Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 12 Jan 2012

Annual Report 2010: Discussion with Houses of the Oireachtas Commission

Mr. Kieran Coughlan(Secretary General, Houses of the Oireachtas Commission) called and examined.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the visitors' Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones, as interference from mobile telephones affects the sound qualify of the transmission of the meeting. I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given, and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the House nor an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the provisions under Standing Order 158 that the committee should also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Mr. Kieran Coughlan, Accounting Officer, Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. I invite him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I am joined by Mr. Conan McKenna, assistant secretary, Ms Adrienne Harrington, Office of the Commission and the Secretary General, Ms Gina Long, finance officer, and Ms Karen Kehily, accountant.

I welcome the officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Mr. Dermot Quigley

I am principal officer in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform sectoral policy division. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Michael Duffy, also from the sectoral policy division in the Department.

I invite Mr. John Buckley, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to introduce the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Annual Report 2010.

Mr. John Buckley

Thank you, Chairman. The direct cost of running the Oireachtas in 2010 was €107 million. In addition, certain services are borne on the other Votes on the Central Fund. These are estimated at €29.4 million, bringing the total operating costs for 2010 to €137 million. Included in the figure of €29.4 million were payments to party leaders and political parties totalling €13 million in 2010. Statements of expenditure under both areas are examined by the Standards in Public Office Commission and annual reports by the commission are laid before the Oireachtas.

Under the governing legislation, the Oireachtas receives its funding directly from the Central Fund but uses a form of accounting akin to that applied to Votes, namely, the accounts are cash based. The accounts received a clear report in respect of the year and, other than a summary of its expenditure, there were no reporting matters included in my annual report for the year.

I call on Mr. Coughlan to make his opening statement.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Thank you, Chairman. On my last appearance before this committee in 2007, I was able to state with confidence that under the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, the parliamentary services supporting the Houses and their committees had come a long way, as indeed they had. Now, given the current state of public finances, our focus on basic cost control has become far more dominant. The challenges presented are also an opportunity to find ways of maintaining and improving services to Parliament and its Members.

In the briefing document, we have outlined the role of the commission and the good stewardship in managing the finances and resources. In summary, the conclusion drawn is that our overall expenditure has gone back in real terms to where it was pre-commission in 2003, with the effect of the Civil Service moratorium having been to claw back almost half of the additional staff resources we gained following the establishment of the commission. It is also important to point out that we are a comparatively simple organisation expenditure-wise as 92% of our budget in 2011 went on non-discretionary items.

While overall expenditure has been reduced - some externally through the budget cuts by the Minister for Finance in 2010 - it is always measured so as to be consistent with the constitutional obligations of the Houses. In any event, most of the reductions have been made to the administrative area which is exemplified by the fact that the discretionary element of the budget has gone down from between 7% and 9% to 3.8%.

One of the biggest challenges we face is striking the right balance between cost cutting and supporting the Parliament and its Members. Given the progress to date on meeting resource targets set centrally, a strong argument can be made that the commission and service have done enough, as to do more runs the serious risk of impairing the functions of Parliament.

Managing to do better with less has become a catch-cry for achieving efficiencies, in particular under the Croke Park agreement, and we have outlined many examples in our briefing document. Not only has the service coped with the effects of the moratorium, we are proactively reviewing how we do our work and undertaking a number of business process and value for money reviews across a range of operational areas. It should be noted, however, that doing more with less is happening at a time of significantly increased outputs in this Dáil. For example, sitting hours increased by 12% and sittings by 30% when one compares the second half of 2011 against the previous two years.

In the annual report a number of international comparisons are made with other parliaments. While there may be little appetite or indeed scope to provide additional resources, it is worth noting that the resources to Members and Parliament are generally below average. One of the significant changes made since my last appearance is in respect of Members' allowances, with the introduction of a single allowance standardised system, including attendance recording and random sample audit for the first time. Notwithstanding these improvements in transparency, Members' allowances receive much attention and remain a perceived reputational risk for Members. Other jurisdictions have taken more radical measures in terms of how the system is managed and the review of the scheme to take place this year may look into this issue.

The new scheme provided for an independent audit of Members selected independently on a random basis. The auditors have now reported on the first audit and all was in order with only one minor issue in respect of a small sum for a former Member, which has now been refunded. The report reflects well not alone on the Members concerned but on the viability of the scheme itself. The auditors also made some recommendations on various categories under the audit and these will be examined in the context of the review of the scheme.

The challenges outlined in the briefing document are all very important. An equally important event which underpins these challenges is that 2012 sees the end of the triennial cycle and is the year when the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission legislation, which sets the budget for 2013 to 2015, will have to be passed. This is one of the crucial tests coming this year.

May we publish Mr. Coughlan's statement?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

I welcome Mr. Coughlan, the only witness to come before the committee who we meet on a daily basis, and his officials. Having reviewed the full 106 pages of the annual report for 2010 and the 20 pages of briefing notes, I have drawn up a list of specific points on major and minor issues which caught my eye. I ask Mr. Coughlan to take note of them and respond in due course.

What was the total of legal fees paid? The annual report refers to the sanctioning of legal fees for the conduct of the defence of legal proceedings. Page 15 of the briefing note refers to legal settlements, for example, in respect of an action for damages taken against the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. I ask Mr. Coughlan to elaborate on this statement. What was the total figure for legal fees incurred? How are the fees set? Is a competitive tendering arrangement in place? Who sanctions whether an issue is to be contested or challenged in court? Although the various committees may take whatever view they like, I presume Mr. Coughlan, as Accounting Officer, is the person who writes the cheques. I ask him to provide some information on the total figure for legal fees.

On the Library and Research Service, a large number of Bills digests were produced during the course of 2010. I have a suggestion for the future. Some Bills are produced at short notice, by which I do not only mean the Finance Bill. The digests for such Bills do not appear until the day the relevant debate is commencing in the Dáil. I am aware that this is a staffing issue which may require people to work late at night or through the night to have a Bills digest ready for legislation which is frequently taken within a few days of publication. However, the legislation in question is probably the most controversial of the Bills to come before us, which means Members are left having to work them out on their own. One has all the time in the world to get information on routine Bills which are flagged months in advance. I ask Mr. Coughlan to put a system in place to address this issue.

Page 34 refers to the education outreach programme, which appears to have been scaled back, perhaps as a result of cost-cutting measures. Under the programme, a significant number of activities took place in constituencies a few years ago. It was good that visits were made to various schools. I ask Mr. Coughlan to comment on the cost of the programme.

I am not sure if the extensive press cutting service for committees is still in place. If it is still in place, what areas does it cover?

Page 97 of the report states the health and safety committee meets quarterly. Page 10 of the briefing document states there are 13 different sites on the Leinster House complex. What are these sites? If Mr. Coughlan is unable to list them, I ask him to send a note providing the details to the committee. As the Office of Public Works is responsible for the Leinster House complex, I ask that any issues relevant to the building and under the jurisdiction of the OPW which are not dealt with today be notified to the OPW whose representatives will come before the committee on 23 February. Officials could then have a response prepared on any issues on which Mr. Coughlan is unable to respond today. Does Leinster House have a fire certificate? Is there a fire certificate for each of the 13 locations and, if not, why not? This may be an issue for the OPW and I am aware that much of the Leinster House building is old and listed. Mr. Coughlan is the Accounting Officer and essentially the employer. Staff and members of the public would like to be sure the Dublin city fire officer has issued a fire certificate for the building. I understand 86,000 people came through the building last year. If a certificate has not been issued, I ask Mr. Coughlan to provide some independent assurance that equivalent measures are in place. Will he explain the fire certificate process for each of the 13 different locations in the complex?

While I put up my hands and admit I do not know if there is a crèche in the Houses of the Oireachtas, I have heard talk for years that such a facility may be provided. Is there a crèche and, if so, how many people use it?

How many Members and staff use the fitness room? I do not seek information on the number of visits to the facility given that a small number of people may use it extensively but on the number of individuals who use it.

Is Deputy Fleming a user of the fitness room?

No, but I know it is in the basement of Kildare House. Is the Deputy suggesting I could do with it? I do not use the crèche.

Page 10 of the briefing document includes a note on the Croke Park agreement. I have not seen a document in the past 12 months from any public servant that did not refer to shared services. I have yet to see a document without such a reference. In terms of savings under the Croke Park agreement, the Accounting Officer states that €650,000 per annum was saved from moving the salaries financial transaction processing and HR transaction processing to shared services. To where has that function gone? Total savings amount to €750,000 if the pension payroll is included. Please talk us through that initiative. Has it been outsourced and, if so, to where? Rather than deliver payslips around the House and people collecting them, the House has a system whereby they are e-mailed to the 400 staff in the building, the staff in the constituency offices and Members who then have to print them off their own computers at a substantial extra cost in terms of the Oireachtas printing. They have to be printed one by one on 500 or 600 computers. There is a transfer of costs from one part of the House to another part of the Oireachtas budget.

I wish to raise the issue of privacy. I am aware of people with the same surname being able to access other people's payslips on the screen. Perhaps I will provide details of that issue privately. What provision is made to ensure the privacy of payslips? Those are specific questions. There is no particularly major issue. I did not get into salaries, pensions and travel expenses because they have been subject to more FOI requests than any other item of public expenditure in the State. If people consider I am glossing over it, it is all on the public record. I am happy to discuss it, but it has been discussed at length in other fora.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

To take the question on legal fees first, since 2007 we have spent €311,000 on legal fees and damages. That excludes the Judge Curtin case which has not yet been settled. That is an outstanding issue of dispute between Judge Curtin's legal team and the commission. There were various attempts at a settlement. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission decided it had an obligation to pay the fees but the amount is the issue. There was also a dispute about the Taxing Master's jurisdiction and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission contested it. It was a High Court case. They now want to go to an outside arbitration mechanism. Just under €1 million was offered to the Curtin team but it is claiming almost €2 million. It must be remembered that in this particular case no actual inquiry took place. It was just preliminary meetings. Therefore, it is extraordinary that amount could be sought. The Curtin team also took a High Court case and a Supreme Court case independently of the Houses and was awarded more than €1 million in costs, because it was a constitutional case. Even though the Curtin team lost the case, the court decided to award its costs. In that particular case, there is a fall off. Last October, the commission sent a final cheque in settlement but it was not cashed. That is an outstanding debt of €900,000 in addition to the €311,000. I have the list from 2007 when we spent €35,000. I can list the items if the Deputy wishes.

People would be interested to hear them.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

In the Maureen Morris v. the Minister for Finance and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission case, a sum of €35,000 was awarded. In 2008, there was a legal settlement for Orla Fitzpatrick, a former employee, of €150,000. Repair costs for damage to a car to Gemma Hussey amounted to more than €1,000. Compensation for a Kildare Street gate ramp incident for damage to a car for Noel Kelly amounted to €1,200.

In 2009, under the State Claims Agency, there were agency counsel fees in M. Hanafin v. the Oireachtas case of €1,600. There was also settlement of counsel fees of €33,000. Her particular costs were €27,000. That case amounted to well over €50,000.

What settlement?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I just have the fees. I do not know what the settlement was.

What was the first figure mentioned by the Accounting Officer? He mentioned €1,600.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That was for agency counsel fees.

I thought a settlement was made.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There was a settlement but I cannot recall it.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There was a payment for costs in the Orla Fitzpatrick v. the Ceann Comhairle case of €59,000. That case was agreed and did not go for trial.

There was a case about damages to a car for €1,100. The last item was also for damages to a car of €539.

Why do the little things about damage to cars involve legal fees? Could they not be settled between the Accounting Officer and an insurance company? Why do solicitors have to be get involved in such cases?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Unfortunately, the person involved would not agree to settle.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I will take on board what the Deputy has said about the Bills digest service. The Library and Research Service is very customer oriented. One of the best examples is its input into parliamentary-----

The Accounting Officer did not mention the Ivor Callely case.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That case is not finalised because it is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

What are the figures involved so far? What has the commission offered?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

We do not have a figure. Actually, he has not submitted his costs yet.

Therefore, it has still to be dealt with.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is right. Less than €500,000 is the prediction.

Of what? Is that for legal fees or settlement costs?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There will not be any settlement.

That is legal fees.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Is that issue still in court? Is it under appeal?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is under appeal in the Supreme Court. If the Seanad CPP loses the Supreme Court case, the costs could be as high as €500,000.

Perhaps the Accounting Officer would explain to us, as the Members who represent the public, on what are we going to the Supreme Court? Why are you, as Accounting Officer, asking taxpayers to expose ourselves to that amount? What massive matter of constitutional principle is involved that the taxpayer should be asked to put up possibly €500,000 to defend this case? Please explain it to the committee. What is the basis of your appeal?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is not my appeal; it is the Seanad committee's appeal as it took the action against him.

You are the Accounting Officer.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes, but if a committee of the House decides to take a legal action, I cannot veto that.

I asked at the beginning if the Accounting Officer has a say. I said the commission can decide all it wishes but, as the paymaster, do you have control over this?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Obviously we would consult with the committee secretariat. The commission itself signed off on the overall fees but obviously we would get the best possible value.

Right. Who makes the decision? Is it the Seanad or-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The Seanad committee, the people involved.

Is it the Seanad committee?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes, the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Chairman, do we have jurisdiction on this issue, given that there are no Senators on this committee? Any costs arising would come out of the Houses of the Oireachtas budget. I think the Committee of Public Accounts has a role in regard to public expenditure. I would like the Seanad CPP to explain the issue. It might have an excellent case. Perhaps it would explain the reason it is embarking on a Supreme Court appeal that could cost the taxpayer €500,000.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There are issues involved. It has been advised by senior counsel that it did raise constitutional issues between the Houses in order that it could regulate its own affairs. It was a difficult case because the Ethics in Public Office Act applied to the procedures in terms of the Houses. There are weighty constitutional issues, in that sense, in the divide between the Houses and the courts which, as members know, since Abbeylara itself, has already been-----

This is specifically in light of the recent referendum, in which the people of Ireland chose not to give the Oireachtas more powers of investigation following on from the Abbeylara judgment. The Ivor Callely case is another constitutional case arising from an investigation. Now that the public have told us they do not want to give us additional powers, we should revisit this in the context of what is now clearly the public's different view on investigations that could be or have been carried out by this House. The Government proposals following on from the defeat of the referendum will change the approach to investigations by the House and constitutional issues such as rights. In the context of the recent referendum, it would be worth getting an update on why this is the case. We should be entitled to that, although perhaps we are not.

We can write to the committee and ask for the information the Deputy is requesting. Does the Deputy have any further questions?

There is a big list of other questions. That was the last of the legal issues.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The fees are done very competitively through our own parliamentary legal adviser's office. It is done in a professional way.

For cost reasons, the education outreach programme was scaled back. In fact, it is now carried out on a volunteer basis by our internal staff. In a similar way, it has been transferred to our own video room. We saved considerably on that. The downside is that the reach of the programme is not as good, internally, as it was before. Up to 18,000 students availed of the scheme previously but this is now down to 2,000, so there is more work to be done to encourage that to come in-house.

The press cutting service is called Factiva and is available to Members.

With regard to health and safety, I could make a stab at the 13 sites, but I am afraid-----

Mr. Coughlan can send us the list.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I will.

What about the fire certificates on those buildings?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is up to international standards.

I was asking whether there is a fire certificate.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I believe there is, yes.

There is one for the main building?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There would be, yes.

How recent is that? Is there a separate certificate for each of the 13 buildings? I remember being told there was no fire certificate for this building as it was exempt.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

When was the Deputy told that?

Some time ago.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Really? I will have to check that; I would be surprised if there were not.

I ask Mr. Coughlan to provide a note on the fire certificates for each of the 13 locations.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

We will, yes. There has been a lot of work done in this regard in the last three or four years.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The crèche is not used by any of the Members or anything like that. It is mainly used by our own staff. There was a shortfall in the numbers and it was opened up to public service Departments in the vicinity, so it is viable.

Six Members are using the fitness room. Some 93 have signed up, but the average usage is that five to ten Members are regular users.

We should all go.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Some 93 have signed up.

Should we name them?

No - under no circumstances. They are entitled to go in privacy.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

On the issue of shared services, as the Deputy said, there is a potential saving of €650,000 per annum. I will ask Mr. McKenna to expand on this.

Mr. Conan McKenna

The shared services consist of our targets to outsource payroll to a Civil Service shared facility, as well as, possibly, financial transactions and the payroll end of Members' pensions, in which there is a lot of transaction processing. We estimate that it will save the State up to €750,000 per year. Progress is dependent to a large extent on developments at the central level in shared services. A major part of the Government's public service reform programme is to establish shared services for human resources transaction processing and financial transaction processing. While we have readied ourselves to participate in that, to a certain extent we have to wait. We are hoping there will be significant developments this year on the financial and payroll side. In addition, the Government has recently launched a programme on the HR side and we will be in the front line of that. The idea is to get all the day-to-day transaction processing out of here and just have the value-added work. A typical example is that the engine that produces the pensions would be transferred but the people here who help Members and former Members by giving them advice on their pensions would not.

We have also had a couple of small wins with shared services in recent times which have saved us a bit of money. First, we have a shared service arrangement with another Department whereby, instead of going out and buying a remote data site to protect our information, we have moved our data to a protected area offsite at no cost.

When Mr. McKenna refers to data, is he talking about all debates and constituency files, or is he just talking about the Oireachtas's own administration?

Mr. Conan McKenna

Yes; it is the administration database. Our material replicates to a secure site so that, for instance, if our systems were to fail we would be able to copy it back.

Mr. McKenna is just talking about the office's own administration. He is not talking about all the files on TDs and constituency offices, secretarial files and the backup that is done every night, is he?

Mr. Conan McKenna

All members' data is replicated to a secure site.

Where is that done?

Mr. Conan McKenna

That is actually stored on the systems here.

Where is the external backup for that?

Mr. Conan McKenna

We do backups for that-----

But the external backup?

Mr. Conan McKenna

-----and the tapes are stored offsite in secure locations.

Mr. Conan McKenna

Yes.

Mr. Conan McKenna

We also had one other small shared services win. Since the last election we have provided Ministers and Ministers of State who have been appointed to Departments with access to our IT services. That is on a bought basis. Rather than shopping around on their own for this service, many Ministers are now taking up that facility.

Thank you, Chairman.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The last issue the Deputy mentioned was about privacy.

Yes. It was a small point but I just wanted to mention it.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I will look into that for the Deputy.

I will give Mr. Coughlan the example I referred to. I am sure it was a freak occurrence.

Just to clarify, with regard to the Judge Curtin case, did Mr. Coughlan say that an independent arbitration process is in place or is to be put in place?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There is no agreement on what arbitration would take place, but that is the only way out of it at this stage in order to make progress.

We have issued a cheque for-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Almost €1 million.

And that has not been cashed?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly.

A suggestion has been made about the independent process, and that has not been accepted either?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly. There is a bit of a fall-off now.

Our total exposure could be €2 million.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly, if they got their way.

Yes. What is our exposure elsewhere? Is that the extent of it? What about the €500,000 in the other case?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

No, that is the extent of it. All the others have been paid, with the Callely case still outstanding.

With regard to Mr. Coughlan's comment in his opening statement, Deputy Fleming is right in saying there is plenty of media coverage of our salaries and expenses and so on. I think these are published on the website regularly so the information is there for the public and the media to pick up.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is right. It has led to a slight decrease in freedom of information requests, for instance.

And the cost of FOI requests. Can Mr. Coughlan tell me, with regard to the audit itself, the number of Members availing of the expenses that are required to be audited? How many of them were audited, and what was the cost of that audit?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The figure the commission set was 10% of the Members who opted for that scheme. That is its only role in it. There were 110 people in the vouched scheme and 11 Members were audited. The cost was-----

So 110 Members are on a vouched system and------

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

And 10% of those Members were audited by Mazars-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly.

-----and nothing of a substantial nature was found. How much did the audit cost?

Mr. Conan McKenna

It cost €23,000, including VAT.

Will the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission examine the cost of €23,000 to determine if there is a more efficient, cost-effective way to conduct an audit after it has worked with the initial process?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is being reviewed. It was the first outing on that. Naturally, there will be a review of it, what the best return is and how efficiently it was done.

For 11 people to be audited it cost €23,000.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is right.

There is value for money to be achieved in regard to that. I am pleased to learn it is being reviewed. The other figure I noted is that the income from the bar and restaurant fell by a significant figure. What is the response of Mr. Coughlan to that?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Last year was an election year and is an unusual year to compare like with like.

Has that been reviewed? The figure is for 2010.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

If business has dropped off by that much have the reasons been examined, as well as how the facilities can be improved?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Indeed. All of the activities in Leinster House are governed by committee. There is management buy-in from committee. Obviously, we would have an Accounting Officer angle on services. The committee tends to take a leading role in what kind of services are provided in the restaurant and other services. Mr. McKenna will explain the figures for 2008.

Mr. Conan McKenna

The amount of income surrendered is down to a formula which takes the net profit of the facilities. There is a formula for money it has to keep at bank for contingencies, etc. That formula was only fixed properly in 2009, if I remember correctly. There was a jump downwards from €430,000 to €226,000 between 2009 and 2010. However, the sum surrendered in 2008 was €151,000 which was too low. The formula for the relationship between the amount surrendered and kept at bank, having been fixed to that point, resulted in money being carried into 2009 which should have been surrendered in 2008 into 2009. That exaggerated the amount. If one looks at it over a period of a number of years, between €220,000 and €250,000 a year falls to be surrendered. If the four years are averaged it is about €250,000 but there was a blip in 2009 and 2010, which was a result of interaction with the auditor. As far as I remember, in 2009 we worked out the proper formula to ensure surrenders happened at the right time.

That sounds like a great explanation. In accountancy or turnover terms, are the figures for the restaurant and bar going up or down? I would ask whether I had a viable business, is the turnover correct and has the turnover dropped by €204,000. I am sorry for being specific, but the explanation given does not explain the situation.

Mr. Conan McKenna

The combined net profit of the bar and restaurant would have been €306,000 in 2010 and €219,000 in 2007. The figures involved are €219,000, €307,000, €364,000 and €306,000. The figures go up and down, as the Secretary General said, in terms of sitting years.

Is that profit?

Mr. Conan McKenna

That is net profit after costs but before staff costs. It is a net profit after running costs, excluding staff costs. The bars and restaurants are staffed by industrial civil servants.

I thank Mr. Coughlan for coming before the committee today. I want to ask questions about the annual report and the update, and also make some personal observations. I hope I do not get too specific about certain areas.

I hoped to take on an intern under the new JobBridge scheme announced by the Minister for Social Protection, where companies are able to take on an intern who would be able to keep his or her social welfare payments and get a top up of €50 a week, to help me with my work on this committee. I was told that I could not because I was not a legal entity as I am a Member of the Oireachtas. I wonder whether the Oireachtas or commission stand as legal entities and whether they could hire people under the scheme? Has Mr. Coughlan thought about that or would he consider it, in terms of the work the commission needs to achieve and to provide additional resources to Members? Is it possible for Deputies and Senators to avail of the scheme through the commission?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There may be accommodation issues. It could be done. We used the scheme to complement our staff shortages. I understand what the Deputy is saying.

I can and have accommodated an extra person. We have taken on interns but we have not been able to remunerate them.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Obviously the response the Deputy received gave the legal reasons as to why it could not be done. A legal entity has some obligations. We can look at the issue.

If Mr. Coughlan could that would be very helpful.

Is it to do with being is a registered employer?

I was told by the Department that I was not a legal entity so I could not do it.

We will check that out.

If there is a way to do it through the commission it could be incredibly useful for all of us.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Apart from the congestion issue, the Department of Social Protection said it could not regard Members as employees for the accepted sense of the scheme. There might be a difficulty on its side as well.

Could the commission not hire on our behalf?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Obviously the commission would welcome resources from anywhere.

I would encourage it to pursue it.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

We are asking whether it can be investigated.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It can.

Just like Deputy Murphy, I investigated the matter and because I was not a registered employer I could not achieve what I wanted. The commission could now, as an employer, explore the possibility of some Members being able to accommodate an extra person to assist and give them experience.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

As I say, there are congestion issues as we all know. People have complained about them. There are a number of factors.

What exactly is meant by congestion issues?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I mean in the building itself. There are complaints as it is from the Ceann Comhairle down about congestion. On Wednesdays, for instance, it is like a high street, in terms of accommodation and traffic.

Is Mr. Coughlan referring to traffic on the corridors?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes. They are issues. There is a willingness to support Members where there is a cost-effective way of doing so.

While I understand issues like accommodation and congestion may be a cause for grievance, in some aspects they are very much secondary to the extra benefit that each Deputy or Senator would get from having the extra resource of a good young graduate or someone looking to get back into the workforce working for them.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There has been experience of that. Our administration has been using them and they have been top class.

Let me follow up on that because it is an important point. Mr. Coughlan said in his opening statement that the Oireachtas is doing more with less and is now at a critical point in that it cannot lose its existing critical mass of staff given what must be done. We feel the pinch at this committee in that, while we have three very excellent staff who support it, further investigation must be carried out by members. It has now been pointed up by Deputy Murphy, and through my efforts to get somebody else, that there is a need for support. This is one area that should be explored to determine, particularly in regard to the workload of this committee, whether that type of support can be made available to us. We have sought an extra person to bring together the various reports that are necessary based on our hearings. When the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, was present, we made the case to him that there was a need for us to bring together our reports much earlier so we could get the appropriate recommendations from this committee to the appropriate Minister for a response. We were dealing with recommendations that date from 2008 and 2009. That is not timely enough for a very cynical electorate that is expecting answers from us, particularly members of this committee. With scarce resources, it is necessary to resource this committee, because of its new workload, in a way that may not have been achieved heretofore. With the retirement of Mr. Buckley we have an opportunity to explore all these areas again. Deputy Murphy has raised a very valid point that should be considered.

On congestion, there is room in some of the offices, albeit not a lot, that could be used effectively and efficiently to enhance the work of committees. The congestion issue can be dealt with afterwards because the work of this committee, in particular, on overseeing public expenditure should not be hampered on foot of congestion.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I am not in any way decrying that. I am trying to imagine what the difficulties were when the Deputy was turned down. The status of a Deputy, as an individual, may be a reason but undoubtedly the committee itself may be able to engage the required people under the scheme.

It needs to be considered whether the committee can engage people for use by individual Members of the Oireachtas. At this committee alone, reading and research may be required on a week-by-week basis. This would require an extra staff member, if he or she could be obtained.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

If the committee could engage them, the members could then avail of them.

While I want to find extra resources for individual members of this committee and the committee as a whole, I want the commission to consider also the possibility of taking on staff under the scheme for each Member of the Dáil who may want one, not just members of the committee. It is important to establish whether that is possible.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

As I stated earlier, the Department may have its own views about the scope of that scheme. That could be considered also with the Department.

Let me continue on that issue, if I may. Again my point concerns resources. As Mr. Coughlan said in his opening statement, there is a need in these difficult times to have an effective Parliament and for parliamentarians to carry out their oversight role. He will see from the figures in the updated note that the number of Bills has increased by 110% and that the number of sitting days has increased by 30%. There is a lot more work for a Member of the Dáil to do. If a Member wants to meet the expectations of the public, both through representing his constituency and having an important role in the House, there is an argument for providing further resources, separate to those pertaining to the JobBridge scheme. Taking into account that, after the review of the Constituency Commission, there will be fewer Members of the Dáil and consequently fewer carrying out the oversight role, and fewer representing more constituents, in addition to the fact that there may be no Seanad following a decision by the people in a referendum, there will be a greater oversight role for Members of the Dáil in addition to an increased workload at this time of crisis. Bearing in mind the importance of having Members present, carrying out their functions and planning ahead, is my point not reasonable? Considering that Ireland ranks sixth of six countries surveyed in terms of the number of staff per Member, does Mr. Coughlan believe an extra member of staff should be allocated to each Member?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Clearly, international comparisons show there has been a slippage in the Dáil regarding staff resources and those of Members. We highlighted that. When the commission was started, it was formed on the basis of the international benchmarking review. Arising from that, provision was made for the extra parliamentary assistant. Deputy Murphy, as a new Deputy, should note that, in the past five years, member-staff resources have doubled. The figure has now slipped back according to the international comparisons. Clearly a case can be made to review the matter. People are very conscious of the workload. We are all very conscious in Parliament of the increased workload we all have, including Members, and of how the climate has changed outside. We all know there is a far more demanding public. That can be looked at. There are ways of advancing that within the system. The commission's members, who are all Members of the Oireachtas, will be very favourably disposed to the making of a proper case in a businesslike way rather than by just taking things out of the air.

Of course. The benchmark is very helpful in that regard. The increase in the number of sitting days by one third is huge. There has been a doubling in the number of Bills. That is a huge leap for any parliament. Looking at this in business terms, one would say that managing the extra output requires extra staff. If people want us to be better, it comes at a cost.

If we consider the period 2010 to 2013, bearing in mind the three-year cycle of the commission's budget, there are to be savings of €12 million potentially. On the basis of the calculations, every Deputy could get an extra member of staff at, say, a rate of €30,000, a good salary, for less than half the savings we will make over the three-year period. While it is important to make the savings, we would also look for areas in which we can improve our work and be more efficient and better parliamentarians, at no additional cost of the Exchequer in real terms.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There is a dilemma here. The savings made are under the umbrella of the Croke Park agreement. The commission is very conscious that if other public bodies are making sacrifices under that programme, it must be seen to be efficient enough to make those savings also. The challenge referred to in my opening statement is trying to get the correct mix. I was encouraged by the Chairman's reference to what the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform said at the meeting. He said that if there is to be change, the engine of change must be serviced. Effectively, that could apply to the Dáil also.

The soundings I have been getting from that Minister's Department have been rather negative as regards funding for the Oireachtas. The big challenge this year will be trying to maintain some level of funding to meet the expansion in the work in the Parliament, which, in overall funding terms, is a tiny piece of the State cake, and ensure the carrying out of its constitutional oversight role of being watchdog. The negotiations for that funding this year are absolutely crucial. We can talk all we like about particular examples of reduced resources but if one does not get the overall funding, one is going back to the dark ages of the 1980s when one had to get sanction for an electric typewriter from the Department of Finance. We do not want to go back there.

From the report and the updated note, the commission has been incredibly efficient in achieving savings under the Croke Park agreement. We have to keep in mind at all times that the Houses of the Oireachtas are unique among public bodies.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Whatever about other Departments, we should note all of them are accountable to us in terms of oversight, particularly on the part of the Committee of Public Accounts. We must have the resources to ensure the country is being run and that the Government is held to account and that the Parliament functions as it should and as the people expect. The point I am trying to make is that one can make a special case for us.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

We can, yes. In fact, I am making the same point as the Deputy. I might not be making it very well but that is, in effect, what we are talking about. This is a crucial year in which to get the correct figure in place such that we do not drop below what is required. The Deputy will know that Departments draw up a blanket figure and cut everybody in the same way. That we have been efficient in making savings does not mean we are more effective at what we are trying to do administratively. It does not mean that the overall budget for the Parliament to allow Members and committees to do their work does not have to be maintained. That is the crucial question for this particular year. Anything going through the channels in that regard would be welcomed.

We have a direct channel today because the Department is represented at this meeting. I am sure the message will be carried back.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

My colleague, Mr. Conan McKenna, just pointed out to me that in my opening statement I stated - I chose the words carefully - that I felt we have done enough now with cost cutting. If we were to carry on the same way as we have, we could actually impair the functions of the Houses. We have already exceeded the bord snip nua target in the number of vacancies we did not fill and we are nearly at the 12% vacancy level projected for all the public service for the end of 2015.

Our difficulty is the moratorium on recruitment. One does not replace vacancies except on an exceptional basis. The grade spread in those vacancies is at the lower end, ushers and such, and not at the higher level, so one does not get the same kind of savings in salary terms. I accept the Deputy's point which we highlighted ourselves in our opening statement.

Before we go off the point, it is interesting to note there are 140 staff in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There are 40 staff in the audit division of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. There are only three staff who scrutinise the accounts for this committee. If it were not for the exceptional nature of the three staff, this committee would not be able to do its business. That is frightening. We are arguing about nickels and dimes here. This committee must report on 15 different Departments and numerous State agencies, work done on behalf of the taxpayer. It has been said to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, and I will say it again to his departmental officials that if this committee is to improve its timely responses to exchanges it has with witnesses, improve the lot of the taxpayer and restore respect in politics, necessary changes to the committee system must be made by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. If these changes are not made, we will not be able to function in this term. Never before were we as needed in ensuring value for money and doing more with less.

I have heard the case Mr. Coughlan has made. I suggest the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform examine it. It is important the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the local government audit services division are amalgamated. That would provide real value for money and would give real teeth to this committee. It is nonsense that we talk about it week in and week out but nothing has been done yet. Far more attention needs to be paid to what the taxpayer is demanding of us.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There is scope for additional support for Committees as well. We have extra moneys, some €250,000, allocated for committees to draw down. This year we are in a reasonably good position. However, I am concerned about negotiating the budget which might not be good enough for sustainable improvements in services over the next three years.

Is it correct that in the early years of the commission, it actually underspent by millions which was then given back to the Central Fund?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

If the commission had followed other Departments in spending before the year was up, it may have kept more of its budget allocation. It seems the commission is being penalised for doing a lot more with a lot less even in the years when we had plenty.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The Chairman is correct. When the Members were given autonomy in 2004 through the commission, a spotlight was put on it. It was perceived the first thing that would happen with the commission would be that the politicians would blow their budget. We were very conscious of the fact that of all Departments we had to show good prudence which has been done consistently. As the Chairman said, we may suffer for that now.

Okay. We will return to Deputy Eoghan Murphy.

Moving on to expenses, why is the travel and accommodation allowance not vouched when the parliamentary standard allowance is?

Mr. Conan McKenna

The travel and accommodation allowance is not vouched as Members do not produce hotel receipts, mileage accounts, etc. The key verification system is the attendance recording system. Members must record their attendance a minimum number of times every year to receive the full allowance. On top of that, there is a formal, statutory self-certification by the Member at the end of the year that he or she incurred the allowances paid to him or her.

However, how much was spent is not actually vouched. The parliamentary standard allowance is an allocation of €25,000. Members must account for every cent they spend and that which they do not spend, they must give back. Why is there a different arrangement for the travel and accommodation allowance?

Mr. Conan McKenna

That is the scheme that was introduced in 2010 by the late Brian Lenihan when Minister for Finance. At the time, it was agreed between the then Minister and Members that this was the most effective scheme.

Several Deputies in this Dáil have called for the scheme to be reviewed and be vouched. Have there been any discussions on this?

Mr. Conan McKenna

The scheme was intended to be experimental for a year when it was introduced in March 2010. It was intended to review it when the year was up. It is the Minister for Finance who is the regulatory authority in this case, not the commission. The review will take place shortly. The Members' input into that will be through the Joint Administration Committee. The reason it did not take place to date is because the general election intervened unexpectedly in 2011. All these issues will presumably be on the table during the review.

How does the allowance for Independent Members work?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is through the party leaders' allowance.

Independent Members receive the party leaders' allowance. How much is this worth?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

For an Independent Member, it is worth €42,000 a year.

Are there any terms or conditions on how this is spent? Is it vouched?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is not. This is one of the anomalies. Under law, political parties are audited by the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, but the Independent Members were excluded from this remit.

If I were elected as an Independent Member, I would receive this €42,000 allowance which is not vouched and has no conditions on how I spend it. Is this under review?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is a political decision really. It has been voiced at this and other committees that people would like to see it vouched. An bord snip nua has also referred to it.

It is the Minister for Finance who should review it. He decides whether it is in or out of play.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly. He would have to change primary legislation, however. An bord snip nua recommended the Independent Members should be brought into the political party audit scheme in SIPO.

How was the €42,000 figure arrived at? Was it plucked out of the sky or does it stand for something?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It was set historically. It is based on a proportion of the membership of all the parties. There is a grading of the amounts. It is quite low, actually, for party members of a certain percentage. It varies between five and ten, and 20 and 40 and so on. There are various categories. If one is a member of a large party, it is certainly not €42,000.

This is a membership of one.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I understand that.

Is that right?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Say, for a member of the Fine Gael Party, it would be much lower than €42,000.

They are not worth as much as the Independents, is it?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That seems to be it.

The Chairman is ecumenical in his political views.

I would not ask for our rate yet.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The rates are: €71,000 per member for the first ten; €57,000 per member for 11 members to 30; and then if a party has over 30 members, it is €28,000.

What are those figures again?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is a graduated system. It is €71,520 per member for the first ten, that is, from one to ten.

What is meant by ten?

A party with up to ten members gets €71,000 per head. It is a headage payment of €71,000.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly.

Mr. Conan McKenna

The value goes down as the number of members in the party goes up.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The next category is 11 to 30 members, and that is €57,214.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Per member, yes. For over 30 members then, it is €28,616.

They are all vouched.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

They are.

The single member does not have to vouch for the €42,000.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

No. There are parties with two members in the Dáil and they are vouched. They get more than €140,000.

Vouched?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Vouched.

That money goes to the parties. It does not come to us as individual representatives.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is correct.

The parties get audited or it is under SIPO.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The party leaders get it but, effectively, on the basis of the Deputies elected.

Then that money is accounted for somewhere and it is investigated or audited by-----

Mr. Conan McKenna

SIPO.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

SIPO, yes.

In the case of the Independent who is of no party,-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is not.

-----it is just given.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Is it given monthly or is it given in a lump sum after the election?

Can we switch? Is it a transfer fee?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

One cannot. Former Deputy Beverley Cooper Flynn found that out.

Is that done on a lump-sum once-off basis after the election? Is it every year?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I am not too sure.

Mr. Conan McKenna

It is annual.

Is it paid monthly?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I am not too sure. I goes through the Department of Finance, not us.

That is not automatically coming under review in line with the travel and accommodation allowance, is it? Mr. Coughlan stated that was a one-year-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is not part of our accounts. It comes from the Minister for Finance under different legislation altogether.

We would have to bring this to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

I do not know yet whether the committee is at a stage to make a recommendation or to write a letter to the Minister for Finance about this, but in my view every single expense should be vouched. Any money we spend on behalf of the taxpayer should be receipted and audited, and it should be somewhere so that there is a trace as to what it was spent on.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The committee could do a report to the House on it and get it in that way.

As part of our reports and recommendations later on, we can certainly do it. I do not mean much later on; I am talking about now.

I consider the fact that I fob-in with this electronic fob is vouching that I travelled X kilometres from my home because that is certified. The fact that I fob-in proves I came and proves I went home - it proves I undertook the travel. That is vouching. I merely want to put that on the record. The distance is vouched and the fact that we came here is vouched. The travel end of it is vouched.

We must account for 120 days per annum for a full year. If a Member only clocks in for 115 days, he or she will be deducted. The Deputy's comments are correct. If one does not do what is required and undertake the travel, one will be deducted. Members are deducted and have had to refund money when they did not meet the required number under travel. There is absolute verification on that aspect of it.

On the same point, and to get clarity, what year did the €42,000 allowance come in?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The legislation goes a way back. It is long established legislation.

Are we talking 2002?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

No. As Deputy O'Donnell will be aware, it was there in Mr. Haughey's time - the party leader's allowance.

It dates back to the 1940s.

I mean in terms of it being unvouched.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Vouching was only for the main parties. It only came in relatively recently, in the past decade.

When would that have come in? Does Mr. Coughlan know what year that was?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It was 2001, for parties.

That was introduced in 2001. At that time, was there not a question of making the party leader's allowance for Independents be vouched as well-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There was.

-----in terms of consistency?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

In the legislation, it was. The Minister at the time decided that it did not warrant it because it was a small amount and so on. That was the view taken.

Who was the Minister at the time?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The then Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy.

What has happened is that we had a change in 2001-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is right.

-----with all expenses, where they became vouched for everyone except Independents.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly.

At present, they are not vouched and one need not give any explanation as to how the money is spent.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly.

It seems unusual that there was a change introduced in 2001 and yet for some reason-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It was debated in the Dáil. That point was debated at the time.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The Minister said that he did not feel it necessary because of the small amounts involved at the time.

There were few Independents in the Dáil at the time.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes. It was not a major issue and it did not seem to warrant that one would have a body like SIPO considering an individual Deputy where there is no party structure or any such like to provide an accounting mechanism.

Probably in the current environment in which we live.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

This issue has been around a while now. It has been recommended by a number of bodies, including the commission. Even though it was not within its remit it also made a recommendation. If this committee does it too - this is a premier committee - it might have some effect.

It might be time.

It is a matter for the Minister for Finance and we can make that recommendation.

We should. I am not saying that Independents should not get an allowance. We benefit from being members of the parties, from the infrastructure there and different things that accrue, and they would not have that support system, but any money paid by the taxpayer to an Independent because he or she is an Independent should be vouched. There should be consistency, as Deputy O'Donnell pointed out.

Where groups are formalised within the Parliament, does that negate their claiming as an Independent group?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It does potentially. It is all based on the electoral performance. Shifting chairs, seats or anything like that following an election will not affect the payment.

What if one goes in as an Independent?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

One keeps it.

What if one joins a party in that time?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Former Deputy Beverley Cooper Flynn - she will not mind me saying this - is a good example.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

She left Fianna Fáil and she was not entitled to the allowance because she was not elected as an Independent. Then she was elected as an Independent and was entitled to the allowance and, because she rejoined her party, there was an outcry about it and she had to relinquish it. She lost out on both counts.

The point is an Independent who becomes a member of a party continues to get paid the Independents' allowance.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is right.

Are Senators included in this allowance? Is there any allowance for Senators or is it only in respect of Deputies elected? I refer to the party leader's allowance. Is it only based on Deputies? From what has been said, it seems to be so.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Senators get it too.

Then let us move on to the second half of the story. There has been some publicity about some Independent Deputies having this figure and they need not vouch for it to SIPO, etc. Now Mr. Coughlan tells me that all the Independent Senators have an amount as well. There are many Independent Senators relative to the size of the Seanad compared to the Dáil. How much does an Independent Senator get relative to an Independent TD, or are they in the scheme at all?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

They get €23,000.

How many Senators are getting the allowance of €23,000?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I do not know because we do not administer that scheme.

Who administers it?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The Department of Finance. It is different legislation to the commission legislation altogether.

The party leaders - for the big parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and even the United Left Alliance, which is a party that is designated as an official party and was elected on the basis - get the allowance based on the number of TDs, and a certain figure based on the number of Senators. How many Independent TDs are there in the Dáil?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Nineteen.

The 19 Independent Deputies receive allowances of €38,000. How many Senators receive allowances of €23,000?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I do not know the number of Independent Senators.

There are six on the university panels and most of the Taoiseach's 11 nominees have not taken the whip.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

They formed their own group.

At least 17 Senators receive €23,000. That has been one of the best kept secrets in Irish public life. We knew about the Independent Deputies but a minimum of 17 Senators are receiving the allowance. What is their allowance called?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It comes under the same programme.

It is a leader's allowance. Is it taxed?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

No.

I presume it is included in their monthly payslip or is paid quarterly.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

They receive it over the year anyway.

They receive it over the course of the year. We might ask the appropriate person in the Department of Finance for the full details in respect of all Members of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is audited - sorry - the figures are set out in the report of the Standards in Public Office Commission.

I accept that but the allowances are paid by the Department of Finance or the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I suggest that we establish the factual position with these Departments.

The guidelines for the leader's allowance refer to up to ten party members. Is that up to ten Deputies or do Senators also count?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I think it refers solely to Deputies.

Mr. Conan McKenna

It applies to Members of the Dáil. A different figure applies per Member of the Seanad selected. The allowance paid to parliamentary party leaders in respect of Members of the Seanad is €46,766 per Member elected or nominated for each of the first five Members and €23,383 each Member elected or nominated thereafter.

The 17 Independent Senators receive €23,000 each.

I suggest we request the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to provide a written report setting out the terms of the scheme, how it operates and who is entitled to it. There is still confusion over the matter.

Prior to making a recommendation we will seek the necessary information from the Department. We will be able to make the appropriate recommendation based on that information and today's discussion as soon thereafter as members wish to do so.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

If it is helpful to members, the reports of the Standards in Public Office Commission contain a detailed exposition of the matter.

In regard to Oireachtas envelopes, it is important that Deputies have the right to correspond with their constituents without being charged for doing so. It is also important that constituents be able to correspond with their Deputies without charge. However, I wonder if we are spending more than we should on Oireachtas envelopes in terms of what we pay An Post for the service. I understand the stamp for a standard envelope is 55 cent, whereas we are paying more than 40 cent per envelope.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

We pay 54 cent.

Can cost efficiencies not be achieved? Private mailings can take advantage of franking at reduced cost. Why are we not able to avail of a similarly reduced cost?

Mr. Conan McKenna

The cost of a 55 cent stamp is reduced to 54 cents. The problem is that the envelopes are procured by us in order to distribute to Members in boxes on the basis of their statutory entitlements. The question of whether these physical envelopes could be replaced by a different system which allows us to use our bargaining power to procure postage on behalf of Members will be investigated presently by the Joint Administration Committee. It was raised at commission level last year and we have considered options for moving from the current system of boxes of envelopes to alternatives such as allowances for postage or centrally procured postage or franking machines. At the end of the day, that will be a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to decide. He makes the regulations and at present these regulations state that Members shall be provided with a certain number of prepaid envelopes per month.

I made some brief telephone calls to ascertain possible costings and got an estimate of as low as 38 cent per envelope. That figure is based on the number of envelopes that I use but does not take into account the combined purchasing power of all Deputies and Senators. As we pay upfront per envelope rather than based on usage, the money is spent regardless of whether the envelope is used. I moved between several offices when I first entered the Dáil and I encountered old boxes of envelopes that had not been used. In effect, that was money sitting on the shelf because we have already paid for the envelopes. Is that correct?

Mr. Conan McKenna

Yes, they are like currency.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

They appear to be a magnet for ethics complaints from members of the public. There is a lot to be said for providing an allowance instead of envelopes.

It would be far better to move to a different system that allows us to post material at a cheaper price based on usage rather than per box. It would be an important cost saving initiative.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

On a positive note, former Members of the Dáil returned envelopes worth more than €144,000. This was misconstrued by a certain tabloid newspaper as being the opposite but that is another story.

The Oireachtas pays upfront for stamped envelopes regardless of price and then they enter circulation. Are they returned automatically when Members lose out in an election or do we have to seek their return?

Mr. Conan McKenna

We would have to seek their return. We presume that Members will leave the envelopes behind when they depart but in many cases they probably do not realise they are similar to boxes of money. The Commission recently decided to contact Members who had left the Houses as long ago as 2007 on foot of the €144,000 that had been returned to find out if they had boxes of envelopes which were lying around in the belief that they were ordinary stationery. With a bit of luck, whatever is returned will be completely recycled.

On other figures, are the costings for running the Houses broken down? For example, can the cost of these envelopes be determined on a monthly basis and, if so, what is the figure for them? When it is agreed by the Dáil that it will sit for an extra day, such as a Friday, what is the cost to the State of that sitting day aside from the cost of Members?

Mr. Conan McKenna

We have done various calculations on the cost per Deputy or Senator but it is very difficult to cost sitting days. Marginal costs are associated with sitting days in terms of extra overtime, for example, but we do not measure it on a month-to-month basis.

Surely there are standing costs that have to be met regardless of overtime. One could give an approximate figure of how much it costs each day the Dáil sits. That indicative figure can be taken into consideration when Members are anxious to sit on a Monday or a Friday.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

From memory, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, a considerable figure is incurred for the Dáil to meet. Excluding Members costs, the amount is almost €90,000. The indirect costs allocated to the Dáil is €89,000 for an average sitting day.

Each sitting day costs upwards of €90,000, excluding the possible additional costs of overtime and other incidental expenses.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes. This is why we are anxious to engage with the political managers of the place so that while everybody accepts that the Houses have to sit when necessary, some account is taken of the impact on costs. Particularly in the Seanad, one would like to see that coming more into the thinking.

It is important when a decision is made to sit that we get value for the day in light of the costs incurred.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Exactly.

And Mr. Coughlan has brought that to the attention of all concerned as well.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I have but there was not a great response. I think the political process does not tend to engage in those things because there is a different dynamic at political level. However, in Sweden, for instance, the commission there has the Whips on it as well and they work out a better business programme for the week, which is very cost effective.

I do not say we should not sit the extra days but we should be conscious of the cost of each day we sit in order that we do it efficiently.

The Secretary General raised a good point about the Whips sitting on the commission in order that the Houses can be run more efficiently. The Seanad, for example, often sits late in the evening and it starts its business late. I have no idea why and it sits ridiculous hours. That must cost an incredible amount in overtime and so on. If we can improve and change that system by involving the Whips to ensure a more efficient ordering of business, it should be welcomed.

Similar to the decision the committee made earlier about establishing the costs of the leader's allowances and the allowances of individual Independent Members and then making a recommendation, perhaps we should examine the cost of the sittings of both Houses and make a recommendation for consideration.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Last year I wrote to all the parties and the committees about getting people to at least think along those lines about savings. We got some response from the committees because they started rescheduling meetings. They used to have meetings early in the morning and there was an overhead with costs for bringing people in early, taxis, overtime and so on. There was a good response in that regard but we did not get the response from the Seanad that we were looking for.

Will we have it for long more?

Clearly, Mr. Coughlan has studied other parliaments. Are there examples of them sitting a normal working day between, say, 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. or 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. as distinct from the hours we sit, which are historical in nature? Would savings result? What are his general observations based on his experience about the way the Oireachtas works?

With regard to the issue of the broadcasting of proceedings, one would have to be a nocturnal creature to stay up to watch "Oireachtas Report". One would want to suffer from sleep deprivation or be an insomniac. What has been the Secretary General's experience of asking the national broadcaster to cover proceedings during normal working hours or earlier in the evening, for example, as a small excerpt following the news to make it more relevant? The public is detached from how the Oireachtas operates. What are Mr. Coughlan's views on that?

The costs that stand out in the budget relate to two legal cases. The first concerns former judge, Brian Curtin. An offer of €1 million was made, which was not cashed. Where does that stand? What is the opinion of the commission's counsel regarding when a settlement will be made?

The second is the case of former Senator Ivor Callely. The case is currently under appeal to the Supreme Court on foot of the High Court judgment. What is the legal opinion on how the case will go in the Supreme Court? It is possible both cases could cost between €2 million and €2.5 million. What is Mr. Coughlan's overall perspective on those cases? I do not want to go over old ground but I am trying to examine this issue from the perspective of the cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The first issue the Deputy raised relates to sittings. The Scottish Parliament, for instance, has what he calls regular hours - 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Significantly, the rest of the UK is moving in that direction. It is the European experience as well but I do not have specific examples. My general impression is that the European Union is tending toward better work/life balance hours for the European Parliament. Our overtime bill as a result of the way we sit is an extra €3 million a year between the Members' staff and our own. There could be plenty of savings there.

At what time does overtime kick in?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It kicks in at 6 p.m. The early committee meetings to which I referred earlier meant staff had to be brought in at 7 a.m. before the normal start time.

The late sittings are costing approximately €3 million a year.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes, when one takes the cost of the Members' staff and our own staff.

How would Mr. Coughlan feel about moving to regular working hours and the impact on how the Oireachtas works?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The late starts are ingrained but it would be obviously better all round for staff. In terms of getting flexibility out of staff, it would make it easier if we were on more regular working hours because people having commitments and so on. That would be a positive thing.

On the broadcasting issue, that has always been a feature of "Oireachtas Report". It is difficult to get them to do it at an earlier time. The Joint Administration Committee has taken that issue up many times. Normally, I get the TAM ratings for the programme before appearing here but I could not even get them this time because they do not release them any more. I cannot even say how many watch it.

What were the ratings when they were released?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

They were very low, something like 30,000. That was some years ago but I was not able to get the figure for this meeting. Now we have a live broadcast of proceedings on channel 801 on the UPC system, which serves certain cities. That started as a pilot operation at no cost. That is a positive development.

In the 2009 and 2010, there was a fee of €72,000 for broadcasting services. I presume it would be a little optimistic to think that we might get a broadcasting fee for "Oireachtas Report". That would stretch optimism.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I think so.

Will Mr. Coughlan address the legal cases? He said they were under appeal. What legal opinion has the commission regarding whether Senator Callely's case will be successful?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I am not privy to the advice they got because that is privileged to the people on the committee but there is no question that the case would not have gone forward unless they felt there were constitutional issues involved which transcended the individual case. There are points of law relating to the status of the Houses vis-à-vis the courts and how a statute is applied within the four walls of the House. It is a difficult one in that sense. The commission sanctioned the ceiling for fees and, as they go through it, members will see there is no vast amount involved at this point. Effectively, once the Seanad committee made its decision to appeal the commission would have accepted the fact that there were weighty issues which needed to be dealt with in court. Obviously, the Seanad would not go to court without having a substantial case to put.

What is Mr. Coughlan's expectation regarding the Judge Curtin case?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is a difficult one because there has been a stand-off in respect of it for so long. The people representing Judge Curtin are seeking to go to arbitration at this point. However, the commission is of the view that the final offer made was just that - final. They have already received almost €1 million from the State in respect of their costs for the separate High Court action.

Am I correct in stating that the cheque in that regard has not been cashed?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

No, the uncashed cheque is in respect of the Oireachtas Committee proceedings. Those representing Judge Curtin took a case in the courts to try to stop the committee's investigation at the time. That failed but costs were awarded to the judge as a result of the fact that it was a constitutional case.

For how long has the case relating to Judge Curtin been ongoing?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I think it began in 2006.

So it has been going on for six years.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes. It is important to note that while Standing Orders, etc., were introduced, no hearings ever took place. It was aborted at the preliminary stage. That is an important point.

Okay. My initial point related to the Houses of the Oireachtas sitting normal hours. That is a matter to which consideration should be given in the context of changes to people's lifestyles. I refer, for example, to the fact that many people have young families. The public might engage with the political process to a greater degree if the Houses sat during normal working hours. Mr. Coughlan indicated that this would yield a cost saving in the context of the running of the Houses. As a public representative, I am aware that one gets one's best work done between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. because it is between those hours that Government Departments function. This matter should be examined, particularly as, in light of what Mr. Coughlan indicated, many of our European counterparts, including the UK, are moving in that direction.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

I hope this matter will be contemplated in the context of the overall review.

With regard to the recommendations we might make on foot of this meeting, if Mr. Coughlan has available to him any information on costings relating to the current arrangement versus a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. model which might prove of assistance to us, perhaps he might forward it. Such information would be helpful in the context of our considering how to proceed.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

We will do that.

I apologise for being late. Perhaps I will be forgiven if I repeat anything which has already been said. I might pursue with Mr. Coughlan the fact that it is difficult to try to be present in the Dáil and at a committee meeting at the same time. Is there any way we might improve the efficiency of the House in order that meetings of this committee would not always clash with sittings of the Dáil? I accept that this is a difficult matter with which to deal. For example, I am due to lead off on questions in respect of a particular issue with which the committee is dealing next week and I am also due to be in the Dáil for Leaders' Questions. I will be obliged to make a choice between the two. Is there any way we could organise business in order that there would not be so many direct clashes in respect of the business of the committees and of the Dáil? We receive a great deal of flak with regard to the Chamber being empty or committee meetings being badly attended. However, it is not possible to be in two places at once. Is there an inefficiency in this regard in respect of which we might take action?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The Deputy has been a Member of the Houses for some time and, as he is aware, consideration was given to setting aside a week in which the decks would be cleared and during which only the business of committees would be dealt with. Only Leaders' Questions would be taken during such a week, which would solve a particular problem that exists at present. The notion of a committee week has been resurrected in the current programme for Government. The emphasis on holding plenary sessions of Parliament is more tempered in other jurisdictions.

The issue relating to the Seanad is extremely controversial from a political point of view and I do not expect Mr. Coughlan to comment on it. However, various figures are continually quoted in respect of the cost of the Seanad. One of the arguments in favour of the abolition of the Upper House is that it is very expensive to run. I have seen figures which vary from €80 million all the way down to €3 million. Is Mr. Coughlan in a position to indicate the actual cost of operating Seanad Éireann.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes. As the Deputy states, there was quite a variable in the figures when they originally appeared. An bord snip nua recommended the abolition of the Seanad and the adoption of a unicameral system. At that stage, the overall cost was listed as €25 million. The figures have been broken down to a large extent and the current amount is €22.5 million. The direct costs relating to salaries, staff allowances and equipment amount to just €9.2 million, while the indirect costs amount to €13.3 million. The latter relate to the apportionment of the support costs for the Seanad. The Houses of the Oireachtas operates on a joint staff basis and it is necessary to apportion some of the existing staffing to that. This gives rise to the figure of €13.3 million.

If I understand him correctly, Mr. Coughlan is stating that there would not be a real saving in respect of the €13.3 million because this amount relates to staff costs and those staff would have to be transferred somewhere else.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

So, in effect, the cost would remain.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

To the State, yes.

To the State. So the actual direct saving that would be made as a result of the abolition of the Seanad would be under €10 million.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is right.

Okay. A previous speaker referred to televising the proceedings of the Oireachtas. Is there an estimate available from the broadcasting unit in respect of what would be the cost of a dedicated television channel? It has been suggested - in my view this is a good idea - that such a channel should be established. Is Mr. Coughlan in a position to indicate what would be the cost of such a channel to the State?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There are indicative costs. In 2008, when a feasibility study was carried out, the estimated cost was €1.2 million. However, in light of technological improvements and the availability of additional media sources, it is estimated that the cost would be significantly lower than that. At present, a two-tier approach is being taken in respect of this matter. Phase 1 involved getting the pilot project up on the UPC system and this is currently running on channel 801. This is being done at no cost to the State. Sky and RTE were offered the opportunity to broadcast proceedings on the same terms but as yet they have not indicated whether they wish to do so.

The second phase relates to the relevant sub-committee of the commission, which is chaired by the Ceann Comhairle. That sub-committee has been funded to engage a specialist consultant in order to develop the detailed tender document required to procure an operator and agree a format. Of course, there will be a need to evaluate the tenders under the public procurement process. There will also be a need to take webcasting, etc., into account. There are many ways of transmitting proceedings and a dedicated channel would have to be evaluated in that regard. The meetings which take place in all four of the committee rooms and in the Dáil and Seanad are actually webcast simultaneously in association with HEAnet. That is done totally free of charge. It is clear there is a strong desire at political level to have a dedicated parliamentary television channel. It remains to be seen how cost effective would be such a channel. The intention is that it would be cost effective. Legislation relating to this matter was introduced in 2009 and effectively it is the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, to negotiate with RTE and other agencies in order to ensure this will happen. A great deal depends on this latter process. The costings involved will be a major factor.

My final question relates to the case of Judge Curtin. I am not clear about what happened in this instance. Is it that there is a gap of €1 million? Is it simply the case that €1 million was offered but that €2 million was requested?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Are we discussing legal fees in this regard?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

So that entire amount relates to legal fees.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

The gap between the two figures appears extraordinary.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Are we referring here to the judge's legal fees or those of the State?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

No, they are all his legal fees.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The fees in the case were of the order of €1 million and they have been paid.

And his legal fees are €2 million.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Do we know who the lawyers were?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Pierse & Fitzgibbon solicitors and Mr. John Rogers, SC.

Can we get a breakdown of those figures?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Mr. John Rogers was the senior counsel.

Two people are looking for €2 million?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes.

Two guys are looking for €2 million?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There were two senior counsel involved in the Judge Curtin case, Mr. John Rogers and another Senior Counsel and a solicitor.

So that is €1 million each.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

There was a junior counsel, two senior counsel and a firm of solicitors involved. The breakdown I have before me reads: Pierse & Fitzgibbon sent a bill which totalled €2 million. Approximately €1 million was claimed in respect of solicitor services and more than €700,000 in respect of counsel fees. These fees do not include the cost of Judge Curtin's failed High Court and Supreme Court challenges. He was already awarded €1 million by the State in respect of damages as an independent, parallel to which he took a court case which has failed.

So a total of €1 million has already been paid to Judge Curtin.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes, by the State, not us.

There is up to €2 million of legal fees------

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That they are claiming as well.

-----plus €1 million in legal fees has already been incurred by the State?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is correct.

We are speaking then of €3 million in legal fees and €1 million damages awarded by the State. We are speaking of a potential cost to the State of €4 million.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

That is right.

Of which €1 million - sorry, €2 million - has been paid.

Some €2 million euro has been paid, of which €1 million was paid direct to Judge Curtin.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

€1m was paid in respect of our own legal team. Judge Curtin had already received €1m from the State in his High Court action before his failed action to the Supreme Court.

Have the fees been sent to the Taxing Master?

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes but the jurisdiction of that was disputed by ourselves. We took a High Court case on that and won it. They offered arbitration of certain people and the commission decided that one way or the other the €1 million we are offering at this point is the final offer. That is why a cheque was sent to him last November.

In any language, this is huge money.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

It is.

It is astronomical.

It is shocking. It is outrageous in a case of this sort where someone has been done an injustice and someone else has not. It is absolutely outrageous that these sorts of fees should be demanded. Some guys are obviously pocketing nearly €1 million for one case. It is absolutely incredible. I congratulate the commission on not giving them the full whack. I urge that it continue in that vein.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The commission was very strong on that.

I have one brief question on broadcasting. I note from Appendix V of the annual account for 2010 that the sale of televised proceedings of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann was zero in 2009 and 2010 and that sale of services by the broadcasting unit were €72,000 in 2010 and €91,000 in 2009. To what do those figures relate? Perhaps if the Secretary General does not have the information to hand he will forward the committee a note on that matter.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes. We were stumped by the last question.

Would Mr. Buckley like to comment?

Mr. John Buckley

No, I have nothing to add to my opening remarks. Thank you.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

The figures referred to by the Chairman relate to sales of tapes, etc.

That is the broadcasting unit.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

Yes. The figures relate to DVD sales, of which there were not as many in other years.

Perhaps the Secretary General will forward a note to the committee in respect of sales of televised proceedings.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I will.

I note the figure for 2009 and 2010 was nil but I would like some background information in that regard.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

We do not charge for the main feed anymore. That decision was made-----

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

-----in order to promote the Houses. That decision was made 12 years ago, which is a long time.

A recommendation in the DIRT sub-committee inquiry report, which sub-committee was chaired by the late Jim Mitchell, concluded in respect of parliamentary accountability: "The modernisation and reorganisation of the Houses of the Oireachtas has not kept pace with developments in society. Further reform with an emphasis on improved accountability will ensure that events such as the sub-committee has inquired into will be less likely to recur." We have since then had the financial collapse and other events. That statement is as relevant today as it was then, perhaps even more relevant today in the context of our discussion. We should not lose sight of the good work done then and since then by the Committee of Public Accounts as we reorganise our affairs.

Mr. Kieran Coughlan

I, too, quoted that statement in my briefing note because of its pertinence in terms of accountability. It is from where the commission came. It gave us a lot of independence.

I thank the witnesses for attending.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 19 January 2012.
Top
Share