asked the Minister for the Public Service the number of applicants, the number interviewed and the number of people placed in the various civil service grades during the current year.

The answer is in the form of a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report.

Open competitions held during 1983

Numbers considered for appointment include persons selected for appointment, those who declined appointment, those who are still in the process of selection, and those being considered for future vacancies.

In respect of one grade, that of clerical assistant, might I ask the Minister how many people applied and how many were successful?

In respect of clerical assistant — sorry for the delay but the tabular statement is very complex.

As Deputies are aware, the Chair discourages supplementaries where the answer is in the form of a tabular statement.

I appreciate that, a Cheann Comhairle. I know it may be difficult to extract the appropriate information but I imagine from recent reports in the newspapers that the numbers applying for these positions, such as clerical assistant, clerical officer, executive officer, run into tens of thousands and that the numbers successful are handfuls. The point I am making is: would it not be better not to advertise but to continue to use the old list rather than having fairly costly examinations for positions in the public service each year and then appointing only a handful? What appears to happen at present is that, say, in respect of clerical assistants, 30,000 or 40,000 people would sit the examination of which perhaps 10,000 would be successful and maybe 100 actually employed. Rather than building up young people's hopes would it not be better that they were told when such advertisements were inserted that probably a very low percentage would be successful?

I am not sure whether the Deputy is a member of the new Committee on Public Expenditure. If he is not, perhaps he is not aware that the committee have recently discussed the operation of the Civil Service Commission and have decided that the commission and my Department ought to be the first to fall under their microscope, as it were. That is a decision I very much welcome. It may have been engendered through the publication of the Commission's report. Consequently the committee will have an opportunity very soon of considering the method whereby the Civil Service Commission carry out recruitment. The question the Deputy has raised is a fundamental and very difficult one, whether or not an existing panel compiled from an examination held perhaps last year or two years ago should be continued in operation because of the high numbers of eligible, suitable candidates who still remain on the panel, or whether another examination should be held. If an examination is not held the argument can very well be made that school leavers from this year's examinations are not being given an equal opportunity with those of previous years.

Without wanting to be contentious, I have to remind the Deputy that speakers from his side of the House, when this matter was being debated some months ago, put that point very forcibly. However, perhaps the Committee on Public Expenditure might examine this matter and I will be very interested to have the views of members of an all-party committee as to what is considered to be the most equitable and yet cost-effective manner of recruiting clerical assistants. In relation to the system which began last year and spills over into this year, there were 7,748 eligible candidates, 6,990 attended the written examination of whom 4,733 passed. It is not possible to say yet how many will eventually be considered because the competition has not been completed in relation to this year. So far this year 400 people have been considered who were deemed eligible from the 1982 competition. However, just to complicate the position further, it would be wrong to assume that all 400 are in employment because some of those may very well have since found other employment and would have refused the call. Consequently, the call then passes on to the next applicant on the list. The commission would not very often have a list of the numbers called because once they devise a panel it is then made available to Departments to call candidates in turn as they require them.

That is a long and detailed reply. It is a waste of time talking to the commission but where a young person is told he or she is successful in an examination, where he or she is 432nd on the list, it would be much fairer to tell that person that he or she will not be reached this year and that we will be dealing with a new list next year. If no jobs are available it is not fair to prolong the anxiety which people feel while awaiting results. If the Committee on Public Expenditure are going to have talks with the commission, I am sure they will advise them that there is a human element involved and it should be evident in the letters which they send out, as the letters at present do not show much humanity.

I expressed a point of view rather similar to that of the Deputy when I was speaking on the debate regarding the application of small charges to offset partly the cost of the high number of applicants in certain cases. The difficulty, I understand, is that the commission have no way of knowing whether the 432nd applicant will or will not be called because, dependent on the numbers who during the period of the lifetime of the panel may have got other jobs or decided to continue with their studies, it might be that in one year the filling of 200 vacancies might take the panel down to the 600th position and in another year the filling of 200 vacancies might take the panel only as far as the 300th position. Consequently, the commission cannot with any certainty indicate to candidates whether they are likely to be called.

The Deputy referred to another point which has particular and immediate relevance to the House, to applicants and the general public. There is no point in Deputies writing to the Civil Service Commission on behalf of applicants as the commission are an impartial body who conduct examinations and compile their panels accordingly. In fact, strictly speaking, representations by any politician on behalf of any applicant renders the applicant ineligible for further consideration. That applies equally if Deputies decide instead to write to me so that I may elicit from the commission the fact that the person is a candidate and then send the letter back to the Deputy. Over the last couple of months I have adopted the method of sending a standard reply to all Deputies pointing out that it would be inappropriate for me to inquire from the commission as that might be regarded as canvassing and could have a detrimental effect on the public representative's constituent

I should like to take this opportunity, and it should be publicised, of urging members of the general public to understand that both the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission operate independently and that, far from helping any candidate to success, the ostensible representation by a public representative on his or her behalf should, strictly speaking, render the person ineligible for further consideration. There has been an improvement in the situation but really the public have misconceptions with regard to the role of their public representatives in these matters. I am afraid I may have to ask the commission to apply more strictly the provision of disqualification so as to dissuade people from writing. It would be unfortunate if this had to be operated strictly because the first group will, in many ways, be innocent victims because there is this misconception that public representatives can help a candidate to success within an established Civil Service post. That is not so and it would be useful if, as a result of Question Time today, that message was put across to the public.

This affects about 50,000 young people——

This is getting out of hand. We are now talking about a policy on representations on a specific question which was answered by a tabular statement.

The main Opposition Party are doing their utmost to try to make Question Time effective and we said nothing for the first 15 minutes.

You are making up for it now.

This affects about 50,000 young people and it warrants more than a minute or two here.

I know, but it is not essentially concerned with the question. The Minister availed of the opportunity to make a speech.

If people are to be disqualified because a Deputy writes on their behalf it is a very serious matter.

The Minister took the opportunity to make a long policy statement.

If the Minister urged the commission to write letters which were a bit more informative, people would not be going to Deputies in the first place.

The Minister has a very delicate relationship with the commission.