Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

That may be the case. It is something that should be far more transparent because when it is shrouded in this sort of mystery, one wonders how the appointments are made. This Bill is certainly underwhelming in that it does not fulfil the promises made to make appointments in this House more transparent, radical and modern. The very odd two-year delay in making these appointments and bringing this Bill forward makes one wonder whether there was some strange, behind-the-scenes political tussle about who made the appointment of the Clerk. This should have happened automatically and immediately. Certainly, the fact that there was a vacancy for so long is a reflection of the kind of paralysis that seizes politicians and the tensions that arise when such a key appointment is to be made.

Whereas there is obviously an aspiration, intention and achievement in the appointment of the Clerk, the other appointments dealt with in this Bill leave much to be desired and do not address the difficulty of having a two-tier system. There is no radical reform in this Bill and presumably, the radical reform of the way appointments are made in this House has now been buried. Having promised so much in the Dáil in May 2013 and even more expansively in correspondence to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, the Minister has failed in this Bill to deliver his commitment to "ensure the modernisation of the senior management structures of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service". Instead, we have a sticking plaster to an outmoded structure of Clerks and Clerk-Assistant appointments under the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Act 1959, with which the Minister will be familiar. As he promised in May 2013, the Minister should have repealed the 1959 Act and taken the opportunity to put in place a more flexible, modern and integrated management structure to ensure the Houses of the Oireachtas service can meet the challenges of supporting Parliament in the 21st century.

The Minister has claimed that this Bill strengthens the independence of Parliament as the Taoiseach, in effect, the Government, is removed from the appointments process. While any proposal that furthers the independence of Parliament would be welcome, especially as it would be so rare, the Minister knows full well that this will not be achieved in this Bill regardless of the spin that is put on it. For the first time ever, the Chairman of each House will have a dual key role in both nominating and appointing candidates to the Clerk and Clerk-Assistant positions in either House. The Minister knows that allowing the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to formally carry out the appointment is not as transparent or accountable as he would like us to believe in that the Ceann Comhairle is the Chair and the Cathaoirleach is the Deputy Chair of that body. In effect, the appointment process will amount to no more than a rubber-stamping of the appointment of the Ceann Comhairle or Cathaoirleach's nominee. Surely this is unheard of in terms of public service recruitment. Why should the Houses of the Oireachtas service be unique in the public service in that a senior public appointment can be made by a politician without any competition, as will be the case under this Bill in the case of the positions of Clerk-Assistant of the Dáil and Clerk and Clerk-Assistant in the Seanad? What does this say to us about how the Minister would like this place administered? The fact that the Clerk's position is embedded within an open competition in this Bill clouds the fact that those other positions will still be appointed in a totally unacceptable way.

The Bill creates twin-track promotion, one by the standard public service competition and the other on a nod from the Chairman of either House without any requirement to have a competition on merit. How will such a twin-track system motivate hard-working officials here in the Houses of the Oireachtas service and talented people outside that the Minister wants to attract to come to work in Leinster House when these senior jobs could be open to the old-style political favouritism of an officeholder?

Retaining appointments of officers of the Houses under the 1959 Act means that an integrated management system, which is standard best practice in any modern public service organisation, is near to impossible. What is the point in having a CEO if half the senior staff are not open to being moved by him or her to another position on a need and skills basis? In effect, the Bill has turned the public service management system on its head rather uniquely for the Houses of the Oireachtas service but not elsewhere where the Minister espouses modernisation, flexibility and mobility. The Minister compounds this lack of flexibility and mobility by retaining the mandatory link between the more senior position of Clerk of the Dáil and CEO-Secretary General functions. In doing so, the Bill has binned the flexibility approach, as recommended by the interparliamentary group consisting of officials from his Department and the Houses of the Oireachtas service, which proposed that the most senior position be recruited on the basis of a CEO skill set and competencies. The Ceann Comhairle of the day could assign Clerk functions to that of CEO or not as the case may be, allowing for flexibility without requiring further primary legislation to change the management structure.

In summary, the lack of transparency and accountability in having the same officeholder involved in both nomination and appointment of candidates, the twin-track promotion retaining 1959 positions, not breaking the mandatory link between the Clerk and the CEO and the inherent of lack of flexibility and mobility at the most senior level all make the Houses of the Oireachtas service more beholden to politicians than it ever should be. Leinster House is the one place above all others where there should be clear water and distance between the Oireachtas administration and the political world of the Members. Neither is too well served if the lines of demarcation are blurred. An unhealthy culture can result leading to lack of professionalism and below optimum levels of performance. The Minister's Bill means that the Houses of the Oireachtas service is seriously out of kilter with other public service bodies which have that independence and proper accountability for administrative matters that is enshrined in the Public Service Management Act 1997, which is some considerable time ago and is reflected in Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Acts but which will be rendered almost toothless under this Bill.

It is most regrettable that the opportunity has been lost in the Bill to put in place a modern, progressive organisation and build on the modernisation programmes under the auspices of earlier commissions, under which the appointment to the top post of the CEO was seen as the culmination. The Bill, if implemented in its current narrow form, will represent a lost opportunity and a sad reflection on the Minister's claim to be reforming which I am sure he made genuinely at the time. I know that there have been political difficulties which have involved a political compromise which should not be the motivation behind a Bill such as this. The Bill will not do it and the Minister has turned his back on modernisation of the Oireachtas under the fig leaf that he is strengthening the independence of Parliament by removing the Taoiseach from the appointment process and providing for open recruitment at the top level by the Top Level Appointments Commission, TLAC, which was involved in the appointment of the previous Clerk of the Dáil in 1990. There is no great innovation. The only real change is that persons outside Leinster House can be recruited and the flawed appointment system under the Bill means that that must be a very remote possibility as it would be unattractive to do so. There is one benefit, but the system has not been tackled; the old ways are still being followed.

The Bill should be amended on Committee Stage to break the mandatory link between the Clerk of the Dáil and the Secretary General and CEO functions and to repeal the 1959 Act, as originally proposed and accepted by the Minister. If he insists on retaining that structure and the politicisation - with a small 'p' - consequent on it for appointments to these posts, at the very minimum, the nomination of a clerk of either House should be on foot of a competition based on merit to ensure standard recruitment practices to fill the senior positions in Leinster House across the board. The Bill is selective as its benefits only apply to one post and one person. It should not have been selective but should have attacked the gamut of appointments across the board in Leinster House and used the same worthy principles used in the headline to the Bill.

Members are entitled to be assured that the Oireachtas Service is a modern, flexible organisation which is more than capable of responding to challenges that we, as Members, face and that this institution is relevant in this republic in the 21st century. I echo the sentiments of Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh. I am not qualified to say whether the Oireachtas Commission is doing a good job because I do not know enough about its meetings. I have never been to one of them. I regret deeply that the consultation process on the running of this House and the appointment of the Clerk of the Dáil does not include the smaller parties or any member of the Independent group. The appointments should be independent and non-political. Let us not pretend that the commission is non-political because anywhere one finds a group of politicians together, one will find political decisions being made. There may be no Whip, but, in effect, political decisions are made. It is a great pity that in the making of these appointments there will not be at least an input from and consideration given to a large body of Members to give them the stamp of independence. It would certainly be worthwhile trying to include those parties in political opposition because we all wish to see the House being run properly and well and not politically at Civil Service level. I, therefore, ask the Minister to table an amendment to the Bill which he has said is subject to amendment to include those who have the interests of the House at heart, even if they have political differences with the parties in power, in the consultation process for the making of appointments which are so important to the running of the House. I would extend this beyond the running of the House to include the entire Houses of the Oireachtas. Those of us who are Members should be consulted because the appointments should not in any way be political.

See this speech in context