Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2002

Vol. 555 No. 3

Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Dennehy

I made the point earlier that the nature of parliamentary business is rapidly changing, as is the political scene. The technology, environment and the way in which we operate are constantly changing. This Dáil is certainly very different to the one to which I was elected in 1987. The requirements on Members are changing all the time and a dedicated body to oversee the funding and organisation of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas is very welcome. I welcome this Bill, it is important and timely.

The innovation of a Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is also welcome and presents very real challenges to Members and staff to ensure we all are up to the task. Conditions have been radically improved and I thank Deputy McCreevy for that. However, Members wish to repay that, perform better and be more involved in every possible way. Modernisation of the administration, which has already commenced with the new directorate structure arising out of an IPA report in 1999, is crucial. The old way of doing things in the comfort zone of the Department of Finance will not apply any longer. It was handy at times to opt out.

I heard one Deputy say we should be able to stand up to Ministers and tell them what the priorities are and that we should have the power to change things. Those of us with the dual mandate and who serve on health boards have that power. We now present a plan of action every September. I have yet to hear a suggestion with regard to changing priorities that meant deleting something. We will worry about the disabled, the environment or our own issues, but we will not wish to delete anything. We need not worry too much about that aspect of it. We need more power in meeting Ministers and questioning them – particularly in committees.

While the main thrust of the Bill is very welcome, there are a number of improvements that could be made in the general provisions that would meet some concerns of the staff and administration. I understand these have been conveyed to the Minister's Department. We have tried to discuss this with the people involved, mainly on a one-to-one basis, but the key remaining concerns which have not been taken on board by the Department of Finance include allowing the provision of funds for essential services for the Houses of the Oireachtas and the administration. I am concerned because I want to ensure that the core parliamentary service, such as Parliamentary Questions, Bills, the office bills etc. are not diminished by the new requirements. It is essential that these are maintained and covered. Staff will complain, particularly within the committees, that they have difficulty in coping with much of what is going on.

Provision should be made for a linked annual inflator for the rather rigid funding mechanism provided in the Bill. There should also be a mechanism to deal with contingencies. I will ask the Minister later what the figure is. I believe there is an "X" factor in it at present and that agreement will be reached with the Ceann Comhairle later. That needs to be teased out. If we are to have a three year budget it needs to be a respectable figure. I would like to see some factor that allows for changes that will take place, such as changes in the rate of inflation. It can be difficult to draw up an annual budget for any Department, let alone a three year one.

In discussions with interested groups, it has emerged that a board of management should be established to which the commission would delegate the day-to-day functions and which would oversee the administration. It would meet a number of essential needs. There is a question about worker representation. I know worker representation has been sought by the partnership committee, made up of staff, unions and management under the Partnership 2000 agreement. Several speakers expressed concern about their secretaries. It is essential that we recognise the input of the staff. It is not good enough to praise them here, we must recognise their actions in a statutory way. There should be worker representation. Such a board of management would give a statutory underpinning to the new directive administrative structure and move away from the rather archaic model of Clerk and Assistant Clerk of the House that has been in place for approximately 40 years. I particularly welcome the decision to change the title of the Clerk of the Dáil to Secretary General of the commission. We are told that perception is everything nowadays. Clerk of the Dáil is an archaic title and certainly does not describe the work involved and the importance of the post.

There are several other changes on the day-to-day functioning that are probably necessary. A board of management would provide a comprehensive administrative focus in managing the day-to-day services and the committees. This is where most complaints are at the moment. It would obviously work under the auspices of the commission and would mirror the best practices of other EU Parliaments and the Parliaments of Australia and Canada. Members have travelled to study how they carry out their business. These are the kind of ideas they have returned with.

It was suggested that the Clerk of the Dáil, or Secretary General, should be a member of the commission. I have concerns about that and suggest that it should not happen. The commission should consist solely of elected Members, with the Ceann Comhairle as the chairperson. The Secretary General should be the chief executive officer of the board of management, answerable to this House and various committees. I will ask the Minister to look at the proposal of setting up a board of management.

Adequate time must be allowed between the enactment of this Bill and the establishment order. A great deal of preparatory work needs to be done. I would like to hit the ground running. It must be a source of concern to the public when they read about the installation of an electronic voting system in this House but that it will not be used for a couple of months while seating is being sorted out. If we are to take this radical new approach then all of these issues should be in place before the commencement order is signed.

I am concerned about funding. There is a nominal figure in the Bill for funding over the three year period. It is important that we get that figure right. I appreciate that there will be some negative publicity, regardless of what the figure is. We should be prepared to deal with that. The Minister has been prepared to bite the bullet and commit funding where it was necessary.

This morning Deputy Killeen voiced his concern that the commission could end up being situated in a back office, away from the workings of the House. In respect of its day to day operations, the board of management should ensure that this is not the case.

The Bill deals with a number of extremely technical points and I know we will revisit them on Committee Stage. However, there are a number of aspects which have already been raised by several Members and which require further discussion. These include the provision of secretarial and research services. On a previous occasion, Deputy Ó Caoláin stated that "Ministers and Deputies supporting the Government have the use of a legion of civil servants to cater for their every need." I wish to place on record that I was left out of that particular loop. The Deputy's statement was not correct. I accept that people generalise when making statements such as that made by Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Deasy recently stated that many Members read scripts when making contributions and I accept that some people like to jot down notes to aid them when they are speaking. There is nothing prohibiting Members from using scripts. However, the Deputy went on to state that it was mainly Members on the Government side who were reading from prepared scripts. I have been watching proceedings very carefully in the interim and 50% of those who made contributions – Members from both sides of the House – did so with the aid of scripts. There are rights and wrongs on both sides but I believe that Members must be treated equally. Some people have the ability to sing, while others do not and some can speak without a script while others ad lib. Thanks be to God we are not all clones.

The main point that arises from Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments – I accept there may have been a misconception on his part because he was quite new to the Houses when he made them – is that Members on this side do not enjoy any particular privilege in terms of staff support etc. Everyone has to do the same amount of work, which is crazy.

We need to look at the entire committee system, particularly in the context of the report carried out by Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver and Michael Marsh. When I was vice-chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I had to take over as chairman when former Deputy Jim Mitchell was ill for four or five months and I was fascinated to discover the excellent level of support available to me in terms of research, technical back-up and advice and secretarial services. However, that support was only available to the Chairman of the committee and I do not know if every Chairman enjoys the same level of support. Any Member serving on the Committee of Public Accounts could take it on as a full-time job and would not have to do anything else for the entire week if he or she wanted to participate fully in its work, particularly in light of the amount of reading and studying required.

In addition to being vice-chairman of the Public Account Committee, I also served, more or less at the same time, as a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children and as Government Whip on the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. As a result, I found it almost physically impossible to attend the House to make a real contribution on any issue. It is not possible to be involved in that range of work and make meaningful contributions in the House.

It is easy for commentators to criticise Members with regard to the number of times they speak etc. One of the difficulties is that, with the honourable exception of Vincent Browne, no one bothers to review the work carried out by or the input of Members to the committees. In my opinion the committees must be seen as bodies which carry out important work on behalf of the House. Changes to the committee system are happening rapidly. If the findings of the 1997 report were put in place, each Member would only be allowed to serve on one committee. I do not know how matters will work out in this regard, but the recommendation has been made.

I will not rehash comments made by other Members but the report also indicated how far behind are the Houses in terms of research and support services compared to other Parliaments. There is a great deal of information available about the number of Members in these Parliaments, but statistics are never provided with regard to the number of support staff available to them. However, I am sure some of them have up to ten times the staff resources available to them as do Members of this House and the Seanad. Consideration must be given to this matter.

We will continue to seek changes to the way in which we work. By and large, however, I believe the tools have been put in place to allow us to do our jobs and it is up to us to deliver. We will have to do better in many areas. There are many simple things over which we have control. During the lifetime of the previous Dáil, when the Ceann Comhairle served as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, a 90 minute debate took place on a particular morning in order that we could have an hour's additional speaking time on a certain topic that evening. With adjournments, Members leaving and entering the Chamber and the ensuing row, it took 90 minutes to make the case for an extra hour's debate that evening. That is ludicrous and we should not behave in that fashion.

We have to use the time available to us in a better fashion. It could be stated that 20 minutes is too long a period for one Member to speak. Local authorities have had to put time limits in place in respect of speakers. However, it must be remembered that tomorrow evening, when only ten or 15 Members remain around the complex, the powers that be will be seeking someone to, as in the past, speak for an hour. We must give Members the opportunity to speak if they wish to do so.

When complaints were made about the amount of time available to Members representing Sinn Féin, the Taoiseach made the point that there are 81 Deputies on this side of the House about whom he has to worry. It is extremely difficult for Government backbenchers to get time to speak. Members may be given a speaking slot, but anything may happen, such as involvement with committee work, which means that they cannot contribute.

I encourage colleagues on both sides of the House to take a positive attitude to the Bill. We need to explain to people, particularly political commentators, the exact nature of its contents. There are so many commissions in place that they may mistake this commission for one of them. The commission represents the most radical change to the Houses of the Oireachtas since their establishment and it has massive potential. We are fortunate, despite forecasts about financial difficulties, to have a Minister as open-minded and enlightened as Deputy McCreevy. I believe he will continue with the work he has been doing and that this will be a better House not only for us but also in terms of service to the public. The new structures will help us provide a better service.

Ms Harkin

I wish to share time with Deputies McHugh, Cuffe and Ó Snodaigh.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Ms Harkin

I would appreciate it if the Chair would inform me when my five minutes are up.

If Deputy Dennehy is looking carefully at this side of the House he will see that I am using a prepared script. If it is any consolation to him, I prepared it myself.

Mr. Dennehy

Far be it from me to object to the activities of anyone who was elected by the public.

Ms Harkin

As far as singing is concerned, we will leave that discussion for another day.

I agree with a previous speaker who stated that Deputies' secretaries are very poorly paid. Given the level of responsibility, expertise and commitment required of these people, I ask the Minister, in the context of the Bill, to consider their salary scale with a view to increasing it. I am not as au fait with the systems and structures as the longer serving Members. My first impressions of Leinster House have been positive. The staff are helpful at all times, efficient in the execution of their duties and, most important for a new Member, they are friendly and considerate.

The Bill before the House seeks to provide the back up facilities for Members, including staff, which we need to do our work effectively. Although I am a new Member I am already acutely aware of the many facets of my job as a public representative. Is my role that of a legislator or is it as a representative of my constituents, to deliver a service at local level and to help deliver to my constituency what is available to it from the national envelope? It is both and more. My short experience in Dáil Éireann tells me that people expect a service at local level. They expect their public representatives to lobby on behalf of local schools, to deal with planning issues and to take an interest in and respond to local issues. These issues can be as diverse as violence against women, meat factory prices, the restrictions being placed on the sale of food supplements or the continuation of community employment schemes. The issues are local and sometimes the local translates to the national level. Regardless, as a public representative I am expected to deliver the service both locally and nationally.

At national level I am expected to act as a legislator. I have a particular interest in legislation, whether it is the Bill before us today or the Arts Bill tomorrow. However, I need the backup and resources to familiarise myself with the issues so I can make a considered and informed contribution. I had no real idea of the volume of business in the Dáil Chamber and the various committees of the House. I had not realised, either, that the Dáil and the committees often run concurrently, causing additional pressures when one needs to be in two places at the same time. Would it not make sense and ease the demands on Deputies if committee meetings, as far as possible, did not conflict with Dáil sittings? This would create further time demands on Deputies but it would also enable them to maximise their contributions to proceedings in the House and in committees.

The committee on European affairs, of which I am a member, has an enormous amount of work to do on an ongoing basis. This arises from the Government's commitment to ensure that the affairs of the European Union are properly scrutinised and monitored by Dáil Éireann. With 15 nations in the EU the volume of work is staggering. This will increase substantially, hopefully, following a "Yes" vote next Saturday. There are significant developments ahead in the EU, not least the reform proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy, which will have huge implications for my constituents in Sligo-Leitrim.

With regard to this workload, the sincerity of the Government in ensuring that the people, through the Dáil, have an influence on EU legislation will be called into question if we, who represent the people, are not given the necessary backup to do our job effectively. We must have assistance in research and other backup so we can question and contribute. This is particularly true in the case of an Independent Member since the political parties already have substantial resources for this purpose. Deputy Dennehy referred to this issue earlier and I will be happy to discuss it with him.

I welcome the Bill and I commend the Minister for proposing it. However, a word of caution is necessary. The public is sceptical about increased expenditure on the Oireachtas. There is a need to project the clear message that this Bill is a measure to increase efficiency and accountability, to deliver a better service and to help reduce what is perceived by many to be a democratic deficit.

Mr. McHugh

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. This is an important Bill for Members of the House. People who are elected to the Dáil are expected to do a good job and to do a job well, one must be well resourced. The resources available to us leave much to be desired.

I acknowledge the enormous improvements that have occurred in recent years in the facilities available to Members. I also acknowledge that the Minister for Finance was responsible for those improvements. That happened some time ago but, by all accounts, the Minister tackled this issue and delivered as much as he could at the time. However, more improvements are needed if the House is to function as a modern Parliament should. This Bill has the potential to facilitate those improvements.

The philosophy of the Bill is that Members of the Oireachtas will, in effect, regulate their own affairs. That is democracy at work. Where better to illuminate democracy at work than in this Chamber? However, other improvements are required, specifically to make the operations of the House relevant to the public. Some of the procedures in the House are archaic. It is alarming that, on election to the Dáil as an Independent Deputy, I have no recognised speaking rights. We like to think we are modern and pro gressive but the 7,500 people who gave me their first preference vote do not have a right to have their concerns directly represented in this House.

Further reforms in the House are urgently required. The basic right of any citizen is the right to free speech. The least a citizen expects is that the person he or she elects to the national Parliament would have the right to free speech in the Chamber to which he or she is elected. I am appalled by the behaviour of the Labour Party in the Chamber this morning. It prevented democratically elected Members of the House from speaking in the House. I would have thought that the title "dictator" would not fit too smoothly on the Labour Party. However, it fits snugly after this morning's performance. The actions of its members clearly indicated that if they do not like what a Deputy says in the House, they will invoke a mechanism to prevent him from speaking. That is censorship in its clearest form.

The Deputy leading the charge this morning is from Limerick. If a former Limerick Deputy, who represented the same constituency in this House both as an Independent Deputy and as a Labour Party Deputy, was aware of what took place this morning, he would turn in his grave. Shame on the Labour Party. The basis of the Labour Party's objection this morning to freedom of speech in the House is that the offending Deputies would not be singing from the same hymn sheet. They would be offering their individual views. The Labour Party finds this objectionable. That is what is wrong with this House.

Many members of the public have determined that this House is irrelevant to their daily lives. They have decided that the Members of this House are all the same. The Technical Group in the House offers diversity of views but the Labour Party, the party of reform, does not like this. It is in favour of reform provided everything remains the same.

I welcome the provisions of this Bill. More reform is needed but, after this morning's performance, I doubt that the parties in the House have the stomach for it.

Mr. Cuffe

A few years ago a former Member of this House who went on to become a judge described to me what he thought Leinster House was like during his time as a Deputy some ten years ago. He said, "It's a club – nothing more, nothing less. It's a private members club with privileges that accrue to Members and former Members, and if you expect it to be more than that, well, it's not. It's simply a club." From my point of view, as an Opposition Member, it is a club with several tiers of membership and it is clear that Opposition Deputies do not have the same rights or privileges as Government Deputies.

I would like to talk about my own experience, for example. I have no office, no computer and no right to address the House, which is outrageous. It is appalling that a letter to the Chief Whip about these matters has gone unanswered, although a month after I wrote to her I received a telephone call from her office. My letter concerned very basic issues, such as the right to have an office in this club, yet I still do not have one. I had to burrow under the paperwork of my colleague, Deputy Boyle, to find my copy of the Bill before the House. We have to share, not only an office, but also a desk, which is tantamount to treating us with utter contempt. As an Opposition Member, I have no administrative staff, yet I have discovered that Government and Labour Party Members have a considerable administrative staff available to them who are on the payroll of the Houses of the Oireachtas, over and above the administrative assistants to which we are all entitled. I am trying to understand what is going on. I understand the Labour Party has 16 additional staff in addition to secretarial assistants. I shudder to think what the Government has at its disposal compared to our meagre resources. A salary scale of €18,300 for a secretarial assistant is little short of derisory.

This club needs a bit of a shake up. I have discovered that I am not allowed to bring a lap-top computer into the Chamber, even assuming that I had one. I am still waiting for a computer to be supplied by the Houses of the Oireachtas, and there is no crèche. I was quietly reminded by an usher that it is a tradition of the House to wear a jacket and tie in the Chamber. While I wish to pay tribute to the ushers who do fantastic work, I told the usher in question that it was not a tradition of mine to be so attired. I seem to have got away with it so far. Much more attention is being paid to some aspects of the workings of the House than others. Consequently, there is a need for reform and, possibly, reform that goes beyond the provisions of the Bill.

Some people have asked me and my colleagues in the Green Party the reason we joined the Technical Group, a broad church reflecting quite diverse political views. I told them it was quite simply to obtain the right to speak in this Chamber. As a Member of this club of 166, it is a matter of human rights to be allowed to address the House, yet no such right is granted to us. As a result, I am contemplating taking action at European level if I cannot clarify the issue here. I have been told that one must be in a group of seven Deputies, rather than six, to form a group. In addition, we cannot even bring somebody into our group; we must be elected as a group of seven in order to avail of the right to address the House.

We require the provision of administrative staff and technical resources on a par with Government Deputies. We also seek the right to have offices together in order that, whether as a group of six or 22 Deputies, we can communicate with each other. Child care needs should also be provided for. The requirements I have outlined should take precedence over the provision of the proposed new car parking facilities costing €23 million.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I concur with the contribution of Deputy Cuffe who put his points quite well. I also wish to address some of the provisions of the Bill before us. A lán de na modhanna oibre atá ann, cibé gnó na Dála féin nó gnó an tSeanaid iad, agus an slí a reachtáltar an Dáil mar ionad oibre, tháinig siad chugainn, thar na blianta nó na cianta, ó impiriúlaithe Westminster, áit a reachtáltar an pairlimint ar bhonn "gentlemen's club". Tá a lán lán le déanamh againn chun na Parlaiminte seo a dhéanamh níos éifeachtaí, níos oscailte agus níos daonlathaigh.

Deputies and Senators account for only a fraction of the number who work in the Houses of the Oireachtas. For that reason, I contend that the proposed make-up of the commission is totally insufficient. Some seven Members of the Oireachtas will be members of the commission, but where is the representation for the hundreds of staff members of all grades who also work here? There should be workers' representation on the commission as reflected in best international practice in most modern companies and other Parliaments. In a democratic institution such as this House the fullest possible representation should be evident. The workers' representative could be directly elected or nominated by the relevant trade union or a joint trade union committee.

Tá buairt orm chomh maith nach bhfuil sé leagtha amach conas a roghnófar na Teachtaí agus na Seanadóirí a bhéas ar an gcoimisiún. Séard atá i gceist ná go mbeidh ceathrar ón Dáil agus triúir ón Seanad. Ardaíonn an líon a bhéas ar an gcoimisiún an cheist, "Conas a bhéas ionadaíocht cheart ag na mionpháirtithe agus na Baill neamhspleách san Oireachtas?".

The Dáil is now more representative of the political diversity in the State than ever before. The Bill should be amended to reflect this new reality and, thus, contribute to redressing the ongoing democratic deficit in the House. The commission should be large enough to accommodate the make-up of the Dáil now or in the future, especially in the event of Standing Order 114 being amended to give proper recognition to Sinn Féin and other smaller parties and Independent Deputies. These difficulties can be resolved through common sense.

I acknowledge that there have been significant improvements in facilities, but they are far from satisfactory. Even with the addition of the Leinster House 2000 block, the available office space in the Houses of the Oireachtas is still inadequate. Members of my party and other Deputies require more office space as a matter of urgency, in addition to that currently allocated. I realise that space for such facilities is limited, but urge that a thorough review of the use of office space in the Leinster House complex be undertaken. This should be one of the first duties of the new commission.

Another issue for the commission to deal with is the lack of support staff. While Government Ministers have legions of civil servants to cater for their every need, Opposition Deputies must try to cope with inadequate staff levels. I trust this issue will be treated as a priority and that the minimum provision will be that outlined in the international benchmarking report, which recommended an additional research assistant for every Teachta. We should have a parliamentary system which is the envy of the world, instead of one which is lagging behind other Parliaments in terms of support for Teachtaí, Seanadoirí agus an fhoireann fhéin. Press conference facilities should be provided for Opposition parties as well as child care services. In this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we still do not have a crèche available for the hundreds of workers in Leinster House. It is a disgrace.

Ba mhaith liom filleadh ar an bpointe a rinne mé níos luaithe sa díospóireacht, sé sin teip an Stáit aistriúcháin chomhionnach a dhéanamh ar reachtaíocht agus ar ionstraim reachtaíochta. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an coimisiún déileáil leis sin.

Mr. Deasy

While the legislation makes eminently good sense, I wish to address my remarks principally to the operation of the Chamber. In an earlier debate I spoke about the Dáil's lack of relevance, which seems to have struck a chord with a number of people who have said they agree with me. It is all very well to complain about such matters, but, as elected Members, we should do something about them by working together on a bipartisan basis to bring about change. Frankly it has become a boring Chamber. The public understands that well and has switched off from the proceedings in this Chamber to a great extent.

The nub of the problem is there is no longer spontaneity in this Chamber. There is no interaction. The proceedings are designed to make sure that questions are not answered. That is why last week we saw every parliamentary technique and tactic used to make sure that the Taoiseach would not answer questions from the Opposition parties.

I have knowledge of this subject from my past three years on Waterford County Council. Against the wishes of some people I introduced radio broadcasting of the proceedings of Waterford County Council. I lobbied the Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour members and impressed on them that it would be good for them to have excerpts from the county council chamber broadcast on local radio. We won the vote on the issue by 13 votes to eight and it modernised the chamber to a great extent. Some of the older members found it difficult at the beginning, but it really made a difference. People are beginning to understand the local authority processes and all that goes on in the chamber.

The problem in this Chamber is that everything is pre-ordained. Everything is rehearsed and scrutinised before it gets to the floor of the House and it has become sterile. For instance, yesterday's Question Time was followed by the Order of Business and the answers were pre-ordained. There was a total evasion of the questions and there was no effort whatsoever to engage in an open debate, and that is very disappointing. I understand there must be some time restrictions and one cannot allow people speak forever, but unfortunately we have got to the point where the House has become irrelevant. As a result the public and the media are beginning to switch off from the Dáil Chamber and that is a dangerous development.

The debate on the Flood tribunal report was a perfect example of this. The Taoiseach, at the time, stated that we did not want the answers, but I disagree with him. Whether he likes it, this is the people's House and he has a responsibility as head of Government to be accountable. If even there had been a half-hour refereed by the Ceann Comhairle where people could freely involve themselves in the debate, that would have been sufficient. However, the rules are not being used fairly by the Government. They are being used to stifle debate and prevent questions being answered.

Some county councils have more power than Deputies. At least I get to confront the county manager every month. I can grill that man and his officials at will, there is give and take, there is a right of reply and there is banter. If you say something wrong, they will take you to task. The public are interested in these debates. They read about them in the local newspapers. That is what it is all about.

We have lost that in this Chamber. There is none of that here. Members might shout across the Chamber at each other, but the debate is severely restricted. People understand that is the case and as a result it is becoming a waste of time. To pick an analogy, it is like marking someone on a hurling field with one hand tied behind your back. You might be close to him, but you both realise that you will not do him any damage whatsoever. It is very unfair.

The door-stepping of politicians by the media is becoming more prevalent. The media have realised that the relevance of the Dáil has waned to the extent that they would be better off waiting outside the houses or offices of politicians to ask questions. That is a dangerous phenomenon and has resulted in government by media.

There are some changes which are beneficial. The European affairs committee is bringing in changes to scrutinise directives before they affect the people. It is also a good development that Ministers will be brought before that committee prior to involving themselves in negotiations in Europe so that their negotiating strategies are scrutinised by the members of the committee and by this House.

Deputy Killeen spoke about Ministers appearing in front of committees. The proposal for the European affairs committee should be extended to all committees so that committees are able to compel Ministers to come before them and answer questions. That is an element which is missing here. It would be valuable to the commit tees and would give them more prestige and more power.

Some legislatures or assemblies around the world allow one-minute speeches before the Order of Business. Members are allowed get up and speak for one minute on any issue, whether it is a grudge, a constituency issue or an important policy issue. That process lasts for 60 minutes. In some assemblies, it sets the tone of the day and the media really pick up on it. The US House of Representatives is a good example of this, where it makes the House more colourful. It involves the media. Members get a chance to come to the floor before the Order of Business and say what they have to say. It is snappy and it keeps everyone involved. It is something we should consider. In addition, committees must be allowed subpoena witnesses to appear before them.

Earlier Deputy Dennehy mentioned the use of scripts. I agree with Deputy Harkin's point. She said that she was reading a script but it was one she had written herself. That is the difficulty. There are party activists – we had a very good example of that in the Chamber about 15 minutes ago – and civil servants writing scripts for Members which means they are not using their own words. Part of the reason for this is that at the end of the year The Sunday Tribune and other newspapers print lists outlining the time each Deputy has spent speaking in the Dáil Chamber. This has resulted in an emphasis on quantity over quality. They are interested only in being listed in the newspapers as having spoken for five or six hours so that they will not get a hard time from their constituents. This is ruining open debate. If you are elected to the Dáil, you should be able to get up on your own two feet and, using notes because everybody needs a prompt, say what you have to say.

I will not come into the Chamber and confront people if they have a script. I understand change must be agreed on a bipartisan basis and I will not change anything unless the Government parties and the Ceann Comhairle are willing to do so. There is a way of dealing with this. We can work something out so that party leaders and Ministers are allowed to continue using scripts, but apart from that we should ban them. The practice serves no purpose. It stops the free flow of debate and it is dragging the House down generally. It is boring. Nobody wants to listen to somebody reading from a script for 20 minutes when it is obvious in many cases that he or she has not written it. I am sorry the Ceann Comhairle is not present. If he were, I might have asked him for his opinion on it. I understand we need to make these changes on a bipartisan basis. If we do not do so, the Dáil will become more irrelevant than it is already. That is a frightening thought because it has already sunk to a low depth.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. It is important that we improve the structures of the House, finance those improvements and ensure all groups which serve this House run their offices and finance their structures with full transparency. I do not object to the Bill so long as ordinary Members maintain a say in the new structures being established. It is important that the problems of backbench Members are taken into account. Ministers and party leaders, who have their own structures and support systems, often do not realise how difficult it is for backbench Members to access the necessary research and back-up services and legal advice.

I recall discussions in the Dáil bar when older Members told us of their days in the House when four or five Deputies shared one office, secretary and telephone. We now have mobile phones in our pockets and are deeply involved at all times. We have one secretary-personal assistant and matters have improved. This does not mean, however, that we are satisfied. We must continue to make improvements.

Setting up a constituency office is a costly matter and the allowance we receive to help with these costs is not sufficient. We also receive a telephone allowance, but rural Deputies receive the same allowance as Dublin-based Deputies who can make all their telephone calls from their Leinster House offices, at no cost. When the media publish the amounts of expenses drawn down by various Deputies, those of us who have constituency offices are shown to receive greater amounts in expenses and the public is led to believe that we put this money into our pockets. In fact, we use it to pay part of the cost of the structures we have set up to service the public. This matter needs to be clearly spelt out. The allowance paid for the running of a constituency office needs to be increased.

Deputies' secretaries are more than just ordinary secretaries. They must undertake research, meet various groups and work unusual hours. They are not paid at a level which would attract the proper people for this work. I receive an allowance for extra help to which I add from my own funds to pay an extra full-time person. I do this because I must compete with others who are better served in this area. I employ two full-time secretaries in my office. This is necessary. The full cost of this staff should be met by the Oireachtas.

I have an office in my constituency and do some business from my own home, but other parties have four or five offices and full-time local authority councillors. The councillors who work with me are all in business or farming and have a full day's work to do. We must have a level playing pitch and know how these things are done. I am asking for no more and no less than other Deputies. I want to give the best service I can to the House and my constituents, but want to be able to do so in an open, frank and structured way.

I have served in this House for almost ten years. Deputy Deasy, a newcomer to the Dáil, has referred to the frustrations of working within it. This afternoon I heard the Taoiseach give one answer to 28 questions and read a long list of meetings he has attended. This was neither entertaining nor exciting and the media will take little interest in it. Compare our House with other Parliaments where quick sharp questions receive relevant answers. The answers we receive from Ministers are long-winded and often irrelevant. We must change this procedure. This House is the watchdog of the country and when questions are asked, we are entitled to receive answers. I quote today as an example, but the same could be said of any Minister on any day. Long written scripts are read by Ministers, often giving an answer to a question which was not even asked.

I am frustrated by the publicity given to the length of time for which Deputies and Senators speak. We are judged by the public on these reports, but some of us give enormous lengths of time to committee structures in the House. In the last Dáil I was a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We spent days discussing agricultural issues with very helpful civil servants, but seldom with the Minister, who ignored the committee unless he needed to pass the Vote for his Department. Otherwise, he seldom used the committee because he knew the media would give its proceedings little publicity.

Committees are the workhorses of the House. They debate Bills and give ordinary Members the opportunity to contribute. However, the structures of the House must be changed. There is no reason the Dáil cannot sit for longer periods during the year so as to allow committees receive a full hearing and public exposure. With the exception of major committees such as the Committee of Public Accounts, the work of committees is not recognised. The work done by farm organisations, of which the Minister and I have been members, is often seen by the media as more important than debates on Bills in the Oireachtas.

I remember a Bill which dealt with public liability insurance in which I had a major involvement. When the Government fell in 1994, the Opposition was trying to make changes to a Bill proceeding through the House that would make it relevant. When we went into Government, a number of us met the Attorney General and others and got the changes made. The day the Bill was passed, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, and some of his then colleagues were pictured with the then Minister in charge, former Deputy Taylor. They came in here for five minutes for a photocall and then claimed full responsibility for the legislation. The Minister of State may accept the point I am making in ten years time, if he is still in this House then.

It can be extremely frustrating to put hours and weeks of work into legislation like that. We were the only people who could vote it through. In the council chamber in Monaghan, the same issue was raised and the opposition there demanded legal advice on it. That advice went against them because it was based on the law already in place. We changed the law to make the situation more tenable for property owners in general, not just farmers. Changing legislation, making it work and making it relevant is what this House is about. However, Members often do not get the recognition for that and I hope change will take place. I am glad to have the opportunity to get some of these matters off my chest. There is a great need for those in charge of this legislation to make sure that it is not only put through the Houses but that it is put into operation.

I make no apologies for raising another agricultural issue that is relevant. The Minister in charge in 1989 put through a Bill on the use of meat and bonemeal. It was a brilliant Bill that banned the meal from being put into different products and feedstuffs. However, the Minister did not put the Bill into operation and it was not until 1995 that personnel were appointed to oversee its operation.

That is not the way business should be done. It is essential this Bill be put through as quickly as possible and that, when it goes through, the Minister finances it properly and that it is put into operation so that everyone in this House has a reasonable service. I could go through the technicalities of the needs of Members and the committee secretariat but it has all been mentioned before. However, it is important that this commission is funded so that the national Parliament has the services and back-up that Members deserve. Above all, it should be transparent so that I can work on the same basis as members of other parties.

Ms O'Sullivan

This is my first full term in Dáil Éireann. I was elected at a by-election during the last Dáil following the death of my friend, mentor and party colleague, former Deputy Jim Kemmy. Lest some new Members might not understand, I was a friend of Jim Kemmy and was brought into politics by him. I learned most of what I know from former Deputy Kemmy. I realise that Deputy McHugh is a new Member of this House and may not be fully aware of the facts.

Mr. McHugh

I take exception to that remark.

Ms O'Sullivan

I have been insulted in this House and I have a right to reply.

Mr. McHugh

I am fully aware of the facts. I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.

Ms O'Sullivan

Reference was made to a Deputy from Limerick who spoke this morning. There was also a reference to a certain former Deputy who might have turned in his grave. I can only assume that the people referred to were myself and my predecessor.

Mr. McHugh

Exactly.

Ms O'Sullivan

If that person, now deceased, were to turn in his grave – I am not sure what that term means – it would be because of social injustice on the issues he and I fought for in our political lives.

I understand very well that the Technical Group has formed as a group, and good luck to it. It has used the procedures of the House and I and my party have absolutely no problem with that.

Mr. McHugh

It appears the Deputy has. The collective nose of the Labour Party is out of joint since the foundation of the Technical Group.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy, without interruption, please.

Ms O'Sullivan

This morning, on legislation, I referred to the Standing Orders with regard to the procedure on Second Stage of a Bill. That was upheld by the Chair and the officers of the House. I wanted to ensure that the rules of the House were obeyed, and that was the decision of the House. I do not understand what is the problem. There was a suggestion that there was an effort to silence Members. We were talking on legislation on which there was no guillotine or time limit and on which any Member of this House was entitled to speak. The suggestion that the Labour Party was trying to silence other Members of this House is a lie.

Mr. McHugh

It is true.

Ms O'Sullivan

There were no circumstances in which anybody could have been silenced on that legislation because there was as much time as was necessary.

Mr. McHugh

It was the Technical Group's time slot.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McHugh, please allow the Deputy to continue.

Ms O'Sullivan

Deputy McHugh has misunderstood the rules of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Sullivan should deal with what is before the House.

Ms O'Sullivan

The rules of the House are clear. My good name was misused in a previous contribution and I have the right to answer. I know that the Labour Party Whip at the Whips' meetings argued for the right of the Technical Group and I have no problem with that. However, what happened this morning was an effort to ensure that the rules of the House were upheld. Everybody had the opportunity to speak in the correct order and that is what happened.

There may be some misunderstanding in relation to the position of the Labour Party. We have exactly the same rights as every other party and grouping in this House. A suggestion was made by a Deputy that the Labour Party had a higher allocation of staff than is our right. That is not true. Deputy Crawford referred to the fact that he has only one assistant in his constituency office. That is my position also and when I am in the Oireachtas, as I am sure is the case for most Deputies, I must do all my typing and telephone answering as well as other errands. There is a strong argument that all Members should have, in particular, research assistants who would help us to contribute as legislators and enable us to do our work here.

Changes are needed. I agree with Deputy Harkin's point about secretarial staff being underpaid. I join those Members who have spoken on that issue and who have indicated that secretarial staff should be paid a reasonable wage for the job they do. They are much more than secretaries, though I am not knocking secretaries. The secretarial staff in the Houses do a very wide job as personal assistants, dealing with all sorts of problems and issues. I feel strongly that they should be better paid.

I support other speakers who talked about the stylised system of debate in this House where many Members read from scripts. Lest there be some misunderstanding or belief that the Labour Party is pleading a special case, I write my own notes and am speaking from notes now. I generally try to do that because I feel that it makes for better debate. I support what has been said about the minimisation of the use of scripts. Ministers have an argument for using scripts in that there is a danger that they will not give accurate information on behalf of the Government if they do not have a certain amount of scripted material. However, there is no reason other Members should use scripts.

Speeches should be shorter and debates interactive where, for example, Members would have three-minute slots and there would be an opportunity for the Government and Opposition to interact. That would make for more real debate. What happens here is not debate in a real sense in that we get set times to make our speeches and do not get a chance to interact.

I support those who stated that committees do not get the recognition they deserve. A great deal of good work is done in committees, but it is very seldom reported by the media, meaning that those who put the most effort into committee work do not get the recognition they deserve. Many of those who lost their Dáil seats in this year's election had contributed hugely to committee work in this House. I doubt if a line was ever written about it in a newspaper or if they ever received credit for it from their constituents. The work that is done in the Oireachtas needs to be recognised. I support those who have argued that the efforts of Members do not seem to be understood by the public. We have a responsibility to address this issue.

I am the Labour Party's spokesperson on equality and I would hate to think that certain Deputies believe they are persecuted or somehow treated as less equal than others. If I thought that was the case, I would be happy as equality spokesperson to defend them and to stand over their rights. There is an imbalance in the attitudes of some Members. They seem to think that because it took them a while to get their rights, everyone else is somehow walking all over them. I am a member of the Opposition and I find it extraordinary that other members of the Opposition seem to be attacking my party. They are right to assert their rights, but my party has rights too. Labour Party Deputies are entitled to assert their rights under the rules of this House and I will continue to do so. All Members of the House have the right to express their views and to have them heard.

A Deputy accused me this afternoon of somehow trying to railroad the system, but I do not have the power to do so. I rely on the decisions of the Chair. I do not know whether the Deputy in question fully realises that the Labour Party is also an Opposition party. I understand that he initially hoped to be selected for one of the Government parties, but had to run as an independent candidate when he was not selected. Perhaps he is confused about which side of the House he sits on. You have known me for a long time, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and you know that I do not normally make speeches in which I enter into debate with other Members. I felt extremely hurt and wronged when I heard the remarks which were made in reference to my contribution this morning. I was simply trying to ensure that the House kept its own rules.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon)

I am responding to this Second Stage debate in place of my colleague, the Minister for Finance, who is unavoidably absent on official business. Many new Members have spoken in the past hour while I was listening to the debate. Many of them referred to their experiences and related their frustrations, in some cases, about the way in which we conduct business in the Chamber. The new Dáil has more new Members than has been the case for some time. Like many other Deputies, I was not a Member when the fundamental aspects of this Bill were spelled out upon its publication. It would not be harmful, therefore, to revise some of the Bill's basic provisions.

This Bill establishes the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to govern the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The commission will provide administration and back-up services to Members of both Houses. It will, with one exception, consist of parliamentarians and will assume the same functions and powers as a Minister in a Department. It will draw a sum of money from the central fund. The precise amount will be determined by means of an amendment to section 5 of the Bill on Committee Stage and will be expected to last for three years. Many Members have mentioned the frustrations of Opposition Deputies and reference has even been made to the use of scripts, as opposed to off-the-cuff con tributions. I am not 100% sure, having listened to many contributions, whether scripts are more boring than their alternative. I will continue to read from a script tonight because, as a new Deputy, it is important that I set the record straight.

Most Deputies can expect to sit on both sides of the House at some stage of their careers, but we have a responsibility to those who elected us regardless of which side of the House we sit on. It is right that we should not be deflected from the task we were given when we were elected by having to chase officials of the Department of Finance, or indeed the Minister, for funding for certain services which are needed to do our job properly and effectively. The Bill before the House allows decisions on proposals relating to services and resources, whether made by individual Members or by groups, to be taken in Leinster House. I agree that such decisions should be taken by elected Members who are familiar with the challenges and problems we face. It is probable that the average Member understands such challenges better than officials in the Department of Finance, who made such decisions heretofore.

This Bill is concerned with housekeeping issues which are currently addressed by the Minister for Finance. Decisions other than those relating to pay, superannuation and kindred matters will be taken by the commission. Many Deputies have raised the issue of the levels of individuals' pay, but such issues will be outside the remit of the commission. From my experience, it merits such consideration. One of the fundamental principles underlying this Bill is that the commission's relationship with its civil servants should be as close as possible to that of a Minister and his departmental staff. This approach has been built into the Bill. One or two speakers floated ideas about new mechanisms to protect essential services. Such ideas do not, at first sight, seem to be in accordance with the approach I have mentioned. It has been suggested that the Public Service Management Act, 1997, which the then Ceann Comhairle and Cathaoirleach agreed last year should apply to the office, could be better adapted to the precise conditions of the commission regime. This is being examined at present to see if an amendment can be tabled on Committee Stage.

This Bill will undoubtedly result in the fundamental reorganisation of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, creating a greater level of independence. This will be popular, if I understand today's contributions correctly. I thank those Members who spoke and who raised many interesting issues. Certain Deputies took the opportunity to deal with issues that had nothing to do with the Bill. I wish to respond to a couple of points that were made, although we will be able to do so at greater length and in more detail on Committee Stage.

A number of Deputies expressed concerns about the resourcing proposals in the Bill. As the Minister pointed out in his opening statement, the amount shown in section 5 of the Bill is the sum of the revised Estimate for the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas in 2002 and the amounts for 2003 and 2004 if policy does not change. The figure in the Bill is merely a holding sum to overcome the prohibition on leaving a blank space in the section. The definitive amount to be agreed between the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance will be substituted for the amount specified in the section, by way of an amendment on Committee Stage. Having listened to Members' shopping lists, I expect all Deputies will support the Minister and the amount recommended. The recently completed consultancy exercise to ascertain the probable resource and staffing requirements of Members and the office, under the new arrangements envisaged by the Bill, will be used to determine the amount to be included in the final version of the Bill. The Minister intends that the commission will have resources commensurate with a modern Parliament. Many speakers referred to other Parliaments. The international benchmarking study was established to provide the basis for the resourcing of the commission.

Deputy Howlin suggested that the Bill should provide for the financing of the Houses' essential services. As I have said, the sum to be provided will be agreed between the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance. I do not believe it would be appropriate for the Minister for Finance to specify how a portion of the funding should be spent by the commission, as the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the commission independence from the Government, particularly the Minister for Finance, and to meet the ongoing expenses of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas as it sees fit.

Deputy Richard Bruton raised the question of best practice and improvements in standards. I would certainly expect the commission to implement best practice. As the Deputy pointed out, the commission must define itself by the way it operates and does its business. The Bill provides for openness and transparency in the working of the commission. Section 6 requires the commission to cause an annual report on the activities of the commission to be prepared, published and presented to both Houses.

It further requires the Secretary General, if requested by either House of the Oireachtas or a committee of either House of the Oireachtas, to authorise to make such a request to furnish, on behalf of the commission, the requesting body with information on the policies, activities, accounts and other matters relating to the commission.

Section 13 provides that the commission shall prepare and publish a statement of Estimates on an annual basis. The Estimates will be presented to the House by way of take note motion by a member of the commission or a Member of the House nominated by the commission. The Estimates are then to be provided to the Minister for Finance in good time to include them in the White Paper on Receipts and Expenditure, that is, no later than 30 days before budget day.

Section 14 provides that the commission shall keep annual accounts in the form, and for the accounting period, specified by the Minister. It also makes provision for the Secretary General to submit these accounts annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit within three months of the relevant accounting period. The Secretary General is also obliged to present the Minister with a copy of the accounts and report and present himself or herself before a committee of the House established to examine such accounts and, therefore, to the Comptroller and Auditor General whenever is required.

I agree with Deputy Bruton's comments on Dáil reform but the Bill allows for the reorganisation of the structures of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a major step forward but real Dáil reform must come from within the Houses. The Deputy suggested that a new and radical role must be developed for Members. The former Government Chief Whip and current Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, explored with his counterparts the reforms on which there would be consensus and other parties teased out the implications for their members of the scenarios for change. However, it would not be proper for the Government to define roles for parliamentarians. The Bill will provide resourcing for a modern Parliament and it is incumbent on its Members to decide how this should manifest itself.

Deputies Bruton and Howlin discussed eloquently the need to reinstate power to the Dáil and to investigate issues of public importance. I understand and support this but the parameters are not yet crystal clear and, until the outcome of recent cases are reviewed fully, this issue would be better left for another day.

Deputy McGrath commented on the prohibition on the commission to make appointments above the level of principal officer. Such appointments are subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance and it is envisaged that the consent of the Minister will be granted where he is satisfied that the workload and responsibilities of proposed posts are on a par with the generality of Civil Service posts at that level. The number of posts in the Civil Service above the level of principal officer is small.

Many Members, when commenting on resources, alluded to the need for improved research facilities. The legislation will provide for a significant increase in the resources available to the Houses. The Minister believes it is not his role to define how these resources should be utilised. When the benchmarking exercise was established, it was to report in the areas that are seen to be under-resourced compared to international Parliaments. It is clear from contributions that recommendations of the report in regard to the provision of research facilities for Members do not meet with widespread support.

Following the passage of the legislation and the establishment of the commission it will no longer be up to the Minister for Finance to make recommendations on how additional resources should be utilised. The Minister's objective is to ensure sufficient resources are in place for the commission to carry out its functions, as set out in the Bill. It is significant that new arrangements will be in place for Members, which are vital to allow them to work effectively for their constituents.

Many of these arrangements have been gleaned from our experience of other European Parliaments as a direct result of our membership of the EU. On Saturday next, we, the people of Ireland, will be asked to play our part in securing a prosperous and peaceful future, not just for ourselves but for all of Europe. Under the Nice treaty, we are being joined by members from countries where for decades Parliaments were merely rubber stamps for totalitarian regimes. Many of these countries have spent the past decade grafting real parliamentary systems on the body politic. A continuation of this process is proposed under the treaty with member states of an enlarged EU going forward together for the greater good.

I thank all Members for their contributions and I have no doubt there will be an opportunity to discuss the issues further on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.