Before the Adjournment yesterday I was expressing my thanks and satisfaction to the Minister for allowing this debate to take place. It is a very important debate for this House, as indicated by the fact that so many people have spoken and that many more wish to contribute. It gives an opportunity to new Deputies like myself to outline the experiences we have had so far in the House and how beneficial reform could be introduced. I worry, as a new Deputy, about Deputies who are satisfied with the running and the performance of the Dáil. Some Deputies seem perfectly happy at their elevation to the status of TD. Others are happy to toil away at insignificant tasks in substandard accommodation and only enter this Chamber at voting time.
I am happy to say I detect among my colleagues a new breed of Deputy who is not overcome by his new-found status, who is not on an ego trip, who has entered this House with serious intent, who wishes to make a contribution to improve the quality of life and who is not satisfied merely to attend and become lobby fodder for those few who see their role as holding down ministries and positions of responsibility. However, if Deputies are not given the chance and if they are not invited and encouraged to participate, they will try to change the system and, if they are unsuccessful and beaten by it, they cannot in honour continue to be a member of this assembly.
I refrain from describing it as an august assembly, although I am sure it is that, because I must admit I am less than impressed by what I have seen of the workings of the Oireachtas since I came here. Like previous speakers, I discovered the loneliness and frustration of wandering aimlessly around this House having been chaired into it and then dropped to fend for myself. The first task was to find a desk and a quite corner but this is not to be found because the accommodation is primitive, as other speakers have pointed out. It resembles a slum, with conditions that would not be tolerated in private industry.
This leaves me to question the work rate that can be achieved by Deputies who have to work under these conditions. I have had some experience in the industrial engineering field. It is my belief that our work rate will be affected when one has to share a room with ten people and with the noise of five or six typewriters banging around one's ears. The rooms in question are suitable for two people. It is obvious that the work rate must decrease in such conditions. It also gives rise to unnecessary tension in the people who have to work in such conditions.
I should have thought it essential for a legislator to have a quiet place to study and to think about what we are trying to do here. Instead of that the day is filled with frenetic activity and much of the time is spent in trying to tackle hundreds of menial tasks that are not relevant to this Assembly. My good cheer falters at the lifts when I contemplate the rabbit-warren conditions that await me on the third floor. The offices are so overcrowded one cannot have a private conversation or interview a constituent privately. There are junior people in industry and in the civil service who have offices for themselves. When one has occasion to visit them one is shown into an ante-room and then into the private office of the official concerned. Some comparison must be made with the position of a Deputy and that of a professional person in industry or in the professions and one must come to the conclusion that a Deputy ranks at least in the position of a bank executive or a middle line manager in industry who would have private quarters in which to work. I hope that the Deputies on both sides of the House who have complained about this will continue to do so until we get proper accommodation. I do not know how we can work efficiently in present conditions. It is a reflection on all of us that we put up with such conditions which we know would not be tolerated outside. How can efficiency prevail when one is working in such conditions?
The fact that we are politicians probably goes some way towards explaining the lack of assistance one receives in the beginning from one's colleagues and competitors and the subsequent stand-offishness. This compels one to become an achiever and it demands that we be given the opportunity to achieve. I am glad this debate is taking place because it is a new beginning, as it were. It is throwing down the gauntlet and there are many Deputies willing to pick it up. If the economy is in a mess, is it not our duty to apply all our energy, talent and time to putting it right? Is that not the reason for which we were elected? Are we not legislators? Why then are 90 per cent of Members of this Parliament beavering away in atrocious conditions at menial tasks that could be handled more effectively had we the courage and imagination to do so, instead of being over-protective with regard to our seats. I am talking about tasks such as fixing street lights, contacting corporation and county council officials, dealing with all kinds of applications from licences to social welfare applications, removing abandoned cars and having roads swept. We are doing these jobs instead of dealing with the most vital task facing the country, finding a solution of our economic ills. It would be fruitless for me to call on Deputies in the offices upstairs and ask them to come into this Chamber to tackle this task because the Dáil is so badly in need of reform.
I agree with a previous speaker, Deputy O'Malley, who said there would have to be a radical change in the system of election to release Deputies from doing so much mundane constituency work. None of us objects to doing this work and to helping out our fellow men but we must remember why we were elected to the House and what we have been asked to do. To me it more resembles a county council but without the power of a council. That task is left to 10 per cent of Members who work exclusively on it to the exclusion of the rest of us except when we walk through the lobbies when directed to do so.
This debate is about the total involvement of the elected representatives of the people, each one selected by his or her constituency and capable of doing the job. If not he or she should be voted out — and I include myself in that — except in certain cases when a person is voted in on party lines and the Deputy does not measure up to the standards. The county councillors and corporation members should remain as such but Members of the national Parliament should spend the bulk of their time as legislators. The standards of county councillors and corporation members — I can speak only for Dublin in this instance — is not high enough for this House. In fact, on reading of the decisions that have been made by Dublin County Council in the last few years one could not be happy with the results. They have destroyed the county from Ballycullen to Baldoyle and from Cooldrinagh to Swords. This message in regard to the involvement of a Deputy at county council, corporation and national level must be put across to the people and explanation given as to what exactly our time is devoted to. There would be a general acceptance of the proper role of the TD were it so explained, and the assurance that we wish to devote our time to doing the task for which we are elected would be received well.
There are Deputies who devote their time exclusively to county council and corporation problems and come into this Chamber only to vote. Democracy of its nature produces mediocre parliamentarians. I have noticed however that in recent elections the people have been more selective in their choice of Deputies — not necessarily in their selection of me. They have given a message to us in this selection. They recognise the role and the problems and they are telling us to apply ourselves more seriously to our work.
If one's objective is not to become a Minister, is it one's fate as a backbencher to fade away? Shortly after I came into the House a very large stride had been taken which I was not able to appreciate because I had not been here before then. They appointed one secretary per Deputy. As the secretaries were being selected I was handed a few applications and at the bottom of one of them was a note which said "Secretary suitable for BB". When I inquired about that I was told the person was selected on the basis that all a backbencher would require would be a typist. Therefore, it was a commentary on one's future as a backbencher. That little incident speaks volumes for me because it is the role that is accepted for the backbenchers. I will say more about that later, but I believe that it is necessary to involve the backbencher more in the workings of the Dáil and not just to take him for granted to be called in when the gong goes to walk through the lobbies.
In the selection of a Cabinet many considerations must be taken into account, not the least of which — understandable nevertheless if the people react to it — is the geographical spread. Consequently, many able persons are excluded from Cabinet and Minister of State rank. It is possible, therefore, to have a person in a particular position who is not exactly the right choice, and I am not referring to the make-up of any Cabinet present or past. In addition, the experience brought to such a post may not be adequate. Sometimes what in effect is the equivalent of a multinational organisation with a multi-million pounds budget is handed to a Deputy with little or no experience in that field so that he becomes either a captive of the civil service or ineffective in his position and certainly no innovator, being unable to stamp his role on the position. Therefore, should other able backbenchers be excluded from participation, responsibility and involvement? If the talent is there, for heaven's sake use it. We are not all on ego trips and the title of Minister or Minister of State is not an essential prerequisite for us to want to do that for which we were elected. I could not help noticing on the recent appointments of Ministers of State that most of those selected were of a high standard and, delighted as I was at that, I was reminded of the examination results board at the university. There would be a crowd around it and you would see some people jumping for joy and whooping it up but not sparing a thought for other people around the board who probably had failed their examinations. I am pointing out the importance of not taking people for granted. We know that the system is not perfect, and it is essential that we be given an opportunity to contribute and become involved. By proper reform it is possible to make fuller and more effective use of the time and talents of elected representatives.
Perhaps consideration should be given to the use of backbenchers in Ministerial Departments which could be subdivided and under the control of a Minister. Essentially we want to contribute. I want to contribute and I will not be happy if I cannot do so. Let me contribute. By reforming this archaic, lack-lustre and inefficient Dáil we would be able to achieve that. Most of all, communication between Ministers and Deputies needs improvement.
Reference has also been made to the means of improvement in this House. Some people have suggested that the time limit for speaking should be examined. We know and it has been admitted that Deputies sometimes are asked to go in to a debate and speak for 30 or 40 minutes or an hour to keep it going. At times they have to waffle in order to do that. We should reach the point where one can stand up, say what is to be said and sit down. In that way more Deputies would participate and more would be present during debates.
There is no reason why the Dáil could not be more businesslike. We have objectives and the sooner they are reached the sooner the problems of our beleaguered people can be solved. We have a duty to improve efficiency so that we can more easily help the unemployed, the poor, the sick, our youth, the old and the lonely. Deputies should speak out more freely. We have already seen that during this Dáil.
There are other aspects of the Dáil and its environs that need to be changed. Take, for example, school visits to Leinster House. It is bad enough when children from Dublin schools visit Leinster House but I often see buses outside the House with children from country schools who possibly expect great things from the House and expect to be impressed by it. Possibly they expect to go away having learned from what goes on here, having learned something of the history of the House and those who worked here before us. I am sure they all go away with a bad impression because there are no visual or audio aids to describe the Dáil and its history.
The tour for schoolchildren is very restricted. They usually visit the Seanad which has a roomful of chairs with standing microphones inviting all the Senators to the use of backbenchers in ministerial through the picture gallery with its line of small out-of-proportion cheap prints. There is not a painting in sight of living artists who are on the breadline. They then go through this botched and very ordinary Leinster House to this almost empty Chamber or pit as it has been described in the press. Visitors can neither see nor hear properly. This is an embarrassing impression to give schoolchildren although it is probably a true impression at the moment. I hope with the reforms that will be introduced, we will also look at that aspect of the Dáil.
The House is full of Malton prints, busts and paintings of dead men. If some of them do not haunt you their executioners by the brush will. The Dáil Chamber and the environs of Leinster House have many corridors, the so-called corridors of power, where most of the plotting, scheming, knifing, chatting and congratulating takes place. There must be about 100 yards of corridors. The gallery adjoining this Chamber is devoted to former Taoisigh. There are approximately five there at the moment. If this trend continues I reckon that with one portrait per Taoiseach if each lasts the full term of five years and if each portrait is one yard wide it will take 100 to fill the corridors. It will take about 500 years to complete. What a dull place we would have then. It might be called "Teach na ndaoine marbh", or something like that. Who would dare walk its corridors then with all those accusing eyes watching?
What is wrong with the living? The kind of set-up we have, with all the people in the portraits in their dull grey or blue suits, along the walls of the corridors, could be enlivened with a sprinkling of colourful art such as that from the current Project Arts Centre travelling exhibition with a Brian Burke "Self-portrait with Crown", a Michael Mulcahy or a Charlie Cullen landscape, a Mick Cullen or Patrick Graham. How interesting to relate in such a situation how you plotted to overthrow your leader under the watchful eye of Paul Funge gazing out of his landscape in disguise with cap and glasses over the title "What do you spy, Mr. Funge?" loaned for the occasion by CJH or under a Michael Kane lino-cut of the "Butchers" or it could be "How I installed the Leader" under his wall-hanging of "The Dove".
Why do we not have hanging in the offices and corridors works of living artists to relieve the dreariness of the long hours spent in this House, works which could instil reflective thoughts on the commentry of our existence by those whose life and work are devoted to maintaining our culture and who are best able to comment on our society. Instead of saying, for example, that your room is number 352 it could be described as the door beside Nano Reid's "The Haggard", or a Nora McGuinness, a Gerard Dillon or beside Michael Kane's "Head of Koposchka". Why is not every school a rotating exhibition? Why do we not have works of our living artists hanging in the corridors so that our young people can learn to appreciate works of art while they are still young? When they grew up they would then be able to follow the careers of our living artists. It would be a good thing to be able to recognise a living artist on the streets of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway or even in Connemara and then later on to seek out that person's exhibition and see what progress he or she has made. We might then end up with works of art in our houses. Very few houses have any original works of art. Why should we leave all the adulattion to the rock stars? Our youth have not been shown the way to do that.
How many architects, for example, work in the Office of Public Works? I believe approximately 150. At a conservative salary of £15,000 each that amounts to approximately £2,500,000 a year. How many artists work in the Board of Works? The answer is none. How much do they earn out of it? The answer is nothing. We might ask what justifies 150 architects working in the Board of Works. What buildings have they produced in the last year or two? What do they do all day? In courts in days gone by artists were appointed, but there are no artists appointed to the court of Leinster House. There is not expended the equivalent of one year's wages on works of art or on the works of any of our living artists. This House could well do with decoration.
Another aspect of reform of the Dáil is that of by-elections in the context of the effective use of the time of the House. I am referring to the conduct in the holding of by-elections. Sadly, we are facing yet another by-election as a result of the untimely death of Deputy Coughlan. As one in the same age bracket as Deputy Coughlan was, I was greatly shocked by his death. Deputy Coughlan was very kind to me when I came into this House, as indeed were Deputies on all sides. However, to get back to the question of by-elections, it is the practice of the party whips to order the entire party into the constituency concerned at such a time. They remain encamped there for three to four weeks. Even worse, the Government send the entire Cabinet to the constituency with the full entourage of State cars leaving the House to continue its deliberations with the help of just a few speakers. This practice is a betrayal of the trust so far as the electorate are concerned. When we are seeking election we go before the electorate and assure them that if successful in our attempts to be elected we will work diligently and full time on their behalf and will endeavour to sort out the country's problems, but then when a by-election is called we desert this House for three or four weeks.
I came into this House first as a result of a by-election and I welcomed wholeheartedly every Member who came out to the constituency to help me in my bid for election. I welcomed them a thousand times. During a by-election the advantage is said to lie with the party in power in that ministerial authority, in the sense of making things happen for the electorate, is considered to be an advantage. I was elected on 25 May 1982 and I took my seat on 6 June 1982. Shortly afterwards there was a by-election in east Galway. This meant that we were ordered to go to that constituency where we remained encamped for the duration of the campaign. There were few Deputies left in the Dáil to speak at length about nothing. Then the House adjourned for the Summer Recess and did not re-assemble until 27 October. A general election was called in November and the Dáil reassembled for merely two days before adjourning for the Christmas Recess until 26 January. Therefore, during the period from June 1982 to February 1983, a period of eight months, the House sat for 20 to 25 days. That sort of situation, coupled with the laborious and outdated procedure of the House and the little opportunity one has to speak, is not good enough. When one considers that there are 166 Deputies here and that backbenchers must give way to Ministers, one realises how difficult it is for a backbencher to get the opportunity of speaking. Before the last election I recall Magill magazine making what I considered to be an unkind reference to me. This was to the effect that I had not spoken in the Dáil up to then and that I was unlikely ever to get the opportunity again of speaking here. I am glad that Magill, who should have known better, were proved wrong. The people who write for that magazine should know more about the workings of this Chamber and, consequently, of the difficulties experienced by backbenchers in even getting the opportunity to speak here.
One way of dealing with the by-election situation I have referred to would be to hold by-elections when the House is in recess but if, as has been suggested by the Minister, the recesses are shortened, this could be unfair to Deputies in terms of their free time. But one might ask if anything is fair where politicians are concerned. Anything seems to be good enough for them — bad accommodation, low wages, long hours and constant and universal abuse. These are all reasons why it is imperative that the Dáil be reformed. For a start I should like the by-election abuse that I have referred to to be discontinued. However, I realise that if by-elections were to be confined to one of the recesses there could be difficulties in the event of the party in power losing their majority but the limiting of speakers' time would help to stem the exodus of Deputies from the House during a by-election campaign. If they were allowed to speak for not more than 15 or 20 minutes, many more of them would need to be here.
In summing up, one might ask how much of a legislator is a Deputy. Is he merely a rubber stamp? This is a question that we should examine. There is not enough input by Deputies so far as Bills are concerned. The drafting is left to Government Departments. It has been suggested that better and more fruitful use be made of committees. There is not much point in extending the committee system if the civil servants finish up doing the work. Committees should not be used as a substitute for action and responsibility.
I agree totally with the Minister that the Dáil needs to improve its control of public finances. I suggest that there be no decisions taken by the State sector before the Dáil makes its decision.
Regarding the two means by which a Deputy can raise an issue, that is, by way of parliamentary question or the Adjournment Debate, it is ridiculous having to join the cumbersome parliamentary question queue. While in many cases Deputies are serious in tabling questions, some of the questions asked and discussed are of such a minor nature as to be a waste of the time of the House. Because of the restrictions on backbenchers to participate in the proceedings of the House the parliamentary question is used by them in order to gain publicity and attention. For that reason alone this is an area that should be looked at. It is for us to reform the system and to ensure that each of the Members is given a fair opportunity of contributing. That is why this debate is very important. There is much talent on both sides of the House. There are many young Deputies who are anxious to do a good job here. This debate heralds what we all hope will be the beginning of an eventful Dáil. I look forward to many of the reforms that have been suggested being put into practice.
Apart from the parliamentary question the backbencher is left with only the Adjournment Debate to raise an important topic. These facilities should be improved and procedures changed to allow backbenchers to raise important matters. The discussion of the Estimates should take place before the moneys are committed or spent and so erase the rubber stamp tag of the Deputy and we should not be used merely to walk through the lobbies.
I agree with the Fine Gael policy document on the reform of the Dáil of November 1979, compiled by the Minister for Industry and Energy, and look forward to its implementation.