Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom leithscéal a ghabháil ar son an Teachta Seán Ó Pléamonn. Eisean an saineolaí ar an ábhar agus ar an reachtaíocht seo ach ní féidir leis bheith i láthair. I wish to make it very clear that anything we may have to say about this legislation in no way reflects on the Ceann Comhairle or the previous or acting Clerk of the Dáil. The Minister referred to the former Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Kieran Coughlan, who in my estimation was one of the finest public servants I had ever met and who gave this House very distinguished service for many years in a quiet, calm and collected way. Equally, it has to be said that since his departure Mr. Peter Finnegan and Mr. Michael Errity and all of the Clerk Assistants have distinguished themselves in the quality of the work they do in a quiet and dignified manner.

Over two years ago, on 15 May, a Topical Issue was raised by Fianna Fáil in this House on the need to amend the legislation governing the appointment of senior management in the Houses of the Oireachtas. In that debate the points were made that there was serious concern about the delay in bringing forward amending legislation to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act to modernise the senior management structures in the Houses of the Oireachtas, in particular, the method of appointment of staff. Modernising legislation was promised as far back, as the Minister said, as 2009 and also in 2012. In his initial reply the Minister agreed and made a commitment. He said, "I believe the objective in filling top posts in the Houses of the Oireachtas Service should be to employ professionally organised and independent competitive selection mechanisms such as those that exist throughout the wider Civil Service to ensure the best possible person is selected from as wide a pool of talent as possible to lead the parliamentary service in future." At the time, it became clear that there was a different opinion on how this position should be filled. In his final reply the Minister gave an indication as to why the legislation would be delayed for more than two years when he said:

I am old-fashioned in these matters. As a matter of courtesy I believe I should explain my position. It has been the subject of discussions between services in the Department of Finance, as was, and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as is, and the official services here. I have held preliminary discussions with the Ceann Comhairle. I wish to conclude that process and then bring legislation to Government and, I hope, to the Houses speedily. I imagine it will not be challenging legislation.

We all know that there was then a stand-off, which was reported widely in the press. The Minister finally published draft heads of the Bill in February 2012 which were considered by the Joint Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform in March 2015, as the Minister said. The draft heads, however, remain unchanged and are the same as those included in the Bill before the House. The submissions to the committee were not taken on board and they included the recommendations made by the interdepartmental group consisting of the Minister's officials and Oireachtas Service officials, to which he made reference when replying to the Topical Issues debate in 2013. The group recommended a flexible approach in order that the Clerk of the Dáil role could still be combined with the chief executive officer functions or kept separate, depending on need. Fundamentally, the top position should be filled on a CEO skills set basis and through an open competition.

The 1959 officers of the House category should also be removed to allow for full mobility and integration among senior management, while retaining Clerk functions on a more flexible basis of assignment. The Bill is unchanged and minimalist, and is not fit for purpose for a parliamentary administration for the 21st century. It keeps the 1959 appointments structure where the officer of the House positions are now in the gift of the chairman of each House, except for the Clerk of the Dáil position, which now goes to the top level appointments committee, TLAC. The Bill does not include the integrated senior management structure as proposed in the interdepartmental parliamentary services reform group, PSRG. It is not very reforming and is disappointing in its under-achievement.

The key question is why the chairman of each House has been given the power to appoint officers of the House, other than the Clerk of the Dáil, without a competitive process, thereby creating two streams of advancement for a civil servant in the Oireachtas, one by competition and one by favour of the chairman. Why has the Ceann Comhairle been given such a prominent role in both the nomination and appointment process of the top civil servant in the Oireachtas service, the Clerk of the Dáil? Would the best practice espoused by the Commission for Public Service Appointments, which has the Ceann Comhairle as ex officiochair, not dictate that there should be clear water between the nomination and appointment processes? Such a potential conflict was thought unwise when the 1959 Act was going through the Houses, so why has that wisdom been abandoned at this point when it has served us well over the years?

Why is there no provision in the Bill to cater for disagreement on the nomination or appointment of a candidate? Even the 1959 Act had such a provision. What happens if the Ceann Comhairle does not agree with any of the recommendations made by the TLAC board, refuses to nominate any of them and the appointment process is stalled? Why have party and group leaders been excluded from being consulted in the appointment of the Clerk of the Dáil? There was an informal arrangement under the 1959 Act, but Members are excluded under this Bill. Given the issues raised, how will the recruitment of a Clerk of the Dáil provided for under the Bill meet the Minister's commitment to "have the chief executive of the service selected from as wide a pool as possible in line with top level appointments in the Civil Service generally"?

We have a common purpose here. We all want to see the best person appointed to this role in the future. What is at issue is the methodology to be used to achieve that objective. In the past, those appointed to the role have distinguished themselves in the quality of the service they have given. We share a common objective to have people appointed in a fair, open and transparent manner so the honourable service of the past can be continued with distinction into the future.

See this speech in context