Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Jun 1932

Vol. 42 No. 7

In Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Oireachtas Reporting Staff Vacancies.

A question was raised to-day by Deputy Anthony.

To-day I asked the Minister for Finance if he would state the number of vacancies that have arisen in the Official Reporting Staff of the Oireachtas during the last twelve months; whether it is proposed to fill those vacancies; if so, when, and who is to determine scales of pay and conditions of service of the new entrants.

I received a reply to the following effect: "Three vacancies on the Official Reporting Staff have arisen during the last twelve months. Applications for the filling of one of these places were invited some months ago but the competition did not result in any of the candidates then available being appointed. It is proposed to fill the three vacancies on such scale of pay and conditions of service as are agreed upon between the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance. Official authority has already been given for approaching the Civil Service Commissioners with a request that they should proceed to fill the vacancies accordingly."

Now, sir, I would not raise this question on the Adjournment were it not for the fact that the reply of the Minister for Finance is both inaccurate and misleading. In addition to that, it is rank discourtesy to suggest, as he did this morning, that he would not be present when this question would be raised on the Adjournment. In view of recent events in this House, I consider it to be part of the fixed policy of this Ministry to treat with contempt——

The Deputy is not entitled to discuss the discourtesy of the Minister on the question which he has brought forward.

I am quite satisfied, and bow to your ruling, sir. I am always an obedient member. I should like to remind the Minister that the salaries of members of the Editorial and Reporting staff were fixed by a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas as the result of an agreement with representatives of the Staff. That agreement is embodied in a White Paper laid on the Table of this House and available to any member who wishes to consult its terms. The scales of salaries were fixed for Reporters at £275 to £375, plus bonus.

On a number of occasions the reporting staff of the Oireachtas made representations to the effect that the pressure of work was endangering the health of their members. But, in fact, no steps were taken to relieve that pressure. I had personal experience, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, when one of the reporters almost died in the room, and did actually die a few minutes after being taken ill in the Committee Room. All that was due, in my opinion, to excessive work over a long period of hours during the time the Oireachtas was in session. I should like that the Minister for Finance, if he has not already done so, would contrast the rates of pay, salaries or emoluments—call them what you like —of the Oireachtas reporting staff with those paid to staffs in other countries.

Let me make a comparison with the British House of Commons. What do we find there? The official reporting staff of the British House of Commons numbers 12. There is a special staff for the House of Lords. The staff here numbers 12 for both Houses, and here I have to enter upon what I may term a highly technical matter. It is the opinion of experts that the number of words spoken per minute in this Dáil ranges from 20 to 30 more than the number of words spoken in the British House of Commons or elsewhere. That is a matter which, perhaps, may not make a very strong appeal to those unconnected with note-taking, but it must make an appeal to anybody with any kind of human sympathy with the men who have undertaken this work since the institution of this House. I have never known, after thirty years' contact with the business in all its branches, of more marvellously accurate reporting than that done by the Dáil reporters in the most extraordinary circumstances. I think no Deputy in this House has had any complaint to make of the accuracy of the reports by the men reporting in this House.

In the British House of Commons, the editor of debates gets an initial salary of £550, rising by certain sums, at stated intervals, to £600. In this House, the corresponding official, namely, the editor of debates, begins at a salary of £400, rising to £500 by annual increments. The assistant editor in Britain gets from £400 to £450, beginning at £400, rising to £450, as against the assistant editor here, who begins at £300, rising by annual increments to £400. In Britain the reporters begin at £330, rising by annual increments to £400, whereas here they begin at £275, rising to their maximum of £375 by certain figures at stated periods. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Oireachtas errs on the side of liberality in payment for those very worthy services rendered to the House.

I concede that perhaps this question should not be asked of the Minister for Finance. It is a question that might more properly be asked of the Ceann Comhairle, because I understand that the Speaker is in control, as head of the staff of the Oireachtas, of the reporting staff, ushers, or any other branch of the Service in this House. Another point I should like to emphasise is this. Four members, not three, as the Minister for Finance suggested in answer to my question— that was another of the inaccuracies —of the Oireachtas reporting staff have died within the last twelve months. Strictly speaking, the period might be a week or so over twelve months, but let us take 370 days, and within that period four deaths took place, not three, as suggested by the Minister. These men were certified as medically fit seven years ago by the chief Civil Service medical officer. Is it not an extraordinary thing that 33? per cent, of the Oireachtas reporting staff, as I suggest, died as a result of overwork during the last 12 months? I do not want to stress that too much, but it is a point to which the Minister, at least, should have some regard.

I come now to what is really the most important portion of the matter. Since the demise of these men no steps were taken to fill the vacancies for a period, I think, of some nine months. Then it was proposed by the Department of Finance to reduce the scale of salary for men by £25 per annum at either end. The reporting staff, having seen the notice, pointed out that this was a breach of an agreement honourably entered into, and that it was an assumption on the part of the Department of Finance of certain rights that they were not entitled to, according to the White Paper, and the agreement reached, to which the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach and the Minister for Finance were parties—that they should decide these matters. Eventually, this proposal from Finance was withdrawn, and an advertisement was issued, asking for reporters at the old rate. On that occasion, only half a dozen applications were made. A few nights ago, we heard from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we are supposed to have in this country a corps of journalistic geniuses, and yet, to satisfy the requirements of this House, only one man out of that lot was considered to be up to the standard required for the position. That was not such a great number of applicants for these jobs. It cannot be, therefore, that they are a great attraction for men who have any kind of decent training in this country. And the remaining vacancies have not yet been filled.

But steps are in contemplation, I understand, to fill these vacancies by some other method, a method that has not been adopted hitherto in selecting men for the Reporting Staff. I want to suggest to the Minister that if he had consulted with the Cathaoirleach and the Ceann Comhairle, and they, in turn, had consulted with the Reporting Staff of the Oireachtas, much trouble would be obviated. That is a system I have advocated on more than one occasion in this House and outside it. I have found that the best method of approach, wherever you have a dispute between two parties, is that representatives of these two parties should sit down at a round table and discuss these grievances. It is the safest method, and it acts, if you like, as a safety valve, as I suggested here in discussing the Civil Service proposals, some couple of years ago.

Now, in private employment, if an agreement is entered into between the two parties—on the one side a group of employers, and, on the other, a group of employees—it is usual—I do not say it occurs 100 per cent.—before that agreement is broken, or before any changes take place in that agreement, for the parties to come together and discuss matters, but, in this case, an attempt is made to recruit men at reduced rates of pay, and, possibly, to bring women on to the Reporting Staff of this Oireachtas at reduced rates. I admit that there is no attempt to reduce the salaries of the present Reporting Staff, but I want to put it to the one representative of the Labour Party I see sitting on the Labour Benches: would the Labour Party stand by if in the case of an industrial dispute, or even in the absence of a dispute, an attempt were made to introduce into any given industry in this country, in which a trade union operates, an arrangement by which new entrants to the business, trade or occupation would be brought in at a lesser rate than that paid to those who are carrying on the business?

They would, of course.

Certainly not.

It is up to the Labour Party to make representations to the Minister——

Hear, hear.

That they believe that an agreement, honourably arrived at, should be maintained until at least there could be approach by way of discussion. I want to give the Minister time to reply, but I want to point out to the Minister, and to those concerned, that a very big principle is involved in this matter. As I have pointed out, there is no attempt made to ask the present Staff to accept reductions, but there is an insidious attempt—and I want to warn the Labour Party about this—to bring in underpaid labour, and I want to suggest, too, that I do believe it will fail, because you cannot get women reporters to do the job now done by male reporters who have broken down under the strain. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter, not that I want to suggest that any disturbance will take place on the staff, but I do suggest that a disgruntled or dissatisfied staff is not a good thing for this House, nor is a disgruntled staff good for any House. We have here a most capable body of men, some of whom have given up lucrative positions to come in here, and all I can say to some of the persons who aspire to come in here, is what I said before, when people approached me on the matter and asked me what I thought about the job—"for God's sake, keep out of it"—and they took my advice. I want to be fair to the Minister, and to give him plenty of time to reply, but I want again to put it to the Labour Party, if they are not altogether pledged as the tail-end of the Fianna Fáil Party in this matter, that this is a matter to which they must give their very earnest consideration and which will not be allowed to rest here if I have any say in the matter.

While I have no enthusiasm for this particular method of raising this matter, I want to point out that the Minister said to-day that there were at present three vacancies, which, I think, is correct, but he said that one post had been advertised and that nobody had been appointed. My recollection is that, on the 15th December last, two Parliamentary Reporters on the Oireachtas staff were advertised for, and I think that as a result of that one person was appointed. I have had an opportunity since of reading the Minister's answer in which he said: "It is proposed to fill the three vacancies on such scale of pay and conditions of service as are agreed upon between the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance." If an agreement has been reached between the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance on the matter, I do not know what good purpose will be served by debating it, but perhaps the Minister would say for the information of the House what the conditions of service and scales of pay are.

I regret, a Chinn Comhairle, to have to say that the speech we have just listened to from Deputy Anthony fully confirms me in my original opinion that this was not a matter which should have been raised in this way in the House. I should like also to make clear that, whatever our proposals are in regard to the filling of existing and future vacancies on the reporting staff, they do not in any way affect the existing staff. Their scales of pay and conditions of service will remain as heretofore, except in so far as they may have to be affected by the special sacrifice which the Government are asking civil servants as a whole to make, in view of the existing Budgetary position. I should also like to make it clear that the alteration in the scales of pay does not arise out of any feeling of dissatisfaction with the way in which the reporting staff has served the Oireachtas. I am sure that no matter how high the tribute that might be paid to that staff from any side of this House, it would not be too high for me to concur in it. I know that in great stress and in great difficulty, the existing staff has served the Oireachtas excellently well.

Hear, hear.

I am not disguising the fact either that when the Oireachtas is in session their work is heavy. But, taking all these facts into consideration, we have to relate this, and every other matter of public expenditure in the House, to existing conditions in the country, and we cannot fix our salary scales here by relation to the conditions of service which exist in the much wealthier community across the water. Neither can we say, in 1932, that the standards which were set up, in times of especial difficulty and of comparative prosperity, for those engaged in the public service should apply now, having regard to the condition of the general mass of the people who have to meet the bill, and we cannot say that a Government nine years later, in times of especial difficulty, are not entitled to revise the schedule laid down in 1923, because, apart from the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves, that schedule has already been revised in many important respects by our predecessors.

For instance, the number of senior clerks has been reduced, the scale of the Clerk of the Seanad has been reduced, and also that of the Clerk Assistant in the Seanad. The salary of the assistant librarian has been reduced, the salaries of senior translators have been reduced and their scale re-fixed, the scale for junior translators has been reduced at the minimum and increased at the maximum, so that there had been, even before the change of Government, many alterations already in that schedule. The alterations were made as vacancies occurred, showing that the original schedule was a provisional schedule only, and was drawn up with special advertence to the circumstances which existed here in 1923, when, as I said, the public service was carried on under especially difficult conditions.

What is the history of this matter? Deputy Anthony said that my reply to-day was both inaccurate and misleading. It can only be described as inaccurate upon the basis that when Deputy Anthony says twelve months he means thirteen months. The question which the Deputy asked was:

To ask the Minister for Finance if he will state the number of vacancies that have arisen in the official reporting staff of the Oireachtas during the last twelve months.

If Deputy Anthony wanted to know the number of vacancies that had arisen in any longer period he ought to have asked that question. I can only assume when a Deputy puts down a question, has a number of days to prepare the question, makes a number of shots at it, that, at least, he knows what he wants and what he is asking.

Ministers do not always know.

The Deputy got the answer that the number of vacancies which had arisen in the last twelve months was three, so that the reply was not inaccurate or misleading. The Deputy said that no effective steps had been taken to relieve the pressure. I do know that one of these vacancies arose in May, 1931. I know that the second arose in June, 1931, and that the examination under the Civil Service Commission to fill these two vacancies was not held, and was not arranged for until February, 1932, but this Government was not in office during that period, and Deputy Anthony did not think it worth his while to raise that question during the whole of the ten months. What is the position in relation to the present vacancies?

I can answer that very quickly.

On 4th March, a request was put up, pointing out first that the vacancies existed, and asking for authority to employ temporary assistance. The necessary authority was given on March 9th, the day upon which the new Government came into office, and nothing more was heard of the matter in my Department until May 10th, when a further letter was received stating that in the circumstances it had not been found possible to secure temporary assistance upon the lines laid down in the Department's letter of March 9th, and suggesting:

The Editor of Debates points out that the only way he can obtain further assistance is to take on Pressmen to do notes for half an hour, on certain terms. Several competent reporters will be available for this class of engagement.

On 14th, the proposal put up on May 10th was accepted and authority was given to secure the additional staff in accordance with the suggestion that had been made to us. Step by step with that, arrangements were made to have the vacancies filled in the only regular way in which they can now be filled, through the Civil Service Commission; not by any backdoor method, as Deputy Anthony seemed to suggest when he said that the vacancies were now going to be filled in a manner which hitherto had not been adopted. As a matter of fact, the one vacancy that was filled in February last was filled through the Civil Service Commission. The three vacancies which now exist are going to be filled through the Civil Service Commission, the only regular way in which they can be filled, and the only way in which jobbery will be avoided.

Does the Minister propose to introduce girls at £4 per week?

That is not the point.

That is the point.

The point is: Is Deputy Anthony saying that women should be disqualified for the positions?

That is the point and nothing else. Is the Deputy saying that women should not be chosen? Is he going to exclude women from the Civil Service and from the Dáil?

Will they be paid the same rates as the men?

The position all through the Civil Service is that differential terms apply to the sexes. Nothing was mentioned about that in the question on the Paper.

That is an innovation.

It is not an innovation. We are perfectly satisfied with the terms we are offering——

You want cheap labour.

And we have no doubt whatever that we will receive——

The Deputy must learn to restrain himself.

It is not a case of getting cheap labour but of offering terms which this country can afford to pay, and we have no doubt whatever that we will receive a sufficient number of suitable applications to enable the vacancies to be filled.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, June 10th.

Barr
Roinn