Amendment 2 has been moved.
SHOP HOURS (DRAPERY TRADES, DUBLIN AND DISTRICTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL. - DAIL IN COMMITTEE.
I am grateful to the Minister for going into Committee, and I will try to show it, by curtailing my remarks as much as possible. This amendment is the outcome of an undertaking given to me when the Bill was under discussion on the third stage, and I am sorry to say that I do not regard it as a perfect fulfilment of that undertaking, because owing to the technicality of draughtsmanship, owing to the fact that the draughtsmanship of the principal Act has been adhered to, I am precluded from moving an amendment which I intended for the purpose of securing that the regulation should be laid on the Table of both House three months, and not one month, before the examination. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the principal Act runs:—
"Every special regulation made by the Commissioners under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas at least one month before the examination or any of the examinations, to which such regulation relates, is held, and if both such Houses shall within the next 21 days pass a resolution annulling such regulation, etc."
In the first place, where examinations are going to be closed to persons of one sex, I think you will agree that a month's notice is not sufficient and that three months would be a reasonable compromise. One does not begin to work for an examination a month before it, or even three months before it, and to be told a month before that the examination is going to be for one particular class, for men or for women, is liable to cause a great deal of disappointment and it is unreasonable and undesirable. The regulations have to be laid on the Table a month before the examination is held. We can subsequently raise the matter within 21 days after the next sitting of the Dáil or Seanad. What does that mean? That means that sometimes the examination will have been held three months before the matter can be raised in the House. An examination held in August would not be open to discussion until November. That is no safeguard at all; it is ridiculous. You cannot say that an examination held in August must be wiped out in November and the persons who pass disqualified. We cannot do that. I cannot accept this as fulfilling the pledge on the understanding of which I withdrew an amendment previously. This is not workable. As a concession as regards differentiation between the sections it is worth less than nothing.
I think Deputy Cooper is minimising the effect of this unduly. I doubt, for one thing, whether a regulation can be laid before each house of the Oireachtas when the House are not sitting. That is not my understanding of it, and I take leave to differ with the Deputy. I think a regulation must be laid when the House is sitting. With regard to the period, first of all, this is one of those regulations, although treated as special regulations, which is one of the ordinary regulations governing an examination, and as such, in accordance with Section 11 of the principal Act, it must be published immediately it is made in "Iris Oifigiúil." That will mean that as soon as the examination is finally announced this regulation will be made and published. Apart from that altogether, I think that the Deputy must be aware that for the Commissioners to issue an announcement of examination without indicating that it would be confined to members of one sex, and within a month of the examination to lay a special regulation confining it to one sex, would be to invite a certain throwing out of that regulation by the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is really no reason for fear.
It is improbable that in ordinary circumstances such a short notice as a month would be given except it is an examination that is held hurriedly. Sometimes the exigencies of the service demand that a staff be got hurriedly together. Such things, for instance, as a Budget, might require a great increase in staff, or, again, a change in the income tax or in any other law might require a staff hurriedly. It is, therefore, necessary that if required the Commissioners should be enabled to hold an examination at short notice. It should be the normal thing to give more than three months. Six, eight or nine months is the notice that is usually given, but there may be times when it may not be possible to give as much as three months' notice. That is why we stick to the regulation in the principal Act prescribing that the regulation be laid within one month.
Is it not almost always the case that if a staff is hurriedly required temporary people are taken on?
It is undesirable to take even a temporary staff without examination. It is more desirable to recruit a temporary staff for work of a temporary character, such, for instance, as for a rush of work in the Post Office at Christmas. It is very undesirable to recruit a temporary staff in an informal way.
I think I am right in saying that there was a considerable congestion of work in the Land Commission recently which was dealt with by a temporary staff without examination. That has been the practice, I understand, not in every Government Department, but in many. I am glad that the Minister recognises his obligation to the temporary staffs, as they sometimes feel that they are forgotten. Though I think the Minister has made a case, he has made it on the one ground that regulations cannot be laid on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas when the Houses are not sitting. If that is so, I agree, but I have found in the library regulations marked at dates, possibly inadvertently, when the Houses of the Oireachtas were not sitting. I am referring to statutory regulations under the Dairy Produce, the Fishery, and other Acts. They become available when the Dáil is not sitting. These, too, are statutory regulations, but if the Minister will give me an undertaking that these regulations shall not be laid except when the Dáil is sitting, it will meet my case.
I will certainly give that undertaking. That is my intention, as I think it would be treating the Dáil in an improper way if it were otherwise.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 3, which is as follows:—
"In page 3, Section 3, to delete lines one to fifteen inclusive."
I think I owe the Minister and the Dáil an apology for bringing forward such a drastic amendment on a stage which is generally devoted to abstract, technical, and prolific amendments by Deputy Duggan. This is an amendment of some substance. It proposes, in effect, to delete sub-section (2) of Section 3. I bring it forward because on the last stage I endeavoured to obtain a safeguard under which the powers sought here should be used. They were not obtained and I am convinced that the only wise thing for us to do is to delete the sub-section. This sub-section gives power to the Executive Council to take one man, when they are satisfied that he is a suitable person, and present him to the Civil Service Commissioners without examination or any process of selection, subject to the one safeguard which I will deal with later, and have a certificate of qualification issued to him. The Minister told us on a previous occasion that this Bill was, in some respects, more moderate than the principal Act, which it is intended to supplement. In a sense it is, because you will have to obtain the concurrence of the whole Executive Council and not that of two Ministers. In practice that might be a flimsy safeguard. I cannot imagine that if the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Finance were agreed as to the candidate for a position the Minister for External Affairs or the Minister for Defence would disagree.
I think you are wrong there.
I am speaking with less knowledge than the Minister. I only judge by observation. In one respect this section goes further than the principal Act. Section 6 of the principal Act says, in effect, "that whenever the Minister for Finance and the Minister in charge of the Department shall consider that the qualifications deemed requisite for any particular situation are wholly, or in part, professional or otherwise peculiar, and are not ordinarily to be acquired within the Civil Service," and so forth. That is in Section 1, but it is not in this section. There is no such safeguard. This sub-section, if carried, would, subject to one small safeguard, make it possible for the Executive Council to dispense with competitive examination. The Minister will say that that is not the intention of the Executive Council. I do not believe that it is. To create by a process of law a state of affairs by which some Executive Council at some future date is empowered to set aside examinations is a thing which I ask the Dáil to think deeply and carefully about. I think it is unwise. The Minister will, no doubt, tell me, as he generally does, that I have not read the Act or understood it.
I cannot think that you have.
I assure the Minister not only did I read the Bill, but I also read the debates leading up to the Act, and any defect in comprehension is not the result of laziness but of sheer mental thickness. I maintain this sub-section reads in the sense I have indicated, and that, subject to this safeguard, the Executive Council can appoint any person to any post without examination. I object to that, even with this Executive Council, because they may think a man is best for a particular post, but they do not know everybody in the Saorstát. They cannot tell that the process of a limited competition by appearance before a Selection Board might produce an equally good man, of whom they had not heard, or, if they did, whom they might have thought was unwilling to undertake that post. This is throwing too much of a burden on the Executive Council. They know certain parts of the country very well. Excepting perhaps the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, they do not know Cork, for instance. They know Northern Ireland with a fair amount of knowledge, and there is a certain amount of knowledge of Dundalk, but they do not know the whole country. There may be equally suitable people for those posts, such as the State chemist, for example, who must be tired of being used as an illustration, or the engineer in charge of the Shannon scheme. It must be remembered that there are already very considerable exemptions in the original Act, and these exemptions continue. All situations to which the holder is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council are exempted from examination, and all situations to which the holders are appointed by the Executive Council, such as the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and also unestablished posts for porters, doorkeepers, artisans and unskilled labourers, and all situations in the Gárda. These are exempt already, and there is only a limited number of posts for which this sub-section may be required in order to obtain the power to fill that limited number of posts.
The Executive Council propose to claim this very dangerous power of absolutely dispensing with examinations, subject to the one safeguard as to whether the Civil Service Commissioners shall think fit. That is the only safeguard, and the Minister minimised that safeguard somewhat on the Committee Stage when he said that the Civil Service Commissioners should not act as judges of the Executive Council. I hope I have said nothing to prejudice the Civil Service Commissioners, or to suggest that they are not an impartial body. I believe they are, but when a certificate of fitness is the only safeguard it is not unfitting to inquire on what conditions they are appointed, and on what tenure they hold their office. Section 1 of the principal Act states that it shall be lawful for the Executive Council from time to time to appoint fit and proper persons to be appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners. Every person appointed shall hold office during the pleasure of the Executive Council, and the Commissioners are liable to be removed by the Executive Council, so that this is no safeguard. In the future, if some Executive Council found some Civil Service Commissioners were refusing to think fit people whom the Executive Council thought fit, then the Executive Council would sweep the Commissioners away and appoint new and more subservient ones. That is the danger of the wide powers in the section. I am willing to give power in sub-section (1) to appoint a selection board, and I am also willing to give power in sub-section (3) to transfer to another post a person who had got a certificate. I would be willing to extend that power to all persons now in the Civil Service, but the power in sub-section (2) is a wide and far-reaching one, and I shall ask the Dáil not to agree with it.
I wish to make one further effort to make it clear to the Dáil that we are not asking for powers in this particular sub-section that are not already in the principal Act. Deputy Cooper read out a portion of Section 6 of the principal Act, but he did not read out the portion that corresponds to sub-section (2) of Section 3 in this Bill. The portion which has a corresponding provision to the one Deputy Cooper wants eliminated is that which says where the Minister for Finance and the Minister in charge of the Department shall consider that it would be in the public interest that the rules in regard to age, or that the whole or any part of an examination should be dispensed with, the Commissioners may, if they wish, issue a certificate. That is the position, that two Ministers can put up a candidate to the Civil Service Commission on the grounds of public interest, and we propose to alter that so that in future a candidate will have to be recommended by the Executive Council as a whole. Deputy Cooper's idea of the pliancy of members of the Executive Council is one that, perhaps, some day he may alter. Our existing Act mainly has put into statutory form the provision of the British Orders in Council. The provision is this: In case a head of a Department and the Treasury shall consider that it would be to the public interest that the prescribed examination and rules in regard to age should be wholly or partially dispensed with, the Commissioners may, if they think fit, dispense with such examinations.
The position in Great Britain is that it is not even the Minister but the head of the Department who determines public interest, and applies to the Civil Service Commissioners to dispense with examinations. In our first Act we took a step in advance of that, and instead of having it done departmentally by the head of a Department, we brought the Ministers into the case. We have now gone still further, and we have brought the whole Executive Council into it. There is another respect in which our regulation is very much tighter than the British Order in Council. Apart from the distinction that arises from the fact that we have a statute instead of an Order in Council, that may be altered any day, our Act applies to all situations except those scheduled, and no situations of a permanent character may be added to the schedule. The Commissioners may add temporary situations, but they cannot add permanent ones. In England the position is that the head of any Department, with the approval of the Treasury, may from time to time by notice in the London Gazette add situations to the schedule.
The suggestion has been put forward very frequently in this debate that we are seeking some sort of wide and extreme powers. As a matter of fact we have tightened up the provisions very much in the principal Act as compared with the provisions in the Order in Council in Great Britain. We have tightened them still further. The powers which exist in England of adding all sorts of situations to the schedule are not being used to any extent, except in the case of charwomen or porters, but actually there is power in the head of a Department, an ordinary civil servant, in England without the consent of the Treasury to add any situation whatever, and exempt from the Act, so that we have very considerably limited the powers of setting aside the ordinary procedure laid down in the Act. We have heard and read of some of the criticisms dealing with our proposals in this Bill, and they entirely misrepresent the position. I do not think it is a practical proposition to take out this power. We have made the procedure in regard to the recruitment of the Civil Service exceedingly rigid. The fact that we have a statute instead of an Order in Council in itself introduces an element of rigidity which would not be dreamt of in Great Britain.
I believe the tightening up which we have proposed and carried out is good; but I do not want to tighten up the thing so that any peculiar or unforeseen situation cannot be dealt with when we have not some ordinary means for dealing with any such situation. I have quoted instances of cases where it might be required. I could quote lots of others. For instance, let us take the case of the High Commissioner in London. That is an appointment of, at least, a semi-political character. To my mind it is not the sort of appointment that should be made in the way laid down for the ordinary staff of our offices or of our inspectorates. It is very questionable whether there would be any other means of appointing, say, a High Commissioner, except this particular sub-section.
As for the suggestion that we are going to abuse our powers, I do not think that is at all likely. I object entirely to the point of view put forward by Deputy Cooper, that even if there is some small degree of honesty in the present administration, we cannot hope for it and should not look for it in any administration that may succeed this one. I look for a very considerable degree of honesty in any administration that may come into power here. There are lots of abuses that, if Ministers stooped to them, they could perpetrate under the present Act. Civil servants are at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council. I do not see anything in law to prevent the Executive Council dismissing every civil servant who would not pay tithes to every member of the Council. We do not do that. We have not done it so far, and I do not anticipate that it will be done. I do not anticipate the members of the administration will ever stoop to do the infamous, or anything in the nature of the infamous, under this sub-section.
I am quite confident the section is one that will be used fairly in the public interest, and that it will be used to deal with situations for which the ordinary machinery is not adequate. I think it is an entirely wrong view that is put forward, that you must assume that things any man would have a right to be ashamed of, things that are patently dishonest, are the things we must guard against with the most minute regulations, and that we must allow no discretion whatever to people who have to exercise big powers and great discretion in the carrying out of their duties in regard to far more important matters.
I seem fated to the end of time to go on quarrelling with the Minister over Civil Service Bills. The reason is very largely because he always produces some small individual case to justify broad and sweeping changes. He instances the case of the High Commissioner. I do not know whether it would be beyond the power of the Civil Service Commission to set up a selection board to select a High Commissioner. The Government might discover some person well qualified whose name would not occur to them. yet who would be anxious for the post if an opportunity was given to apply for it. If it is felt it might be undesirable to chose a High Commissioner in that way, why not add him to the schedule? Why should not his appointment be embodied in the schedule to the principal Act? Could he not be put on the same footing as, for instance, the Comptroller and Auditor-General? We would all be prepared to meet the Government in this case. We think really that these enormous powers might be abused.
As the Minister rightly says, there will be a good deal of common honesty in the Government that holds sway; but the Minister knows there is a good deal of suggestion and a good deal of party pressure, a good deal of pressure from the baser elements. We all know there are people whose main interests in politics are the jobs that can be secured and the things that can be done. Every Government will be subject to that pressure, and I believe that this section gives them the loophole. The Minister justifies the section on a British precedent. I know these British precedents. It is quite true our statutory method is more rigid than the British system of Order in Council. The British precedents are only made practicable by the fact that they have a great tradition in the Civil Service there. It is a long-standing institution with old traditions and a great influence. Those provisions are liable to be abused and have been abused.
I remember the case of a member of Parliament who was a Whip, and not a very popular or successful Whip. The Government wanted to get rid of him, but he refused to go unless he got a post. He was appointed to the Revenue Commissioners or the Income Tax Department, a branch of the Civil Service, without examinations. He was appointed under an Order in Council. I do not want that to happen here. I do not think that the Ministry intends it should happen; but the powers under this sub-section would allow it to happen. There have been other similar cases in Great Britain where people, whom the Government were anxious to get rid of, have been given appointments in the Dominions and the Colonies, and that operates in keeping the Civil Service pure. The British rules have been, and are, liable to abuse. I am very anxious that we should not set up a precedent that will enable our Civil Service to be abused in the same way. It is a young Civil Service in many Departments; it has hardly been four years in existence. One of the most important things any Deputy can do is to see that the possibility of undue patronage and the possibility of the Executive Council putting up their own candidate for every important post that becomes vacant, is completely ruled out by law.
I desire to support the amendment. Under a democratic rule, such as we have the advantage to be under at present, one of the great Ministries—I mean Ministries in the sense of great agencies or instruments of government—is the Civil Service. In a democratic system such as ours, the Civil Service is the most important element in the government of the country. True, it neither originates nor directs policy; but it is the brain, to a large extent, of the Minister and his colleagues who do. There is nothing more essential for the wellbeing, and particularly for the future welfare, of this country than that its Civil Service should from the very beginning stand on the highest plane that can be secured for it; that the staffing of it should be free from the slightest breath of suspicion; that there should be nothing in any statute or order that would seem to the most critical intelligence to offer an opportunity for appointments to higher posts in that Civil Service which are not in the public interest. I have deliberately quoted from the Bill "in the public interest." I direct the Minister's attention to the fact that there are only two checks as regards the decision of the Executive Council as to a certain selection being made in the public interest. One is that the Civil Service Commissioners may think fit to allow it to go without question. The other is the check of public opinion. I am not going to labour once more the point that has been made by several of us already in the previous debate. Deputy Cooper has already elaborated it this evening. So long as the Civil Service Commission contains even one subordinate official to the Executive Council it cannot be that free and independent body which would enable it to exercise its necessary functions as the watchdog on public finance. It is putting too great a strain on the Civil Service Commission. I am quite confident that the present Civil Service Commissioners would bear any such strain. I am not to be understood as making any attack by way of innuendo or insinuation against the present holders of the office. I am speaking in general terms. If the immediate and proximate check upon the Executive Council is merely the exercise of judgment and discrimination on the part of an official who holds office at their mercy, it is not fair to put such an excessive burden and trust upon the shoulders of a man as to call upon him to take his independent stand and resist the entire pressure of the Executive Council that may have a huge majority among the Deputies to support its decisions on any and every matter. A salary commensurate with such independence of character is not forthcoming. The Minister for Finance is very fond of quoting the example of Great Britain. To him everything that Great Britain does in the way of legislation and orders is the right thing; and the best thing that we can do here is to follow that example.
Now, when Great Britain imposes a terrific strain of that type upon the character of an official it takes the precaution not only to select a man of undoubted stamina of character, but it gives him a huge salary to lift him out of the region of temptation and to give him a psychological aid to the preservation of his character. Now, we will suppose that this selection in the public interest has passed the Civil Service Commission. Public opinion will have its say. The Minister, with great dexterity as a debater, gives as his illustration what would be an obvious and flagrant abuse of the powers and opportunities on the part of the Executive Ministry—that they would exact a tithe for themselves—a percentage of the salaries of civil servants. It could not be done. There never was a Ministry so corrupt as to propose a thing of that sort, because there never was a Ministry so palpably stupid as to dream of it. It would be detected. Public opinion, no matter how deaf or obtuse in other things, would rise up against it. Public opinion on this matter, what is its value? We had an expression the other evening in a division on this very Bill. Thirty-one Deputies voted as against thirty-six, and what attention did the Minister pay? What consideration did he give to that expression of opinion? Thirty-one representatives of the people voiced their vote. What does it amount to? Has this Bill been materially altered since to meet these views? Fortunately on this matter, the Press, especially of Dublin, has given very full reports and there have been admirable leading articles. Has that affected the Minister with regard to the Bill, the further expression of public opinion? In principle, surely the Minister has got enough of power. Why should he extend the scope beyond what was in the principal Act?
It is not being extended.
It is not extended, except to bring in the Executive Ministry in another section. But it is extended because disqualification of sex is brought in. The Minister has made the claim several times that there has been no alteration. There is an alteration and I will read it for him.
Surely the Deputy is talking about a particular section.
I am. I am talking about an amendment to a particular sub-section in page 3, Section 3, to delete lines 1 to 15 inclusive. In my copy of the Bill, which I believe is the same as the copy that the Minister has, there is introduced under Section 2: "whenever the Executive Council," and so on. It is part of the section. I am entitled to refer to it. All that we are contending for here is to oxygenate the political atmosphere, to get away from the germs of suspicion. Through a long exercise of the capacity, the Irish people have got an abnormal power of suspicion, and in view of that fact it is most essential for clean administration that it shall not be in the power of any one to cite an Act enacted by the Dáil which contains in it any loop-hole or any provision which would serve as a loop-hole for corruption.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 40.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- John Good.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Micheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Padraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- William A. Redmond.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin MacNéill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Magennis and Davin. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 3 before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—
4.—The notice required by sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the principal Act to be published in the "Iris Oifigiúil" shall, where the certificate was issued under Section 6 of the principal Act as amended by this Act, indicate the sub-section of the said Section 6 under which the certificate was issued.
The intention of the amendment is that the notices of appointments and promotions which the Act requires to be published in "Iris Oifigiúil" shall show separately how many of the appointments or promotions under Section 6 are provisional or otherwise peculiar; how many are in the public interest, and how many are promotions out of the ordinary course.
I oppose this amendment because I think the notice is not sufficiently detailed. I think the notification that an appointment has been made or that a certificate has been issued, in accordance with certain subsections of the principal Act, does not inform the public in sufficient detail of the reasons for the appointment. It would be merely a statement of a general character that the appointment was in the public interest or that the qualifications were of such a nature as would not ordinarily be required in the public service. It would not give the public an opportunity of judging whether a certificate was granted on sufficiently good grounds. This is, again, a request that we should trust the appointers or the Ministry or the Civil Service Commissioners absolutely, and the usefulness of any notification of the kind is nil. It is worse than useless. To say that a person was appointed to a position, because it was in the public interest that such an appointment should be made, is not to give information to the public. If there is any importance to be attached to notifying the public of the reasons why a departure from normal is made, then more particulars should be given than are indicated in this amendment. I think it would be far better to be without the new section than to pretend we are getting some information when we are not getting any information. I oppose the amendment on these grounds.
The new section would enable the public, when appointments are gazetted or when the issue of certificates is gazetted, to know whether this is done (1) as the result of selection-board procedure or some similar procedure, (2) whether it is the result of an individual's name being put up by the Executive Council to the Civil Service Commissioners in the public interest, or (3) whether it is promotion out of the customary course. I do not particularly desire to thrust the amendment on the Dáil. I offered it because of the course which the debate took. If it is not accepted, I do not think any great harm will be done, but I do think that, as Section 6 covers three distinct classes of case, it is better that Iris Oifigiúil should show not merely that the certificate is issued under Section 6, but the sub-section of Section 6 under which it is issued.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Does Deputy Magennis intend that the next amendment on the Order Paper should apply both to the principal Act and to this Bill?
Yes. I move the amendment, which is as follows:—
In page 3, line 30, to add at the end of Section 4 the words "and shall have effect for a period of three years as from the 31st day of March, 1924."
It was necessary to ante-date because there are important sections in the Bill to the effect that the principal Act, as modified by the amending Act, is to be deemed always to have been as amended. The reasons for that, which was in the interest of certain individuals, were explained to the House by the Minister for Finance. My amendment will have the effect of limiting the period of operation of this Bill, which introduces such a very important alteration in the Civil Service regulations. The Minister will have a period in which the Bill will be actually worked and the pressure of public opinion in regard to its working will enable the whole thing to be brought to an end when the period of legality will have expired.
The Deputy's amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of leaving us at the end of the period —that is, one year and four months from now—without any Civil Service Regulation Act, without any Civil Service Commission, and without any means of appointing civil servants except directly by Ministers.
I cannot entirely follow Deputy Magennis in the period to which he proposes to limit the Act I agree with the Minister that it does seem too short. I should prefer that he had taken a period of four years but I strongly support the principle of limiting the operation of the Bill. The Minister has carried the essential provisions of this Bill by comparatively narrow majorities and on a strictly party vote. The members of only on party in the Dáil voted against my amendment just now. Members of every party in the Dáil, including the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, voted for it. That being so, should it not be temporary Act, binding this Dáil only and leaving it possible for the new Dáil that will come into being in the year 1927—less than two years from now-to revise the measure if it thinks fit.
Perhaps the new Dáil will come into being early in 1926.
Possibly, or perhaps late in 1925. I do not pretend to be a prophet. I am not complaining of the Government using its majority. I should have great contempt for a Government if it did not discipline its party. There may be a new Government that will be indisposed to grapple with problems that are not directly presented to it. The making of this Act a temporary Act will force them to grapple with it and give the new Dáil an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this question, which is not merely a matter of departmental importance but a matter so important that it affects the whole fabric of the State. If Deputy Magennis' amendment, which, in my opinion, provides too short a time, is carried, the Minister will have to adopt the principle and get somebody in the Seanad to move that it should be four years or some later date, probably it would be better to make it four years. Therefore, I shall vote for Deputy Magennis' amendment if he puts it to a division.
The Minister's case is that the acceptance of this amendment would leave the State without a Civil Service——
A Civil Service Commission.
It is quite feasible to introduce a Civil Service Regulation Bill to put all these doctrines to the test again. Therefore, I see no point in the reply.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- John Good.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- William A. Redmond.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Seosamh Mac a'Bhrighde.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin MacNéill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh)
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Cooper and Johnson. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears
Amendment declared lost.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question proposed—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
I want to ask the Minister if he will give the Dáil some information as to the procedure generally adopted by the Civil Service Commissioners in appointing the members of selection boards. I want to know particularly whether members of the Oireachtas are appointed as members of selection boards, and, if so, by what right the Minister can refuse information to members of the Oireachtas who are not members of such boards as to the recommendations made to the Civil Service Commissioners by selection boards which include members of the Oireachtas. I think it is unfair that members of the Oireachtas who are members of selection boards should be in possession of information which is denied to their colleagues in this and the other House.
I raise this question principally because I was dissatisfied with an answer which I received from the Minister some time ago, in which he stated: "I am not prepared to state what recommendation was made to the Commissioners by a selection board in this or any other case." I have reason to know that on the selection board concerned in this particular appointment there was a member of the Oireachtas, and I also know the recommendation that was made. It was because I was dissatisfied with the information I received, both from the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission and from the Minister for Finance, that I put down the question to which this was part of the reply. In any case, I think the Minister should make it generally known what is the general procedure adopted in making the selections to the boards appointed by the Commissioners.
I desire to use the last opportunity of protesting against the sex discrimination or sex disqualification element in this Bill. My opposition is not based on sentiment. During the period of waiting for a division recently a member of this House remarked to me in jest—that type of jest which is, of course, backed by all seriousness—that he was a bit of a feminist himself before his marriage. I have never been a bit of a feminist in any sense. This is really a great economic question. If the Minister would only regard it in its proper bearings he would realise, as Minister for Finance, that it is an economic question of very wide ramification. He claims, of course, that these wide powers, against the taking of which we have protested repeatedly, would not be exercised by him, would not indeed be exercised by a Minister in his position or that of his colleagues in any succeeding Ministry. But I have already pointed out, and with your permission, sir, I wish to reiterate the cumulative effect that advertisements, which did illegally profess to exclude women from certain examinations, together with the speeches and the tenor of certain comments in this House in support of the Bill, will have in discouraging women's education, particularly in the region of secondary and university education. It will remove the stimulus which is so necessary.
This is at bottom an economic question. Some time ago the "Manchester Guardian" published a series of special issues dealing with aspects of our national life and the problems connected with these. Professor Oldham, my colleague, drew attention for the first time to a very significant fact of Irish statistics. If you will allow me I will bring this very significant item under the notice of the House. It has a very important bearing on the question before us. "A table which appeared in every Irish census since 1841 is table 43 on page 62 of the 1911 census. Interpreted it shows that since 1841, in through decennial periods 1851 and so on down to 1911 in Leinster. Munster and Connaught there has been a gradual decrease in the proportion of women in the population per thousand to men. The Registrar-General in 1921 estimated (he could only give an estimate because there was no census) that the proportion of women per thousand (that is women to a thousand males) had sunk to 971 for all Ireland. It had been in 1841 in Leinster, 1,048. In 1911 it was 993." That is a position declared to be unique in Europe. Professor Oldham has provided me with these figures. They are part of a lecture which he is to deliver to the Statistical Society to-morrow evening. England and Wales for 1921 had 1,095; Norway in 1910 had 1,069 per thousand; Holland in 1913 had 1,013; Portugal in 1911 had 1,100; the German Reich in 1910 had 1,026.
What has a far more important and much more deadly significance is this. If you analyse the figures of the relative proportion of adult women to adult men above the age of 20 years, we get, as the census of 1881: total adults, male, 1,337,516; female adults, 1,464,000. That is 1,095 per thousand, more women to a slight extent, than men. In 1911 the proportion has gone down from 1,095 to 1,025. So that we have the extraordinary phenomenon of an adult population of Ireland rising since 1891, but the rise is only in the adult male population. What does that mean in terms of emigration? You discourage the secondary and higher education of women. You shut out the avenues, and that in presence of what set of facts, pretty much the same facts as reign in England. After the war there was a huge proportion of war widows and of widows due to destitution and privation in the years of the war, women deprived of the support of their husbands who were maimed and mutilated during the war, girls who had been lowered in social status as a result of the war. All these things made it more imperative for women to earn their own livelihood. Side by side with that there was a development in the education of women; at the same time this modification of the Civil Service Regulation Act introduces a sex barrier, not an absolute barrier, no doubt, but a proportionate barrier, with the result that we shall educate, at the cost of the nation, scores, hundreds in fact, of women and export them. We are voting here, under the name of Votes for Education, great sums, very generous sums in proportion to our revenue, for secondary schools and universities, and the product of that education is going abroad to help education and to raise the social status in other lands. If I may again quote statistics, the latest show only 4 per thousand of marriages in Ireland. So the assumption that the home as a career, to be a wife and mother, is open to all those young women, is not a statement of fact.
To turn to another aspect of the case, the Minister quotes to us always what they do in Great Britain. In Great Britain we have not this item of the Constitution that gives equality of citizenship to women and to men, and yet what are the positions in the Civil Service that are held by women? Here are the administrative posts in the Treasury classes:—Director of women's establishments, Treasury, £1,200; assistant secretary, Ministry of Labour, £850 rising to £1,000; woman establishment officer, Post Office, £800; four administrative principals at £600 to £750 (two in the Ministry of Labour, one in the Ministry of Health, and one in the Home Office); five assistant principals, £200 to £400 (two in the Ministry of Labour, one Treasury, one Board of Education and one Ministry of Pensions). The Executive posts in the Treasury class include the following:— Posts above higher executive (in Executive Departments)—four superintendents in Post Office, two at £550-£700, one at £500-£600, one at £400-£500; eight deputy superintendents in Post Office, one at £400-£500; one superintendent in Ministry of Pensions at £350-£450; one superintendent in Public Trustee Office at £350-£450; three accountants (two in Ministry of Labour and one in Ministry of Health), at £450-£550; one principal staff officer (Pension Staff), Board of Education, £450-£550; sixty-two higher executive posts at £300-£400. The remaining higher posts held by women include medical posts, various inspectorates and certain other special posts. These posts are held in Departments or sections of Departments organised on departmental class lines. Those which command the higher salaries I have picked out. They are:—Commissioners in lunacy and mental deficiency, £1,200-£1,500; medical officers, seven women medical officers (Ministry of Health), £1,200-£1,400, and two medical officers, £600-£1,100; one in the Home Office, £500-£800; two in the Board of Education, £600-£800, as well as various other medical posts in different Departments. Coming to the inspectorate, there is a chief woman inspector, Board of Education, £850 to £1,000; six women staff inspectors, Board of Education, £550-£650; deputy chief inspector of factories, Home Office, £750-£850; two superintending inspectors of factories, Home Office, £550-£700; six deputy superintending inspectors of factories, Home Office, £350-£550; superintending inspector and assistant general inspector, Ministry of Health, £400-£450; chief woman inspector (Insurance), Ministry of Health, £400-£550; senior woman inspector, Ministry of Labour, £500-£600; deputy chief inspector (Trade Boards), Ministry of Labour, £450-£550 (with allowance of £50); eleven first-class women officers, Ministry of Labour, £450-£550.
In that admirable institution, the British Civil Service, women are not found so inefficient. There has been no Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in it to declare that he wished to God he had no woman employee. I put opposition to this Bill on two grounds. First, it is reactionary and against the spirit in which the Constitution was enacted; secondly, it is introducing an alteration which will have grave results on the economic side of our national life. I waive the point that the House voted in favour of a resolution approving of the education policy of the Executive Council. The Minister for Finance is a member of that body, and he now proposes a Bill which is contrary to the best interests of education in the State.
The Minister will, no doubt, make his reply in accordance with the statements he has already made: that there is no intention to penalise women, but that it is desirable to make provision so that, if necessary, where the exigencies of the public service demand, special regulations may be made confining examinations to persons of either sex—one sex or the other. I want to urge upon the Minister if that is the intention, and if it is not intended to open the door wide but that merely they shall be empowered to make special regulations where special circumstances require confining examinations and appointments to persons of one sex, that something of that nature shall be put into the Bill itself. It is too late to do it now, but there will be proposed on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Seanad amendments to the effect that the Commissioners must be satisfied that the public service requires, as a matter of need, that the examination for a particular grade shall be confined to persons of one sex and that the office could not be satisfactorily discharged unless by persons of that sex. That at least would safeguard the interests of the persons of that sex. That at least would safeguard the interests of the persons concerned, either men or women, and would be a fulfilment, in the enactment, of the promises that have been made by the Minister himself. Without that, I agree with Deputy Magennis that it is a distinctly reactionary Bill and is going to penalise women in the public service. In some cases it will penalise men, and in the possible development that I foreshadowed the other day—of women electing a majority of women to the Dáil and with an Executive Council composed of women, and with women appointing the Commissioners, then in those circumstances the prejudices will be against men. Now I want to prevent either possibility, and I would argue with the Minister that he should consider between now and the later stages of the Bill the wisdom of inserting specific instructions to the Civil Service Commissioners that any departure from equality must only be in such cases where the necessities of the case require it. In reference to a sotto voce interjection of my colleague, I cannot understand the state of mind of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He will, no doubt, have an opportunity of explaining that more fully in the near future, either publicly in the Dáil or publicly on the hustings.
I am prepared to.
I am quite sure he will make a good first of it, at any rate.
The position so far has been, when a Department wanted an examination confined by special regulation they had to convince the Civil Service Commissioners that there was a very good reason for their request, and if the request for a limited examination was not supported by very good reasons it would certainly have gone back to the Department. Whether it would be possible to insert specific directions I do not know. That is a matter I would be prepared to consider. I do think, despite whatever fears Deputies may express or entertain, it is fairly clear that just as from time to time in actual practice there must be discrimination between the sexes in the Service, there must be power given to the Commissioners or to somebody to discriminate in regard to recruitment. If you require for some particular position members of one sex then you must be able to recruit members of that sex, and not find that your examination gives you only members of the other sex. I do not know that I need follow Deputy Magennis through his remarks. I think that a good deal of what he said cuts both ways perhaps. What he said in regard to emigration and so forth certainly cuts both ways. When he talks about the emigration of women because men get jobs, then I suppose it follows grate. It seems to me to be an argument which has not a great deal of force.
I do not think this particular Bill is going, at all, to discourage the higher education of women. The number of women who would fail to get into the Civil Service because of this Bill would be very trifling, and it is certainly going to have no effect at all upon the higher education of women.
I have said, two or three times during the debate, and it is hardly worth repeating, that I do not agree at all that this Bill is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. If the spirit of the Constitution was what has been suggested, it would mean there would be no discrimination at all in any State employment without a breach of the spirit of the Constitution, whereas it is clear that in various employments like those I have mentioned—military, police, preventative officers in the Customs who are Customs police—there must be discrimination. And it is no more against the spirit of the Constitution to have discrimination in the Civil Service itself where that discrimination is necessary for the most efficient and satisfactory discharge of public duties.
The cause of the existence of the Civil Service is not to give jobs and not to promote the higher education either of men or of women. The reason for the existence of the Civil Service is that public work may be done and that must always be the primary consideration. I admit that it must be always the most important institution of the State and that it is absolutely necessary to get first rate material for our Civil Service. If we do not get that, having good Parliaments or good Governments will not suffice. I hold also that in a democratic country the best qualified person for a position has a right to have the position, being chosen through the appropriate system of selection, and that the Minister or Government have not the right to give it to their friends, and that the right of the Government is to find the best qualified person and appoint him or her, and that that person has a right to be appointed.
I think there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with that attitude and the provisions of this Bill. The provisions of the Bill are to deal with all sorts of situations that may arise in the future.
The Principal Act is called a Bill to make permanent provision for the recruitment and regulation of the Civil Service. You cannot schedule a class of cases to which powers taken under this Act may apply, for this reason, that whether we like it or not State activities in these days tend to extend. The State takes on new activities; that is happening all over the world. New classes of employees are required and will be required, and you cannot foresee cases in which some discrimination may be required, and I think the only thing to do is to leave it to the Civil Service Commissioners to make special regulations which may be turned down by the Oireachtas when they think it necessary to discriminate, and I hold there is no real danger of abuse in that. I am satisfied that if there were a good case put up against a special regulation confining the examination to one sex, it certainly would be turned down, and the Civil Service Commissioners will have to weigh well what they do in these cases if they do not want to be in the rather ignominious position of having their regulations thrown out.
With reference to what Deputy Davin states, I do not know much about the details of the way in which members of the selection board are appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners. I know they look for people of integrity and people who have special knowledge, and people who, in the Civil Service, have experience of administration. In general, there have been very few members of the Oireachtas on the boards and, as a matter of fact, the only personal communication I ever made to the Civil Service Commission on the matter of the selection board was when I expressed the opinion that I thought that members of the Oireachtas, being elected persons, and persons who have to come before the electorate, ought not to be appointed on the selection board. They have been appointed on a few selection boards, but I believe the Civil Service Commissioners themselves feel there are objections to appointing members of the Oireachtas on the selection board. A few members of the Seanad have, on two or three occasions been appointed. Members of the Dáil, so far as I know, have never been asked to act. A selection board was something in the nature of a jury. People come in the execution of a public duty to these selection boards. I know people who have spent time on these boards who, perhaps, would have been better employed in some concern of their own. If they are to be attacked here personally, or if their recommendations are to be called into question, I believe it will become impossible to get the right sort of people to go on selection boards. They are advisory bodies to the Civil Service Commissioners, and I do not think it would be at all in the interest of the public service that their recommendations to the Civil Service Commission, which may have a personal aspect, should be disclosed and discussed here. It may well happen that in the case of a particular appointment, which is advertised, the selection board may say: "We think that so and so is the best candidate, but we do not believe that anybody among the candidates is an ideal candidate and we make no recommendation beyond placing the candidates in order." You have then the Civil Service Commission to consider whether further advertisement would produce a better candidate, or a question might arise whether the Department of Finance would sanction a higher salary. In another case they might feel that no higher salary should be offered, and that further advertisement would produce no better result and that the best of the people the Board had before them should be appointed, but in that case the members of the Board may not like to have their opinions on individual candidates canvassed and made known. I think it is essential for the satisfactory working of the system that the opinions of the selection board, and their recommendations—chosen as they are by the Civil Service Commission, without any influence in the discharge of their duty except to attempt to get people of integrity—should be treated as confidential.
The Minister has not answered the real question, and I think this is the proper place to raise it. I am not raising it for the purpose of attacking anybody. If there is to be a continuance of the policy of including members of the Oireachtas on the selection board appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners, then I hold any member of this House ought to have the same right as they have to have the same information at his disposal. I contend while that continues that any Deputy who asks for any recommendation that may be made by a board of which a member of the Oireachtas is a member is entitled to that information, and that he should not be told that it cannot be disclosed. I know of a case where a selection board made a recommendation and the recommendation was known to other people outside, to me included, but I did not want to disclose it here, and I would not be given that information in answer to a question I asked here. I hope the Minister understands the attitude that I am taking up.
I agree with the Deputy that it is undesirable to appoint members of the Oireachtas on these boards.
Will the general character of the applicant be inquired into?
It is part of the duty of the Civil Service Commissioners to inquire into various things—if the candidate is within the limits of age, is free from defects or disease which would be likely to interfere with the proper discharge of his duties, if his character is such as to qualify him for such a situation, and that he possesses the requisite knowledge and ability.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Final Stage ordered for Tuesday, 8th December.