Deputy Joe Higgins was in possession and has 11 minutes remaining. As he is not present, I call Deputy Killeen.
Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
To be fair to Deputy Joe Higgins, I do not think that he had begun his contribution.
I commend the Minister for taking the initiative and introducing this legislation which is hugely important for the working of this House and the Seanad. The Minister mentioned the situation heretofore in which the Members' services committee members would go to his office formally once or twice per year, and informally on other occasions, seeking improvements in conditions in the Houses. All kinds of other approaches were made on behalf of Ministers. With the changes proposed in this Bill, that will not happen anymore and the budget of the Oireachtas will be controlled by Members on a three-year basis.
I was chairman of the sub-committee in the last Dáil and I frequently made those journeys to the Minister's office, sometimes accompanied by other Members present in the House today. To be fair, in that Parliament those journeys frequently met with a modicum of success. New Members would be horrified if they were aware of the conditions under which Members operated ten years ago when I became a Member of the House, and they were much worse before that. The recent improvements have had an enormous impact on the efficacy of Parliament and the situation is much better than when resources were not applied to enable people to do the job they were supposed to do.
I am glad it will not be necessary for future Members to make the journey to the Minister for Finance's office seeking funding for the running of Parliament. The Bill provides the commission with the necessary financial resources. An interesting provision is that the funding is for three years. At the end of that time, a further Bill will have to be passed to enable the commission to continue.
In the course of the Minister's speech, he said that successive Ministers have been conscious of the constitutional independence of Parliament and that they have also been sympathetic to requests for better resources. I do not see much evidence that this was the case. If the Ministers were so conscious, there must also have been a very powerful force that was not because the resources made available to this Parliament and to individual Members compares very poorly with almost all other Parliaments we examined, certainly in Europe, when undertaking the study. It is not stretching the point too far to say that many of the tribunal difficulties which Parliament and the country has had to face and is facing are a direct result of the fact that this Parliament did not have the resources to hold the Executive to account. Many Members would say that those who have been before tribunals played a role in depressing pay and support systems for Members of the Oireachtas.
The commission faces an enormous task on several fronts. It needs to carve out a strong role for itself in the area of resourcing the Parliament. It is important that the conflict between business and private funding of ongoing political activity and funding from public sources is resolved. It is entirely different from, and independent of, electoral law and the financing of elections. Many Members are subventing constituency office operations from private or business resources, or by fundraising. Almost every speaker in this debate has illustrated the burden of constituency work which entails enormous financial cost, as well as being quite time-consuming. It militates directly and fundamentally against the legislative and policy work of parliamentarians and it contributes to an ineffective Parliament. This may be the central area that the commission will have to address. The success of the commission in this respect may depend on the provisions of section 5 of the Bill, which I will discuss later.
Some Members have complained about the impact of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. The level of expenses claimed by Deputies is frequently the subject of unbalanced media coverage. Media commentators never refer to the huge costs associated with operating a constituency office, for example. Rents can be quite high on such offices if they are located in the commercial areas of larger towns. Other costs, such as rates, electricity, insurance and telephone bills, should be taken into account. Perhaps the commission will examine a particular anomaly in relation to telephone costs. It may not be feasible to seek a reduction in the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, but I believe we should adopt the UK system of direct payment for telephone lines. I have five such lines in my office and I assume other Deputies have a similar number for telephones, fax machines and computers. One of the commission's first undertakings should be to examine the possibility of direct payment for secretarial resources and other office costs.
The costs I have mentioned add about €30,000 to the declared expenses of Members. Virtually all Members spend between €40,000 and €50,000 to provide those services for which they receive €30,000. We know that some individuals will misrepresent the facts to make political capital from the level of expenses we receive, but certain things should be done to address our problems. A direct payment system regarding the services I have mentioned is one such measure. It is entirely unsatisfactory that the Executive should have had control over the resources of Parliament. One of the primary duties of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account. I do not doubt that a lack of resources is the primary reason the Executive has not been held to account as effectively here as has been the case in other countries. This lack of resources is evident in terms of independent research support and the fact that there has been virtually no support for committees. The committees of the Houses have had to operate on a shoestring, depending on the goodwill and hard work of committee staff.
Most Members have to rely on voluntary effort from those in our communities who are prepared to help us with our research. The fact that such work has not been done professionally is clearly seen in the failure of this Parliament in many respects. Undoubtedly, such failures can be attributed to the fact that Parliament has to depend on the Executive for resources. The international benchmarking review, commissioned from Deloitte & Touche, confirmed that this Parliament is the worst resourced of those examined by a factor of three, four or five. A previous study from the IPA, referred to by Deputy Howlin, found similar results. Funding requirements for the three years of the initial operation of the commission will have to be carefully examined in the context of the Deloitte & Touche report. Some Members are concerned that the three year review will give cause for negative publicity, but I am far less worried about that than I am about the figure in section 5 of the Bill. The commission will fail if the funding issue is not corrected ab initio, as it will not have the resources to succeed.
I welcome the provision in section 13 of the Bill for an annual statement to the House by the commission. A membership of 11, as provided for in section 8, is workable. I do not share the concerns of Members who have difficulties with the fact that the Secretary General of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas will be a member of the commission. I see the role of the Secretary General as being more like a chief executive officer than a commission member. The Bill also provides that the Ceann Comhairle will be the chairman of the commission. I understand that one of the reasons for this provision is to avoid conflict between the role of Ceann Comhairle and the role of chairman, if they were separate. The commission is, in effect, administrative in nature, while the Houses of the Oireachtas are regulated under Article 15.10 of the Constitution.
We encountered difficulties in the past when legal action was taken by, or on behalf of, the House, but this area will be addressed by the proposed legislation. The commission will be in a position to make legal advice available to Members. More importantly, it will have the right, with the permission of the Houses, to be a party to legal proceedings. The fact that the institutions of the Houses have not heretofore provided any entity, on behalf of Members, which could be a party to legal proceedings has been a great weakness. The Attorney General was in a position to do so on behalf of the Executive, but the Parliament had no such right. Apart from the resourcing issue, this may well become the most important element of this Bill. In my capacity as chairman of the working group of committee chairmen, I am familiar with the work of the existing office which advises Parliament on legal matters.
During the last Dáil, the courts seriously circumscribed the role of Parliament. Indeed, the Parliament was not seen as a legal entity to the extent of being allowed to be a party to the proceedings. The courts have ruled, in effect, that the role of Parliament is confined to legislation and holding the Executive to account, but there is a significant grey area beyond that, as Deputies Howlin and Richard Bruton have pointed out in the course of this debate. This grey area is apparent when an attempt is made to examine the workings and efficacy of semi-State bodies, value for money, or financial and taxation issues. Such an attempt was made by the sub-committee of the Committee of Public Accounts, which examined revenue matters, including DIRT. I do not doubt that the sub-committee advanced substantially the role of Parliament and, particularly, led many people to believe that Parliament could have a central role in improving their lives. I hope the commission will study this grey area as a priority.
When this Dáil comes to an end, I hope we will not be lamenting the fact that we did not take this opportunity to flesh out the role of Parliament. It will be a shame if the commission fails to, or is prevented from, pushing out the boundaries. If we expand the role of Parliament as I have suggested, the next generation will not have to ask tribunals to investigate matters which occurred 20 or 30 years previously. The commission should have a proactive role in Dáil reform. The committees, for example, would be drawn into the legislative framework much sooner than is the case currently. There is no reason for a Minister not to appear before a committee following the drafting of the heads of a Bill. Neither is there a reason for professional lobbyists or lobby groups such as the IFA, IBEC and the trade unions not to conduct their business openly and transparently before Oireachtas committees. Reports on such proceedings should, consequently, become policy at some level or at a very mini mum the Minister to whom the committees report should be obliged to return to Parliament with a view on the policy set down and with initiatives, legislative or otherwise, that may be required.
Deputy Richard Bruton stated in his contribution that Oireachtas committees are viewed with contempt by Departments and Ministers. I assume he knows what he is talking about given that he served as a Minister. Those of us who have put a great deal of effort into various aspects of committee work have been forced to come to the conclusion that most of it has been in vain because the reports are shelved or put away and not acted on. Perhaps when the new committees are established, some at least will pay tribute to their predecessors by examining the reports they prepared.
Deputy Bruton also stated the Oireachtas is a second rate Parliament and we are suffering the contempt of the people. He is close enough to being correct and this could be addressed more pro-actively under the commission than has been the case heretofore. He also placed an onus on Government backbenchers to play the role of opposition. I do not know whether that is a compliment or whether it is his view of the capacity of his side of the House to provide opposition. However, he is correct to an extent and the Whips system has played a central role in reducing the efficacy of Parliament, particularly in making it less effective at holding the Executive to account.
We need to move forward to create a good, functioning Parliament that can make changes for the better in people's lives. Even the era of partnership, which many people hold has pushed Parliament aside, could benefit from a Parliament with more authority which would certainly beget a Government with authority. Deputies Bruton and Howlin, who are both former Ministers, indicated in their contributions that Government wants to be as unaccountable as possible and it does not want a troublesome, questioning Parliament. I must take their word for it but, if that is the case, the onus is on Parliament to change that.
Secondary legislation is one area in which the Houses have played virtually no role. Generally, such legislation has been churned through invisible bureaucracy in Europe or elsewhere, found its way to a Department where it frequently stays prisoner for an interminable period and, ultimately, is released into the Oireachtas Library before it is rubber-stamped in the House through a motion without debate. Secondary legislation has an enormous impact on people's lives and on the social, political and economic life of the country.
There is a proposal that Departments will in future prepare an information note which will be sent to committees so that, at the very least, they will be in a position to examine secondary legislation. That is to be welcomed, but such a proposal will also increase the burden on those Members who believe they have a parliamentary role as well as a representative role. The more the burden is increased, the more difficult it is for them to carry it out effectively. The commission will need to be pro-active in this area. It would be a great mistake in the long-term if the commission was curtailed under the terms of the consultants' report. That would be a better starting point than where we are at now. However, I do not accept it will be the ideal point in terms of resources in a few years.
Deputy Ring and others pointed out strongly that Members who contributed significantly to the previous Dáil in terms of legislation, policy and work on committees were not returned at the election because they were unable to fulfil both their parliamentary and representative roles. They did not have the time or resources to do so. If there is one monkey we need off our backs if we are interested in undertaking parliamentary work, it is constituency work, which takes up enormous time. The resources needed to address constituency work would not be expensive to provide if the Oireachtas accepted that Members have a dual role which they need to fulfil effectively. If they are to be returned to the House, they must look after constituency work. However, if we want an effective Parliament, Members must be in a position to attend to their legislative roles.
Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver and Michael Marsh published an interesting report in 1997 through the Policy Institute, Trinity College, which examined the role of Oireachtas committees. The report was published, examined and not considered by anybody again. It is still relevant and, while I disagree strongly with two or three of its recommendations, I concur with most of them. The authors view the role of committees "as streamlining and improving the process of legislation, scrutinising Government Departments, advising on particular policy problems". They also stated the committee system "further needs to find a way to vindicate the increasingly important role of investigating matters of major public concern". It will fall to the commission to address that issue. The authors also state "committees should have both a right and an obligation to have time set aside to have their reports debated in the Dáil and Seanad. If a committee's report points to a need for Government action, the report should be forwarded to the appropriate Government Department with a requirement that a Minister report back to the Dáil on progress within a specified period".
I welcome the establishment of the commission but I hope its role will be challenged by us so that it does not operate in a back room, invisible and ineffective in terms of the future.
I agree with much of the previous contribution. The legislation is welcome and the debate is important. The primary issues one must address when elected to the House is how efficient a service one can provide to one's constituents, how to deal with legislation as it is pro cessed and how the House can make the Government more accountable. The commission is a good concept as Members will no longer have to go cap in hand to Ministers seeking funding for essential services which are necessary but are currently not provided. Earlier in the debate many compliments were paid to the Minister for Finance for introducing the legislation and looking after the Members and I acknowledge that is his intention.
I am most bothered by the question of the transparency of Government. Ministers come into the House with prepared scripts and Opposition Members must constructively challenge what they propose. The tools available to Members are inadequate but I acknowledge the first class service provided by staff in preparation for debates. The administrative staff in the Oireachtas and all other Departments are helpful and user friendly when one seeks information. The library staff are first class. They will always try to find requested material in time for a debate, often at short notice. This commission will empower the Dáil to employ more people in these areas. There must be proper research and policy development facilities in the Parliament. A significant increase, as proposed here, in the number of research staff in the library is essential. Those people should be available to all sides of the House.
The IT section has undergone significant improvements, particularly in the reference materials it has made available. Members have an on-line subscription to The Irish Times and The Economist and links to the European Parliament. The access we have through Lotus Notes to Oireachtas debates and parliamentary questions is worthwhile. It is impossible, however, for a Member to do everything on his own. As a Member of the Dáil who was formerly a Senator, I have gone from sharing a secretary to having my own, a tremendous improvement for me so I can work with that person six days a week, but it is still inadequate for the job in hand. The proposal of the report which states that Oireachtas Members should have an extra member of staff is the most important thing the Government could do to assist Members so they can do their job properly.
The income for our secretaries is inadequate. Payments across Departments are related but we should be able to set our own salary scales for staff, independent of other Departments. The word "secretary" is a poor job title when one thinks of the work these people do. It includes acting as a personal assistant, researcher, policy officer and press officer. They do myriad jobs and should be much better paid than at present.
Committees will be starting shortly and they involve even more work. We might like to be in five places at one time but it is impossible for a Member to do a proper day's work without adequate staff. If the commission established by this Bill addresses these issues it will be very welcome.
It is the task of the Opposition to put the Government through the hoops. Very few of us are lawyers and getting independent legal advice is difficult for the Opposition. The big guns are on the side of the Government of the day, with hundreds of civil servants and special advisors working for it. In Opposition there is no such capacity. We need legal advice on Bills where legislation requires specialist knowledge that a personal assistant might not have. Collective wisdom should be available to Members.
Front Bench spokespersons are individuals who struggle with whole Departments. There should be specialist resources for those on the Front Benches. This is perhaps not fair to Independent Members but those who have to conduct research because of their Front Bench position should have adequate support.
In a true democracy, the Opposition should be as well resourced as possible so it can deal with the issues of the day. Our Opposition does not have adequate resources but this Bill goes a long way towards addressing the issue. We must continue the scrutiny of Government decision making if it is to remain transparent. In the absence of this commission, we are not doing the job the people want us to do.
We must give effective and efficient service in our constituencies but we need more resources to do so. Members receive a grant of €9,000 per annum for office rental but it is impossible to get an office on a main street with a shop front in any town for that amount. It must be increased. There is another €9,000 grant to help to install facilities such as PCs, desks and a public area and, again, this is inadequate. We must offer a modern, first class service to constituents. I hope that the Minister for Finance and the commission which will be set up under the Bill address that issue.
We must change the way we work, making use of better resources. This Bill is a step in the right direction.
The proposals in this Bill will lead to a radical change in the structure of this House and the Seanad. The commission will enhance the independence of the Houses of the Oireachtas and represent a watershed in our democracy. This is the first stage on the long road to redressing the adage "strong Government, weak Parliament". Some of us have seen many changes in procedure in various Dálaí and this commission will continue the process set in motion by the other welcome changes of the past ten years. I join in the tributes to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. Other Ministers have been involved in change – Deputy Cullen in his role at the Office of Public Works and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, when he was Government Chief Whip, but the Minister for Finance has been central to them all.
It is easy to pay lip service to the need for Dáil reform.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.