Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1958

Vol. 171 No. 13

Public Business. - Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The main purpose of the Bill is to obtain an extension of up a year in the period for which the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, and the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, apply to members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. When the 1956 Civil Service legislation was introduced it was intended that it should be followed at an early date by a Bill dealing comprehensively with the staffing of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Accordingly the 1956 legislation provides that it will apply to members of the staff of the Houses for not more than two years. It has, unfortunately, taken longer than was anticipated to get the proposed Bill ready but it is expected that it will be introduced within the coming year.

The opportunity of amending legislation is being taken to remove two minor difficulties of interpretation which have come to light in the administration of the 1956 Acts. The first amendment is designed to remove certain doubts as to the scope of the section dealing with tghe discharge of established civil servants serving on probation. The second is intended to meet certain queries which have been raised as to the tenure of office of certain temporary civil servants who recruited to what are known as "excluded positions". Positions of this kind are covered by order made by the Civil Service Commissioners the effect of which is to permit recruitment to the positions otherwise than through competition conducted by the commissioners.

I could, perhaps, take these matters in more detail when we reach the Committee Stage.

Would the Minister explain at this stage, because if we wait for the Committee Stage there is no means of moving an amendment. What exactly is meant by this "excluded" person?

The Deputy knows, perhaps, that in the case of certain appointments where it is considered by the Minister or the appointing authority concerned that it would be impossible to get a person who would be suitable by competition, the authority may apply to the Civil Service Commission to have the post scheduled or excluded from the Civil Service Commission procedure and as soon as the Civil Service Commission agrees, it is done in that way.

The difficulty has arisen that he may apply for an unlimited period or for a stated limited period but, as the clause was drafted, there is doubt whether the person can be removed even at the end of the period and whether the person may not have a claim to remain on in the service. It is now intended to make it clear that at the end of the period, when the job is, as it were, closed, the person must go.

I should like the Minister to give us a little more information as to how far the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Bill has progressed? That Bill was to be drafted by the officials here in Leinster House. Has it been so drafted? Has the draft been submitted, by what I might globally describe as Leinster House, to the Minister for Finance and is the Minister satisfied with the principles on which the Bill has been drawn up? When the Bill is ready for introduction who will introduce it in the House? Is it the Minister for Finance? I understand the terms and the purpose of the Bill are to put the control of the staffs of the Oireachtas away from the Minister for Finance and it would be an usual position if the Ceann Comhairle had to get up to introduce the Bill as such. Is the piloting of the Bill—because it is a House measure—to be deputed to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle? I think it would be well if we had some idea as to what exactly is visualised in regard to this. It is highly desirable that a Bill would reach the Statute Book at the earliest possible opportunity because the existing situation has anomalies which should be cleared up as soon as possible.

I should like to follow the question raised by Deputy Norton. Do the provisions of Section 2 mean that if a Minister declares or certifies that it is not possible to obtain a suitable appointee for a post through the ordinary Civil Service Commission procedure he is then entitled, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and, I think, the consent of the Civil Service Commission, in certain circumstances, to have an Exclusion Order made for a period and to appoint a person to that position then, without going through competition procedure? Does this provision only cover the case where the original Exclusion Order was for a fixed period? If the Exclusion Order is made without any reference to period does Section 2 come into operation at all or how does it come into operation?

So far as Section 3 is concerned, am I correct in thinking that if it were not for Section 3 a case might be made that a probationer who is unsatisfactory should be retained until the end of his probation to see whether he us finally unsatisfactory or not? If that is so, and it is clear half way through the probation period that the probationer will not succeed, it is obviously in his own interest as well as in the public interest that there should be power so to state at that period.

I quite agree with the Deputy that it is highly desirable that we should deal with the Oireachtas staff because the position is anomalous. From the very begining I think it was contemplated that the staff here would be regarded as in the service of the State and not in the service of the Government as the ordinary Civil Service departments are said to be. There has been some delay and perhaps it is my fault. I did not pursue this matter after coming into office until some few months ago but I have had some conversations with the authorities in this House who discussed the principles and headings and I think we have almost reached the stage where the heads of a Bill can be drawn up by the draftsman. I had assumed—perhaps wrongly—that I would introduce the Bill when it would come to the Dáil, the point being, perhaps, that I would be, as it were, acting on behalf of the Government in handling over authority to the House, authority that was exercised by the Minister for Finance and the Government up to this. For that reason it would be appropriate that I should bring in the Bill to make that change. I have already said that I hope we shall be able to bring in that Bill before long, certainly in the new year I hope that we may see the Bill before the summer holidays. Of course it must go through before the end of next year in any case.

The Minister may have noticed that I was very careful not to allocate any blame to the Minister or his Department. I have my own views as to where the blame lies.

I am taking the blame to some extent——

I do not think the Minister should. I think I know where the blame lies.

Section 2 deals with the exclusion. The difficulty only arises where there is stated period; it does not appear to arise where the period is unlimited. It has actually been contended in one case when the period ended that the officer should remain and that it was doubtful whether there was power to remove that officer. It is intended now to make that position perfectly clear. If the authority as referred to, that is the Minister of the Department, gets permission from the Civil Service Commission to exclude a post for say two years, then at the end of two years the person in that post must go, unless he gets an extension from the Civil Service Commission.

On the other point—where a person comes in on probation—I think it was always understood that the appointing auhority, that is the Minister of the Department, had the right to get rid of that person if he were unsuitable for any reason. But there appears to be some doubt about that because the wording here is: "at the conclusion of his probationary period." We are bringing in this provision to make that position perfectly clear. Actually, we had a case where a post was abandoned by a person on probation and there was no way of getting rid of the person except by bringing the case before the Government and going through the whole procedure as if an established civil servant were being dismissed. I think it was always intended that the appointing authority would have power to get rid of a person at any time during his probation. In fact, even the Civil Service organisations hold the opinion that if the person is obviously unsuitable, for his own sake the sooner he goes the better because he would then have a better chance of getting alternative employment than he would have after two years. These are the three point in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Could we get the Committee Stage now?

Perhaps the Minister would deal with the Committee Stage next week? We could give him all stages then.

Would there be any objection to taking it to-morrow as the Seanad will be meeting next week but not after that?

Are they meeing next week?

Yes. I should like to have Committee Stage to-morrow or Friday.

What is the latest date that will suit the Minister?

As far as the necessity for the Act goes we have until the middle of February, but the Seanad will be meeting next week and then not perhaps until February.

Then perhaps we had better arrange it for Friday.

Committee Stage ordered for Friday, 12th December, 1958.
Top
Share