where a body is believed to be not fulfilling the conditions. The purpose of the amendment, however, is to ensure that should a non-compliance arise with regard to recruitment or a competition, the commission would have the power to move swiftly to deal with it. While there is provision to move swiftly if an individual is seen to be interfering with a competition, there is no corollary power to move equally swiftly where the recruitment agency is not fulfilling the proper procedures.
I accept that under section 15 the commission may authorise an investigation of the exercise by a licence holder of functions under the Act but that is a general power rather than a specific power to respond to an individual breach. That is the reason I put down this amendment. There must be a power for the commission to take action on the strength of reports that something is happening. Perhaps there is another part of the Bill that gives the commission the power to say, even to a licence holder who is duly appointed, that he or she is stepping over the line and must correct this or there will be an investigation.
I support the amendment. I am not certain the Minister understands the rigorous interviews that must be undergone before entry to the Civil Service. It is quite difficult — there is a high standard. I am worried about this. Will the licence holder be the Elite Recruitment Agency or temps.com? How will the system operate? Who will be awarded a licence? If there were not enough people available to fill certain posts, recruitment agencies might lower the standard of interview in order to hold on to their licences. That is not what it should be about. This possibility worries me. When it comes to the attention of the commission that an investigation is necessary it will be too late. The damage will have been done.
Currently, people who attend an interview to become part of the great institution of the Civil Service know that the process will be fair and above board and that they will be treated as an equal when they step into the room. If they are not good enough they will not make it and if they are good enough they will. Now, however, it is more than likely that we will see political appointees with licences recruiting in local areas. There will be a reinforcement of political parties in the organisation. If an applicant happens to be a member of the party he or she will gain an extra two points on the scale. That is worrying.
It worries me that a Minister who is a member of the PDs, whose members consider themselves more righteous than the rest of us, is introducing this. When the complaints come in, as they will, and the commission is obliged to investigate, it will be too late because the honest people who have been given licences will be damaged as well. Then there will be another round of tribunals. I hope the person who negotiated the rates for the current tribunals will not be involved with the next round because he or she did a great job.
The Minister will be aware of suggestions that organisations such as the Freemasons played a substantial role in the system of promotion within the UK police service in the past. I am not aware of any organisation that could play such a role in this jurisdiction currently. I will forebear to make the comment Deputy Lynch might wish me to make because I am feeling generous today. Leaving that aside, however, there is the possibility that unarmed secret organisations could be created which would bring people together for congenial evenings at which they would acquire a connection with one another in their membership of the club. Organisations such as this could operate to assist promotion. If the institution is in a comparatively small town it will be virtually impossible to prevent people from interview boards socialising with candidates for appointment. Safeguards are extremely important. It is in everybody's interest, including those who might be the victims of unjust accusations, that care is taken.
It is true that safeguards are important. They certainly seem to be important on this side of the House because there are constant suggestions that the Minister is introducing legislation to suit himself, his family, his cronies, his parish or his town. I remind Deputy Lynch about the provisions for application for a recruitment licence by office holders. Section 44(1) states:
Subject to subsection (3), each of the following office holders may apply to the Commission to hold a licence (in this Act referred to as a “recruitment licence”) for the purposes of this Act:
(a) the Secretary General of a Department of State or, where more than one person holds the rank of Secretary General in a Department of State, the Secretary General who is the principal officer of the Department;
(b) the chief executive officer of a health board;
(c) the manager of a county council or city council for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001;
(d) the chief executive officer of a vocational education committee established under the Vocational Education Acts 1930 to 2001;
(e) the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána;
(f) in the case of any other public service body, including any part of the Civil Service to which paragraph (a) does not relate, the person who is the chief executive officer, by whatever name known, of the body concerned.
It will not be Tom Parlon, Michael McDowell or Mary Harney who applies for the recruitment licence. It will be the principal officers of the bodies mentioned and there will be substantial controls.
The point we are making is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". What we have is good. Why is the Minister changing it?
Hear, hear.
I have nothing to say about any of the categories of people the Minister has named other than that those I have met are decent, upstanding people. However, we have a system that works. Why are we changing it? In this era of tribunals and suspicion and disdain for politicians, if something is being changed for no good reason it is worth examining. People have a right to ask questions. They want to know why the system is being changed. If it works perfectly well, if there is no hint of corruption about it, if it is open and above board, particularly in light of the Freedom of Information Act, why is the Minister changing it?
Why is the Minister intent on localising recruitment? Everyone in Cork city knows the city manager and he has more access to some people than others. What is to stop a person on the street approaching him and asking him to look after his son who has an interview in the morning? What will stop them meeting him on the golf course?
He will have to live in Dublin to manage Cork.
Yes. This is a legitimate question that needs to be asked. If we have a system that works and serves us well, why should we change it? I can think of lots of things the Minister should change but this is not one of them. Why is he changing the system of appointment? Why is he doing it?
It is stone mad.
This debate has shown once again the deep suspicion among those on the Opposition benches about the proposed change to the system. There has been no White Paper explaining the benefits of the change or the criteria under which the Minister will agree to devolved recruitment.
The Bill makes it clear that if any county manager or any of the bodies listed applies for a devolved recruitment licence, it will get that licence regardless of whether it is in the public interest. There is no public interest test being applied in this legislation. Once a city or county manager signs up to a commitment that he or she will apply certain rules that have been published in codes of practice by the commission, the commission must grant the recruitment licence. In turn, there will be a list of agencies. There can be thousands of agencies which can be listed as acceptable and all they have to do is sign up and accept that certain things will happen. There will now be a whole network of managers who will have devolved responsibility and who can pick any one of dozens of recruitment agencies to undertake their recruitment.
The Minister says he is very conscious of the need for fail-safe mechanisms. However, we are now spawning a huge web of recruitment facilities to replace what was a centralised, well policed and well managed recruitment system that applied codes of practice coherently and knew what it was doing. I have never heard a complaint that it was ever done other than properly.
Hear, hear.
The Minister is moving to a web-like system of recruitment which will be outside the reach of the standards of accountability that we expect in this House. He is making an act of faith that it will work well. However, if we are to do this, it must be done only where there is a manifest public interest in having devolved recruitment for specific reasons which can stand up to scrutiny. If we are to go down this road, at a very minimum this public interest requirement must be included. The commission must sign off that when a request came in, it was justifiable that it was better to go this route than to go through the tried and trusted system of recruitment through the centralised Public Appointments Commission. That is the issue. The discussion has moved beyond this amendment which acknowledges that things can go wrong and suggests that there should be an opportunity for the commission to have a fast-track intervention to deal with cases where things go wrong. It will be much harder for it because there will be so many agencies potentially at work in this to be aware and respond to breaches of these codes.
We are being asked by the Government to make a massive act of faith in making this change which is not being justified in any way to the satisfaction of the House. The Minister is seeking to make changes that were rejected by the Secretaries General in 1996 and which are not underpinned by the evaluation commissioned under the strategic management initiative. There are, as I cited, umpteen cases where the basic procedures are breaking down and not being implemented within the public service. Here we are proposing that we should endorse those weaknesses by pushing an imperfect system which is even more likely to suffer from imperfections because it is being pushed out where it will not be subject to scrutiny. We ought, therefore, to make this amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We will proceed to deal with amendment No. 13. Amendment No. 14 is related. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 19, to delete line 21 and substitute the following:
17.—(1) The Commission shall promote best practice in recruitment.
(2) The Commission shall, at regular intervals, conduct both random and systematic assessments of recruitment practices being implemented pursuant to this Act in order to determine whether best practice is being adhered to.
(3) The Commission may carry out such assessment as it con-".
The purpose of this amendment is to introduce into the work of the commission the concept of promoting best practice in recruitment. It is very important that the commission should set about investigating what are practices in relation to recruitment and promotion and carrying out assessments where necessary and start to promote best practice within our system. As I pointed out, we have very unsatisfactory arrangements in respect of promotion. Many promotion competitions are not open to people of merit. We are holding back people who ought to be promoted. We are not offering a proper system to bring the best talent forward within the public service.
We need to introduce the concept of best practice, of which the commission must become a fearless promoter. What my amendment is seeking is not only that the commission would have the general role of promoting best practice in recruitment, it would also at regular intervals conduct both random and systematic assessments of recruitment practices being implemented pursuant to this Bill in order to determine whether best practice is being adhered to.
We discussed the last amendment. We will now have a very wide range of players in the field of recruitment who will be operating, in turn, under a very wide range of persons who hold recruitment licences, namely, managers of different agencies. There will be a very large web of agents involved in recruitment. It is important that the commission take on the role of regularly trying to promote and achieve best practice in these areas. If someone gets onto the list as an acceptable recruitment agent, having got through the hurdles and being free to operate as he or she chooses, that should not be the end of the matter. We need a commission which actively promotes and sets tests and reporting requirements for agencies which would be players in the recruitment business to ensure we are seeing the best practice rules applied. This would strengthen the Bill. It would also give the commission a remit that it has not had to date. It is very much seen in terms of promoting codes of practice now but not in terms of going out and seeing what is the practice on the ground, ensuring those involved in the marketplace are compliant, trying to introduce newer procedures and so on.
I would prefer to go further than what is proposed in Deputy Richard Bruton's amendment which suggests that the commission should promote best practice. However, best practice is essentially a subject of judgment. What is best, what is better, what is worse are all matters for political assessment. They are not matters that can be determined by a judge in the normal course of events. If we are making law, it should be justiciable. I would prefer to provide that the commission shall promote uniform practice in regard to recruitment. The maximum requirement should be uniformity in the way competitions are conducted because uniformity is the essence of the Civil Service Commission.
I have had occasion to travel to other countries to talk about the reasons for Ireland's economic success and there is a great appetite to hear about it. One of the reasons for Ireland's economic success dates back to 1924 and the establishment of the Civil Service Commission and the uniformity it established in regard to appointments and promotions in the public service. This has created a sense that this is an honest country with an honest Civil Service. The very boring uniformity in regard to promotion is what gives confidence to people. It should be a responsibility of the commission to promote the maximum possible degree of uniformity in practice in recruitment. I ask the Minister whether he would consider this as a possible approach.
I believe the section is drafted in unduly permissive language. It states the commission may carry out such assessment, may make such recommendations. Once the commission is set up, it will not need our permission to do anything; it may do it anyway. If we are putting it in legislation, it should be provided not merely that the commission may carry out these assessments but that it shall do so. That is why it is in place. If we do not provide that the commission shall carry out assessments, why are we putting it in the legislation? Why are we discussing section 17 if it merely gives the commission permission to do something it has permission to do anyway? We should be mandating it to carry out such studies. We need such studies. We need to know there will not be one standard in Killarney, another in Cork and yet another in Trim. It is not a question of whether one is in the golf club in Killarney or plays hurling with the hurling club in Trim. I should point out that Trim has a very good hurling club and Meath hurling is coming on, albeit slowly.
They should catch up on their football.
They are doing better in hurling than in football. This legislation is not drafted tightly enough. We should tell them that we have to do these things and we should tell them that we want the maximum degree of uniformity. Would the Minister consider that worthwhile? Will he graft that on to Deputy RichardBruton's amendment?
I support DeputyBruton's amendment. We need a much more direct approach on the work of the commission. I noted the construction of section 17, which leaves to the commission the decision on whether assessments will be carried out. Whatever it may deem appropriate is totally non-specific as there are no guidelines for what might be appropriate. It is very important that the wording in the amendment seeks not only to ensure best practice, but emphasises in the word "shall" that this is part of the remit of the commission. It is an expected performance, not an optional position for the commission to adopt. It is very important that the commission shall, at regular intervals, conduct both random and systematic assessments. What is required here is not just the granting of licences per se, but proper scrutiny of practices once the process is in train. That is an ongoing requirement. Best practice is something that is constantly being updated and reviewed. This is a continuum of work that must go on and on. That is what will ensure best practice and transparency and what will guarantee public confidence in the system. This is one of the most important elements in ensuring we have the very best public service. I recommend both amendments to the Minister.
Section 17 deals with assessments by the commission to determine whether a public service body should be regulated by the commission. These assessments are set out in a report to the Minister which will contain the commission's recommendations in the assessment. The commission will assess recruitment practice and make recommendations in line with the standard of probity, merit, equity and fairness which are required of the commission by section 13. Section 17 provides that the report must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas if that recommendation is not acted upon in the manner and in the time provided for in section 17(3). This is required to ensure that Ministers take seriously the recommendations made by the commission. Accordingly, section 17 serves a distinct purpose and it would not be appropriate to tack on this provision, which relates to the ongoing monitoring of bodies that are already regulated by the commission.
Section 13(2)(b) requires the commission to be guided by the principles of good recruitment practice in exercising its function. Section 13(1)(c) requires the commission to meet on a regular basis and agree on established procedures which it deems appropriate and which permits it to carry out its functions effectively. This includes the implementation of systems to monitor, audit and evaluate the recruitment and selection process. Section 15 allows the commission to conduct such investigations of licence holders as it sees fit. Furthermore, the commission is required under section 43(5) to examine and evaluate licence holders to ensure compliance with the conditions set out in section 45 on recruitment licences.
Taken together, these provisions adequately address the objectives of this amendment. I am satisfied that the objectives of the amendment are already met elsewhere in the legislation and, accordingly, I am unwilling to accept this amendment.
The Minister may be reading from a script that was given to him, but he has not addressed the issue. The central point is that we will have a myriad of recruitment players in the recruitment market acting under different licences and different agency arrangements. This side of the House is seeking to secure that the commission will see as its central role to make sure that the operation of those bodies is absolutely kosher. The Minister has stated that the commission will be bound by the principles of good recruitment practice. We know that. We do not have doubts about the integrity of the Ceann Comhairle, the Secretary General to the Government and to the Department with responsibility for the public service, the Ombudsman and the Standards in Public Office Commission. That is not the issue.
The issue is whether the large number of agencies that will now be licensed to operate in the recruitment business are to be policed in some way. We need an agency that ensures we get very high standards in recruitment. We are putting the high standards that we enjoyed in the past at very significant risk if we go down this route. There has to be a balance. The Minister has stated that it is inappropriate to tack it on. That may be correct and maybe we should have a new section devoted exclusively to this. The Minster is right in stating that the section to which I have added is extremely constrained in its terms. Under amendment No. 14, I sought to remove that restriction of confining it to these exclusions in health and in local authorities. We need to have a commission that sees it as its job to ensure that this new process, which will have tentacles everywhere, still abides by high principles. To state that it will have principles and that it will apply codes of practice does not mean that every element will also respond.
A procedure must be put in place where the commission can set about trying to police it. The commission must set out the criteria, do the spot checks and assessments and look systematically at the way the rules are being applied. These are the things that need to be done. We are bending over backwards to claim that local credit unions should apply best practice to comply with best practice principles in the financial area. We produce huge tomes of legislation to ensure that that happens. We are now setting up agencies to decide whose career will be selected from these recruitment procedures, yet we are not willing to put in the same compliance procedures. Surely it is just as important to have high standards of compliance in agencies that are deciding the future of individuals as it is in agencies that take in the deposits from those who have made savings.
In his pre-prepared response the Minister has not addressed the thrust of the debate that we have had here. It is inadequate and I ask him to think again.
In the event that this legislation is repealed by a new Government which decides that we should revert to the old approach, would any of the licence holders be entitled to claim compensation?
The Minister should know that shrugging his shoulders is not good enough. He is a big boy now and he is getting paid to make better decisions than that.
I ask this because it arose with the rubrication of taxi licences. Let us suppose that a new Government comes in and fundamentally disagrees with the legislation and decides to scrap it, will there be a possible liability for someone who has a licence that runs for a couple of years and is chopped because a new Government has come in and stopped it?
The licence holders are Secretaries General of a Department, the chief executive officer of a health board, the manager of a county or city council for the purposes of the Local Authority Act, the chief executive officer of a vocational education committee established under the Vocational Education Acts 1930-2001, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and in the case of any other public service body, including any part of the Civil Service to which paragraph (a) does not relate, the person who is the chief executive officer by whatever name known of the body concerned. The licence holders are heads of Departments who would choose in some circumstances to recruit locally. The Bill provides for central recruitment and I expect that will be the normal manner of recruitment. However, it provides that, if necessary, heads of Departments can recruit locally.
What if they delegate that decision?
They cannot do that. They can engage recruitment agencies from the public service to assist them but the licence holder has full responsibility for decisions taken. I cannot imagine a circumstance where the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána would seek compensation for a change in the law.
I am not suggesting that. I was referring to private people.
The provision does not apply to private people. I have lost my train of thought.
The Minister of State is easily distracted.
I realised the Deputy's thoughts on the provision did not apply. Section 13(1)(c) requires the commission to meet on a regular basis and agree and establish procedures which it deems appropriate and which permits it to carry out its functions effectively, including the implementation of systems to monitor, audit and evaluate the recruitment and selection process. The five esteemed individuals involved in the commission are required to meet on a regular basis and, if they suspect a deficit, they can undertake a full audit. I am satisfied the controls in place are adequate.
This is an important element in ensuring confidence within the House given the new system will be out of the reach of standard systems of accountability. The House will need to be assured that the commission is acting on our behalf and is applying to the recruitment process the type of compliant standards we have bent over backwards to ensure apply in respect of financial institutions as small as credit unions. Similarly, the commission should be the regulatory agency and should take seriously the task of ensuring compliance. There is no such provision in the Bill as it stands. It includes only a power of investigation if the commission so wishes. There is no obligation on the commission to ensure compliance. These are very different approaches.
We are much more demanding of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority and other agencies which regulate the financial sector. It is important we take the same serious view of standards applied to recruitment to public service positions. For that reason, I believe the amendment should be accepted.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 21, line 12, to delete "Minister" where it firstly occurs and substitute "Standards in Public Office Commission".
This amendment seeks to ensure that declarations of interest be made to the Standards in Public Office Commission rather than the Minister as provided for in the Bill. However, as the Minister of State outlined, the chairperson of the commission is a member of the board and such an arrangement would not be appropriate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 23, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(a) the observance of the appropriate independence between appointment to the public service and political appointments,”.
Concern was expressed that there be an appropriate independence between appointments to the public service and political appointments. The amendment seeks the insertion into section 24 of a new subsection (a). There was much concern that the Minister was not properly dealing with the issue of political appointees and advisers. The amendment, if accepted, could assist in dealing with the concerns expressed. I am interested to hear how the Minister of State proposes to deal with the matter.
The Labour Party has been equally concerned throughout all Stages of the Bill about whether a backdoor system is being created to allow political appointees, say a month before a Government calls a general election, to be appointed to what is called "an unestablished position" in the Civil Service in a permanent capacity.
The Minister of State must provide us with reassurances that that cannot happen. Given that we are all human, people presented with such an opportunity could find it difficult to resist it. The Minister must reassure the House such opportunities do not exist and that that cannot happen. The public has long been seething about the number of political advisers employed by Government at enormous cost and would find unbearable the thought that such people were to become a permanent part of the structure. The Minister must reassure the Opposition that will not happen.
I had intended to put my comments on this issue during discussion on a later amendment. However, it is appropriate at this point to draw attention to a proposal on page 54, lines four to 12, to delete the section of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 which prevents those appointed by Government as special advisers being appointed to the permanent Civil Service. It is appropriate to draw attention to that proposal in the context of Deputy Bruton's amendment.
The section of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 which the Government proposes to delete was designed to avoid backdoor entry to the Civil Service by special advisers to respective political parties in government. Amendment No. 31 in my name seeks to reverse that proposal. Deputy Bruton's amendment is important in the context of stating clearly that there must be independence between appointment to the public service and political appointments. I invite the Minister of State to respond to the points I have raised regarding the deletion of the appropriate section of the Ethics in Public Office Act. That must give rise to real concern regarding what the Government intends to do.
There is undoubtedly a significant question mark regarding the independence of the appointment to the public service and the fact that it is now removing one of the debarments that has heretofore prevented abuses regarding those appointed as special advisers, not because they have come through any open competition for appointment but because they are invariably apparatchiks of political parties. There are question marks. I draw attention to that which is coming later in the Bill at this juncture since it is appropriate to do so. It underpins and underscores the importance of Deputy Bruton's amendment.
We are ploughing old ground. Deputy Lynch raised the issue of the appointment of special advisers, a matter dealt with on Committee Stage. Under the Bill as published, a special adviser cannot be appointed to a permanent post unless the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 was changed to allow an adviser to remain in office beyond the term in office of the relevant Minister and there was a Civil Service competition under codes of practice for the post concerned following an order made by the Minister for Finance under section 6 of the Bill.
The Bill was amended on Committee Stage to move the subsection dealing with special advisers; it is now subsection (1) instead of subsection (2). The effect of the amendment is that a special adviser cannot be appointed to a permanent established position in the Civil Service unless there are further amendments to the Bill once enacted and to the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 which requires that advisers lose office at the same time as the Ministers whom they serve. The net effect is to remove the appointment of special advisers permanently from the scope of the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Acts. There are no circumstances under the Bill where a special adviser can be appointed to a permanent post.
I can understand the Deputy's concern since her own party when in government for a short period had the highest number of special advisers of any party, either before or since.
That is probably why it did such a good job.
Unfortunately, that back door to which the Deputy referred is closed as far as this Bill is concerned.
It was never open.
I will refer to the comments of Deputies Richard Bruton and Ó Caoláin. Section 13 requires that the commission establish standards of probity, merit, equity and fairness to be followed in the public interest in the recruitment and selection of persons for positions in the public service. Those principles must be reflected in codes of practice which dictate how recruitment must be conducted by licence holders. In this way, the licence holder must adhere to the guiding principles of probity at all times. These measures adequately ensure the substance of the amendment which I am, therefore, unwilling to accept.
I must accept that the Minister of State's assurances are robust on the basis of the sections that he quotes and the necessary changes that would be needed to use those provisions improperly. On that basis, if no other Deputy has any observations, I will not proceed with my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 25, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"(10) Where the licence holder fails to fully comply with the conditions of its licence and has failed to apply the code of practice, it shall be deemed not to have been entitled to make or confirm appointments.".
This may simply be a technical point to which the Minister of State might respond. What happens where a licence holder has failed fully to comply with the conditions of his or her licence or to apply a code of practice in recruitment? If that were found to have happened, under this provision the person would be deemed not to have been entitled to make or confirm appointments. The issue obviously arises if a recruitment agency acting on behalf of a designated body with a licence has wrongly applied or failed to observe codes of practice and an individual has wrongly been selected before another. What happens to the appointment then?
This amendment would require the disqualification of a candidate because a licence holder had not complied with a code of practice. In effect, a candidate would be punished for the failure of a public service licence holder. It is not tenable to deprive someone of a job for which he or she qualified in good faith because a third party has failed to follow procedures. However, in cases where the candidate is a party to improper interference in a competition, section 56 permits the removal of that person from the position obtained as a result of the improper interference. In cases where the licence holder is solely responsible for a tainted competition, the licence may be amended or revoked and a criminal offence may also have been committed. The commission has the power to investigate any procedure to determine what went wrong and issue revised codes of practice to remove any weakness in procedures from future competitions.
I can understand what the Minister of State is saying. It is a difficult call, since if the licence holder has wrongly applied certain rules and ensured the appointment of someone over a better candidate and that successful candidate is not found to have been complicit, the appointment stands. Equally, an injustice has been done to another candidate who did not get the post. I presume that the view of the Attorney General was sought regarding the equity of this provision. If the failure materially changed the selection, we are still standing by the flawed selection procedure. However, if the Minister of State is satisfied that that is robust and fair and would be deemed to be natural justice in the case of such a recruitment, I will accept this. However, there may be cases where the aggrieved party who did not get the post would feel that the confirmation of the person in the post was in breach of his or her rights in natural justice and would seek to challenge the right to appoint the other person, even though the successful person was not complicit and it was the fault of the recruiting agent. However, if the Minister of State is satisfied that the issue is legally sound and will not be open to challenge on the grounds of natural justice, I will not push it.
I am satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 24 are cognate and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 28, lines 4 to 6, to delete all words from and including "Exchequer" in line 4 down to and including "1993" in line 6 and substitute "Comptroller and Auditor General Acts 1866 to 1998".
The reason for this amendment is very straightforward. The two Acts referred to in the Bill have been updated and we believe the more relevant Acts would be the Comptroller and Auditor General Acts 1866 to 1998. It is a technical matter.
I have consulted the office of the parliamentary counsel on this proposed amendment and I am advised that the Acts referred to in the section are those which deal with Accounting Officers specifically. The collective citation of the Comptroller and Auditor General Acts 1866 to 1998 covers not only those Acts and functions relating to Accounting Officers but also those of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The proposed amendment is less precise regarding the relevant provisions. References to the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts 1866 and 1921 are well known as identifying the Accounting Officer functions. The parliamentary counsel has advised that for the sake of clarity it is better to identify the relevant Acts rather than use a collective citation which, while covering the Acts relating to Accounting Officers, is indicative of a constitutional office holder, that is, the Comptroller and Auditor General. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.
Under the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, the role of the Accounting Officer is important. It was one of the great initiatives of the Gladstone Administration to bring in that legislation which lasted up to the 1993 Act introduced here. In each case in question an Accounting Officer accounts to the House, in line with the 1993 Act, as regards the value for money for the public service supplied.
I would like the Minister of State to address the issue of value for money received on the expenditure for judicial appointments. In 1961 there were only 58 judges, now there are 102. It was announced yesterday that the Government wants eight more judges to be appointed before the House goes into recess. There may well be a need for judges. I do not know. The point I want to make is that an independent assessment has not been made to the House. If we are to examine in the broader sense the public service issues, there should be accountability to the House. Judges should not be appointed year after year, adding to the numbers — thereby creating even more work for them — without some evaluation being undertaken. I want to take the opportunity to put my concerns on the record of the House. I understand that a Bill is to be rushed through the House before 8 July when we go into recess.
I note the Deputy's concerns, but it is not relevant to this amendment. I congratulate him on his election to the European Parliament. We will miss him around here.
I thank the Minister of State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 29, line 4, after "known" to insert the following:
"in the Irish language as An tSeirbhís um Cheapacháin Phoiblí and in the English language".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 31, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(d) to formulate proposals for submission to Government on the development of a system of reward mechanisms to enhance the performance of those in the public service,”.
Section 36 deals with the functions of the board of the PAS. The board's duties include representing the interests of the public service, considering and approving plans and strategic objectives put forward by the chief executive and so on. One of the issues the board should look at is to formulate proposals for submission to the Government on the development of a system of reward mechanisms to enhance the performance of those in the public service. The report of the assessment of the strategic management initiative within the public service refers to the need to introduce imaginative systems for reward performance. Paragraph 12.26 of the report, headed "Reward", points out that this has been acknowledged by the PPF and a number of bodies, but no concrete steps have, as yet, been taken on a service-wide performance reward system. The report states:
While progress in this regard has been made in respect of officers serving in the Assistant Secretary grade, and an element of performance related pay has been introduced at that level, similar initiatives have not yet been introduced on a service wide level. We recommend that proposals be advanced as a priority to introduce a meaningful and transparent scheme which would allow Secretaries General, within the context of an approved total pay budget, to make annual bonus payments to individuals and teams considered to have demonstrated exceptional "commitment and diligence" in helping the Department/Office to achieve the targets set out in its business plan.
That is an important principle. It is clear from the report that no progress has been made. I do not want to detain the House, but the previous page of the report, which refers to senior management and the challenges it faces, states: "Our survey suggests that 67% of civil servants still believe that under-performance at work is not challenged." It goes on to say a first step in tackling under-performance and non-performance in the Civil Service must be the development of appropriate information systems and so on and it outlines a host of things that it is believed should happen.
This issue of getting best practice and rewarding people for success is essential for making our public service a more dynamic place in which to work. It should be at the heart of any legislative framework that we are trying to introduce to modernise our approach to the public service. It amazes me that we have a lengthy Bill doing many things that the Opposition benches have misgivings about, but clearly no one has misgivings about the need for better performance orientation and rewarding people who make, as I have quoted, "exceptional commitment in diligence". That is the essence of what any organisation should be doing.
It is not a one way street. There are arguments to be made about the appropriateness of certain performance schemes. People may criticise one scheme above another. It is important that a body such as this, which has expertise in this area, and is imbued with a sense of the importance of public service will also look at the issue of performance and try to bring forward proposals that are appropriate within a public service context. I fully recognise this is different from a private sector mentality. We have to have different types of proposals, but we must also reward exceptional effort and move away from a promotional system that 45% of public servants do not consider rewards merit.
Serious issues need to be addressed here. I would not like the Minister to let this legislation go through without giving a mandate to this body to address this serious issue in the public service.
As amendment No. 22 is related, we will discuss amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together.
I will speak primarily to amendment No. 21. I have noted amendment No. 22. We have to recognise that contrary to the myth that exists, perhaps, people in the public service, particularly in the early years, are among the worst paid workers in this jurisdiction. I have no problem with the proposition in Deputy Richard Bruton's amendments, particularly amendment No. 21. One of the first things that the board of the Public Appointments Service must address is the fact that those who are on the initial starting years in the public service are very poorly paid. No Deputy or Senator in either of these Houses is unaware of that fact, knowing the low level of annual remuneration of their parliamentary assistants. It is very low and is unacceptable. The best reward people can get is to be given a fair return for their work. That is not happening and it cannot be emphasised strongly enough.
I have said it before in our discussion of this legislation that we have, by and large, a commendable Civil Service. There is no doubt about that. It is staffed in the main by dedicated people who have rightly earned the praise and respect of a whole cross-section of opinion in political life and beyond, in terms of civic society. That is their due and it needs to be said time and again. There is an important need to recognise that we can only expect and hope to have people aspire to the best levels of performance if there is a return on this. That was not the case in respect of the public service pay structure in the earliest years. I would like that to be addressed. I have no difficulty in recording my support.
It is hugely important that the type of reward mechanisms that may apply should be carefully worked out, properly scrutinised and fairly distributed. Inequality should not be perpetuated within the Civil Service as it will be if some are more favoured than others. The starting point should be that people in the public service are adequately and fairly paid for their labours.
This amendment proposes arrangements for performance-related pay in the public service, a notion with which I agree. As I said on Committee Stage, this subject matter is entirely outside the remit of the section dealing with the board of the PAS. It is also outside the remit of a Bill dealing with recruitment to the public service. Therefore, I am unwilling to accept the amendment.
I am mystified. Section 36(3)(a) states that the first function of the board is “to represent the interests of the public service and ensure that all appropriate service standards are being achieved”. The Minister of State has said, however, that the idea of rewarding exceptionally diligent and committed public servants could not be considered as part of the process of representing the interests of the public service and ensuring that appropriate standards are being achieved. That seems bizarre.
Is the Minister of State confusing the commission and the board?
This is a crux issue which, as I mentioned, the Government is having difficulties in addressing. No concrete steps have been taken in respect of the document that was published in March 2002. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell me that the world has changed since then, but if it has changed, it has not come to my notice. I have attended meetings of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service as diligently as any other member of the committee. This is a live issue.
I accept Deputy Ó Caoláin's statement that the public and private sectors are not the same. It is true that performance mechanisms such as commissions do not apply in the public sector. We have to move down this road if we want to encourage people to enter the public service, however, and if we are to value their contributions. That 67% of people feel that nobody gives a damn about under-performance in the public service indicates that it is a serious problem.
I cannot accept the Minister of State's suggestion that this is ultra vires to the legislation before the House. He has said that he is interested in performance-related pay, so I call on him to show his interest. He needs to add some concrete action to his interest by taking on this issue. The proposed public appointments service will have a chairperson, a chief executive and ordinary members, who will monitor and review procedures, develop representation in the public service and ensure that standards are being achieved. We should go the extra mile by giving power to a body with serious expertise that will be highly respected within the public service. It will not be seen as an outsider, unlike PA Consulting, for example. People will not think that bright sparks are coming in from outside to tell them how to run their show. The board of the PAS will largely consist of people from within the system. They will recognise, as everyone recognises, that this has to be addressed. The Minister of State’s response was not adequate.
I did not realise that amendment No. 22 was being grouped with amendment No. 21. May I speak briefly on amendment No. 22, about which Deputy Ó Caoláin was not as enthusiastic? I hope I can persuade Deputy Ó Caoláin and the Minister of State of the need to accept it. It may be easier to persuade Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Benchmarking has got a bad name because it has been discussed solely as it relates to pay. Good practice and quality management do not involve inspectorates looking over people's shoulders, or saying that workers did not meet certain standards. It is not a question of acceptable levels of failure, but of setting horizons that relate to the best way to deliver education to disadvantaged pupils, for example. We should consider the sort of policies that work and the kind of things that should be done in schools and during out-of-school hours. Best practice is about giving an example of a country where the best practices are being observed. We should consider whether we can change schools to achieve best practice. That is what benchmarking should be about.
It is obvious that pay is not incidental, because those who are innovative and push out the horizons need to be rewarded. We badly need a dynamic in the public service that says, "let us see what we can do to make our systems better". I refer to systems in schools, accident and emergency departments, Garda stations or anywhere else where public servants are gathered. Such a dynamic will not be achieved automatically. Technical support is needed from an agency such as the board of the PAS, which can support with research data groups that are trying to implement changes. The assistance may involve seminars, support groups or peer review systems. Such things need to be done if this is going to work.
This exciting opportunity should be exploited in the public service. We should use the opportunity given to us by this legislation to put in place a dynamic and a way of thinking of the type I have mentioned. It should become almost standard for any unit of the public service to think in such terms, to be expected to think in such terms and to be supported to think in such terms. Such support should come from an agency and the resources of the funding Department.
I have a strong conviction about this matter. I thank the Minister of State's colleague, who appointed me to an EU benchmarking group for a short time. The lessons from this exciting area should be applied locally and this is a good opportunity to do so. Perhaps the Minister of State will accept amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and then see where the cards fall. If he accepts the amendments, the Minister of State will not damage the Bill but he might do a great deal of good.
I believe that amendment No. 21 is outside the remit of the Bill. The purpose of the legislation is to provide an accountable, transparent and efficient means of securing recruits to public service jobs. Mechanisms to enhance the performance of public servants can be considered at other fora.
Such as——
Amendment No. 22 proposes arrangements for the benchmarking of management operations in the public service. The matter is outside the remit of the section dealing with the board of the proposed PAS. It is also outside the remit of the Bill, which deals with recruitment into the public service. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has expressed concerns about the wording of the amendment. The amendment does not clarify what is meant by "international best practice", a phrase that may be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. The office has advised me that words and phrases that have recently come into circulation, or are imprecise, need to be used extremely carefully. If the meaning of a phrase is not fully understood but is still developing, as is the case with "international best practice", it should be avoided. The office of the parliamentary counsel has advised, for the sake of clarity, that it is standard practice to avoid the use of vogue words or phrases. Accordingly, I am unwilling to accept either amendment.
I wish to make a brief comment, which is informed by my personal experience of public service pay issues. I find it insulting for anyone to give us a lecture on the type of language we should use. The phrase "international best practice" that was used is an example of the type of language that was deliberately developed by the Civil Service. When a dramatic shift in language takes place, it is usually done to exclude people. As people grasp this language, very quickly the exclusion value disappears and therefore we should not use it. Everyone has his or her own interpretation of best practice. In general it refers to a job well done to the highest possible standards. Nobody could have any difficulty with that. It is ridiculous to refuse to include benchmarking on pay and conditions in a Bill dealing with recruitment and the Civil Service.
It would be ridiculous to state the opposite.
I know a young woman with a young child who worked in the County Hall in Cork. Her take home pay was €310 per week. Child care cost her €250, which left her with €60 with the result that she had to give up the job. This occurred at the time that the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, was telling the women of Ireland that they were needed to fuel the economy. If we fail to address that issue, we are not only letting young mothers down, but we are also letting ourselves down. It is not appropriate to fob this amendment off on the basis that we are not using the correct language. We are not fools and we all know what we mean.
In legislation we must be very precise. I am quoting from the office of the parliamentary counsel.
I note that the Minister of State has quoted everyone but himself. I wonder who drafted this Bill. It boggles the mind to think that so many amendments needed to be tabled and so many different agencies needed to be quoted to support the arguments. That concerns me. We all know what we are talking about. It is a straightforward argument. People are badly paid and need to be better paid if we are to recruit and keep the best.
The Deputy should find a relevant Bill in which to raise this matter.
I thank Deputy Lynch for her support. She always brings eminent good sense to the pompous debates we sometimes have here. The Bill is called the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill. It provides for recruitment and appointment, as the Minister of State has said. It also provides for promotion processes and connected matters. Surely the issue of performance management is interlinked with promotion and connected matters, with public service management and with recruitment. They are all the one and are about the terms, conditions and nature of the workplace. The kinds of incentives and support in the workplace along with the ambitions set for employees are as one.
Perhaps the Minister of State will inform me that he will shortly introduce some other vehicle to provide a body as qualified as the body we are now establishing which will be able to do something about what he and all his SMI colleagues have manifestly done nothing in the six or eight years this has been on the go. They say no concrete steps have been taken. Surely the Minister will not give some technical reason——
Is the Deputy now a fan of benchmarking?
The Deputy should be allowed to speak without any interruption.
I have always been a fan of benchmarking. This shows how little attention the Minister of State pays to public issues. I believe benchmarking is the other side of people making changes in their organisations that are wonderful and dynamic. Sadly, benchmarking in the minds of many has become associated solely with a percentage pay increase and where individuals are in the pecking order of pay.
The ambition of benchmarking should have been to improve schools, Garda stations, hospitals and the public service in general. Benchmarking was about looking outside ourselves at others who are doing things better than we are. Our public servants should have the opportunity, incentive and opportunity to match and exceed what others are doing. That is what it is all about. That is why I was so bitterly disappointed with benchmarking here. It ended up as a pay settlement with a series of box ticking exercises, which were wheeled out in bucketfuls. It was nothing like the ambitious process it could have been. I am an enthusiastic supporter of benchmarking. However, I see it has been totally distorted by the way the Government handled it.
An independent body made the recommendations.
How independent was it? That is another day's work. The body was far from independent. The one independent person resigned, but that is another debate.
Should we ask this board to do things that would really make a difference to the public service, which the Government's strategic management initiative has failed to deliver? I believe we should. The Minister should not wheel out some kind of parliamentary commission to tell us the language we have chosen is inappropriate. The language in the Bill refers to "appropriate service standards". What does that mean? There is no definition for that term at the start of the Bill. There is no accepted belief as to what are "appropriate service standards". While the term is highly elastic, everybody understands what it is about. Those in an accident and emergency department know what is appropriate and what they should expect. While ordinary people have no doubt about what that means, it does not have a definition in the Bill and is clearly open to subjective interpretation. I do not accept the Minister's argument and believe changes should be made.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 31, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(e) to develop a system under which the public service would benchmark their operations against international best practice;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 32, to delete lines 18 and 19, and substitute the following:
"(c) shall ensure that not less than 40 per cent of the Commission are men and not less than 40 per cent are women.”.
The debate on this matter has already taken place. I am not happy with the outcome. Of the five people only one is a woman and that only by virtue of the position she holds. That position could be filled by a man at any time in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 34, to delete lines 9 to 11, and substitute "Comptroller and Auditor General Acts 1866 to 1998".
I accept the Minister of State's explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 35, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(a) such delegated recruitment is in the public interest,”.
While I do not want to delay the good progress that is being made, this is an important amendment, which goes to the core of the Bill. Through recruitment licences, power will be devolved to the heads of VECs and other bodies as mentioned by the Minister of State. Where the commission decides to grant such a recruitment licence, it should ensure that the delegated recruitment is in the public interest. The Bill contains no public interest test. If the head of a VEC with delegated recruitment powers decides to appoint a particular agency to carry out the VEC's recruitment, once certain boxes are ticked, the commission will grant approval. We need to go beyond that and ask whether it is in the public interest and whether the body seeking this licence made a good case that we should go down this route. A task of the commission should be to expect to be offered a public interest reason which is adequate to justify deviating from the unified system of recruitment we have been used to.
I support the amendment. In section 43(2) the only criteria laid down in regard to the granting of recruitment licences are (a) that the applicant is an office holder and (b) that the applicant can and will observe the appropriate standards and codes of practice.
Deputy Bruton proposes a correct sequencing in that there is, in order of importance, the introduction of a new paragraph (a), with the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) being relegated to new paragraphs (b) and (c). What is being argued for is the introduction of a new paragraph (a) which states clearly that “such delegated recruitment is in the public interest”. This has to be the primary guiding principle in respect of any decisions vis-à-vis recruitment licence issues. The case is self-sustaining. I record my support.
The central thrust of the Bill is to provide Departments with the facility to undertake their own recruitment if they wish to avail of it. There is no justification for making a requirement of this type a condition for obtaining a licence to recruit.
Section 13 requires the commission to establish standards of probity, merit, equity and fairness to be followed in the public interest in the recruitment and selection of persons for positions in the public service. These principles must be reflected in codes of practice which dictate the way recruitment is to be conducted by licence holders.
Section 43 requires the commission to take account of the applicant's ability to meet the commission's standards when assessing applications for licences. If the granting of a licence was not in the public interest, the commission would not grant it. I will not accept the amendment.
The Minister of State has not made an adequate case. As Deputy Ó Caoláin stated, the commission shall only grant a recruitment licence where appropriate standards and codes of practice are observed but that is not to say this is in the public interest. It might be more appropriate to have a national recruitment process in setting a standard for, say, educational psychologists who will be available to different vocational education committees. We would want to see those national standards applied and those selected to have fulfilled certain procedures and standards that would be set nationally. The commission should be able to say to the chief executive officer of the VEC which applies that it believes it is in the public interest that positions of this nature should be filled by way of national competitions, that we should set uniform standards regarding the type of person who will fill the role in dealing with children in our schools and that it wants to see that standard continued to be applied nationally. We do not want low standards applied in one part of the country because it does not have the same standard of applicant to came forward under the local delegated recruitment system.
The Minister of State has not made a cogent argument that it will always be in the public interest to grant the concession. A VEC might apply appropriate standards but it might still result in an approach to recruitment that we would not want. There are very good reasons we have left untouched for 70 years national standards to be applied in recruitment. We would like to see such psychologists move across the system and gain experience, not just in Tullamore VEC but in working for a period in a disadvantaged area in Dublin or elsewhere, and bring that experience to bear on the positions they take up. There are good reasons to have national systems.
The Minister of State said he expected we would continue to have national competitions and that it would be only on a rare occasion this would happen but when we come to this section, he tells us that once the fellow looks for it, he will get it. The cat is now out of the bag because he is admitting that the standard practice will be local recruitment, and to hell with national standards in regard to such positions. Not for the first time this evening the Minister of State has not convinced the House of the case he is trying to make.
I realise the Deputy has been here for a while but he appears to forget that a licence holder is the chief executive officer of a particular Department. The functions of the commission, as outlined in section 13, are to establish standards of probity, merit, equity and fairness, and other principles as they consider appropriate to be followed, in the public interest, in the recruitment and selection of persons for positions in the Civil Service and other public service bodies.
Once the licence is given, how will they stop them employing educational psychologists on a local basis instead of——
The Deputy can come in again later if he wishes.
The Minister of State is not addressing the issue I raised.
I have addressed it adequately. Why would a chief executive officer of a Department set about recruiting people if it was not in the public interest? He or she is following the guidelines laid down for him or her by the commission.
In what world is the Minister of State living? The reality is that people like to expand their area of power and control and they will do so unless somebody says it is not in the public interest. The commission should be holding the line for ordinary members of the public, protecting our interests and not leaving it lie in the hands of a chief executive officer of a particular body.
The licence holder is responsible to the commission which has a strong mandate over him or her in terms of the established standards of probity, merit, equity and fairness, and other principles as they consider appropriate to be followed in the public interest. He or she is obliged to pursue those principles. Inserting the words "in the public interest" would not make any sense to me.
I do not accept that. The Minister of State has presented the delegation of authority for recruitment as something that will be out of the ordinary and for which there will be good reason. He would lead us to believe he favours predominantly using a national recruitment system for most positions, yet when it comes to a situation where there might be a desire to maintain national standards in filling certain posts, setting criteria at a national level and observing those criteria, he wilts and says if the chief executive officer of the VEC wants it, it must be right and why else would he or she do it? I do not accept that, and the Minister of State has not convinced anyone here in his argument. This provision would strengthen the Bill and ensure it was of a higher quality.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 36, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(2) The Commission shall ensure that the manner in which recruitment is carried out by a licence holder is transparent and impartial and is such as to afford equality of opportunity to candidates.".
I listened to the Minister of State during the previous debate reel out the people who will be able to apply for licences but he seems to forget that George Redmond, if he was still manager in one of the Dublin council areas, would be eligible to hold a licence under the Minister of State's system.
I do not think so.
Yes, he would. We are lucky that we have a system of local government where people are entirely honest 99% of the time. Has anyone approached the Minister of State and asked him to alter the system under which people are recruited into the service as it could be done better at local level? I do not believe that a manager, superintendent, commissioner or chief executive of a health board has ever approached a Minister claiming that they should be able to recruit locally because they could do a better job. I do not believe they want that responsibility.
The transparency for which this amendment provides would give a degree of protection. The commission may undertake investigations but it is not obliged to do so. Normally, by the time a complaint is made to a Minister it is too late. The amendment would provide protection against this happening. As Deputy Richard Bruton said, recruitment of people locally is a bad idea that should be abandoned.
I support DeputyBurton's amendment. In the context of the application for a recruitment licence for office holders, the critical focus is on transparency and impartiality. The arguments presented in the discussion on the last amendment stand on this one also. I commend it to the Minister of State.
Mr. Redmond was an assistant county manager and would not have qualified as a licence holder. The reasons this system is being introduced have been covered numerous times. Local recruitment has been recommended as one way of making more efficient use of the Civil Service.
The objectives of the amendment are achieved in the Bill, as it stands. Section 13 requires the commission to establish standards of probity, merit, equity, fairness and other principles considered appropriate to the public interest in the recruitment and selection of persons for positions in the Civil Service and other public service bodies. The four principles of probity, merit, equity and fairness are the be all and end all on which the Bill is based. The notion that somebody somewhere is always out to undermine these principles and conditions is wrong.
Section 23(2) requires that these principles be implicit in the codes of practice which constrain the recruitment activity of licence holders. Section 43(2)(b) requires the commission to ensures any applicant for a licence will uphold these principles before he or she is granted a licence to recruit. Consequently, these guiding principles will be vindicated in any recruitment operation. If they are not, the commission is empowered to investigate and take a range of corrective actions, including amendment and withdrawal of licences. Accordingly, there is no need to state this explicitly as proposed in the amendment.
Regarding transparency, the bodies established under the Bill will be subject to the Freedom of Information Acts and will be required to report regularly on their activities. Taken together, these measures adequately address the provisions of the amendment. Accordingly, I will not accept it.
The Minister of State is set in his ways and will not accept the amendment. However, there is no way of knowing that those who will acquire licences at local level will continue to abide by the conditions set down because the commission has not been given the power to check them, even on a random basis. The House is being asked to take the Caesar's wife approach that they are above and beyond reproach. While I agree most are, this legislation will affect recruitment in the future, yet there are no safeguards. Once the system is established, there will be no policing of it. The Freedom of Information Act applies to it but it is expensive to make requests.
It only costs €15 to submit a request.
The initial request costs €15 but the cost of subsequent ones is steep. If a person does not get the job offered, where will he or she get the money to apply under the Act? This amendment is simply about transparency and ensuring people get fair play.
I agree with Deputy Lynch's point on compliance procedures not being put in place.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 40, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(2)(a) If an office holder becomes of opinion that a communication has been received by him or her that breaches subsection (1)(c), it is the duty of that office holder not to entertain the communication further.
(b) An office holder who contravenes paragraph (a) is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalties provided for in section 57.
(c) In this subsection an office holder means a person appointed to an office under the Constitution or otherwise within the meaning given to office holder by section 2 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, for the purposes of that Act.”.
The old system contained the penalty of disqualification of any candidate on whose behalf public representatives canvassed. It was a good system in that it removed public representatives, parish priests or others to whom one would go for a job recommendation from the selection circle. Public representatives could tell applicants that it would do more harm than good if they canvassed on their behalf. Another beauty of the system was that public representatives did not know who would be on the interview panel. It was a system that could not be got at.
The amendment seeks to ensure liabilities and penalties for canvassing. It would be merely a safeguard. If the Minister of State is going to persist with recruitment at local level, there cannot be too many safeguards. However, he believes everything in the garden is rosy and no mistakes will be made.
I would be more happy to have efficient safeguards rather than too many irrelevant ones. The amendment seeks to impose a set of obligations on holders of political office. Its definition of "office holder" is different from the one set out in the Bill which relates to holders of posts as chief executive of public service bodies. Persons who will hold licences under the Bill are the chief executives of public service bodies on whom obligations are imposed because they will perform the recruitment functions. Accordingly, section 14 requires that an office holder informs the commission of any attempt to interfere in the recruitment process.
While the amendment would do no damage to the scheme of the Bill in that it imposes an obligation on holders of political office to disregard attempts to have them interfere in the recruitment operation and makes it a criminal offence for them to entertain such attempts, it would be of little practical benefit. As section 14 requires the chief executives of public service bodies to report attempts of interference to the commission, the holder of a political office would be reported as soon as he or she raised the matter with a licence holder.
The office of the parliamentary counsel has highlighted some difficulties with the wording of the proposed amendment. Subsection (2) refers to a report under subsection(1), yet subsection (1) contains no provision for a report under that subsection but under section 17. Subsection (2)(a) refers to an order under section 6(1) but no provision is made in that subsection in respect of promotions. It refers to recruitment and appointments. Accordingly, I will not accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 42, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"58.—(1) The Commission may make a Report under section 17 into the promotion practices of—
(a) any public service body, or
(b) any class of public service bodies.
(2) Where——
(a) a report made to the Minister under subsection (1) contains a recommendation that an order be made under section 6(1) in respect of promotion to a specific position or a class of positions, and
(b) no such order has been made within 2 years of the Minister receiving the report,
then the Minister shall lay a report on the matter before each House of the Oireachtas within the next 10 days on which the House concerned has sat after the end of that period of two years.".
This amendment seeks to apply the same principles to the issue of promotion as apply in respect of section 17 in which we provide that in respect of the health boards or the local authorities the commission can decide whether it believes the remit of this Bill should apply in applying codes of practice and conduct. This should also hold in respect of promotion. Where the commission, having looked at the promotion practices of a public body, expresses the belief that they ought to be brought within the remit of this Bill, namely, that there should be standards and probity and so on applied to promotion, it should be able to report this fact to the Minister who should be obliged — if he was not going to make an order implementing what had been done — to lay a report on the matter before the Oireachtas "within the next 10 days ... after the end of that period of 2 years" in which he had the report. This would start the momentum for ensuring promotion competitions were handled to the highest standards of probity and rewarded those of merit.
Section 17 provides that the commission may only inquire into the recruitment practices of public service bodies prior to making a report on whether certain posts should be subject to the remit of the commission. There is no impediment to the Minister making an order under section 6 to bring any promotion post in the public service within the remit of the commission. This amendment would place the unnecessary precondition of an investigation before the making of any such order. As to subsection (2) of the amendment, any report made by the commissioners pursuant of section 17 is already subject to the procedure whereby the Minister must make a statement if he or she does not propose to accept the commission's recommendation. Consequently, I will not accept the amendment.
I am not quite clear about this. When can the commission make a recommendation with regard to bringing the promotion practices of a particular body within its remit? Where is this provided for?
In section 6.
Is the Minister of State saying the commission can make an order applying to promotion? That is not the case. The commission cannot of its own accord make an order that would bring the promotion practices within the remit of the Bill. That was my understanding but I may be wrong.
It is provided for in section 6, in respect of any body to which section 5(b) and (d) relate. Section 6(1)(b) reads, “in any other case, after consulting with (i) the commission and (ii) such Minister or Ministers of the Government (if any) who in the opinion of the Minister is or are the relevant Minister or Ministers in respect of that body”.
Does that not conflict with section 59 where it is stated the Minister for Finance is the one who must make the request? I am a little confused by the Minister of State's response. My understanding was that under section 59 promotion practices would only be brought within this new system if the Minister for Finance made such an order. The Minister of State now seems to be saying the commission can make an order bringing the promotion practices of all public bodies within the rules of this legislation. I would like it confirmed if that is the case in order that there will be no misunderstanding.
Where stands the amendment?
We have not heard a response from the Minister of State.
I am confused but think it is better to have this amendment in than out since the Minister of State does not appear to be able to answer the question.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We will proceed to amendment No. 29. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are alternatives. Therefore, amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 29:
To delete pages 47 to 68 inclusive.
This seems radical but our advice is that it could be unconstitutional in the same way that the Carrickmines issue developed. I am sure this is not the first time this has been brought to the attention of the Minister of State and I would like to know the exact position. I would hate to think that we would be before the courts again.
Amendment No. 31 is in my name. I referred to it earlier when I noted the Minister of State's reply in which he referred to the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. What is proposed in section 19(1)(a) is the deletion of the words “an excluded position within the meaning of the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956”. It proceeds with a substitution of the words “a position to which section 7(1)(e) of the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 relates”. The Minister of State may clarify what concerns me which perhaps has been addressed.
My concern was to ensure that there was a clear gap between appointments to the public service and the role of special advisers to the various parties or party that may constitute a government at any given time. I was concerned that with the deletion of the section of the Ethics in Public Office Act referred to we were seeing a freeing up of the rules. It would be unacceptable to allow this in regard to persons who were special advisers, apparatchiks, spin doctors, party managers — whatever one may call them — in association with political parties, some of which have used such advisers more than others. That is not to say, however, we will not use such persons ourselves. They should not view that career opportunity as a back door into the public service which would be unacceptable. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I have already heard the Minister of State comment on this and await his further remarks.
Since it is now 7 p.m. I ask the Deputy to move the adjournment of the debate.
We could conclude now.
The Government side might be willing to extend Private Members' time.
We could extend the debate for a couple of minutes.
I have no authority in the matter and ask the Deputy to move the adjournment of the debate.
The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, has the authority to extend the debate.
I am very anxious to conclude. We have been here for a long time today and are practically finished.
I am glad to facilitate that extension.
We may proceed.
Section 61 requires this schedule of enactments which must be repealed and various amendments which must happen if the new bodies to be established under the Bill can operate. The Bill will be unworkable without it. I cannot agree to its deletion.
Will it be challenged?
By whom?
Constitutionally.
No, it is part of the Bill. Every one of the enactments has been accommodated so far.
With regard to amendment No. 31, the subsection of the Ethics in Public Office Act referred to here contains a reference to the Civil Service Commission Act which is being repealed. Because of this repeal, the subsection is being deleted. The subsection cannot make sense once the Act on which it is predicated is repealed. If the amendment were accepted, it would provide a reference in law to an Act that has been repealed. It would not make sense and it would be impossible to enforce.
Will the Minister clarify whether the substitution in the Bill copperfastens the position that has applied heretofore?
Definitely, yes.
I accept that and withdraw the amendment on the basis of the Minister's assurance.
I accept the Minister's explanation although it does not agree with the advice I received.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 47, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"No. 12 of 2004
Private Security Services Act 2004
Section 10:
In subsection (2), to delete ‘Civil Service Commissioners' and substitute ‘Chief Executive of the Public Appointments Service'.
In subsection (3)(a), to delete ‘Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956’ and substitute ‘Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004’.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank all Deputies for their contributions. It has taken quite a while. I thank the Minister for Agriculture and Food for accommodating us with some extra time.
Question put and agreed to.