SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - CIVIL SERVICE REGULATION (No. 2) BILL, 1923.
Section 8.—(1) The Commissioners shall conduct all examinations in Saorstát Eireann which are now by any statute or other authority required to be conducted by Civil Service Commissioners and also shall if so required by the Executive Council conduct examinations, competitive or qualifying as the case may be, for all or any situations in the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann, or in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the Civic Guard or any other police force in Saorstát Eireann or in the service of any local authority or authorities and all or any such other examinations as the Executive Council may from time to time require.
(2) The Commissioners may with the consent of the Minister for Finance from time to time make regulations for the conduct of examinations to be held by them under this section.
I move:—
1. Section 8, Sub-section (1). (a) To delete in line 33 the words "if so required by the Executive Council."
(b) To delete in line 37 the word "or" and to substitute therefor the words "and for medical, engineering and superior clerical posts."
(c) To insert after the words "authorities" in line 38 the words "which posts shall only be filled by competitive examination."
The amendment as it appears on the Paper is necessarily in a number of disjointed sentences, but the effect of the amendment is this: Section 8 provides that the Commissioners shall conduct all examinations for certain things, and I want to extend the scope of that Section to cover all appointments to the medical, engineering, or higher clerical branches of the Civil Service, and of appointments under County, Borough, or District Councils. I think I can fairly anticipate the answer that will be made by the Government in the matter. This was discussed when the Bill was under consideration last year, in the temporary measure, which is an exact copy of this, and the Government professed themselves quite in favour of the suggestion we then made. When they said they were introducing a Bill more specificially dealing with the local government of the country, and that it was in that Bill that these provisions could most properly be inserted. That I was very glad to hear, and I believe it is quite so, but, after all, it is not that Bill we are dealing with here. The Bill we are dealing with is the appointment of Civil Service Commissioners, and empowering them to hold certain examinations. If the Local Government Bill is passed, afterwards it is quite possible the Civil Service Commissioners might turn round and say: "We have no power to hold these examinations, for the Act under which we are given power to hold these examinations contains no such clause." Therefore, I think it is very desirable to insert such a section here.
I need not dilate on what is public knowledge, that vast corruption has existed in connection with these appointments, and the desirability for the change has been admitted. If the amendments that appear in my name are accepted it will mean that all appointments shall be made as a result of public examination, which, I believe, is the desire of the country at large. I am not speaking for myself in that, but the country is absolutely sick of this corruption and wants to end it. The Government have told us they are quite in favour of putting an end to it, and I have no doubt they mean it, and I do not question their bona fides. Some people who indulge in these little games are very cute, and there is no doubt as soon as they get wind of what is on foot they will try to get as many people scraped into the service as possible by back-stairs influence—I repeat the expression used before, because I think it aptly fits the case— and the Government, and everybody else, will be faced with the fact that these undesirables are in possession of certain offices when the Local Government Bill becomes law. But if the amendments I have tabled here are carried out it will prevent that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am afraid you will have to move them separately. They are not dependent on one another, but are distinct amendments.
"If so required by the Executive Council"—it is necessary to leave out these words in order to carry out the rest of the intention. I think that is so.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We must dispose of that amendment in the first instance. You have an amendment down to delete these words, in line 33.
"If so desired by the Executive Council"; that is, to make it compulsory on them to hold all such examinations.
I support the amendment, because I have a motion of exactly the same effect on the Paper. It happens to come a little lower down, why I do not know. If this is passed, of course mine could be cut out, and also a second motion I have. I think it is most desirable that all these places should be filled by competitive examinations, and that we must not be judging by the present Ministers, but by Ministers of the future, who may be good or bad, and we should lay down in the law what we consider right, apart from anything else.
I would like to oppose the amendment. I presume it is in order, as you have permitted it to be moved, but it is certainly outside the main purpose of the Bill. This is not a Bill for Local Government reform, and I think it is doing things in a wrong way if this Seanad brings in matters of Local Government reform by the hair of the head, as it were, in a Bill dealing with other matters altogether. It seems to me you might as well bring in a clause abolishing Rural Councils or decreasing the membership of the Dublin Corporation, as such a clause as this. When the Local Government Reform Bill is brought in it will contain provisions in regard to examinations for appointments under Local Authorities. When I was in the Local Government Department I was in favour of making provision that local appointments should be filled in the main, at any rate, either by qualifying or competitive examination. The present Minister for Local Government is of the same mind. Others who have had to do with Local Government also think that such a change should be made. But it is a matter that will require specific legislation. There may be exceptions; there may be particular classes of posts where you will want to have a qualifying examination and selection afterwards. There may be others in which you would prescribe competitive examination alone. At any rate, it is a matter of sufficient importance to be legislated for separately. Senators who feel so very strongly about this, and who feel that they cannot wait until the Local Government Reform Bill comes along, might give material assistance to the Government if they would bring in a measure and have it considered by the Seanad and sent along to the Dáil. They might in that way expedite a change, if they think we are too long about it. In any case, I would suggest that it is very undesirable to bring in an amendment, altering materially the Local Government law, in a Bill the purpose of which is to regulate entrance into the Civil Service, and to set up a Civil Service Commission to hold examinations and to test the qualifications of candidates for the Civil Service. At present the Civil Service Commission is required by statute to hold certain examinations in the case of County Surveyors. We are also taking power to direct them to hold any examinations that the Executive Council think ought to be held, but we do not propose to change the Local Government law or to alter, for the present, the power of local authorities. We do not intend to touch the local authorities. If we were satisfied that any particular local authority would accept the results of an examination under the Civil Service Commission, and if we could come to an arrangement with that local authority in regard to the expenses of the examination, we would certainly ask the Civil Service Commission to hold an examination for them so as to get the thing going. But we do not propose to alter the Local Government law at present. I do not think that the particular Senators who feel that the matter is so urgent should really press on us to do the thing in that casual and not very well-considered way.
In regard to the police forces, we are making an arrangement that examinations shall be held by the Civil Service Commission. An examination will be held for cadets in the Civic Guard. At present an examination for suitability for promotion in the D.M.P. is being held by the Commission. An examination has been held by the Commission to determine what Civic Guards would be suitable to be appointed Inspectors of Weights and Measures. In the same way it is intended that army examinations, where written papers can be set, and written answers taken, shall be held by the Commissioners. There is no use, however, in trying to do everything in one Bill. We have heard talk about hasty legislation—and I admit the justice of a good deal that has been said—but I want to protest against hasty legislation from the other side.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is a little confusion about this matter, and it ought to be made clear that we are only dealing with the amendment to delete the words "if so required by the Executive Council." That amendment does not extend the powers of examination, but it dispenses with the requisition from the Executive Council in the cases enumerated in Section 8.
The effect of that, if passed, I think, would be that even a private could not be taken into the army without being examined by the Civil Service Commission.
That is rather straining the point. These amendments, as I said, are all part of one scheme— that it should be made mandatory on the Commission to hold these examinations. This Bill is to establish Civil Service Commissioners and to give them certain powers. It is not a Bill, as the Minister says, to alter the Local Government law. But if a Local Government Bill, introduced later, requires the Commissioners to hold examinations, they may say that under the statute under which they were set up they have no power to hold those examinations. Therefore, I ask the Seanad to consider the question as a whole. This is a very small matter, and is simply making it mandatory on them to hold all such examinations as they may be required to do without the requisition of the Ministers.
Amendment declared carried, on a show of hands, by 13 to 12.
I beg to move:
To delete in line 37 the word "or" and to substitute therefor the words "and for medical, engineering and superior clerical posts."
I need not weary the Seanad by repeating what I have said. This is simply carrying the same principle into effect as regards the positions mentioned, namely, medical, engineering and superior clerical posts.
I am inclined to disagree with this amendment. I think there are cases, particularly medical positions, where certain local knowledge is essential. There are various reasons why a competitive examination is not useful in cases of this nature. I do not wish to enlarge upon it, but it must be obvious that mere book knowledge is not all that is essential in a man whose duty it may be, for example, to attend the sick poor. I feel that in this, and possibly other matters, such as the appointment of assistant County Surveyors, that there are standards of character which are necessary and which no examination as to book knowledge would really make the proposed candidate an efficient one. For that reason it will be necessary for me to vote against the amendment.
In explanation of what Senator Bennett refers to, I might say that I do not propose that a man should be selected simply and solely on those conditions, but that a selection should be made from men who have passed the examination and are otherwise qualified.
I should like to say just a few words on this amendment. It does appear to me that if amendments are introduced dealing with a service which was not in contemplation when this Bill was introduced in the Dáil, namely, the Local Government service, it is possible that more damage may be done by the passing of these amendments than if the matter were not touched at all. This question of Local Government and its re-organisation is a vast, complex and intricate one, awaiting solution in its own time and in its own way, and on lines which will make for improvement, for economy, and for general efficiency throughout the country.
I know something about local authorities. I was a member of a local authority for a number of years, and I know something about the attempts that have been made, during the last three or four years, to improve administration by local authorities. I can tell the Seanad that there are no amendments it can pass, in the form which amendments have taken so far, that any local authority would not drive a coach and four through. During the disturbed period, from, say, 1920 up to the signing of the Treaty, I was in close touch with local authorities. I endeavoured from my own experience of the usefulness of examinations to impress on local authorities the real necessity for having positions of any importance the subject of examination. I can tell the Seanad that where local authorities disagreed with that view, they held examinations but they confined them to whatever persons they wished to present for examination. You may, and probably will, be faced with exactly the same state of affairs again. I recollect on one occasion a local authority, having, I think, three vacancies. A certain number of names were submitted, and it was pointed out that four could stand for one examination, five for another, and three for another, out of twelve applicants for the positions. The numbers were restricted to these, and not one single person out of the 12 passed the examination for any of the three posts. It was then presented to us: "Your examination has failed. We want to appoint men. Are you going to keep us without the service of these men in these important positions and leave open to public criticism the fact that we have vacant posts and want to fill them. You see now that we cannot get persons with the qualifications you want, but we can get persons qualified to fill the positions."
It appears to me that if it is attempted to deal now with what might be called clearing up of the wreckage of local administration, you cannot do it successfully or carefully in this manner. If you do, it is more than likely you will have to pay a very much higher price for the services of the persons who will pass these examinations, and later on, when you are considering economy in Local Government, it may be found that you have not got work for these persons. I think it is unwise—and I have some experience—to press those amendments. It is a service in which you have, I suppose, a very much diversified standard.
Take the Dublin Corporation for example. It is the largest local authority, and has held examinations for 20 years, and it has paid them well. Even there you have various services, different from one another, but the examinations are the same for all. You have the Law Agent's Department, and the Accountant's Department. Different sorts of examinations would be required for these two Departments. So far the Corporation has not a separate examination for each. This particular amendment here deals with "medical, engineering and superior clerical posts." There are cases I am sure in which men, having a number of years' service in Local Government, may be efficient but may not pass Civil Service examinations, although they might discharge the duties where the vacancy exists much more satisfactorily than men not having experience in that parcular line. There is a danger now in setting up a headline with regard to this without viewing the whole circumstances of the case as they ought to be viewed. In my opinion it would be necessary to see how it would be possible to reorganise the Local Government service on a more economic basis.
Amendment declared lost.
The next amendment standing in my name reads:—
"To insert after the words "authorities" in line 38 the words "which posts shall only be filled by competitive examination."
The amendment is simply to carry out the idea proposed in the last amendment, and as that was lost there is not much use in insisting on this one. The object I had in view, and on which the President has thrown no light, was to put a stop to the corruption which exists in the country. The President has confirmed my statement by giving instances that occurred to his own knowledge. All he has told us is that these abuses do exist, but I venture to say that he has not given us any help whatever as to how they are to be met, or as to how this canker which is eating into the public life of the country is to be done away with. The one object I had in view, in submitting the amendment to the Seanad, was to put a stop to these abuses. I regret that the Seanad has not seen its way to accept the amendment. I believe the amendment would have had a good effect. I do not think there has been any light thrown upon it. Under the circumstances I desire to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move:—
"In sub-section (1) to delete in line 36 the words "Civic Guard" and substitute therefor the words "Gárda Síochána."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
"To insert in sub-section (1) after the word "authorities" in line 38 the words "such as may be required by the regulations of those Forces or authorities."
This amendment has been rather argued for by the Ministers who are present. It s object is that when certain regulations are issued for the different forces an examination should be held according to these regulations. All such examinations should be conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps the Senator would tell us what the word "such" in his amendment refers to?
To examinations—"such examinations as may be required by the regulations of those forces." Ministers in the future, in producing some Bill, will lay down regulations for examinations for a particular class of thing—it may be for engineering or for medicine.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is only on the form of the amendment that I raised the question. It is difficult to make it read grammatically because "examinations" has not occurred in the clause in the previous four lines. A good deal comes in between the word "examinations" and the word "such."
I looked into the matter rather carefully and it appeared to me to be grammatical.
Might I suggest that the Minister—if he does not object to the amendment—might bring in another form of words on the Report Stage? As the Minister has not spoken, we do not know what the Government view is on the amendment.
As far as the Police Forces and the Army are concerned, I would certainly undertake to accept the substance of the amendment, but not so far as it concerns local authorities.
This Bill is giving certain powers to the Civil Service Commissioners. How are the Civil Service Commissioners going to be empowered to conduct these examinations unless some such clause is put into this Bill?
I think the Senator need not fear that it would be impossible to add to the duties of the Civil Service Commissioners. If any Bill be introduced which lays down that examinations shall be held by the Civil Service Commissioners for posts under any local authority, then the Commissioners will be bound to hold these examinations in precisely the same way as if they were directed by this Bill to hold them.
Would it not be much better if this Bill provided some such clause as Senator Col. Moore has suggested? There appears to be very little objection to the clause.
I do not know whether Senators are misled by the word "now" in the second line of the clause which says that "The Commissioners shall conduct all examinations in Saorstát Eireann which are now by any Statute or other authority required to be held." I think that probably the word "now" could be struck out. I do not think that the striking out of it would weaken the Bill. Certainly, it is not intended to preclude them from holding examinations which may be required by Statute to be held.
What I think peculiar in this amendment is that it takes the Executive Council altogether out of the Section. I think it is due to the members of the Executive Council that they should know what particular reason there is for that. I take it, it will be admitted that we must have an Executive Council and that the Executive Council must in the ordinary way have authority to alter examinations if required. If the idea is that the Executive Council would dispense with the holding of examinations and make appointments——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am very sorry, Mr. President, but we have passed from the amendment which took out the words "if so required by the Executive Council."
I take it that this particular amendment disposes of the last two lines.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think so. The Senator does not propose to omit them. He proposes to leave them in, and it is because he proposes to leave them in that I am afraid it is very difficult to give full effect to what he intends by his amendment.
If the Minister is satisfied with it substantially, and is prepared to bring in some other form of words on the next Stage, I am perfectly willing to accept that.
I am willing to bring in a form of words as suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Before that Section passes, I would like to know if the Minister is now in a position to answer a question I put on the Second Reading—that is, if it is the intention to appoint to the permanent, established staff of the Civil Service those who have been admitted without competitive examination, without at first requiring them to submit either to a qualifying or a competitive examination. I do not mean to include the old Civil Service staff of Dáil Eireann.
In general, persons who have been appointed to the Civil Service will have to undergo a competitive or qualifying examination but in the case of, say, professional appointments, it is not easy to hold an examination.
That is done by process of selection. Let me give an instance. A certain County Surveyor, who had a very good reputation as a maker of roads, was appointed to take charge of the Road Section of the Ministry of Local Government. It will be for the Civil Service Commissioners to satisfy themselves in that case that he is a proper and suitable man, and fully qualified for the situation as regards character, knowledge, ability and so forth. It will not be a question of examination. There are a certain number of posts where examination is not the best test —where you want experience, knowledge of the world, character, capacity in the handling of men. These things cannot be determined by examination. For this particular type of post the Civil Service Commissioners would be asked if they would certify the individual. They would not be asked to hold an examination. It would be within their power to refuse to certify.
The Minister has gone a little bit outside the scope of the question. I did not refer to those people who are generally appointed without competitive examination. I referred to people appointed to posts usually filled by competitive examination, such as positions in the Post Office.
They will have to submit to competitive examination.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) The Minister for Finance may from time to time make regulations for controlling the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann and providing for the classification, remuneration and other conditions and terms of service of all persons employed therein, whether permanently or temporarily, and may at any time revoke or vary any such regulation.
(2) All regulations made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made, and if both such Houses shall, within the next twenty-one days on which either House has sat after such regulations are laid before the Houses, passed resolutions annulling such regulations, such regulations shall be annulled accordingly, but such annulment shall not prejudice or invalidate anything previously done under such regulations.
Amendment No. 8:—In Sub-section (2) To delete all after the word "if" in line 51 up to and including the word "resolutions" in lines 53-54 and to substitute therefor the words "either such House shall, within the next twenty-one days on which either House has sat after such regulations are laid before the Houses, pass a resolution."
This amendment of mine is in substance the same as the amendment adopted almost unanimously yesterday in regard to Section 4. The Minister yesterday told us in regard to a similar amendment that if the Dáil passed a resolution seeking to annul a regulation that the regulation would fall, because the Minister, being responsible to the Dáil, would have to take cognisance of such a resolution, and he indicated that the action of the Seanad on such a regulation, unless supported by the Dáil, would mean nothing. The position as I see it means that there is no use in placing these regulations at all on the Table of the Seanad, unless a resolution passed by the Seanad takes effect. At present the Dáil may at any time annul a regulation, but the Seanad cannot do so, except they say "ditto" to what the Dáil may do. Either the regulation should not be laid on the Table at all or we should have a right to pass a resolution annulling it, as in the case of the other House. It may be said that these regulations mainly apply to money matters, but if you read the Section you will find that they will refer to matters other than money matters. Even on money matters, the Seanad has a right to make recommendations, and the right of the Seanad should always be protected in that regard. In any event, there will be regulations of a very important character that will not involve financial expenditure in the ordinary sense, and which the Seanad should have some right to voice their opinions on. I think the Minister will agree that any powers that have been given under these regulations have never been abused. In fact, I think the tendency has been the other way. Either Senators or Deputies have not bothered themselves to examine these regulations or, if they have examined them, they have never abused the power conferred on them by trying to annul any reasonable regulation.
The reasons I gave— which did not appeal to the Seanad— against the previous amendment moved by Senator O'Farrell apply very much more strongly indeed to this amendment. In the first place, these regulations which may be made by the Minister for Finance and laid on the Table of both Houses are in Great Britain made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and are not laid on the Table of either House there, so that there is, as it were, a check on the Minister for Finance here that does not apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England. The regulations will be mostly of a financial character. They will have a very close bearing on matters of finance and will touch the Minister for Finance in his responsibility for the conduct of the service on the most economical and the most efficient lines possible. It was proposed in the Dáil that these regulations should be annullable only by the Dáil: that this particular clause should take the form of stating that the regulations might be annulled by resolution of the Dáil and that the Seanad might make recommendations. I opposed that form on the ground that some regulations certainly would not be strictly financial, that they ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses and that both Houses should deal with them equally. I should point out that many of the regulations will be strictly financial and, therefore, I think it ought not to be in the power of the Seanad—I am not speaking of this particular Seanad, but of any Seanad that may be elected in the future—to annul the financial regulations which the Dáil was satisfied with. It is the Dáil that is responsible under the Constitution for financial business and for the conduct of the finances of the country. One may agree with that particular feature of the Constitution, or one may disagree with it. We may even think that some time later it will be changed. But at present that is a condition of the Constitution, and it lays the responsibility for finance— for the conduct of the finances of the country and for safeguarding the expenditure of the national revenue—on the Dáil. It is undesirable that a regulation which will deal largely with the safeguarding of the national revenue and of getting good value for the expenditure of all money, should be held up by the Seanad acting alone and, perhaps, contrary to the Dáil. I think it would be interfering with the spirit of the Constitution if we were to adopt, in this particular clause, an amendment which would make it possible for the Seanad to annul the financial regulations made by the Minister for Finance and with which the Dáil was satisfied—particularly in view of the fact that the responsibility in this particular matter lies with the Dáil.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I want to put in a caveat here. I do not want it to be taken at all, especially in adopting a mere amendment that the Seanad adopts the suggested construction of the Constitution just mentioned by the Minister. You cannot talk of the spirit of the Constitution because we have got the letter of the Constitution and there is nothing whatever, as I construe the Constitution, in its letter that would prevent the Seanad from rejecting a regulation under this Bill merely because it was a financial regulation. I know of nothing in the Constitution that would affect or control the action of the Seanad in that respect. I am not giving a decision on the matter because the question has not arisen. I only want to utter a warning against its being supposed that the Seanad accepts the view of their rights under the Constitution just expressed by the Minister for Finance.
I do not think I said that. I certainly did not intend to say that it was not within the power of the Seanad to reject regulations if this amendment were to be adopted. I was simply putting it to the Seanad that it ought not to adopt an amendment which might lead to these regulations being rejected in the future.
Might I point out to the Minister that a number of things are proposed to be done under Section 9? The Section provides for classification, conditions and other terms of service, apart from the question of remuneration, and it may be felt that these are matters on which the Seanad would like to express its views. I do not think the Minister need be so much afraid of the amendment that has been proposed. I think it is a good one.
In my opinion the amendment that has been proposed by Senator O'Farrell is the only logical amendment that could be proposed unless, of course, the Minister is prepared to act as he has told us the Chancellor of the Exchequer acts in England and do away altogether with the placing of these regulations on the Tables of both Houses and enact them as he has power to do. I think that puts the Seanad in a very difficult position. As Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde has said, the Seanad can legislate or give its opinion on two of the conditions mentioned in the Section, but as I understand it the third condition is outside the purview of the Seanad.
I think An Cathaoirleach has explained our position very clearly to us, and it is that the third condition is not outside our purview. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.
I would venture to present to the Seanad another point of view. It appears to me that whether the amendment has really in it all the advantages that have been described by Senator O'Farrell or not, it has one serious disadvantage,—that in a sense it provides for a conflict between the two Houses. Now, there has never been any such conflict and I do not think there are any indications of one. While the Minister has taken the point of view that the Seanad might object to the regulations, they might also bear in mind that it would be possible in years to come that the Minister for Finance might make regulations which his House might support.
Even though the Seanad was not empowered to remove these regulations by passing a resolution, nevertheless these criticisms would be of immense value. But in these regulations, as well as I can recollect, it is provided that both the Dáil and Seanad should pass a resolution. If it is left to the Dáil or Seanad, it is more than probable that there will be a conflict between them on the point. What are the points in dispute?
"To provide for the classification remuneration, other conditions and terms of service, of all persons employed."
It is not intended, I am sure, that individual cases should come before the Seanad. No case was made in the Dáil for laying open the Civil Service to canvassing or lobbying or anything of that sort by persons employed in it. It would be highly undesirable that we should leave open the door to any such proceeding as that. Most of those who spoke about Local Government laid stress upon the fact that canvassing and lobbying and all that was one of the evils of Local Government. The Minister makes these regulations—I will say without being in any way disrespectful to Civil Servants—quite impartially and as if the persons affected were cyphers. I will say that it is most unlikely, except we get a Minister for Finance who does not know his work at all, that he would make regulations that would not meet with the approval of both Houses. Take the Constitution as it stands. It indicates that both Houses are part and parcel of it, and that what passes in one should be considered in the other, but that there should be general agreement. Here is a case where you are opening up possibilities of disagreement and leaving no possible means of composing those difficulties afterwards. I think that allowing one House to do something that is not being done by the other House leaves opportunities for friction, and I think we ought not countenance that
Would not that friction be avoided altogether by the deletion of part 2?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Whatever be the position of the Seanad with regard to this particular Bill, I think we have here a matter that requires a certain amount of consideration, both now and in the future, with regard to the relations between the two Houses. We in the Seanad are united in this. We are anxious to do our duty in accordance with the powers given us in the Constitution. I think we do not desire to take responsibilities that have not been given us, but where we have the responsibility we desire to have the power. In the attachments that have been made to several Bills with regard to regulations made from time to time by the Commissioners or by the Executive Council, two methods have been adopted. Sometimes both Houses are required to pass resolutions. Sometimes only one. I can see a very good case made for the English method by which Ministers make their regulations and submit them to the House to which they are responsible. But because of the fact that none of the Senators is a Minister, no Minister would be responsible to the Seanad nor would the Seanad have the power to act. But if they are to be sent to the Seanad, then I think the Seanad should have the power to deal with these regulations. We should have the power if we share the responsibilities. If it is a matter that should not come before us, in so far as it is financial, then it should be dealt with by the other House. The position seems to be that most of these regulations that come in this form are supplementary to legislation, and the reason they are sent to us is they are regarded as supplementary to legislation. If so, I think we should have power to deal with them. One point dealt with by the President was, I think, of great importance. He referred to a possible deadlock between the two Houses under certain circumstances that may occur. I do not think it is likely to occur in matters of administration, assuming that these and other matters come before the Seanad. I suggest for the consideration of the Government and the Seanad that what ought to be provided is not if one House disagrees that this order or regulation will immediately be invalid, but that if one House disagrees the matter will be sent to the other House for consideration, and that in the same way as a Bill these regulations would become valid. I think the reason the Government are in the position of resisting amendments here is that they do not wish to place themselves in the position in which regulations of which they have approved will suddenly and immediately end in this House. If the suggestion I made were to be considered, it might be possible on the Report Stage to provide that when we pass a resolution which will go to the Dáil, we would hear their point of view on it before the regulations or rule would be rendered invalid.
I was very much impressed by what the President has said, and more particularly as from time to time I have had a fair amount of negotiations with Civil Servants on the other side of the Channel. I could not but admire the way those men carried on their work. It does not matter to them a single bit what Government they serve. I really do think that the farther the domestic relations of the public service are divorced from the political end of the Dáil or Seanad the more efficiently will the public service be discharged. I think the domestic administration of the Civil Service is very much better left to the Civil Servants, and the Ministers themselves. With regard to that, is it conceivable to any business man that a Minister, as the head of his Department, is going to promote and put into a responsible position a man who is necessarily going to prepare a great amount of his work, if he cannot rely on that man for the facts and figures which he is to put before the Dáil? I tell you he could not do a thing like that for his brother. He could not do it even if he wished. He could not do it for any friend. He must rely on the good service he gets and on what is available, and you can better do that by keeping this service away from influences which must affect efficiency.
Would the Minister be prepared to accept an amendment to delete the Section?
I opposed the insertion of this Section in the Dáil, but under very considerable pressure it was inserted.
It might assist the Minister, then, if we deleted it.
The President stated that no Minister was likely to make any recommendation which would be against the wishes of the Oireachtas. Surely, if that were the case, the passing of this amendment would be very innocuous? If, on the other hand, we are given powers that we cannot use, we are placed in a very peculiar position. Senator O'Farrell has put the matter in a nut-shell. The Minister tells us that if the Dáil is against the resolution, it will go by the board. Nothing that has been stated up to the present weakens the desirability of the amendment, in my opinion.
I move that the clause be deleted.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think we ought first to take the opinion of the Seanad upon Senator O'Farrell's amendment, and if it is carried, you can then move the omission of that clause.
The arguments advanced against this are of different descriptions, but none of them seems to be particularly weighty. The President rather overstated the position when he seemed to suggest that the meaning of this amendment was to give an opportunity of voicing the interests of individuals in the Civil Service. If that is the case, of course the same argument would apply to the Dáil. I think, however, that is altogether beside the question. It is of the utmost importance, in my opinion, that regulations governing the recruitment to the Civil Service, and the conditions therein, should be laid before the Oireachtas. These people have no regular contract of service with the State. They are very largely at the mercy of the heads of Departments. The efficiency of the Civil Service, the type of person who shall be recruited to it, and the conditions obtaining in it, are all of vital importance to the work of the State. Consequently, if any body has a right to discuss the regulations governing these things, it is the Oireachtas.
Senator Dowdall asked us to make an act of faith in the present and all future Ministers, and he deprecates interference or criticism in matters of this kind. That is very undesirable and will tend to make it absolutely imperative on Civil Servants to enter an organisation where they will be in a position to take action that may be termed by many people unconstitutional. If the Oireachtas has no proper surveillance over admission to the Civil Service and the conditions obtaining in it, then somebody will have to act on their behalf. As regards the bogey of a conflict between the two Houses, if there is a danger of that, why is the Government not consistent? I had occasion yesterday to call attention to Section 97 of the Courts of Justice Bill, where it is indicated that all Rules of Court have to be laid before both Houses and a resolution of either House can annul those. If there is a danger of conflict between the two Houses in regard to the Civil Service Regulations Bill, is there not an equal danger in regard to Rules of Court? There must be some consistency in reference to those regulations.
Yesterday the Seanad passed, almost unanimously, an amendment exactly similar to this. I can assure the Minister and the Seanad I am not looking for extra powers for this House. At the same time, I do not approve of that apologetic tone that some Senators assume. They actually apologise for exercising any power at all. That is not a proper spirit to manifest. I do object to the Seanad being treated as a kitten and given a straw to play with, as is the case in the Section as it now stands.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Before I put the clause, I would like to point out to Senator O'Farrell and the Minister that whether it remained in its original condition, or as it is now amended, it is not drafted in the way intended. According to the last four lines of it, in the event of either House annulling any single regulation, they would get rid of the whole table of regulations. That is not intended. It is only intended that a resolution annulling a particular regulation should annul that only, and leave the rest untouched. In order to rectify that, it would have to be altered to read: "Pass a resolution annulling any of such regulations, same shall be annulled accordingly." As it stands now, if either House annulled a single one out of one hundred regulations, the whole of them would go, and that is not intended. If it is amended in the way I suggest, the end in view would be accomplished.
Question: "That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
I should like to move: "In line 43, instead of the words ‘Minister for Finance' to substitute the words ‘Executive Council.'"
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are somewhat late now, but if the Seanad were willing, perhaps the amendment might be taken.
Of course, I could introduce the amendment on the Report Stage. I would, however, like to make my point now. The clause generally is open to objection, inasmuch as it gives undue power to the Minister for Finance. I know the Minister dropped a hint that he was, more or less, following the British model, which is, no doubt, correct, because I suffered under it. It gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer considerable power of making detailed regulations in all Departments of State, and that in effect sets up a spirit of considerable hostility to the Finance Department. I think anybody who knows the British Service will appreciate that fact. That hostility is not in the interests of harmonious administration. It is quite conceivable now that a Minister of the Department of Agriculture may, in relation to the work of inspectors in the country, require rather different regulations to those that would deal with those of his servants engaged in a more sedentary occupation.
Now, in practice all these matters are done with extraordinary detail. They must be referred to the Minister for Finance. I know the Seanad will remember the question of financial control. It is all bound up together. If you give a Minister a sort of over-riding power in the domestic work of every Department of State, I do not care whether it is in England, here, or in any other country, you will get an element of internal friction and loss of efficiency. It will be removed to a large extent by giving this power to the Executive Council. I suppose if this power is given to the Executive Council these regulations will probably be definitely discussed. In all matters of finance the Minister's advice will, of course, have to be taken, but I do not like giving this power by statute to one Minister to interfere, as he can, with the best intentions, with another Department of State. I think that the circular issued the other day, commendable as it was, regarding the hours of work and so forth of Civil Servants, should, if the spirit of this amendment is agreed to, have been issued not by one Minister, but under the authority of the Executive Council as a whole. I ask the Government, if they can see their way, to accept the amendment, as otherwise I will have it brought up on the Report Stage.
The Minister for Finance must be a member of the Executive Council. Under the Constitution the members of the Executive Council are collectively responsible for their Departments, so that in actual practice I think no change will be effected. On the other hand, I think it is undesirable to burden the Executive Council with detailed reports and regulations in cases where it may not be necessary to bring these before it. I do not think it is desirable that we should enact, by statute, that in a large number of cases matters must be brought before the Executive Council which might be purely routine. On the other hand, if they are matters of substance, nothing will be gained by such an amendment. Take, for instance, the question of hours of Civil Servants. That matter was brought before the Executive Council before the circular was issued by the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance, in all matters of finance, would be bound to get the consent of his colleagues on the Executive Council, but he is not bound to bring before them routine matters and thus, perhaps, prevent discussion on matters of greater importance.
SECTION 10.
(1) This Act shall apply to every situation in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann other than any of the situations for the time being comprised in the Schedule to this Act.
(2) The Commissioners may by order made on the application of the Minister in charge of any Government Department and with the consent of the Minister for Finance add any situation in that Department to the Schedule to this Act or withdraw any situation in that Department from such Schedule.
I beg to propose the following amendment to Sub-section 2:—
"To omit all after the word ‘finance' in line 63, and to substitute therefore the words ‘withdraw any situation in that Department from the schedule to this Act.'"
It will be noticed, of course, that the schedule consists of six classes of persons who are excluded from the Act and, therefore, excluded from all examinations under the Act. Those six classes may, or may not, be rightly excluded, but what I am objecting to is that the Minister may at any time add another list of classes of persons to be excluded. He may say that two or three other lots of people are to be added to the schedule, and they will not be liable for examination. We had, in another place, withdrawn from the Bill the words "if so required by the Executive Council." I think this is a continuation of the amendment already accepted, with a view to preventing Ministers from arbitrarily inserting in the schedule whatever class of Civil Servants it is desired to exclude for the time being.
I support the amendment very strongly. So far as I can see, it involves a very great principle. The object is to make an enactment by law prescribe a certain procedure. This Bill is to ensure that the bulk of those who enter the Government service shall be qualified. You set up a Commission for that purpose, but at the end of the Act you practically give the Executive the power of scrapping the whole thing. I do not see what is the object of this piece of legislation, because the Executive Council can hold what examination it likes, as it only has to exempt any people to put them on the schedule and the trick is done. I think that that rather stultifies the whole of this enactment. There is an increasing tendency to take these powers and practically nullify the main portion of the measure. After all, this amendment is vital because the object of legislation is to ensure the authority of Parliament. Go back to the constitutional principles and you have three branches of government—the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. It has been by long experience determined that these safeguards are necessary to keep these functions clear and distinct. I am not at all certain that the necessity for that is appreciated by the Government, but it is for us to see that these prerogatives are secured. I submit that by this section they are swept away. I have no doubt that the present Government will not do this, but the power remains. Governments often change, and we have to safeguard the authority of Parliament and not allow a clause like this to be embodied in the Act.
Senator Sir John Keane need not fear there is any attempt to get around the authority of Parliament. We must not build two great edifices on very little. This particular provision is in the Bill because it is not pretended that such complete consideration has been given to the matter that there is no class which ought to be added to the schedule. It might be felt desirable that at some stage the Post Office might be entitled to take on auxiliary postmen for the Xmas rush without any reference to the Civil Service Commission. There, you should not have the delay of an investigation by the Civil Service Commission. There are no grounds for supposing that in selecting candidates for the Civil Service, the Government is going to go in for something grossly corrupt to get around the provisions of the Act. I do not believe there is any Act drafted so watertight, that if a Government were going to descend to the things Senator Sir John Keane has in mind, it could prevent them. You must not assume we are going to have an absolutely corrupt Government. I think we should view the thing in some sort of reasonable way, and not tie ourselves up with too great rigidity. It should be remembered with regard to the British Civil Service that the matter does not rest on enactments at all there. The whole system of competitive examination in the Civil Service in Great Britain rests on an Order in Council which may be varied at any time. I did not know that there were any great abuses of the power that rested with the Government of the day which would be sufficient to sweep away the whole system. Any British Government could come in and take away examinations altogether. It might be necessary to add at some time some particular position to the Schedule. That addition to the Schedule will have to be gazetted. It may not be done in the dark. People will know about it. There will be opportunities of criticism of it in the Parliament. I think in matters of this sort you should allow, under proper safeguards, some reasonable freedom of administrative action unless you are convinced it is likely to be abused, and to lead to corruption. I suggest it is not likely to lead to corruption.
With regard to the matter of publicity and the certainty of Parliamentary criticism there is quite a sufficient safeguard provided. There have been in the past various posts exempted by the British from the purview of the Civil Service Commission. I see for instance here in the College of Science, the Professor of Biology, the Professor of Zoology, and the Professor of Botany. It might be a desirable thing for us to add those to the list or it might not, but we do not feel that we should swell the schedule at all. If, in the course of time, it is thought desirable to add any particular class to the list of those exempted, there should be power to do it, and Parliament should deal with the matter, if it were felt that the Government was going beyond what it ought to do.
In view of what the Minister has said, would he be agreeable to accept an amendment in this form:—
"The Commissioners may, by order on the application of the Minister in charge of any Government Department, and with the consent of the Minister for Finance, add any situation other than permanent situations."
Positions like that of the Professor of Botany are provided for under Clause 6.
I was about to make exactly the same suggestion, and I support it.
One word with reference to what the Minister has said. I am willing to accept Senator Brown's change, but I would like to point out to the Minister, that Ministers, both in the British Parliament and elsewhere, have been making themselves into legislators by Orders in Council. One of the things most objected to in the British Parliament has been the powers they have taken of late years to do just what they like under Orders in Council. Anyone who read the English papers in the last two years will have noticed the criticism and resentment of the attitude of successive Parliaments in taking powers from Parliament by issuing Orders in Council. This is practically the same thing.
I am inclined to accept the suggestion of Senator Brown in regard to the making of this power, of adding to the schedule, applicable only to temporary appointments. I cannot, at the moment, be sure whether there might not be certain classes of permanent employees other than those already mentioned in the schedule who ought not to be exempt, but I cannot think of any at the moment. I am prepared to have the clause altered in such a way that the power to add to the schedule shall only apply to temporary appointments.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Do you withdraw your amendment, Senator Moore, in favour of that of Senator Brown?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I will now put Senator Brown's amendment, to add after the words "to the schedule of this Act" the words "other than permanent situations."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:
To add after Sub-section (2) a new Sub-section (3) as follows:—
"(3) Appointments to the unestablished situations referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Schedule to this Act shall be made under the authority and on the advice of the permanent head of the Department concerned in each case."
There are six different clauses in the Schedule, and 4 and 5 are concerned with people who necessarily could not be examined. They are porters, door-keepers, and labourers of various sorts, for whom nobody would, I suppose, expect to have competitive examinations, though I believe that in Trinity College they have an examination for porters. It consists, I believe, in their being able to write their names and repeat the Lord's Prayer. That is an antiquated sort of thing which I do not propose to suggest here, although it might be a good one. My reason for putting down this amendment is that I think it is in the interest of the Ministers themselves, and I think nobody would feel that more than Ministers. One Minister said the other day that he found nothing more disagreeable than the perpetual task of making appointments, or receiving applications for appointments. Very few people appealed to me, but some did. I found it a very great annoyance, and I am sure that a Minister who makes appointments must have thousands of applications, and must be in a great difficulty because he does not know who they are. My suggestion is that the only people who ought to interfere are the permanent heads of departments, and the Minister said the other day, when we were discussing that point, that it would be very easy to suggest some other means than having it done by the Minister himself. I suggest this. The Minister may perhaps suggest some better plan, in which case I would be perfectly satisfied, but it seems to me that the head of the department, or some person in it, ought to be the proper person to appoint mechanics, caretakers and such people rather than the Minister, and they will not be affected by political considerations. The permanent head of the department has nothing to do with politics, and he will save the Minister the bother of having perpetual applications made to him for appointments.
I could not recommend the Seanad to adopt this amendment. As a matter of fact the Minister does not know anything about these appointments in the ordinary way. They are done in his name, but certainly, as far as I am concerned, I have never known anything about the appointment of any porter, doorkeeper, messenger, night watchman, charwoman, or cleaner, except a man who lost his arm in the fighting in Easter Week who I asked to have considered for a messenger's position. The appointments were made by the permanent head of the department of which I was Minister, but at the same time I do not think we should put into legislation that the permanent head of a Civil Service Department is to act quite independently of his Minister, and to be subject to no control by his Minister in anything he does. All acts must be done in the name of the Minister, and I do not think we could make any regulation or adopt any legislation that would make the permanent head of a department independent of the Minister in the discharge of his duty. At present I believe appointments of this sort are being made by the ex-service section of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, which is concerned at the moment in placing demobilised soldiers in any vacancies that may turn up. But if there was no particular reason for directing these appointments through one channel they would be made on the recommendation of the permanent head of the department, and normally the Minister will not be concerned with them. I assure you that it is not this kind of appointment that causes trouble to Ministers; it is not when a charwoman is being appointed that members of the Dáil and Seanad beset him. It is when there are more serious appointments, and I do not think you will relieve the Minister of anything when you are dealing with this particular class of appointment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11, SUB-SECTION 2.
Notice of every appointment and promotion with respect to which a certificate of qualification is issued by the Commissioners under this Act shall be published by them in the "Iris Oifigiúil" immediately after the issue of such certificate.
Amendment byMr. LINEHAN:
Sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and the Commissioners shall state whether such certificate is based on a competitive or qualifying examination."
I move this in the absence of Senator Linehan. I think it would be an improvement, and if the Seanad feels the same it might be adopted.
I would undertake that in practice this will be done as far as possible. I pointed out already, in reply to Senator O'Farrell, that in cases of certain appointments neither a competitive nor a qualifying examination was held, but I would undertake that the publications will be in such a form that where a competitive or a qualifying examination has been held it shall be shown by publication of the Gazette.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Do you mean to propose that on Report?
I will undertake to introduce an amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 11, 12 and 13 agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
THE SCHEDULE.
Paragraph 6. All situations in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the Civic Guard, or any other police force.
I move to delete Paragraph 6, because we have in a former section practically arranged that examinations will be held. I put in an amendment, but the Minister has promised to make some proposal that will meet it and will enable the Civic Guard to come under examination, and many other classes, such as the Dublin Metropolitan Police. If that is to be done we might as well withdraw it from the schedule altogether.
I undertook, when we were discussing the other amendment, to produce words that where set examinations with written answers were held in connection with the police or the army, they should be held by the Civil Service Commissioners, but I do not propose that recruiting for the army or police should be in the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners, and I do not think it is desirable. The removal of this particular clause from the schedule would mean that recruiting for the police would be taken out of the hands of the police authorities and given over to the Civil Service Commissioners. I do not think it is desirable in a disciplined force of that sort, where the qualities necessary are very different from the qualities required in the Civil Service, that this duty or power should be given to the Civil Service Commissioners.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move: "To delete the words ‘Civic Guard,' and to substitute therefor the words ‘Gárda-Síochána.'" I merely want to make the same alteration as I have made before.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That necessarily follows from the other.
Amendment agreed to.
The Schedule and Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put: "That the Bill be reported."
Agreed.
