Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is okay. I am speaking very slowly for the Minister's sake. The main thrust of the amendment, with its focus on the appointment of a Secretary General and the assignment, rather than the appointment, of Clerk positions, is to ensure that the Houses of the Oireachtas Service will be, from the top down, a flexible, modern organisation which can adapt to the demands of providing support services to Parliament in the 21st century.

The amendment proposes to insert two new sections to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Acts, not the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Act 1959, which is a good indication of the modernising thrust of these amendments. The first one provides for the appointment of a Secretary General of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service. The second, which deals with assignments, would ensure that the current mandatory link between the Secretary General and Clerk of the Dáil could be broken and put on a more flexible, optional basis depending on need, as decided on by the Ceann Comhairle of the day. It removes the risk of a twin-track promotion whereby the posts of Clerk of the Seanad and Clerk Assistant are without competition and in the gift of the Chairman of each House.

My amendment, by focusing on the recruitment of a Secretary General, would ensure that any competition would be open and would be likely to attract a broader field of candidates than if the Clerk of the Dáil functions are portrayed prominently, which could deter talented individuals from applying.

My amendment, by providing that the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC, would place not more than three successful candidates in order of preference, ensures that there is no dual role for the Ceann Comhairle of the day in both the nomination and the appointment process. On that point, the Minister stated on Committee Stage that the dual role proposed for the Ceann Comhairle is the same as that of the Minister when a Secretary General in the Department is appointed. The Minister stated that if a Minister goes with three names selected by TLAC to the Cabinet which appoints, this arrangement means "... there is some flexibility for the Minister to make a discernment". This is quite a revelation and means that despite a recruitment process by TLAC, whose personnel the Minister assures us is now predominantly private sector, ultimately it is the political officeholder who has significant if not crucial influence in the final call on the appointment. This risks putting the working relationship of the senior Civil Service and Government Ministers or officeholder in Leinster House on an uneven footing. Ambitious senior civil servants know who the boss is and if they are good enough to be qualified by TLAC, then all things being equal the Minister could give him or her the nod.

I have campaigned for a long time against the politicisation of the appointments of senior gardaí and judges. I had two Bills debated here to try to put a more transparent and independent appointment process in place, but I did not realise that TLAC, as we are now told, is subject to a Minister's discernment as well. Ministers are ultimately in the driving seat and the senior civil servants know that, and undoubtedly adapt accordingly. It would not be human to do otherwise. However, what kind of culture is created and does it serve the country's interest, or the agenda of the Government of the day which - let us not be naive - may not always coincide? Now we can understand former Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, when he said at the banking inquiry last week that no official came to him when he was Minister for Finance pointing out the risks of an economic meltdown. Thus, the Minister should adopt the principle under amendment allowing the professional independent body, TLAC, to place candidates in order of preference and, for the good of the country, do away with the indulgence of having a Minister's discernment in all top appointments.

To afford the Ceann Comhairle of the day the same level of discernment here in such a relatively small pool would be disproportionate, unhealthy and unwise. The Minister's predecessor, Dr. Ryan, when bringing the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Bill 1959 through this House on 11 November 1959 thought it unwise that a Ceann Comhairle should have the power to appoint when he stated:

It may happen that the Ceann Comhairle at some future time may be influenced in his judgment by having worked so long with a certain man [sic] [I am quoting] or something like that. We are rather fortunate discussing this question now because it is not likely that any of those appointments will be made in our time. We have young men [there was no room for anything broader in 1959, apparently] in the positions and we can, therefore, discuss the matter disinterestedly. That is what I am afraid might happen - that some Ceann Comhairle in the future would be unduly prejudiced in favour of a certain person and that, in spite of consultation and so on, he would go back to that appointment.

Clearly, allowing the Ceann Comhairle the type of discernment the Minister wants him to have would not have occurred in 1959. My amendment would ensure that those standards, thought wise then, will be maintained now.

In regard to the third part of my amendment, having assignments rather than appointments to allow for full integration and flexibility, which is a mantra for this Minister for every public body but, strangely, not in Leinster House, speaks for itself and will allow for the mandatory link between the Clerk of the Dáil and the chief executive officer to be placed on a more flexible footing based on need, but also ensures there will not be a twin track for promotion for officials here, and the level playing pitch will apply to all as appointment to Clerk and Clerk Assistant positions in the gift of the Chairman of each House will not arise as no promotions would be involved, just assignments.

My amendment also provides for a new competition to take place if there is not agreement on any of the candidates nominated by TLAC. Even the 1959 Act nomination process provided for disagreement and the fact that it is omitted in this Bill is a sign of just how una voceis the appointment process. The Ceann Comhairle of the day is in the driving seat and it is not anticipated that he is likely to disagree with himself.

I am worried that the Minister is trying to straddle a 1959 model of management of Clerks with modern requirements for a 21st century parliamentary administration. My amendment will get him off the hook and, in accepting it, he will be doing the State some service and ensure the Oireachtas service is fit for purpose to provide Members of this House with the services needed in the 21st century.

In the event that the Minister will not accept my amendment No. 1 I have tabled an alternative proposal in Nos. 2, 7, 8 and 9, which I will briefly address because they are grouped.

Amendment No. 2 is the main one which contains two main proposals, first, that the Clerk of Dáil Éireann will be appointed by the Ceann Comhairle following a resolution passed by the Dáil. There is a number of reasons for proposing that the Dáil would approve the appointment. The first is that the Minister said, when replying to the Second Stage debate, that there was no alternative for having the Ceann Comhairle having a role both in the nomination and appointment of the Clerk given the Taoiseach no longer wanted to have such a role. Having the Dáil do so provides a solution. The second is that having the Dáil approve the appointment is more inclusive for a position that must serve all Members of the House and mitigates against any hint or perception that the Government parties had an undue influence in the appointment given their overwhelming majority on the commission. Third, having the Dáil approve the appointment is justified as there is a number of examples where the Dáil approves a person for appointment to high public office, such as the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Ombudsman, and where the President appoints, and they are equal in rank in terms of pay etc. as that with the Clerk of the Dáil. Moreover, there are many examples of countries where the parliament approves the appointment of the Secretary General. The amendment is not proposing that the Dáil should appoint the Clerk-Secretary General which happens, for example, in the United States and Sweden, but rather the House approves the nomination from the commission for appointment by the Ceann Comhairle, as happens in Germany and the Netherlands.

Fourth, having the Dáil approve the appointment would be seen to be more transparent and accountable and raises the profile of the Dáil itself in a positive way. It retains the open competition by TLAC as proposed in the Bill already but reduces the formal statutory role of nomination from the Ceann Comhairle to that of the commission, which would recommend a candidate to the Dáil for nomination for appointment by the Ceann Comhairle. The first stage of the process would be that TLAC would recommend not more than three candidates to the commission, which would be obliged to consult with parties or groups not represented on the commission to meet that point made during Second Stage. The amendment also allows for a rematch of the competition in the event of a disagreement.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 provide for a confined competition among serving staff for the positions of Clerk Assistant of the Dáil and Clerk and Clerk Assistant of the Seanad to ensure there is transparency in these senior appointments and that there is a level playing pitch across the board for all promotions inside Leinster House. As it stands, the Bill could allow for a dual system with the Clerk and Clerk Assistant positions being filled by the gift of the Chairman of either House or all others by the standard Civil Service completion process.

Amendment No. 9 is a consequential amendment to amendment No. 2 and while retaining the open competition by TLAC for the most senior position under the Bill, the Clerk of the Dáil, it defines it as a confined competition for the appointment of other clerks, as in amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

See this speech in context