Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1959

Vol. 51 No. 14

Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

This is the section which deals with the appointment of the Clerk and Clerk-Assistant of Dáil Éireann. I am glad to note the section recognises that appointments to the post of Clerk or Clerk-Assistant of Dáil Éireann are normally from the staff of the Oireachtas. I think it is probably a necessary step as they would normally be expected to be the persons best qualified for appointment.

In regard to paragraph (b) of subsection (2), in view of the fact that ordinarily one would expect that the Clerk or Clerk-Assistant would be drawn from the staff of the Oireachtas. I wonder what conditions the Minister has in mind where a person would not be suitable for appointment to either of these posts? It seems to me to be difficult to envisage the circumstances in which a member of the Oireachtas staff would not be suitable for appointment to the post of Clerk or Clerk-Assistant.

Dr. Ryan

I think I agree with the Senator that it might be difficult to imagine a position where you would not have a suitable person. Nevertheless, we thought it necessary to put it in. As a matter of fact, as the section went to the Dáil, it read:—

Each of the following officers, namely, the Clerk of Dáil Éireann and the Clerk-Assistant of Dáil Éireann shall be appointed by the Taoiseach on the recommendation of the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and the Minister.

That was the law up to this. You could appoint anybody; you were not confined to the Civil Service or anywhere else. It was the staff who asked me to put in this amendment—I do not think it strengthens their position very much, to tell the truth— and I said: "All right." In other words, if any member of the staff is fit for the position, we shall appoint him but if not, we shall go outside. That is all the section lays down and I think it is only as it should be. Senators will realise that if there is a person fitted for the position on the staff, he should get the appointment.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am all for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Government amendment:—

Before Section 10 to insert the following new section:—

Every person who immediately before the passing of this Act was either a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas (within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 1 of the Regulation Act, as originally enacted) or an officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas (within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 1 of the Regulation Act, as originally enacted) shall on the passing of this Act become and be a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and shall be deemed to have been appointed under this Act to a position corresponding to that held by him immediately before such passing.

Dr. Ryan

As a result of Senator O'Quigley's remarks on the Second Stage, which raised a certain doubt, I asked the Parliamentary Draftsman to look at the matter. He agreed there was a certain doubt. He said he could not imagine anything that might arise, even as the Bill was drafted, but, to be on the safe side, it was better to put in this amendment. He said that nothing could arise that was feared by Senator O'Quigley when he was speaking on this matter.

Senators will remember that the question arose because in the old definition the Librarian and the Assistant Librarian were officers. In the new definition, they are not officers. Senator O'Quigley was afraid they might fall between the two stools, as it were. This amendment is to ensure they will not.

Mr. O'Quigley

I agree with the Minister that there was some doubt. I had some doubt myself as to whether or not the position of Librarian and Assistant-Librarian, who would no longer be officers of the Houses of the Oireachtas, were covered beyond all doubt. I am grateful the Minister has introduced this amendment which makes their position clear. I appreciate that the Minister has taken the trouble to take consultation, and I am glad he has put forward this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10 deleted.

Sections 11 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

I referred on the Second Stage to the desirability, from the administrative point of view, of empowering the Chairman of Seanad Eireann to delegate his authority to suspend a member of the staff to a nominee of his. In reply, the Minister said it was a matter which had caused some difficulty. I understood him to say that the position had been got over in this way that there was nothing to prevent the Chairman of Dáil Éireann from nominating, for instance, the Clerk of Seanad Éireann to exercise the delegated power of suspension. I think that probably will be satisfactory enough. Do I, however, understand the Minister to indicate that it is the intention that the Chairman of Seanad Éireann will delegate the power of suspension to an officer of this House?

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid I cannot answer that. The Bill gives certain powers to the Ceann Comhairle and certain powers to the Chairman of the Seanad. Naturally, I could not say to him: "I shall give you these powers but I want to make sure you will do so and so." There must be complete discretion in their powers. I said that if it were felt that the Clerk of Seanad Éireann should have certain powers, there was nothing to prevent the Ceann Comhairle from giving these powers to him. I am quite sure the Ceann Comhairle will be reasonable. If he agrees it is necessary that this should be done, I am sure it will be done. The Seanad should understand that in a Bill of this kind when you are giving a man power, he uses his discretion. You cannot very well interfere with him in that way.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am concerned with administrative convenience. I can envisage certain types of circumstances in which it would be proper that the suspending authority should perhaps be the Clerk of the Seanad who would be immediately concerned with the staff dealing with matters relating to the business of Seanad Éireann. I appreciate the difficulty the Minister has indicated.

I suppose nobody would be more reasonable in such matters than the Ceann Comhairle who has to determine whose duty it is and what is reasonable between all parties. I think we can rest content with the Minister's assurance that the Ceann Comhairle will at least consider the advisability of delegating the power of suspension either to the Clerk or Assistant Clerk of Seanad Éireann.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, I am sure of that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

This section deals with a case where a member of the staff has been suspended for grave misconduct warranting disciplinary action. Power is given in the section to the Chairman of Seanad Éireann to direct or sanction that remuneration which has been stopped from the suspended officer during the period of suspension may be paid in whole or in part to the suspended officer. I think the point I have in mind arises on other sections of the Bill as well.

When the Civil Service Regulation Act was going through this House in 1956, certain undertakings were given by the then Minister for Finance to the effect that where the power of suspension or dismissal was exercised, the officer affected would be entitled to get his staff association to make representations in writing on his behalf to the appropriate authority. My concern is that since we are segregating the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas from the Civil Service and the Government, the undertakings then given by the Minister for Finance in relation to the Civil Service and the Government will apply equally in relation to civil servants of the State who were members of the staff of the Oireachtas. My concern is in relation to the rights of the civil servant's appropriate staff association to make representations on his behalf where he has been called to account for misconduct or where his dismissal is threatened. I should be glad of an assurance in that regard. I take it that that is so. I take it that the civil servant's staff association would still have the right to make these representations in writing on his behalf to the appropriate authority?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. The undertaking was given, I understand, with regard to dismissal and it has been adhered to. Senators will understand that it could not possibly be given in regard to a suspension. A suspension sometimes has to be carried out very suddenly. If the Chairman finds a member of the staff here guilty of gross misconduct, disobedience, and so on, he has to suspend him on the spot. He cannot wait for the staff association to make any intervention on his behalf but, before he is dismissed, certainly the staff association would be heard. There is no doubt about that. Dismissal takes a long time, as Senators are probably aware, and before that decision is taken, the staff association would be heard on the matter.

Mr. O'Quigley

I may have been misleading in what I have been saying but what I am concerned with is that the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas should have the same rights as those given by the Minister for Finance in the Civil Service Regulation Act.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 22 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.