I beg to move:—
"That the Appropriation Bill, 1930, be now read a Second Time."
In Committee on Finance. - Appropriation Bill, 1930—Second Stage.
I want to refer again this session to some matters in connection with the administration of some of the Civil Service departments with a view to getting some statement from the Minister as regards future policy. About twelve months ago I referred to the position occupied by typists and shorthand-typists in the Civil Service. According to the syllabus for the November, 1924, examination, paragraph 7, under the sub-head of "Terms and Conditions of Service," says:—"Promotions from typists to shorthand-typists will be made from time to time as the result of examination tests. Shorthand-typists are eligible for promotion to be superintendent of typists, subject to certain conditions as regards length of service and the possession of suitable educational attainments. Shorthand-typists are also eligible for promotion to the clerical grade." Despite the promise indicated in that paragraph, and the inducements held out to candidates for those positions, these promotions have not taken place.
I want to suggest to the Minister that it is rather unfair and unjust to young persons entering the service to have held out before them prospects of promotion, if and when they give the necessary time for study in order to advance themselves, and having given that time and study to find themselves kept back and to have all the avenues of promotion in the service banned to them. The position, as I understand it, is that there are only a few superintendents of typists on the old British scale. The great majority are on the shorthand-typists' scale with an allowance of five shillings a week as superintendents. In many cases some of these shorthand-typists are doing superintendent's work without getting the appropriate Civil Service increase. The custom is, I believe, to give them an increase of five shillings a week while doing this duty, and there are many places where they are only in receipt of three shillings a week extra. I submit that there should be some regularity in this matter and that they should all receive the scale of salary appropriate to the position of superintendent.
In reply to a question which I asked some time ago, the Minister for Finance indicated his unwillingness to sanction the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the organisation of the Civil Service. It is hardly necessary to stress the fact that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the Civil Service, particularly among the lower grades. The Minister also should know that that dissatisfaction is not confined to the lower grades, but exists to a certain extent also in the higher grades, and is also reflected in the Press and among commercial circles in the country. These are fairly adequate reasons why a commission of inquiry should go into the whole matter so that we can have once and for all a full and free examination as to conditions and promotions in the Service. It is also stated in the Press and other circles—this is not my suggestion and I do not think it is the suggestion of the lower grades, but it is there and it ought to be grappled with immediately—that in the upper regions of the Service there is a good deal of inefficiency and waste. As I say, that is not my statement, but it has gained a good deal of currency all over the country.
It would be a good thing for the Government and for the service if this inquiry were initiated and if it sifted the whole matter and thus, if possible, allay suspicions which might not, perhaps, be well-founded. That feeling of suspicion is, however, there and statements have been made. I do not say that the Government should initiate inquiries from time to time because of suspicions which might exist and false statements made. As I say, there is a good deal of suspicion concerning the upper grades of the service and an inquiry would clarify the position by probably allaying the suspicion and giving satisfaction to civil servants themselves about whom this whispering campaign has been going on. We know that there are a number of anomalies in the Civil Service here, as indeed in all countries. I think that a good case can be made out for setting up such an inquiry.
I also suggested about twelve months ago to the Minister that he should make some effort to establish some kind of conciliation machinery to deal with complaints made by the lower grades of the Civil Service. There is, of course, a body known as the Civil Service Representative Council which deals with matters of this character but we find that several grades in the service are not represented on that council. So far as I can learn, it is attended by representatives of only a very small minority of civil servants. I understand that that minority has frequently expressed dissatisfaction at the want of proper representation of the lower grades on that body. Post Office workers, for instance, are not represented on it and the majority of departmental classes are outside the council, which cannot be said to be in any way representative. This attitude of indifference towards the lower grades on the part of the Finance Department is causing an amount of uneasiness, to use a mild term. I want to suggest that the Minister would be well-advised to get a thoroughly representative Civil Service body. He could call it by any name he chooses. The word "representative" is a misnomer because it is not representative and no one knows that better than the Minister himself.
I suggest that for the benefit of the service, and indeed for the whole State, it would be a good thing to set up this conciliation machinery. I have a great regard for any kind of machinery that would tend to give confidence in the Government. It is, if you like, a kind of safety valve, and when the lower grades, indeed all the grades, know that they have a thoroughly representative body to which they can bring their grievances and through which they can submit them to the Minister responsible they will appreciate the fact, thus bringing great benefit to the service as a whole. In asking for such a council we are not asking for anything revolutionary. A council has existed in some form but it is a misnomer, as I have said, to call it representative. The Minister should make the council as representative as possible in the hope that certain of these grievances will be remedied, particularly in regard to the question of promotion.
I have also to advert to the question of the disabilities placed on the lower grades of the service in reaching the top of the tree. In a young country such as this it is not a good thing to block every avenue of promotion to men or women with their feet on the first rung of the ladder. There is a tendency, which I regret, and it is regretted by good educationalists in this country, to reserve certain appointments for university graduates. With all respect to university graduates and university education, some of the greatest men who ruled in the greatest countries of the world never had university education. After passing a Civil Service examination, their education was really an education based on experience. The fact that this young Government of ours is introducing a kind of caste arrangement is not at all creditable to a country which claims to be democratic and all the rest of it. In that paragraph of the syllabus which I have quoted it is really inviting candidates to take up positions within the gift of the Government under false pretences. Despite these promises held out in that paragraph promotions are not taking place. I say that I have proved my case that candidates are being invited into the service under false pretences. Again, what is there in university education that gives a person greater knowledge of Civil Service conditions as against the young man or woman who enters the service via a national school or a Civil Service college? In ordinary practical affairs the experience gained in a department of State should suffice, as it suffices in other professions.
I suggest that this ban on promotion should be removed as soon as possible and that a chance should be given to those young people who, owing to economic circumstances, had not the advantage—if I may so term it—of university education. Having secured the standard set up at the Civil Service examinations, every avenue of promotion should be allowed, provided the persons concerned are capable of filling the places to which they are to be promoted.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
Another question that is causing a good deal of agitation in the service is the method of arriving at what is known as the cost-of-living bonus. That undoubtedly wants some overhauling. It is one of these things that should be dealt with by a commission of inquiry or by means of conciliation machinery, which should be set up quickly. I could easily give you some enlightenment as to what is being done in industry in this connection. I can speak in regard to one or two industries in which industrial councils have been set up, with useful effect. Experience has shown that since these councils were set up strikes and locks-out have been avoided and industrial disturbance obviated. Since this class of council has proved successful on this side and on the other side of the Channel in commercial undertakings, surely they should prove successful if set up under the ægis of the Government or a Government department? I suggest that the Minister should take these matters into his immediate consideration.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer at some length, but it has been discussed here before and I do not care to traverse ground that has been gone over time and again. The question, to which I will only refer briefly now, relates to butter which was cold-stored during the war period. I should like to ask the Minister for Finance if he will induce the Department concerned, over which he should have some control, to make representations to the British Government to compensate the many butter merchants in the country who lost a good deal of money.
Surely the Deputy cannot make that relevant to this Bill?
I merely desire to get that in. I hope the Minister for Finance will establish this conciliation machinery and will also set up a commission of inquiry. It need not be on a very elaborate scale or too exhaustive, but such a tribunal is absolutely essential in my view and in the view of everybody who has given thought to what is going on in the Civil Service. If the Minister does that, I am sure the air will be cleared and he will have a more loyal staff behind him.
I should like to raise the question of the unsatisfactory position of the Free State fisheries and the failure of the Department to take steps to remedy it.
Does the Deputy propose to deal with the Department of Fisheries on this Bill?
Yes.
The Deputy is not entitled to discuss the Department of Fisheries on this Bill.
What exactly am I entitled to discuss?
It is not for me to indicate that. It is sufficient for me to point out what the Deputy is not entitled to discuss. I do not think the Deputy can bring the Department of Fisheries into a debate on this Bill any more than Deputy Anthony could bring in the Department of Agriculture.
I should like to know on what grounds I am not permitted to discuss the Department of Fisheries, or any other Department, on this Bill.
It is not in order.
In what way is it not in order?
It is not for me to argue with the Deputy; it is not in order.
Surely it has been the usual practice to allow a general discussion on the Appropriation Bill. This Bill is for the purpose of appropriating money for supply services, which include the fishery service. It seems to me that the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in this case is a departure from the practice followed here up to the present.
What the Deputy says is quite true, that money is being provided for the departments, but if the different departments could be discussed separately on this Bill we should have a re-hash of what happened on the Estimates.
Surely the purpose of the Bill is to permit a review of what happened on the Estimates. If you cannot discuss this on the Appropriation Bill, I do not know what you can discuss. The discussion would be narrowed down to the actual terms of the Bill, that a certain sum of money should be appropriated to a certain purpose.
The Deputy will see as well as anybody else that we cannot have every item of expenditure by a department rediscussed on the Appropriation Bill, when it has already been discussed on the Estimates. That has not been the practice.
On previous occasions we discussed the administration of the Department of Justice and other Departments of State on the Appropriation Bill.
Was it not the usual practice for general matters, such as unemployment or tariffs or questions of that sort, to be discussed on the Appropriation Bill?
Is the question of fisheries not sufficiently general?
It has not been the custom to discuss on the Appropriation Bill points which have already been discussed on the Estimates. That would mean mere repetition. If there is any point which the Deputy would like to raise, which was not raised on the Estimates, I will allow him to deal with it. But I think Deputies will agree that we could not go over all the points that were dealt with on the Estimates.
I can understand the Minister for Finance saying that unemployment is a general question, but surely one way of relieving unemployment would be by the development of fisheries, and that would make the question of fisheries relevant on this Bill?
Fisheries is a very general question. Since you, sir, ruled that only points which have not been mentioned on the Estimates can be discussed now, I should like to know whether the position of the Lough Foyle fisheries would be in order.
That matter has been discussed. I do not want to restrict the Deputy, but I suggest that the House should not enter upon a discussion of matters which have already been discussed and decided by the House. It would be contrary to the Standing Orders for the House to discuss matters upon which it has already come to a decision. I am anxious to give the Deputy full liberty, but if the Deputy proceeds to discuss fisheries, other Deputies will desire to raise other matters and we will get away completely from the Bill.
Is not the purpose of the Bill to give effect to certain appropriations already decided upon? Therefore, there is nothing for us to discuss if we cannot—if I may put it that way—repeat our opinions on certain fundamental questions like the question of fisheries. If we are not satisfied with the work being done by the Department of Fisheries, surely we have a right to protest when this money is being voted?
An opportunity of exercising that right has already been afforded.
Then this is a mere formality and is of no use to us.
That may be so.
It has only become so now.
This is the first time.
I will allow the Deputy to touch on points that have not been discussed.
It would be absolutely impossible to say anything in connection with fisheries that has not been said before—probably five hundred times.
If I am in order, I should like to ask the Minister whether or not it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to deal with the Report of the Inter-Departmental Road Traffic Committee which was issued in September, 1928? This Bill has been promised us time and again and nothing has been done. Meanwhile accidents are multiplying, and the buses in Dublin seem to be a law unto themselves. Am I in order in asking the Minister if it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill?
Mr. Byrne
I should like to support Deputy Anthony in his remarks regarding the treatment of shorthand typists. At present, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst that branch of the service. Deputy Anthony, if I understood him correctly, stated that shorthand typists are entitled to promotion to the grade of clerical officers. Is Deputy Anthony sure he is correct in that? I understand that the only promotion open to shorthand typists is to the office of superintendent. While the ordinary writing assistant can obtain promotion to the grade of clerical officer, the shorthand typist is not entitled to that promotion. I should like to ask the Minister, in order that I may save the time of the House, whether Deputy Anthony is correct in stating that the shorthand typist is entitled to promotion to the grade of clerical officer.
Shorthand typists are not entitled to that promotion, but shorthand typists have been promoted to the grade of clerical officer.
Mr. Byrne
Then I may take it that they are not in the same position as ordinary writing assistants, that while writing assistants are entitled to promotion to the grade of clerical officer as of right——
That is only recently established.
Mr. Byrne
I understand that the view of the shorthand typists themselves is that they are not entitled to promotion to the grade of clerical officer and that the lower branch of the Service—the ordinary writing assistants—are entitled as of right to promotion to the grade of clerical officer. When Deputy Anthony stated that shorthand typists were entitled to promotion to the grade of clerical officer, I thought he was in error and I still think so. From the statement of the Minister, I think the Deputy is in error. There appears to be some small loophole by which if they go through some devious course they may arrive at the post of clerical officer. I want to have it made clear by the Minister, in reply, that shorthand typists are entitled to rise to the rank of clerical officer in the same way as are writing assistants. I understand distinctly from the shorthand typists themselves that they are not entitled to that promotion and that the only promotion they are entitled to is to the office of superintendent. To offer a competent shorthand typist the post of superintendent, by way of promotion, at an extra salary of from 3/- to 5/- per week, is, in my opinion, adding insult to injury.
Deputy Anthony referred here to the various qualifications of the grades of the Civil Service. I can speak with some knowledge of the qualifications of the shorthand-typists. I know that the qualifications, educationally and technically, of shorthand-typists are much superior to the qualifications of the ordinary writing assistants, and it appears to me an anomaly that ordinary writing assistants can get promotion to a higher grade of the service when, even according to the statement of the Minister, shorthand-typists are debarred. It certainly should be put right. Anybody with any knowledge of the two grades of the service knows that there is a remarkable difference in the standard of examination. The standard of examination for writing assistants is simply a high-class primary standard and the standard for shorthand-typists is a high-class secondary standard, and, in addition, they also have the qualifications of shorthand and typewriting.
There is another thing that I would like to point out, and that may, perhaps, be unknown to the Minister. It is that a great many shorthand-typists complain that after they have been typing and doing shorthand work for a number of years their sight is more or less affected and, from a health point of view, they certainly should be given a change. There should be some method of promotion for those in that particular grade. It appears to me an unthinkable proposition that a writing assistant who merely possesses what might be called a primary education should be entitled to promotion to a higher grade while the shorthand-typist who has a secondary education is not.
Deputy Anthony referred to the educational qualifications of the different grades of the service. He referred to those possessing a university degree. I know a great many shorthand-typists who possess a university degree. I have no personal knowledge of a writing assistant who possesses a university degree. In fact, university graduates are almost debarred from being writing assistants on the grounds of age, and I think it is only ordinary commonsense that a civil servant possessing a university degree must make a better civil servant than a civil servant who comes out of an ordinary national school.
Bunkum.
Mr. Byrne
I cannot understand how a Deputy with the acumen of Deputy Anthony would ask what advantage a university degree is to a civil servant. One might as well ask what advantage is a university degree to a member of this House, or to a member of any profession. The man who has not got a university degree, I must certainly say from my experience, does not make a good professional man. I can take members of my own family. I have a lad who has got a primary education and I have a lad who has got a secondary education. Would I say that the lad possessing the primary certificate has the same standard of knowledge or would be as competent as the lad with the secondary education? The thing is absurd. There is just the same marked difference between the man having an ordinary secondary education and the man having an ordinary university education.
On a point of order, I think the Deputy has misinterpreted what I have said.
That is not a point of order.
I did not suggest that it was a disadvantage——
That is not a point of order.
Mr. Byrne
I do not wish to delay the House. All I do say in conclusion is that certainly a grave disadvantage has been put upon the ordinary shorthand-typist. The only promotion open to her is that of superintendent and that promotion may occur once in ten years. I do not think that is fair and I would ask the Minister in reply to say that at least they will be put upon the same terms and have the same opportunities of rising to the grade of clerical officer as those occupying the rank of writing assistant.
Your ruling with respect to what may be dealt with on this Bill puts us in a rather extraordinary position. It means that the Second Reading is practically of no value at all to the House. After all in connection with an ordinary Bill we have a stage in which we deal with matters that have been discussed in committee and a discussion in committee on finance really amounts to a committee stage. In this particular case we get an opportunity on the Second Stage of this Bill of dealing in a broader way with matters than we are allowed to deal with them on the Estimates themselves. I think that that view of the matter is not merely borne out by the practice which has obtained hitherto, but it is borne out also by a ruling of the Ceann Comhairle himself.
On a previous occasion he stated that he understood that the matter that is raised on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill deals with these matters that have already been discussed in Committee. He said, in giving his decision, that that was the rule in another place. I take it he meant the British House of Commons. The Second Reading was used for the purpose of a general discussion, and the practice there was that the Government Party should be informed in advance by the Opposition what subject is chosen. I think he desired, for the sake of discussion here, that that practice would be followed as a suitable practice. The practice that he suggested should not be followed was that of dealing with matters that had not already been discussed, that is, using the Second Stage for taking up matters that had been omitted in the case of the Estimates, but that he regarded a Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill as an occasion in which a big general matter of administration should be dealt with, so that this is exactly in line with his ruling. We had intended to deal with the question of fisheries, and I think notice was given, through the Whips, to the Ministers that that was the question we wished to discuss, so that they would be prepared to meet the arguments or the demands for information that might be made. If your ruling is to be what you said, it simply means that we might as well not have this Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill. Any purpose that would be served by having a Second Reading would be completely lost. I would respectfully ask that you might take that into account.
Take my own case. While we were going to deal with the question of fisheries, I also intended bringing up a matter which I think is a matter of very urgent public importance at present—that is, the failure of the Government to bring in proposals with respect to the protection of the coach-building industry. I suppose that would similarly be ruled out of order as not coming within the scope of this Bill. It is a matter for which we lay blame largely on the Department of Industry and Commerce, for whose purposes we are about to vote a considerable sum here now.
I want to make it clear that the ruling which I gave was in accordance with the practice and procedure on the Appropriation Bill up to the present. If any notice was given that it was intended to raise a matter of general importance and have it discussed on the Second Reading, I was certainly not aware of it. I want to make it quite clear that the ruling which I had given is not a departure in any way from the ruling given before. It is in keeping with the practice.
Word was conveyed to me that Deputy de Valera was going to raise the question of the tariffs on motor bodies. I did not know that notice was given of the fishery question.
The time of the year usually for dealing with the Appropriation Bill is when the House is about to adjourn for the summer holidays, and general matters are dealt with on the motion for the adjournment rather than on the Bill itself.
We got no opportunity of giving notice to raise this question on the adjournment. I suppose the time for giving notice is now gone.
Very well. I will raise the question on the adjournment.
Is it not a fact that in dealing with the Estimates we are confined very rigidly as regards the matters we may speak of? We must not speak about legislation and things of that kind. I think it is a pity if we are prevented by a ruling from dealing with them on the Second Stage. I suggest that these are matters that necessitate a full discussion, and that it would be unfortunate that your ruling should be made permanent.
I would be anxious to support that point of view for fear this would establish a precedent. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, on the Estimates we are confined rigidly to the discussion of the administration of the various departments. We cannot really discuss the policy of the Ministers in so far as that policy is disclosed in administrative acts. If a Deputy wished to criticise any Minister for not having altered existing laws, or introduced new legislation to change a situation then existing, he could not do it. It is only in a general discussion of this nature that he could do so.
I do not agree with the Deputy that I am creating a precedent. If we departed from what has been the practice we would be creating a precedent.
Can you say that any fixed time has been allotted for the Adjournment Debate?
Not that I am aware of.
My own idea would be that if there were matters that Deputies wished to raise on the adjournment the House should remain sitting till, say, the usual hour. When the Dáil is going to disperse for the summer holidays we are not confined on the adjournment to a discussion of half-an-hour. I think it has been the practice to have discussions of two, three and four hours on the adjournment.
The reason I raise the question is that on previous occasions a certain period was allocated for the adjournment debate. In the ordinary course for an important debate time is allotted, but here no time is fixed for the adjournment to take place and the House should be informed as to what the intention of the Ministry is.
The intention is to move the adjournment after all stages of this Bill are taken, and the remainder of the time till 10.30 p.m. can be given to the debate.
I think it has been the usual practice to move the adjournment a considerable time before the ordinary hour for adjourning.
If the adjournment is not moved till the usual hour can extra time be given to the adjournment debate? Can we adjourn till to-morrow?
No.
The matter I intended to raise was that of coach building.
I suggest to the Deputy that it will be more appropriate on the adjournment.
I desire to support the general appeal that has been made by Deputy Anthony to the Minister for Finance for the removal of certain grievances named by him and which are causing a good deal of discontent in the lower grades of the Civil Service. I hope that the Minister is not going to be impressed, especially on the question of promotion, by the unimpressive speech delivered upon that matter by Deputy J. J. Byrne. Deputy J. J. Byrne seems to think that it is quite possible for young men raw from the University to walk into the Education Department, the Board of Works, or the Land Commission, or the Department of Finance and take charge of the supervision of the work and give instructions to individuals working in these Departments who have experience of 20 or 30 years. I might as well suggest that Deputy J. J. Byrne should go down and act as foreman bricklayer in connection with some building scheme in his constituency. He would be as competent to act as foreman bricklayer in connection with a building scheme as the young man with a University degree could take charge, for instance, of the untenanted land branch of the Land Commission, of the drainage department of the Public Works, or some section of the Department of Education and give instructions to men of 20 or 30 years' experience. It is impossible, and I hope the Minister is not going to be led away by silly suggestions of that kind.
I think every Deputy will remember, on this question of promotion, that between the setting up of the Provisional Government in 1921 and the Civil Service Commissioners three or four years afterward a very large number of over-aged officials, in some cases with not high educational qualifications, were found very important positions in the service of this State. That may have been right from the point of view of the Ministry. On one or two occasions they admitted here that they appointed certain individuals to positions and they were purely political appointments. I merely make that point in order to show that in that period they were not so much concerned with the necessity for a University degree. Many men are sitting in high positions in the State without the educational qualifications which, in my opinion, were necessary at the time and are necessary still, and without any of these degrees that we hear so much about from Deputy Byrne and others.
If it was good policy then it is good policy now, both for the State just as for any business concern, to give the higher positions to men with experience of the working of departments. If you send a university man into the untenanted land section or the land purchase branch of the Land Commission and advise all the staff to go to him for guidance and instruction I dare say he would not know the slightest thing about what was in the files and he would not be in a position to give much guidance or instruction. Why, therefore, advocate the straightaway appointment from the universities to these positions in preference to giving promotion to the men who posses the knowledge gained by the experience of years? I hope the Minister will refuse to be impressed by Deputy Byrne's speech. The Deputy seems to think that the only brainy people in the world are those who walk in the front gate of Trinity College and walk out the back way without looking at all into the examination room. It was stated that in the old days you could easily do that and find a B.A., a B.Sc., or an M.A., as the case might be, attached to your back.
I wish to mention another matter in reference to a question which I raised here a couple of years ago during the consideration of the Estimates. The matter has not been referred to recently. I admit there has been a slight improvement on the position as it then existed. I refer to the position of the men employed in the preventive service of the Customs and Excise. When the Customs and Excise were set up a number of individuals were taken into the service without previous experience and without any educational test. I am not grumbling at that, but to-day you find in the preventive service two sets of men doing the very same work under different conditions. You have one body on the established staff, as they call it in the Finance Department, entitled to receive pay when they are on sick leave and possessing other advantages which the unestablished preventive officer does not enjoy at the moment. A case was brought under my notice quite recently where one man who, to my own knowledge, is as well qualified as any man on the established staff, had to go to hospital and was out for a long time on sick leave as a result of an operation. After a few weeks he was left without pay and his colleagues had to make up for him the small sum of £3 which he receives as an unestablished preventive officer.
That state of affairs should be put right. It is in the interests of the State that men doing the same work should do it under the same conditions. In the particular place I have in mind the men are obliged to work from 5.30 a.m. to 8 o'clock in the evening for £3 per week. That applies to the unestablished officer. I suggest seriously that there is something wrong with that branch of the service. It should be put right, and these people should be put on the same conditions provided they are doing the same work. I believe that condition of affairs exists on the Border and in the City of Dublin so far as the preventive staff are concerned. Representations have been made to the Revenue Commissioners on several occasions and I appeal to the Minister to call for the files for the purpose of putting right this obvious wrong as soon as possible.
I wonder would I be in order in speaking on a matter which comes under the heading of the allotment of money to parks, and especially to the Curragh? There is a certain sum of money appropriated for the Curragh, and I would like to know if I would be in order in bringing it to the Minister's notice?
It would be more in order if it were raised on the Board of Works Estimate. I will, however, allow the Deputy to deal with it now.
Mr. Wolfe
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the management of the Curragh. It is governed by two very antiquated Acts passed in 1868 and 1870. Under those Acts a system of management was set up which is altogether unsuitable these days. There are a great many interests involved in the Curragh. On the one hand, we have the racing interests; then we have the possession of the Curragh by the military, and the fact that it is extensively grazed. The Curragh is managed by bailiffs. The government of the Curragh is carried out by the ranger, who is myself, and a deputy-ranger, who is head of the whole thing, and several bailiffs. I have no control over the deputy-ranger at all. Certain matters have been brought to my notice which I think require attention, not that there is any particular fault on his part. The fact is that the whole management of the Curragh wants to be reorganised. It is not at all up-to-date, and it is very unsatisfactory, from my point of view especially. If it was only a matter of handing in my resignation that could be done at once, but that would not make a penny's worth of difference. Although I am the head of the Curragh the only thing I have control in is the appointment of an under-bailiff. I am responsible for the doings of the deputy-ranger, but I cannot make him do anything if I happen to differ with him over it. It is a most peculiar state of affairs, and it certainly wants looking into. A good many matters were brought to my attention lately, and people were expressing dissatisfaction in connection with matters arising out of racing and grazing. I would like the Minister to see if something cannot be done to bring the management of the Curragh up-to-date and put it on a more sensible and reasonable basis.
Deputy Anthony referred to the question of promotions in the Civil Service. That is a matter that has been dealt with here on more than one occasion. I do not think people in any grade in the service have really good grounds for complaint. There has been for a few years a ban on promotions. There have been no promotions into the clerical grade and there have been no promotions from the clerical grade to the executive grade.
As I have already explained to the House, that followed the period during which there had been an exceptional number of promotions from the clerical to the executive grade when, except by chance, all the best and the very top of the clerical grade were promoted to the executive grade. It may have happened that somebody as good as or better than some one promoted was by a mere chance overlooked; but what actually happened during the period was that if there were normal promotions all the best of the clerical grade were promoted. So many of them have been promoted that, although there have been a few years since promotions were stopped, no person in the clerical grade has a grievance. A grievance would be there if the ban were to be continued indefinitely because new people would come in view who were good enough for promotion and if they did not get their chance they would undoubtedly be unjustly treated. I hope it will not be so very long until it is possible to resume promotions, at any rate on a small scale, from the clerical to the executive grade. I deny entirely that so far the ban on promotions has been in the nature of an injustice to any person in the clerical grade.
With regard to promotions into the clerical grade from the grade of writing assistant, as I announced about a year ago, we felt the time had come to make some promotions from writing assistants to the clerical grade. Within the last week or so I think about a dozen promotions have been made. No promotions have been made from the shorthand typist grade to the clerical grade. I think it was Deputy Byrne suggested that if we were making promotions from one or two of these grades to the clerical grade the shorthand typist would have more claim. I do not think that is so. In the first instance, large numbers of shorthand typists and typists succeeded within the last few years in entering the clerical grade through the medium of confined examination. There was quite a considerable number so that very many who a few years ago were shorthand typists or typists are now clerical officers. The examination, of course, was of a lower standard than would be the case if there were open competition. Although, perhaps, you may have University graduates amongst the shorthand typists, the general run of the girls entering as writing assistants have a higher standard of education than the girls entering as shorthand typists. The competition for the writing assistant class has been extraordinarily keen. As a matter of fact, we have got girls whose standard of education was really much higher than was necessary for the work.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Minister say if the standard of examination for the ordinary writing assistant is nearly as high as the standard for shorthand typists?
Of course it is.
The literary tests are about the same standard but, of course, the shorthand typists and typists are tested in typing and shorthand. Although the standard of the tests set is about the same in the two examinations, girls with much better education on the whole, that is, dealing with the great majority, have entered as writing assistants. However, it is not intended that there should be a refusal to promote any person from the shorthand typist to the clerical grade. In former times there were promotions and it is intended that promotions will later on be resumed; but there is no such thing as a right to promotion. The position is that officers of outstanding merit are from time to time promoted as vacancies occur. I am not so very anxious to have large numbers of people promoted to the clerical grade at present because, taking the clerical grade as a whole, the quality is rather below the standard as members have entered the clerical grade during recent years as the result of limited examination. During the European War and after the setting up of the Saorstát, before the Civil Service Commission was established, large numbers of temporary clerical officers were employed. Limited examinations were held to enable these temporary clerical officers to be established, and these examinations were of such a very simple character that great numbers of temporary officers qualified. On the other hand, as I have already said, there were abnormal promotions from the clerical grade, and large numbers of the best material in that grade were promoted. As the position stands at present, the clerical grade, taking it as a whole, is below the standard of quality we would like to have, and it is desired to have it strengthened by the admission of candidates entering in the ordinary way by an examination appropriate to the clerical grade.
It is not suggested that higher posts in the Civil Service should be reserved for university graduates. There is no such policy and there is no such intention; but, on the other hand, it is felt that it is necessary to get a certain number of good university graduates into the Civil Service, to provide the machinery for recruiting, year after year, a certain number of people of that standard of education. It is quite true that you cannot put a university graduate to do work which requires technical knowledge and experience, but, on the other hand, if you are depending entirely for the higher posts on a few people who have entered the Civil Service young and worked their way up you will not find all the material necessary to fill the higher posts, unless you are content with people whose outlook is perhaps rather narrow and who perhaps have grown rather stale during long years of official routine. I think it is very necessary that we should keep an avenue open by which, year after year, university graduates could be recruited. People who rise by promotion from the lower ranks of the Civil Service are eligible for the higher ranks, and many people who have been promoted recently into the higher ranks have not been university graduates. Perhaps you might find amongst those who are not university graduates as good material for any posts as you might find among university graduates. Deputy Anthony almost talked—I do not think he meant it—as if it was almost useless for anyone but university graduates to enter the Civil Service with a view to obtaining the higher posts— that these posts were reserved to university graduates.
Have certain posts been reserved for university graduates?
The grade of junior administrative officer is reserved to university graduates, and that is a grade that is similar to the higher executive grade. Posts above the higher executive and the junior administrative grades may be recruited from either of these two grades.
Does not that mean in the long run that a man with a university degree comes into a post with a salary the same as a higher executive officer, who generally gets promotion after twenty or thirty years' service?
I do not think his service would be at all as long as that. It should not be, if he was the kind of man who was likely to make good. But it does mean that a man cannot be a higher executive officer until he has several years of service. If he entered as a junior administrative officer he might be promoted within five or ten years. We have succeeded in getting people of a very high standard as junior executive entrants. Officers in two grades are equally eligible for a higher post. It has been suggested that there should be a commission of inquiry, but I do not think there are any grounds for that. Of course, one hears complaints, and there is usually a measure of dissatisfaction. If we had no dissatisfaction I think it could only be because our scales were very much in excess of what they ought to be. I think the position would be extremely unhealthy if there was no dissatisfaction, and I do not think there is any more dissatisfaction than one might expect. I am sure there is a little more than there would have been if no changes in scales had been made. We have reduced all the scales from those of secretaries of departments down to those of clerical officers, and the fact that these reductions have taken place has undoubtedly led to a greater volume of complaint than would otherwise have been the case. But I do not think that affords any ground for a commission of inquiry. Deputy Anthony suggested that a commission of inquiry would give satisfaction to the lower grades of the Civil Service. It would only give them satisfaction if the result of the commission's findings was an appreciable increase in salary scales. We do not think that that could be afforded, and we do not intend to appoint a commission which would not satisfy those asking for it unless it led to such a result. With regard to conciliation machinery, if the Civil Service Representative Council is not, in fact, as representative as we would like it to be, that is mainly, if not entirely, the fault of the Civil Service organisations which are not participating in its work. If they will not participate in its work, I do not know what we can do.
I feel quite satisfied that the main reason why the different organisations are dissatisfied with its work is simply that conditions are entirely different now from what they were at the time when Whitleyism was inaugurated in England. When Whitleyism was inaugurated there were conditions of inflation, and big increases of salary were being given to all sorts of grades, and, of course, the conciliation machinery worked very well. Now the position is not such that we can make substantial concessions, and, of course, practically all the points that are put up —quite naturally; I am finding no fault with it—are either for increases in salary scales or adjustments which are equivalent to increases, and as they cannot be met on these things there is naturally great dissatisfaction with the machinery. I am satisfied that no matter what machinery we put up there would be the same dissatisfaction. This country certainly cannot have any machinery that would give the kind of result that civil servants got from the Whitley Councils when they were set up in England and when enormous increases and re-organisations involving very great increases in expenditure were arranged.
I do not know what it is that Deputy Anthony suggests is wrong with the system of calculating the cost of living bonus. I have heard people suggest that the weighting was wrong, but if that is so, it is wrong to the advantage of the civil servant. If we had the English weighting here the index figure would not be as high as it actually is. Deputy Byrne talked of the eyesight of shorthand typists suffering. We have not anything in the sick leave returns to indicate that. Deputy Davin asked about the preventive staffs. I think the established preventive staff got an improvement in their scale a couple of years ago, and so far as the unestablished men are concerned, they must be unestablished because they failed to pass the examination for establishment. There was an examination a few years ago for established preventive men confined to those who were in the service unestablished. If a man is now unestablished, he must have failed to pass that examination, and if he were treated as temporary clerical officers were treated, instead of being retained as an unestablished officer he would be given something like three months' notice and dispensed with. I did not look into that matter recently, and I am not sure that I have all the facts present to my mind, but I think the unestablished men have no great grounds for complaint as compared with the temporary clerical officers who failed to pass their examination. They have been well treated.
I would like the Minister to call for the file for the purpose of looking into this whole question of the unestablished men, from the point of view of endeavouring, as far as it can possibly be done, to see that men who do the same work will receive in or about the same terms and conditions of service.
I will look up the file, but the Deputy will realise that men may be doing the same work and doing it rather differently. You may have one man who is very efficient and very good and you may have another man who is barely able to do it. It might easily be that of those who failed to pass the examination there were some who were just able to do the work and were entitled to be retained but who were not comparable in efficiency with the better educated men who were able to pass the examination. I put that consideration before the Deputy.
It would meet the position in some way from the point of view of these men if the Minister could do something. A feeling of insecurity in the case of men holding these positions is bad from the point of view of the State.
I do not think it was intended to dispense with them. I think it was intended to keep on those who were able to do the work. However, I will look into that point and let the Deputy know. With regard to what Deputy Wolfe mentioned, of course I can see that the position is unsatisfactory from his point of view. He appears to be the ranger of the Curragh, with all the responsibility but with no power and no salary. If that is so, it does seem to be a matter that should be adjusted. I think that is an antiquated survival, but I promise to have the matter looked into and examined.
The Minister will understand that I am not asking him for a salary.
Mr. Byrne
The Minister stated that in his opinion the standard of knowledge in the writing assistants examinations is somewhat better than in the typists, but I would ask him, in view of the fact that the age limits for the writing assistants are 16½ to 18½, and the age limits for the typists are 18 to 28, how would it be possible that the standard of knowledge would be anything like equal in these two cases, and how would it be possible that writing assistants could also have a degree? The Minister also stated that an examination was held some time ago for shorthand typists for promotion to clerical posts. Has that examination been held in the past five years, and is it the intention to give like facilities to shorthand typists by means of a limited examination in the future?
It is not intended to hold any more limited examinations for the clerical grade. With regard to the point of education, the Deputy must be aware that the people who enter at the age of 28 for the typists' examination were not all at school up to that time. Some of them had left school for a considerable number of years.
They might have been at the University.
A few might. I know myself the standard of those who enter for the Writing Assistants Examination was higher than that of the people who entered as typists or shorthand typists.
Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Egan, Barry M.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick J.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]