Vol. 165 No. 10
I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Each amendment must also be seconded.
There is a correction to amendment No. 1. The word "OFFICER" should read "OFFICERS". Amendment No. 2 is related. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 5 and 6, to delete "APPOINTMENT OF APPEALS OFFICER" and substitute "THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE TO BE KNOWN AS THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE APPEALS".
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Davern, to the House. I would not have been surprised if he had deferred consideration of this Bill. On a day when there are many other crises it seems almost out of place to divert our attention to the minutiae of this legislation.
I telephoned a short while ago to see if a Government amendment had been tabled. I am happy with it as it overcomes the problems I was having with my amendment. Last week on Committee Stage the Minister promised he would look at this matter again. The Government amendment seems to cover the points I was trying to make. When I tabled my amendment, I wanted to ensure that we strengthened the appeals process. While it does not go as far as I would like, the important element is to ensure that the appeals process is as strong and independent as possible.
I was worried about the wording in the original amendment, particularly the reference to the appointment at the pleasure of the Minister. My mind was put at rest when it was pointed out to me that it was taken word for word from the social welfare appeals system. There was no reference to the Civil Service Commission in the social welfare appeals board. The Civil Service Commission was the appointment authority for the social welfare appeals board. The inclusion in the Government amendment of the phrase, "Civil Service means the Civil Service of the Government and the Civil Service of the State", addresses my concerns. I will withdraw both my amendments on the basis of the changes I have seen today. I thank the Minister for responding to the deep concerns expressed in the House last week.
I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2, 2a, 3 and 4 together. The Senator will still have the right of reply at the end of the debate.
Are we discussing amendments Nos. 3 and 4 as well?
Yes.
I concur with Senator Quinn's remarks. We appreciate that the Minister of State is here today given the onerous duties he has elsewhere. I welcome the Government amendment which meets many of the concerns raised last week. The Minister said on Committee Stage that he would table an amendment to meet our concerns. I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 3 as the Government amendment addresses the point raised in it.
As regards "the pleasure of the Minister", I accept that this phrase appears in the social welfare appeals legislation. However, it is an archaic and unacceptable phrase to be included in legislation and we should take this opportunity to remove it.
I second the amendment.
I understand the amendments are being withdrawn.
I will withdraw amendment No. 3 but I will not withdraw amendment No. 4.
I thank Senators Quinn and Hayes for agreeing to withdraw their amendments. It is unusual, particularly today, that we should be talking about "the pleasure of the Minister" since this week has not been a particularly pleasurable one for the Minister in any regard.
I am opposed to amendment No. 4 in the names of Senators O'Meara, Costello and Ryan. While I do not wish to be obstructive, Government amendment No. 2f2>a fully meets the objective of amendment No. 4. I am hopeful, therefore, that Senators will accept my amendment which has been drafted to give effect to the commitment I made last week. The reference to "person's" in the amendment proposed by the other side is obviously unsatisfactory. The phrase "during the pleasure of the Minister" is superseded entirely by the wording in section 2 which I am proposing. The amendment, therefore, provides that the staff will be appointed from the entire pool of civil servants across all Departments and offices. The net effect of this amendment is that recruitment for the position of appeals officer to the agriculture appeals office will be more open than any other comparable body in the Civil Service.
Senator Quinn was initially anxious to see the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs being used as a template. I am informed that the entire staff of that office, which comes under the aegis of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, is drawn from the staff of the Minister's office. I mention this to show that the social welfare appeals office is not the only one whose staff is entirely appointed in-house. As Senators on both sides of the House will know, the work of both those offices has quite correctly been applauded, notwithstanding their in-house recruitment. I hope, therefore, Senators will accept that we have gone a long way to meet their insistence on recruitment from across the wide range of the Civil Service. There is no other comparable body in the Civil Service whose recruitment is not specific to its sponsoring Department, as the agriculture appeals office will now be.
Following the undertaking I made in this connection last week, and for obvious reasons, I arranged that consultations should take place between the trade unions and staff associations within my Department. Very strong objections were expressed by the unions across the board. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that they will approach the arrangement now proposed in a spirit of co-operation. The misgivings of the unions and staff associations derive from the fact that, unlike the corresponding appointments in social welfare and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, appointments as appeals officers in the agriculture appeals office will not be reserved to in-house candidates. While I understand the staff's viewpoint on this issue, nonetheless I remain hopeful that the text I am now proposing will meet their concerns. The concerns of those people, in general, might also be taken into account.
My amendments seek such independence for this appeals board that it could have been drawn from anywhere outside the Civil Service. The Minister actually answered that point for me last week, although I had not recognised the dangers of political appointments that could include party members. I realise that I was not taking into account the concerns of the unions and I now understand that it is wise to limit it to civil servants. I appreciate that such appointments will now come from the wider Civil Service and will not be limited to that Department alone. The Minister has listened to us but he has not granted the total independence I thought we would have, such as with the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs. The Minister has explained, however, that even in that case appointments came from within the same Department. I am happy with the matter. The term "during the pleasure of the Minister" is certainly an archaic one and should be deleted. Senator O'Meara's concern about social welfare appeals should also be taken into account, although it is not a matter for today.
Since amendment No. 2f2>a has been accepted, amendments Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be moved.
The purpose of this procedural amendment is simply to make clear that the right to request the holding of an oral hearing rests with the appellant and not with any third party. It is not likely that a difficulty will arise here in any case, but it is conceivable that a witness, or even an officer of the Department, may wish to call an oral hearing for reasons which have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the appellant's claim.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 44, after "oath" to insert "or affirmation".
This amendment was moved on Committee Stage and met with a positive response around the House in that it would provide for the option of an affirmation as well as an oath. I have moved the amendment again because, while small, it is an important one. In principle, it should be taken up by draftspersons and legislators generally when dealing with this kind of legislation.
I second the amendment.
Since Committee Stage, I have had discussions with the Office of the Attorney General and I am advised that the insertion of the word "affirmation" does not present a difficulty. I am pleased to advise the House that I can accept both amendments.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 44, after "oaths" to insert "or affirmations".
I second the amendment.
The text currently reads "such matters as he may specify". It should read "such matters as he or she may specify". I am sure Senators, including Senator O'Meara, will have no objection to that.
None at all.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.
The Seanad adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 March 2001.
