I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 10, after "appointment" where it secondly occurs to insert "or promotion".
With this amendment I seek to raise the question of promotions within the public service. The Bill, which updates and modernises the legislation on recruitment into the public service, sets out in section 25 a number of important principles about the conduct of recruitment practices. These included probity, equity, fairness, the need to ensure selection on the basis of merit, the protection of the public interest, best practice, the general procedures that should be followed, and so on.
This concept of codes of practice set by the commission is good and it should apply equally to appointments and promotions. The idea that we should be meticulous about the probity of systems for initial recruitment, but disregard the same principles in terms of promotion is dangerous. I am not suggesting there is a pattern of abuse in the system of promotion, but I note with some dismay that promotion competitions are extremely narrow in their focus. Some 80% of promotion competitions produce people from within the Department. Similarly, under TLAC, the Top Level Appointments Commission, there is also a narrow range. It seems the effort to ensure promotion on merit is going astray. It is difficult to believe that the most meritorious person for a promotion is in the Department advertising the promotion post.
There is a tendency — this is recognised in agreements with representative bodies — to confine promotion positions. That is not healthy in the long term. We should welcome diversity of experience and we should encourage people from outside the public sector to avail of promotion opportunities in the public service. If we are talking about modernising our public service and making the recruitment and appointments system better, we must start rolling back these approaches. I know they have figured in some of the social partnership discussions over the years.
There have been suggestions that some changes would be made to established practices. However, the Oireachtas needs to inject some urgency into this issue. We should provide that such principles and codes of practice are set out and applied rigorously by those holding promotion positions within any public service body. That would open up the candidacy of other people who are worthy of consideration. This is the one opportunity the Oireachtas will probably get for decades to make a serious effort to change this. Once the Bill is passed, it will be an internal matter between the Minister and the different representative bodies. We will not have the opportunity to do anything then.
Even if the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope he gives a firm indication that a series of orders will be introduced to include promotion. I do not see any such momentum in the discussions. It seems the Government has it on a wish list, but there does not seem to be any serious ministerial commitment to it. I have not heard any statement by the Ministers dealing with this Bill which suggests they are ambitious to see rapid change in this area. I do not know if the Minister of State will change that today.