Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1959

Vol. 51 No. 14

Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As Senators will have observed from the explanatory memorandum which was circulated with the text of the Bill, it has been intended for some considerable time past to enact special legislation dealing with the position of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to that intention. My general approach to the issue of legislating for the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas has been to maintain the status quo. With one or two exceptions to which I shall refer, the Bill seeks to give statutory authority to long-standing practice.

Part II of the Bill recognises the special position of the Chairman of the two Houses in relation to appointment of the Clerks and Clerks-Assistant, the Superintendent and the Captain of the Guard. Part III applies the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, to positions on the joint staff; the main purpose of this is to secure that initial recruitment to the joint staff will continue to be effected through the Civil Service Commission. This system has worked well in the past and I am sure the House would not wish to change it.

The Bill lays down a new procedure for appointment of a Clerk-Clerk-Assistant in the event of failure of the Chairman of the House concerned and the Minister for Finance to reach agreement as to the person to be recommended for the appointment. In such event, the Taoiseach is empowered to nominate the person to be appointed but must obtain the concurrence of the House concerned before making the appointment.

Under existing practice, the librarian and assistant librarian are officers of the Houses. I see no real necessity for continuing this practice as these positions can ordinarily be filled by recruitment from members of the joint staff of the Houses or, if necessary, by special recruitment by the Civil Service Commissioners. The Bill, accordingly, does not place the librarian and assistant librarian in the officer category and these positions will thus fall to be dealt with in the same way as other positions in the joint staff.

Finally, I should perhaps mention two additional provisions in the text of the Bill, as passed by Dáil Éireann, which are not dealt with in the explanatory memorandum. I introduced a new section giving the Chairman of Seanad Éireann power to suspend members of the joint staff guilty of grave misconduct while employed on duties directly related to the business of the Seanad. I also introduced a subsection to extend to certain other members of the staff superannuation benefits related to those provided in the Bill for the Superintendent and the Captain of the Guard.

I think it is unnecessary to go into any further detail at the present stage. Any further points of detail can be dealt with in Committee.

This Bill, I think, is one which should find favour with the House, as the Minister indicated. The Minister has said that the general approach to the Bill was to maintain the status quo and I think that has been fairly well done in the Bill. I also think that from the point of view of the Seanad the Bill maintains the status of this House of the Oireachtas. This day week we discussed a motion relating to the status of this House of the Oireachtas and the results of that debate were satisfactory from the point of view of the House. As a member of this House, I am certainly glad to note that in relation to its own staff and general regulations applicable to staff, this Bill does not in any way derogate from the status of the Seanad as one of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Apart from these general remarks, there are only a few matters with which I should like to deal at this stage. They are matters more properly relating to the Committee Stage. I do not know whether it is intended to give the Committee Stage or not today but I feel that I ought to refer to them at this stage so that the Minister may have advance notice of the points I wish to raise.

The first point, which is, indeed, the main point, relates to Section 2 of the Bill. The Minister indicated that the librarian and assistant librarian, if and when this Bill comes into operation, will cease to be officers of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In that connection, I want to refer to the definitions contained in Section 2. It says: "‘member of the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas' includes an officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas." That embraces the Clerk or Clerk-Assistant of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, or the Superintendent of the Houses of the Oireachtas or the Captain of the Guard.

I want to relate these definitions to Section 10 which provides:

Every person who at the date of the passing of this Act holds the position of member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall continue to hold that position and be deemed to have been appointed thereto under this Act.

It seems that once you define members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas as including an officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas and then define who the officers are, you must make some reference in the definition section, if Section 10 is to have effect, to provide for those persons who will cease, on the coming into operation of this Act, to be officers of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

It does not seem that Section 10 meets the situation. At present, the librarian and assistant-librarian are not members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. They are declared by the definition section of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, specifically to be officers of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It seems therefore that a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas would have to be re-defined as including an officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas or a person who, after the passing of this Act, will cease to be an officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas or, alternatively, a former officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas who is serving on the date of the passing of this Act. It may be that I am wrong in my interpretation of the effect of the definition on Section 10. Perhaps the Minister might like to deal with it.

Another matter of minor importance occurs to me in relation to Section 21 in which "the appropriate authority" is defined as the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and he is given power to suspend members of the joint staff. The Chairman of Seanad Éireann may also suspend members of the staff connected with the business relating to Seanad Éireann. The Chairman of Dáil Éireann has power to nominate under the Regulation Act, 1956, a person who may exercise the power of suspension but it does not seem that the Chairman of Seanad Éireann has a like power under the new Bill. It might well be that it would be more appropriate from an administrative point of view that the Chairman of Seanad Éireann should have the power to nominate somebody to exercise the power of suspension if the Chairman of Seanad Éireann and, indeed, the Leas-Chathaoirleach, happened both to be away at the same time. It might be desirable from an administrative point of view that such power should be vested in the Chairman of Seanad Éireann.

There are some other small points that I shall deal with on Committee Stage. I merely mention these points at this stage so that the Minister will have an opportunity of dealing with them in his reply. Apart from that, the Bill is to be welcomed for establishing with certainty the relationship between the staff and Dáil and Seanad Éireann, the bodies they so ably serve.

This welcome Bill gives us an opportunity of expressing what I think we should all like to express, namely, our appreciation of the quality of the work done by the staff of the Oireachtas, especially in the office of the Clerk of the Seanad. Competence and efficiency we are entitled to demand, and we have always had it. Constant courtesy, patience and understanding no one is entitled to demand and no one is entitled to exact, but we receive it in very full measure. So I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of this, and I am sure that in doing so I am expressing the appreciation of the House.

Senators

Hear, hear!

Section 2 deals with definitions. Candidly, I do not understand what members constitute the "joint staff" and what members constitute the "staff". To me, the definitions are most ambiguous. A member of the joint staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas does not include an officer. Then the next article says that a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas includes an officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I should like an indication as to what members constitute the "joint staff" or the "staff", or what is the difference? I found considerable difficulty in interpreting the Bill on account of the occasional reference to "joint staff" and on another occasion to "staff" and then to "officers".

I do not wish to comment any further on the substance of the Bill. I presume it is intended to straighten out snags between the Civil Service and the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would simply draw that difficulty of mine to the attention of the Minister. I found it very difficult because in neither of the definitions is an explanation given as to what members constitute either the "joint staff" or the "staff". How wide a membership does it embrace?

I should like to follow up what has been said in the Dáil by asking that the special consideration rightly given to two officers of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas under Section 28 of this Bill, to enable them to receive reasonable retirement pensions and gratuities, should be extended to all members of the staff where these men at retirement age would, unless the Bill is amended, receive pensions falling far short of the full amount.

Some of those due shortly to retire would, under the Bill as it stands, be forced to retire on very inadequate pensions. Some of these men have given service in the Army and in other branches of the national service for which they can claim no credit for pension purposes; others of them have served on the Oireachtas staff since 1922 but because they were not established for some years, cannot claim full credit for that service. They will find that on reaching 65 they must face the future on a pittance amounting, in some cases, to 25/ a week with perhaps a gratuity of between £50 and £80. Such payments, in to-day's circumstances, are useless: they only increase the number of our citizens eking out an existence under the subsistence level. We are, in fact, making more poverty.

A payment of 25/- weekly cannot be considered as just or reasonable and it is humiliating to contemplate that if we leave this Bill as it is, we are condemning these most respectable men, after years of useful service, to seek public assistance in order to live. It is certain that some addition will have to be provided and, in the long run, the community will have to pay for that addition either through the local authorities or otherwise, but it is clear that we shall have to pay, and it would be much better if the Minister would make the necessary alterations in the Bill now and enable these men to keep their self-respect and their dignity by receiving fair treatment direct from the State they have served, rather than that they should have to apply for public assistance and all that involves.

I would ask the Minister to have another try at giving justice to these men by giving them credit for all their service, whether established or not, or by adding years beyond the six mentioned, to enable the men to receive full pensions.

As I have said already, the country will have to pay by one means or another and I would ask the Minister to be generous to its old retainers on the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The cost to the Exchequer cannot be so very much as only a limited number of the older men are concerned and it is not an expense that will increase as the years go by. The Minister should consider more the dignity of Parliament and the staff which serves it rather than the small cost which, whether we give it gracefully or not, will eventually have to be met from public funds.

With regard to the first point raised by Senator O'Quigley, I must say that I am not a lawyer and I shall have to consult the parliamentary draftsman. So far as I can see, it appears to be all right, but I shall make sure of that.

The second point he raised deals with the fact that the Ceann Comhairle has power to appoint a person to carry on in the control of the staff in his absence, and that the Cathaoirleach has not got the same power. That is true. The principle underlying the control of staff here is that the Ceann Comhairle has control of the staff, generally speaking. He is quite free to delegate some power, say, to the Clerk of the Seanad. There would be nothing wrong in that. As the Bill stands, I think it is all right in that regard.

We had to be very careful. That was one of the points that gave us a great deal of trouble in drafting this Bill. In the long run, you cannot have satisfaction, dealing with staff, unless one person is responsible. At the same time, we had to have regard to the fact that there are two Houses involved and that the Chairman of each House has his own responsibilities and that the Chairman of each House should have full responsibility, at any rate, so far as his staff is concerned in the sittings of that House. I think we have covered those points as well as we could in all the circumstances.

I do not think the point raised by Senator Ó Donnabháin should cause very much trouble. It is not very difficult to see what the definition means. These are six officers, and they are named. The Clerk and Clerk Assistant of the Dáil and the Seanad, the Superintendent and the Captain of the Guard are the officers. All the rest of the people employed here are the "joint staff". If you take the joint staff and the officers, these are called the "staff". It may be a little confusing but that is how the definition goes.

The point raised by Senator Miss Davidson gave rise to a great deal of discussion in the other House. I should perhaps say a few words about its history to show the Seanad how the present position evolved. There are two posts in Leinster House which have had to be filled from the beginning, the posts of Superintendent and Captain of the Guard. There is no doubt that a certain type of person is required to fill these posts. First of all, they must have some sense of discipline and must be able to command respect from the staff under them. They must be people of great discretion and tact. So far, we have been filling these posts with men from the Army or the Garda and in all cases I think they were men who took part in the fight for independence. I think Senators will agree that it is not likely that those who took part in the fight for independence will fill these posts again. Age will prevent them from doing so. It is most likely that in future we shall have, as they have in most other countries, men who have retired from the army or the police, who have all these other qualities I have mentioned.

In future, therefore, they will be provided for fairly well financially from the Forces in which they served and whatever is allowed to them in the posts here. In the past, the fact that these men could hold these positions only for a comparatively short period meant that they got small pensions. In bringing in this Bill, I felt the occupants of these posts should be dealt with specially by giving them about two-thirds of the full pension and that increased their terms of occupancy of these posts by about six years. That was not an extravagant proposal, but members of the other House felt that other people should be treated at least as well and made that case, but as I have pointed out on more than one occasion, I approached the matter in a different way.

I approached it by saying that we had men here who were in a different position from that of most people working in this establishment. They had been in the fight for independence and had lost a good many years and therefore, their pensions, on retiring, would be small. That was countered by saying that it could be argued that we should take in anybody who had military service in the war for independence. I think the answer to that is that these two posts are posts which will always be filled by men who have some sort of military or police training. There is no reason why a clerical officer or a reporter should have army or police training and, therefore, there is a difference in that respect.

When we came down and got closer to the position, I agreed and said: "All right; I agree to bring everybody up to 26 years' service, the same as those two men." It was argued against me that we should do more than that, and that was the position when this Bill went through the Dáil. We brought every member of the staff to the level of 26 years, whether he had that service or not—that is those serving at the moment. It will mean that nobody now serving will get a smaller pension than two-thirds of what he would have got if he served his full time.

I cannot possibly agree with Senator Miss Davidson that we should provide a full pension for everybody. After all, we are taking, as it were, these officers away from the Civil Service so far as they have been in practice, though maybe not actually members of the Civil Service and I do not think we should give them very big concessions which could not be claimed by the Civil Service generally. Anyway, I do not think it would be fair or reasonable to expect that people who have served only for a number of years should get the full pension as compared with those who served the full 40 years. I feel we have done as much as could reasonably be expected in giving the concession, which we introduced in the Dáil, bringing those who would have less than two-thirds of the pension up to that level.

Question put and agreed to.

I do not know if there is any objection to taking the remaining Stages now.

I understood the Minister to indicate in relation to a point I raised that he intended getting the advice of the parliamentary draftsman.

Perhaps the Minister would have time to look at it between now and 7 o'clock?

Yes.

Agreed to take Committee and Final Stages at 7 p.m.

Top
Share