asked the Minister for Finance why the Public Services Review Committee did not review the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas; whether it is proposed that they should do so; and, if not, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Houses of the Oireachtas staff.
17.
It appears from chapter 2 of the Report of the Public Services Organisation Review Group which deals with the interpretation of their terms of reference that they considered the organisation of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas to be outside their mandate. The group ceased to function on the presentation of their report in 1969 and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.
Would the Minister disagree with the interpretation that the group put on their terms of reference?
I would find it difficult to disagree with their interpretation but the question of interpretation was a matter for them.
Would the Minister not agree that it seems rather extraordinary that this House, which is rather important, has been excluded? Surely something should be done to have such a review carried out.
Perhaps I might refer the Deputy to paragraph 2.1.2. of chapter 2 of the report where this matter was mentioned and where they said they did not concern themselves with those parts of the public service which serve the other organs of Government as defined in the Constitution, the staffs of the courts, the Houses of the Oireachtas, and of the Attorney General and the Comptroller and Auditor General, but that because of the central roles played in the public service by the staffs of the latter three, they did examine their operations as part of the whole machinery of Government. Therefore, they did not omit completely the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas nor did they down-grade their importance.
They did not report on them.
No, because they did not regard them as coming within their terms of reference.
What was the point in reviewing them?
They were reviewed in relation to the work of the other organs of Government.
What good was that? Why should they not have made some report or would the Minister at this stage consider that those who were left out should be included in some such inquiry?
I do not think that would be appropriate.
Why?
We are coming to that.
Is the Minister not aware that the salary of a principal officer in the Houses of the Oireachtas does not compare favourably with the salary of a principal officer elsewhere? This has been the position for the past 45 years.
I am not so aware.
This indicates the Minister's ignorance.
It might indicate something else too.
The Deputy is being very offensive.
Why is it that——
I am calling Question No. 18. Deputy O'Donovan should allow Questions to continue.
If the Chair will give me a chance——
I would rather give the Minister a chance to answer Question No. 18.
I have not asked many supplementaries in this House. Why is the Minister not aware that principal officers in this House are paid at different scales to principal officers elsewhere? The Minister is supposed to be in charge of the public service.
I am not aware of it because that is not the position.
That is the position.
18.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that in a recent competition for recruits to the staff of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas both the two successful candidates turned down offers of appointment; that service in the Office is no longer regarded as attractive to outsiders by reason of late work, restricted holiday periods and absence of a normal career structure; and if he will state what steps he is taking to reduce the difference between conditions in working in the parliamentary service and working in the Civil Service State Departments.
The answer to the first part of the question is "yes". In regard to the other parts, the whole question of staffing in the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas is at present being considered jointly by that Office and my Department.
Would the Minister say whether there will be any delay in having some light thrown on what has happened?
There will be no delay that can be avoided in arriving at a satisfactory solution to the problem that exists.
Does the Minister not realise that the job, apparently, is not one that can be filled in the normal way or if it can be filled, would he not agree that the system of appointment is wrong? Is he aware of the number of people who applied for jobs the last time and who were interviewed and does it not seem extraordinary that two were recommended and that those two were not prepared to accept the job? What is wrong?
I agree that it seems extraordinary, so extraordinary that I think one ought to consider whether there is a little more to it than meets the eye.
Why not explain it?
Would the Minister not agree that in view of the fact that this House is very much under-staffed at present in a number of sections, and has been for some time and will suffer eventually as a result, the matter be treated as one of urgency? I would be interested to hear when the decision was made.
I am treating the matter as one of urgency.
I will put a question down again immediately after Easter.
The meeting between the Houses of the Oireachtas staff and the staff of my Department is due to take place on the 20th of this month.
This will be the second meeting. The first has taken place.
There are frequent consultations in this regard.
What function has the Minister's Department in the control of the Houses of the Oireachtas?
None.
Why, then, should there be meetings between the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and staff of the Minister's Department to decide on this matter? Why does the Ceann Comhairle not decide what should be done regarding the staff of these Houses? He should do so.
There are a number of very good reasons——
The truth is that there are none whatsoever.
——of which Deputy O'Donovan is, I suspect, very well aware or else he was aware and has forgotten. But if he wants to ask why the Ceann Comhairle does not do that I suggest he address a question about that to the Ceann Comhairle.
The Minister used the phrase "there may be more to it than meets the eye". I trust the Minister, in making such a comment, is not reflecting on the staff concerned.
I trust that the Deputy will interpret my remark in the way that he wishes and will not try to put words into my mouth.
Who are the designated officers of the House who negotiated with the Minister's Department?
I cannot answer that question offhand.
I shall put a question down immediately afterwards and, perhaps, the Minister will be able to answer it.
How does the Minister think his Department should decide what the terms of employment are to be in the Houses of the Oireachtas? This is not the case in the British Parliament or in any other Parliament. On what basis has it occurred here?
The Deputy is as well aware as I am that the functions of the Department of Finance in relation to the establishment here and scales of salary have existed from the beginning of the State, including the time when he was a Parliamentary Secretary. If there is a question of changing it, it is perfectly open to the Deputy to propose in the proper way that it should be changed, but I do not think he should start suggesting that somehow at this time the functions of the Houses of the Oireachtas are being usurped by the Department of Finance. The position is exactly as it was always.
When I was Vice-Chairman of the Seanad I tried to clarify this matter and I failed completely. Let the Minister answer that.
Whatever about Deputy Haughey, he would have it cleared up long ago, so the Minister had better put on his roller skates.
I am afraid that one will not work.
Is it not a fact that this came about through the influence of the late H. P. Boland? He being an old English civil servant and they being newcomers who represented the men who fought for the freedom of this country, imposed on them conditions that were not reasonable for the staff of this House? Is that not a fact?
I am afraid I cannot say yes or no to that, because the Deputy is thinking of matters of which I have no knowledge.
I am glad to see the Minister has an open mind about it.
19.
asked the Minister for Finance the reason for the delay in the filling of the establishment of ushers at Leinster House as recommended by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The most recent competition to recruit ushers held by the Civil Service Commissioners did not produce a sufficient number of qualified candidates. A further competition will be held shortly.
Is the Minister telling the House that out of approximately 35 people who were interviewed there was no qualified candidate? Would the Minister not get the impression from that that the people who interviewed them must have set a very high standard? After all, they were not looking for Ministers; they were looking for ushers.
If they were looking for Ministers they would not set a very high standard.
I am not quite sure what comment the Deputy wishes me to make on that statement.
I shall put it in plain language: Does the Minister consider that 35 people having been interviewed for a job of usher in this House, nobody could be found who was suitable for that job? Is that what we are being told?
I think there is a connection between this and the previous question in so far as it may be that, by reason of having confined competitions for particular posts, one may get what, on the face of it, appears to be an extraordinary result.
Is the Minister referring to the fact that there is a suggestion that young men should be taken out of the Army to fill the positions here? Would he remember that in the last competition we are talking about there were quite a number of qualified ex-Army personnel who were interviewed, and even they did not satisfy those who were looking for ushers? Would he also remember that the trade union representing this grade in the House are very jealous of their right in this connection? We have this House half-staffed except for Deputies.
There are four vacancies for ushers.
For how long? Some of them since 1965. There has never been a full——
That may be but let us not exaggerate.
I am not exaggerating. I am just giving the facts.