Will the Chair advise me on procedure? The Minister was not here on time. He is great at giving out to other people but he did not bother to show up on time. My amendment is first so perhaps the Chair will tell me when my amendment will be called.
Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill 2003: Report Stage.
I wish to bring it to the attention of Members that there is an error in the published list of amendments. In amendment No. 1, the word "KNOWS" should be "KNOWN".
Will the Minister apologise to the House——
Amendments Nos. 9 and 20 are related to amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos. 1, 9 and 20 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 13, after "ESTABLISH" to insert the following:
"A BODY KNOWN AS AN CHOIMISIÚIN UM CHEAPACHÁIN SEIRBHÍSE POIBLÍ OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,".
I ask the Minister to apologise to the House and to you, Sir. It is not good enough——
Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise under amendment No. 1.
I wish to make a brief comment. It is not good enough that the Minister, who has civil servants in the Dublin area in a state of absolute chaos, does not bother to apologise.
The Deputy has made her point. She should move on to the amendment.
If the Minister was in the Civil Service, he would have to sign in——
The Deputy should proceed to the amendment.
I will, but I am entitled to note the Minister's discourtesy——
No, you are not entitled to speak at length about it. You have made your point.
The Chair is entitled to ensure that members of the Opposition are treated with courtesy by the Minister.
The Deputy should not involve the Chair.
This amendment relates to the Irish language title. Earlier, the Tánaiste shamefacedly admitted that the Government, despite members of Fianna Fáil trooping in to support the Labour Party amendment, has achieved nothing with regard to the status of the Irish language. Although I have made it clear with regard to every Bill coming before this House that the Irish language title ought to be used and despite Fianna Fáil backbenchers stating that they support the honouring and usage of the Irish language as appropriate and the encouragement of the use of the Irish language, yet again the Progressive Democrats, including the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, have failed to make provision for the Irish language title in the Long Title of this Bill.
We wish to insert the following phrase,"AN CHOIMISIÚIN UM CHEAPACHÁIN SEIRBHÍSE POIBLÍ", in the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill. This Bill relates to the decentralisation process. It proposes, effectively, to privatise significantly large parts of the recruitment process for the public services. Immediately after independence, the founders of this State moved to put the public service recruitment process above petty politics and above the corrupt politics that have, unfortunately, come to exemplify parts of this Government and the Fianna Fáil Party and its activities.
This Bill, however, provides for the establishment of two regulatory and oversight commissions and will lead, to a significant degree, to the privatisation of public service appointments at local level. When the Minister hangs out a sign welcoming people to Parlon country, there will also be a sign, perhaps in the local auctioneer's or local undertaker's office, stating that public service recruitment is also undertaken there.
For generations, parents have been reasonably assured that their sons or daughters who applied to join the Garda, to be on the staff of this House or for various jobs in the public service were doing so under a system that was impartial and open. This Bill will give extensive powers of privatisation and localisation. That, on its own, might be worthy of consideration with regard to giving departmental Secretaries General more power to hire and fire. However, when one combines this with decentralisation, what will happen when the head office of a Department is in Portarlington and many of the civil servants who are based in Dublin refuse to go there? At that stage, the recruitment process can be, through the enactment of this Bill, extensively localised. Within that extensive localisation it will be possible for all sorts of corrupt practices to creep back in.
Public confidence in the integrity of our public service and the public service appointment process will be undermined. This process has served the State well. On Committee Stage of this Bill I cited various historical statements by the founding Members of this Dáil. They decided to make the Civil Service Commission independent of all politicians. Only the positions of Ceann Comhairle and a number of other critical offices were exempt from this rule. Only a couple of years ago the Taoiseach opened a brand new office in Jervis Street, built at enormous public cost, for the Civil Service Commission. Now the commission is to be relocated to Cork, although many of the staff are extremely unwilling to go, while the commission's structure itself is to be broken up.
The amendment by the Labour Party gives due recognition to the Irish language in the Title of the Bill. I hope the Minister will accept it. There is a point to be made about this Bill in the context of what we now know about decentralisation. Many of the Minister's PD canvassers in Dublin on the campaign trail met civil servants — men and women, but particularly men, in their 40s and 50s — who do not know what to do. Their wives have jobs locally as nurses or teachers and their children attend local schools with their friends. They are facing the break-up of their families. Unless they move with their jobs there is no prospect of further promotion.
This Bill is part of a reorganisation that is being forced by the Government. We will look back at it in 20 years in the same way as we now look back at our failure to control greed and land speculation. On their own, parts of the Bill are perfectly innocuous, such as that which gives Secretaries General more power. This is something with which people do not have a problem. However, when it is coupled with the decentralisation process, which is being driven by the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, for narrow constituency advantage, it looks somewhat different. A fairly uncorrupt public service has been a cornerstone of this country's economic development.
This Bill encapsulates what the PDs are doing to our public services and to their followers in Fianna Fáil. It can be seen in the Bill that the tail is wagging the dog. There is nobody from Fianna Fáil here, however, so they must be acquiescent partners in this process. In "Parlon country" there will not only be a welcome for civil servants; a shingle will be hung out that says, "Public service recruitment done also." That is shameful.
Cuirim fáilte roimh leasuithe Uimh. 9 agus 20, a bhfuil ainm an Aire páirteach leo. I welcome amendments Nos. 9 and 20 to which the Minister's name is appended along with that of Deputy Burton, and ask the Minister of State to follow this logic and support amendment No. 1 which does not bear the Minister's name. It is logical that the Minister of State should extend the support already indicated for Nos. 9 and 20 to No. 1. I expect him to respond positively to this because to reject amendment No. 1 while accepting and embracing Nos. 9 and 20 does not make any sense.
This is not the first time members of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service have been obliged to highlight the failure of Government drafters to include in the first instance the reference to the first language in legislation. I appeal to the Minister to ensure, with the representatives of his Department, that in future this glaring omission is not repeated. I hope the Minister of State will respond positively to this.
The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states that the new flexibilities claimed by the Government will support its implementation of the decentralisation programme. I remember asking these questions on Second Stage and will ask the Minister again to explain to the House exactly how this mechanism will support the implementation of the decentralisation programme. We must reflect on what Deputy Burton has just said about what is involved in the proposition to decentralise some 10,300 jobs, as announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech in December. We must also take into account the fact that there was minimal, if any, consultation before the budget announcement. However, there are serious personal implications for almost all civil servants, especially those who are involved in relationships, are married or have children. If we were in such a position we would have the same concerns.
I ask the Minister to respond positively to amendment No. 1 and to address the House on the issue of how, as the memorandum claims, this Bill will facilitate the decentralisation programme. In a recent advertisement for the post of assistant secretary in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform it is stated that the person appointed must be willing to transfer to any location that may be designated by the Department. Surely that does not apply to those who are already in the Civil Service. Is it intended to make this a condition of employment in the public service in the future? If it is, this is a worrying development because it gives prospective employees no clarity or assurance about their location. They can be moved about like pawns on a chessboard at Government and Department whim. This is not secure employment. With the break-up of Departments and the movement of the various offices to myriad locations, transfer will become part and parcel of promotional procedures. These are major issues of concern to people in the public service. I ask the Minister to clarify these matters.
Will the Minister explain about the deferred proposals for decentralisation within Teagasc?
We are dealing with amendment No. 1 on Report Stage.
I accept that.
The Chair did not intervene when the Deputy moved away from the subject but he has now moved away altogether.
I appreciate the Chair's——
Perhaps the Deputy could return to discussing amendment No. 1.
I will conclude on this point. Will the Minister avail of the opportunity to clarify——
I would prefer if the Deputy would not go down that road. We do not want to start a new Second Stage debate. We are dealing with amendment No. 1.
I was only trying to obtain answers.
As I said, the Deputy has already been given latitude but he cannot go into detail about matters that are not remotely related to the amendment.
The Minister has a great interest in matters agricultural. I am interested in finding out the details of what is intended and the deal that was struck with the Department of Finance, which the Minister of State represents in the House.
I suggest that the Deputy put a question to the appropriate Minister.
I have made my point. If the Minister wishes to avail of the opportunity to inform us, I would welcome that.
The Minister will be out of order if he replies to Second Stage points again.
The Chair will not rule him out of order. I am sure the Chair is in a much more accommodating mood after the morning's travails.
Regarding Deputy Burton's concerns about the delay, I was in the ante-chamber for the previous half hour and sat through the suspension of the House caused by a member of her party. I was making my way in when I was met by a major rush of people, including the leader of the Labour Party. Out of courtesy, I stood back and allowed him out. I also remind the Deputy that she was absent from the House last Wednesday when we were about to deal with these amendments and caused a ten-minute suspension of the House. If I was late, I apologise to the House.
That is not quite accurate. The Minister will recall——
We were advised by the Whip's office on the matter.
We cannot have a debate on it.
On a point of order, what happened was that no Government representative was here and the then representative, who did not have any brief, moved the suspension.
Let us return to the amendment.
The Minister of State, Deputy Browne was here, the Deputy was absent and the sitting was suspended.
We cannot go down that road.
There was nobody to move the Deputy's amendments. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
The Minister is wrong.
The Minister and the two Deputies have made their point. It is on the record. We will return to amendment No. 1 on Report Stage.
As I said in my opening remarks regarding this Bill, it was promised in Sustaining Progress and it represents an important component of the strategic approach to the management of human resources in the public service. It will provide the public service with a modern and flexible recruitment which it will need in the 21st century. It will also smooth the process of decentralisation and facilitate the recruitment of human resources in relocated Civil Service offices. This is an entirely voluntary process, as has been said on many occasions.
Tell that to the poor people who will have to uproot their families.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
To further reassure the Deputy, the Commission for Public Service Appointments is being established to ensure the highest standards of efficiency and probity and will apply to recruitment across the public service. Far from weakening standards, the Commission for Public Service Appointments will extend the highest standards across areas of the public service which are not now subject to independent third party regulation. While the commission will allow licence holders to undertake their own recruitment, they will ensure the strictest compliance with these standards. There is nothing in this Bill which will endanger or lower standards.
I will move on to the three amendments which are being taken together. Regarding amendment No. 1, I consulted the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the proposed amendment and although I have proposed amendments to sections 11 and 33 in response to Deputy Burton's proposals, I am advised that amending the Long Title is not necessary. The references in the Long Title to the two new bodies are "to establish the Commission for Public Service Appointments" and "to provide for the establishment of the Public Appointments Service". The Long Title does not use the formula "to be known as". There is, therefore, no need to give the corresponding Irish names in the Long Title.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 20 are being introduced in response to Deputy Burton's proposal. The effect of the amendments is to refer to the commission in the Irish language.
I regret that the Minister is unwilling to refer to the Irish language in the Long Title. This cuts to Fianna Fáil's hypocrisy regarding the Irish language. I know the PDs have never claimed any meas for the Irish language, so this is consistent with its overall attitude to the language. However, it is a disgrace and deeply disappointing that in a Bill dealing with the recruitment of public servants in Ireland who, incidentally, are required to have some knowledge of Irish and be able to offer services as Gaeilge, the Minister should take this approach and set the tone that Irish is not necessary in the Long Title. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the Labour Party's amendments Nos. 9 and 20 to include Irish language titles for the agencies and boards associated with this Bill.
In his opening comments the Minister said the purpose of the Bill was to introduce a modern and flexible recruitment process. I shudder when I hear the PDs and Fianna Fáil use the term "flexible" in the context of recruitment. Organisations such as the Mafia are known to be highly flexible from time to time as well. The relationship of Fianna Fáil to builders also has high levels of flexibility. We are talking about the recruitment of our public service. The correspondence of people such as General Mulcahy in the aftermath of the Civil War emphasised that recruitment should be depoliticised and put above and beyond the control of politicians operating on a day to day basis, because after Independence they were besieged by reverend mothers, parish priests, and others up and down the country seeking places in the Civil Service for their star pupils, their sons, their daughters and so on. Since Civil Service recruitment was in the hands of a commission which was untouchable by politicians, almost everybody in the country has been happy that the system has, up to now, been honest and fair. It will be so no more, now that recruitment is to be privatised through a system of licence holders.
The Minister advises that following consultation he is advised that the change in the Long Title is not necessary. Perhaps that is a defensible position. It may not be necessary, but it certainly is desirable. I appeal to the Minister to revisit the response he gave to the effect that he had been advised it is not necessary. Many things are not necessary but they are nevertheless desirable. The Irish language is the first language of our people and it is desirable that in the Long Title of this Bill, and in all legislation, the Irish language version should be given precedence. I again ask the Minister to leave aside his notion of what is necessary and recognise the importance of the Irish language and, on the basis of the broadly held view of people throughout the island of Ireland that it is desirable, accede to the proposition in amendment No. 1 which I fully support.
The Minister did not respond to the question I posed regarding the Explanatory Memorandum in any informative way. What he said was that the passage of this Bill will smooth the process of decentralisation. What does he mean by that? In whose interest will it smooth the process? Will it smooth the way in the interest of people employed in the Civil Service or who aspire to be so in the future?
The Deputy is moving away from the amendment.
I am responding to what the Minister said. The Minister made that reference.
The Deputy raised it and it is outside the ambit of the amendment.
I can only respond to what the Minister said. I ask him to clarify to the House in whose interest this legislation will smooth the process of decentralisation. Will the Minister be good enough to elaborate and explain exactly what he means?
The Minister will deal with amendment No. 1. We cannot have an omnibus question time on the whole Bill when we are dealing with amendment No. 1.
The Minister could at least clarify his remarks to the House.
The Minister is obliged to obey the Standing Order just as is the Deputy. There are ways and means of raising this, and this is not one of them. We will be dealing with the Bill for weeks if we have an omnibus question time on the whole Bill. Allow the Minister to respond on amendment No. 1.
As we are being so particular about the efficient use of time, I will deal only with the amendment.
The Minister does not want to deal with the other matter.
The Chair has ruled on the matter.
I reiterate that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised against including the Irish name in the Long Title. I am not, therefore, prepared to accept amendment No. 1.
The Minister is ill-advised. Irish language speakers deserve better. They deserve to have their rights acknowledged, which includes the facilitation of the use of Irish in ordinary circumstances. Parliamentary drafting is carried out at a specialist level and most of those who work in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel have extremely good Irish.
I can only conclude that the Minister's objection to including the appropriate references in the title come from an ideological stance. Maybe this is part of the Progressive Democrats idea that inequality is good for us. Perhaps the Minister is taking a leaf from the book of his rival for the party leadership and feels that inequality for Irish language users is good for them. It might make them fight more for their rights. I regret the Minister's attitude but I thank him for accepting amendments Nos. 9 and 20 by the Labour Party.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, line 10, after "appointment" where it secondly occurs to insert "or promotion".
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of this Bill regarding the new standard of appointment to include not only recruitment but also promotion to new positions. This is a very important issue. We should not forget from where this Bill has come. The Government introduced this Bill without putting forward any serious rationale on why we were moving away from the traditional system of recruitment in the public service.
When this issue was examined by the co-ordinating group of Secretaries General in the policy paper, Delivering Better Government, they came down squarely against the move away from central recruitment to the system where individual managers would be responsible for recruitment. The reason they did so is informative. They felt that this would not bring any great improvement in the delivery of public services. They stated that other issues needed greater attention such as the delegation of functions, the measurement of performance against objectives for staff, the introduction of performance related pay, the introduction of better management systems, tackling cumbersome procedures in promotion and the closed nature of many promotion competitions. That is where their priority lay, having examined the issue and they highlighted the latter two issues regarding promotion.
If we are to introduce change in the public service, surely the priority is to do so with promotion within the service and not just for recruitment. The reality is that the present system for promotion confines competitions to people in the public service and prevents outsiders applying for many posts. It rarely promotes people from outside the Department concerned. It has a very narrow approach to filling posts in positions of responsibility. If the Minister is trying to herald a new progressive way to manage the public service, it cannot happen by decentralising the recruitment at the initial point. I have never heard of anyone who has been critical of the Civil Service Commission for being prejudiced or inefficient in its recruitment procedure. The Minister did not articulate such criticisms when he presented this Bill.
What is the thinking behind this Bill? Why are we not addressing the crucial issue of promotion? Promotion on merit is vital in any public service worth its salt. If we want to attract the best people into the service and keep them there, it is vital that they see that their performance is recognised and merits promotion when the opportunities arise. I am bewildered to know why the Minister is introducing this legislation. Not an ounce of rationale was offered on Second Stage to explain why this is being done. It was all based on prejudice and presumption rather than analysis. Senior public servants did the analysis and came up with the opposite conclusion.
The Government told us that this was agreed by the social partners, to which the Dáil is not a party. Indeed the present negotiations under Sustaining Progress have not been introduced to the Dáil for debate. Yet we are told that we should accept this on good faith because our betters in the social partnership process have told us it should be done. That is not good enough as this is a democracy. What happens behind closed doors has to be justified and argued in this House.
The presentation of this Bill is a disgrace. It is like a merry-go-round with different Ministers coming in every day to present the case.
That is not true.
The Minister was not here the other night.
Neither was the Deputy.
I ask both DeputyBurton and the Minister to allow Deputy Bruton to continue without interruption. I remind the Minister that he will have an opportunity to reply to the points raised by Deputy Bruton.
This is a legislative Chamber and we need to know why we are doing things. In my view the crucial issue is that the promotion system within the public service should be reformed. That is why I put down this amendment. I want to include in the Bill promotion within the public service. The Minister has basically said that some day he might, by order, extend the provisions of this Bill to promotion, but that is not good enough. We are here to lead and bring about change and we want to see that that is done. We do not want to put the difficult issues on the long finger and handle the easy issues in this new way.
People on this side of the House are rightly sceptical of the motivation for changing the recruitment procedure. No case has been presented that centralised recruitment is wrong. There have been many merits to and justifications for centralised recruitment. That system is not there by accident. It is there because it guarantees high standards and because it allows public servants to enter a given Department, move to other areas, broaden their base and become a corporate governing group. They do not see themselves as career tourism or career agricultural people or whatever, and that broadens the base and the outlook of the public service. That is what has been the strong feature of our public servants. Many people have moved, but not enough are moving due to the promotion system. The demand for reform is to change the promotion system, the measurement of performance, and to reward people for their achievements.
Instead of this change, the Bill looks like it has been driven by a narrow agenda of how to make decentralisation work. It is a political motive to increase regional vote-getting. Whoever becomes Secretary General of a Department in Killarney, with control over tourism, also becomes the recruiter. He has a new remit, he recruits locally. National Departments with a national remit will gradually become inward-looking, narrow organisations, recruiting within their local pool and not looking to talent in the wider public service. Is this motivated by a desire to see better quality public servants and decision making or is it motivated by a political desire to make it easier for the Government to deliver the political agenda of decentralisation? Decentralisation is not devolution. Secretaries General decried the lack of serious devolution of power within the public service. Not enough responsibilities were pushed down the line, where people could take responsibility and have the freedom to make decisions.
We do not need this legislation. We need to reform how we manage the public service by providing devolution down the line and not changing the recruitment process unless we have a cogent argument for doing so. Any change to the recruitment process should be based on a certificate which illustrates it is in the public interest to do so. The Bill does not make such provision. Currently, a Secretary General, county manager or health board manager can opt for local recruitment without having to establish that such decision is in the public interest. No public interest test is applied to this issue. Once the person agrees to abide by the code of practice, it is a done deal, but that is not good enough. There is a suspicion that when one moves towards decentralised recruitment, bad practice creeps in. That issue needs to be scrutinised.
Far too much faith is being put in the few Ministers and officials who sat around a table and decided to throw out the considered view of the Secretaries General report and opt for another. I have not heard from Ministers or Ministers of State serious, well thought-out arguments for going down this road. That is the crucial issue. What makes people doubtful about the motivation of Government is its approach to the debate on decentralisation. It is banning hearings on the matter by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and is instead using its majority to steamroll through this legislation.
The Government has not produced a policy document or White Paper on decentralisation. The issue was slipped in under cover of the budget. Its announcement in that way ensured there was no need for the production of a White Paper, strategic plan or evaluation in terms of regional policy or efficiency of delivery in any of the areas being decentralised. The decentralisation programme was introduced in this way to avoid scrutiny. The Government wanted a political agenda, not what citizens expect in a modern democracy. Decisions of this nature can be taken by Government, but they must be open to scrutiny, founded on proper analysis and be taken for good reason.
We need to be sceptical of this legislation, to build in changes and, as the amendment seeks, to ensure that the principles of open and fair advancement within the public service applies as much in promotion as in initial recruitment.
In supporting Deputy Bruton's amendment to provide for promotions, it is important to recall the circumstances which gave rise to the Bill in its original form as proposed by Secretaries General — Civil Service recruitment experiences ups and downs depending on the state of the economy. There was a time when there were relatively few jobs available to those leaving school and university, resulting in mass application for jobs in the Civil Service at all levels. During the years of the Celtic tiger, in particular from 1992 onwards when I was a Minister of State in the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government, it became obvious that it was becoming difficult for the Civil Service to compete for top level appointments either, as Deputy Bruton said, at promotional or initial level as other opportunities became available. In that regard, Secretaries General and county managers became extremely frustrated with the recruitment process which often took a year or year and a quarter to complete by which time some of those offered jobs had moved on to something else, resulting in the process having to start again. Everyone understands and appreciates the frustration caused, in particular for county councils seeking people in engineering and other special grades. What is the current position?
The Bill offers nothing to the bright young person who has worked in the private sector or in various European institutions and, perhaps, is a qualified economist. We are all aware that the Department of Finance is crying out for qualified economists, many of whom have left to take up employment in the Central Bank or the NTMA.
I thought the Minister for Finance said his Department did not need economists.
We know the Minister does not need them but, unfortunately, the country does, given the cock-up with Luas and the disastrous state of our roads and hospital services. We are not recruiting enough people——
It is perhaps the reason Ireland has the second best economy in Europe.
The Minister of State is a millionaire farmer. I live in the city centre and have experienced life, as have many people.
Please allow Deputy Burton to continue without interruption.
I must correct the Deputy, she is entirely wrong.
The Deputy is straying from the amendment.
The Minister of State is a big farmer. I do not expect him to know much about what happens to those living in parts of west Dublin. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is not aware of what happens to communities which do not have Garda stations.
The Deputy must speak to the amendment.
I thank the Chair for its indulgence, but the Minister of State is provoking me. He lives in a different space to that inhabited by most members of Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party.
The Deputy has made her point. I suggest she return to amendment No. 2.
(Interruptions).
The Minister of State should allow the Deputy to speak to the amendment. He will shortly have an opportunity to reply to the comments made on the amendment.
In supporting Deputy Bruton's amendment, I must be asking questions which are making the Minister of State uncomfortable. What happens to the bright young person who goes directly to employment in the banking sector, in Brussels or in the private sector, or who volunteers for some years with Trócaire or Concern? For example, how does an economist, of which the Department of Finance does not have too many, get into the Civil Service other than at base line level? The answer is that by and large he or she cannot do so. These people have to go to the NTMA or the Central Bank which recruits at a higher grade.
I understand the frustrations of Secretaries General of Departments and county managers. By failing to include and address the question of direct high level entry into the Civil Service and the promotion of those within the Civil Service, the Minister is running away from one of the cornerstones highlighted by Secretaries General in their various reports as being part of the problem. Again, one has to ask why that is so. The answer is clear. Given that everything is now subservient to decentralisation, promotion will not be primarily based on merit, as was the case. It will now be heavily governed by the willingness of the person, probably in his or her 30s or 40s, with a family, a relationship and child care commitments, to move anywhere in Ireland. The Minister, in introducing this Bill, has refused to allow the Dáil to discuss and tease out such details. It is again a case of using the sledgehammer, a case of "take it or leave it", and the Civil Service must get used to the new structure.
Promises were made under the previous partnership agreement that there would be mechanisms for a higher level of direct recruitment to the Civil Service at different stages. From replies I have received from the Minister for Finance, not much has happened in that regard. There are Irish people working in Brussels and elsewhere who would like to return home and to compete for jobs in our public services, but there are relatively few mechanisms through which they can do so. That was one of the problems identified by Secretaries General and county managers in terms of employing the best staff. We want the best staff in our public service. We want everybody in Ireland to have the opportunity to compete to work in the public service if they so wish, but that will not happen under this legislation.
In my reading of subsection (2), I took the word "appointment" to mean the appointment for promotion of the person to a position in the Civil Service and assumed that it was a given position. Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify that. I understand Deputy Richard Bruton's proposition and why he makes his case. Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify if that is his Department's understanding of the meaning of this section regarding the word "appointment" and that what is involved is not simply an appointment regarding the first step on the ladder in Civil Service employment. I have expressed a concern that this might apply only to access to the public service rather than promotion within it.
My main concern was the role the Bill will give to private sector recruitment agencies. There is fairly extensive concern at the role and responsibilities being given to private sector recruitment agencies regarding recruitment and now, in the context of this amendment, promotion in the process of Civil Service recruitment and advancement through the service. While we all understand that they will act under the conditions and codes of practice to be laid down by the new Commission for Public Service Appointments, there are real and reasonable concerns in this area. For instance, I would like to know whether the private firms will be fully accountable and transparent in the exercise of their recruitment role. If this amendment is carried or if the Minister of State's interpretation confirms that it is understood or given in the context already presented, how can we ensure that there is the same or at least comparable transparency as in the current system of recruitment and advancement in the public service? I hope that the Minister of State will give us some indication of that in his response to this area of debate.
If public service appointments are under the control of a private sector recruitment agency, what measures does the Minister of State propose to ensure that specific groups, such as people with disabilities, will be given a fair and positively discriminated form of access to and advancement in the public service? That has been spoken about repeatedly. There is a strong sense that this is a desirable and important area of recruitment and advancement in the public service. What measures does the Minister of State suggest might be adopted to guarantee that the whole variety of people with disabilities will be accommodated and facilitated in advancing their opportunities and career prospects in the public service, especially in the context of private sector control over the said appointments and advancement?
Given that we are faced today with a virtual freeze on all public service recruitment, can the Minister of State outline to the House whether he expects or has any indication that there might be any freeing up as a consequence of the passage of this Bill? Will there be any new thinking regarding the current freeze or embargo on public service recruitment? We all recognise in our respective constituencies some areas——
We are moving away from amendment No. 2.
I am not sure about that.
The Chair is sure, and the Chair has ruled on it.
If that is the Chair's opinion, I can hardly contest it, so I will conclude. As the Minister of State has some sense of the areas on which I am anxious to hear further information, perhaps he will respond accordingly.
It is important to highlight to Deputy Richard Bruton that the independent group of Secretaries General formed under the strategic management initiative is fully supportive of this Bill. They support the retention of centralised recruitment as provided for by the Bill. Additionally and importantly, they are also fully supportive of the facility to recruit directly. A review of human resources aspects of the SMI process carried out by PA Consulting Group welcomed the centralised and direct recruitment arrangements being introduced. There is therefore a widespread welcome among Secretaries General for this Bill's introduction and the flexibility it will give them in recruitment.
The Deputy referred to Kerry and said that if there were a recruitment process there, it would have a limiting affect on the talent pool available. I hope that the Deputy is not casting aspersions on people from Kerry or Munster in general. From what I know of Departments in Dublin, they are peopled by individuals from every county in the country. I do not believe that having localised recruitment will make any difference. I am sure that the Munster talent pool is comparable with that nationally or anywhere else.
It would not be. It is a quarter of the size. Surely the Minister of State can do some simple mathematics.
I am talking about the calibre. In so far as I could, I refrained from interfering with the Deputy when she was speaking, unless she went totally over the top, not by accusing me but by——
It is pure codology to suggest that the Munster talent pool is the same size as that of the whole of Ireland. It is a quarter of the size.
I am talking about the calibre of the talent pool rather than the numbers.
In that case, the Minister of State should rephrase that.
The amendment which we set out to discuss appears to express a wish to regulate promotions in the same manner as recruitment. The Bill provides in section 6(1) for the possibility that the commission might regulate promotion at some point in the future, in that it allows the Minister to make orders extending its remit to posts in the public service, including recruitment posts. The Minister will consider whether to make such an order in due course. However, acceptance of this amendment would automatically bring promotions within the commission's remit now. Additionally, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, agreed with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, that at the outset the Bill would regulate only recruitment and that any extensions would be the subject of further consultations between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The proposed amendment also fails to appreciate the structure of the Bill. Provisions relating to the functions of the new bodies and codes of practice, in so far as they relate to promotion, are contained in the relevant Parts of the Bill. The key substantive provision dealing with promotion is set out in section 57.
Regarding Deputy Ó Caoláin's reference to the recruitment of people with disabilities, the Minister for Finance's policy on this matter is unchanged. He is committed to having at least 3% of Civil Service positions reserved for people with disabilities. The target has been exceeded in recent years. For that reason, I reject this amendment.
I am disappointed that the Minister of State is rejecting the amendment on the technical argument that the Deputy does not understand the structure of the Bill. This is really an issue of principle. Do we want to drive forward serious reform in the promotions system? The Minister of State wants to make a provision that can remain a dead letter, and that is the approach that he is taking. He is not addressing the issue of promotion and not opening up promotion opportunities to talented young people. He is not saying that, in a modern public service, quotas and confining promotion opportunities within a unit have no place.
The Minister of State is attempting to use the Fianna Fáil bullying tactic of pretending that I am saying that Kerry people are in some way inferior. That is not what I was saying. If one has a recruitment system to be operated in Kerry and a promotions system 60% confined to people within the office, as at present, and it is not proposed to change it, there will be a fairly narrow recruitment pool, a constrained promotions system and, over time, a tourism cultural unit will be developed that looks inward, thinks about its own affairs and is very narrow in its focus.
One of the merits of the old system which we are now abandoning without serious argument, is that it ensured people were recruited right across the whole grade. They did not become career tourism people. They were not Kerry people for a Kerry job or Dublin people for a Dublin job. To try to deflect a serious argument such as the one I am putting forward by retorting, in effect, "Here you are running down the Kerry people or the Wicklow people or the Wexford people" is not what the Minister of State is appointed to do. He is appointed to offer the House substantial arguments as to how this will work, to say how the concerns I have raised will not materialise. He is not doing that. He is not addressing the issues.
The more we hear from the Minister of State on this Bill the more worried I become that he has profound ulterior motives as regards this legislation. The Secretary Generals made clear what types of reforms they wished to see. They desired that many of those reforms should be in the context of a scarcity of labour, when the economy was booming. However, our Civil Service has to continue and the problem now is that it will be localised over the 44 agencies involved in decentralisation to more than 30 locations around the country. It means there will be intense localisation activity by the Civil Service. Cohesion in the Civil Service will be broken up. For instance, people formerly recruited from university at administrative officer level to the Department of Finance or other Departments had an esprit de corps. They took part in joint training and so on. Now it will all be localised right around the country.
The recruitment process through the use of the employment agencies and recruiters — in the interpretative section of the Bill — will be so localised that we seriously run the risk of not getting the best. We may, unfortunately, be right back to Tammany Hall politics, with a Minister from Kerry based in Kerry, with a Department based in Kerry. Over time a notice will go up, in effect, saying, "Outsiders need not apply to be recruited". That is the reality.
This is a small country with a population less than that of Greater Manchester and yet we now propose to break up the Civil Service system and effectively allow private recruiters — where the standards are not sufficiently transparent — on the scene to address a number of problems which have definitely arisen. The Minister of State is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When people such as General Richard Mulcahy set up the independent Public Appointments Commission after Independence, they did so to stop the politicking and the corruption that was going on as regards public service appointments. This Government is turning its back on all of that.
The Minister of State has certainly clarified my question as to whether or not "appointment" means the appointment or promotion. That is not the case in this particular instance. I was taking the view that it probably did and that it was a given because the Preamble to the Bill states, "An Act to reform the recruitment and appointment processes". It says recruitment and appointment. Yet now we find the word "appointment" only refers to recruitment. One could be forgiven for taking the view that it was taken as understood that promotion was part of it. My questions and concerns go to the core of the Bill's proposition as regards the involvement of private sector recruitment agencies in appointments — or now, recruitment, as the Minister of State has clarified — to the public service.
The Minister of State has not answered the questions, with all respect. He has addressed the issue as regards people with disabilities and the ongoing commitment of the Minister and the Government to facilitating and exceeding the quota. That is a quota applied only by the Government, however. I would like to see that improved and extended. I hope the Minister of State shares that ambition. What guarantees transparency as regards the recruitment process? It no longer applies according to the Minister of State's response vis-à-vis promotion, but what guarantees the transparency of the recruitment process in the hands of private sector agencies? I would like the Minister of State to please elaborate on that.
This Bill continues to provide for central recruitment to the Civil Service. I expect that will continue to be the main method of recruitment, but it also provides the facility to recruit directly under strict criteria. It puts the onus absolutely on the licence holder and many conditions apply to that. It provides the licence holder with the facility to engage a public recruitment agency to assist in the recruitment. However, the onus as regards the appointment rests absolutely with the licence holder.
I am somewhat intrigued by Deputy Richard Bruton. At the outset I had the impression that he felt this Bill was totally unnecessary. Now he wants to add extra responsibility on to it.
I will deal with that.
Even in terms of his own and his party's position with regard to decentralisation, I have sat in this House with the Minister of Finance, long before it was announced in the budget, when Deputies on the other side, to a man and woman, demanded when decentralisation would be announced for their towns.
I will deal with that, too.
Quite recently I was in the Seanad on a Private Members' motion when, to a man and a woman, the Fine Gael Senators welcomed and agreed with decentralisation as a principle. I am somewhat curious to know where the Deputy or his party stands on decentralisation now.
I will explain it.
The question was raised earlier about the bright young person, and Deputy Ó Caoláin has raised it again. Somebody outside the Civil Service may apply for a post, like anyone. If successful, he or she will be appointed. He or she may apply to the public appointments service and take part in a competition being held by other licence holders.
On a point of order, the Minister of State is not accurate in his response.
If the Deputy was concerned about accuracy she would not have made some of the very inaccurate comments she uttered earlier——
That is not a point of order. The Deputy will allow the Minister of State to continue.
——and she would have apologised for her absence from this House as well, which caused it to be suspended for 15 minutes last night.
That reply is wrong.
You seem to have a monopoly on accuracy as regards everything.
The Minister should address the Chair. He will please continue.
He is completely wrong.
These graduate posts will be filled from within the Civil Service. We have a fabulous resource of people in the Civil Service. That is generally where the appointments will go. I reiterate my position — the amendment is rejected.
I would like to deal with a few of the Minister of State's points, just on a matter of fact as regards what happened last week. Deputy Ó Caoláin is the only person who was here at the time. What happened last week was that the previous Bill closed early. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, was not briefed to handle the Bill. We considered what should be done and decided to adjourn because the dropping or moving of amendments without a Minister competent to deal with them would have made a joke of the situation. It was the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, who moved to adjourn the House because he did not have a responsible Minister present. That is the truth. DeputyBurton may not have been here at the time——
She was not here to move her amendment.
That was not the issue——
I was. There was no Minister here.
Deputy Richard Bruton has the floor.
There was no question of an opportunity to take amendments, because no Minister was present.
The Minister of State was not present.
No Minister was briefed to deal with it.
The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, was not competent to deal with it. He was not present.
The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, needs to learn that accuracy has a place in the House as well as polemics. He asked how Fine Gael can be said to support decentralisation if it is asking questions about the process. Fine Gael is asking questions because a country like Ireland should be governed in a certain way. We are not dealing with the placing of Government but with the public service which has developed over 70 years and is of unquestioned quality.
If we are to make serious decisions about decentralisation which is a serious matter that will affect a significant number of public servants, we need to do so on a well thought-out basis. We need a strategic plan that sets out how decentralisation will succeed. We need a regional strategy within which it sits. We need to assess the organisations that are being moved to ensure they are not being undermined during the decentralisation process by the loss of many competent people who have contributed to the success of such organisations. We need to ensure that the capacity to make policy and give coherent advice to the Government will remain intact after decentralisation occurs.
Most of all, we need to ensure that decentralisation will be a success and that the process will involve thought and scrutiny. When I say that is not happening, I am not engaging in the bitterness of Opposition. Serious concerns have been expressed by Professor Ed Walsh, senior members of the trade unions that represent public servants and other independent people about the highly political way in which this is being done. They have spoken of a lack of scrutiny, advanced thinking and planning in this regard.
Fine Gael and other Opposition parties believe that decentralisation has a great deal to offer in respect of regional strategies. We are asking questions because we are not convinced by the Government's proposal. Each day, we become more convinced that the Government has not given it enough thought. It has refused to allow any hearings or to answer any questions. It keeps running away from the issue and from democratic scrutiny. If the Progressive Democrats Members, who are well-known for getting up on their high horse, were on the Opposition benches, they would be more robust in screaming about the wrong that is being done. People are being treated unfairly in the Government's raffle for positions in the public service. They are being told that they must apply for their jobs before a certain deadline.
The Minister of State asked why Fine Gael voted against this Bill and why it is seeking to apply the principles of fair recruitment in promotions. Principles of fair practice are not being applied in promotion competitions in the public service. It is interesting that the Minister of State quoted from a document, Evaluation of the Progress of the Strategic Management Initiative, in support of his view. I have read some of it. When the Minister of State was speaking about Fine Gael, I took the opportunity to see what the document says about promotion. On page 62 of the evaluation, it is made clear, "Despite the move to more competitive approaches there is still a strong belief (45% of respondents) that promotions are not based on merit and individual performance." The Government has not addressed the fact that almost half of public servants do not believe that promotions are based on merit. It believes it is something for the never-never time in the distant future.
The evaluation paints a sad picture of the progress that has been made in this area:
Within individual Departments/Offices the key change envisaged was a move from the traditional Personnel function to strategic HRM. While most Departments/Offices are now in the process of evolving a more strategic approach to HR, it is not clear to us that the implications of this fundamental shift have been internalised within all Departments/Offices.
The report goes on to state: "The senior managers with whom we spoke consistently expressed most frustration and disappointment around what they perceive to be the slow pace of change." The section of the evaluation that deals with recruitment states that there are difficulties in "securing sanction for posts". Ministers are making decisions about matters such as the construction of the hospital in Blanchardstown, in Deputy Burton's constituency, and other facilities such as those in Mullingar and Birr. The evaluation states, however, "Manpower planning is virtually non-existent as a matter of routine practice." The Minister of State has quoted from this document in support of the Government's position.
The report paints a sorry picture of the quality of human resource planning in the Department of Finance. The Government is proposing to split it up into many components instead of addressing the need for change. The Minister of State might say that it is trying to devolve responsibility, but the evaluation states that there is "little evidence of progress on devolving responsibility for HRM to line managers, and indeed little evidence on the part of line managers of an eagerness or capacity to absorb such a role". The Government is trying to create a legislative solution, but it needs to make other changes. The Secretary General said some years ago that the sort of change that is now being introduced by way of legislative fiat was not a priority because the priorities lay elsewhere, for example, in the listed delegation of functions, performance and the devolution of power.
If the Minister of State could produce a document that states that the Government is flying down the road, that high-quality human resource management systems are in place, that more power has been devolved and that recruitment power has been given to dynamic new line managers who are taking budgetary responsibility and have moved away from what Deputy Ó Caoláin described as a narrow embargo approach to trying to deal with cost problems, we would deem it fair enough, compliment the Minister of State on doing the work and preparing the ground, and accept that it looks like a sensible change. We cannot do so, however, as the Minister of State is silent on all such issues, hides behind reports instead of reading them and wonders what they tell us about what is going on.
It is not good enough that the Minister of State should come to the House without being briefed and try to respond to the Opposition's proposals by stonewalling. Legislative issues should not be dealt with in the House in such a manner. I am disappointed by the Government's approach. I do not pretend that my amendment No. 2 is perfectly drafted, but if we want to advance and to get good people into the public service, we must reform the current promotion system which is closed and does not promote those who are best for the job. It is not good enough that 45% of public servants believe that promotion is not based on merit and performance.
The Minister of State's mealy-mouthed comment that the Government might get around to addressing the matter some day is not good enough. If he had done the work that needs to be done, according to the report, Evaluation of the Progress of the Strategic Management Initiative, before he came to the House, perhaps we would be confident that the time is right to abandon a system that has worked well and has been seen to be fair and that we should proceed with a more devolved form of recruitment. We know that the underpinning is there to make it work. Many Deputies on this side of the House are not convinced, however.
I am not around long enough to be sure, but I think it is rare for there to be universal scepticism on the Opposition benches when it is proposed to make a serious change in the way in which the public service is run. We have doubts about why it is being done and whether it is the right way to proceed. It is a long time since there has been such scepticism. There is something wrong when a Government proposal is the subject of such scepticism on the Opposition benches. While my amendment may not be perfect, I believe it should be accepted, at least as a statement of principle.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, line 42, after "concerned" to insert "which order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not take effect unless and until it is approved by a positive resolution of each House".
This section of the Bill deals with the potential extension of the system of recruitment outlined in the Bill to local authorities and health boards. Such an extension would allow the health boards and local authorities to act as recruitment agencies. The Minister proposes that the commission should examine this issue before an order is made. This amendment proposes that the Minister should lay a positive motion or resolution before the House rather than making an order extending this provision to local authorities and health boards which would come into effect within 21 days assuming it had not been debated and overturned by the Oireachtas.
I am happy with the notion that the commission will produce a report on the health boards or local authorities and consult with the Ministers concerned and the various bodies to reach a point where the order can be extended. This is a fairly important change in the way local authorities recruit. A public interest case needs to be established showing that this fits into the best interests of public administration and that the preparatory groundwork is in place to see that the health boards or county managers have the sorts of procedures we want.
All Members will realise that positions have not always been filled to the highest standards and delegated recruitment has not always taken place in the way we would have liked. It is important for the Oireachtas to have a positive role rather than simply seeing it laid before the Oireachtas without any serious debate. When this is extended to health boards and local authorities, the Minister of State should come to the House with a positive order setting out why it is being done and how it should improve local administration. He should make the case and let the Oireachtas have its say before it comes into play. For such an important change in the operation of institutions that are so fundamental to ordinary citizens, this would be prudent and represent good management in accord with proper accountability to the Houses.
I support the amendment. The Opposition has lost faith and trust in the Government's integrity because it has shown itself to be motivated by purely partisan issues. The public service is a great Irish institution and for the most part, most public servants must be silent. I am afraid that since the budget the way people like the Minister of State have created a hullabaloo around decentralisation and have owned the process has been very much part of his struggle for leadership of the Progressive Democrats with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. The way the Government has owned the process has been deeply unhealthy for the future of our independent Civil Service and its integrity. If my words are sharp it is because corruption has cost so much to so many people in this country. To allow the evolution of potential potent corruption in the future will bring us back to the culture of, "It's not what you know, but whom you know."
By and large the Secretaries General of Departments are people of stature, independence and integrity. Following decentralisation, the powers conferred on the Minister in the Bill are extraordinary. The scandals in the 1930s, particularly those relating to public service recruitment by the local authorities, gave rise to the creation of the Local Appointments Commission. If the proposals are to be expanded further, Deputy Richard Bruton's suggestion that such proposals should be allowed to be discussed and debated in full by the House are very important. There is tremendous scope in the health services, the Prison Service and various local authorities for favouritism in appointments.
I am not sure whether the Minister of State is aware that this Bill incorporates various employment legislation into the Civil Service process. On the whole that is very good. In future the Unfair Dismissals Act will apply to the Civil Service. So will various European regulations relating to recruitment by the back door via part-time recruitment, in which employees can establish permanency as a result of part-time engagement. There is much to tease out.
I want to clarify the point the Minister of State disputed earlier. I am perfectly aware that a fresh graduate can apply for direct entry-level grade graduate recruitment to the public service. We all know that. The Minister of State, who is so incredibly arrogant, seems to think that none of us on this side of the House know anything about the public service. The Minister of State did not answer the main point on which he should consult with his civil servants. In reality, by and large it is not possible for a person who has accumulated six or seven years, some of it at a higher level, to apply for promotional grade opportunities in the public service. That was my point.
By and large people who went abroad to work in Brussels without first having been in the Civil Service or who go into the private sector and have successful careers there for five or ten years are not in a position to compete for appointment at their appropriate level in the public service. The Minister of State ought to be familiar with this matter, as he may have answered questions on this topic since taking office. Under Sustaining Progress recruitment was to have taken place at higher levels for those who had left such levels. However, successive answers given to Deputy Bruton and me at various stages have shown the number of such possibilities to be astonishingly small.
The Labour Party retains a legitimate objective that the best and brightest people should have access to working for the State in the public sector. It is an honourable job. However, the way the Minister of State proposes to deal with this will risk the most horrible kind of shoneen localism in recruitment and ultimately corruption. By running this alongside the decentralisation process, what initially had many elements to recommend it is now viewed with the deepest suspicion. If the Government's motives are as honest as it suggests, when making future orders extending the powers in the Bill what would be wrong with the Minister coming before the House to explain those extensions, being subject to question and defending them? A few weeks ago at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service the Government Members voted to refuse to allow decentralisation to be discussed.
I believe the Minister of State has responsibility for the Ordnance Survey which has more than 200 specialist staff in Dublin. When this Bill is passed in conjunction with decentralisation, those people will effectively have to reapply for their own jobs. They can no longer seek promotion unless they are prepared to travel to Waterford and they are not afforded a reasonable timeframe in terms of their family responsibilities to spouses, partners or children, particularly teenage children. This amendment merely seeks transparency and a willingness to be accountable to the Oireachtas when further changes are made. Why is the Minister of State afraid of that process? What has the Government to hide?
I support the amendment, the effect of which, in my opinion at least, would be to supersede subsection (3) of section 6. Subsection (3) states that every order made by the Minister under the section — this is the extension of application by order — shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made. If a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days in which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that order.
My reading of that is that we have an amendment proposing that no such order will take effect until it is approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. On the other hand, a situation is presented in section 6(3) that allows for the order to take effect and it can be subsequently annulled by either House of the Oireachtas, but any measure that has been taken or any steps approved will not be annulled by that decision.
Deputy Bruton's amendment offers real protection. It eliminates the potential for abuse. It establishes best practice in terms of referral to both Houses of the Oireachtas. At the very least this should be a courtesy extended to both Houses of the Oireachtas but there are much more important matters involved. The Minister of State and his colleagues in the Department of Finance present that the Houses of the Oireachtas may, within 21 days, annul the order but that any measures carried out as a result of the order will stand over the period of the 21 days, or whatever time within which either House has had the opportunity to address it. That is a poor position to take and it is highly objectionable.
Consideration of amendment No. 3 cannot be taken in isolation of that subsection because the adoption of one eliminates the other. What is proposed in the amendment gives greater guarantees and protection and would earn, deservedly, greater public confidence in the whole process. The amendment clearly states that any such order shall not take effect unless and until it is approved by a positive resolution of each House. That is clearly the preferred approach and I await with interest the Minister of State's response to this proposition because the two are clearly connected, and one is the preferred and more appropriate approach. I hope that, accordingly, the Minister will accede to amendment No. 3 and accept the validity of the arguments presented.
I thank Deputy Bruton for clarifying his party's position on decentralisation. He said that decentralisation must be successful, and the Government and I share those sentiments. I appreciate that with all major projects — the decentralisation of 10,300 civil servants to 53 locations throughout the country is a major project——
The Minister is not going about it the right way. He has not done the background work to make it a success.
If I could be allowed finish——
The Minister should not pretend that he is cleverly reinterpreting what I said.
The Minister has the floor.
It is a mammoth task. Many issues have arisen and they are being dealt with by the Government. Intense discussions are taking place with the unions representing civil servants and I am confident that all those issues will be addressed and that we will have a positive and successful decentralisation that will not only aid Dublin city but all the regions. It will also aid the efficiency of the Civil Service.
The Deputy referred earlier to my degree of briefing and I would like to clarify the position in the interest of accuracy. I was present in this House and in the Seanad on every occasion this issue was dealt with. I was not present the evening Deputy Burton failed to show but the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, was here on that evening and he was fully briefed.
That is not the case.
Deputy Burton has left the House but I assure——
Did a civil servant write that down for the Minister?
No, I wrote my own notes. I come up with some ideas——
The Minister of State was bewildered at the thought of taking the Bill.
The Minister has the floor.
I assure Deputy Burton, who has left the Chamber but who was so concerned about accuracy, that there is no leadership struggle within the Progressive Democrats. We have a very fine leader——
That is not what the thousands of people recruited into the party think.
——and, depending on which poll one reads, one of the most popular leaders of any political party and certainly one of the most able. That is an issue that does not arise.
The Minister of State decided not to take her on.
Deputy Burton referred to localism. I am not too sure what that means but I suppose it refers to recruitment. Perhaps it means that over the many years we have had recruitment into the Civil Service, much of it took place in Dublin city. Deputy Burton is not here but I am sure Deputy Lynch would agree that the country extends way beyond Dublin city. I do not appreciate Deputy Burton's term "localism".
The Minister should tell that to the misfortunate people in the Department of Agriculture and Food in Cork who are being decentralised to Fermoy.
With regard to the amendment, section 6 provides for the extension of the application of the Bill by order. Subsection (3) provides that every order made under section 6 must be laid before each House. Each House has the opportunity to pass a resolution annulling any such order within 21 days of the order being laid. I consider that subsection (3) is more efficient in that it provides that the Houses be notified of the extension of the Bill and allows the Houses to annul the extension rather than involving the Houses in approving the extension. Such involvement is not necessary and, accordingly, I will not accept the amendment.
It is amazing to be lectured about efficiency. Essentially, the Minister appears to be saying that the most efficient way to deploy the Houses of the Oireachtas is to ram through legislation without debate, that the elected Members should not be worrying their silly little heads about a massive change in the way we recruit to local authorities or health board authorities and that we should accept his gracious decision that high efficiency can be secured by refusing Members on the opposite benches the opportunity to scrutinise a proposal of this nature. That is poppycock. There is nothing efficient about not scrutinising serious public decisions. That is inefficient. That is what got us Punchestown and is the reason Blanchardstown hospital is lying idle with no staff to man it. That is so-called efficiency.
It is highly efficient to go to Punchestown races and make deals about the way something is to be run or decide to pay money to a project in Maynooth because it is in someone's area and they want to do a favour for someone. That is highly efficient if one is in the business of winning votes and keeping elected representatives out of one's hair, but that is not what we are here for, and it is for the House to decide what is the best way to handle issues.
The Minister heard from the Members who spoke on this side of the House that they believe such a change being applied to local authorities and health boards is an important change of practice and one that ought to have the proper scrutiny of the House. We will not take lectures to the effect that we must fit into the Progressive Democrats view of efficiency if it prevents democratically elected people from scrutinising the actions of Government.
The Chair has tried to avoid raising the decentralisation issue but the Minister of State still comes back to it. I support decentralisation but not when there is no Government memorandum or debate and Government Deputies block hearings on it. I do not support it when no risk assessments of the agencies being moved or human resources plans to deal with the public servants who will be dispersed are carried out. These are the basics that should underpin any decentralisation programme. If they were in place, it would be agreed that the Government has thought out how the programme will fit into the spatial plan, that it is robust and will bring genuine regional development. However, there is no agreement or confidence on this side of the House. Even those Members wildly enthusiastic to see a Department moved to their towns can see that the Government is making a dog's dinner of the programme. Political opportunism——
And ideology.
——has been put before solid work on the issue. "There are none so deaf as those who would not hear," as my father used to say to me. The problem is that the Government does not hear the views of this side of the House but interprets them to give its own line.
As I anticipated, the Minister of State's reply referred to section (6)(3). With all due respect, arguing that this is a more efficient way of doing business regarding extensions of orders does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. The Minister of State is saying that once the horse has bolted and if the Houses of the Oireachtas seek to annul the order, it would be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that order. Why allow an extension order to come into effect and be employed before the Houses of the Oireachtas have the opportunity to properly address it? There is also a time factor involved concerning the subsequent 21 days on which the House has sat after the order is laid before it. That could actually be from one part of the summer recess to the resumption in the autumn with the passage of several months. It is mind-boggling that all would come into play in the period the order was made effective.
The Minister of State does not even accept his own argument. This is not a more efficient way of doing business. The most efficient, honest and transparent way would be for the order to come before both Houses of the Oireachtas for prior approval before it comes into effect. That is at the core of Deputy Richard Bruton's sensible amendment. Nothing in what the Minister of State has presented shows any seriousness in addressing the Bill's deficiencies. It is unacceptable that he is defending the indefensible and it will be seen for what it is.
The efficiency of the Houses of the Oireachtas is important. In getting best use of the Houses' time, each House has the opportunity to pass a resolution annulling any such order within 21 days. It is the most efficient way of dealing with this issue. For that reason I do not accept the Opposition's amendment.
I forgive the Minister of State because he has not been a long time in the House and never on the Opposition benches. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he does not know what actually happens with these resolutions. The only time available to the Opposition for business in the House is Private Members' time. This is one period a week, divided on a rotational basis between the Technical Group, Labour and Fine Gael. If the Opposition decides that scrutiny of an issue of this nature is required, it must set aside its one week in three to do so. The likelihood of that happening within 21 days of delaying is remote. In responding to the political issues of the day, the Opposition has an obligation to provide time for debate. An order like this, by its nature, will not be the most pressing issue of the day. The urgent tends to drive out the important and politics responds to the urgent.
The Minister of State must make a provision that the House is obliged to scrutinise important matters such as this, particularly when recruitment for certain local and health authority places will be returned to a devolved system. As Deputy Burton pointed out, that system was previously abandoned in the belief that it was abused. Serious public policy issues are involved here.
The Dáil is not the Government's sausage machine in that it processes legislation and efficiently manages time on its terms. The Government sees Dáil business as spending as little time as possible in the Chamber and getting as many sausages — namely the Government's preferred business — out at the end. However, the Dáil is a Chamber for serious scrutiny of the merit of important matters. This is one of those issues deserving such scrutiny. If this amendment is accepted, the Government will have to make time for it in Dáil business so as to present its statutory instrument. The Government will have to admit it has examined the local authority managers' preparation for the new devolved recruitment, their public interest argument and ensure that it is exercised to the highest standards. It will only take an hour of the House's time to debate a major change that will affect 83 local authorities of which 883 members were recently elected at considerable expense.
There are two choices facing us. Is it proper that the Dáil takes an hour to examine if proper preparations for a fundamental change in recruitment to these bodies, which deliver key services to citizens, have been completed? Or is it proper that, only in the event of an absolute crisis attached to a proposal, an Opposition party brings it up on Private Members' time? The Minister of State claims that it is better that the Dáil does not look at this again. It is unacceptable that he claims that, as he has sweated blood to get this Bill through the Dáil, he does not want to return to justify why he is extending it to local authorities. The recruitment practices of approximately 100,000 employees in local authorities are important enough to make an hour of Dáil time available. I do not accept the Minister of State's argument.
Opposition is good apprenticeship for Government because one understands what it is like to scrutinise matters and make judgments on them. The Minister of State is removing the need for scrutiny that this House should have. He should at least make a commitment to appear before the relevant committee and present the statutory instrument there, with a question and answer session. I would settle for that if the Minister of State is willing to offer it.
I have been accused by the Deputy of being arrogant, but it is not my intention to be so. The Deputy says I have no experience of being in Opposition, but this section of the Bill is to allow the Minister the power to extend the application of the Bill to certain appointments to which the Bill does not initially apply. At an earlier stage I recall Deputy Ring being very loud in his condemnation of practices that applied in local authorities and so on, and the need to bring those appointments under this Bill.
The Minister of State is misrepresenting Deputy Ring, who was concerned about giving managers more recruitment abilities in the areas where they already had some. Perhaps the Minister of State's officials might correct him regarding Deputy Ring's remarks.
I remember exactly what Deputy Ring said.
Is the Minister of State sure?
Yes.
The Minister of State should check the record.
In terms of the roll-out of this Bill, it is proposed that if it is extended, any extension of application by order should be laid before the Houses. The Deputy is aware of that. There is never enough time in this House to deal with business, yet a lot of time is "wasted" toing and froing on items. There is never enough time to carry out business and there are many Bills to be dealt with by this House before the end of term. On the Order of Business today the Opposition rightly noted a number of Bills which have been hanging around for a long time. We must use time efficiently in the House. The Government's contention is that this method is more efficient and if the Opposition has a major problem with the roll-out of this Bill it can raise it in the House and take out some of that very important time rather than——
Is the Minister of State willing to take it to the committee?
No. We have laid the matter out very clearly. Each House has the opportunity to pass a resolution annulling any such order within 21 days of the order being made. This is the Government position on this aspect. I got the impression previously that it was important that the Bill be rolled out to cover other such bodies which are not currently covered by the Bill. If there is sufficient Opposition concern that there may be time difficulties within the strict time limits, whether it be in Private Members' time or other time, time will be found. If we insist on putting the matter before the House every time, that will result in an inefficient use of the House's time.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Durkan and Wall; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, line 31, to delete "made" and substitute "in force".
The purpose of the amendment is to correct a technical error in the Bill. This is because an order could be made under section 6 but then be repealed by section 6(2). It would, therefore, no longer be in force.
I have consulted with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the proposed amendment. I am advised it is not necessary and is simply an alternative way of stating the matter.
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.