Vol. 241 No. 2
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £790,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, for the salaries and expenses of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including certain grants-in-aid.
We proposed last year changes in the organisation of this House and I do not recall that we received any acknowledgment from the Government side of some of the suggestions we made. We made what we considered were deserved criticisms of the running of the House. We spoke of our alarm at the organisation of business.
Normally that would not arise on this Estimate.
It is my impression that previously if I wanted to speak on something in relation to the President's establishment I could have spoken on the organisation of the President's establishment. Under this heading I just wanted to make a few observations on the organisation of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Reform of the procedure of the House is a matter for the House itself. It is not the responsibility of the Minister.
The Taoiseach, on one occasion when we proposed reforms of Parliament, suggested or agreed that there was room for reform and that he, as Taoiseach and Head of the Government, would have these reforms considered, that he would take the initiative if he agreed there should be reforms and would introduce the changes such as those to which Deputy O'Leary referred.
I understand our view in the Government is that they should go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the first instance.
Do we take it from the Minister that the Government will take up this matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?
Yes.
Or do they believe that the proposals, of which one might say the late Deputy Seán Dunne was the chief architect, should go from the Labour Party to the Committee?
It is a matter of indifference to the Government. We are prepared to take it up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Could the Minister say, on behalf of the Taoiseach, that our proposals will form the basis for a discussion on reforms? We do not want to push these things down anybody's neck but we honestly believe there should be reforms in procedure in this House, in the length of time Parliament sits, the fixing of holidays and so on. I think it is necessary that all three Parties should have an opportunity of discussing this with a view to bringing about some reform, whether small or great.
On this Estimate, we are only dealing with salaries in so far as the Dáil is concerned and this matter cannot be discussed.
At the same time it is about the only opportunity we have during the whole year to speak of the Houses of the Oireachtas specifically and it seems to me that at the opening of this Dáil it would be appropriate to have the views of the House on reforms of this nature.
This Estimate deals only with salaries of Deputies, travelling expenses, certain officers of the House and the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is all that is contained in the Estimate and, therefore, that is all that is before the House at present.
The running of the Houses, apart from Parliament, is under the Board of Works.
The Minister has no power to change the procedure of the House. Changing the procedure of the House is something the House itself must do.
We know that the Minister himself cannot do it and the recommendation must come from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but is there any objection to a discussion on it?
There could not be a discussion on it on this Estimate.
Could the Leas-Cheann Comhairle give some direction as to how it might be taken?
It could be discussed if a motion was put down or in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
There is no appropriate Estimate.
There is no appropriate Estimate on which this may be discussed.
We should then serve notice that in addition to referring it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, a Committee for which I have great respect but about whose proceedings I do not notice any great urgency, we shall also put down a motion on this matter.
A motion would be appropriate.
Would the Minister explain the great increase in subhead F2?
It arises mainly from the provision of equipment for tape recording of the Seanad debates and also material for the Library. As the Deputy may know, we are having increasing difficulty here in getting skilled reporting staff and investigations have been undertaken to seek to mechanise the reporting of the Dáil. It was decided, wisely I think, that this should first be investigated in the Seanad on a tentative or pilot basis. That has been going on, as most Deputies know, for some time. Most of this increase is due to the provision of that equipment in the Seanad.
It comes under the heading of incidental expenses—is that why it is under that heading?
Yes.
What is the difficulty in recruiting staff?
It is because most political Parties nowadays supply scripts from their public relations officers, the old tradition of reporters going out and reporting political meetings, verbatim, has died and therefore the type of reporter who can do shorthand of the necessary speed has become very rare indeed. Perhaps Labour would now, as a contribution to easing the situation, abolish their script factories.
We are not allowed to use scripts: only Ministers are allowed to use scripts in the House. What is the starting salary for those people the Minister finds he cannot recruit?
I do not think it is a question of salary. The type of person is not available.
They might be induced to build up their shorthand if the Minister increased the salaries.
This is a matter for the staff. They are now taking in people who will be trained in the House.
The tape would never get Deputy Lenehan's interruptions.
That might not be a bad thing.
That is one thing both sides of the House are agreed on.
There would not be too much difficulty in that. In his opening words the Minister did not give us much of an idea of which was the start, the hen or the egg.
The script factories.
