Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 Mar 1923

Vol. 2 No. 44

OIREACHTAS STAFF.

I beg to move the following motion:—"That the Minister for Finance and the Ceann Comhairle be appointed to a Standing Committee to determine the number, grading, remuneration and terms of office of the Oireachtas Staff and that Seanad Eireann be requested to nominate the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad to act in this Committee."

Some work, I believe, has already been accomplished. A Committee meeting has been held dealing with this matter, and I understand there has been an accommodation as between both Houses of the Oireachtas for a common staff. In order that the terms of office and other necessary details should be worked out, I am proposing this motion which is I think much on the same lines as I indicated when the original proposals were made in January last. I do not think it is necessary to make any recommendation to the Dáil at present on this motion as the general terms are within the knowledge of most of the Deputies.

I second the motion.

There are two questions which I would like to raise on this motion. The first is not a very important matter, but one that I think should be considered. In the latter part of the motion we say that "Seanad Eireann be requested to nominate the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad to act on this Committee." I suggest that we ought not to indicate the person whom the Seanad should nominate. We should leave that entirely to the Seanad. The second point is that the motion asks us to appoint a Standing Committee "to determine the number, grading, remuneration and terms of office of the Oireachtas staff." I am doubtful whether we ought to leave the whole responsibility of that upon the Standing Committee. I read the word "determine" to mean finally deciding without any appeal and I think that we ought as the Dáil, retain the right to approve or disapprove of the recommendation. I am thinking at the moment of this question of remuneration and terms of office because the staff includes, or may include, a very large number or variety of services, and I would wish that the Dáil should have a say in the final determination of the terms of office and remuneration. I suggest to the Minister that some other intention covered by another word should be submitted to the Dáil and that the decision of this Committee should be left to the Dáil for approval.

There is a proposal that instead of nominating the Cathaoirleach we should ask the Seanad to nominate a member.

I am agreeable, but I do not know that that would be well, and, in view of the fact that we have specified the Ceann Comhairle here, we should specify An Cathaoirleach or some other Senator. It appears to me it might look as if we wanted to pass over the Cathaoirleach, and naturally he is, or ought to be, more in touch with the staff than any other member of the Seanad. I think you ought to name him or any other Senator.

The suggestion is that the Senate should be asked to nominate An Cathaoirleach or any other member of the Seanad. Should that meet Deputy Johnson's point?

It would not. I think we should leave the nomination entirely in the hands of the Seanad. No doubt the selection of the Seanad would be the Cathaoirleach. But I think we ought not to tell them who they ought to nominate. We should leave that entirely to them, and the expression of the view of the Minister himself will make clear that there is no intention to suggest that somebody else on the Seanad other than the Cathaoirleach should act.

I have no wish in the matter.

The motion is amended to read in part: "That Seanad Eireann is requested to nominate a member of the Seanad to act on this Committee."

Amendment put and agreed.

Another point is also raised on this motion.

I quite admit the right of the Dáil to express an opinion on or to reject or criticise, or to deal in any way it thinks fit, with any of the business transacted by any of the Ministers or any Committee of the Dáil. I submit, from my experience of Committees—their work and their recommendations for remuneration, status, and so on—that it is most inadvisable to allow a decision that is come to by persons in responsible positions to be the subject of consideration afterwards, in which the persons affected may canvass members of the Dáil and influence their decisions with regard to certain matters. It might possibly come to this: A good deal of the time of the officials employed by the State would be spent on the lobbies of either the residences of members or the precincts of the Dáil in canvassing and pushing their claims with regard to certain positions, salaries, and so on. That is not possible in the present case, and, as far as the determination of the various details mentioned here is concerned, there is an apportunity afforded at all times to members of the Dáil to criticise the administration of the service. This is the only section of the service that is outside the control of the Ministry for Finance and it is wise to understand what exactly is meant by control. The Ministry for Finance does not interfere with the ordinary control of the staffs of other Ministries, but it does exercise a supervisory control with regard to promotions and other matters of that sort, which is wise, and which, as far as I know, does not give much ground for dissatisfaction. There is a natural dissatisfaction always where an appointment is made and where there are many candidates for the office. All the candidates who were not appointed would have good reason to be dissatisfied, and the number of dissatisfied persons varies according to the number of persons who were not appointed to the position. That is what I would like to save the Dáil from. If it wishes to take all this trouble, as well as other troubles, it is open to it to do so, but I certainly would not recommend it.

I think the President has overlooked the fact that the motion as drafted gives this Committee the power to determine the particular grading, and so on; but there are a great number of points in it other than the questions of remuneration, size of staff, etc. All these things are quite apart from the criticism he has passed upon canvassing with regard to remuneration. There would seem to be a good case for leaving an opportunity to the Dáil to express an opinion on such an important matter which has a bearing on its every-day life.

As I am to be a member of this Committee, if it is appointed, may I ask how is it suggested that the Committee should report, if it is to report, to the Dáil? In what way is it suggested the report should be made?

I would suggest that the report on this particular question should be laid before the Dáil in the same way as any other report is laid.

For adoption.

It could not be.

It is not touching appointments; it is not touching personnel; it is rather the machinery that would be involved.

Perhaps as I understand this thing fairly well I may be allowed to explain. We shall have, say, in a month's time, Standing Orders dealing with Private Bill procedure. We shall have Private Bills coming in and we shall be under an obligation to set up a Private Bill Office and place somebody in charge, and to determine that he shall have one or two or three, or any given number, of assistants. It is suggested that in that particular instance a report should be made to the Dáil setting out the recommendations. Later on it will be necessary, perhaps, to get another assistant. Work, for example, in our Journal office is just being brought up-to-date, but they have not yet tackled the question of a Journal for the Seanad. That will involve possibly the employment of another Clerk, but not, perhaps, at the same time as we shall be employing people for private Bills. A report will be necessary therefore from time to time. I want to bring that forward so that we will understand exactly where we are.

I am reading this to mean that the whole question of staffs of the Dáil and Seanad, and of the combined Houses, shall be in the discretion henceforward of this Standing Committee. As to numbers, grading, remuneration, terms of office and salaries, whether they are to be Civil Service appointments, permanent appointments, whether they are to be reviewable by the Dáil, or whether they are to be pensionable, all those questions for final decision would be in the hands of the Minister for Finance, the Chairman of the Seanad and the Chairman of the Dáil. That seems to me to be an extensive power to give because it does not mean a mere sessional appointment. It is practically a Civil Service Commission within a narrow limit, and should be subject to some criticism or review. May I ask would it be in the power of this Committee to say that the remuneration of the staff should be paid out of what used to be known as the Civil List, and would it be reviewable on the estimates?

We do not know. This Committee has power to determine whether they shall be placed in the same category as the Judges.

Actually the conference on the staffs, out of which this resolution has grown, decided that the staffs should have Civil Service terms.

I ought to have explained, from the point of view of the public service the Dáil and Seanad are more or less in the nature of irregular establishments, and they have to be provided for by this extraordinary machinery. Every single sixpence spent will be the subject of a vote here. All particulars regarding the staffs will be sent up for examination in the same way as those of every other establishment. If it were not out of deference to the majesty of the two Houses, in the ordinary way the Minister for Finance would have come along and provided the staffs. But, in view of the majestic character of the dual Assembly, we thought it would be more dignified if we were to give them the opportunity of stipulating what staff they required.

I am quite sure that the regulars, as represented by the Minister for Finance, would want to have control if possible over the irregulars as represented by the Chairmen of the two Houses, and I have no doubt whatever but that the Standing Committee is going to do exactly the right thing in this matter. Still, I feel there ought to be a Court of Appeal.

Would the Deputy suggest an amendment?

I think the word "recommend" meets my point. If the report of this Committee were made available for members, and if the Dáil then took the initiative in raising the question, that would meet my point. If, for instance, it were treated as a Provisional Order is being treated—i.e., merely submitting it to the Dáil for their information—then it is for them to take action if they wish. I am not thinking of the daily or weekly changes that may occur; I am rather thinking of the plan.

That would be quite feasible.

Very well.

There is no necessity to put that into the motion, if it is understood.

Question put, and agreed to.
Top
Share