Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1959

Vol. 177 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

As I indicated in the explanatory memorandum which was circulated to Deputies with the text of this Bill, it has for long been the intention to have legislation recognising and dealing with the special position of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Bill now before the House is designed to that end.

I have attempted to depart as little as possible from the existing state of affairs and the Bill, if enacted, will do no more substantially than clothe long-standing practice with statutory authority.

The special position of the Chairman of the Houses in respect of the appointment of the Clerks, Clerks-Assistant, Superintendent and Captain of the Guard is dealt with in Part II of the Bill. The selection of members of the joint staff will continue as heretofore to be effected through the medium of the Civil Service Commissioners. This system has given complete satisfaction and I am sure it I would be the wish of the House that we should not depart from it.

In only one particular have I departed from the terms of the report on which long-standing practice has been based, namely, in respect of the Librarian and Assistant Librarian. It seems to me that these posts may reasonably be filled from the membership of the joint staff as recruited through the Civil Service Commissioners. In the unlikely event that no suitable person can be found within the existing staff, the Civil Service Commissioners would be approached and requested to take the necessary steps for the recruitment of a Librarian or Assistant Librarian, as the need should arise. There really seems to be no particular need for continuing to regard the holders of these posts as officers of the Houses, and they fittingly fall within the category of members of the joint staff in which they are placed by this text.

I do not think there is anything I can usefully add at this stage as I think the Bill can be regarded more as a Committee Bill, and can be properly dealt with on that Stage.

As the Minister has said, when the two Civil Service Acts were going through the House in 1956, it was visualised then that there would be a separate Bill in respect of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and, of course, that is the reason we have this Bill before us this evening.

The Bill deals with perhaps three or four matters that require special consideration. It deals with, first, the appointment of the Clerk and Assistant Clerk of the Dáil and Seanad respectively, and second, with the appointment of the Superintendent of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Captain of the Guard of the Houses. Thirdly, is there adequate consideration given in the Bill to the fact that a great number of the staff must necessarily function both for the Seanad as well as for the Dáil? Finally, there are provisions made in Section 25 or Section 26 for certain superannuation arrangements.

The whole purpose of having a separate Bill for the Houses of the Oireachtas staff, and having a separate nomemclature for them in calling them civil servants of the State rather than civil servants of the Government, is intended to ensure and stress that it is right and proper that this House and the other House, the Seanad, should be the masters of their own business. Therefore, I find it difficult to see why the Minister has taken the line he has taken in Sections 4 and 5 in relation to the Clerks and Assistant Clerks.

One must, of course, discuss this Bill without giving any consideration to the personnel who fill either of these posts as Officers of the Houses, or to the position of Ceann Comhairle or Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann. As the Minister has stated, he has merely re-enacted in statutory form what was an existing practice but what was, in my submission, an unsatisfactory practice. I have read Section 4 as carefully as I could and it seems to me that as drafted there— I understand there is another view but I disagree with it—the Taoiseach is merely to be a rubber stamp to appoint someone on the joint recommendation of the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and the Minister for Finance. I think it is a very bad principle that we should provide in a statute a method by which two people are to make a recommendation and, when they make their recommendation, that the Taoiseach must make the appointment; and to provide no means in this section by which there can be any, so to speak, arbitration in the event of differences between the two people concerned.

I think we all know that this led to an entirely unsatisfactory position in the past. It led to a situation in which the then Chairman of the Dáil and the Minister for Finance were not able to see entirely eye to eye, and it caused a great deal of unnecessary difficulty because there was nobody in the position that then existed who could resolve that difficulty as between them. Indeed, the Taoiseach under existing practice had no power to make any appointment unless a joint recommendation came to him. My reading of this section is that that same existing practice is now being adhered to, and I think that is a bad practice.

Quite apart from that, I think that the person who should decide who will be the Clerk or the Assistant Clerk of this House should be the Chairman of Dáil Eireann and not a member of the Government. The position of the Clerk and Assistant Clerk to the Dáil is one of vital significance, not merely to the Government of the day but to the Opposition of the day, whatever Parties may be in opposition. If the Clerk and Assistant Clerk are not freely available and easily consultable, then the whole work of an Opposition can easily be frustrated.

It seems to me that what we should do in this Bill is to make Parliament supreme over itself, and in relation to these two officers in each House, that it should be the Chairman of that House who would have the right to make the appointment to the posts. I agree, of course, at once that it would be only right and proper that before making any such appointment, the Chairman should consult with the Taoiseach, not in his capacity as Head of the Government but in his capacity as the Leader of the House. I think that it would be desirable also that the Ceann Comhairle should consult with the leaders of the Parties who have been recognised and designated in the Act of 1937.

I cannot conceive a Chairman making an appointment when he has had that consultation, if the Taoiseach, on the one hand as Leader of the House, and the Leader of the Opposition Parties on the other hand, put it to him clearly that the appointment that he intended to make was not of a person who was persona grata with the ordinary body of Deputies in this House.

Bearing that in mind and bearing in mind that it seems to me to be essential that Parliament should be supreme over its own working, I think that the method I have suggested would be far more satisfactory than the method in Section 4 and would, in addition, get over the difficulty of a clash between the Chairman of the Dáil and the Minister for Finance. If the Minister for Finance, as head of the Civil Service, wished in those circumstances also to be brought into consultation, as well as the Taoiseach, as the Leader of the House, I should not have the slightest objection, but I think that the principle must be established and should be kept that Parliament is supreme over its own workings and that it should be acknowledged and accepted that the appointment of the Clerks and the Assistant Clerk of each House are factors vital to the working of the respective Houses.

The same thing, of course, applies to Section 5 in relation to the appointment of Clerk and Assistant Clerk of the Seanad. There, I admit, you have not got the same definition as you have in the Statute of 1937, but the fact is everybody knows there is a Leader of the House in the Seanad and a Leader of the Opposition in the Seanad and it is quite simple to provide a method by which the Chairman of Seanad Éireann can consult with such persons as he deems to be for the time being the Leaders of the Government side of the House and of the Opposition side.

The Bill also deals with the appointment of staff to serve not merely the Dáil but also the Seanad. I think there should be more provision for consultation between the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and the Chairman of Seanad Éireann in relation to this joint staff. For example, that consultation could easily be introduced in the first line of Section 7—we can discuss this in detail on the Committee Stage—by providing that the Chairman of Dáil Éireann must consult with the Chairman of Seanad Éireann before appointing persons to be members of the joint staff. Some people take the view that consultation does not affect matters very much, but even though the Chairman of Dáil Éireann is entitled, after consultation, completely to disregard the wishes of the Chairman of Seanad Éireann, nevertheless, I think we must assume and work on the assumption that the Chairmen of each House will be reasonable people and that if there is that consultation, there will be an opportunity there for ironing out many difficulties and averting an impasse that might otherwise arise.

Of course, it would be unreasonable and unreal to have the staff segregated as between the Dáil and Seanad. The Seanad does not meet so often and there could be occasions on which reporters and members of the translation staff and so on could, and should be switched from one House to the other. I am not clear about this and I should like the Minister to clarify it: suppose a member of the joint staff is sent up to the Seanad to work there for a day, a week or a month, or for any period, is that member of the joint staff during that period under the control of the officers of Seanad Éireann or, although working in the Seanad, does he still remain under the control of the Dáil? It seems to me that it is essential that when he is allocated, so to speak, like that, he should be under the control of the Seanad rather than under the control—remote control in such circumstances—of the Chairman of the Dáil or the Clerk of the Dáil as being the equivalent, perhaps, of the Secretary of a Department.

I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister in relation to Section 6. I shall deal with it later in relation to the section. I understand that both the Superintendent of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Captain of the Guard are due to retire more or less contemporaneously at a fairly early date. I wonder is there any real need for both posts? If both officers are retiring more or less contemporaneously at an early date, I think the posts could be amalgamated. What we want is one officer of that sort and perhaps a head usher. It would be a more satisfactory method of working and would get over one of the difficulties that has always existed in that there has been no avenue of promotion for ushers themselves. It should appeal to the Minister in that there would be some saving by such amalgamation and by the abolition of one of the offices.

In relation to Sections 25 and 26 dealing with superannuation, may I say that, in Section 26 particularly, additional superannuation terms are given to two officers therein named. I understand from the Minister—I acknowledge his courtesy in giving me the information for which I had asked—that in the case of the Captain of the Guard, the sole effect of this section is to give him the service for pension purposes he already had in the Garda Siochana before his retirement from that force, except perhaps for some little rounding-up to even the figure and that, in fact, there is virtually no added period if his previous service is taken into account in the amounts that are included in the section.

I understand that in the case of the Superintendent, the position is that additional pension concessions given to him are the equivalent of adding six years to his service. I raise no objection to either of these additions and so the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say there is a basis upon which I could raise such an objection. I want to be quite categorical in saying that whatever terms are being given in this way to those two officers should also be given to anybody else in this House who is in the same position. I understand there are other members of the joint staff in the building who will be retiring shortly on reaching the age limit and who will not, on their retirement, be qualified by reason of the shortness of their years of service, for their full pensions. Part of that, I understand, arises in the case of some people because, although they have been here since 1922 working in the service of this House, their services since that time are not counted for pension purposes.

Having regard to the vital necessity I have already stressed of keeping the Houses of Parliament supreme in their own right, I think that regardless of whatever steps may be taken in relation to other parts of the Civil Service, in respect of these officers of State there is a compelling case to be made that they are entitled to receive credit for pension purposes for all their service since the House was established.

I do not know how many members of the staff are involved but I think there is an obligation on us when we are enacting Section 26 for two particular officers, to ensure, at the same time, that the legislation we are enacting covers anyone else who might be in the same position and who would not be able to receive the full pension to which he would normally be entitled for his years of service without special legislation.

I appreciate, of course, that there might be certain members of the Translation or Reporting staffs who might have come in at a very late point above the ordinary age for entering the Civil Service. I can appreciate that there might be a case because, after all, the principle behind the addition of six years' service for the Superintendent is the principle that because he came into the service of the House in late years, he did not qualify for the full number of pension years and that is why they are being added.

I think these cases will have to be examined with great care. The House should be satisfied. I am quite certain the Minister will meet us on the point that if there are, and I understand there are, other people here who will have to retire at 65 without getting their full pension, they should be included in the arrangements which are made specially for two officers under Section 26.

It is particularly important to draw attention to Section 3, which states that under this Bill members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas are civil servants of the State. Because of that, we, as members of this House, must take cognisance of our responsibilities.

I should like to refer briefly to a few sentences. In Section 11, for instance, the departure is significant. First of all, we come to subsection (2) which deals with members of the joint staff. Further on, there is a difference when we are dealing with officers of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I, any more than the previous speaker, am not questioning any consideration that may be given to some members of the staff who are mentioned in this Bill but I do think that if we are considering the over-all position of civil servants of the State or members of the joint staff in relation to their work and conditions in the Dáil and Seanad, we must draw particular attention to the fact that there are other members of the staff who should, in our opinion, be given greater consideration than they are being given under this Bill.

After all, if we are to give some concessions to some people who are entitled to them or deserve them, should I say, there are others lower down the scale. As a member of another committee, I know the wage and salary paid. It is known to us as members of the Public Accounts Committee. It is known to members of this House through the Appropriation Accounts. If we go through the various accounts, we can see the salary paid to all members of the staff in the House. They, and I personally, would say that it is not fair to exclude from the benefits being given to a few the very many who, unfortunately, will be denied many of the benefits that we could bestow upon them and which I believe they would be entitled to. For example, there are some members of the staff who earn between £7 and £8 approximately. Some of these came in at a late stage in life. Owing to the fact that many of them had service in the Army and other branches of the national service for which they cannot get much advantage on retiring at 65 years of age, they will find themselves in receipt of a pension of about 25/- per week.

It is true that they get a gratuity, but, again, that gratuity may amount to anything between £50, £70 or £80. I think it is not fair for us to start off in some cases by being as generous as we should be and, at the same time, being so niggardly in our treatment of other members of the staff. Their hours of work vary very much here. They are very much at variance with the hours of employment of civil servants outside, whether in Departments in Dublin or down the country. We know the hours of service that must be given in the Dáil and the Seanad. The hours for the members of the staff are completely at variance with what they would be had the members been in other employment with the State.

Because of that, we should draw particular attention to Section 11 and the discrimination which, in my opinion, is being exercised in favour of some as against others. I would ask the Minister between now and the Committee Stage to give consideration to that matter. Again, in Section 16 emphasis is put upon four new definitions. I suggest to the Minister that greater consideration be given to this matter, now that we have the opportunity. All members of this House, no matter to what Party we may belong, are aware of the courtesy and the help given us by all members of the staff, including the members lower down in the scale who are attendants of all descriptions in this House. They help in every way and that in itself is justification for giving them, even at this late stage, as fair treatment as we are giving to some others.

Under Section 26, it is quite obvious that gratuities can be given on a different scale from that in which they have been given in the past. I agree with the Minister in his approach to it in relation to some but I would suggest to him that it is not yet too late to realise that fair play for the few should also mean fair play for the many who so far under this Bill are, unfortunately, not getting it.

I want to follow more or less on the lines adumbrated by both Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Desmond. I am not going to concern myself with the provisions of this Bill that relate to methods of appointment or classification of officers of the House. I rather like Deputy Desmond's phrase that where there is to be fair play for the few, there must also be or should be fair play for the many.

Personally, I am extremely interested in the uniform application of what we sometimes euphemistically call fair play. I think that uniform application, so necessary and so desirable, can at times be absolutely marred by what I would call the principle of selectivity. Selectivity is always suspect and the provisions of this Bill that engage in a process of selection are, in my opinion, more than suspect. I want to know why it is that recommendations which date as far back as 1924 are now being brought into play, when, if my information is correct, there have been occasions in the past when they have not been so brought into play. People entering into any class of employment enter at that time subject to conditions of service well known to them at the time of entry. Is it reasonable then that people who enter into other services or even the service of this House under certain conditions should be made stick to those conditions while, at an opportune time, for the select, the conditions of service are altered?

I notice that in the Explanatory Memorandum issued with the Bill Section 26 is explained as follows:

This section deals specifically with the case of two officers of the Houses. In view of the relatively advanced ages at which they were appointed special ad hominem provisions for enhanced pensions are made in this section.

I know that if there was uniform application of such ad hominem arguments, it would probably cause quite a disturbance in the Department of Finance and quite an increase in the amount to be paid but I would rather pay nothing to a few by alteration of conditions of service than leave, not a large number, but an adequately large number, disgruntled and dissatisfied and reasonably so. If conditions of service at the time of entry are to apply to them, they should with equal force apply to all others.

I have spent my few short years of Parliamentary life trying from time to time to get established three persons who devoted the whole of their lives in pioneering, beginning in the Congested Districts Board, in knitting industries in the West and North West coast. In the case of one, I believe it was done this year. The other is living on British relief in a British city and the third is struggling on from year to year at the mercy of a particular Department and the Department of Finance. Why cannot the argumentum ad hominem be applied to those people who started in their very early lives under adverse conditions and whose work was of a pioneering nature? There was no selectivity there because, I suppose, people who are hidden away and to whom no great obligation is due from those in a position to confer benefits can reasonably well be forgotten.

I think this is a bad principle. I think it is one that will leave a very sour taste in the mouths of many in the Civil Service both inside this House and outside it. While it is not possible in a Bill of this kind, framed as it is to deal with members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, I think the Minister should well busy himself with immediate legislation to deal with those other cases outside the House that require the same kind of ad hominem attention. There are, as Deputy Sweetman says, people in this House who have been much longer on the staff here, with longer service, continuously and admittedly unestablished but, for some reason or other, it has not been found possible to bring them within the ambit of the select.

I do hope that the Minister, even on this Stage and before Committee Stage, will find it possible to have some provision incorporated in this Bill that will, in the words of Deputy Desmond, apply the fair play, now restricted to the few, to the many.

The first point raised by Deputy Sweetman was with regard to the appointment of officers of both Houses. Deputy Sweetman thinks that the present system of appointment is not a good one. I must say that I approached this problem with the same idea. I gave it a great deal of thought. Several suggestions were made to me as to how the appointments could be made and none of them appeared to me to be better than the present one although I agree with the Deputy that it is not a satisfactory system. The analogy that I was going on more or less in this Bill in regard to appointments was that a Minister can make appointments in his own Department. What I sought to do was to put the Ceann Comhairle in the same position as a Minister. In other words, if the Ceann Comhairle wants, let us say, clerical officers, he applies to the Civil Service Commissioners. They give him a list and he appoints the number he requires. That is exactly what a Minister does in his own Department.

The joint staff, however, is appointed in a different way. I think it is going a bit too far with the independence idea, if you like to put it that way, to say that the Ceann Comhairle should appoint a Clerk to the Dáil. A Minister is not trusted, if you like, to appoint a Secretary to his own Department, and I think rightly so. It is the Government that makes the appointment. My own experience would tell me that a Minister on occasion has a better opinion of a certain officer in his Department than is justified and when his colleagues point out to him that he would not be a good appointee the Minister is inclined to see reason and to say, "All right. We will appoint somebody else."

Like Deputy Sweetman, I should like everybody to forget about our present Ceann Comhairle and to recognise the fact that we are not talking about the present Ceann Comhairle. There will be other Cinn Comhairlí in time to come. A Ceann Comhairle may have his favourite amongst the staff. He may not be the best man. It would be a dangerous thing to leave it entirely in his hands. I should like therefore, to see some other suggestion made that would help to give us the best possible man as Clerk of the Dáil. The same applies to the Assistant Clerk and to the two officers of the Seanad.

The Taoiseach has the appointment at present. Deputy Sweetman may be right in saying he is only a rubber stamp because he appoints on the recommendation of the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance. Unfortunately, there is no solution for the problem if these two men cannot agree. I suppose it would be a question of which between the two is able to stick it out the longest. One must agree with the other in the end. That recommendation goes to the Taoiseach and he must appoint.

That is hardly very satisfactory—that there should be a war of endurance.

I admit it is not satisfactory. It is because I could not get any better that I put down the present solution. I should like Deputies to keep in mind in this case that the appointment is made by the Taoiseach, not as head of the Government but as Leader of the House. He is the leader of the majority of members of the House and in the capacity he makes this appointment.

There is every reason for bringing the Taoiseach into it, and there is certainly reason for bringing the Ceann Comhairle into it to some extent. But whether it should be on his recommendation or after consultation with him, I do not know. We shall have to leave it that way and see if some Deputy can give us a better solution on the Committee Stage. The same will apply to the appointment of the officers of the Seanad.

Add the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad.

We shall discuss that on the Committee Stage. It is one of the difficult problems I was up against in the drafting of the Bill. In the case of the Superintendent and the Captain of the Guard the appointment is made by the Taoiseach after consultation with the Ceann Comhairle —that is what is laid down in the Bill —and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. The reason the Taoiseach has full responsibility there is because these two officers have been regarded as security officers. If ever we are up against trouble in the country, where there is a possibility or danger that the House might be attacked by some section or other, we have to rely on these two men as the principal officers looking after the security of the House and seeing that nobody is admitted unless for some very good reason and so on. As security of that kind would be a Government matter, the appointment is made by the Taoiseach after consultation.

Deputy Sweetman made a suggestion, which I must say did not occur to me, that these two officers were to retire in or around the same time and he asked whether there was a necessity for two. I shall certainly have that case examined because a Minister for Finance is always very glad to make economies and, if an economy can be made on the lines suggested by the Deputy, we can also discuss that on another stage.

With regard to the point made by Deputy Desmond that this divided the staff into members of the joint staff and members of the staff—that is the officers—the division was really made for the purposes of appointment, of dismissal or of penalties of any kind. Apart from that, when appointed they come under the rules of the Civil Service with regard to discipline and so on. That discipline is enforced by the Ceann Comhairle. They also come under the Superannuation Acts that apply to the Civil Service.

Another point raised by Deputy Sweetman, which certainly gave me a great deal of thought, too, was this question of the control of staff when working for the Dáil and when working for the Seanad. It appeared to be very difficult to have two people in control. The easiest way out was to put one man in control—the Ceann Comhairle—and to assume that the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach will work well together. As the Bill stands, the Ceann Comhairle can appoint the Clerk of the Seanad as his deputy for discipline and everything else to control members of the staff when working for the Seanad. That would be the sensible thing to do. We can insert provisions—I had thought of doing so but on consideration did not, but if the Dáil wishes we can put them in—that when members of the joint staff are working for the Seanad, the Cathaoirleach will be the controlling officer and that he will delegate to the Clerk of the Seanad his powers in that regard as, I presume, the Ceann Comhairle will delegate to the Clerk of the Dáil his powers as regards discipline.

Again, I want to give the analogy of a Minister. Under the law, a Minister controls the members of the staff in his own Department but in fact he delegates these powers to the Secretary of the Department and the Secretary of the Department gives reprimands when necessary to members of the staff and reports them for defalcations and such matters. It is not the practice that the Minister does these things himself—although he can if he so wishes—and the power is delegated to the Secretary of the Department.

Deputy Sweetman also talked about consultation. I think there should be consultation, but again it is a difficult thing to put into an Act, at least to put it in with effect. The particular case mentioned by Deputy Sweetman is one where consultation is hardly necessary. Where the Ceann Comhairle is appointing members of the joint staff, the list is handed to him by the Civil Service Commissioners and he makes the appointment. It is hardly necessary that he should consult with the Cathaoirleach in cases of that kind.

The next point refers to the special provisions made for the Superintendent and the Captain of the Guard. Some Deputy read out what was in the explanatory memorandum on this point. Although it is not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, what was in my mind more than anything else was that, up to this, it was ex-members of the I.R.A. who had filled these positions. It is not likely—in fact, it is hardly possible now—that they will be filled again by members of the old I.R.A. It is likely that in the future these positions will be filled by men taken from the regular Army or perhaps ex-police officers, and in all probability they will be people who have got a fairly adequate pension from the service they are leaving. For that reason, they will be adequately looked after in the future.

Some speakers said there were other members of the staff who deserve to have their cases specially considered just as much as these two particular officers. I must say I am not aware of such, but I certainly would be quite prepared to give sympathetic consideration to cases brought to my notice. When a Minister is preparing a Bill of this kind he usually gets particulars from people who might be affected in that way. For some reason, no cases have come to my notice; but there may be cases and, if there are, we can consider them.

The speeches on this Bill were very, very short. I spent a great deal of time considering the various aspects of the Bill and, despite the brevity of the speeches, they did bring out clearly the three difficult points in this legislation: (1) the appointment of the Clerk and Clerk-Assistant; (2) the control of the members of the joint staff when working in the Dáil and in the Seanad; and (3) the particular positions of the Superintendent and the Captain of the Guard.

Does the Minister hold it is appropriate to appoint to the staff men who have good pensions?

I do not know what could be done. The Superintendent of this House is really responsible for the protection of the House and the protection of the Members. He is responsible especially for the protection of the House in times of danger when there might be an attack made by some section or other. We have had that position on more than one occasion.

That is right.

I think a military man is essential in that position. That is why I say it is more than likely that an ex-member of the armed forces will be appointed.

Would the Minister not consider an ex-member of the F.C.A.?

Certainly. That would be admirable.

Would the Minister consider an ex-Deputy who may be wiped our under the pending changes?

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th November, 1959.
Top
Share