Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister will be aware that he and I engaged in intensive discussions about the status of acting CEOs. I think we both agreed that the matter, a somewhat sensitive issue, was being dealt with as best as possible.

For the benefit of the House, I understand that there are three permanent full-time CEOs who will be surplus to requirements and who have been reassigned, but also, from my interpretation of the debate, that when any further vacancy arises under the ETBs they will be given priority.

Since that debate, I discovered that there are some 13 acting CEOs across the country, some of whom have been in their positions for in excess of four years. But for a Government embargo - previous Governments introduced embargoes and I am not attempting to score a political point as it is an economic reality that a Government embargo is in place - it is almost certain that all of those 13 would have been given permanent positions. I understand that they met recently where the matter and our debate arose in discussion.

They are being somewhat badly treated in the sense that the State is not getting good value for money in the manner in which it is adopting its approach. These are staff who have been giving service but who have acquired enormous expertise, far beyond what was in their original positions. Many of them were school principals but have now had two, three, four or in excess of four years' experience as administrative officers controlling significant budgets to a greater or lesser extent depending on from where they come.

I think we both agreed that this is not really something that can be dealt with in primary legislation. All I ask is that there should be some reflection on their status and indication given as to how they will be treated if any of them is interested in pursuing any future vacancy and that, at the very least, they would be treated in the same way.

I have had this matter raised at VEC level where the counter argument is to the effect of why I should raise this because after all they have jobs to go back to. In the current climate where employees are losing work and are finding themselves, to use that awful term, "downsized", those 13 acting CEOs will revert in most cases to the positions they held. I am not familiar with all of them, but my VEC's acting CEO - incidentally, neither he nor any other acting CEO discussed this with me - will revert to school principal. He and the others will not lose their jobs. I have had this raised by colleagues asking why I am complaining and why I should raise this when after all they still have their jobs and they will not lose anything. However, they are losing and the State is also losing. On suggesting that they would go back into the mix and will not be given any sort of acknowledgement of the expertise that they built up, the counter argument was that if there is a group of staff who apply for a future vacancy for a CEO under the ETBs, why should anybody be treated differently, everybody should be treated on their merits and every applicant should be treated on the basis of what he or she brings to the table. I would counter argue that in this instance it is about a particular expertise, and where appointments have been made in the past, inevitably and rightly, their previous experience has been taken into account in appointing them to the particular position, be it a post of responsibility, such as deputy principal or principal, up to CEO. Of course, the person's previous experience has been taken into account in assessing whether he or she is the person most capable of taking on a job. Why should it be any different, particularly with this group of staff?

I do not want to labour the point. The Minister is fully aware of from where I am coming. I do not want to over egg the pudding other than to say that perhaps there could be some reflection within the Department of Education and Skills in the future, and with the Minister's intervention. We are not patronising each other here. The Minister has the intellectual capacity to be able to go beyond what I am raising here. I do not have a particular solution for this. All I suggest is that they should not be left swinging in the wind and that, if they are applying for a vacancy of CEO, they should be treated the same as the three CEOs who will be treated differently when those applications come before the relevant selection board.