asked the Taoiseach whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the Government's decision in respect of Dr. Ward, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, with special reference to his pension as Parliamentary Secretary, and the arrangements which it is proposed to make regarding the substitution of persons holding public appointments and the association of Parliamentary Secretaries with private business activities.
Private Notice Question. - Position of Parliamentary Secretaries.
At its meeting on Friday last the Government accepted Dr. Ward's resignation from the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health with effect as from Saturday last.
As regards pension, the Government decided not to propose any change in the existing law. In the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, no provision is made for the forfeiture of a pension applied for and awarded under that Act, but provision is made for its abatement or reduction by reference to any payments out of public moneys which the recipient of a pension may continue to receive. There are other enactments dealing with the forfeiture of pensions, but it would not be proper for me to speculate as to the circumstances in which they might or might not be applicable in this case. The Government's intention is to let the law take its course and not to introduce legislation to change the existing law in so far as it may apply.
As to arrangements regarding substitutes for persons holding public appointments, certain provisions are contained in Section 38 of the Local Government Bill which has been passed by the Dáil. These affect officers under local authorities and enable the appropriate Minister in special circumstances to authorise the holder of an office to perform its duties during a particular period by a deputy nominated by the holder with the approval of the Minister. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health has accepted an amendment in the Seanad to this section providing for a review every six months of any arrangements thus made for the performance of the duties of an office by deputy. When this amendment comes before the Dáil an opportunity will be provided for a debate within the limits allowable under Standing Orders.
In the case where the holder of an office is a member of the Dáil the question of the performance of his duties has of course certain peculiar aspects. This case requires special consideration, particularly where the office holder is a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister. On the resumption of parliamentary business after the recess I propose to take steps to set up a committee or commission to examine this case. The body set up could be asked also to consider and report on the question of the association of Deputies, Senators, Parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers with private business activities. It could also be asked to consider the more general question of the privileges of members of the House and of the standards of conduct which they may be expected to observe.
The tribunal has not reported that Dr. Ward was guilty of any improper conduct in the actual execution of the duties that pertained to his Parliamentary Secretaryship. But the findings of the tribunal made it inevitable that he should no longer remain a Parliamentary Secretary. The public interest demands that the highest standard of conduct be maintained by those who occupy positions of trust and responsibility in Governmental administration. The punishment for any failure to maintain this standard is necessarily severe. It is exceptionally severe in Dr. Ward's case in view of the position he held and the public services he rendered in the past. As an administrator he proved himself energetic, able and efficient. During the past 14 years as Parliamentary Secretary he superintended the preparation of a number of important measures and piloted them through the Houses of the Oireachtas. In recent times he devoted himself with customary energy to planning for the extension of the public health and medical services. I regret the loss of the services which he would have been capable of rendering in the future. The circumstances which make it impossible that he should render these services any longer are a matter of regret and pain to all of us.
Am I to take it, therefore, that the effect of the Government's decision in respect of the Parliamentary Secretary's pension is that he will now be empowered to receive a pension of £366 per annum for life; and is the Taoiseach aware of the fact that a lowly-paid public servant who might offend either against the regulations of his Department or be guilty of some offence which did not involve a breach of the law, would be required to sacrifice a small pension of £50 or £100 per year as well as his employment in the Department in which he served; and will the Taoiseach explain to the House on what grounds the Government justifies one law for Parliamentary Secretaries and another law for lowly-paid public servants who are obviously treated in a much more disadvantageous way than Parliamentary Secretaries will be treated under the decision just announced by the Taoiseach?
The Taoiseach has not to make any explanation. The law is the law and the whole House is just as responsible as the Taoiseach is for the making of the law. The law is being carried out. I do not think it is likely to be correct that Dr. Ward will draw the sum that has been mentioned. I pointed out that, according to the law, that sum is subject to abatements if Dr. Ward should have other pensions or other sums got from public sources.
Will the Taoiseach say what other pensions Dr. Ward is qualified to receive?
That I do not know. I would have to go into that. I do not know that at the moment. I say that if there are any sums, whatever they may be, whether by way of pension or by way of remuneration, from public moneys, according to the scale in the Act, there has to be an abatement of this pension by certain fractions on account of those sums.
Would the Taoiseach answer that portion of my supplementary question where I asked whether it was a fact that lowly paid public servants forfeit their pensions for breaches of discipline and in respect to what I have described as offences which are not breaches of law, and does he consider it fair that there should be two codes of justice, one for lowly paid public servants and the other for Parliamentary Secretaries?
Again I say that is not a question to be asked of me. That is a question of the law. We are simply carrying out the law as it is. The only question that is relevant, as far as I am concerned, is, does the Government propose to change the law so as to bring in a special provision to deal with this case, and I have said that the Government decision is to let the law take its course, and remain as it stands.
In the light of Deputy Norton's final remarks, would the Taoiseach, in the case of lowly paid servants of the State who may, because of a breach of discipline, be mulcted in the loss of pension——
That is a separate question.
——guarantee to introduce legislation for a levelling up process?
Will the Taoiseach say whether the Government is causing to be examined the question as to what extent the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Supplies, the Department of Local Government, the Army, the Department of Inland Revenue——
That is a separate question.
——are responsible in any way for the facts that are disclosed in the tribunal's report?
Not on this question.
Would the Taoiseach tell us if Dr. Ward is going to continue as a member of this House?
That is not a matter for me.
That is a separate question.
Will the Taoiseach say if the Government's decision was communicated to Dr. Ward by letter——
That has been done.
——and, if so, will he place the letter on the Table of the House?
In view of the Taoiseach's unsatisfactory reply, I propose, with your permission, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I will consider if it is a suitable question or not.