Committee on Finance. - Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Bill, 1959—Committee Stage. – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Wednesday, 11 Nov 1959

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

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 1:

Before the section, in Part I, to insert the following new section:—

The expenses incurred in the administration of this Act shall to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Though it was thought at first that the expenses clause of the Civil Service Commissioners Act and the Civil Service Regulation Act, being already enacted, would cover this Bill, there was a certain doubt expressed and I am bringing in this amendment just to make sure that any expenses that may arise under the Bill are covered.

Amendment agreed to.

PART II.

NEW SECTION.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before the section, in Part II, to insert the following new section:—

(1) In this section—

"office" means an office being either the office of Clerk of Dáil Éireann or the office of Clerk-Assistant of Dáil Éireann;

"the Chairman" means the Chairman of Dáil Éireann.

(2) (a) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, each of the following officers, namely the Clerk of Dáil Éireann, and the Clerk-Assistant of Dáil Éireann, shall be appointed by the Taoiseach on the joint recommendation of the Chairman and the Minister.

(b) Where the Chairman and the Minister are satisfied that no member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas is suitable for appointment to an office, they may, under paragraph (a) of this subsection, recommend for appointment to that office a person who is not a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

(3) (a) If the Chairman and the Minister fail to agree on a recommendation of a person for appointment to an office, then, the Taoiseach shall nominate a person for appointment to that office and shall, with the concurrence of Dáil Éireann, appoint that person to that office.

(b) Where the Taoiseach is satisfied that no member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas is suitable for appointment to an office, he may under paragraph (a) of this subsection nominate for appointment to that office a person who is not a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

One of the points raised on the Second Reading was this point of the appointment of the officers of both Houses, that is, the Clerk and Assistant Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk of the Seanad. As I expressed during the debate here, the present system has lasted for many years and, although I cannot claim that it is entirely satisfactory, I said on that occasion that nothing had been suggested to me that appeared to be better. The system in operation since these Houses were set up was that the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance made a recommendation to the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach made the appointment. The same, of course, applied to the Seanad. That was the system and the difficulty about that was the difficulty that was raised here, that if the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance disagreed, there is no means of determining what will happen. In an attempt to meet that contingency, I put in this amendment.

The effect of the amendment is that where the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance agree on a candidate, then the Taoiseach, as Leader of the House, will appoint that candidate; but that, where they disagree, the Taoiseach, as Leader of the House, will nominate a person, whether it be the nominee of the Minister for Finance—which is more likely, I admit, than the nominee of the Ceann Comhairle—or the nominee of the Ceann Comhairle, or another person. He would at least have to make a good case for his nominee because he would have to get the approval of the Dáil and he would, of course, be subject to facing a discussion in the Dáil on the matter.

Perhaps it is no harm to refer to the amendment suggested by Deputy Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

I think we might discuss the two together. Would it not be easier for everybody?

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Sweetman has suggested that, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach and the Leaders of the parties as laid down under another Act, that is, the Leaders of the principal Opposition Parties, the Ceann Comhairle would then make the appointment.

The principle which I tried to follow in this Bill all the time was that the Ceann Comhairle would be in much the same position in dealing with staff as a Minister is in his own Department. We have followed that fairly consistently all through. In the appointment of minor staff, the Civil Service Commissioners will supply the names to him of clerical officers or executive officers or, indeed, of staff such as Reporting Staff and so on, and he will make the appointment. That would be in line with what a Minister does in his own Department. But, when we come to the higher positions, the Minister is not permitted to make the appointment of a Secretary to his Department. That appointment is made by the Government.

Following that analogy as far as I think we should, I thought that we could allow the old procedure to stand whenever it works smoothly, that is, that the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance would make the recommendation which the Taoiseach would adopt, if they can agree, but, in case of disagreement, the majority of the House would make the appointment. That would be on the nomination of the Taoiseach. It is assumed, of course, that the Taoiseach will get the majority. If he does not get the majority, he is no longer Taoiseach. That is all. Another Taoiseach will have to do the job. That is my way of looking at it. I think the House as a whole should have a say in an appointment where there is disagreement.

Mr. Sweetman

The amendment the Minister has introduced has undoubtedly met one of the objections, but only one of the objections, I raised on Second Reading, that is, that there was no provision for what would occur in the event of disagreement between the Minister for Finance and the Ceann Comhairle.

The Minister, when replying to the Second Reading debate and, indeed, today, suggested that the reason he was against the principle which I have set out in my amendment was the analogy that a Minister of State was not entitled to appoint the Secretary of his Department, that the Government made the appointment. The suggestion I have made is that the Ceann Comhairle must consult with the Minister for Finance, because he is the Minister in charge of the Civil Service, with the Taoiseach, because he is the Leader of the House, and with the Leaders of the principal Opposition Parties as they are defined in the 1938 Act, because it is essential that the Ceann Comhairle, to operate efficiently and satisfactorily, should have the confidence of all sides of the House. In the Ceann Comhairle to a very large extent is reposed the duty of ensuring that the privileges of the ordinary members of the House are not overridden by the Government of the day. It is, therefore, particularly necessary in the appointment of his chief officers that there be the same type of confidence.

The members of the Opposition are not in the same position as members of the Government. Members of the Government have technical people to advise them in relation to the drafting of Bills, in relation to Standing Orders and so forth. The Opposition have not as yet—though the Minister will get a request very shortly in that respect— that facility, and the whole working of this House can very well fall down, if the Clerk and the Clerk-Assistant of the Dáil are not the type of people who can be approached by Deputies on all sides of the House with problems in relation to motions, to amendments, to Standing Orders and so forth.

On the last occasion, the Minister underlined, and I underlined, that we were discussing this in vacuo, in relation to the future and not on the basis of individual people who happen to hold these offices at the moment. It is absolutely essential for the proper discharge of his duties that the Ceann Comhairle and his two assistants should have the confidence of the whole House.

On the last occasion, the Minister made a point that very often a Minister brought a name to the Government and that his colleagues in the Government were able to point out to him that he had, perhaps, rather blinded himself to certain aspects of this person—I think the way the Minister put it was that his colleagues were able to get him to see reason—and that because of that general discussion, there was more chance of the appointment being one that would be to the general good rather than that of some individual perhaps skilled in one particular aspect only.

I agree, but surely the Minister is not suggesting that any Government would override a Minister, if the Minister had very strong views and kept to those views in the discussion in relation to the person whom he wanted to be the chief officer or secretary of his Department? Frankly, I believe the position in that instance would be that, after full discussion with the Government, either the person recommended by the Minister would be appointed, that is, if the Minister was not prepared to change his mind, or the Taoiseach would have to get another Minister for that Department. It would be quite ridiculous to expect in relation to that Department, even with full discussion, that a Minister would be overridden in that way and would continue on with a different chief adviser.

The scheme I have put forward provides for discussion all round the table so that the Ceann Comhairle can have borne in upon him the strong views that may be held by the Taoiseach, perhaps by the Minister for Finance as head of the Civil Service pushing forward the view of seniority or something like that—the strong views there can be on all sides—but that, in the long run, having heard all those strong views, the Ceann Comhairle is speaking for all sections of this House much more so than he and the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach in the way suggested by the Ministerial amendment. I think the amendment down in our name is the one that preserves to a greater extent the independence of Parliament and that is the reason we put it forward.

Dr. Ryan

I did not mention it but Deputy Sweetman very kindly mentioned the point I made on the last occasion that whoever it may be—the Ceann Comhairle, the Taoiseach or anybody else—he is required by the Act to consult only with certain people. If he is very keen on a certain person, he can go back to his own person, even though they may think he is not the man for the job. I have known a number of cases—I do not know if the Opposition have any experience of it—where Ministers in making recommendations for the appointment of secretary to a Department were, in my opinion, and in the opinion of some of my colleagues, unduly and unjustifiably prejudiced in favour of a certain official. That may happen here, too. It may happen that the Ceann Comhairle at some future time may be influenced in his judgment by having worked so long with a certain man or something like that. We are rather fortunate discussing this question now because it is not likely that any of those appointments will be made in our time. We have young men in the positions and we can, therefore, discuss the matter disinterestedly. That is what I am afraid might happen—that some Ceann Comhairle in the future would be unduly prejudiced in favour of a certain person and that, in spite of consultation and so on, he would go back to that appointment.

When introducing the Bill, I said I did not think the present system of appointment, apart from the difficulty that arises, was ideal—that the Minister for Finance and the Ceann Comhairle should make the recommendations. It was all right when the officials were, as they were, part of the Civil Service because the Minister for Finance had some say in it, but under the new conditions, I do not know if the Minister for Finance will have any say at all. As I said before, it was because I did not hear of any better alternative that I left that provision in the Bill. I should be glad indeed for some alternative, but I do not like the alternative offered by Deputy Sweetman. I should like to get a better alternative, if possible.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the Minister's amendment is better than the original section but I do not think it goes far enough. Perhaps the Minister might be able to meet me in some degree this way? Very often, without putting it in a statute, there is an expression on both sides of the House that, before a certain decision is come to, it is desirable that there be consultation. Would the Minister be prepared to express it as his view that, before the appointments are made under the amendments put down here, it would be proper, without putting it in the statute, for either the Minister for Finance of the day, or the Ceann Comhairle of the day to consult the views of the two principal Parties?

Dr. Ryan

In my amendment?

Mr. Sweetman

Yes. Without writing it into the statute, I feel if it were expressed by the Minister, representing the Government, and by our side, representing the principal Opposition Party, that it was desirable that consultation would take place, with the principal Parties as named in Section 10 of the Act of 1938, then I am quite certain that would happen.

Dr. Ryan

I would have gone further than the Deputy. I would have gone as far as making it a condition, were it not for the difficulty that in the Seanad we have not got Opposition Parties, as it were.

Mr. Sweetman

That is why I put in such persons as would be deemed leaders of the groups supporting or opposing the Government.

Dr. Ryan

I would certainly agree with what the Deputy says. Even if the two persons agreed, would the Deputy require consultation before the appointment?

Mr. Sweetman

I think it would be desirable. I think it is desirable to make it, as far as possible, what I might call a unanimous appointment.

Dr. Ryan

Very good; we can do that.

Mr. Sweetman

If that is written into the record, that is sufficient. I shall not move my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Acceptance of amendment No. 2 involves the deletion of Section 4 of the Bill.

Section 4 deleted.

NEW SECTION.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 4:—

Before the section to insert the following new section:—

(1) In this section—

"office" means an office being either the office of Clerk of Seanad Éireann or the office of Clerk-Assistant of Seanad Éireann;

"the Chairman" means the Chairman of Seanad Éireann.

(2) (a) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, each of the following officers, namely, the Clerk of Seanad Éireann, and the Clerk-Assistant of Seanad Éireann, shall be appointed by the Taoiseach on the joint recommendation of the Chairman and the Minister.

(3) (a) If the Chairman and the Minister fail to agree on a recommendation of a person for appointment to an office, then, the Taoiseach shall nominate a person for appointment to that office and shall with the concurrence of Seanad Éireann, appoint that person to that office.

(b) Where the Taoiseach is satisfied that no member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas is suitable for appointment to an office, he may, under paragraph (a) of this subsection, nominate for appointment to that office a person who is not a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not propose to move my amendment but, in order to have it on the record, it will be for the Chairman of the Seanad in this case to consult such persons as the Chairman, in his discretion, thinks fit.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Acceptance of amendment No. 4 involves the deletion of Section 5 of the Bill.

Section 5 deleted.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (1), line 17, after "Dáil Éireann" to insert: ", after consultation with the Chairman of Seanad Éireann,".

So far as the actual appointment of members of the joint staff is concerned, the appointment is made automatically by the Ceann Comhairle through the Civil Service Commissioners. This section, however, provides for the appointment "of such and so many"; the section says the Chairman of Dáil Éireann may appoint "such and so many" persons to serve as members.

The Chairman may appoint such persons as come up from the Civil Service Commissioners, but, in the decision as to how many it is necessary to have, I think there should be consultation with the Seanad. The staff will have to work for both and therefore there should be, I think, as much integration and tying-in as possible between the two. It is because I feel there ought to be consultation on the "so many" that I have put down this amendment.

Dr. Ryan

That point did not strike me. As the Deputy has pointed out, this is just a matter of taking a list from the Civil Service Commissioners and there would, therefore, be really no great point in having consultation about it. But the Chairman of the Seanad might be pressing for another officer and it might be said that he should really appoint two rather than one, or three rather than two. I think there is a point there. I would ask the Deputy to allow me to consider the point between now and the Report Stage and, on that Stage, I may be able to introduce something to cover the situation. I am not sure.

Mr. Sweetman

Very well. My amendment covers "such" as well as "so many".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister tell us exactly what this section connotes?

Dr. Ryan

Under existing legislation, the Taoiseach delegates to the Ceann Comhairle. Under the proposed legislation, the Ceann Comhairle gets the power himself. There is no question of delegation by someone else.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 13 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 7:—

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—

"( ) The Chairman of Dáil Éireann may delegate to the Chairman of Seanad Éireann the powers, in relation to any matter arising directly in connection with the business of Seanad Éireann, exercisable by him under this Act as the appropriate authority in relation to members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and if he does so, then, so long as the delegation remains in force,

(i) those powers shall, in lieu of being exercisable by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann, be exercisable by the person who is for the time being the Chairman of Seanad Éireann, and

(ii) that person shall, in lieu of the Chairman of Dáil Éireann, be, for the purposes of this Act, the appropriate authority, as respects the exercise of those powers, in relation to members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas".

We had some discussion on this matter on the Second Stage. The amendment I have tabled is taken straight from a section of the Civil Service Regulation Act. The Taoiseach had power in relation to members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. He had a discretionary power of delegating his powers to the Chairman of Dáil Éireann. I have taken the same section for the purpose of giving the Chairman of Dáil Éireann the power of delegating to the Chairman of Seanad Éireann the necessary powers in relation to members of the joint staff when those members are working in the Seanad. The powers may be there, inherent in the Bill and without being expressed, but I think it is better that a specific provision should be included as an expression of the desire of the House, in relation to staff working for the Seanad, that the Dáil should not interfere with such staff in the performance of their duties for the other House. As far as possible, the two Houses should be kept segregated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 might be discussed together.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are certainly cognate. I think amendment No. 7 is separate.

Dr. Ryan

Amendment No. 9 is my effort to give the Chairman of the Seanad control over the joint staff while the Seanad is sitting. Anybody connected with the Seanad, when it is sitting, would be under his control— for instance, the reporting staff, and the ushers who would be dealing with admissions and so forth. Anything connected with the sitting of the Seanad would be covered by Amendment No. 9. The Chairman of the Seanad would have power to suspend. We have to be very careful how far we go there because we cannot have two people ultimately responsible. We could only, therefore, allow the Chairman of the Seanad to suspend, and we give him power to remove the suspension again. If he thinks the offence is really grave, he can actually leave the suspension operative for a considerable period. When he removes the suspension, however, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann comes back into the picture again; it is he who will make up his mind as to whether the officer should be dismissed, reinstated without further penalty, or even, if he considers the suspension too severe, whether the officer should be paid for all or part of the period during which he was suspended.

I thought this amendment No. 9 would meet the Deputy's point. I think the Deputy goes too far. He is handing discipline over completely to the Chairman of the Seanad. That would create an impossible situation. One man must ultimately be responsible. If the Chairman of the Seanad has complete control during the sitting of the Seanad over officers and members of the staff there, I think that is sufficient. He will have power to suspend. It will be up to him also to decide when the suspension will be removed. I ask the Deputy to have another look at my amendment to see if he might agree with me in that. I am quite prepared to accept amendment No. 8 which asks the Ceann Comhairle to listen to the Chairman of the Seanad before there is any dismissal. I have no objection to everybody being heard and, from that point of view, the amendment does not do any harm. All points of view should be considered before an officer is actually dismissed. I am quite prepared to accept amendment No. 8.

Mr. Sweetman

The only difficulty I have in relation to amendments Nos. 7 and 9 is that amendment No. 9 is restricted entirely to actual sittings of the other House. I feel that the other House should be allowed to carry on its proper business and the carrying on of business does not arise only while the House is actually sitting. There are matters which arise in the getting out of the debates, the Order Papers and so forth. I shall be quite frank with the Minister. I am not quite happy about amendment No. 7 in my name and I am not quite happy about amendment No. 9. Perhaps we can have a look at both later, between now and Report Stage.

Dr. Ryan

When I was putting down my amendment, I did not realise it myself, but I think the word "precincts" covers it. Even when the Seanad is not meeting, there is business connected with the Seanad, so if there is a small staff working, they would be covered.

Mr. Sweetman

Where is the word "precincts"? The words used in subsection (2) of the Minister's amendment No. 9 are "at a meeting of Seanad Éireann".

Dr. Ryan

I am sorry about the word "precincts", but the point is taken in. It may be a peculiar interpretation of the law but it includes preparation for a meeting of the House.

Mr. Sweetman

And tidying up after a meeting?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

And the Parliamentary Draftsman is quite happy with that?

Dr. Ryan

I expressed some doubts similar to the Deputy's and he said that is covered. I can have another look at it, if the Deputy wishes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 17 agreed to.

Section 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 8:—

To add at the end of paragraph (d):—

"given after consultation with the Chairman of Seanad Éireann."

Amendment agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 9:—

Before the section, to insert the following new section:—

(1) In this section—

"the appropriate authority" means the Chairman of Dáil Éireann;

"the Chairman" means the Chairman of Seanad Éireann;

"civil servant to whom this section applies" means a member of the joint staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas;

"suspend" means, in relation to a civil servant to whom this section applies, suspend from duty under subsection (2) of this section, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

(2) The Chairman may suspend from duty a civil servant to whom this section applies who, at a meeting of Seanad Éireann at which he is in attendance, is guilty of grave misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

(3) The Chairman may terminate the suspension of a civil servant to whom this section applies who is suspended under subsection (2) of this section.

(4) Where the Chairman terminates, under subsection (3) of this section, the suspension of a civil servant to whom this section applies and restores him to duty—

(a) the appropriate authority, if satisfied that considerations of equity so require, shall direct that ordinary remuneration, in whole or in part, as the appropriate authority may direct, shall be paid to that civil servant in respect of the period of suspension.

(b) before the appropriate authority decides not to give a direction under paragraph (a) of this subsection or decides to give a direction under that paragraph for payment of part only of ordinary remuneration, the civil servant shall be given an opportunity of making to the appropriate authority any representations he may wish to offer.

(5) Where the suspension of a civil servant to whom this section applies is terminated by his dismissal from office, the appropriate authority, if considerations of equity so require, shall direct that ordinary remuneration in whole or in part, as the appropriate authority may direct, be paid to him in respect of the period of suspension.

(6) (a) Save in accordance with subsections (4) or (5) of this section, a civil servant to whom this section applies who is suspended shall not be paid remuneration in respect of the period of suspension.

(b) Where a civil servant to whom this section applies is suspended and satisfies the appropriate authority that, by reason of the prolongation of the investigation of his case, undue hardship is being caused, nothing in paragraph (a) of this sub-section shall prevent the appropriate authority from authorising, for the mitigation of hardship, payment of such portion, as the appropriate authority thinks fit, of the remuneration which would, but for his suspension, have been payable to that civil servant.

(7) The preceding provision of this section shall not be construed as affecting the operation of sections 13 and 14 of the Regulation Act.

Mr. Sweetman

Amendment No. 9 meets my amendment No. 7 to a limited extent. What is the Minister doing? Is he putting amendment No. 9 through and will he then reconsider it? It is immaterial.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy agrees to amendment No. 9 going through, I shall have another look at it to see whether or not it covers the period between meetings.

Mr. Sweetman

Very good.

Amendment agreed to.

Sections 20 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 26.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments 10 and 11 have been ruled out of order on the ground that they impose a charge on State funds.

Mr. Sweetman

I am afraid I must accept that they are out of order.

Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

Section 26 has the effect, in relation to one of the persons named, of adding six years to his actual service for the purpose of computing his pension. In the case of the other person concerned, it has the effect of giving him credit for 13 years' service which he had in the Garda Síochána and for which, under the Superannuation Acts, he would not otherwise get credit.

I made it quite clear on Second Reading that so far as we, in this Party, are concerned, we were not raising any objection to the steps being taken by the Minister in this section in so far as the two persons are concerned, but that we felt very strongly, and we feel very strongly, that what is being done for one person, or two people, should be done for other people.

The first amendment to this section in my name was designed to give to other members of the staffs of the Houses who might be under the age limit and forced to retire before they would receive their full pension, the same addition of six years' service as the Superintendent is getting, or, if the effect of six years' additional service to the person concerned would go over 40 years, then such period as would be necessary. The House is aware that the maximum pension which any civil servant of the State or the Government can get under the Superannuation Acts is based on 40 years' pensionable service. I cannot, for the life of me, see why the Minister who must have known that the amendment, as proposed by me, would be out of order under the Standing Orders of the House, has not put down an amendment in similar terms himself.

It seems to be common justice that what is being done for one person should be done for anyone else who is involved. It is, to put it mildly, most invidious that out of all the employees in this building, two people, and two people only, are picked out for special service pensionable terms, that they should be picked out and have given to them under this Bill, by this ad hoc section, an increase in their pension such as is being given here.

As I say, I am not raising this in any spirit of objection to the two individuals who are named, but we have very strong views that what is being done for one should be done for others. There are people who have served this House well and faithfully since it was established, who, because of the age limit, will go out on pension when they reach the age of 65 years without getting the maximum pension. They are just as entitled—and indeed, if I may say so, because of their long service and not because of any personalities, more entitled—to the special terms in the section as are those two persons named.

It seems to me that it would be common justice to apply to everybody who is in the service of the two Houses of the Oireachtas on the date specified in this section, 1st June, 1959, the same benefits and the same addition to the normal pension calculated under the Superannuation Acts as are being given to two people. There is no valid argument as to why these two particularly should be picked out as against others and should be given an increase which others are not being given.

I want to say at once that I appreciate—and I want to express my appreciation of—the courtesy of the Minister in giving me all the information for which I asked to enable us to come to a decision in relation to this section. There are other members of the staff who will get the "knock" because they will have to go out at 65 without full service. There are other members of the staff, just like the person specified in sub-section (2), who served in the Garda Síochána but will not get credit for their service in the Garda Síochána unless the Minister introduces some amendment on the lines and on the type of an amendment I had put down.

We must remember, too, in relation to people in this House, that there is a very big difference between their service and the service in Ministerial Departments of State outside. In Departments outside, there are very many more adequate openings for promotion., etc., than there are here. For that reason alone, it would be meritorious and desirable to ensure that where, because of age, they would not get the full pension, their cases will now be met. The Minister inserted these special provisions, not anyone else. When he himself saw fit to include special provisions for two, then, in equity and in justice they ought also be made to apply to everybody concerned.

Mr. Desmond

Like Deputy Sweetman, on the Second Stage I drew the Minister's attention to the problem. I am surprised that, in the amendments submitted by the Minister, something has not been done in relation to this section. I did not put down an amendment; I knew it would not stand. However, like Deputy Sweetman, I am surprised to find that the Minister has not gone a little farther to show not generosity but justice to the members of the staff.

We are all in favour of giving the consideration for which the Minister asks to the people mentioned here but why put us in the false position of accepting a Bill that, in itself, gives advantages to two and denies rights and justice to others? I understood that, since the discussion on the Second Stage, the Minister, through his Department, would make inquiries as to the revelant position of other employees in this establishment. Has that happened? If it has, what has been the result of such investigations? If it has not happened, why did the Minister not consider it suitable and equitable that such investigation be made in relation to what we have been asking, namely, fair play for the other members here?

We all know from our association with this building that some of the staff are not alone disappointed but are rightly entitled to be aggrieved at the time spent in this House on a discussion of this Bill which is giving a privilege or a right to some and denying it to many. Even at this late stage, why does the Minister not consider giving fair play to the others? Not many are involved. If we can clear the present position in relation to the severity under which some members of the staff are being forced to continue—if that hurdle could be got over—perhaps, in the future, no employee may be faced with the problem with which some of the present members of the staff are being faced.

I believe that, in fairness to every member of this House anxious in his or her own way to support the Bill, it is important that the Minister should let us know now what he intends doing —whether he intends giving fair play to the people concerned or whether he is making this Bill a vehicle whereby some are getting privileges and others are being denied justice.

Mr. Cosgrave

As I understood the Minister's remarks on the Second Stage, he said he would be prepared to consider the cases of any members of the staff who might be short of service in order to qualify them for full pension rights. In considering this matter, I should like to express our approval of the idea of granting, where necessary, added years such as is being done in the case of the Superintendent and of the Captain of the Guard. The present Superintendent, General Tobin, is a man who has a most distinguished record of pre-Truce service and a distinguished record as a soldier in the early days of the State. For these reasons, it is appropriate that that service should be recognised and full credit given for it.

I understand that a number of members of the staff who have given loyal and devoted service to the State, irrespective of what Government was in office, find themselves approaching a period when their retirement is imminent. A number of these officials had some earlier service either in the Army or in the Garda Síochána and some had pre-Truce service with the I.R.A. In justice, they are entitled to some consideration and should be given, where necessary, added years so that they may qualify for full pension rights. I understand that some of them have longer service than others and that because of the age at which some were appointed they cannot qualify for full pension purposes. In order to treat them on an equal basis with the terms proposed in Section 26, I feel the Minister should give the added years necessary in each case, or make whatever appropriate amendment is necessary to come within the terms of the Superannuation Acts.

The conditions of service, the hours of work, and so on, in the Houses of the Oireachtas differ very considerably from the conditions of service in Government Departments. All these officials have given most creditable service to the various Governments, to the Ceann Comhairle and to the Dáil and Seanad over the years. In the early days of the State, there was a certain amount of confusion. Appointments of this nature and other matters had to be attended to. Consequently, some of the anomalies which existed about the terms on which these people were appointed have probably never been rectified. This is an occasion when any injustice which may exist can be remedied.

I should like to urge on the Minister that for the future it is likely that all appointments will be filled on a recognised basis and appointees will know they are coming into the Service on certain conditions. Many of the present staff came in directly from the Army or the Garda Síochána. They probably never bothered to inquire what conditions they were coming into but were prepared to serve the State in whatever capacity was considered suitable or appropriate. It is always invidious to discuss the terms and conditions of employment of individual members of the Civil Service or members of the staff of this House, but I believe that the same consideration—the amount involved cannot be considerable—should be extended to the other members of the staff here who are short of the required service. Some of them are a few years short; others may require a few years more but, whatever the period, I have no doubt the particulars are available to the Minister through the appropriate section of his Department. Justice demands that similar treatment should be given to all members of the staff of the two Houses.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to endorse very emphatically all that Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Cosgrave have said in this matter, but I should like also to mention one other element in this situation—the case of a member of the staff who has retired already. I understand that in his case he made his services available to the House because the House badly wanted him on the Translation Staff and he left the vocational education service to do so. Had he entered any service other than the service of this House he would have got credit for the years he spent in the vocational education service, but in the special circumstances attaching to the service of this House he did not get credit for those years of service. From a pension point of view he would have been better off if he had refused to come to the assistance of the House with his peculiarly specialised knowledge and stayed in the vocational education service. I do not think the Minister will have much difficulty in identifying the case I have in mind. I shall gladly give him the name confidentially; I can say to him it is the second last name on the list he was good enough to give us of the cases associated with this problem, and I would bespeak his sympathetic consideration of all the special circumstances surrounding that individual.

Dr. Ryan

First of all, I want to assure Deputy Sweetman I did not know these amendments would be ruled out of order. Neither did my officials but, in any case, I do not think that would have made a great deal of difference.

Mr. Sweetman

I was told only this morning.

Dr. Ryan

I did happen to get some enlightenment from members of the House on the problem as to whether we should go further than the two men named or not. When I was dealing with the two men named in this section, I said that up to the present men were taken from the old I.R.A. ranks to fill these offices. I felt these would be the last to fill them from those ranks and that in future men from the Army or from the Garda Síochána would probably be selected who would have had full service and therefore a fairly decent pension before they came in at all. A case like this is not likely to arise again and for that reason I selected these two men. These men are, of course, officers of the House. There are four other officers: the Clerk and Assistant Clerk of each House. They are all men who came into the Civil Service in the ordinary way and if they live the normal span of life, which I hope they will, they will be entitled to a full pension. Therefore, no difficulty arises in relation to superannuation as far as they are concerned.

The other members of the staff are what is referred to as the Joint Staff. They were admitted to the Civil Service through the usual machinery. Whatever you might do for any individual there could be claimed by any member of the Civil Service. Deputy Dillon mentioned a certain case. I have a vague idea I know the person to whom he referred because I have been looking at these cases, but there might be a similar case, say, in my own Department, in the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health. They would have as good a claim to special treatment as the men we are dealing with here.

I have a certain sympathy with the case Deputy Cosgrave put forward because the service of this House is the type of service an old I.R.A. man would probably elect to take. You could make a sort of tenuous case that they were going from one State service to another that had some relationship. I am quite sure my own Department would give me all the objections to that, all the pitfalls and the precedents I might be creating, but it is a line I am prepared to examine.

There was another case referred to by Deputy Sweetman of a man who was in the Garda Síochána. It is a fairly well known principle of superannuation that where a man goes into another branch of employment in the Civil Service to do work for which he was actually trained in the first service, the superannuation is usually continuous; in other words a man who was in the Garda Síochána and came in here as Captain of the Guard should really be given credit for his service because his experience in the Garda was the reason he was appointed. On the other hand if a man spends eight or nine years in the Garda Síochána and, being a man of many parts, let us say, is appointed librarian here, I do not think he would hold that his experience in the Garda Síochána fitted him in any way to be a librarian. Therefore, it would be hard to argue that that service should count.

The same observation applies to teachers. Deputy Dillon referred to a case. National teachers taken into the Department of Education as Inspectors can have their service counted for superannuation purposes because their training as national teachers fitted them to be inspectors. However, if a teacher resigns from his school and becomes an inspector in the Land Commission, his previous service would not count because there is no great reason why a national teacher should be in any way fitted— although he may happen to be—to be an inspector of the Land Commission. Therefore that service would not count.

Mr. Sweetman

Is it not likely that the translators would be drawn from that branch?

Dr. Ryan

Translators, are, I think, a borderline case. You could probably argue that.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not a very good person to argue that case but I think it could be argued very clearly by Deputy Dillon or perhaps some other Deputy.

Dr. Ryan

I was coming to the point Deputy Sweetman raised. There are certain cases where you could say in regard to the teacher: "There is no doubt he should be given credit for his service if he becomes an inspector of schools." If he becomes something else far away from that, say, an army officer you could say: "No, he should not have his service counted there because it was not in preparation for this that he was doing that."

The particular case referred to by the Deputy, of somebody joining the Translation Staff, is one that should be examined. I think all that I can say at this stage is that I could not hold out any hope of doing anything big or very general for the members of the staff. I should be inclined to examine it from the point of view that I have just mentioned, of, say, a Garda officer, or a member of the Garda Síochána, or the Army, who might become an usher, because that is good training. I might be inclined to look on that case with sympathy and if possible, I should be glad to follow the lines suggested by Deputy Cosgrave. I hope to be able to say more on the Report Stage.

One other point is one which Deputy Sweetman mentioned on the previous day—I do not think he mentioned it today—in connection with the two posts becoming vacant around the same time. He wondered if it was necessary to have the two posts. I did not examine that but I promise to examine it before the Report Stage, and, if something should be done, we can put in an enabling clause on Report Stage.

Mr. Desmond

Would the Minister say if he had any investigation carried out as to the position of the others?

Dr. Ryan

I did.

Mr. Desmond

May I also ask the Minister if he is taking into consideration the question of all other members? Is it not right to say that they also gave service to the country in some way or other? Everybody was not born in time to be a member of the I.R.A. Is there to be a differentiation? After all, all these members of the staff are good Irishmen and my information is that there is one member who was a good I.R.A. man and was here for practically 20 years before he was made permanent. Where does he stand? I should like to know what investigation has been made in relation to these men and the unjust treatment of some of them.

Dr. Ryan

I should like the Deputy to realise the case of a man who joined the clerical staff—say the Reporting Staff, which a man may join when he is much above the normal age for coming into the service—at perhaps 35. He cannot, of course, have the full service to give him a full pension. I do not think you could deal with these cases for that reason only, because there are thousands of people in the Civil Service—there is no doubt about it—professional men and so on, who come in at an age at which they cannot possibly get the full pension and nothing can be done about it.

Mr. Desmond

Even though with an added number of years, he still cannot get the full pension, at least he should get some recompense by having a little added to his service, as has been done in some cases.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister agreed with me that there was something special about service in this House and when giving this matter the consideration which he has been good enough to promise to give it, he should take that into account, particularly in relation to the problem that is undoubtedly a great bone of contention throughout the rest of the service—the question of unestablished service, where only half of the unestablished service counts for pension purposes. There is a case that the type of work here is quite different from the type of work done, say, by an ordinary unestablished messenger in a Department outside. The hours and the difficulty of getting home after the House rises are all things—I do not want to say anything in the least controversial about the initial stages or the initial years of this House—which add up to the fact that there is a case here which is different from the case in the ordinary Civil Service. I hope the Minister will consider it between now and Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 27 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 11 Nov 1959

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

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1959