Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 13 to 17, inclusive, and 25 to 27, inclusive, form a composite proposal and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill 2002: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), to delete lines 22 and 23.
On Committee Stage in the Dáil, all Opposition parties urged that the member of the commission selected to act as chairperson in the event of the commission chairman being absent or indisposed should be described as "deputy chairperson" rather than as "acting chairperson". The term "acting" was used in the Bill because a substitute was unlikely to be required frequently and because the acting chairperson's functions were confined to presiding over meetings or calling them when the chairperson was unavailable or unable to do so.
On Report Stage in the Dáil, I reiterated the view that "acting" was a more accurate and honest description but, in deference to the strength of the Opposition's feelings on the matter, I accepted an amendment which replaced "acting chairperson" with "deputy chairperson" in section 7. These technical amendments are consequential on the acceptance of that amendment and change the title "acting chairperson" to "deputy chairperson". This occurs in a number of sections.
I do not have a problem with the amendment. However, I have put down amendments proposing that the deputy chairperson be the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. These amendments were not suggested to me by any person, lest anybody be under a misapprehension that they were. They are my own idea. Indeed, during the debate on Second Stage, I gave notice that I would put down amendments to give effect to the suggestions I made during that debate.
It is obvious that if this House is to be treated with the status and respect to which it is entitled as a Chamber that is independent of Dáil Éireann and which initiates and enacts legislation, the Bill should provide that the position now called "deputy chairperson" should be held by the Cathaoirleach of this House. I may be wrong but at one stage the impression was given that the Cathaoirleach would not even be an automatic member of the commission. If that is true there must have been a change of heart because the Cathaoirleach is now, in his own right, a member of the commission.
The Ceann Comhairle is the chairperson of the commission, and rightly so. It is patently obvious, from the point of view of respect for this Chamber, its tradition and the work it does, that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad should automatically be the deputy chairperson of the commission. In other words, in the event of the chairperson not being in attendance at a meeting of the new commission, automatically the Cathaoirleach would take over the function and role of chairperson.
One of the reasons for putting this forward, apart from recognising the role and status of this House, is that if and when the Dáil is dissolved the Ceann Comhairle ceases to be chairman of the commission and therefore somebody else has to take over that role. This Chamber continues in existence until such time as the new Seanad is elected. From the point of view of streamlining, as well as recognising the status of this House and the role of the Cathaoirleach, it seems to be a logical and sensible step to have the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Eireann automatically written into this legislation as the deputy chairperson.
I made the point on Second Stage that the deputy chairman should be the Cathaoirleach, for reasons that were stated. At that stage the Bill referred to the ‘acting chairman' but it is proposed to change that. It is implicit in section 9(1) of the Bill which states:
If Dáil Eireann is dissolved, the chairperson, or, if the chairperson is unable to perform his or her function, the acting chairperson of the Commission, continues to hold office until the chairman of Dáil Eireann is elected following such dissolution.
From hereon the reference to "acting chairperson" will be changed to "deputy chairperson" of the commission. The only sensible method of reading that section is on the assumption that the deputy chairperson is a Senator and the Cathaoirleach is certainly primus inter pares when it comes to the Senators. It seems to be implicit, although not explicit, in the Bill that the deputy chairperson would be normally and by convention the Cathaoirleach and that is proper order. I would prefer to see this explicitly stated rather than implicitly understood.
I am not certain whether technically speaking this is part of the Bill but the margin note of section 9(1) refers to "Dissolution of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann". The Minister of State may correct me if I am wrong but this seems to be an error. The Constitution speaks only of the dissolution of Dáil Éireann. I looked for the term Seanad Éireann but there is no constitutional phrase. It expires, or its term of office expires, the day before polling day but nobody dissolves Seanad Éireann. On Report Stage, before it is concluded and goes for signature, it should be rephrased in some way.
I support the principle and progress has been made in that we now have a deputy chairperson rather than an acting chairperson. In section 9(1) it seems implicit that that person is the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. I am not sure why it would not be sensible just to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". Perhaps if the Minister of State is not able to accept that immediately, he might consider it for the purposes of Report Stage.
Senator Mansergh may have misread, or maybe I am misreading what he understood, because section 9(2)(b) refers to a dissolution of the Dáil and does not anywhere refer to the dissolution of the Seanad.
It is in the margin, "Dissolution of Dáil Eireann and Seanad Éireann".
On the side, yes. It is very clear in the text that the Seanad will be sitting after the Dáil is dissolved.
I accept that, but I was pointing out an error in the margin.
I accept that. On Second Stage here I indicated that various possibilities could exist and the Government was not attempting to impose any individual on the commission as deputy chairperson. Given that the Ceann Comhairle, like the Cathaoirleach, has to be above party politics, it seems reasonable for him or her to make the choice and for that choice to be made on one criterion, his view of who would best stand in for him in the interests of the commission. It is not my place to drop heavy hints to the chairperson as to who that person should be, particularly when we do not know who will be the ordinary members of the commission. As I said in the Dáil, I do not see the commission as the kind of body that should divide on party grounds. I do not see it splitting on the grounds of whether someone is from the Seanad or from the Dáil. It would be sad if the message went out that we expected there would be factions within the commission either among parties or between the Seanad or the Dáil.
The priority is that the business of the commission should be conducted in a businesslike fashion. If the Cathaoirleach is unavailable his choice of deputy chairperson should be sufficient and I would expect, in a small group of ten people, that it would be a consensus decision. I am keen to allow the commission to make up its own mind when it is formed with regard to those particular decisions. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
I am disappointed with the Minister of State's reaction because he does not want to be prescriptive but the Bill is prescriptive in making the Ceann Comhairle the chairperson. I cannot see why, from the point of view of recognising the status and role of this House, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad cannot be prescribed in the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Mansergh in his reading of section 9(1):
If Dáil Eireann is dissolved, the chairperson, or, if the chairperson is unable to perform his or her function, the acting chairperson of the Commission, continues to hold office until the chairman of Dáil Eireann is elected following such dissolution.
The "acting chairperson" will be the deputy chairperson. Implicit in that is the expectation that it would be the Cathaoirleach of this Chamber. I am at a loss from the point of view—
Is that relevant to the amendments which we are discussing? I do not think it is because amendments Nos. 1 and 2 do not mention the Cathaoirleach. In amendments Nos.13 to 17, inclusive, the Cathaoirleach is not mentioned, nor is he mentioned in amendments Nos. 24-26, inclusive.
I suppose we have been pre-emptive.
We should wait for that amendment to deal with the matter.
Fine.
A Chathaoirligh, it is not often that we are addressing you and discussing you at the same time in the Chair.
That is not relevant. We are talking only of changing the title from "acting chairperson".
I support that without qualification.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 31 and 32, to insert "‘deputy chairperson' means the person who, under section 7 holds the office of deputy chairperson of the Commission;".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 8 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (2), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) to exercise the functions of the Minister under section 4 of the Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment ) Act 1996,".
Under provisions elsewhere in the Bill the commission is to be endowed with authority subject to authorisation by one or both Houses to defend proceedings taken against Members. The purpose of this amendment is the narrower one of giving the commission the powers now held by the Minister for Finance in one Act, that is, the Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment ) Act 1996, to deal with proceedings taken against a Member or a parliamentary party by a secreterial assistant employed by that Member or party in respect of a personal injury sustained in the course of the assistant's employment. This measure was introduced in 1996 when a Deputy was sued in such circumstances and it was found that she would be personally liable unless there were legal authority for the State to give financial support for legal costs and any damages awarded. Few such cases have arisen since.
In essence, the commission will have the power to recoup in whole or in part to such a Member or party any award or settlement, together with the costs incurred. Needless to say, that facility can only be provided in instances where the person in question sustained the injury in the course of employment as a secretarial assistant by a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or by a registered political party and is paid by the Oireachtas Commission.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 4 is also a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related, and Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (2)(e)(i), lines 11 and 12, to delete, “arising from the performance by them of their functions” and substitute “arising solely from the performance by them of their parliamentary functions”.
The section to which these amendments relate allows the commission, subject to authorisation by the Dáil, Seanad or both, to initiate, intervene or apply to be joined as a plaintiff on behalf of a Member. The Bill as passed by the Dáil specifies that such proceedings must arise from the Member's performance of functions as a Member of either House or of a committee.
The amendments add two extra phrases. The matters must arise solely from a Member's parliamentary functions. That could be regarded as a lawyer's refinement, and it is certainly in line with the intent of the Bill as introduced to the Dáil. While theoretical decisions as to what precisely the parliamentary functions of a Member are could keep a regiment of lawyers dancing around a pinhead for ages, the point to keep in mind is that the interpretation falls to the commission or to the House itself, and they are probably the best people to make the call.
Probably a Senator going around canvassing for himself or a party colleague in a Dáil election and getting into an altercation would be outside it. A Deputy who spilled boiling water over a fellow guest at a local function probably could not expect to persuade the commission that the resulting case against him or her arose solely from parliamentary functions just because the invitation was addressed to the person in his or her capacity as a Member of either House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is a good explanation. Is amendment No. 4 agreed?
I have no problem whatsoever with amendment No. 4, which is good. However, regarding the amendment itself and the business of providing legal advice and so on, lines 15 and 16 concern seeking leave to intervene in existing legal proceedings. Assuming proceedings are already up and running, how does it square with the sub judice rule that, at a certain juncture, the Minister will seek to intervene in the existing legal proceedings? The Minister mentioned that when commenting on the amendment.
The difference is between intervening in a judicial or legal sense and intervening in an extra-legal sense. The Oireachtas sometimes gets into problems with the sub judice rule if the intervention is political, but this is clearly meant to be legal.
As Senator Mansergh said, that is the case. The court can give permission in such cases to intervene.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 6, subsection (2)(e)(ii), lines 22 and 23, to delete “arising from the performance by them of their functions” and substitute “arising solely from the performance by them of their parliamentary functions”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (2)(e)(iii), lines 33 and 34, to delete “arising from the performance by them of their functions” and substitute “arising solely from the performance by them of their parliamentary functions”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 6, lines 45 and 46 and in page 7, lines 1 to 5, to delete subparagraph (iv) and substitute the following new subparagraphs:
"(iv) in relation to any legal proceedings initiated against members of Dáil Éireann, or of a Committee appointed by Dáil Éireann, as regards matters arising solely from the performance by them of their parliamentary functions as such members, and where authorised by Dáil Éireann to do so on behalf of such members and in accordance with the terms of the authorisation, to conduct defence of such proceedings on behalf, or for the benefit of, such members,
(v) in relation to any legal proceedings initiated against members of Seanad Éireann, or of a Committee appointed by Seanad Éireann, as regards matters arising solely from the performance by them of their parliamentary functions as such members, and where authorised by Seanad Éireann to do so on behalf of such members and in accordance with the terms of the authorisation, to conduct defence of such proceedings on behalf, or for the benefit of, such members,
(vi) in relation to any legal proceedings initiated against members a Committee appointed by both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, as regards matters arising solely from the performance by them of their parliamentary functions as such members, and where authorised by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to do so on behalf of such members and in accordance with the terms of the authorisation, to conduct defence of such proceedings on behalf, or for the benefit of, such members,".
The Bill as passed by the Dáil distinguished between the commission acting as a plaintiff, which is where the prior consent of the Member's House was required, and its assuming a defending role, which is where such consent was not required. Following correspondence from the Ceann Comhairle, it was decided to table an amendment which restored the requirement of prior consent from the Dáil, Seanad or both as appropriate where the commission was to act as defendant. The amendment covers, in separate subsections, each of the groups which can be defended, namely, Members of the Dáil or its committees, Members of the Seanad or its committees, and Members of joint committees. The amendment also stipulates where the commission may take on a defence. It sets out in clear and concise terms that the only instance where it may take on such a defence is regarding legal proceedings initiated solely from the performance by them of their parliamentary functions as Members. It should also be crystal clear from the terms of the subsection that that relates to issues arising from their status as Members. It is not a free legal advice service for Members on other issues.
Perhaps I might ask the Minister the rationale behind this. We are setting up an independent commission comprising Members of both Houses which will be all-party or as representative as possible, presumably on a pro rata basis. Yet at the same time, from the point of view of authorising legal representation and advice at a certain stage, the decision must go back to the relevant House. On the one hand we are setting up an independent commission and trying to invest it with as much power as possible. It is to all intents and purposes autonomous, except in certain respects. Yet at the same time, from the point of view of authorising legal advice, one must go back to the Seanad in the case of a Senator and the Dáil in the case of a Deputy.
What happens in situations where the Houses happen to be in recess? For example, this House will adjourn on Friday for the best part of three months, as will the other House. One would imagine, just as we have vested certain powers in the Committee on Procedures and Privileges without reference back to this Chamber, that, when we are setting up a new commission, which would be made up of 11 sensible people – or 13 if we have our way – that commission would have absolute power to decide whether it was prepared to provide legal advice or assistance.
The House can conduct the business by committee. The criteria laid down are extremely tight: proceedings initiated solely regarding the performance by Members of their parliamentary functions. Clearly, the relevant House is most appropriate to make that call. Given the speed at which legal proceedings move along, I cannot see such a situation arising, even during our fairly lengthy summer recess. The legal system goes "into recess" for much of the summer too. However, there should certainly be scope to go back to whichever House is appropriate.
It is over-restrictive and does not conform to what is supposed to be the spirit of the Bill, namely, that we are setting up a group of 11 honourable people, representatives of all sides and from both Chambers, who will decide on a whole range of issues and matters of policy, administrative or otherwise, set down in the Bill. Yet when it comes to authorising legal advice, that must be done by Seanad Éireann or Dáil Éireann.
I cannot appreciate why the independence and good sense of the commission is not to be trusted or why the Minister must insert into the Bill an amendment saying that the relevant House will have to be consulted and give the go-ahead before such legal advice, presumably coming as a recommendation from the commission, can be provided to a Member. I accept that the courts are in recess, but the legal process goes on. Solicitors, junior counsel and senior counsel continue to take instructions and be paid for that. The members should be trusted. They are being trusted on a whole range of functions, yet on a rather elementary issue, namely, whether to give legal advice to a Member of either House, one must go back, presumably for a motion to secure such sanction.
I am not sure that I fully agree with Senator Higgins. A House of the Oireachtas is to get involved in backing legal proceedings. If either House of the Oireachtas is to get involved in backing legal proceedings, it ought to be formally approved by the House as a whole. Obviously, the commission will be the prime mover and I am sure if the commission recommends it, in 95 out of 100 cases, the House will approve that without much debate. There is merit in the way in which the amendment is drafted. Apart from anything else, if those involved in such actions know they have the whole House behind them, whether the House considers them right or wrong but certainly justified in taking legal action, it could strengthen their position.
I cannot accept the view taken by Senator Higgins. The amendment is reasonable. As Senator Mansergh said, if the commission in most cases approves of the legal support being given, I cannot see a situation arising where either House would disapprove. In regard to how it will work in practice, I do not see the time limit of a recess or whatever being a difficulty. Clearly, people can obtain legal advice during a recess. The issue is who will pay for the legal advice. I do not see that as being a strong case.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 7, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following new subsection:
"(4)(a) The functions of the Minister under section 4 of the Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1996, are transferred to the Commission on and from the establishment day.
(b) Section 4 of the Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1996 is amended by deleting the words ‘Where an injury is claimed to have been sustained' where they appear in subsections (1) and (2) and substituting them with ‘Subject to section 4(4)(a) of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2003, where an injury is claimed to have been sustained'.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (7)(a), line 45, to delete “members or a Committee” and substitute “members of a Committee”.
This is a technical amendment or, as the man in the street would say, it corrects a misprint. Such errors can turn out to be very awkward years later if they slip past and end up in an Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (7)(a), lines 47 to 49, to delete “it shall not be necessary to name each member of that Committee as party to the proceedings and”.
If someone is aggrieved by something a committee did or did not do and wants to take legal action, the decision on who he or she shall target or name as the defendant is taken by him or her in their summons, presumably on the advice of a lawyer. Normally the practice has been to list all the members of the committee and as a group committee members do not like it. It upsets them and their families. In all the versions of the Bill we tried to do something about it and we encountered one insuperable problem. The plaintiff had the call on who to name and the lawyers generally went for overkill in case they ignored a possible defendant whose inclusion might be beneficial to them. The best we could do, therefore, was to provide an alternative target who might prove attractive to them.
We spelt out in the version of the Bill before the House that it would not be necessary for a litigant to name all the committee members and that it would suffice to name the chair of the particular committee. The lawyers now feel that the explicit statement that it was not necessary to name all the committee members should be dropped and we should simply tell them it will suffice to go for the committee chair.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 8, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) In any legal proceedings referred to at paragraph (a)(ii), it shall not be necessary for the Commission to obtain an authorisation from–
(i) Dáil Éireann to conduct the defence of proceedings against members of a Committee appointed by Dáil Éireann,
(ii) Seanad Éireann to conduct the defence of proceedings against members of a Committee appointed by Seanad Éireann, or
(iii) Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to conduct the defence of proceedings against members of a Committee appointed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.".
This amendment, despite its size, follows from the requirement that the commission cannot act in a defence role without having the authorisation of a House or both Houses. It now caters for the one situation where that consent will not be necessary – where the committee which is having proceedings taken against it no longer exists. This is possible because a dissolution of the Dáil automatically terminates its committees and joint committees or because they had been abolished earlier.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Section 4 deals with a whole range of functions of the commission. One of the issues to which we alluded on Second Stage was the provision of secretarial facilities. The point was made very forcibly from both sides that in this day and age a situation where Senators have the service, on a shared basis, of one secretary is not good enough. We are entitled on our own merits to a 1:1 ratio. I am sure Deputies would make the case in relation to the increasing and onerous workload being foisted on them on an ongoing basis that they should be entitled to possibly two secretaries, one in the constituency to keep the home fires burning and another to provide day to day secretarial facilities. In this day and age, for this small Assembly of 60 Members, the minimum requirement and entitlement is a 1:1 ratio. Are there any proposals in that regard?
A matter mentioned by Senator Mansergh and one I mentioned previously on the Order of Business is the scandalous situation where the salary for incoming new recruits to the secretarial service of this House is being cut by €70. It is a competitive market, but it is also a buyers' market. Good people are out there but they are being snapped up by the private and commercial sectors. We are entitled to the best possible secretarial assistance available. Our secretaries are not simply operating word processors and typing up speeches and letters for our constituents. Good secretaries are crucial. Not only do they take care of the mundane and ordinary duties, which are important, such as typing letters and speeches, but they download material from computers. To an extent they are unpaid advisers by virtue of the fact that it is not their duty.
Many of us can testify, as I can, that our secretaries are excellent from the point of view of going after information, having the finger on the pulse, knowing exactly where to go and carrying out a whole range of exercises, public relations and otherwise, in dealing with the public when we are not around. Again, I ask the Minister to please insist that the retrograde and negative decision to cut the starting salary by €70 is reversed immediately.
From the point of view of the staff, they have jobs to do and to an extent they are unpaid amateur researchers. In some cases, they do it well. Research for Members is absolutely crucial from the point of view of enabling us to perform our functions properly as legislators. As I said on Second Stage, from the moment I became a Member of the other House, I was appointed spokesman on education. That was fine because I come from a teaching background. Later I was appointed spokesman on justice, equality and law reform and trying to wrestle with legislation and with the Minister who had the full bureaucracy behind him was a daunting task. Thanks to the benevolent and forthcoming assistance of those in the legal sphere and some members of the Garda Síochána, I was in a position to make a coherent response and challenge him. We do not expect researchers to be political, rather we expect them to be constructive in relation to providing quality advice for Members so they can make a positive and constructive input to legislation. That is good for the Government as well not from the point of view of being political, but, as Jack Charlton would say, to put it under pressure.
From the point of view of a thorough and vigorous debate and scrutiny of legislation, we need researchers. I presume the Minister will say it is a matter for the commission but has this matter been thought through at departmental level from the point of view of what the commission can do in providing research facilities? The three elements are the 1:1 ratio as a minimum for Members; the pay cut of €70 and the crucial business of research and research facilities.
In discussing this issue one should acknowledge the progress made during the years. When I worked in Leinster House in the 1980s, three or four Senators shared a secretary. Matters have improved greatly in that we now have a secretary for every two Senators and also get a secretarial allowance which helps with secretarial assistance in the constituency. I agree with Senator Higgins that we should move as soon as practicable and as soon as the public finances allow to a ratio of 1:1. There is evolution in the role of Members of both Houses. In the early 1980s when Members went into opposition, even Front Bench spokespersons went back to their jobs. There was a sort of one man Opposition in that era which Senator Higgins might remember. To expect both a full-time secretary here and a full-time secretary in the constituency is probably rather jumping one's fences.
I meant for Deputies. I was not suggesting it for us.
We are only discussing our situation here and how it might evolve. I have said on more than one occasion that I regret the rounding down of the entry point of the secretarial allowance. All of us depend on our secretaries. However, this is probably a matter for the commission to look at and deal with; it is not strictly a matter for legislation.
Research facilities have improved considerably during the years, both in terms of facilities in the Houses of the Oireachtas and those available to leaders of parties. One no longer has a one man research office, which was the situation 20 years ago. These matters need to be looked at and improved on a gradual basis.
I wish to comment on the points raised by Senator Higgins, which are echoed and agreed with by Senators right around the House, regarding supports for Deputies and Senators and the ongoing need for the development of supports for both groups considering their increasingly onerous roles. There are increasing demands on public representatives. Members know it is essential for a public representative not only to have secretarial help but also, from time to time, research assistance. It is critical that this is built into the process and that there is room and scope for the development of such services. I echo the remarks of other Senators about the improvements there have been, particularly in regard to the secretarial allowance and backup.
A number of Senators, myself included, are full-time public representatives. At my own expense I run a part-time office, almost full-time, in Nenagh in order to provide the fullest representation I can. Running a constituency office is increasingly onerous when one does not have the allowances that go with being a Member of the Dáil. Not every Senator operates at that level. I am not making a case just for myself but how many Bills have we had before the House in this term alone – 12 or 13?
A lot more than 20 or 30 years ago.
A lot more even than in recent times. In recent months a huge number of Bills have been initiated in this House. In fairness to Senators, we have done a good job but would probably have done better if we had research facilities available to us. We are willing to have legislation initiated in this House and carry out that role. Judging from the response of Departments and various Ministers they welcome our response. This section of the Bill is important. I echo the remarks of other Senators.
The issues of support, research assistance and extra secretarial assistance will be matters for the commission. There is substantial extra monetary provision in the overall budget but far be it from me to pre-empt what the commission might decide. Senators have their own axe to grind. Senator Higgins was generous in his praise of the substantial improvements made in recent years in terms of the support Deputies and Senators have received. While there is more to do, it is a matter for the commission on which Senators and Deputies will be well represented. It will be up to them to make the decisions. It is parliamentarians who will make them and they will have the experience and good sense to decide what is best.
Secretarial assistants are paid from public funds provided for parliamentarians. That has been the case since the 1970s. It was only in 1996 that the arrangement was given legal cover when secretarial assistance was included in the facilities which could be provided. At that stage there was one secretarial assistant per three Senators. The position has improved but there is still scope to improve the numbers of support staff within the House.
Most Senators are either former or aspiring Deputies. There would be some concern about a Senator having a full-time office or assistant in the constituency. A recent legal case – the Kelly case – took a particular view regarding the balance between sitting Deputies or Senators using their facilities compared to someone who was not a Member of the Houses.
The issue is for the commission to decide. Good sense will prevail in regard to how to spend to best effect to support both sides of the Houses the €295 million that will be made available.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 42, after "Commission" to insert "who shall be the Chairman of Seanad Éireann".
As we have already argued this, I do not want to regurgitate the argument as the Minister of State does not seem disposed towards it. It seems practical, and would be a recognition of the unique role of the Chamber as a stand alone legislature, that the Chairman of this assembly should be deputy chairperson and that this should be enshrined in legislation. Senator Mansergh made the point cogently that is implicit in section 9:
If Dáil Éireann is dissolved, the chairperson or, if the chairperson is unable to perform his or her functions, the acting chairperson of the Commission continues to hold office until the Chairman of Dáil Éireann is elected following such dissolution.
However, that is only the case in the event of dissolution. What would be the situation in the interim?
The Minister of State stated he was confident the chairperson will do the right thing. However, being confident of something and enshrining it explicitly in legislation, as a recognition of the role and status of this House, are two different things. I see absolutely no reason that a section should not be enshrined in the legislation stating that the deputy chairperson should be the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad.
I support Senator Higgins's amendment since it makes eminent sense. It would express regard for the standing of this House if the amendment was accepted by the Minister of State and, despite what he said, I ask him to reconsider it.
The Minister of State may correct me but my reading of section 9 is that, in practice, the deputy chairperson must be a Senator. Otherwise, section 9(1) does not make any sense. If that position is to be held by a Senator, it should be the Cathaoirleach. I would prefer this to be stated explicitly rather than implicitly.
There is also an issue for this House in that the title of the Bill is the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill. Is there a certain equality between the Houses of the Oireachtas or is it sufficient to accept that the Dáil is by far the most important political body and that the Seanad is, politically-speaking, somewhere in the back of beyond? When dignitaries such as President Clinton, President Mitterand or Nelson Mandela visit Leinster House, it is normal that the Ceann Comhairle greets that person and that the only other person with speaking rights is the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. There is a certain equality in that but everybody accepts, in this bicameral Oireachtas, that the Dáil is the primary Chamber and the Seanad is secondary. However, if there was any doubt about the meaning of section 9(1) and its implications, I would be unhappy.
It is a question of what place the Seanad has in our democracy. Is it semi-supernumerary or semi-redundant or is it a partner? After all, this is not a Dáil commission Bill or a House of the Oireachtas commission Bill, rather it is the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill. There are two Houses and, for the purposes of running Leinster House, they should be equal, notwithstanding the primacy of the Dáil. I plead with the Minister of State to examine this matter overnight. If he can say to me that, in practice, section 9(1) means that the Cathaoirleach will be the deputy chairperson – otherwise, section 9(1) does not make much sense – I will accept it. I am sure I speak for all Senators when I say that this is something we would like examined and corrected.
The Minister of State is correct that we are not talking about a body which will behave in a politically partisan fashion. Everyone will try to do the right thing so that the Houses of the Oireachtas operate smoothly and, as far as possible, by consensus. The best way of achieving that is to appoint people who have been taken out of party politics as chairperson and deputy chairperson. I rest my case and look forward to the Minister of State's reply and any overnight reflections he might have on the matter.
It is fair to say that Senators are proportionately well represented on the commission. The Ceann Comhairle is not the chair of the commission by virtue of him being chair of the Dáil. Rather, his office has for many years been responsible for the Houses. In practice, I expect that the only reason there will be an acting or deputy chairperson is in the absence of the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle is above politics, as is the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, and I expect the best decisions to be made.
The Cathaoirleach is used to a select and well-mannered debating assembly. Therefore, it might not be good for his health to attempt to chair a commission in which Members of the Lower House might be present and not behave in such a well-mannered fashion. In practice, this will work out fine. The Seanad has no reason to feel slighted. The fewer responsibilities we dictate to the new commission at this stage, the better. I have full confidence in the new commission and how it will be made up and that it will run its own affairs efficiently and correctly.
I welcome the Minister of State's reply. One could conceive of extreme situations where, shortly after being elected to the chair, the Cathaoirleach was taken ill and was out of action. However, the Minister of State's response is a satisfactory one and, on that basis, I support the section as it stands.
I am disappointed with the Minister of State's reply. I genuinely believe that in his heart of hearts he appreciates the validity of the arguments being put forward by me, Senator Mansergh and Senator O'Meara. The Minister of State said this House is proportionately well represented as if it was a concession. It is not a concession; we are well represented on the commission by right.
Senator Mansergh made the case as strongly and logically as possible. When there are ceremonial occasions such as joint sittings, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad is brought in and is the second speaker. There is a range of other examples where the role and status of the Cathaoirleach is recognised. Yet, our chairman is simply a member of this commission to administer and regulate the affairs of both Houses, rather than being the acting or deputy chairperson in the event of the absence of the chairperson. The Bill states that "the commission may appoint a member of the commission to act as chairperson other than the Secretary General". However, there is no guarantee, although we all hope that will happen. I am at a loss to know why the Cathaoirleach cannot be pencilled in as the second in command in the event of the chairman not being present or able to carry out his or her functions.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 8, subsection (2), lines 42 and 43, to delete "(‘the acting chairperson')" and substitute "(‘the deputy chairperson')".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 14 and 18 to 21, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, subsection (3), lines 1 to 4, to delete paragraph (a).
Had the Minister of State accepted my amendment allowing for the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad to be the deputy chairperson of the commission, there would be no need for this amendment.
I cannot concede to this amendment because it is necessary to set out the formal process for the appointment of the deputy chairperson. The Bill says that the appointment is to be made in writing by the chairperson of the commission. There has been much debate about who should be deputy chairperson and who should have an input into the selection process. The only person on the commission whom the Bill precludes from being deputy chairperson is the Secretary General. All other members have an equal chance of being selected for this role. The Bill does not preclude consultation between the chairperson and the members prior to the appointment of the deputy chairperson.
Regarding the proposals for the remainder of section 7, it might seem banal, if not overkill, to work out the scenarios in which it might be necessary to appoint a temporary deputy chairperson, and this is the function of this section. For these reasons, I cannot accept the proposals.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 9, subsection (3)(a), lines 3 and 4, to delete “acting chairperson” and substitute “deputy chairperson”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 9, subsection (3)(b), line 5, to delete “acting chairperson” and substitute “deputy chairperson”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 9, subsection (3)(c), lines 9 and 10, to delete “acting chairperson” and substitute “deputy chairperson”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21, inclusive, not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 9, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) The Clerk of Seanad Éireann.”.
This is a repeat of the previous arguments about recognition of the status of the House, namely, that the senior administrative officer in Dáil Éireann, who is referred to in the Bill as the Secretary General, or effectively the chief executive, should be accompanied in an assistant role by the Clerk of the Seanad who would then be called the assistant Secretary General or assistant chief executive. The arguments are exactly the same and I see no reason the Clerk should not be the deputy or assistant to the chief executive or Secretary General of the commission.
I am at a loss as to why this was not originally included in the Bill and was not seen in the Department and the parliamentary counsel's office as being a logical recognition of the status, role and autonomy of the House. We are not subservient to anyone. We are a stand-alone legislative Chamber conducting our business of initiating legislation and amending legislation from the other House in a constructive and often less confrontational manner than the Dáil. The Seanad is enshrined in the Constitution as part of the legislative process and I cannot see the reason the Clerk of the Seanad cannot be included as a deputy to the Secretary General assisting in all matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the commission.
I support Senator Higgins's amendment and echo his sentiments in this regard. It is very important and I am surprised the Clerk of the Seanad was not included ab initio in the legislation. It is very important that he or she is included specifically in the Bill.
The Minister of State in his remarks on earlier amendments appeared to take the view that the commission should be left to do its work because it knows how to do it. That is fine. We all know from long experience, however, that if certain matters are not spelt out in legislation passed through the Houses, there is no requirement in future for certain actions to be taken. While we set out the spirit of the legislation and how we might like to see it operate in practice, unless that is specified, we have no guarantee it will happen.
I have concerns about the status of the Seanad. We are the poor relation and increasingly seen as such. Much lip service is paid to our role, especially where legislation is concerned, and we have pointed this out already. We are happy to be used as the first House for legislation but we are not given the resources necessary to perform that function properly, nor are we given the status it should accord. This omission in the legislation is a good example.
Will the Minister of State ensure that the status of the Seanad as an independent and important part of the Oireachtas is set out clearly in the legislation by the inclusion of the amendment?
I wish to make clear before making further observations that we are no more discussing personalities than we were with the discussion on the deputy chairperson. We are discussing the office and the role it plays, which is well fulfilled by the individual in it at present. A point could be made, and perhaps this is truer of those of us relatively new to House than those who have been Members for a long time, that the Clerk of the Seanad knows many matters most of us might not always know.
We are discussing the Civil Service back-up to the commission. The majority of commission members are Members of the Oireachtas. I fully accept the argument in the speech of the Minister of State that the Clerk of the Dáil serves a dual function and his or her importance is key. At the same time, will there not be a Civil Service back-up to the commission in a deputy capacity in the form of someone familiar with the Seanad? It appears to be a serious gap that the Clerk of the Seanad was not included, fully accepting the point, if one wishes to make it – and I paraphrase, probably unfairly, something the Minister of State said on Second Stage – that the Clerk of the Dáil is roughly twice as important as the Clerk of the Seanad. Be that as it may, the question is if there should be an input from someone at a senior level sitting in on the meetings of the commission who would have a long familiarity with the workings of the Seanad and experience at a different end from that of elected Senators. It seems to me that the case is pretty unarguable that it should be so.
Naturally, as a Senator on the Government side, I must support the Government, what is put before us and what the Minister of State says. We all get into positions where that is the case. I have never even known a Taoiseach who supported party policy 100%.
There is a gap here and I ask the Minister of State to look at it overnight. The commission will be lopsided if it only has the Clerk of the Dáil in attendance and not the Clerk of the Seanad. This is the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill and there are two Houses of the Oireachtas, not one and a half or one and a quarter. This is like the arguments about the European Union. In one sense Ireland has equal status to Germany and in another it does not. The same is true of the Dáil and the Seanad. This case should be seriously examined before the Bill is passed.
I am amused and fascinated by Senator Mansergh struggling with his loyalty to this House or loyalty to his party. He is clearly having difficulty.
Loyalty to the Government.
I understand fully the reason Members of this House would want their own head of staff to be a member of the commission. It is very laudable.
It is very sensible.
It is laudable, I will go no further than that. It reminds me of situations in the GAA where people want their own team member on the team, regardless of the job.
The Minister for Finance has said a number of times that one civil servant from Leinster House is to be a member of the commission and I have no problem making the point again. The sole non-politician is the person who has been in charge of the staffing and financial business of the Houses for years. He is already the Accounting Officer for its Vote and formally designated as the Civil Service head of the office. The fact that he is also the Clerk of the Dáil is neither here nor there, he is a member of the commission because he has been the head Accounting Officer. He will not be a member of the commission as the Ceann Comhairle's adviser, he will be there as the chief executive officer to serve all members of the commission. He is not there as the Dáil's man. If the situation arose where this House insisted that the Seanad's lady should be a member of the commission, there would also be a case for having the Dáil's man on it.
The case is clear – the Clerk of the Dáil is a member of the commission as the chief executive officer to serve all members and look after all the interests of both Houses. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
I do not accept the Minister of State's argument. The Clerk of the Dáil is a member of the commission in two capacities that are set out. He is there as the chief civil servant running the Oireachtas but also as an immensely important civil servant who has years of experience of the workings of the Dáil. That experience is of benefit. I do not accept that he is only there as someone who administers the Houses. I see no rational reason there should only be one civil servant or the Clerk of Seanad could not assist the Clerk of the Dáil.
It is a question of the respect due to this House. Is the Seanad a House of the Oireachtas or is it half a House? The Government should learn to respect the Seanad and there should be a civil servant to represent it. I do not believe there is anyone on the Government side who would disagree with me. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would take that opinion back to the Minister for Finance and tell him it is the unanimous view of the Seanad.
There is no question that, in terms of Civil Service back-up, the Clerk of the Seanad has something to contribute. What is this artificial construct that only one civil servant may be attached to this body? Joint committees of the Oireachtas have more than one civil servant attached. The test should be if the Clerk of the Seanad can contribute something substantial to the work of the commission. That case is unarguable.
It is also a question of respect for this House. I am not convinced by my experience in the last year that this House gets the respect it deserves and is not taken for granted. Look at the title of the Bill – Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill – are there two Houses in the Oireachtas? If the answer is yes, both the Clerk of the Dáil and Clerk of the Seanad should be attached to the commission. I have no difficulty at all in accepting that the Clerk of the Seanad should be there in a deputy capacity.
I hate to shake my grey hairs but it is 22 years since I was elected to this House. Many people, including public servants outside and some inside the Houses, forget that this is an autonomous House. If someone wants to change the rules relating to security here, it cannot be done without the agreement of this House through its Committee on Procedures and Privileges. A picture cannot be put up on the walls in this building without the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas and that agreement is not automatically forthcoming, as people have found out on occasion. To suggest that this commission can be established without reflecting the autonomy of both Houses by having both the Cathaoirleach and the Ceann Comhairle and the senior civil servant of both Houses members of it is to fly in the face of the absolute distinction between the two Houses. It is to pretend that there is some overarching concept of the Oireachtas that is institutionalised and that can be used to circumvent the fact that these are two autonomous Houses.
As Senator Mansergh said, there are many Ministers, particularly those who are inexperienced or who have never been Members of this House, who misunderstand or underestimate it. They get over this after they get a couple of roastings here because they have not prepared properly. It would be regrettable if this issue was to be the current Minister of State's baptism of fire. Either he comes up with a better argument or he is flying in the face of the established traditions of the Houses of the Oireachtas for many years.
There is absolute autonomy between the Houses. Nothing can be done in the Oireachtas without both Houses agreeing. Even though we all accept the constitutional primacy of the Dáil, the Constitution, while it clearly establishes that primacy, also specifically establishes the autonomy of the Seanad within the structure of the Oireachtas. The principle is not who is Clerk of either House, it is to have the procedures, wisdom and autonomy of both Houses properly represented on the commission. To say, as the Minister of State said, that it is all about Accounting Officers is a nonsense and unworthy of a man I know to be of considerable ability and intelligence because it is much more than this.
The Clerk of the Dáil is the civil servant who will run the commission. That is what civil servants do and they do it well. None of us could function in politics if we did not have good civil servants who advise, support and assist us. The Secretary General of the commission will be the adviser, supporter, assistant and provider of expertise.
The implication of this section, as it stands, is that the commission can get sufficient advice on the way Seanad Éireann works as an autonomous House without having the senior civil servant from Seanad Éireann on it to give that advice. That is both wrong and offensive to this House. What is even more offensive is the weakness of the Minister's defence. What happened was that somebody decided it was not necessary for Seanad Éireann to have equal representation on this commission and then, perhaps having forgotten, decided to dig up a post hoc rationalisation for it. Whatever the reason, it does not have any merit.
The Clerk of the Seanad is a member of many other bodies, including the Public Offices Commission. Why did we not hand over membership of the Public Offices Commission and so many other bodies to the Clerk of the Dáil? It was because we recognised, until now, the autonomy of the two Houses of the Oireachtas. This is the first time somebody has attempted to merge them together for reasons of either administrative convenience or, as I suspect, a slightly indifferent unawareness of the way the two Houses operate. It is unworthy of the Minister to produce what I would regard as a particularly paper-thin defence.
I support what my colleague, Senator Mansergh, said. Understandably, he got angry and I do not blame him. The Minister of State will remember that we debated this point last week on Second Stage. As Senator Ryan said, not only is the Clerk of the Seanad a member of other bodies but she is also a member of the body which surveys the boundary commission and decides the way constituencies will fare under the new system. The current incumbent happens to be a lady but that is neither here nor there. It is about the position of Clerk of the Seanad.
I understood this commission was all about us, the Members of the Dáil and the Seanad, the running of the Houses in a businesslike way, having control of their own budgets, being able to work out what they will do with that money and how they will best run the Houses of the Oireachtas. This so-called omission of the Clerk of the Seanad from the make up of the commission was not a mistake. On the contrary, whoever came up with the idea deliberately left out a civil servant from the Seanad of the membership. It was a case of, "We don't have to do that and we will not do it because the excellent Clerk of the Dáil will do". He is an excellent Clerk of the Dáil but the Minister now tells us he is the Secretary General of the commission and will be acting in that capacity. It is even more important, therefore, that there is a member from the Seanad on the commission. It is a deliberate affront to this House that the Clerk of the Seanad is not included among the members of the commission.
Let us look at it this way. We recognise the primacy of the Dáil in the Constitution but we also recognise the autonomous nature of this House. Lest anybody wishes to put it down or say it is not important, it should be remembered that legislation for the good of the people cannot be passed until it has gone through all Stages in this House, like the Bill before us on which the Minister has been very generous with his time. People may find that wearisome or say that it takes up too much time. The Minister should not laugh because he must have said that on some occasion. Ministers may find it a burden to come to this House, but they have a constitutional obligation to do so as do the civil servants who service the Departments.
In my office we have found that, by and large, they are excellent to deal with and I would have nothing said about the Ministers whom I or the staff chase up. They are polite, courteous, willing and they turn up. We have a great rapport with them regarding the business of the House. I am particularly appreciative of that because when I came into this House I was not packaged and ready-made as Leader of the Seanad. I was a battered, bruised person who did not get through the general election and it took a great deal of stern talking to myself before I got to the stage of full acceptance. I have very much enjoyed the work of the Seanad, but I am getting off the point.
It is a deliberate affront to this House that the Clerk of the Seanad is not included as a member of the commission. The Clerk of the Dáil is a very good man but the attitude appears to be that he can do everything. I do not believe he will do everything. The Clerk of the Seanad should be a member of the commission. If this amendment is not accepted or resubmitted on Report Stage, the committee of which Senator Ryan and myself are two of the five members should address it through the reform package we are putting forward. I believe it is not understood in the higher echelons that we feel affronted and put to one side.
I thank all the Senators for their support, passion and conviction in arguing for what is a sensible measure and a recognition of the role of this House. I do not want to delay the House any further on the matter but Senator Mansergh made a passionate plea to the Minister to reflect on the matter overnight. The House will take Report Stage of the Bill tomorrow. I will withdraw the amendment but I serve notice on the House and the Minister that I intend to resubmit it on Report Stage. There is an irrevocable case for the inclusion of the Clerk of the Seanad as a member of the commission. There are no cost implications involved and there is no excuse.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 9, subsection (1)(d), line 23, to delete “and”.
The purpose of amendment No. 23 is not to have too many "ands" in the unlikely event of the Minister accepting amendment No. 24. If he did not accept the previous amendment on the representation on the commission, by right, of the Clerk of this House, he is unlikely to accept this amendment. I do not want to be too pre-emptive but we can anticipate that position.
The point was made strongly on Second Stage by Senator O'Toole that there are now worker-directors, staff members and workers on all State and semi-State bodies. It is logical that the commission would have a representative of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have reflected on the matter in the meantime but the more I reflect on it, the less I know about how it will work because we have so many different elements and grades including administrative staff, ushers, messengers and so on. I would like to hear the Minister's response but it is not my wont to push this amendment to a vote.
I support Senator Higgins's amendment. It is important, in terms of the construction of the commission, that it should include a representative of the staff of the Houses. One can think of boards throughout the country at various levels, and not only in the public sector, where the voice of the worker is heard. Considering the power and the role of this commission, particularly in relation to staff in the Houses, it would be appropriate that the staff were represented on it. That would send out an important signal and enhance the work of the commission. It would get away from the notion of a top down style of management towards a more co-operative and partnership style which previous Governments and the current one have promoted strenuously over the past few years.
One would think that instead of just talking the talk we would walk the walk in the setting up of this commission to run our own business in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is an important principle which might seem like a small thing, but it is a very important issue. The Government should take on board the need for partnership and best management in the work the commission can do.
This point was taken up by me very vehemently at Second Stage last week. This Government has prided itself on its partnership approach to all of its dealings. Since 1987 we have had a series of three-year programmes of partnership, with various titles but all meaning the same thing, that everybody is working together. The various social pillars, including the trade unions and the farmers, are all in the partnership agreements that serve the country very well, in good times and bad. In my five years at the then Department of Public Enterprise, many near confrontations were avoided through recourse to partnership, as well as common sense and discussion.
I cannot understand how, if we are operating nationally in a partnership framework, there is no workers' representative on the board of the commission. They might also be referred to as an employees' representatives – the word "worker"might be a bit too proletarian. If the voice of the employee is heard at that level, there is no reason why it would not work on a partnership level.
I cannot understand the tunnel-visioned idea that there cannot be an employee representative, which is the import of this amendment, and also that there is no place for the Clerk of the Seanad. It is becoming a form of club, an elitist institution which will not have the vox populi represented, despite the likelihood of its doing excellent work. Like Senator Higgins, I do not hold out much hope of having the representatives in question on the commission.
All my life I have been an advocate of the worker's voice being heard. Long before I was a Member of either of these Houses I was the school steward, in my ASTI days. I flexed my muscles quite handsomely in that position.
The Minister will have notes drawn up by his learned staff, but perhaps he would give us his own ideas on this.
I support what Senator O'Rourke has just said. We have appointed worker representatives to public and State bodies. It is part and parcel of modern European social democracy. If one looks at the staff of the House, I do not think revolution tomorrow is what we are likely to be facing. If we do this on commercial State bodies, why would we not do it on the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission? If we were to privatise the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas, then perhaps this would not be a clause that we would want to agree to, but I do not anticipate that development.
The general secretary of ICTU sits in this House. The trade unions have contributed an enormous amount to the prosperity of this country and the progress that has been made over the past 16 years. I wish he were here to make the case again, but I do not think that what he or the rest of us have to say should be lightly ignored. I do not see what major objective and serious reason there could be for not including a member of the Houses' staff on the commission. It is the enlightened, progressive thing to do and the Minister comes from a party that calls itself the Progressive Democrats.
Now the Minister of State will give us his own thoughts.
I did not get a chance to respond when the Leader of the House was taking great affront at the deliberate attempts to downgrade the House. As a spokesman for the Government I would not dream for a minute of attempting—
I made it clear that I got every co-operation.
Whoever who comes in here in a wearisome manner, it is not I. I have never felt under an obligation to come. I have always been fascinated and delighted with the opportunity to come to this House.
The Clerk of the Dáil will act as Secretary General of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and I am sure the Leader of the House will accept that one person in that capacity is quite sufficient. The present Clerk of the Dáil was also a former Clerk of the Seanad. In background and experience, I believe he is well fitted to carry out the job.
It is not the case that every semi-State company has a worker director. The Ordnance Survey of Ireland has no worker directors on its board. That is one example. As the Senator knows, we learn something new every day. That is something I was not too familiar with previously.
It would not do them any harm if it did.
In terms of the experiment suggested, it would not suit the case here. We could keep on adding to the commission until it was bigger than this House or the Dáil, under the proposals that have been made.
As far as partnership is concerned, the staff in this House work very long hours depending on the legislation that is going through. This week is an example. There is a suggestion that as they will not be represented on this commission it is in some way a slight upon their work. That is certainly not the case. The Government is very committed to the whole concept of partnership between management and staff in all offices staffed by civil servants. I have more than a suspicion that members do not realise the wide range of matters that partnership committees deal with. Neither can they be expected to know the degree to which, in several Departments, they are supplemented by structural groups through which various staff groups interact with what we call the MACs. We have local management and advisory committees and there is already one in this office.
The Minister for Finance and the Government made it clear, from the earliest announcement of the Bill, that they would welcome local arrangements which would provide for staff representation below the level of the commission. It will be for the commission, or the local management, to make any desirable moves on this.
The commission will be autonomous and very representative. The only disadvantage to this House is a numerical one, compared to the other House. This House will have three representatives, plus its Cathaoirleach and will be well represented in making its case. I expect in such a small group the debate will be at a very high level. I expect that it will go about its business in the best interests of both Houses and that balance will prevail. The staff have their say within the structures of social partnership, which are sufficient. The arrangements made on their behalf under benchmarking suggest that they are very well represented in making their case.
I am a little disappointed by the reply of the Minister of State. I do not regard worker representation as an experiment. It has been in place for the past 15 years and appears to be working reasonably well. Rather than regarding it as dangerous and something to be guarded against, we should be trying to introduce it wherever we can.
On the issue of the number of members of the commission, the Minister of State said there would be one boss. The Taoiseach has a Tánaiste and I understand every Secretary General of a Department has a deputy Secretary General. Only the Secretary General of the commission, the Clerk of the Dáil, will not have a deputy Secretary General. I do not follow that argument.
I thank Senators for supporting the amendment. I was amazed the Minister of State did not receive a note from the dug-out until a couple of minutes ago. He then tried to make the argument that it was sufficient that the Clerk of the Dáil sprouted his administrative wings as Clerk of this House. That is not an argument. A strong case has been made in favour of the amendment on all sides of the House. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on the proposal overnight as the Fine Gael Party intends to put the issue to a vote tomorrow. In the interests of speeding up the process, I propose to withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage tomorrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 10, subsection (6), lines 30 and 31, to delete "acting chairperson" and substitute "deputy chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Acting Chairman
Senators should note a correction to the printed amendment list. The heading "Section 9" should appear above amendment No. 26.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 12, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete "acting chairperson" and substitute "deputy chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 12, subsection (5), line 27, to delete "acting chairperson" and substitute "deputy chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
There appears to be something wrong with subsection (3), which reads:
In each year a statement of estimates of the Commission shall be–
(a) presented to Dáil Éireann, on a motion that Dáil Éireann take note of the statement, by a member of the Commission who is a member of Dáil Éireann, or any other member of Dáil Éireann nominated by the Commission for that purpose, and
(b) when Dáil Éireann has taken note of the statement in accordance with paragraph (a), furnished by the Secretary General to the Minister not later than 30 days before the presentation by the Minister to Dáil Éireann of the Estimates of the Receipts and Estimates of the Expenditure in that year.
While paragraph (a) is stand alone and makes sense, paragraph (b) does not hang together and appears inconclusive.
It is a non sequiter.
Something – what I am not sure – is missing. The sentence does not make sense and the more one reads it, the less sense it makes. It runs out of road.
The subsection relates to Estimates, which contain estimates of receipts and expenditure for two years, namely, the year coming to a close and the forthcoming year. Subsection (3) clearly relates to an Estimate for the preceding year. If the Senator considers the text in that light, he should not find a problem with it.
If, when reading the subsection, one omits paragraph (a), it makes more sense.
Acting Chairman
Is Senator Higgins satisfied?
I think I know what is meant but the phraseology is unwieldy and cumbersome.
Is it not a factual account of what happens?
I am making an observation, rather than—
The word "furnished" may be missing, possibly after the words "shall be" on line 26.
Yes.
However, as I am not certain, I wish to check with my officials.
The Minister of State may wish to consider the matter before Report Stage.
Acting Chairman
Does the Minister of State wish to introduce an amendment on Report Stage?
I propose that we extend the debate until 7.10 p.m.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
To clarify, the subsection makes sense if one omits paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b) up to and including the words paragraph (a) on line 33. It then reads:
(3) In each year a statement of estimates of the Commission shall be–
. furnished by the Secretary General to the Minister not later than 30 days before the presentation by the Minister to Dáil Éireann of the Estimates of the Receipts and Estimates of the Expenditure in that year.
Does the Minister of State propose to insert the word "furnished" in paragraph (a) and remove it from paragraph (b), in which case it would be taken as implicit?
The word is required in paragraph (b) to explain the timing of the furnishing of the statement of Estimates to the Minister, in other words, when Dáil Éireann has taken note of the statement in accordance with paragraph (a).
It is a factual matter.
Yes.
Acting Chairman
Does the Minister of State wish to amend the wording of subsection (3)?
No.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 28 is in the name of Senator Higgins. As amendment No. 29 is related, the amendments may be discussed together.
As we have already discussed the substance of the amendments, I do not wish to detain the House. I will not move them in order to give the Minister of State an opportunity to reflect on the merits of the case argued by Senators from all sides of the House.
Does the Senator propose to resubmit the amendments on Report Stage tomorrow?
Yes.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2 July 2003.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.