Vol. 419 No. 1
1 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the names of those currently employed as research counsellors, research assistants or officers of the Law Reform Commission; whether such persons are regarded as civil servants, and if he will outline the statutory or contractual restraints, if any, on such persons openly engaging in political activity.
The following persons are currently employed by the Law Reform Commission in the positions referred to by the Deputy: William Binchy, B.A., B.C.L., LL.M., Barristerat-Law (research counsellor); Cliona Kimber, LL.B., LL.M. (research assistant); Suzanne Egan, B.C.L. LL.M., Barrister-at-Law (research assistant); Julianne O'Leary, B.A., Barrister-at-Law (research assistant); Oisin Quinn, B.C.L., LL.M. (research assistant); John Quirke (secretary).
With the exception of the secretary, who is on secondment from the Department of Education, none of these persons is a civil servant. Each is employed on contract. There are no express statutory or contractual restraints, save in the case of the secretary, who is subject to the normal Civil Service restraints. However, the condition implied in contracts of employment that an employee shall not engage in activities detrimental to his employer's interests would, of course, apply.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it is inappropriate for persons employed in such serious positions to engage in political campaigns? Is it his view that the implied terms in the contract of employment that he refers to mean that each of the persons so employed should not be engaging in political campaigns in relation to the Maastricht Treaty, Article 40.3.3º or any other matter? Will the Taoiseach agree that for those persons to engage in such political campaigns is not compatible with their acting as researchers and legal assistants to the Law Reform Commission?
When the contract of the person to whom I think the Deputy is referring expired at the end of 1986 and a clause restricting the freedom to make public comment was discussed and the gentleman concerned was not prepared to accept it and, consequently nothing further was done at that time. I do not have to remind Deputy Shatter which Government were in power at that time.
Would the Taoiseach agree that such a term should not merely be implied in the contract of employment of a person employed by the Law Reform Commission but should be an expressed term of the contract of employment? Would he further agree that there is a contradiction in indicating to the former president of the Law Reform Commission that he could not make public comment on matters of public controversy such as those that have engaged the House in recent weeks in relation to Article 40.3.3º, or the Eighth Amendment, when the staff over whom he has jurisdiction are free to engage in such campaigns?
I am sure the Deputy is aware from his professional experience that an implied term in every contract of employment is that an employee shall not engage in activities that are detrimental to his or her employer's interests. I again point out to the Deputy that such a cause as he is now inferring should be there was not insisted upon by his own party when in Government in 1986-87. It is a little late in the day now to complain about that. I remind the Deputy that Mr. Binchy has a new appointment as Professor of Law at Trinity College and will be resigning from the commission on 30 June to take up that position.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the campaign in which Mr. Binchy has engaged, which is a grossly misleading campaign, is detrimental to his employer's interests and undermines the credibility of the Law Reform Commission?
Deputy Shatter would serve the national interest and the common good better by engaging himself in the campaign in a positive manner rather than being negative, as he is. It is our duty as politicians to point out to the people what the choices are and let them make their decision.
