The disposition of staff in my Department is a matter for the Secretary General and is executed through the Human Resources Division.
I can inform the Deputy, however, that my Department, in similar fashion to other Departments, as part of its planning for Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union, will be assigning staff to Ireland's Permanent Representation in Brussels later this year. Five staff in the grades referenced by the Deputy have been selected and will be assigned, these are: 1 Clerical Officer; 1 Executive Officer; 1 Higher Executive Officer and 2 Administrative Officers. (It was open to Higher Executive Officers or Administrative Officers to apply for the posts).
My Department did not ask applicants to advise their age when applying for possible assignment. The Deputy should be aware that as age had no relevance to the selection process, an applicant's age was not established in the processing of their application nor included in the information provided to the selection board. Indeed, to have done so would have been inappropriate. Consequently, I am advised that the age breakdowns sought by the Deputy are not readily available without a significant amount of work to interrogate each individual officer's file and even then it is unclear what interest would be served in establishing the said information. In addition, I am unclear as to what relevance the age of 35 has as a possible threshold, were age of itself to be meaningful.
I can confirm that my Department is committed to policies conducive to promoting equal opportunities for all its staff regardless of their age. My Department conducted this selection process in an open fashion, first seeking preliminary expressions of interest from relevant staff and then subsequently inviting those staff to submit formal applications. The requirements on applicants and the selection processes themselves were set out clearly in all communications to staff.
All HEOs/AOs who applied were called for interview. In regard to shortlisting, this was applied to the Executive Officer and Clerical Officer grades given the number of applications received. The criteria used were as set out below:
|
Clerical Officer
|
Executive Officer
|
|
Quality of Application
|
Quality of Application
|
|
Supervisor’s assessment
|
Supervisor’s assessment
|
|
Relevant experience and overall suitability assessed relative to the job/personal requirements set out for the post
|
Judgement/decision-making skills
|
|
Ability to work as part of a team
|
Communication skills
|
|
Ability to work on own initiative
|
Ability to work on own initiative and show commitment
|
|
Communication skills
|
Relevant experience and overall suitability assessed relative to the job/personal requirements set out for the post
|
My colleague the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will shortly make recommendations arising from a review of allowances payable to civil and public servants. Any allowances payable to the staff being assigned to the Permanent Representation Brussels will have regard to those recommendations. However, I am advised that it is expected to pay an allowance to officers in respect of rental of accommodation and in the way of foreign service allowances as currently arise. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that it is in the nature of all selection processes, that there will be disappointed applicants at its conclusion. I am advised that no formal complaints have been submitted in respect of the process referenced by the Deputy, although some disappointed applicants did make enquiries. Should any applicant wish to raise concerns regarding any decision this can be done via the Human Resources Division of my Department. Should any applicant wish to avail of feedback this too can be facilitated in a similar fashion. I am advised that feedback including one to one meetings has been provided to a number of applicants.
