I welcome the Minister. The debate will follow in the normal pattern. The Minister will have six minutes, group spokespersons will have seven minutes each and all other Senators will have three minutes each.
Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Bill 2024 [Certified Money Bill]: Second and Subsequent Stages
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
To clarify, will the Chair outline to the House the amount of time that was allotted to the entire Bill on the agreed Order of Business?
Sixty minutes for all Stages.
I thank the Chair for the clarity.
I am pleased to present the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Bill to the House, which has passed all Stages in the Dáil. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission came into existence in January 2004 and the legislation that set it up allowed it to play two roles. First, it was the sanctioning authority for expenditure, for deciding on staff numbers up to the grade of principal officer and for the provision of services and related matters to the Oireachtas. Second, the system for the allocation of budgets to the Oireachtas changed from the annual Civil Service Estimates and Vote procedure to a different process involving a three-year budget drawn from the Central Fund. This has been the approach for many years and a new Oireachtas commission Act is now required as a matter of priority, given that the financing provided under the 2021 Act covered the years up to and including this year and expires on 31 December. Therefore, this Bill needs to be enacted by the end of the year to ensure there is a statutory basis for payments by the Oireachtas from 1 January.
It is important to note that, while the commission has many different roles, it does not play a role in setting the level of remuneration payable to TDs and Senators. Responsibility for salaries, pensions and allowances for Ministers and other Members is the responsibility of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, but the commission is accountable to the Parliament and presents annual reports of its work to both Houses with Estimates and accounts of its annual expenditure.
I acknowledge the valuable role played by the secretarial, parliamentary and administrative assistants in supporting Members and delivering a high-quality service to the Oireachtas.
As a Member of the Oireachtas now for some time, I am acutely conscious of the high-calibre work that all our staff do. We are dependent on them. I am very grateful to them and I am conscious that this is a view that will be shared by many other Members.
The Bill proposes to make available to the commission a sum not exceeding €565 million to carry out its functions for the three-year period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2027. This sum has been the subject of detailed and substantial engagement between the commission and my own Department, and this proposed amount has now been approved by the Government. The proposed amount takes into account expenditure that can be reasonably foreseen over the three-year period up to 2027. My objective in this process has been to strike the right balance between sufficient and appropriate funding for our national Parliament and showing our commitment to planning the use of the public’s money well.
This value is over three years and comprises €205.3 million in 2025, with a balance of €360 million to be allocated across the following two years. This is an increase of €102.25 million, or 22.1%, over that three-year period. Out of that, €406.6 million consists of pay and pensions, Members’ allowances is €32.9 million, and non-pay is €125.5 million, or 22% of the overall budget allocation.
The main driver in the change of the amount of money available across this three-year period is the prospective increase in the size of the Dáil. The next Dáil will see 174 TDs representing 43 Dáil constituencies, an increase of 14 from the current 160 TDs and 39 constituencies. This will have impacts beyond just the number of TDs, for example, with regard to the number of staff that will be available to support them in their work.
I also introduced a security provision in the current Oireachtas funding for work to be done in offices particular of Members of the Oireachtas. This is something the future operation of which I am considering at the moment, conscious of the importance of allowing Members of the Oireachtas to engage with their constituents in a safe and secure manner.
Another key driver of the change relates the implementation of an Oireachtas ICT strategy. This money will provide for new initiatives and deal with emerging requirements, such as cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, and will also contribute the replacement of two legacy systems. We need to ensure our work is efficient and that it stays safe from a digital perspective.
Other contributory factors with regard to the increased allocation are as follows: the costs associated with the forthcoming election and also our forthcoming EU Presidency.
With regard to the Bill, there are two sections, with one substantive amendment. Section 1 amends section 5 of the principal Act to provide funding for the expenditure incurred by the commission during the period of three years from 1 January 2025. This amount is capped at €565 million. Section 2 is a standard form provision and sets out the Short Title, collective citation and commencement date for the Bill.
The Bill aims to provide proper and appropriate resourcing for our national Parliament. Our prosperity and welfare places demands on the work that happens in the Oireachtas. Likewise, I believe the Oireachtas is central to both. The proper funding of that work is important. That is why I commend this Bill to the House.
It is safe to say that democracy involves a cost and that the running of our democratic institutions involves a cost. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission does important work in terms of resourcing and staffing of the Houses and providing for the staff employed by the Members of the Houses. Those staff perform exceptional duties on our behalf. The are on the front line in my cases. The secretarial staff in particular are on the front line when it comes to deal with those who sometimes have things to get off their chest and will do so over the phone, by email or whatever. On occasion, the staff can suffer at the hands of certain individuals. In general, people are understanding of the role of Oireachtas Members and want to use the facilities, contacts and procedures that Members have to gain assistance. It is important to acknowledge the role of our secretarial staff and the staff the Members of the Lower House have as well. It is important to acknowledge that. Obviously, in light of the increase in the number of TDs after the general election, there will also be an increase in staff. As the Minister said, that is accounting for some of the additional budgeting required.
We also know there are always demands for additional committee work in these Houses. For example, there was the special committee on autism, for which our colleague Senator Carrigy did exceptional work as Chair. It has proven itself in terms of whatever costs might have incurred with that. The special committee on issues pertaining to the Traveller community is again an example of a committee requiring staffing that does important work as well.
We have increased demands related to information technology that has to be paid for and ongoing improvements on translation services that are required for Members who speak trí mheán na Gaeilge.
The Minister mentioned general election costs, Seanad election costs and additional costs relating to the EU Presidency.
This is an important Bill, not least because there are staff to be paid. Obviously, that is an important function. I do not think anyone would appreciate us finishing up in these Houses without passing this legislation for the staffing arrangements for the forthcoming three years. It is important to acknowledge that as well.
I acknowledge the work done by the staff of these Houses. There is the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, on which both Houses are ably represented. Notwithstanding issues that arise from time to time, and I am sure others will highlight some of those, it is important we have the accountability necessary to ensure the proper running of these Houses. I commend the Bill.
I support this legislation. It is important that the Houses of the Oireachtas have a funding stream from the Central Fund but it should also be subject to ministerial accountability and control. I am of the view that a happy balance can be struck between the two.
The Office of the Information Commissioner recently found that the Office of Public Works unlawfully breached section 15(4) of the Freedom of Information Act by refusing all efforts by Independent Members of the Seanad to have access to OPW plans to replace the Oireachtas Library reading room at Leinster House with a wholly unnecessary second Chamber for the Dáil. The Senators sought details of the plans to spend €3.7 million reconfiguring the beautiful Oireachtas Library as a Chamber for parallel sittings of Dáil Éireann. Not only would that project cost an extra €3.7 million as a capital expenditure, it would have added €1.6 million annually to the running costs of Dáil Éireann. Members became aware of this gross waste of public money when a slide presentation was made in private to a Dáil sub-committee. It was suggested that the Dáil could avoid late sittings if a second Chamber was used. The same result could be achieved by commencing Dáil sittings at 10 a.m. on Tuesdays or meeting on Monday afternoons or Friday mornings.
In the meantime, the beautiful Oireachtas Library has been reduced to a tatty state with cheap furniture. Although it is a legally protected structure, its floorboards were removed and replaced by composite wooden panelling in preparation for the creation of a second Chamber. Its historical light fittings have been replaced by cheaper fittings. Independent Senators have drawn this to the attention of the planning and enforcement section of Dublin City Council and an investigation into the matter has commenced.
We polled the Members of the Oireachtas and found that a clear majority were opposed to this change.
It is a private project that is not supported by the majority of Oireachtas Members. I do not believe the entire project will continue but it was a scandalous waste of public money. It was an unlawful and ugly interference with a projected structure and a completely unnecessary division of Dáil Éireann into two parallel sittings in two Chambers. People talk about the €300,000 bicycle shed expenditure, which was an indication of where things could go wrong and go off the rails. This is in the pipeline and it is a scandal that Members of this House who sought details of what was planned from the OPW, which is under the Minister's general control, were refused, with evasive tactics, any access to any records relating to this project on three or four occasions. We know it would cost €3.7 million to further wreck that library building. It would cost €1.6 million every year to run a second Dáil Chamber, not to mention the security implications of having the main hall of Leinster House so close to sessions of the Dáil whereby it would be difficult to provide adequate security.
We need value for money. There have been a number of projects in these Houses that have been a waste of money, such as the phone system, which the great majority of staff did not want. A very expensive phone system was put in place which staff did not want. We now have advertising hoardings in this building which are ugly and unnecessary, and which are bombarding us with information about security and all the rest. It is like being in an airport at this stage. I am speaking about these internal notice boards.
If we are serious about Leinster House continuing to be the Parliament it can be, one thing the incoming Government is going to have to face up to is the provision in the Constitution that there has to be one TD for every 20,000 to 30,000 people in the population. On population projections, we are going to have 250 Members of Dáil Éireann by 2050. If you were to apply our current standard of representation to Westminster, for the information of the House, there would be approximately 2,300 Members of the House of Commons. If we want to do something to preserve this House and to conserve public expenditure on the parliamentary process, and I believe the parliamentary process deserves generous support, we should run a referendum to say that the total number of TDs shall be whatever figure the Government chooses. Perhaps it chooses 160 TDs or 180 TDs to be divided among constituencies equally, with the same ratio of people to TDs across the country. That would serve a much greater purpose.
The public was outraged when it saw the €330,000 spent on a bicycle shed. That was reasonable anger in the circumstances. It was a project that was not the subject of really careful scrutiny as to whether it was excessive in all the circumstances. It could have been done far more cheaply. The prospect of spending €3.5 million to wreck a service most Members of this House strongly value to provide a parallel Dáil Chamber is a complete and scandalous waste of money. The real issue is that a Dáil committee was persuaded this was the only way to reduce working hours to not later than 8.30 p.m. without considering starting earlier on a Tuesday morning or, as in Westminster, doing Private Members' Business on a Friday morning and deferring the votes until the following Wednesday. None of that was considered. The idea the Government would spend €3.7 million on this project and an extra €1.6 million every year to man, if I can use that phrase in this day and age, the security and secretarial aspects of this parallel Chamber structure to no particular effect is a real example of wasteful public expenditure.
I support the Bill. I support multi-annual budgeting. I also support the requirement for what is spent within the envelope that is provided from the Central Fund. However, and this is the important point, the Members of the Seanad and the Dáil are entitled to be consulted. They are entitled to know what is being planned. They are certainly not entitled to be deliberately obstructed by the Office of Public Works to the point where the Information Commissioner has to intervene and overturn the refusal to provide adequate plans to Members of this House.
The Minister is welcome. I have a couple of queries for him on which I would appreciate a response. I have a concern about the fact that some people employed on this site are not paid a living wage. I am talking about our cleaners. This issue has been raised a number of times. A member of the Minister's party, whom I respect, said to me approximately three years ago that this was all going to be sorted. The fact is some of the hardest working people on this site are our cleaners and they do not get paid a living wage. That is entirely unacceptable. I hope that somewhere in this increased expenditure is spending to ensure those workers are paid a living wage. We should be setting an example to employers in the State. This has gone on for far too long. These people are forgotten about. They are in here every morning before we are. They work antisocial hours and do an incredible job. We are happy to thank them, and rightly so, but we are not happy to pay them a living wage. I am old fashioned and think someone who works for a living should be able to earn a living. That includes our cleaners. Perhaps the Minister would address that matter.
The second issue relates to our ushers, who we all agree do an incredible job. I have concerns about the health and safety aspects of their role. The Minister acknowledged in his speech that there are bad actors out there. God knows we know that. There is a lunatic fringe and there are bad actors. Some of our ushers are at the front line at times. A couple of things worry me. The first is how long it took to get X-ray machines into Kildare Street. I did not see the prioritisation of that and it took far too long. Perhaps the worst example was that, at one point, a lunatic was wielding a sword outside Kildare House. I know that when ushers have suffered traumatic experiences, they have been told to work on because no one is available to replace them. That cannot be right.
I will ask the Minister a specific question about the Merrion Street gates. Is it possible for a fire engine to access the Merrion Street gates? I have been told that is not the case at the moment. From a health and safety point of view, that is entirely unacceptable.
We would all agree that the challenges facing our ushers have changed dramatically in recent years. Things certainly are not what they used to be. I am not sure enough time, thought and, where required, expenditure have gone into protecting the health and safety of these workers, without whom we cannot do our jobs, day by day.
We are at the end of this Parliament. We are going to have one hour for this entire debate. There is an issue in respect of overall accountability, which is also a concern. Senator McDowell referenced that point. We support the Bill but I ask the Minister to address those issues to ensure we do what is right by everyone who works on this site.
I welcome the Minister. I, too, welcome the Bill. I recognise we are operating a large parliamentary process. I am on the Oireachtas audit committee. We have intense scrutiny of all expenditure here. I acknowledge that group of people because many people do not know who they are. They include outside bodies and people who do that and work closely with Mr. Peter Finnegan, Clerk of the Dáil, in terms of the overall. They are an exercised group of people. We have external experts in that regard. The group audits the services of the Oireachtas, including security and IT. There are a whole load of arrangements. There are always going to be ongoing challenges. What is different here is that the Minister's proposal is for a three-year rolling budget. I understand the logic of that, and need for it. However, I will flag some issues.
I agree with Senator Gavan about the living wage.
We must be proactive regarding all the contractors who work here. There are many of them. We are procuring their services but as part of this procurement we are not insisting on the terms and conditions of their employees. As a Parliament, we should have a greater say in and knowledge of this aspect. I have spoken to individual staff members, and I am not going to even refer to the type of service staff they are in case they could be identified, but they told me they have found it very difficult to negotiate with their employers, who have been very unreasonable. We build relationships with these people. They are walking our corridors, cleaning our offices and engaging in other aspects of our service. This is an important point. People should be on a living wage rate and I would like us to examine this issue.
This is about accountability. We know the great debate and arguments concerning the bicycle shed. That is only one example. Many comments have been made about these television screens that are all over the place. Many people's staff have told me they have had their phones taken out of their offices and they have been told they are going on MS Teams. No one wants to look into other people's eyes or meet around a table anymore. There needs to be greater consultation.
More importantly, concerning Oireachtas members, we put in place a commission. It is highly competitive to get onto it. The members of the commission get paid. I am on the audit committee and I do not get a screed nor a shilling for it, but the members of the commission are paid handsomely for their work. They fight among themselves to be on the commission. They are not great at transparency, however. In future, at the end of every meeting of the commission, I would like to see a formal communiqué issued to the members of these Houses regarding the decisions made, within. I understand that not everything can be made public and there are sensitive issues, but I would like a commitment in this regard. I will certainly be saying to anyone seeking to go onto the commission the next time that we must have greater accountability and transparency about what it does in our name and on behalf of our Parliament. A reasonable communiqué should be issued after every meeting of the commission to set out, where possible, practical communication. This is important. I thank the Minister.
I welcome the Minister to the House. We are in an electoral cycle now. One of the things I regard as very poor form from this House is the information provided to candidates on the implications that may affect them on election to the Parliament, whether it is to the Dáil or the Seanad. In my case, when I got elected to this House I took a salary hit of €10,000 annually. Despite membership of this House being based on people bringing their professional expertise to it based on the panel they are elected to, legislation and statutory instruments were written during the crisis from 2008 to 2013 and one of those statutory instruments prevents Members of this House employed in education from continuing in their educational role. In my case, that cost me €10,000 each year. I should have been informed of the implications of being elected to the House before I was elected. Other colleagues have suffered salary hits of as much as €20,000 a year. A member of the public seeking election to this House should never have to sacrifice income as a result of it.
There are issues with respect to salaries for Members of this House and issues with respect to pensions. In my case, I make full pension contributions, and I have been obliged to do so for 20 years of service in this House, but I will not qualify for a pension at the end of my service. I will get a paltry sum to make up the difference. Turning to PRSI, this aspect, too, was brought in during the days of FEMPI. It is widely accepted that the PRSI rate inflicted on Members of this House, members of the Judiciary, the Attorney General and the President under class K is unconstitutional, yet the issue continues to be fought. We need to do that.
I support Senator McDowell regarding his call to have a referendum to cap the number of TDs elected. We cannot continue to see the Chamber grow over and over, up to as many as 1,000 people in future. If we are going to run a referendum on the number of TDs, though, we should also increase the number of Ministers. It is outrageous that some Ministers are carrying three and four portfolios. We should have Ministers assigned to a single job overseeing a single Department. I would have no difficulty in supporting such a referendum. I know there may not be great public taste for doing so and that people see Ministers as being well-off, looked after and whatever, but we need Ministers who are on top of all of their brief all of the time.
Regarding the Minister's Department, there are times when I have found its overarching reach to be limiting, to put it that way, with respect to what we can do in the public service. The Department,, must be admired for what it did during the crisis in this country but perhaps it is now time to revert to having a single Ministry for finance.
I support this Bill and everything about it, apart from that last aspect. I ask that we take on board the provision of an information booklet for people seeking election. As soon as people come into this House, they should get an information booklet detailing their terms and conditions of employment and how those terms and conditions impact. It is what any good employer would do. I think we are sometimes afraid to do things like this because we are afraid of a public backlash. The public will never lash back over what they see as reasonable.
I thank all the Senators for the issues they raised and for their co-operation in facilitating the passage of the Bill in the way we are progressing it this afternoon. I start by addressing the issues raised in common. Several Senators raised issues relating to the terms and conditions of cleaners within the complex. It is not a matter in which I am directly involved, but I will follow-up on the issues raised. I am very much aware of the importance of that work to the presentation and the atmosphere within Leinster House. I also know it is hard work and, at times, work that happens at antisocial hours. At the very least, I will follow up and inquire about the terms and conditions and to what degree it is deemed satisfactory. I thank the Senators for raising this matter with me.
I agree with the final point made by Senator Craughwell. In the time available to us, I will not get into the different points of detail he set out. He will be aware of the justification that is offered for some of us. His point that any employer outlines to someone applying for a job what the terms and conditions of that employment are going to be is a very reasonable one. I know that information is provided after candidates are elected to either of the Houses of the Oireachtas, but not before then. It is a good point. In the time available to us, although it might be hard to do this now, I will see what we can do to make this kind of information available.
Senator Boyhan raised a point regarding the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and its operation. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is, justifiably, completely independent of the Government. Again, though, the Senator makes a very sensible point regarding how we can ensure the operation of that body is transparent. If it cannot always be transparent because it may need time to reflect and deliberate on matters, it should, at least, be transparent to Members regarding decisions made and why. Perhaps this does happen and I am not aware of it, but at a time in which we need to make the case to the public regarding the expense of politics not always being a cost, being able to explain how our work here happens and being able to deal with issues that, at times, can be matters of public concern is really important to making that argument. Another point related to the Oireachtas audit committee, which I am aware of. Again, this concerns how we can ensure that the next commission can be responsive and explain its work to what will be a very different and new Oireachtas. This is a very interesting point for me to hear and a very sensible one. If I have an opportunity to bring influence to bear in this regard in the next Dáil, I will certainly do it.
Turning to the contribution from Senator McDowell, I thank him for bringing up the issue of the Oireachtas library. I used to begin and end my day in the library. I love libraries. I am very proud of the fact that this is a country opening up beautiful libraries. I am very proud of the fact that there is nobody in this country taking any books off the shelves of libraries. I definitely take on board the very serious point the Senator made regarding the future of the library, the building and the room it is in.
Libraries are cradles of decency and learning. The resources they offer to Members of the Oireachtas are exemplary. They do great work. The Senator raised some important issues on which I will follow up in relation to the use of that room and the library facilities there.
Senator Kyne made a point in his introduction with which I want to conclude. I note that all Senators stood up and spoke about the value of what we are trying to do. The amount of money contained in this Bill is huge – more than €500 million is a gigantic amount of money. Each of them, while raising important points, said we need to make the case for funding our parliament and treating well the people who work here, making sure they are paid well and appropriately and making sure politicians and parliamentarians have the resources they need. In the atmosphere we can be in regarding politics at the moment – that feeling can be heightened when some of us go out to knock on doors in the weeks ahead – it is an argument worth making. It is perhaps an argument we need to have more conviction in making in the future. I hope this Bill will provide an environment in which the next Oireachtas can fulfil its duties effectively, can help to hold the Government to account, and can help with the representation of constituents’ issues and the work all TDs and Senators need to do. Coming away from it, the two matters I will remember are the issues in relation to cleaners and the future of the library. They are valuable issues to be raised. I commend this Bill. I recognise the co-operation of the Seanad in allowing this Bill to be concluded so matters like these are dealt with in this parliamentary term.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Now.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation.
When is it proposed to take Report and Final Stages?
Now.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Bill received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.