I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, line 17, after "crossing" to insert "or having withdrawn conductors from any omnibus service".
Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1964—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 4, line 15, after "waterway" to insert "or by road".— (Deputy Ryan.)
Amendment put and declared lost.
Mr. Ryan
Amendment No. 11, was discussed with amendment No. 10.
I want to say a word about this matter. It came to my attention only this morning when I received a telephone message about people becoming redundant and being transferred.
Which section are we discussing?
Amendment No. 11, having been discussed with amendment No. 10, the Deputy may not speak on it now.
Amendment No. 11 was discussed with amendments Nos. 10 and 15.
This is the usual treatment we receive from the Minister for Transport and Power.
The Minister has nothing to do with it. It is a matter for the Chair and the Chair understands that amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 15, being related, were discussed together.
The discussion has not concluded. Deputy Corish was speaking on it last night.
Amendment No. 10 has been defeated and amendment No. 11 may not be discussed because the three were debated together.
Do we take it then that the Minister has no comment to make on the remarks of the Leader of the Labour Party?
I have replied to him.
Deputy Corish was speaking last night when the House adjourned. How could the Minister make any comment on what he said unless he had read Deputy Corish's mind?
I had already replied to his argument.
We can discuss it on the section. If the Minister wants the debate held up, we do not mind.
There is a case which has come to my attention.
This is not in order——
I thought that amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 15 were taken together so that it must have been moved.
Mr. Ryan
I understood that it was moved all right.
It must have been moved or it could not have been discussed.
If the Deputy wants a decision, I can put the question now but there can be no further debate.
Mr. Ryan
I would ask that the question be put so that there will be no doubt that the amendment was moved.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, subsection (4), lines 34 to 36, to delete", in the case of a person transferred or seconded under section 14 of the said Great Northern Railway Act, 1958,".
The effect of this amendment is to extend to all CIE employees concerned the provisions of section 17 (3) of the Great Northern Railways Act Which enables the superannuation of employees to be increased where they enter the service after the normal age of entry. It is a corrective arrangement to ensure that all these people will be treated in the same way.
That is what I am afraid of, that the Minister will treat them all in the same way. Some of them are offered jobs 70, 80 and 90 miles away from home. When they went there, they could not get the kind of accommodation they wanted and they had to give up hope of continuing their employment with CIE. It is ridiculous for the Minister to bring men from outlying counties, where they have good cottages and a reasonable standard of living, into Dublin where they have to pay very high rents for flats. According to the information I have, they have to pay up to £4 per week for one room and the use of a kitchenette. It is all right for the Minister to say he wants to treat everybody alike.
I did not say that. I was referring to a particular section on redundancy.
I have been listening to the Minister for nearly two years and I cannot break through at all. The Minister never gives an explanation regarding anything, either on the Order Paper or in a question. He never gives a proper answer, never answers what he is asked. He answers another question and goes off on another line.
What is Deputy Ó Briain muttering about?
I should like to hear from the Minister what steps CIE, or the Minister, propose to take to ensure that, when these men become redundant and are transferred, these transfers will be reasonable, and they will not be living 70 and 80 miles away from their place of employment.
The position is that the matter to which the Deputy refers does not arise at all. It has always been a condition of service of CIE on the rail side that men can be transferred from any part of the country to the other. This is the position and it is accepted by the trade unions and the Board of CIE. There has never been any change.
In connection with reorganisation which took place during the past five years, and before that, it should be pointed out that reorganisation takes place at all times at different levels. It has always been clearly understood that employees of CIE are provided with transport from one region to another. Redundancy compensation entered into the picture where, for example, a person is transferred from one area to the other when his position alters. To give an example, if a person were a head ganger in Cork and was transferred to Ballybrophy and there was no position open to him except that of a minor ganger, and he lost certain provisions relating to travel allowance or other perquisities, or fringe benefits, he would be entitled then to compensation in cash. That is a matter which is regulated between the trade unions and the Board. I have no control over it. It would be very wrong for any Minister to enter into such matters. If the person is aggrieved, he goes to the arbitrator appointed under the Act.
I should like to refer to this as it arises frequently in my own constituency. We are all familiar with the problems arising from redundancy. These are very largely human problems. You have a man who is working and living in Clones or Castleblaney. The tradition was that there was no more stable employment in the country than railway employment. Then there came this upheaval of redundancy. Frequently, one finds cases where men in a certain grade had a right to free travel. They had the right to travel on the train to and from their place of work. In the new situation, they find themselves transferred to some other centre of employment and discover that that concession is now withdrawn and they are expected to pay for their tickets.
You have to get the picture in your mind as to what the situation is. From the point of view of an arbitrator, when a man is transferred from Castleblaney to Dundalk, the arbitrator is inclined to ask: "Why do you not go and live in Dundalk?" He is quite oblivious of the fact that a man in middle age to have to transfer his family from Castleblaney to Dundalk means the disruption of the whole pattern of his life. He has no guarantee if he makes that radical change that he will live the rest of his days in Dundalk.
Over and above that, it is a very common thing to find that when a railway worker resides in a small town, or in a town even like Clones or Castleblaney, he has a little shop in which he sells papers, sweets, and so on. If the family home is moved from the centre where the family have built up a business, where their friends and neighbours live and where their children are at school, their whole life is disrupted. When an individual gets caught in the huge machinery of arbitration and the general principles that have been laid down, you find cases where men have got all they are entitled to under the general scheme but where grave hardship remains.
It has often occurred to me that in this process of adjustments which have been rendered necessary by this redundancy situation, it would be a human and rational thing to say, where people in the past had the right to free travel by rail to and from their place of work, that right should remain to them on whatever form of passenger transport CIE is now operating in the area. In Monaghan, there is the extraordinary situation in which all the railways have been torn up. There are no railways there now and nothing but road transport in the whole county. Yet, men are being asked to go from Castleblaney, or from Carrickmacross, to Dundalk to do their day's work. In theory, they could move their home and their family to live in Dundalk; in practice, it is a very great hardship to impose on them.
I wonder if it would not be reasonable and possible to say, even though it is not provided for in the general scheme, that a principle might be accepted whereunder, if people have to travel substantial distances to their day's work, CIE might make available to them transport facilities which, after all, cost the company nothing— the buses are running and are rarely so packed that there is no room for one more man to sit into them—instead of requiring them to pay the return fare every day. I think that if that arrangement were made, a good deal of the hardships that at present afflict individuals could be remedied. But, so long as that amenity is denied, there will be individual cases of hardship throughout the country.
It is difficult to realise, when dealing with a broad question, how heavy a burden these hardships are in individual cases. This is a situation which calls for a human approach. It may not be possible to incorporate into a broad agreement with the trade union movement a scheme which will provide for every human contingency that can arise, but it would be a prudent thing if the Minister would recommend to the Board that wherever difficulties of this character arise they should lean heavily towards conceding this amenity to persons who find themselves in this difficulty, more especially in that it involves no charge on the Board's funds but is merely a permit to use accommodation in a bus that otherwise would be empty.
Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to answer a question I should like to put to him on his amendment. Due to a misunderstanding on my part, I did not get an opportunity of putting the question. Alternative employment was found in two companies in Dundalk for approximately 180 workshop members in 1958.
These people were covered by the previous Act in case redundancy occurred in the two firms they went into. Will they still continue to be covered under the present Act?
I understand that this is a matter for the standing arbitrator. We are not changing the legislation. All the legislation covered by the 1950 and 1958 Acts is being repeated. There are only very small changes.
Does it not expire on 1st April of this year?
This is an immensely complex piece of legislation. I understand that what the Deputy asks about is sub judice with the standing arbitrator. He is considering this particular group of cases at the moment.
Will the fact that this Bill goes through, without anything being done, affect the cases?
No, not at all. The arbitrator has the duty of interpreting the Act in respect of these particular persons. The matter is being considered by him at present. There are very considerable delays in regard to his decisions. He found the position extremely complex. He made a lot of decisions recently in regard to employees.
I am asking for this information on behalf of my union, which covers the men.
The Minister will say, maybe later on, that he answered the questions he was asked here. But, in his own inimitable style, he is able to distort things so much. He got up there and gently said that employees of CIE were always liable to be transferred. That is, we will say, a kind of a fact. We will regard it as a kind of a half-truth and maybe not even a half-truth. The majority of the people who were transferred in, say, the good days of CIE were transferred on promotion. They were transferred to better conditions, to better pay and to better housing or they would not accept the promotion. There may have been the one or two cases where a man, for disciplinary reasons, was sent to a bog station. Now the Minister is faced with the position that men who have served CIE well, who have good records and who should be in line, maybe, for promotion, are declared redundant and are sent to bog stations, or are told they are to go to bog stations and they surrender and walk out and the Minister, like Pontius Pilate, can wash his hands and say: "I am finished with them, anyway."
In the matter of free transport for the company's employees, I had a famous case that I brought before the Minister. I shall remind him of it again because he forgets very quickly. A man living in Tramore was working in CIE in Waterford. He had a privilege ticket on the Tramore railway for about only 11/- a month. This man did not take home £7 a week at that time. He had not a great job with CIE in Waterford. In spite of the fact that the Minister's predecessor guaranteed that the alternative service would be equal to the one he was doing away with, this man then found that he had to travel by bus to Waterford North, in from Tramore, and that it was costing him three times as much.
These are the kinds of things we have to come up to the House with. When the Minister brings in a Bill, these are the kinds of things we must take the opportunity to speak about here. These are the kinds of things the Minister and his colleagues would criticise and say: "Look at what they are bringing up on a Bill here—this small item of one man." But it is the Minister's fault and I charge him with it. If he had answered the Parliamentary Questions put down to him at that time——
This has nothing to do with the debate.
The answering of questions in the Dáil does not arise now.
We had seven hours of that yesterday.
I just said that if the Minister had answered the questions, he would not be sitting here now: he would have his Bill. We must take advantage of occasions such as this to voice these grievances and to point out that there are small people in CIE and in the services over which the Minister has control who have had to suffer much at his hands and who have had to suffer much by reason of the action of his Board and who have had to suffer much because of the Minister's inaction. He did not answer me on this question I asked him.
I asked the Minister what steps he was taking to ensure that persons declared redundant would get jobs equally as good as, or maybe a little better than, the jobs they had. As a matter of fact, the position they should be offered should be a little bit better to compensate for disturbance. I also ask the Minister if he will see to it that men are not offered jobs 70, 80 and 90 miles away — I am repeating this because the Minister did not answer the last question — from where they are based at present.
I have already answered the Deputy.
The Minister did not answer. He told me CIE had the right to transfer any man, but the only people they transferred were transferred on promotion. Usually a man joins as a railway porter in a country station. He might become a signalman and spend the rest of his life there. Those are the people who are liable to be disturbed now. Again the Minister did not answer.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 is consequential on amendment No. 13 and perhaps they can be taken together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 4, subsection (6), line 51, to delete "reference in paragraph 4" and to insert "references in paragraph 4 (as amended by this Act)".
These are purely drafting amendments to clarify the intention in the section.
That is a great help to us.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, subsection (6), lines 52 and 53, to delete "a reference" and to substitute "references".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"The Board or the Company shall extend the provisions of this section to any case in which the services of an officer or servant are dispensed with or he is transferred to another position because of redundancy arising from any scheme for the reorganisation and more economical operation of any department of the undertaking affecting any section or category of workers."
There can be no discussion on amendment No. 15 at this stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
On the question of compensation for those who are redundant, I am concerned with the problem which affects people who are transferred from rural areas to Dublin. The problem is illustrated by the case of a man down the country who has a house and a garden at a rent of £12 a year. He is transferred to Dublin and the only accommodation available to him is a flat at a rent of £3.10, £4 or £5 a week, with no garden, and perhaps only one or two rooms for himself, his wife and two or three children. Quite clearly, if such a man is at an identical point on the wage scale, he suffers a colossal reduction in his living standard if he is removed from a house and garden for which he pays 5/- a week, to a one-roomed flat in Dublin at a rent of £3.10, £3.15 or £4. I am drawing the attention of the Minister to this matter, and I want him to endeavour to persuade the Board of CIE to do the right thing.
My information is that in Inchicore where there is a considerable estate of railway houses, built in the last century — good, solid, stone houses — a number of those houses have been lying idle. Some time ago I was told that five houses were lying idle for a considerable time. It seems outrageous that railway houses should be lying idle when CIE employees are compelled to pay £3.10 or £4 for flats in parts of Dublin when they are transferred from the country.
There was an enlightened social policy in the 19th century when houses were built for railway employees and let on reasonable terms. Perhaps CIE propose to sell them. Whatever their policy is, in the frightful housing situation in Dublin today, they should facilitate their employees and make these houses available by letting them or by selling them. If a man had to borrow 100 per cent of the capital to buy a house, he would pay less in mortgage repayments than he would have to pay for a one-roomed flat. This is a very serious and grievous matter, and the Minister should use whatever influence he has with the Board to see that these vacant houses are made available immediately.
What I have done in this connection is to encourage all State companies to have the most up-to-date and perfect communications for their workers, not only in the form of the usual trade union relationship, but through the trade union relationship to have matters of human and technical interest discussed at all levels. I pointed out the very urgent necessity, even though it may take some considerable time, of breaking down the sort of invisible wall that exists because of historic circumstances in that regard. CIE has established a great number of social industrial councils throughout the country which meet at regular intervals, at which workers can bring before the management side not only such matters as upgrading or down-grading, rosters of work during different periods of the day, matters relating to the progress of CIE, and productivity, but also human conditions. The question raised by Deputy Ryan could probably be dealt with by the joint industrial councils. The less I, or any Minister in charge, intervene while this process is continuing the better. Of course, if I felt it was a matter of general interest, in the sense that the trade unions were failing fundamentally in some aspect, I would reconsider the matter, but I have no information which would lead me to believe that the trade union organisations in CIE are not capable of dealing with such matters.
Mr. Ryan
Can the Minister say how it is that five houses have been lying idle? To my knowledge, one house has been lying idle for a couple of years and my information is that five have been lying idle. Whatever the reason may be, it is quite clear that the proper steps are not being taken to make them available. I do not think this is a trivial or a light matter. I agree with the Minister that it would be better to have the negotiations outside the parliamentary or the executive level. It is a crime against humanity to have houses lying idle in Dublin, and the crime becomes grievous when CIE will not make its houses available to its employees on transfer from the country.
The Deputy has raised a matter of interest and I shall have it inquired into. I am certain there must be an explanation. I find it hard to believe that there were not special reasons why these houses are not occupied. No organisation is perfect. I am certain there must be a reason. I will find out about these houses and communicate with the Deputy.
That is something. That is the first question the Minister answered this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 5, line 4, after "arrangement" to insert "the whole or part of".
This again is purely a drafting amendment to make quite sure that there is consistency in the approach to redundancy compensation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill".
The section deals with the development of land by the Board. This section is the cause of and to the whole CIE setup. It says that the Board may retain any part of their land. I have no objection to the Board taking steps to develop any land they own or to the Board acquiring land in the discharge of their proper duties. The point I am interested in is how Deputies are to know about these things. They could not be defined as day-to-day administration. For instance, CIE owns land in Dublin. That land is valuable and CIE might decide to use it for purposes to which people would of necessity object. In Dún Laoghaire, CIE went into the East Pier.
CIE is not moving into the East Pier.
It is the Minister.
The Board of Works are responsible for Dún Laoghaire Pier. The question has nothing to do with this Bill.
It does not arise.
There are large strips of land, once used for railway purposes, running through this city. The disposal of this land could not be regarded as a matter of day-to-day administration. It might be year-to-year administration and we should have some method of ascertaining in advance what CIE intends doing with it. What usually happens is that we read in the morning papers about protests by large numbers of citizens in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford or some other built-up area where these lands would be very valuable. This brings us back to the old bone of contention: how are Deputies to know? Would the Minister again promise us he will be prepared to give us information if we ask him for it, or is this to be another blank cheque to CIE?
That depends on the attitude of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in relation to legislation. I am willing, and it will be my duty, to give to the House a description of what the general policy of CIE is in relation to land disposition. There is nothing contentious in it at all. Under existing legislation, when CIE abandon railway land, they can dispose of it by private treaty to adjoining land owners. That is purely a private matter between CIE and land owners concerned, and unless there is multiple abuse of a national character, it would be a delegated power to CIE.
CIE may dispose of land to local authorities, public utility undertakings or any tenant on either side of the line, or by private treaty to the Commissioners of Public Works or the Land Commission. Any other land they have to dispose of must be put up for public auction. There are regulations in regard to the abandonment of a railway and the disposal of the land and any effect it may have on the maintenance of drainage or fencing. I have answered questions on this matter in the Dáil and if Deputies want the information, they can examine the Dáil reports.
In connection with land in Dublin, Dublin Corporation would be interested, I feel certain, in relation, particularly, to the Planning Act of 1963. Obviously CIE could not auction land publicly, or would they undertake any private transaction in regard to the sale of valuable extensive lands in Dublin where it would have such a vital bearing on town planning without consulting the planning authority. Deputies can be convinced that under the new or even the old Planning Act, there would be a very definite interest in the user of any such land.
The Minister has given one of the answers I wanted. What about development CIE might decide to do themselves? CIE could decide to put up some objectionable structure in Dublin.
Objectionable buildings also come under the 1963 Planning Act.
When the Planning Act was going through the House, objections were made here by Deputies because State companies were exempted in many cases.
Surely the Deputy will realise that town planning does not come within the ambit of this Bill. The question of whether the 1963 Planning Act is defective does not come within the ambit of this legislation.
It does not arise.
I agree, but does the Minister not see the danger? All I am seeking is an assurance that information will be made available to us.
I can assure the Deputy that if CIE decide to build a monument to him on the Waterford Tramore railway line, I shall let him know in good time.
Or build a scaffold and hang from it an effigy of the Minister for Transport and Power.
I shall let him know about that, too. I promise him that.
In Tramore, some friends of his have been talking about it.
I shall try to override the ruling of the Chair to let him know, if that happens.
Let us get away from the pleasantries and back to the Bill.
The Minister brought it up himself. It must be very much on his conscience. If the Minister had been a little more tolerant, if he had made available information sought by Deputies in the past, much of the taxpayers' money would have been saved and there would have been better relations between CIE and the public.
The Deputy is getting away from the section. It deals solely with the development of land by the Board.
Is that not what I am talking about? If the Board here in Dublin decide to build some sort of structure at the back of a number of valuable houses, how are we to learn about it and what can we do about it if people approach us? It will be noticed that I spoke of "proposed development". We are never able to get any information until we read about things in the newspapers and then the matter is a fait accompli. This subsection states:
(2) The Board may, in particular—
(a) retain any part of its land which is not required by it for the discharge of its duties and develop it for use by other persons, and
(b) where the use of its land for the discharge of its duties can be combined with its use for other purposes, develop the land by constructing or adapting buildings for use wholly or partly by other persons,
with a view to selling, letting or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land or any part of the land after the development is carried out.
The Deputy is merely holding up the business of the House. I made it perfectly clear to him that all this is provided for in the Planning Act of 1963. Whatever powers State companies may have, they will certainly have to have regard to what the planning authority says. I do not propose to alter the pattern of this Bill in regard to that matter. I believe CIE to be a responsible body. I doubt if it would erect some monstrosity in the middle of a residential area. I think that argument is patently absurd.
The Minister thinks CIE would not be capable of doing it. They are only human. CIE made mistakes before and could make mistakes again. The purpose of this House is to keep it on its own rails, if we can.
If it will satisfy the Deputy, I can say that in relation to anything in the nature of a scandalous act that came to the notice of the Deputy, and was the subject of a Parliamentary Question, that question would, of course, be answered, and I have made that clear.
I do not want any scandalous act at all to be answered in particular.
If the Deputy reads the script, he will see that that is provided for.
If I put down a simple query, asking the Minister is it the intention of CIE to do such and such a thing with such lands——
I am not going to tell the Deputy whether I will answer.
There we are. Now, was I not right?
We went over all that last night for seven hours. If the Deputy reads the script, he will get, I think, the fourth complete description of my position in regard to this matter. The Deputy just disagrees with me.
The Minister should give the House an assurance——
The Deputy will not convert me, though he talk from now until two o'clock. What I said stands and, no matter what the Deputy says today, I will not change my opinion.
Now, is that not extraordinary? I was reading a poem last night and this came into it: "A sermon on hell's pains may start him; you may convince but not convert him". I think the Minister's attitude is most unreasonable. I put a reasonable request to him: if valuable land belonging to CIE is to be developed— the proposed development might only come to my ears or to the ears of some other Deputy by accident; the development might be and probably would be perfectly all right—why should we not be told? Why should it be kept a secret?
The Deputy has said that on at least three occasions. He must cease repeating himself.
I am informed now— I was not absolutely certain earlier— that CIE definitely come within the ambit of the 1963 Act. CIE is not a State Department and it is therefore under the control of the 1963 Planning Act. As far as I am concerned, there is no more to be said about it.
In answer to Deputy Kyne, the Minister sent him to arbitration. In answer to Deputy Ryan, he sent him to some other body. Now he is sending me to the planning authority. All I am saying to the Minister is—it is perfectly reasonable —that, if any Deputy is informed that CIE is about to do some kind of development on land in the centre of the city, and nobody knows what kind the development will be——
Go to the planning authority.
As I said, it will probably be the right kind of development, but why should we not know? Why should there be such a secret about it? Would it not be better for the Minister to say in such a case that he is prepared to tell the House what CIE intends to do. Down through the years, the selling and letting of lands and property held by CIE has always been done by public auction. Sometimes, of course, CIE uses its powers to put on a squeeze. I have in mind a man who disposed of a good deal of property for CIE over the years, a man who acted as their estate agent over a big area, settling many of their claims, and settling them well. In a case where a man claimed £200 for the loss of hay which, he alleged, had been destoyed by sparks from the engine, the claim was settled for £10.
That does not arise on this section.
What does arise is the fact that CIE will put on the squeeze where development and the disposing of their lands are concerned. I have just said that a man was engaged in disposing of land for them for years over a large area. I was the man. I got the squeeze. They can keep their agency. They thought that by taking it from me they could muzzle me. Is that the proper line for a State body to take? Maybe the Minister will stand over his Board. From the day I started objecting here to the action of CIE in relation to certain matters in my constituency, I was cut off. I heard an official of CIE say at a function—I did not want to take advantage of it at the time because there were quite a few people around—"Well, of course you said such a thing about the Board and the company." That shows the advantages the Minister's officers can take. That is the advantage they will have in the development or sale of their lands. They can indulge in Tammany Hall tactics. They can put on the squeeze on anybody they have in their employment or on anyone they may employ as their agent.
For the last time, if it becomes known in this city, for instance, or in any built up area in which CIE hold valuable pieces of land, that development is about to take place on that land—I do not say it would not be the right kind of development—will it be possible for Deputies to get information from the Minister with regard to that proposed development? There is the question I am asking the Minister. Will the Minister answer that question?
The Minister may find parliamentary procedure tedious and difficult, but surely——
The Deputy was not here. I answered the Deputy.
The Deputy did not.
A specific question was asked. If the Board of CIE contemplate the development of a parcel of land——
I have already answered that.
The Minister referred me to the Town Planning Act. That has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps the Minister has misunderstood the question. As I understand the query, it is this. If it comes to the knowledge of the public or of a public representative that development of a parcel of land in the ownership of CIE is contemplated, is this a matter on which a question can be addressed to the Minister for Transport and Power in this House, on the understanding that the information will be forthcoming by way of question and answer? The Minister may say no, that that is a matter for the Board to which the Deputy should address himself, or the Minister may say yes. But surely it is a legitimate question and one to which we are entitled to expect a categorical answer. It is a very simple one.
I already made quite clear yesterday, in the course of a lengthy debate, the general attitude I hold in regard to the delegation of authority to CIE. Deputies will be able to read my observations and also two very complete statements I made on previous occasions. The answer to the Deputy is covered by those statements.
If it is covered, is it not the very quintessence of Committee debate that, if there is any ambiguity in any Deputy's mind and he formulates a categorical question in respect of a restricted matter which may have been covered by the wide statement of the Minister and says in regard to this restricted matter that this is a Parliamentary Question being addressed to the Minister, as distinct from the Board, we can look forward to a reply? The Minister may say: "In my statement yesterday and on previous occasions, I made it clear this is not a matter on which the Minister would be prepared to give the information wanted". Is it not, however, reasonable to ask for that information? Parliamentary debate becomes extremely difficult if the Minister simply says: "I have said all I intend to say and I will not answer your question".
May I ask the Minister this? As I know the position, it is freely admitted that CIE is losing money and is likely to continue to do so. If CIE decides to develop a certain area and I get representations from people in which it is pointed out to me that it is an uneconomical proposition, or I get further representation from people who say the structure they are going to erect will be a public nuisance to the residents in the area, my only function as a parliamentary representative is to come into Dáil Éireann and place those facts before the Minister. I am citing those as two particular instances in the abstract of what might occur.
What is my position then? Am I to put down a question telling the Minister I consider CIE are developing such-and-such an area and I am informed they are creating a public nuisance by so doing, or can I say from what I have been told I consider what they are doing is an uneconomical proposition and that they will lose more money for the State? I conceive our duty as parliamentary representatives is to see that public money is expended to the best purpose. Those are two clear-cut cases in which I might come to Dáil Éireann and feel constrained to ask those questions, not only on behalf of my constituents but in the national interest.
Would the Minister kindly indicate if he would answer those questions or refer me back to the Board? If I am referred back to the Board and if the Board have taken a decision to do whatever it is, they are not likely to take the slightest notice of me. That is an accepted fact. If the Board make up their minds to do something, they will do it. The only "comeback" there is for a public representative is to ask a question. It seems to me to be eminently reasonable that the Minister should accept such a question and answer it. That would hardly be day-to-day administration, but would seem to be an overall policy decision by the company subject to parliamentary endorsement.
It is a most complicated question to answer. I have already answered it in great detail. The question of whether questions are to be answered is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle. It is impossible to answer a hypothetical question of this kind. In regard to this piece of hypothetical land the Deputy speaks of, the edifice on it might be ugly and undesirable. In that case he should go to the Wexford County Council under the Planning Act, 1963. In so far as he believes that CIE, by developing a piece of land, is further increasing its losses, if he asks a question and the Ceann Comhairle feels it is quite clearly a matter of day-to-day administration, it would still lie within my responsibility to find out for myself whether such an accusation was true.
I indicated clearly and at great length how we deal with complaints coming to us, not only from questions that may be ruled out of order as matters of day-to-day administration, but letters that come to the office in regard to CIE and other companies. If it is an entirely trivial matter, we send a letter to the State company involved and simply ask them to reply directly. If it is a matter that seems of more importance, we ask the State company for their reply to the question. We keep files of these letters to see if there is any trend in regard to matters which, individually, might not be of any importance but which, collectively, would be of importance in so far as the proper running of the company was concerned, for example, if we had a great number of complaints about overbooking on Aer Lingus planes over a short period, or if we had a number of complaints of the kind mentioned by the Deputy, where people seem to think that all over the country CIE were planning development of a kind that simply could not be economic.
I have to look at this thing pragmatically. It has been looked at pragmatically by successive Governments. It is impossible to make absolute rules. I think I can satisfy the Deputy in this way. If I felt on the face of it that this looked like something which required investigation, I would certainly investigate. I think I made a perfectly fair statement anybody in the House could understand.
The Minister has still not answered the question I put to him. What I asked him was: if a Deputy were approached and told that CIE was about to develop lands—I have not said whether this development was a wrong kind of development that could be stopped by the Planning Act of 1963—have we any right or any way of getting information regarding that land? Can we come into this House and ask the Minister if it is the intention of CIE to develop the land in such a place or to develop the land behind such a street? That is not a matter of day-to-day administration. There are sections of land in the centre of this city which are owned by CIE and they should be worth £100,000 or £200,000. This would be a matter where a decision has to be made by the Board. CIE might not have any intention of doing anything about the land. Have we any way of finding out what the Board are about to do?
It is a matter for Dublin Corporation.
Is it not a matter for the Minister for Transport and Power?
I am not going to argue this any longer. I have made a statement.
The Minister comes in here asking us to vote money for CIE and we are entitled to know what CIE intends to do about some lands which it owns. I do not intend to let the Minister go lightly out of the House today and go off to Kingsbridge with £2 million in his pocket. He could come in next month and we would be ruled out of order if we asked a question and told it is not the Minister's function. This is a very simple thing. If a Deputy asks a question about whether CIE intend to develop land in such a place, he should get an answer.
If it is not day-to-day administration, the question will be answered.
We are innocent people and we do not know what day-to-day administration is. I asked the Minister a question some time ago about buses—it was a matter of about £900,000—and I was told it was day-to-day administration and the question was disallowed.
It is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to decide.
It is a very strange thing that it is only in the Minister's Department that this happens. I do not know whether the Ceann Comhairle consults with the Minister's officers or the Minister but if we ask any other Minister a question like this, we can be told the answer. The Minister has just said if he considers it is not a day-to-day matter, he will answer the question. If any Deputy asks him a question about whether there will be development on land owned by CIE in Dublin which may be worth £50,000, £60,000, £100,000 or £200,000, will he get an answer?
The Deputy should know there are all sorts of difficult problems in regard to property disposal. The answer to the question is that some people might make very large profits if they knew that adjoining land in their area was to be developed. I cannot answer a Parliamentary Question about something like this when arrangements have not been completed. I could be making a fortune for a lot of people out of their property. The Deputy would be the first person to say I was acting in an improper manner or making profit for those people. The Deputy knows all about leases of property. I would lack all reasonable propriety if I disclosed information before final arrangements had been made. The Deputy must leave it to my commonsense and the decision of the Ceann Comhairle on questions of this sort.
The Minister wants to keep secret what this development might be so that nobody in the area would be able to make anything out of their own property. Would it not be better to let people living on land in the area know about it rather than to have some slickers getting information and making a profit out of it? That is the danger in this. The property owners around an area which is to be developed should be able to make money out of their own property instead of letting the slickers come in and do so. The Minister should not be allowed to go on in this cloak and dagger fashion. We know all about the ruling of the Chair. If there is to be a development here in Dublin on CIE land, there is only one way to do it. If CIE want to purchase another piece of land alongside it, let them do it but it should be possible then, and it would be to the Minister's advantage, for any Deputy to come in here to the House and ask the Minister if there is any intention to develop this land. The Minister could get up and say that there was going to be development in that area and the people whose property had appreciated by the fact that the development was going to take place would know where they stood.
The Minister wants to keep us in the dark. I do not say a leakage would occur through the Minister because I do not think he is that kind of man, but the leakage could occur and some slicker could come in and get the land. It would be better for the Minister to say here and now if there is any question regarding development by CIE and what the development will be.
I am not a lawyer. If it will satisfy the Deputy and he allows this Bill to proceed, when we come to Report Stage I shall ascertain what is the proper course in this matter particularly from the legal standpoint. The Deputy has raised a very important question. Under the Town Planning Act when developments on land are to take place, the plans must be deposited with the local authority. My belief at the moment is that it would be most improper for me to disclose any intention of CIE regarding the development of land. It would not be proper for me to do so unless I had no confidence in the Board regarding this matter. As I said, when we come to Report Stage, I shall make references regarding the dispositions of CIE property. I shall let the Deputies know what would be the right and proper thing on Report Stage regarding this question.
Deputy Dillon rose.
This is Committee Stage and we have had very wide scope for debate, but I think it is in the interest of the House that the Chair should see to it that progress is made. If progress is being impeded by needless repetition, it is the function and the privilege of the Chair to say so.
I am astonished. This is a most unusual ruling.
Acting Chairman
Not a bit.
I have made one short intervention.
Acting Chairman
I am not referring to the Deputy. I am referring to the general debate on section 11. I am quite confident there is needless repetition.
By whom?
Acting Chairman
It is not necessary that I should name anybody. It is a general trend and that is the impression I have got in the Chair. I am only anxious that the business of the House should proceed and in that regard I have pointed out that there is too much repetition, that repetition is disorderly and that it is the function of the Chair to say so. I am not referring to the Deputy.
It would be an astonishing proposition if the Chair ended a debate in Committee just because he got tired of it.
Acting Chairman
Far from it, Sir.
This particular problem really stems from the difficulty that exists because of the want of satisfactory machinery for review by the Oireachtas of the activities of publicly-owned companies.
We discussed this for seven hours yesterday.
Surely the purpose of a Committee debate is to review so predominantly important a question. If we had machinery such as an ordinary commercial company has which would provide an annual review by the shareholders or their representatives, at which the directors of a public company can be called on to account for their stewardship, many of these problems about getting information would not arise. Public representatives would be content to raise these matters at the annual review and to discuss them there. We do that in respect of every Department of State. We delegate to the Public Accounts Committee the responsibility of calling on the accounting officer of each Department and we get from him all the information we want. That Committee have power to send for people and documents and it is noticeable that the Chairman of that Committee is always a member of the Opposition.
No analogous machinery exists with regard to public companies. When we reach the stage at which we are being asked to vote a very large sum of money annually for the next five years and find that we are asked to agree to this provision:
The Board shall have power to develop its land either alone or in conjunction with another person in such a manner as it may think fit,
it is necessary for the House to insist that this power which it is proposed to give to the Board be controlled by the ordinary parliamentary machinery of question and answer.
I freely concede that this problem of providing machinery for control of public companies has been considered by previous Fianna Fáil Governments, by the inter-party Governments, probably by the present Fianna Fáil Government, by the British Government and by the Governments of various other countries. Nobody has found an entirely satisfactory solution to it and this is a dilemma with which we are not alone in wrestling. I suggest to the Minister that the objectionable and evil words in this section are "in such manner as it may think fit". Those words mean a declaration on behalf of the Oireachtas that we withdraw from Dáil Éireann any power of interrogation in regard to matters that fall within this section. It would then fall for the Minister to say that this was a matter to be determined by the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle looks at the terms of the statutes passed by this Oireachtas and he determines in the light of those and in the light of Standing Orders what is relevant and what is irrelevant.
I suggest that the words in line 29 "in such manner as it may think fit" are a virtual declaration by the Oireachtas that this is a matter absolutely in the discretion of the Board and therefore would not be open to parliamentary debate and that out of those words the ruling would come from the Ceann Comhairle that questions arising in relation to matters in section 11 of the Transport Act of 1963 were specifically excluded from the discretion of the Ministers and therefore were not to be the subject of question and reply in Parliament.
The Minister says he will examine the whole matter of answering questions in regard to the development of land. What I suggest to him is that when he is making that examination, he might consider the appropriateness of deleting from subsection (1) of section 11 the words "in such manner as it may think fit". If he does that it will operate to bring matters relative to the development of the land, either alone or in conjunction with another person, within the ambit of a Parliamentary Question and it would meet the point raised by Deputy Lynch.
The Minister is mistaken if he does not realise that there is a growing atmosphere of public uneasiness about the difficulty of getting information in regard to public companies. I think an analogy can be drawn. I do not think I have ever heard a question addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he was responsible for the ESB that was not answered. The Minister frequently went through the form of saying "I have inquired from the ESB and they have given me the following information", but I do not ever remember him saying that this is a matter within the discretion of the ESB and therefore I decline to answer the question.
I put this question to the Minister: Does he ever recollect answering a question here in regard to the ESB in the same terms as he feels it incumbent upon him to answer a variety of questions in regard to the public transport company? I suggest to him if he will make a comparison, he will realise how legitimately concerned we are about the apparent reluctance of the Minister to furnish information in regard to the public transport company.
I believe if the Minister became less sensitive on this score and more communicative to the House, he would very readily find that if Deputies habitually addressed inappropriate questions to him as to why one of the servants of the company was transferred from one station to another, the feeling of the House would quickly correct that. Instead of finding a constant atmosphere of irritation and frustration, he would discover that Deputies, who abused the right to raise matters appropriate to Parliamentary Questions and Answer, and that Deputies who continued to raise matters which are manifestly inappropriate to this form of inquiry, would lose the sympathy of the House and the Minister would find the House would swing to his side and support him in all rational attitudes. There is no doubt that he has allowed the situation in regard to the affairs of CIE to grow on him which has created a particularly undesirable atmosphere.
There are many decisions by the Board of CIE with which I disagree. As I have said on a previous occasion, I regard the Chairman of CIE as a man who threw up a relatively easy job to take up a very difficult one, whether I agree or not with him. I have no doubt he is doing his best according to his own lights. I have no reason to believe that the Minister and the Board of CIE are not doing their best according to their own lights. I am fairly certain if the Minister became less sensitive in this matter and took us more into his confidence, he would find the whole problem greatly simplified. I suggest he might consider taking the first step to that end between now and Report Stage by deleting the words "as it may think fit", and thereafter the rulings of the Chair as covered by section 11 would approximate very closely to what all Deputies desire.
The Minister would find himself under no greater difficulty in answering questions about CIE than he, or his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, have found themselves in answering questions relative to the ESB. That would be a development which would be eminently desirable and which would greatly expedite the dispatch of public business in this House, if it came about.
The Deputy did nothing whatever about this when he was Minister.
I should like to think that Deputy Ó Briain would greatly stimulate the debate. When I was in office, complaints of this kind did not arise. In fact, if Deputy Ó Briain will examine the record, I doubt that he will find a single place in which questions were asked relative to the affairs of CIE that were not fully answered at that time. This is an entirely new development.
I should like to say that is not so. I have not consciously altered the pattern of answering questions or the general trend in regard to answering questions since I took over my office in the Department of Transport and Power. There has been no change and the attitude of the Chair has not changed. Naturally, more interest is taken now in the affairs of the company over which I have general supervision because supervision is now the responsibility of a separate Department. Previously it was merged with the Department of Industry and Commerce. I have not changed in regard to this matter.
In reply to Deputy Dillon, I should like to say he has put the whole case in regard to State companies very succinctly and I agree with him there has always been controversy over this. At this stage, I would simply say that I think he should read what I have already said about this matter. It would be unnecessary for me to repeat what I have spoken of in great detail.
In regard to this section, I do not believe the alterations suggested by the Deputy would make any difference. I think the matter of answering questions under this section would be covered by the general provisions of section 16 of the 1950 Act. As I have already said in regard to this section, I shall say more about it on Report Stage and about the very great difficulty that would attend the giving of information ad interim in regard to the use of property by State companies. I might add there are other companies besides CIE that have power to dispose of land and development. I shall speak about that on Report Stage because it goes beyond the question of what is a day-to-day matter. I have already indicated some of the difficulties.
Before we leave this section, I should like to refer to the Minister's remark that he has not changed anything in regard to the information he gives this House.
When it is not relative to this section.
The Minister mentioned it and I want to say it is not true. The Minister answered questions in regard to Aer Lingus on 14th April on the price and specification of aircraft and he refused to answer questions in regard to the price and specification of CIE coaches. You mentioned here, Sir, that you were anxious that the business of the House should proceed. You have accused Deputies here of repetition. I feel guilty of repetition. I had to repeat myself and had to do so continually so that the Minister would get the information and bring it to me on Report Stage. It is the Minister's fault, Sir. We are asking the Minister to do reasonable things. If he would only answer questions and in a simple form instead of going into Acts or referring us to arbitration or conciliation, or referring to the Act of 1963 and if he would say that he would be prepared to answer questions, that would be something.
As far as repetition is concerned, Sir, I am sorry to say that if we get more of the grunts and more of the interruptions we have been getting from the far side, we might take a little longer over this Bill.
It is nice to hear the Deputy over there grunting anyhow, even though we seldom see him.
And blathering.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Acting Chairman
There is an amendment in the names of Deputies Casey, Corish and other members of the Labour Party. What is involved in this connection also arises on amendments Nos. 21, 23 and 24. A suggestion has been made and I hope it will be agreed that Nos. 17, 21, 23 and 24 be taken together.
I move amendment No.17:
Before section 12 to insert a new section as follows:
"Section 35 of the Act of 1950 is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection:
‘(2) (a) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, entry to the clerical grades of the service of the Board shall be by means of open competitive examinations in accordance with rules made by the Board.
(b) Every open competitive examination held in pursuance of this subsection shall, subject to paragraph (f) of this subsection, be open to all persons who are ordinarily resident in the State or who are Irish citizens or the children of Irish citizens and who pay the fees (if any) and possess the qualifications (if any) as to age, health, character and education prescribed by the rules relating to the examination.
(c) The Board may by special rules provide that such proportion as may be approved by the Minister of the vacancies in the clerical grades of its service shall be filled by means of limited competitive examinations, and where an examination is so limited only persons in or who have been in the employment of a dissolved company within the meaning of the Act of 1944, a dissolved undertaker, the Board or any other transport undertaker whose undertaking has been vested in the Board under this Act or any subsequent Act or the children of such persons shall be admitted thereto.
(d) An open competitive examination shall consist of the following types of test namely:
(i) a written examination;
(ii) an oral examination.
(e) Irish shall be a compulsory subject at every competitive examination under this subsection.
(f) The foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply in relation to the entry of staff, for employment in a temporary capacity, to the clerical grades of the service of the Board.
For the purposes of this subsection "temporary" means employment in the nature of holiday or casual relief.'"
This is an amendment the acceptance of which will delete section 12 of the Bill. It can be described as a section which we are asking the House to accept in substitution for the one proposed in the Bill.
This section contains what we regard as a highly objectionable and undesirable innovation in a matter of staff recruitment, in as much as it opens the door quite obviously to all kinds of possibilities in regard to the appointment of staff and the handing out of jobs in CIE. It has long been accepted in this House and in the country generally that the fairest method which can be adopted in recruitment for any position is that of open competitive examination. It is a method which, while not absolutely perfect, at the same time approximates to fairness in so far as it affords the various applicants, no matter from what area of the country they may come, no matter what their background, regardless of whether or not they are related to anybody, an opportunity to enter the competition and if they have the ability and brains, to secure the vacancies. That has always been accepted as the proper way to fill positions, particularly clerical positions, in public companies. Here we have initiated the proposition that this must be changed.
If Deputies will look at subparagraph (d) of section 12, they will see that it reads as follows:
A competition shall consist of such one or more of the following types of test as the Board may specify in the rules relating to the competition, namely:
(i) a written examination;
(ii) an oral examination;
(iii) an interview;
(iv) any other test or tests that the Board considers to be appropriate.
There are a lot of consequential qualifications as well, such as that Irish shall be compulsory, and so on.
I, and those associated with me in the Labour Party whose names are appended to this amendment, wish to bring the attention of the House very forcibly to the fact that here we have for the first time to my knowledge, a provision written into the law to enable a public company to appoint people to clerical positions purely as a result of an interview. It is stated specifically here.
The purpose of our amendment is to safeguard the existing method, which has been accepted over a long period of time, of filling vacancies by open competitive examination. The Minister was at pains here yesterday to suggest the awful and dire consequences which might flow if members of this House are enabled to ask questions which might relate to the day-to-day administration of CIE. It is evident sometimes when he is talking on these matters that he considers that — in the main, at any rate, and certainly in so far as the Opposition are concerned — this House consists of venal people.
This does not arise on the section.
I am drawing attention now to the possibilities of venality there are in this proposal by the Minister. It does not require much imagination for us to think of what can happen when public funds are at the disposal of a Board which has the right to fill well-paid jobs — as clerical posts are in CIE — purely as a result of an interview.
We have seen in other public companies the results of such activities. People find themselves in positions, although they are not fit for them, purely by virtue of their association with a political Party or, it may very well be, by virtue of their blood relationship with a politician or a member of the Board. These things have happened and do happen and they are a subject of public comment daily throughout this country.
We know very well that nepotism is rampant in some of these institutions. Here we have a proposal which will open that undesirable avenue much wider than it is at present. The people expect, when we are disposing of public funds, that Members of the House will do all in their power to ensure that these funds will be employed for the good of the entire community and that if there are positions for the payment of which these funds will be used, then that such positions should be on offer to all the citizens of this country on an open competitive basis.
It appears that the principle that entry into clerical posts in the national transport company was written into the 1924 Railways Act. Here, we are going back and undoing the work and experience of the past 50 years by including this provision. It is perhaps the most undesirable aspect of this Bill. We want to know why it is there. What is its purpose in being there? Who suggested that it should be there? Is it the Minister's idea? It would seem to me to be highly doubtful that it is.
Where did the suggestion come from that this provision should be put in the Bill and what does it mean? It means simply—from what I can read into it —that CIE wish to be put into the position that they can appoint whomsoever they like without applying any test save that of an interview. That is something we shall not accept and it is something we shall put to the issue in this House. We want to label it for what it is. If it were allowed to slip through, it would be a very serious mistake. God knows, the Board of CIE are already sufficiently intoxicated with authoritarianism. If they were to get this as well, as a present, how do we know the manner in which they would employ it and how do we know what the end result would be? The House should seriously consider the matter and the Minister should eliminate this undesirable provision from the Bill.
In actual fact, the section of this Bill follows in all its essential features the arrangements for competitions by the Civil Service in section 15 of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956. So, civil servants of this type—clerical officers—can already be appointed with one or more of the following tests, namely, a written examination, an oral examination, an interview, a practical examination and any other test or tests considered by the Commissioners to be appropriate. The section provides that where a competition consists of more than one of the types of tests specified in subsection (3)—which I have already read out—not more than one of the tests need be competitive.
There is plenty of precedent for this within the Civil Service. No other State body coming within my control has any statutory restrictions in regard to the recruitment of clerical staff. I might have recommended the complete annulment of the section and it would still place CIE only in line with other State companies. In fact, we are still maintaining rules and regulations in regard to the competition which are not in any other statute governing State companies under my supervision.
In the case of Bord na Móna, the clerical staff are appointed on the basis of qualification, on leaving certificate or intermediate certificate and an interview. The same applies to the ESB, Bord Fáilte and Aer Lingus. For the superior scale, the higher grade of clerical officer, leaving certificate with honours is required, and after that there are intelligence and aptitude tests and an interview.
What is the Minister quoting from? Is it an Act of Parliament?
From information.
That is all I want to know. This is the practice adopted by the ESB.
I am quoting from information. In fact, CIE are finding it difficult to compete with other State-sponsored bodies in the recruitment of clerical staff of a certain kind. The reason for the amendment of the law is the use of office machines of all kinds. In fact, a written examination given to a candidate who already has an educational qualification is not the modern way of assessing aptitude. It is not done in a great many companies. There are aptitude tests and interviews.
If you have five or six candidates for the position of clerical officer— and I might add that it is getting more and more difficult to get them—they might all have the leaving certificate qualification, and only one might know how to use the machine to which he would be appointed. He would be the person to be chosen, and there would be an oral interview to see whether he was satisfactory, having got references from his previous employment, or from the priest, the clergyman or the manager of the school. We are modernising the practice. I will not yield one single inch on this section which puts CIE nearly on a level with other State companies.
Did the Minister say this is based on a section of the 1956 Civil Service Act?
No; I said the Civil Service Commissioners Act provides the same type of examination regulations for persons entering as clerical officers as are now provided in this section. I think it is reasonable. I do not think it can be said there is any sinister objective on the part of CIE if they virtually copy a section of the Civil Service Act.
There is not anything sinister in the Labour Party amendment. What the Minister has said is a reflection on our system of education. In the main, the amendment proposes that there should be a written and an oral examination. It is all very well to talk about the practice in other semi-State and State bodies. It is all very well to talk about what happens in the Civil Service. The Minister must remember—and this has been running through the debate since it started yesterday afternoon—that while the Dáil does not appear to have any worthwhile control over the policies pursued by CIE, the Dáil has control over the activities of civil servants.
In this amendment, Deputy Dunne is trying to ensure that there will be equal opportunity for every boy and girl when they come to the age at which they might qualify for a job as clerical officers in CIE, or any State institution. The Minister talked about the difficulty of recruiting staff able to operate the complicated computing machines. There is nothing in this amendment which would hinder the Board of CIE in recruiting whatever staff they want. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect CIE to recruit staff, and clerical staff in particular, by way of written examination? Are we to discard the importance in which the intermediate certificate and the leaving certificate are held? Surely they must be of some significance. They are the certificates which every boy and girl seek to obtain. They are the badge of a certain standard of education, academic at least.
Deputy Dunne did not suggest that the person who came first in the written examination should get the first appointment. This amendment also includes an oral examination. If the Minister wants to ensure that people are competent in the use of the machines to which he referred, that could be discovered by way of oral examination. It is not appropriate to make vague or wild allegations of favouritism or influence in obtaining posts with CIE, the ESB, Telefís Éireann, or any State or semi-State body, but so long as there is a suspicion in the minds of the public that influence will get one a job in any State company, I do not think the Minister is doing himself justice, or is being fair to the country. Boys, girls and their parents should know that merit, and merit alone, will get a job. For that reason the amendment suggests that there should be a written examination, and those who qualify can be interviewed on their aptitude and ability. Let that be tested by oral examination.
I think the Minister suggested the Civil Service had power to appoint staff without written examination. I do not know whether that is a regulation, but everyone knows there is an open competitive examination for posts as clerical officers and junior executives. It is also true that there is an interview and an oral Irish examination. To suggest, as the Minister has suggested that CIE, which is subsidised by the taxpayer, should employ any method it wants to recruit staff is something we cannot swallow.
Paragraph (d) of section 12 provides that:
A competition shall consist of such one or more of the following types of test as the Board may specify in the rules relating to the competition, namely: (i) a written examination;
(ii) an oral examination;
(iii) an interview;
(iv) any other test or tests that the Board considers to be appropriate.
Subparagraph (iv) is the worst: "Any other test or tests that the Board considers to be appropriate." That could mean anything.
There is one very obvious one.
We could think of many examples of what it could mean. By accepting this amendment, the Minister should indicate to the country that so far as State and semi-State bodies are concerned, everything is open and above board in the recruitment of staff, and that merit and merit alone gets the job. I do not suggest that there are unscrupulous members on the Board at present, but if there were such an unscrupulous member, he could use paragraph (d) (iv) to do whatever he liked.
Children now studying for the intermediate and leaving certificate honestly believe that to get positions in these semi-State bodies it is necessary for them to qualify by way of written examination, accepting, of course, that it will be necessary for them to attend an interview and to pass an oral Irish test. What ambition can they have to a post as clerical officer in any semi-State body if they do not know what recruitment method will be employed—if they do not know whether it will be by way of interview or whether they will be subjected to a test to determine what political Party or sporting organisation they belong to?
There have been abuses in the past and the Minister knows of the criticism levelled at the method of recruitment to a recently established State body, Telefís Éireann. I hope we are not to have the repetition of that. I trust the Minister will insist that as far as the CIE Board are concerned, the only qualification will be a demonstration of a certain standard of education by passing a written examination. It is too thick to propose to give to CIE the right to conduct any kind of examination or interview they like, which is what this subsection proposes.
The whole thing is exaggerated. I do not see how this section proposes any change——
Nach bhfuil Gaeilge ag an dTeachta?
——from the system in operation. I have seen advertisements for posts and one of the items at the bottom of such notices is that canvassing will disqualify. I have seen that put into operation. It is not long since the Leader of the Fine Gael Party raised the matter in reference to an Aer Lingus appointment. On one occasion years ago, a member of this Party wrote a letter in respect of a person applying for a post in Aer Lingus and that person was disqualified. When a condition like that in respect of canvassing is inserted in the conditions of application for appointment, it is not put in for fun. I do not see any danger in the system the Minister proposes to adopt. It is no different from the system in operation.
The Deputy is wrong. It was written into the Railways Act of 1934 that there should be an examination.
In the Civil Service——
We have control over the Civil Service in this House.
Recruitment to the Civil Service is not by means of interview alone.
It is, in certain instances.
Mr. Ryan
We are not reassured by the intervention of Deputy O'Brien.
A leas-Cheann Comhairle, do thug an spreasán aniar leasainm orm agus ba cheart gan ceadú dó é sin a dhéanamh. Is é m'ainmse Donnchadh Ó Briain, agus is maith atá a fhios sin ag an bhfear thall. Ní ceart ligint dó leasainm a thabhairt orm.
Mr. Ryan
Do labhair an Teachta as Béarla agus dá bhrí sin usáidfidh mé an leagan Béarla dá ainm.
Níl aon leagan Béarla ar m'ainm. Donnchadh Ó Briain is ainm dom agus ní ceart ligint d'éinne ainm bréagach a thabhairt orm.
Céard faoi Michael Moran?
Sé an t-ainm ceart atá ar an Teachta ná Donnchadh Ó Briain.
Mr. Ryan
As I was saying, we are not at all reassured by the Deputy whose name apparently is in some doubt.
Níl dabht ar bith ann. Do toghadh mé faoin ainm Donnchadh Ó Briain. Sin é mo ainm oifigiúil.
Tá sé sin níos fearr.
Mr. Ryan
We shall now deal with the amendments before the House. We were getting along fine before the interruption. The Deputy might have referred to the fact that CIE advertisements bear the caption that canvassing will disqualify. I am aware of a State company in respect of which canvassing was also supposed to disqualify. The minimum qualification for one appointment to that company was an honours degree in economics. Several first-class honours graduates in economics applied for the post, but the person who got the post was a person who had a pass degree, second attempt, appeal, in philosophy. I am sure there was no connection with the fact that he was particularly friendly with a brother of one of the men in the company concerned.
This thing of writing in "canvassing will disqualify" will not serve very much purpose when you have the Fianna Fáil Mafia at work, who can bedevil all rules and regulations as far as applications for posts are concerned. There is a considerable difference between the Civil Service, over which this House has control, and a State body over which the House has absolutely no control. The system of interview may be all right for posts at a certain administrative level, but for the ordinary clerical classes, the pen-pushers, it is ridiculous to think their suitability for the position can be adequately determined by interview or "any other test the Board considers to be appropriate."
Is it not strange that we have had to wait until 1964 before deciding to change the system? We cannot accept this is being done for the good of CIE. I do not think there is anything wrong with the present staff of CIE, or are we to be told the Board have not confidence in the existing staff? If not, what is wrong with the present system of staff recruitment?
Amendment withdrawn?
Has the Minister not got something to say?
I have already spoken. I have already given the complete picture.
I think the Minister is mistaken if he thinks there is nothing more to be said. Surely it is a revolutionary proposal that we should claim that appointments to the staff of CIE should be made subject to a certain procedure which, it is suggested, provides that merit alone will be the criterion and then to provide that the competition shall consist of any other test, or tests, that the Board considers to be appropriate. What is the point of providing subparagraph (d) of subsection (2) of section 12 if you offer the alternative of a written examination, an oral examination, an interview, or any other test, or tests, that the Board considers to be appropriate. If we leave the whole thing out altogether, what difference does it make?
Hear, hear.
You might have a typing speed test.
Subparagraph (d).
I am sorry—it is section 12 (d) (4).
Yes.
I presume that would apply to a typing speed test.
The Minister says he presumes it will apply to a typing speed test. Surely what the Minister wishes to provide for is much wider than that. If the Minister wants to have "or such test of technical skills as may be appropriate to the vacancy," I could very much more readily understand that, but he does not himself see that subparagraph (4) in fact operates to negative all the other controls which the other paragraphs purport to introduce. What is the use of saying that appointments are to be subject to written examination, or oral examination, or interview, if you go on to say "or any other test the Board considers to be appropriate"?
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Board will do the incredible but the reductio ad absurdum is useful for illustrating the potentialities of a section of this kind. According to subsection (4), the Board could lay down a test that you must have red hair. Manifestly none of us means that but we do not think the Board ought to have the power to provide some utterly irrelevant test of that kind, and the moment we realise that the words we are using would give authority to such attempts, surely the case is copper-fastened either for deleting the words or radically changing them. If the Minister has in mind that there are certain skills which cannot be tested by a written examination, which cannot be tested by an oral examination, which cannot be tested by an interview, then let him say “or in respect of certain technical skills by an examination appropriate to determine the candidate's degree of proficiency”, or some phrase of that kind. I suggest to the Minister that, if he were to take out (3) and (4), and leave the provision that all appointments should be by written examination, or by oral examination, he would thereby provide all that it is appropriate to provide in the Bill.
There is in the Civil Service code, I think, a provision which provides that, subject to certain settled procedure, if a Department of State wishes to recruit a particular person with a particular skill, the Minister for Finance can make a specific order exempting that person from the usual procedure for entry into the Civil Service and he is recruited, for all the world to know, as a special entrant. If any abuse exists, then the matter can be raised in the House here. It is quite true that, in operating a large enterprise such as Córas Iompair Éireann, the situation might arise in which, if somebody had a specific skill that the Board felt would be of great value to the company and that the person was not the kind of person who could do either a written or an oral examination. Is there any reason why we should not follow the existing rule and provide that in such circumstances the Board should adopt a special procedure and declare that they propose to appoint this person outside of the ordinary machinery for the recruitment of staff?
I see no difficulty in that, but the section as it stands will create a widespread feeling that there is no real equality in appointment to the staff of CIE. The Minister would be wise to recall to his mind that Deputies represent a fair cross-section of the people and he ought to see that these things create misgivings and that in association with a matter of this kind misgivings of that character are highly undesirable. I admit we are again in the dilemma that we are dealing with a State company. If one is dealing with a commercial company, which is the property of the shareholders, one can afford to use a very much wider discretion. If jobbery or improper conduct arises in connection with appointments, the annual general meeting of the company can sack the directors. In any case, the matter can be raised and publicised.
Here we are dealing with a semi-State company, subject to no such review but, as we are all fully aware, subject to considerable political pressure and I think it very important therefore, that we should fortify the board of a State company by putting it in the position that political pressure cannot operate because they are required by law to have a written examination or an oral examination and it is in accordance with the place obtained in that examination that appointment or rejection depends.
Mark you, I think we have got to face the fact that examinations are not always the best way of getting the best staff. However, we are not living in a perfect world. We are living in a very imperfect world and what we have to try to do in regard to State companies and the Public Service is to avoid to the utmost of our capacity any suggestion of a corrupt preference being shown to an individual. That is the justification for the competitive examination system.
In regard to the grades of staff for which this procedure is envisaged, by and large, a written or oral examination will probably produce a vast majority of candidates competent to discharge the duties of the office to which the examination will entitle them. We all know, however, that you come across oddities in life, with a genius for passing examinations but no good at all in the day-to-day work of an office. I think it is much better to bear with the possibility of an examination throwing up occasionally such an oddity than to leave ourselves open to a procedure which is calculated to create the impression in the public mind that all is not open and aboveboard. Does the Minister himself seriously believe that, if the Board of CIE are entitled to appoint people to the relatively low grades contemplated in this section by means of any other test or tests the Board considers appropriate, that will reassure the public mind that nothing but merit will count in an application for employment by the Board of CIE?
I suggest he must himself see, after the relatively short debate that has taken place here in regard to this subsection, that it is quite manifest it does not provide reassurance for the average kind of person and that the last two paragraphs, referring to an interview and any other test or tests the Board considers appropriate, are wholly unacceptable to a great many Deputies. What problem will it create if the Minister drops it and provides that these appointments are to be on foot of a written and oral examination? I cannot see any difficulty at all. If the Minister does see a difficulty in relation to a typewriting test or something of that kind, I am proposing a third alternative which shall be confined to persons whose technical skill in some particular job the Board are concerned to test.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Barry, Anthony.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Callery, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Meaney, Con.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
Tellers:— Tá. Deputies Kyne and M. P. Murphy; Níl: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.
Amendment declared lost.
With amendment No. 18, the House can discuss amendment No. 20, which is cognate.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, line 46, to delete "Board" and substitute "Minister".
These two amendments are an effort to bring this matter back into the control of the House. Subsection (2) (a) of section 12 says:
... entry to the clerical grades of the service of the Board shall be by means of open competitions in accordance with rules made by the Board.
Paragraph (c) of this subsection states:
The Board may by special rules provide that such proportion as may be approved by the Minister of the vacancies in the clerical grades of its service shall be filled by means of limited competitions.
Paragraph (d) of the subsection sets out tests which the Board may specify. We object to the possibility of tests by any other means than by interview, written or oral examination. We want to bring this back under the control of the House, where the Minister has to make the rules. That is the purpose of these amendments. The Minister may make certain rules and if complaints are made, they can be questioned in the House. If the Board makes the rules and if this legislation passes, then we will be back again to the old situation where the Minister can say he has no function and that the Board have made various rules and exceptions. I want to bring the matter back to the control of the House.
I could not possibly accept this amendment. As I have already indicated in regard to other companies over which I have supervision, there are no statutory rules in the Acts for competitions for clerical officers. The legislation in connection with CIE is being amended in the form I provided for in this Bill. In fact, as I have already indicated, CIE have followed the lines of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956. The House has exactly the same control over CIE as they have over the Civil Service Commissioners.
That is no control at all.
They can amend the Act by enacting new legislation. Under existing legislation, the Civil Service Commissioners are entirely independent in their operation. I do not propose to interfere with the Board in this way. I have confidence in the Board and I have confidence in the integrity of the Chairman of the Board in regard to these appointments. I have no intention of interfering in this matter.
There is no use in the Minister throwing it across the House at us that he has confidence in the Board or the Chairman of the Board. I am not saying anything to the Board. Our purpose in these amendments is that we should have a line of communication between this House and the Board through the Minister. The Minister knows that and he is evading it again. We would not have to spend half or quarter of the time here on this but for the Minister's evasion.
I would ask him again to accept this amendment. He mentioned invisible walls this morning. There is a wall between this House and Kingsbridge and it is greater than the Berlin Wall as far as this House is concerned. It is only through subterfuge or by trying to cut our way through the barbed wire or climbing over the wall that we are able to find out anything about Kingsbridge. I think the Minister should meet us on this. It would give him an opportunity of getting up here and saying that he has changed his mind. Would it not be much better for him to be in the position of getting important information from CIE?
The section deals solely with entrance to the clerical grades.
Deputies who have reached a certain age will remember a controversy started many years ago by the late Mr. Moran who was editor and founder of a paper called The Leader. He waged a vigorous campaign with regard to clerical appointments, first in relation to certain banks and, secondly, in relation to clerkships in the Great Northern Railway. He was eventually successful in this campaign and got tremendous public support in it. There were, in the first place, certain banks which had limited examination and appointments were made by interview which meant personal pull. As a result of this campaign, there was substituted in certain banks, and particularly in the Great Northern Railway, a system of competitive examinations.
That was open to suspicion and the then editor of The Leader condemned the type of subterfuge examination that was held in order to comply with what had been forced on these people by public opinion. His line was that he did not want entry to certain banks or to the Great Northern Railway to be such that these bodies would become Freemason associations. He wanted to have entry to these institutions open to the natives of the country who were not willing to join certain secret societies and he wanted these people to have a right to compete for entry to these organisations. He won on that.
Are we back now to the point where we are to have the clerical services of CIE under suspicion of being a Fianna Fáil club? It is only a change of what is the nominating body. The Minister says he has every confidence in the Board. That may be, but what is wrong with having the Board brought under examination from time to time and having their activities justified? The Board are going to make rules and make exceptions to these rules and the proposition is that the Board could amend every part of this legislation including paragraph (h).
The Minister takes the analogy of the Civil Service Commissioners but that is an entirely different matter. They operate in regard to the recruitment of the Civil Service and there are several alert and energetic associations who keep a watchful eye on the occasions on which there are limited competitions. If the Minister looks at the Civil Service Commissioners Act, he will find that there are two types of occupation which are exempt or scheduled occupations, and are free from competitive examination. These are very limited and only last for very brief periods. If any person gets in under the exempt or scheduled occupations, gets in by the back door, so to speak, and wants to go higher into a permanent post, then he has to stand something in the way of a competitive examination.
The Civil Service Commissioners may decide on certain types of competition and it is their choice to decide whether there will be one or more of these tests and what they will be. The Civil Service Commission is an entirely different matter and the Civil Service is a very important body in the State. They may have many associations and, I know as a lawyer, these associations are very alert in challenging things the Commission may do. They have operated from time to time against some of the things which the Civil Service Commission have tried to do.
We are now accepting that CIE is no longer an economic or business concern. It comes now within the definition of the social welfare classes and it is most important to see that whenever there may be an exclusion of certain people from clerical posts, that matter should be open to discussion in this House. We do not want to be faced with the Minister saying that the Board has done this or that, that it is a matter for the Board and that he will not discuss that matter in the House. It is that arrogant and dictatorship type of mind that we object to and which is evident in this measure.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, line 50, to delete "in the State" and to substitute "within the national territory".
This is just an error that was made in the drafting of section 12. Under section 35, subsection (2) (b) of the Transport Act of 1950, the Board's examinations for clerical staff are open to all persons ordinarily resident within the national territory. In this Bill the word "State" was used in error.
What is the difference?
If the words used are "the national territory" it means that persons ordinarily resident within the Six Counties are not excluded. If this amendment is carried, it means that persons ordinarily resident within the Six Counties are not excluded from applying for positions in CIE.
What is the national territory?
It is defined in Article 2 of the Constitution. It comprises the whole of Ireland.
Is there not a phrase concerning "pending the reintegration of the national territory"?
I have told the Deputy the facts.
You have given me an interpretation of the Constitution with which I do not agree.
Mr. Ryan
I find it hard to think that this is an error made by the printers. In the Acts of 1944 and 1950, we find the phrase "national territory" is used. Section 35 of the 1950 Act says:
Every open competitive examination shall be open to all persons who are ordinarily resident within the national territory.
In the 1944 Act, we find again:
Every open competitive examination held in pursuance of this section shall be open to all persons who are ordinarily resident within the national territory.
Quite clearly the Minister took a deliberate step in altering "national territory" to "the State".
The Deputy has to accept my error now. It was an error in drafting and had nothing to do with any nefarious act on my part.
Mr. Ryan
We have a situation now where Ministers are running away from their responsibilities. The Minister does not accept responsibility for mistakes of his Department. He cannot have it both ways. It seems strange when the sections are so similar in the 1944 and 1950 Acts, where the words "national territory" are used. Somebody made not a mistake but a deliberate act to change that.
The Minister has stated it was not a deliberate act on his part and the Deputy is not accepting it.
The Deputy has stated that the Minister must be responsible. That is all he said.
The Deputy has not accepted the Minister's statement.
The Minister has made a statement on the matter, and I think Deputy Ryan must accept the statement of the Minister.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister says he did not do it but that somebody else did. It is extraordinary that on such a vital matter when two other Acts used the words "national territory", we are asked to accept as an error a phrase that was used. It is a matter of what is "national territory" and "the State". How this could casually arise is beyond me.
Are Six County persons Irish citizens?
I have already dealt with it.
There are alternatives, ordinarily resident in the national territory or Irish citizens. Are Six County people Irish citizens? Of course, they are.
This is a question of persons who are resident in the Six Counties. They need not necessarily be Irish citizens. They could be Scottish people.
Acting Chairman
I do not think we can carry on an argument across the House.
They could be Scottish people and they are still able to apply for a position under the general arrangement of reciprocal employment between ourselves and Great Britain. They simply have to be resident in the national territory.
Or be a citizen.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 20 was discussed with amendment No. 18. Amendment No. 21 was discussed with amendment No. 17.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 22:
Chun múr (e) a bhaint amach.
Tá mise ag caint anois. Níl an Teachta Ó Briain ag caint.
Beidh an Ghaeilge éigeantach in gach scrúdú oscailte, go mór mhór de réir an ailt seo. Tá an foráil chéanna ins na reachtanna a ritheadh i 1944 agus 1950. Is mór an tathrú atá tagtha ar an dlí ó 1944 ní hamháin i saol na tíre seo ach i gcúrsaí iompair agus in gach áit beagnach maidir le h-aithbheochaint na Gaeilge.
Níl aon bhaint ag an méid atá á rá ag an Teachta Ó Riain leis an mBille seo.
Mr. Ryan
B'fhéidir nach dtuigeann an Teachta cad tá á rá agam.
The Deputy is not at all discussing the subject matter of this amendment. He is discussing the 1944 amendment.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy must be allowed to develop his argument. I assume he will come on to the matter in question.
Mr. Ryan
Cén caoi a chabhróidh an fhoráil seo, foráil Achta 1944, le córas iompair ar bith? Cén caoi a chabhróidh an fhoráil seo le h-aithbheochaint na Gaeilge? Cén bhaint atá ag an mhír seo leis an gcóras iompair? Níl aon bhaint aici leis. Táim láncinnte go ndéanfaidh an tseift seo dochar agus go gcuirfidh sé na mílte i gcoine na Gaeilge. Is duine mise a chuaidh ar scoil agus a dhein scrúdú i ndiaidh scrúdú nuair a bhí an Ghaeilge in a hábhar éigeantach. Tá a fhios agam go rí-mhaith gurab é an dearcadh so is cúis leis an droch-mheas agus an easba spéise atá ag a lán daoine i dtaobh na Gaeilge. Is cúis bhróin domsa agus dúinn go léir gur mar sin atá an scéal.
An féidir leis an Aire a rá cén fá nach mbaineann an coinníoll seo leis féin? Cén fá nach mbaineann an coinníoll seo leis an Aire Iompair agus Cumhachta? Cén fá nach mbaineann an coinníoll seo le gach ball den Bhord? Cén fá nach mbaineann an coinníoll seo leis an mBainisteoir Ghinearálta atá ina dheartháir don Taoiseach? Cén fá nach mbaineann an coinníoll seo leis an mbainisteoir dlí agus le baill uile an Bhoird?
Ní thuigeann an tAire.
Mr. Ryan
Cén úsáid a bhaintear as an nGaeilge fé láthair i gCóras Iompair Éireann? Go nuige seo, nuair a fógraíodh scrúdú ní raibh iachall ar iarrthóir ar bith dul fé scrúdú Gaeilge. Anois, faoin mhír seo den Bhille caithfidh gach iarrthóir scrúdú i nGaeilge a sheasamh. Tá Fine Gael ciallmhar i dtaobh aithbheochaint na teangan. Tá an ceart againn agus ba chóir don Aire glacadh leis an leasú.
Could we have a translation of that now for the Minister and myself?
Fan anois.
Is caint shuarach í sin.
Go and close down your Gaelic League in Newcastle West.
Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire gan glacadh leis an leasú seo.
Ní thuigeann an tAire an méid atá dhá rá agat.
Tá a fhios agam nach inné ná inniu a cuireadh an dúngaois seo—an teanga do shábháil—ós comhair ná ndaoine. Tá sé á leanúint againn sna scoileanna le breis agus 40 bliain anuas—na bunscoileanna, na ceard-scoileanna, na meánscoileanna agus na h-iolscoileanna. Is fíor a rá, mar sin, go bhfuil an teanga, a bheag nó a mhór, ag gach duine a fhreastal ar na scoileanna sin i rith an ama sin. Ní dóigh liom gur mí-réasúnta é coinníoll do leagadh síos ag éileamh go mbeadh an Ghaeilge éigeantach i gcás daoine a théann faoi scrúdú chun post d'fháil sa Státseirbhís, sna gardaí, nó in aon phost eile faoin Stáit. Sin mar is cóir don scéal a bheith. Más fiú post do thabhairt do dhaoine atá faoi bhun 40 bliain d'aois is cóir go mbeadh orthu úsáid do bhaint as teanga na tíre agus is gá coinníoll den tsaghas sin do chur isteach sna rialacha le h-aghaidh na scrúdú.
Do bhí an Teachta Ó Riain ag caim i dtaobh an Aire agus ag iarraidh a chur ina luí ar an dTeach nach raibh an Ghaeilge aige. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil daoine sa tír seo nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge acu. Nílim chomh simplí agus a cheapadh go bhfuil an Ghaeilge go líofa ag gach duine atá ós cionn 40 bliain d'aois. Ní raibh deis acu an Ghaeilge d'fhoghlaim mar ní raibh an teanga dhá múineadh sna scoileanna. Rud eile, bhí a lán acu ag troid ar son na tíre agus ní raibh an t-am acu aon staidéar a dhéanamh ar an dteanga. Do bhí orthu na Gaill do ruagadh as an dtír agus Rialtas dár gcuid féin do chur ar bun. Ní dóigh liom gur deas an rud é an Ghaeilge do dhéanamh éigeantach i gcás duine ar bith meánaosta, ach tá a fhios againn nach bhfuil leithscéal ag na daoine óga.
Sé tá sa leasú seo ná iarracht ag Fine Gael chun cúis na Gaeilge do lagú. Ní maith liom sin. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil roint daoine ar bhinsí Fhine Gael atá go dúthrachtach agus go díoghraiseach mar gheall ar chúis na Gaeilge ach, faraoir, le roint bliain anuas tá daoine ina measc nach raibh riamh ar thaobh na Gaeilge nó ar thaobh an náisiúin. Tá siad ag iarraidh a dtuairimí féin do chur i bhfeidhm sa Dáil. Im thuairimse agus i dtuairim mórán daoine eile tá Fine Gael ag iarraidh an Ghaeilge do chur ar cheal in gach scrúdú agus ag iarraidh a rá leis na daoine go mbeadh saol níos fearr acu. Do chuir siad an dúngaois sin ós comhair an phobail nuair a bhí toghacháin ann agus fuair siad freagra dearfa, géar ó mhuintir na hÉireann. Bí cinnte, nuair a chuireann siad dúngaois den tsaghas sin ós comhair mhuintir na hÉireann arís, go scriosfar Fine Gael ar fad as saol polaitiúil na hÉireann agus, má déantar sin, ní bheidh brón ar bhunáite na ndaoine ach oiread.
Sílim féin go bhfuil leasú seo an Teachta Ó Riain suarach agus mímhacánta. Molaim gan glacadh leis. Tuigim fá a mholta. Dá nglacfadh an tAire leis an leasú ní dhéanfadh sé aon mhaitheas do chúis na teangan, don tír ná don náisiún. Nuair a bhéas tairiscint ós comhair na Dála chun Gaeilge éigeantach do ghlanadh amach ar fad as gach scrúdú sa tír seo agus nuair a éiríonn leis an dTeachta Ó Riain é sin a dhéanamh, ní bheidh a thuilleadh náisiúntachta againn.
Tá an Teacha ag dul taobh amuigh den leasú.
Tá mé ag caint ar an leasú. Bfhéidir nach dtuigeann an Teachta cad tá dhá rá agam. Bfhéidir nach maith leis é.
Tuigimid go maith.
Ní raibh an Teacha anso an tseachtain seo chaite nuair a bhí trácht ar a chontae féin.
Cad faoin leasú?
Ar chuma ar bith, molaim go láidir don Aire gan glacadh leis an leasú. Níl aon chiall leis ach an sort céille is dual don Teachta Ó Riain nó don Teachta eile atá ag cabhrú leis sa ghnó seo, mar tá a fhios ag an saol nach bhfuil meas madra aige sin ar an dteanga.
Aontaíom leis na leasaithe seo. Ach ceist agam ar an Aire: an bhfuil sé in ann Gaeilge a labhairt?
Ní bhaineann sin leis an leasú.
Acting Chairman
Níl sé sna leasaithe.
Would the Minister qualify under this?
Ná an Teachta, ach oiread.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Coogan is in possession and he must confine himself to the amendments.
I do not think it is fair to the Minister or myself.
Ba mhaith liom freagra ar an ceist a chuir mé ar an Aire: an bhfuil sé in ann Gaeilge a labhairt?
Fíor-dhroch Ghaeilge í sin ar aon nós. Ní féidir leis an dTeachta Gaeilge do labhairt.
An bhfuil aon fhreagra ag an Aire?
Mr. Ryan
Ní thuigeann sé an cheist.
Sin é an freagra.
Ná cuirimís suim ar bith ann.
Léiríonn an leasú seo meon an Teachta a mhol é. Ní dócha go bhfuil sé i gcoinne na Gaeilge, óir dá mbeadh ní labharfadh sé nó ní mholfadh sé an rún seo tré Ghaeilge. Táim cinnte, áfach, gur spreag súarachas éigin é de fhonn an Aire a chur i sáinn mar tuigeadh dó nach raibh an Ghaeilge go líofa ag an Aire. Anois, ní hí Gaeilge éigeantach atá i gceist sa Bhille. Níl anseo ach iarracht chun cothrom na Féinne a thabhairt don Ghaeilge sna scrúdaithe le haghaidh postanna mar chléirigh faoi CIE fé mar atá an Ghaeilge riachtanach i ngach scrúdú eile.
Ariamh, ón gcéad lá ar leag Sasanach cos ar thalamh Fódhla, bhí cuid dár muintir sásta a ndúchas a thréigint, mar dhea ar mhaithe le leas na tíre nó leas an chine. Ligeadar orthu i gcónaí go raibh gráin acu ar fhoiréigean de gach sórt, cé gur le fhoiréigean a bascadh comharthaí an náisiúin. Is mithid dúinn sa Teach agus taobh amuigh de iarracht a dhéanamh ár dteanga féin do chosaint agus do chaomhnadh agus í do chur san áit is dúl dí sa tír.
Ar an leasú, más é do thoil é.
Is léir ná tuigeann an Teachta an rud atá á dhéanamh againn. Ní béas liomsa cur isteach ar an Teachta sa Teach agus do mholfainn dó, má tá sé ar cheal tuigsine, béas a bheith aige. Mar bhíos a rá, tá sé de dhualgas orainn an teanga do chosaint agus í do chur á labhairt ar fud na tíre arís. Conas is féidir linn sin a dhéanamh má tugtar rogha do dhaoine óga a bhíonn ag dul faoi scrúdú an teanga a cur ar leataobh de réir mar is fonn leo? Iarraim ar an Aire gan géilleadh ar an leasú seo.
Mr. Ryan
Nach bhfuil a fhios ag an Teachta go bhfuil an focal éigeantach sa Bhille?
Níl sé éigeantach.
Mr. Ryan
The word "compulsory" is in the Bill itself.
Tá sé riachtanach. Tá deighilt mhór idir "éigeantacht" agus "riachtanas".
Mr. Ryan
Féach ar leathanach a 6.
"Riachtanach" atá i gceist ansin.
The difficulty is that some members of the House do not understand Irish and other members do not understand English. The fact of the matter is that what the Minister proposes to do under this section is to require the Board to make Irish a compulsory subject for these tests. That is so, whether the last Deputy realises it or not.
An bhfuil Béarla riachtanach? An bhfuil Laidin riachtanach?
May I draw the Deputy's attention to section 12 which provides for examinations for clerical grades? Paragraph (e) says that Irish shall be a compulsory subject at every competition under the subsection.
Agus cad chuige ná beadh?
I simply wish to state that notwithstanding the remarks of some of the Deputies opposite, there is no antagonism to the Irish language in this Party. Some of us may not be as fluent at the language as Deputy Ó Briain apparently is, and proud of it, and more power to him. However, I do not think it is right for a Deputy who is fluent in the Irish language in any way to jeer or jibe at members of the House who are not. We believe that is the kind of thing that is killing the Irish langhage, that it is that kind of compulsion which the Minister is incorporating into this subsection which has done no good whatever during the years to the cause of the Irish language.
We in the Fine Gael Party have spoken more than once on the Irish language and have said that this kind of compulsion, ramming it down people's throats and making it obligatory for securing a job in a State company, is the kind of policy that does harm to the Irish language. This measure should be dealt with as a Transport Bill. I do not know what possessed the Minister to incorporate this type of section into it. It has nothing whatever to do with the functioning of the transport system of the country. It is an inflammatory subsection to those who wish to see some progress made as far as the language is concerned. We want to see progress made, we want to see people take the same pride in the language as does Deputy Ó Briain. We want to see people take pride and joy in learning the language and we do not believe the attitude of the Minister and the Government, as evidenced in this subsection, will achieve those results. What has the Irish language to do with the proper and efficient running of a transport system?
Cuir i gcás gur theastaige uait ticead a cheannach tré Ghaeige.
Deputy Ó Briain is sitting behind the Minister. If both of them were applicants for a position in the clerical officer grade in CIE, is there any reason why we should suppose Deputy Ó Briain is a better man than the Minister because he knows Irish and the Minister does not know Irish? That is what is at issue in this subsection.
No, it is not.
It has no relationship whatever to and no bearing on the question of the efficient running of the transport system of this country. It is a further extension of what I believe, and what most of my Party believe, has been a mad policy in regard to the Irish language. It has not done any good in the past; it will not do any good in the present; and it will certainly not do any good in the future.
We are living under a Constitution which provides that Irish and English are the languages of the State. In this section we are laying down the conditions under which a young person can secure employment, to protect him from the alternative of emigration by getting employment in his own country. We propose to insert into this Bill a preposterous condition.
It was always there.
Éist.
It is there since 1924.
I am putting this to the Minister. We are being asked to legislate to provide that the Taoiseach of this country shall not be eligible for employment in the clerical grade in the CIE, and that the Minister for Transport and Power of the Irish Government shall not be eligible for employment in the clerical grade in CIE.
And the Leader of the Opposition.
Tá mé sásta. Bhí mé ag foghluim Gaeilge le blianta. I suppose Deputy Ó Briain is right. I can talk Irish but I cannot think in Irish. I believe a great deal of fraud is carried on by Deputies in this House who stand up and pretend they can speak as fluently and comprehensively in Irish as they can in English. I will not speak in public in a language in which I cannot think. I make no secret of that. I was learning Irish 40 years ago when there was no money in Irish. I was learning Irish at a time when there were no rewards for Irish. I was learning Irish at a time when it qualified you for no preferment, no job or advantage of any kind. Those learning Irish with me at that time learned it because they loved the language, and those who learned it at that time have kept the language. I put it to any rational Deputy: how many people of succeeding generations who learned the language in order to qualify for a job have kept it, or use it? How many people do we know in our own personal acquaintance who studied a bit of Irish in order to get a job and have never spoken a word of Irish since, do not want to speak it, and look back on it as an ordeal through which they had to pass.
Acting Chairman
Would the Deputy relate his remarks to the amendment?
This section deals with Irish as a compulsory condition.
Acting Chairman
The subject for discussion is qualification for employment in CIE.
I am making the simple case that if you tell young people that in order to earn their living in their own country, they must stew up sufficient Irish to scrape through an examination, you are certainly not helping the transport company. You may believe you are helping the cause of the language revival. If you believe that, I want to urge that far from helping the language revival, you are associating in the minds of young people the learning of the language with an ordeal through which they have to pass in order to get a chance to earn their living in their own country.
I want to put it to rational people that those who compete for vacancies in the clerical grade of CIE are not ordinarily people in very affluent circumstances. Their families have made certain sacrifices to keep them in school to get the degree of secondary education which they can afford. When those young people are put forward for qualifying examinations for a job in the technical grade in CIE, the parents know that their child will do well in mathematics and a variety of subjects, but simply is not linguistically gifted. The child has never known an aptitude for mastering a second language. The parent knows that children are going in for that examination who have not a tithe of the general ability of their child, but who have got a certain facility for picking up a smattering of the language. They see their child, who they are honestly convinced has superior qualifications for the employment he seeks, rejected, not on merit, but on a linguistic deficiency from which he suffers, and everyone knows that that linguistic deficiency will never interfere with the due performance of the job he will be called upon to do. I have had experience of this. I want to tell the House of my experience of the proviso that Irish should be a compulsory subject to qualify for a job. When I was Minister for Agriculture——
We heard it before.
Ba mhaith liom an scéal a insint arís. Creidim go bhfuil cead agam é sin a dhéanamh. When I was Minister for Agriculture, part of my responsibility was to appoint professors to the Veterinary College. I knew perfectly well that when I appointed professors to the Veterinary College, I was making provision for veterinary education perhaps for three decades ahead. Accordingly, the appropriate advertisements were published and the qualifications were set out. The rules of the Civil Service required that one qualification should be a queer form of words—I think it was an adequate knowledge of Irish.
A competent knowledge of Irish.
Yes, a competent knowledge of Irish. Several candidates presented themselves, and finally it transpired that a young research graduate of very considerable distinction had far outstripped any other candidate who presented himself. When the list was presented to me, showing this young man quite outstanding in the technical qualifications for the professional duties he would be called on to discharge, I said: "This is quite simple. We appoint him.""Oh, no," they said, "you cannot appoint him." I asked: "Why?""Because now the next step is that they must present themselves for an examination to establish that they have a competent knowledge of Irish and in that examination they will receive marks which will have to be added to the marks their technical examination has already given them."
That has been the procedure down the years.
I said: "If that is the regulation, that is the regulation, and let it be carried out". The list came back to me after a short time. The research graduate was now in second place and the first place was now a young chap who had just graduated from our own college but who happened to come from a county where, if he was not a native speaker, he was the next best thing to it. He was an excellent young man but no more competent to discharge the technical duties of the post than I myself, so I said I could not appoint him: "It is quite manifest we are not appointing the best man and this man will be a professor passing through his hands all the veterinary students of this country for the next 30 or 40 years." I was told I had to appoint him. I said: "There is no power in this country that can command my hand and my obligation is to appoint the most efficient man we can find to lecture the students in the Veterinary College, and I will not appoint anybody else." And I never did. I went out of office before that matter was finally resolved and I think the ultimate resolution was that another examination was held. Was I right or was I wrong?
The Deputy was completely irregular and he broke all the regulations of the Civil Service Commission.
I did.
And the Civil Service Commission broke their own regulations, too.
Acting Chairman
Surely we can get back now to the section.
I am putting the question: Did I do right or did I do wrong?
The Deputy did wrong. He broke the regulations.
To hell with the regulations. I had an obligation as Minister to make proper provision for the students of the Veterinary College of Ireland. Would I have been right to appoint to that responsible post the wrong man for an utterly irrelevant reason, simply because the regulations required me to do so? However, let my colleagues judge my conduct. I said "No". I think I was right.
Picture the feelings of an ordinary parent here who presents a child for a job in Córas Iompair Éireann, realises the child qualifies, and qualifies at the top of the list, in all subjects provided in the examination, and is then told that, because he is not as proficient in Irish as the other candidates, the other candidates will be preferred before him and he is told that, if he cannot find some other job, he had better go to England. I ask Deputies what service does that do to the language revival? Would it not be infinitely preferable to provide that any candidate for employment, who is in a position to qualify in either language shall be entitled to get his livelihood in his own country? I have before me, or I had up to a moment ago, five men whose livelihoods are largely teaching young children——
Ní múinteoir náisiúnta mise.
Munab eadh, cad é an post atá ag an dTeachta?
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
I am afraid the merits of the Irish language will have to wait for another occasion.
Sir, I am talking about a man's claim to earn a living in his own country under the terms of the Constitution.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy will have to relate it to the section.
Would it help to shorten the argument if I informed the House that, first of all, CIE has not received any complaints about this provision, which has been in operation since 1924, and, secondly, in relation to the changes being made under this Bill, has informed the trade unions involved that the qualifying test will be the intermediate certificate or the leaving certificate? In each of these examinations, Irish is required so it does not involve any great difficulty for these people to enter CIE, since that is the qualification. The Deputy is making a tremendous case out of this, but the main qualification is one or other of two examinations in which Irish is an essential subject. He should bring this matter up in some other debate.
The only case I seek to make is that a young person seeking employment in semi-State bodies, such as this, ought to be entitled to get access to his livelihood in his own country.
Without Irish?
Gan Gaeilge.
Sin í an difríocht eadrainn.
Bfheidir, and that is where I think the Deputy is wrong.
The Deputy is wrong and he was proved wrong as far back as 1908.
That is where I think the Deputy is creating the antipathy to Irish which ought not to exist. I think anybody who has the ability to discharge the duties of the job he seeks ought not to be constrained to leave his country in order to earn his living because he is not linguistically gifted, and I want to suggest to the House that it is extravagant beyond belief to provide that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Transport and Power in the present Government should be eligible for appointment to the clerical grade in Córas Iompair Éireann.
That is codology. They would be ruled out on age.
I suppose they would be.
Another handicap.
But is it not grotesque to legislate that, even if they were in their pristine youth, neither the man who has become Taoiseach nor the man who has attained Ministerial rank in our own Government would be eligible for a clerical post in Córas Iompair Éireann?
I would not know how to work a computer anyway, so the Deputy can leave me out of it.
I scarcely imagine that the Minister contemplates that one of the qualifying subjects for admission to the clerical grades of CIE hereafter will be ability to work a computer. If that is an essential for admission to the clerical grades of Córas Iompair Éireann, I imagine they will have considerable difficulty in recruiting their staff hereafter, and it is certainly not provided as a compulsory subject by statute. I think we make ourselves ridiculous but what worries me more is that this sort of thing does the language a great disservice.
Ní dheineann.
I think it does, and I think this whole idea of using the language for the purpose of victimising a minority of young people in our country is doing, has done, and will do the language a very great disservice.
You say, Sir, that you find some difficulty in understanding how we can argue this language question on this amendment. I wonder has it occurred to the mind of the Chair what the purpose of the insertion of this amendment is. Is it to improve the efficiency of the clerical grades of Córas Iompair Éireann? I think we have all experience of the working of Córas Iompair Éireann and I wonder how often are the clerical grades in that company required to speak in Irish. How often does the situation arise in which they cannot efficiently discharge the duties of their office without an exhaustive knowledge—a competitive knowledge—of Irish? It is manifestly a test strictly related to an illusory principle for the revival of the Irish language. If it made a very material substantial contribution to the restoration of the language in the country as a living language, it could be argued on its merits. The whole basis of our contention is that to turn it into an instrument of victimisation in this way does a very great disservice to the language movement.
Is é an fáth go bhfuil gach éinne ins na meánscoileanna ná chun an meánteistméireacht d'fháil. Sé sin an caighdeán a bhíonn aige chun an post seo d'fháil?
Muna bhfuil Gaeilge aige, nach bhfuil sé de cheart aige obair d'fáil?
Bfhéidir é.
Sin rud mór. Dubhairt sé "Bfhéidir é." At last a ray of rationality is beginning to filter into the ranks of Fianna Fáil. Glory be to God. We have brought them to the point of saying "Bfhéidir é." Sin rud mór. Ní déarfaidh mé focal eile.
Ba mhaith liom a rá i dtúis ama nach gceistím an ceart atá ag an mbeirt Teachta seo an leasú seo a chur síos. Ní aontaím leis an leasú ach má shíleann siad sin gur leasú maith é tá an ceart acu é a chur síos. Níl mórán eolais agam faoin bhaint atá ag an dTeachta Ó Riain le gluaiseacht na Gaeilge, ach tá a fhios agam ón méid adeireann an Teachta Ó Broin fá dtaobh de ó am go chéile anso sa Teach go bhfuil fuath aige dí agus gurab é a bharúil nach ceart í a athbheoú. Tá sé de cheart aige an barúil sin a bheith aige, más maith leis, ach an rud a chuireann samhnas orm ná an bealach a chuir seisean an leasú seo síos i nGaeilge, ní chun an Bille a leasú, ní chun cuidiú le cúis na Gaeilge, ach leis an Aire Iompair agus Cumhachta do chur i sáinn. Bhí a fhios aige nach raibh Gaeilge ag an Aire agus ba shuarach an bealach a thogh sé le sin a thabhairt ós comhair an phobail. Do bheadh meas agam ar an dTeachta Ó Broin, agus an t-eolas atá agam ar an ndearcadh atá aige faoin nGaeilge, dá gcuirfeadh sé an leasú seo síos i mBéarla, ach ní shílim go n-aontóidh duine ar bith sa tír leis an gcineál oibre a bhí ar siúl ag an mbeirt Teachta seo nuair a chuir siad síos an leasú ar an mhír seo i nGaeilge. Dubhradh nach raibh Gaeilge ag an Aire. Níl agus níl sí ag cuid mhaith daoine dá aois mar nach raibh deis acu an Ghaeilge d'fhoghlaim nuair a bhíodar óg.
Cad chuige?
Tá a lán daoine sa Teach seo atá ar chomh-aois leis an Aire nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu. Ní raibh deis acu í d'fhoghlaim. Ní thagaim leis an méid adubhairt an Teachta Dillon i dtaobh gan Gaeilge a bheith ag an dTaoiseach. Tá Gaeilge aige.
Tá córas oideachais sa tír seo ina bhfuil an Ghaeilge leagtha síos mar ábhar. Teagasctar an Ghaeilge sa bhunscoil, teagasctar í sa cheard-scoil, sa mheánscoil agus san iolscoil. Ar an ábhar sin, ní chuireann sé isteach ar éinne scrúdú Gaeilge a sheasamh le h-aghaidh poist i gCóras Iompair Éireann ná i gcóras ar bith eile ach oiread. Ní fheicim cén fá go gcuirfeadh líofacht Ghaeilge isteach ar éifeacht duine ar bith a bheadh ag obair i gCóras Iompair Éireann.
An gceapann an Teachta——
Is leor sin. Níor chuir mise isteach ar an dTeachta nuair a bhí sé ag caint.
Tá go maith.
Dubhairt an tAire cúpla bómaite ó shoin gurab é an meán atá leagtha síos i gcóir an scrúducháin ná caighdeán na meánteistiméireachta. Tá an Ghaeilge riachtanach sa scrúdú sin agus níor cúpla bomaite ó shoin gurab é an chóir é bheith amhlaidh.
Rinne an Teachta Ó Riain tagairt don mhéid daoine atá ag cabhrú lena Pháirtí as ucht an pholasai atá acu i dtaobh na Gaeilge. Níl sé so-fheicthe agus ar aon nós tugadh freagra orthu sna fó-thoghacháin a bhí i gContae Chorcaí agus i gContae Chill Dara.
Mr. Ryan
Beidh seans eile againn i gContae Roscomáin.
Bfhearr don Teachta bheith measardha ciúin i dtaobh an ábhair sin. Cibé ar bith, ón méid adubhairt an t-Aire i dtaobh na meánteisiméreachta ní fiú bheith ag caint i dtaobh na Gaeilge mar tá sí ina hábhar i gcóir an scrúdaithe sin.
There seem to be few more emotive subjects than language in this and many other countries, and it is with positive trepidation that I intervene in this discussion at all. I think the time has come when people who have not taken an active part in the revival movement over the years but have simply learned the language because they felt they should—people who have a love of the language for historic reasons—should try to introduce some measure of reasonableness into the national debate being intensified at the moment and which will eventually come to fruition in the course of time.
I have always abhorred the idea of compulsion. I believe the whole history of our country must breed into our personalities a resistance to the idea of compulsion. It is true if we go back in our history we find we were made to speak the English language and that an attempt was made to impose on us a religious view we did not particularly want. The odd thing is that one succeeded and the other failed.
An attempt is being made by half-truths to suggest there is not compulsion, but economic compulsion is used by many people who want to see Irish spoken much more widely than it is spoken at present. I personally dislike the idea of being compelled to do anything. Any free individual living in a free society has exactly the same instincts.
Is the Deputy concerned about the compulsion on people to speak English?
Had I been there at the time, I certainly would have resented it very much.
I mean today.
I would have done my best to resist speaking English. But the reality is now that we speak English automatically and, because of one reason or another, there are some people who do not speak Irish. I am not aware of any compulsion on anybody to speak English at present.
Try to do business in Irish.
That is the most pregnant remark the Deputy has made in his implicit criticism of the failure of the revival movement over the past 40 years.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.