Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Dec 1923

Vol. 2 No. 9

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - THE OIREACHTAS STAFFS.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The next matter is a motion by Senator Sir John Keane. There is a motion, by way of amendment to that, standing in the name of Senator MacLysaght, and there is a motion also standing in the name of Senator Colonel Moore. I want to suggest to those who put down the various motions what I think would be desirable, in view of the situation which exists, and which may be known to Senator Sir John Keane, but which, perhaps is not known to Senator Colonel Moore, as regards the staff and arrangements between the two Houses. The Seanad will recollect that they have a Committee on Standing Orders, and this Committee brought in an interim report on the 13th of March of this year, which referred to the fact that a conference had been directed between the two Houses, with regard to the question of the staff of both Houses, and the report to which I have referred contained recommendations resulting from that joint conference. These recommendations were adopted by the Seanad, and one of them was this: The question of Standing Orders, regulating intercommunication between the two Houses, was discussed. It was agreed that these matters could best be settled by a joint conference between the Standing Orders Committee of the two Houses, and it was decided to recommend to the Seanad that a Message be sent to the Dáil requesting approval to such a joint conference. In addition to that, the Seanad agreed, at the request of the Dáil, to appoint a member to a Joint Committee to consider and go into the whole question of the staffing of the Oireachtas, and that Committee consisted of the Minister for Finance, the Speaker of the Dáil, and the Chairman of the Seanad. We met on several occasions. We went very fully into the matter, and in the result we prepared a report which was discussed with the President about a fortnight ago, and one or two suggestions came from him, which I, with my colleagues on this Committee, have to go into again. Substantially speaking, I should tell the House that our recommendations come to this, that with the exception of the position of the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk, all the remaining staff should be a joint staff. That is to say, the same thing also applies to the Dáil, with very few exceptions, excluding, of course, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Their entire staff and ours is to be a joint staff. The object we had there, of course, is economy, because that joint staff will not be attached all their time to either House, and we can always have them available according as their services are required, whether in the Dáil or here, and we can get on with a much smaller staff than was originally anticipated. So far as the Seanad is concerned, if this report of the Committee on which the Minister for Finance and myself acted, is adopted by the Dáil, as I believe it will, and by the Seanad when it comes up, there will be no staff actually or technically belonging to this House, except two—the Clerk of the House and the Assistant Clerk.

The Committee on Standing Orders recommended, and also the Committee dealing with the position of officers, the appointment of an Examiner of Private Bills who would also act as Counsel to the Seanad, but on subsequent consideration when the Joint Committee on Private Bills was appointed, they came to the conclusion that we could work with one Private Bill staff, that there should be only one office, and that it should be worked by one official, and by a Joint Standing Committee for dealing with Standing Orders for Private Bills. That Standing Committee produced the Standing Orders, and they have been accepted and passed in both Houses. The Speaker and myself, with, I think, the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, came to the conclusion that we would not require the extensive and expensive establishment in connection with Private Bills we originally contemplated, because these Standing Orders are so detailed and so minute, and I venture to say, though I had some hand in making them, so plain, that we have come to the conclusion that an established Civil Servant would be quite competent to discharge the duty of Examiner of Private Bills. That would considerably reduce the original estimate for the staffing of the Seanad or the Dáil. At this Conference, the Minister for Finance and myself came to the conclusion that we could dispense with the second Assistant Clerk in the Seanad, that is to say that his position should be made such that he would be available for working on the joint staff of the two Houses. Once we get our Private Bills into operation, we shall have Committees sitting, I hope, dealing with these Private Bills. These Committees will require Clerks, and the staff we have suggested should form the staff of both Houses. It includes a certain number of clerks who would be available to act as clerks to Private Bill Committees when they are sitting, in either House, and the proposal is that the third Assistant Clerk in the Seanad should be transferred to that staff and should be available to serve in either House when required in regard to Private Bills Committees. That would then, as I have said, reduce the exclusive staff of this Seanad to two—the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk. All the rest would be, as I have said, members of a joint staff. If the Seanad wishes I can give them the particulars of these officials that would form the joint staff. However, as this report is not yet in its completed form and has yet to come before the Seanad and the Dáil, probably it would be wiser for me not to go into any further details. The only reason I have mentioned what I have stated is, that in view of this report being practically completed and this Committee that you appointed still sitting to deal with it, I think it would be more in the interests of both Houses if the motions which stand in the names of Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Sir J. Keane were adjourned until after the Christmas recess. By that time, I think, this report will have been completed and will be coming before the Seanad and the Dáil for acceptance. If it is accepted it will cover a considerable portion, though not all, of the ground that would be covered by these motions. I do not want these motions to be taken off the Order Paper. I am only suggesting that the discussion upon them would be more useful and help us better if the Seanad had before them in its completed and accepted form the report of this Committee which is working on the same lines.

Might I suggest that when this report is agreed upon Senators should get copies of it as soon as possible, so that we can consider the question before we discuss it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

When the Committee was appointed, consisting of the Ceann Comhairle, the Minister for Finance and myself, it was explicitly stated in this Seanad that we were to be what are called plenipotentiaries, that is, to have full power. I think, notwithstanding that, the report must come formally before both Houses.

It is a very important and very useful report as far as I can gather, and we would like to have time to consider it, so as to have an intelligible debate.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is what I have in my mind.

The Examiner of Private Bills is a very important position and one that will have to be looked into.

Am I right in thinking that the staff of this Seanad was appointed for a probationary period?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is right.

If that period elapses before we meet, what is the position?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it will not elapse before the middle of January.

Will we meet before that? It is of importance that we should arrange for that.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I was going to suggest that the Seanad should meet on the third Wednesday in January. I understand that the Dáil will meet on the 10th January.

The period expires on the 10th January. I think there has been a misunderstanding about some of these things. I have looked up the matter very carefully. The clerks of the Seanad were appointed for a year. I remember that you, sir, took a very strong line on the subject as to whether the Seanad should be in control of their own clerks.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I have never given up that. I have persisted in that to the end.

I am glad of that. I think you were supported in that by every member of the Seanad. I mention that because this joint report that you speak of does interfere with some of the members of the staff of the Seanad as we appointed them. It is really introducing an extern influence, which did not exist when we made the appointments, into appointments which concern us. Before we do that I think this Committee, that I am suggesting, should assemble and consider this matter. I have no doubt that what you say as to the number of clerks would probably be accepted by any Committee of the Seanad or by the Seanad as a whole. But, as the Seanad appointed the present staff, they will have to consider the personnel, because they have only been appointed for a year. They may make any shifting round that they wish on the recommendation of a Committee. I think that to decide as to what should happen to the third clerk is rather ultra vires, because the Joint Committee cannot do that until the Seanad has decided as to which of the clerks it should appoint.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is no trouble about that, because the reference to the Committee I mentioned was to go into the whole question of the staffing of both Houses.

I think you will agree that it was not considered proper that the Dáil should have any control of our staff, and this is really entering into a control of our staff.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think there is some confusion. Our staff would be a very large one in the sense that you are putting it, because we have a staff or messengers, of translators, of official reporters, and the staff in connection with the Board of Works. If you take it in that way, our staff would be an enormous one. All of these officials are in the position to do work for the other House as well. Accordingly, the idea in appointing this Joint Committee was that the Committee should define what the joint staff was to be, and in defining the joint staff, we have expressly eliminated from it the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk of the Seanad. They remain the absolute officials of the Seanad, attached to this Seanad, who have the sole control over them and the sole right to appoint them. All these other officials, like the guard, the messengers, the door-keepers, etc.—what I might call the official staff—are all working or capable of working in a similar capacity for the other House. It was on that account that we were asked to arrange a system by which this joint staff could be cut down to its lowest number and be available at any time for either House, according as the exigencies of the two Houses require it.

I can understand that there is a difference between the staff of the Seanad and the Oireachtas staff. The Oireachtas staff is what you have mentioned—the staff engaged in the work of the whole Oireachtas, Seanad and Dáil. Last year we appointed three clerks for this Seanad, and I do not think that any Joint Committee has a right to interfere with any of these three until the Seanad has disposed of the question as to who should be appointed on that staff. Their appointment ends on the 10th January. We might not meet again before the 10th January, and if this Committee which I have proposed is appointed now, it would have time, before the 10th January, to go into and decide this question. It would, no doubt, have before it whatever recommendations the Joint Committee may make.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is the difficulty. You cannot, as I stated, have this report, as it is not absolutely confirmed. It is in draft. I could not circulate it amongst Senators until it is absolutely agreed upon. There are one or two points still open between the Ceann Comhairle and myself. I have arranged to meet him to-morrow to try and come to a definite conclusion upon these matters. If we do the report will be presented to the Seanad. Personally I do not see an opportunity of presenting it before January 10th.

With all respect, I do not think that interferes with the appointment of the Committee to consider the personnel of our clerks, which must be gone into before January 10th. Otherwise we must appoint them from day to day or week to week, which would not be at all satisfactory. It was agreed last year, very definitely, that these people should be appointed for one year. Before the time expires it is only natural that there should be a Committee to go into the question and make a recommendation to the Seanad as to what should be done.

Perhaps it might lead to the dispatch of business if I made a few remarks on the motion standing in my name, which is:—

"That a Committee of five members of the Seanad be appointed to examine and report what economies compatible with efficiency can be made in the cost of the Seanad."

My object was to effect what you all agree was very desirable in the interests of economy generally, and as a headline to all Departments of State, an investigation into the costs of the Seanad. Senator MacLysaght has an amendment down which is better and more business-like. I quite appreciate that it would be very difficult to make a recommendation regarding the cost of the Seanad without also affecting the Dáil. If the question is gone into jointly it would be a much better procedure I would like to be allowed to withdraw my motion in favour of Senator MacLysaght's.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is the very reason. Senator MacLysaght's amendment is a very proper one, that this Committee should be a joint one to deal with the joint staffing and with economies in the staffing of both Houses. It is in consequence of that that I am suggesting it would be an unwise thing to take any action now until you have seen this report of another Joint Committee that is working on the same thing.

I am quite prepared to leave my motion, as it has now become, over until after the Recess. I put it down because I knew of the report you were to bring in. It does not seem to me that this and Senator Moore's motion are on all fours. The personnel of the two or three clerks is not what Senator Sir John Keane or I had in mind. The personnel of the three clerks is a matter of some urgency. Otherwise they will have to be appointed from day to day.

As regards the clerks, a new Committee was appointed with the consent of the Seanad. The instruction given to that Committee was to investigate the action undertaken by another Committee of the Seanad, viz., the appointment of these clerks and their qualifications.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the Seanad gave the Committee an unqualified mandate to go into the whole question of the staffing of both Houses and to see how far the staffing could be a joint one. I may tell you in corroboration of that, that one of the propositions made was that the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk of both Houses should be members of the joint staff. I thought I was carrying out the views of the Seanad on this Joint Conference when I opposed that, as I think each House, in the case of the Clerk and Assistant Clerk, should insist on retaining control of and the right of appointing its own officials. As regards the other staffs, I saw very good reasons why they should be formed into a joint staff for both Houses. The reference to us included the entire staffing of both Houses.

Does that include the Seanad staff?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes.

You will see that it is the Oireachtas staff that is considered.

The reference was:

"That the Minister for Finance and the Ceann Comhairle be appointed to a Standing Committee to determine the number, grading, remuneration and terms of office of the Oireachtas Staff, and that Seanad Eireann be requested to nominate a member of the Seanad to act on this Committee."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Is not that the staff of both Houses?

The Oireachtas is the assembly of both Houses.

You have already stated that what you referred to was the Oireachtas staff. You specially excluded the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk of the Seanad.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I have tried to make it as clear as I can. We went into the entire staffing of both Houses, and one of the propositions we discussed was what exceptions, if any, should we make from the joint staff for both Houses. It was proposed and seriously discussed that there should be no exception to the joint staffing of both Houses. In view of what happened in the early days of the Seanad I was determined that I would not give way as regards the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk of the Seanad. Accordingly the Committee arranged that the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk should not belong to the joint staff, but should remain separate officers of the Seanad, and be appointed by them. The same applied to the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk of the Dáil. As regards the work of the rest of the staffs they were to work in both Houses as circumstances required.

I presume your report will come before the Seanad in the form of a recommendation, or does it mean that the Oireachtas staff is beyond our purview altogether, but that we may still have the satisfaction of fighting over our own clerks who are to be reduced. I understand, to two. Is that the position, or does the recommendation come before us to approve or disapprove of?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Any report we bring up you can set aside if you wish.

I imagine that the whole position should be clear enough to anyone of average intelligence. I do not see, in view of the fact that the Committee was set up with the powers of plenipotentiaries, that there should be such an unusual desire for additional Committees. I am afraid the real fact is that some Senators have not enough work to do. A certain gentleman always finds work for idle hands to do.

My desire is that as the clerks will cease to act we should make some arrangement for them. I suggest that by the third Wednesday in January their appointments will have lapsed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There will be no fear of that as long as they are paid.

Will it be legal to pay them?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Quite legal.

My proposition is that the Committee before that time shall enquire into their capabilities.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am not suggesting that that is not a proper proposal, but I am asking, is it wise to go on with it until this report is before the Seanad? I am not saying that it should be taken off the Orders of the Day, but that nothing should be done until the report is before the Seanad.

Consideration of motions deferred.

Top
Share