Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 4

Sittings of the Dáil.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kissane)

I move:—

That notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Standing Orders, and until further resolved, the following provisions shall apply in respect of sittings of the Dáil on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays:—

(a) the Dáil shall meet at 3 p.m. and shall adjourn not later than 10.30 p.m.;

(b) the interruption of business, provided for in sub-section (2) of Standing Order 20, shall, except as hereinafter prescribed, take place at 10.30 p.m.;

(c) where notice has been given, under sub-section (3) of Standing Order 20, of intention to bring forward a matter for discussion on the motion for the adjournment, the said interruption of business shall take place at 10 p.m.; and

(d) the time for taking Private Members' Business on Wednesdays shall be 9 p.m.

Mr. Norton

I want to make my position clear. This matter was mentioned at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It was then thought, as the matter was not dealt with at any great length, that no particular difficulty would be experienced in reverting to the 10.30 closing down here, with the provision that, if any subject was to be raised on the Adjournment, it would be raised at 10 p.m. so as to permit the proceedings of the House to be terminated at 10.30. Since then I understand that the decision to go back to the 10.30 sitting may have an adverse effect on certain members of the staff of this House. It has been brought to my notice that if the House sits until 10.30 and the last public conveyance leaves at 11, members of the staff, such as the ushers, the restaurant staff, the typists and the telephonists, may not be able, in all cases, to contact with the public transport in order to get home. It is one matter, perhaps, to have to walk home at 9.30, if you miss the 9.30 bus, but it is another proposition to have to start to walk at 11 o'clock at night, if you miss the 11 o'clock bus.

If, however, the 10.30 arrangement will work satisfactorily, without causing great hardship to the staff, I do not desire to oppose the motion, but I would hope that the officers of the House concerned would be able to make arrangements whereby the staff which serves the House in various activities would be enabled, by some readjustment of their duties, to make contact with the last public conveyance so that they might get home by bus, instead of having to walk. If that can be done, I have no objection to the motion, and I hope it will be possible to do it. If not, I want to reserve my right to ask the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to reconsider the matter at a later date, in the light of any difficulties experienced by the staff.

Mr. Dillon

In this connection, I think that Deputy Norton might perhaps leave the House under a false impression. At its meeting, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was clearly left under the impression that the proposed new arrangement would permit of the staff of the House making contact with the last public vehicle. I believe the Ceann Comhairle was under that impression; I certainly was, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach was also. I believe that if our minds were directed to the fact that any difficulty such as is now envisaged by Deputy Norton existed——

Mr. Norton

I was under the same impression.

Mr. Dillon

——we would not have made this recommendation to the House, and I have no doubt that the House will readily consent to our altering the recommendation in future, if, in practice, it emerges that members of the staff are unable to get home without walking at that hour of the night.

An Tánaiste

I want to make it quite clear that, if any members of the staff have any representations to make concerning their conditions of employment, they should make them to their proper superiors. It would be most improper for members of the staff to approach Deputies in such a connection, and, if they do approach them in that connection, the Civil Service Regulations which apply to such action will certainly be enforced.

Mr. O'Donnell

Sub-paragraph (c) of this motion says:—

"where notice has been given, under sub-section (3) of Standing Order 20, of intention to bring forward a matter for discussion on the motion for the adjournment, the said interruption of business shall take place at 10 p.m."

Are we confined then to the half hour?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, and always have been.

Mr. Dillon

I want to make an observation. I do not at all appreciate the tone of the Tánaiste's remarks. This House is not run on the lines of a penitentiary, and we are well aware that there are certain Civil Service Regulations, but there are also certain human relations which exist. I have never been improperly approached by any member of the staff in regard to his conditions of employment, and I should be amazed that the Leader of the Labour Party had willingly entertained improper representations, but I regard it as no breach of the privileges of the House if, in a friendly way, one discusses matters generally with persons with whom I am brought in daily contact, without in any way seeking to subvert the discipline of the officers in this House. I very much resent the implication in the Tánaiste's words that either the Leader of the Labour Party or I made any improper contact with the servants of this House for the purpose of derogating from the duties of the Superintendent or any other superior officer of the House. I am not aware that the Leader of the Labour Party has done any such thing, and I certainly have not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputies realise that we are not in Committee?

Mr. Dillon

I do not know what we are in, but we are certainly in an atmosphere of extreme rudeness and impudence.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now speaking for the second time.

Mr. Norton

May I clear up——

An Ceann Comhairle

If we heard the Parliamentary Secretary, the matter might be cleared up.

Mr. Norton

If we heard the Parliamentary Secretary instead of the Tánaiste, we might have more intelligence brought to bear on it.

Mr. Dillon

Exactly, and less impudence.

Mr. Kissane

I do not believe the members of the staff have any great complaint about this matter at all, and I am sure that all aspects of the case were present to the minds of the members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges when they discussed and considered it. During the emergency, as Deputies are aware, the House rose at 9 o'clock and the last bus left at 9.30, so that a margin of half an hour was left for members of the House and members of the staff to catch the last bus. Now it is proposed that the House should rise at 10.30 p.m., instead of 9 p.m., and the last bus leaves at 11 o'clock, so that, there again, there is a margin of half an hour. There is this difference, however, that, under the old arrangement, a motion on the adjournment was taken at 9 p.m. and the House did not adjourn on the occasion of such a motion until 9.30 p.m., whereas, under the proposed arrangement, a motion on the adjournment will be taken at 10 p.m. and the House will adjourn at 10.30 p.m. leaving at all times a margin of half an hour for members of the staff to catch their buses.

Mr. Norton

I do not want to make a second speech, but I adverted to the last point made by the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of the remarks I made. I said that it was one thing to walk home, having missed the last bus at 9.30 p.m., and another thing to walk home at 11 o'clock at night. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to appreciate that difference. One might very well like to walk home at 9.30 p.m., but one would not relish walking home at 11 p.m.

I want to make it clear to the Tánaiste that I was not approached by any member of the staff personally and, if the Tánaiste desires, I will show him the documents on the basis of which I make these remarks. I was not approached personally on the matter, but, even if I were, surely one can discuss with a member of the staff of the House, of which the Deputy himself has been a member for a long period, some matter affecting the sittings of the House. If the matter were mentioned to me by a member of the House, I would not see, and do not propose to see, the slightest transgression by a civil servant in the discharge of his duties. This House is discussing the matter, not with a Civil Service slant, but with a Parliamentary slant. I think the House is well served by its staff and the desire of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, as I take it it is the desire here, is to make an arrangement which will cause the minimum of inconvenience to everybody. It is from that standpoint only that I raise the matter. I am not raising it against a background of the conditions of employment of the staff. I am raising the matter purely from a social point of view and purely from the point of view of reasonable convenience for human beings. In no other sense am I raising it.

An Tánaiste

On a point of explanation, I want to make it clear that I did not intend to suggest that Deputy Norton had acted in any way irregularly. I feared, however, that his remark might be misinterpreted by a member of the staff as an invitation to bring to him any complaints concerning his conditions of service arising out of the adoption of this motion. I wanted to make it clear that members of the House should not be approached by the staff in these matters which fall to be dealt with in accordance with the regulations governing their employment.

Mr. Dillon

This comes into operation to-day?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Motion put and agreed to.