Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1, in the name of Deputy Shane Ross, arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 2 to 8, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 1, amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 2, amendment No. 7 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 6, and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are cognate. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete lines 10 to 34, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute the following:"Amendment of the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Act 1959 and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2003

1. (1) In this section—

'Act of 1959' means the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Act 1959;

'Act of 2003' means the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2003;

'Act of 2009' means the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Act 2009.

(2) The Act of 1959 is hereby amended by the deletion of sections 5 and 6.

(3) The Act of 2003 is hereby amended by the deletion of section 15 (as amended by section 11 of the Act of 2009) and the substitution therefor of the following sections:

"Appointment of the Secretary General

15. (1) The Secretary General of the Service (in this Act referred to as the ‘Secretary General’) is the chief executive of the Commission.

(2) The Secretary General shall be the principal officer of the Service and the officer accountable for the accounts of the Commission for the purposes of the Comptroller and Auditor General Acts 1866 to 1998.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Secretary General shall be appointed by the Commission following consultation by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann with leaders or designated leaders of groups or parties in either House of the Oireachtas who are not represented on the membership of the Commission at that time.

(4) The selection of a candidate for appointment as Secretary General shall be by means of an open competition, by the committee known as the Top Level Appointments Committee, who shall recommend, in [No. 75a of 2014] [08 July, 2015] order of preference, not more than three persons for appointment to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, provided if the Commission fail to agree to the recommendation of any of the persons for appointment, then a new competition for the vacancy shall be held and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly.

(5) For the purposes of this section an open competition shall mean a competition whose terms with respect of the eligibility of persons to compete in it shall not be such as to limit such eligibility to persons who are civil servants.

Assignment of Clerk and Clerk-Assistant functions in each House

15A. (1) The functions of the Clerk of Dáil Éireann may be assigned from time to time from among the staff of the Commission by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann in consultation with the leaders or designated leaders of the parties or groups in Dáil Éireann and the Commission.

(2) The functions of Clerk of Seanad Éireann may be assigned from time to time from among the staff of the Commission by the Chairman of Seanad Éireann in consultation with the leaders of the groups in Seanad Éireann and the Commission.

(3) The functions of Clerk-Assistant of Dáil Éireann and the Clerk-Assistant of Seanad Éireann may be assigned from time to time from among the staff of the Commission by the Secretary General following consultation with the relevant Chairman of the House of the Oireachtas.".".

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So we have a few extra minutes. As an Independent Member, I did not have any representatives on the select committee that took Committee Stage of the Bill, and I could not table any amendments to it. I am grateful to have the opportunity to do so now.

The main thrust of the amendment-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should take a minute to get his breath back.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I strongly welcome debate on this sort of legislation. In truth we do not have enough proper debate in the House in terms of how the House itself should be structured. I have said from the beginning that I do not believe this is a matter that should be determined by the Executive: it is a matter for the House. One of the main thrusts of this legislation is for the Executive to withdraw, for example, the role of the Taoiseach in the nomination of the Clerk of the Dáil. It is being removed to make it exclusively a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas.

We had some debate on Second and Committee Stages on these matters and we need to go over some of the ground again. Looking at Deputy Ross's first long amendment, the first two items of the section proposed by Deputy Ross would refer to the Secretary General of the Oireachtas service being the chief executive of the Oireachtas commission and being the officer accountable for the accounts of the commission for the purposes of the Comptroller and Auditor General Acts. This is the position as currently exists under the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Acts and will remain the position after the enactment of this Bill.

Deputy Ross is proposing to make a couple of changes and I will deal with those now.

6 o’clock

First, the Deputy suggests in his amendment that the Clerk of the Dáil would be appointed by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission following consultation by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann with leaders or designated leaders of groups of parties in either House of the Oireachtas who are not represented on the membership of the commission at that time. Second, the Deputy proposes that the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC, would nominate people for appointment in order of merit, to circumscribe the ability of the Chairman of the Dáil - the Ceann Comhairle - to choose whom, among candidates that are deemed suitable for the position, he might nominate to the commission for appointment. This would make the process beyond TLAC a rubber-stamping exercise. Although the formal appointment would be made by the commission on the nomination of the Ceann Comhairle, if there was a preferred candidate, the Ceann Comhairle's options in making a proposal, and the commission's options in determining a proposal, would be simply to accept or reject the preferred candidate. Obviously, that would be a very significant delimiting of the role of the Ceann Comhairle. I am willing to discuss that but I think it would be the wrong approach, and I will make a number of points in that regard.

In regard to the Deputy's point about a process that involves consultation with others, which we debated at some length on Committee Stage, I believe that all parties should have some involvement in this matter. My view is that this would be captured by their being represented on the commission, but that is not my business in terms of this legislation. The vagueness of a consultation process is, as the Deputy will know in his heart, meaningless. What does "consultation" mean? If it means calling people into a room and asking for their view, that would not have any legislative impact. It would simply mean that the matter went through a process. I would prefer if the commission were more broadly structured, but, as I said, that is not a matter that falls to be determined in this legislation. It is probably a matter that would properly be addressed at the beginning of the next Dáil, which is not too long away. I do not want to put into legislation a vagueness or inexactitude in terms of a process that requires a consultation that is fairly meaningless. The amendment provides that leaders or designated leaders be consulted. Are their views to have a meaning? Are they to have an overruling view or is it simply that somebody - in this instance, the Ceann Comhairle - is to have a consultation with them?

This is a fairly simple measure. As I have repeatedly said, it is a modest improvement, in my judgment, in the appointment system for the most senior administrator in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The objective is to open this up to open competition, with candidates from within and outside the public service invited to apply for the job, the criteria to be laid down in advance and TLAC to receive those applications, interview the candidates in its normal way and make its judgment. It is not normal procedure for TLAC to prioritise. As I have said previously, it provides a shortlist of suitable candidates. There have been occasions when, of all candidates, only one was deemed suitable. That would be a very short list. In the main, two or three candidates are presented to a Minister for appointment to, say, the role of Secretary General.

I know there is a purist view reflected in the Deputy's contributions to this House in terms of the role of any politician in doing anything. I happen to believe that people are elected to do things. Being elected gives one a mandate. It is not the mark of Cain that makes one unsuitable to make judgments or, to use a phrase I used on Committee Stage, discernments. The Deputy was critical of Ministers having a list of two or three candidates from which to choose, those candidates having been deemed suitable and appropriate by TLAC to serve in the office of Secretary General. The Deputy thinks Ministers should not have any leeway and that it should be a fait accompli that TLAC would make that judgment. Having had the privilege of leading three Departments, I do not agree with that. A Minister comes into a Department with an agenda. The most important aid in delivering the agenda that the Minister is elected to implement is the chief administrator of his Department, namely, the Secretary General. There will be times when people are not compatible. A Minister has to make a judgment in terms of compatibility. Often Ministers do not have that choice because there is an extant Secretary General, but where there is to be a new Secretary General, I think it is appropriate that some choice, in terms of the person who is to serve in the post, be available to a Minister. I know Deputy Ross disagrees with that, but I do not think it would be wrong. In fact, I think it would be the right course of action for the same choices to be available to the Ceann Comhairle. Currently, the Ceann Comhairle, with the Taoiseach, makes a choice from the pool of talent within the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is too narrow a pool. I believe there should be a much broader pool of talent available. This should include anybody who is interested in the job. Judgment in regard to whether a candidate is suitable for appointment to this important job should be made based on the information contained in his or her curriculum vitae, his or her experience and the skill set he or she may bring to the job. For those reasons, I do not accept the views expressed by Deputy Ross.

On the Deputy's point regarding a vote of the Dáil on the matter, I have examined what happens in other jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions Parliament votes on such matters. In my opinion, this politicises the position of chief administrator. I think it should be a professional appointment. The Dáil does not vote on the appointment of Secretaries General of Departments. In the American system, many appointments, including to the position of ambassador, are voted on by the Senate. That is its tradition. I do not think it is a particularly good tradition. I think that the independence of our Civil Service has been one of the great strengths of our Republic over its almost 100 years of existence. I do not believe that voting in the Dáil on a nomination will enhance that independence or that status. I think it would diminish it somewhat. That is my personal view on this matter. I do not agree with the line taken by the Deputy in that regard.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I do not have a completely fixed view in relation to the other officerships that are encompassed by this legislation. I did ponder for a while on whether they should also be part of the TLAC process, but felt, on balance, that there needs to be flexibility within the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of such appointments and that the redeployment of less senior staff than the Clerk of the Dáil should be done from within the Houses of the Oireachtas by the Ceann Comhairle in consultation with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. If appointment to the positions of Clerk Assistant of the Dáil and Clerk Assistant of the Seanad was by way of the TLAC process, this would tie people into fixed terms, with no flexibility thereafter for them to be redeployed to other areas to get different experience. It would also lessen the uniqueness of the two Houses of the Oireachtas. Although I have argued that there should be an open competition for the position of Clerk of the Dáil and chief executive of the commission, with the same person fulfilling both roles, I believe we need to preserve not only the status but the independence of each House.

That is why I want to give a role to the chairman of each House in determining staff appointments, subject to the formal decision-making role of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. It is a better way of going about it than what we had before.

On the question of whether these provisions will be the last dealing with this issue, I hope they are not. I would like to see the new Dáil look afresh at all these matters, because we need to modernise the administration of the Houses generally. That is probably best done by an incoming Dáil rather than one in the last months of its term. It is important that when we have a vacancy for the Clerk of the Dáil, as there currently is, that it be filled in a more modern way than was the case in the past. As a result of the provisions in this Bill, the incoming Clerk of the Dáil will be appointed through an open and transparent process which will involve the endorsement of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply. Although this is a short Bill, it was a couple of years in the drafting and, as such, I did not really expect him to accept any amendments. I am aware of the political dynamics that have been going on behind the scenes and the difficulties that are left unspoken, for some reason, in this House and which are the reason it took so long bring the legislation forward. I do not intend to go into any of that other than to observe that there appears to have been a struggle between the Taoiseach and the Ceann Comhairle on the issue and the Bill is some sort of a fudged compromise. It is an outcome that is detrimental to the culture of political life in this country, and I say that with full sincerity. I accept that the Minister is genuine in what he says in terms of why he is making these appointments, but most party politicians do not see this the same way as do some of the Independent Members. We see the use of the word "discernment", which is a kind of euphemism for patronage and choice, as once again giving-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Choice is not patronage.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I referred to patronage and choice; I did not say they are synonymous. The use of the word "discernment" gives the Minister a power he or she should not have. One of the great curses of political life in this country is that all parties, when they get into power, look after their own. I referred in my initial contribution to the Judiciary and the Garda, where we find more obvious examples of this type of thing because those institutions are more prolific than the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Nevertheless, the administration of these Houses is an important issue. It is indicative of the persistence of the political culture that there is to be no change in this regard. Indeed, the discernment which Ministers have in the making of appointments, as referred to by the Minister, is now being extended to the Ceann Comhairle.

I hoped but did not expect there would be a change in the political culture, led by this House, such that this type of ministerial power, the power of patronage and preference, would be taken out of the political arena. The Ceann Comhairle is, after all, a politician, whether we like it or not. The Ceann Comhairle is elected and is part of the culture, even though, in theory, he or she is a person of impeccable character and infinite and infallible qualities. That is not quite the case in practice, but it is the kind of fiction we are supposed to believe in. I had hoped this House might set an example and be the forerunner in effecting a change in the political culture, but that is not to be. The Minister knows as well as we do that the use of political power, especially in the allocation of top jobs, has been abused by all parties since the foundation of the State. It has been abused to the extent that people who are blatantly not qualified are promoted into positions which are beyond their abilities. They are promoted because they are members of political parties and have served those parties well. They pop up with qualifications, some of which are fig leafs and others genuine, and are appointed, with extraordinary regularity not just to semi-State bodies, but to the Bench and to the top of the Garda in positions to which they probably would not be promoted if they were not of a certain political colour.

Unfortunately, that type of practice is not going to end. The retirement of the last Clerk gave us an opportunity to reform such practices in this House. It is very unfortunate that the opportunity is being forfeited. I regret it but am not surprised by it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether Deputy Ross has misread the Bill or does not understand the status quo. These provisions represent a fundamental step towards exactly the culture he is talking about. Under the current regime, the Ceann Comhairle selects the Clerk from the staff of the House. I am proposing that the post be filled by way of a competition that is open to all and administered through the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC. I have completely reformed that committee in my time in office and it now consists of a majority of external members. Every interview panel for the appointment to positions such as the Clerk of the Dáil will be chaired by an external member and comprise an external majority. The only people that could be given patronage under this system, as the Deputy puts it, are those included on the short list as being deemed suitable for appointment. In addition, as Deputy Ross knows, we have fundamentally transformed the system of appointment to State boards, which is now done through an independent process.

This Bill represents a significant move in the right direction. If we need to go further in future, we can consider how that might be done. In bringing forward these provisions we are doing something that was not done in 30 years. It will open up the next appointment in a way it has never been opened up before.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 15 to 28 and substitute the following:“5. (1) The appointment of a person to be the Clerk of Dáil Éireann shall be by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann upon resolution passed by Dáil Éireann recommending the appointment of that person subject to the following:

(a) the selection of a candidate for appointment as Secretary General shall be by means of an open competition, by the committee known as the Top Level Appointments Committee, who shall recommend, in order of preference, not more than three persons for appointment to the Commission, provided if the Commission fail to agree to the recommendation of any of the persons for appointment, then a new competition for the vacancy shall be held and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly; and

(b) consultation with leaders or designated leaders of groups or parties in Dáil Éireann who are not represented on the membership of the Commission at that time, the Commission shall nominate a person for appointment to Dáil Éireann by motion recommending the appointment of that person.”.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, line 31, after "Éireann" to insert "following a confined competition".

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, line 5, after "Éireann" to insert "following a confined competition".

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(6) For the purposes of this section—

(a) an open competition shall mean a competition whose terms with respect of the eligibility of persons to compete in it shall not be such as to limit such eligibility to persons who are civil servants,

(b) a confined competition shall mean a competition whose terms with respect to the eligibility of persons to compete in it shall be such as to limit such eligibility to persons who are civil servants, and

(c) the Commission means the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission.”.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 have been ruled out of order.

Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:“(5) Assigning responsibility for the management of all accommodation functions, including office accommodation for Members elected to the Houses of the Oireachtas, will be within the power of the Secretary General and the assignee will report to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission who will oversee and direct the management of this function as appropriate.”.”.

Renua Ireland believes that the Government of the day, in particular the Chief Whip, should have no entitlement to manage and assign office accommodation and should not disrupt Members who have been elected by the people to serve them. As the Minister knows, everyone in this House works extremely hard. We want to de-politicise the distribution of office space and ensure that all Members of the Oireachtas, who have an equal constitutional mandate, are treated with full equality regarding all of these matters. This issue forms part of a wider narrative in terms of the Government's diminishing of political opponents.

I refer to speaking time and rights. Those who are not members of the main Opposition parties, including Fianna Fáil and the Technical Group, are treated very poorly in terms of speaking slots. We do not have an equal opportunity to put our points across. We are all Members and are supposed to be treated equally. We all have the same mandate and are trying to put across our various points, but the current system is unfair.

We had a full discussion on Committee Stage about parliamentary allowances and the taking of moneys by political parties when Members are no longer part of them. Renua Ireland wants the membership of a political party to be reviewed on a yearly basis, and if one is not a member of a party at the end of a calendar year a party would not be able to draw down that money. Taxpayers' money should no longer go to fund parties to which Members no longer belong. We want fairness on this. The Chief Whip should not be able to make such decisions; the power should lie with the Secretary General of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment is a good safeguard for fairness and equality for Members of a Parliament. We, rather than parties, have been elected as Members of Parliament. Parties are the umbrella or playing colours of individuals elected to Parliament. It is sometimes good to see what has happened in reality in order to diagnose a problem or explore the possibility of fairness and better conduct in the future. I am not trying to examine scar tissue for the sake of it. Rather, I want to determine whether there is a better way of doing things.

On 2 July 2013 there was a vote in the House and the Government Chief Whip directed Members of the Government parties to vote in a certain way. It was an exceptional piece of legislation and in any other county Members of Parliament would have been given the democratic right as representatives to vote in accordance with their consciences. That did not apply on that occasion, therefore we were voting in accordance with what was not a personal conscience, but rather a conscience within the ambit of being a representative of the whole people, as the German basic law describes in its constitution. The principles of the constitutions of Lithuania, Czech Republic, Latvia and the Netherlands also refer to that. We were prevented from behaving within those democratic principles.

The outcome of not voting in accordance with the direction of the Chief Whip was immediate expulsion from the parliamentary party. We were handed a letter immediately, on 2 July. I am giving the chronology because the House was going to rise within a fortnight, just as we will rise next Thursday on 16 July. The direction to get out of our offices and obey the Chief Whip in what was almost a reprisal for voting in accordance with conscience was over the top. This amendment would prevent such over the top behaviour.

There was a lot of pressure leading up to the decision to vote in accordance with my conscience and my health was not great at the time. I am not revealing this for prurient reasons, but it is important to say it because it happened. I visited my doctor who told me my blood pressure was extremely high. I told him there had been a direction to get out of my offices and he said that was not appropriate. The summer holidays and recess were coming up and it would have been the reasonable and courteous thing to do to organise things by arrangement in a consensual and cordial fashion. There was no emergency. I had a medical certificate that recorded that my blood pressure was elevated and vacating offices was not indicated.

The certificate was presented to the Office of the Taoiseach, as well as to the Chief Whip. It had no effect whatsoever and a week later all my communication lines, such as phones, e-mails and computers, were cut. It was like before the Normandy landings. They were restored and we limped on in the office for a week. The following weekend, without my knowledge, everything was removed, including the pictures on the wall and all my papers and files, from the five-storey building to the basement in Leinster House 2000.

At the time I pointed out it has an inbuilt fire hazard because vertical steel girders going down to the ground support an impenetrable wire mesh. If the corridors of the building went on fire there would be no escape. I pointed this out but nothing has been done about it.

These are facts, and if they were within the ambit and responsibility of the Secretary General of the Houses of the Oireachtas, as proposed, it would be a much better, safer and safeguarding framework. As Deputy Flanagan stated it would depoliticise the accommodation of duly elected Members of Parliament who are solemnly doing their best to carry out their responsibilities. I am not playing around with geography, physics or psychology, I am being dead honest. It should not matter who belongs to what party or no party. It is helpful for members of parties to be grouped in buildings in easy access of one another, and I have no problem with this, but in exceptional circumstances, there should be above all courtesy, understanding and respect and there was not. This happens when there is too much concentration of power and authority, no matter who the office-holder happens to be. It is the framework which is dangerous. The framework of giving the allocation of office accommodation in a practicable way with the ultimate responsibility being assigned to a civil servant not exposed to political pressures and temptations is a very good idea. I humbly entreat that it be taken on board for the future. This is with an eye to the future, in the same way as one has fire escapes in buildings.

If we look at the facts and what happened, we see it could have been prevented. There was no need for it, but the temptation was there because an act of insubordination in the minds of the Whip and the Government took place and there was going to be a punishment for it. This is wrong. It is as plain as the nose on my face that this is wrong in the circumstances. Anybody from any other jurisdiction speaking any other language would clearly understand this. In the haste of the blizzard of trying to get stuff through legislatively, behaviours get heated, judgment goes missing and courtesy goes out the door, and this is not a good idea. We saw it today with regard to pressing a red or green button, when Deputy Ó Caoláin in the haste of getting to his seat mistakenly hit the wrong button. When things are done too hastily errors occur, such as bank guarantees, overnight liquidations of busted banks and the setting up of NAMA on half an hour's reading, when the papers in the hands of the Deputies in the 30th Dáil were still warm from the Xerox machine. The big thick documents-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have certainly strayed now.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is important. It begins with the allocation of space, resources and money to carry out research to carry out parliamentary functions. Suddenly it is whipped without thinking. Taking resources from somebody who has been duly elected, man or woman, young or old, is not right. Anybody can see it is utterly not right.

I will do whatever it takes to ask the Minister to do the right thing. If he wants me to do a cartwheel down the steps I will do it, or I will genuflect to him, because it is the right thing to do. This is not about egos, power, numbers or voting down people. Let us do the right thing because it is right. The 166 of us here obviously know it is the right thing to do. Why can we not try it just once? We might get changed behaviour. If we keep doing the same things again and again any psychiatrist will tell us we will get the same results. Any psychiatrists worth their salt will tell their patients to stop doing what they are doing if they want a different result. The results are not good but we can change them by changing our behaviour. I humbly entreat the Minister from first-hand experience to try it. It is well worth it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. This particular amendment is somewhat extraneous to the Bill, which is about the appointment of the Clerk and Secretary General of the House. I will make one general observation and comment on the amendment. It is not the first time I have listened to a speech like the one I have just heard, as if the Deputy had within his heart the full knowledge of right and anybody with a different view is automatically wrong. I respect everybody's view but I do not assume that somebody who disagrees with me by virtue of that disagreement is wrong. It is a very odd position. I want to explain how accommodation-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The corollary is what you are saying.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will have an opportunity to come back.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened very carefully to everything the Deputy said. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission under law has a statutory function in preparing guidelines for Members on the use of all accommodation in the Houses. The Office of the Superintendent of the Houses supports the commission in carrying out this statutory function. These guidelines indicate that in the event of difficulty or disagreement about the enforcing of the guidelines, the matter will be decided upon by the Ceann Comhairle in his or her capacity as chairperson of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The guidelines are for the advantage of every Member of the House, and the proposed amendment would, in my judgment, ultimately reduce the powers of the independently elected Chair of Dáil Éireann to make decisions in the event of disagreements or disputes. My honest view of what is right is this is a better way than giving it to any administrator who would be caught in a political controversy, as the Deputy has indicated, and this is not a fair or reasonable place to put any administrator in the House.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know by definition if there is a debate there are two viewpoints, if not many more. If the Minister paid attention to the events that took place, he would see the circumstances of how they took place, what the outcomes were and who had the power and authority to do what was done, and to do it suddenly like a field marshal. I will not use another phrase for it but it is not good behaviour. There were only two weeks to go.

The circumstances indicated there could have been a gradual, courteous, consensual change of address within the Oireachtas. The fact is that punishment had to be seen to be meted out. If the Minister believes the chairman of the Oireachtas commission should be somebody who likes to mete out punishment, we would be in an even stranger place than I thought. A civil servant, given the protection and responsibility in this, can say that there must be order and cordiality here. I do not care what political parties or groupings have particular power by dint of numbers but that civil servant servant should ensure that there is civility here. It is like M. Scott Peck's book, A World Waiting to be Born, in search of civility. We are missing that. Perhaps it is a worthy book for summer reading in all organisations. We are an organisation, the democratic cardiovascular system.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should conclude as his time is up.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The connections are important as people should understand them. I am not saying I have a monopoly on wisdom as I do not. This is an understanding that I wish to share. It is humble sharing. If I give the impression that I see myself as having the one and only correct view, I do not. However, I am sharing an understanding. It is like a body floating in water because it is lighter. It is a discovery. Please take it on board.

Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response. Any neutral person considering the current process might say what happens here is very unfair and undemocratic. To have the governing parties of the day assigning office space means that Members can be disrupted. We all have the same mandate, as the Minister has already noted, and everybody should have the same entitlement to speaking rights and office accommodation. Deputy Mathews experienced major disruption and he was treated appallingly at the time. We need to ensure such cases are not repeated. Deputies Creighton, Timmins and I have sought to depoliticise the current process and ensure it is done above politics. The decisions should be made by an independent person, the Secretary General of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The powers to allocate office accommodation should lie with that official and not a Government Chief Whip.