Leinster House Development: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Dempsey):

I thought, with all the congratulations, some of the Deputies might have congratulated Meath on winning the league final. I take the opportunity to do so now.

Recently, I announced that the Government had approved proposals to provide additional accommodation for the Houses of the Oireachtas within the Leinster House Complex. These proposals have their origin in a study which the Office of Public Works undertook last year at my request. The issue of accommodation for the House is not a new one and the inadequacy remains despite the addition of new office accommodation for Deputies at the back of the former College of Science and the use of Kildare House in Kildare Street. The establishment of the five new Standing Committees has placed an intolerable pressure on existing resources.

One of the key new facilities identified is a new library and reading room linked to the National Library providing better research facilities and staff accommodation. The physical linking up of both is quite feasible. However, in doing so, it will be necessary to move the Library from its present location in a room which I know Members of both Houses regard as one of the most beautiful in Leinster House. It is simply inadequate for its purpose but I am sure that the Joint Services Committee will suggest an appropriate alternative use.

The Government has already directed that the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, the National Library authorities, the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Joint Services Committee, would initiate consultations, at the earliest possible date, on links between the Houses of the Oireachtas Library and the National Library.

The report on the Oireachtas Library facilities will provide a major input into these deliberations. The National Library of Ireland has, in fact, gone to a considerable amount of trouble to redefine itself, and has produced a strategic plan, covering the years 1992 to 1997.

The "Mission Statement" in this plan describes the National Library's role as a repository of materials of Irish interest and goes on to state. "Its purpose is to exploit fully its resources through research and publications and to encourage co-operation both nationally and internationally in the public and private sector. It aims to respond sympathetically to users' needs and to be open and alert to new media and technology."

The Library will in future be a user-driven provider of services and not just a repository of materials. The Houses of the Oireachtas will be one beneficiary of this new approval but it is not just a proper Library and Reading Room which is lacking in Leinster House. At present, all of the Deputies cannot be accommodated within the Leinster House complex. Some Deputies and Senators are "outhoused" in Kildare House as are certain support facilities. Although the location is close to Leinster House, it nevertheless is a cause of great inconvenience and inefficiency. The provision of a direct link between Kildare House and Leinster House has been mooted on several occasions and, while this would be feasible, it is not the ideal solution. Space within the Leinster House precinct is the answer. As I said, the setting up of the five new Standing Committees has created major accommodation problems which must be tackled if the committee system is to work effectively and efficiently. Deputies will agree that the new system is a major advance in the way the House conduct their business and lack of accommodation must not be allowed to hinder the success of the committees. Five new Committee Rooms equipped to modern standards and offices for the Chairmen and officials, with associated reception/waiting areas, are required.

Mr. Sheehan:

On a point of order, is the Minister of State's script available?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I have been informed that as the Minister of State is speaking from notes only, a script will not be circulated.

Mr. Dempsey:

Members' facilities are very much lacking in Leinster House. Rooms are required where Members can consult in confidence with delegations and individuals visiting them. Also, members of the public coming to see the workings of the Oireachtas are entitled to better facilities. I refer in particular to school children. We should do as much as we can to make their visit a better educational experience as well as an enjoyable one. Cloakroom and luggage facilities would also be desirable.

Other support facilities for Members are also necessary. When I announced the development proposals, I instanced services such as translation and photocopying. Since the announcement, some Deputies have referred to the omission of facilities such as a Members' family room and a créche. It was a deliberate decision on my part not to include specific mention of such facilities or of others such as a gym, which has been raised by Deputies over many years. It was and is my intention that the Joint Services Committee should consider the extent of the support services required in the Houses and decide on how these should be provided and operated. The feasibility of including them in the development would then be examined.

No less important than the Members, the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas require proper accommodation. With the increasing demand for Members accommodation, staff facilities have suffered. The office space is cramped and unsuitably laid out; there is a shortage of storage space and ancillary facilities, which are the norm in other Government Departments, cannot be provided because of shortage of space. Increasing demands are being placed on the staff of the Houses and it is not fair to expect them to respond without adequate resources. When these problems occur in other Government Departments it is possible to solve them by outhousing sections without interfering with the efficiency of the total operation; Members will agree that such a solution in the case of the Houses of the Oireachtas is not a viable option.

There are, therefore, substantial demands for additional accommodation in order to meet the needs of the Oireachtas for the foreseeable future and virtually all of the accommodation must be within the Leinster House complex. The Broadcasting Unit, for instance, could remain in Kildare House. The proposals which I announced and which the Government has approved provide for the development of two locations; one is the "Fisheries Yard" site between Agriculture House and the 1932 Annexe, and the other is on the College of Art property. Preliminary study shows that the "Fisheries Yard" could be developed to provide up to 6,000 square metres of space. This would include a basement area which could be used for storage and/or car parking. Access to this building could be through the 1932 Annexe. Because of its location it is suggested that that particular development would be used mainly for Members and office accommodation. The standard of that building would be approximate to the standard of an ordinary office building.

Members will agree that the College of Art site requires a sensitive approach. The preliminary proposal envisages the whole of the site being taken into the development. However, the oldest portion of the existing buildings i.e. the original Drawing and Modelling School, merits retention and refurbishment. The rest of the site could be cleared and a new building, single storey at the Leinster Lawn frontage and the remainder two storey, would be erected which would link into the Drawing and Modelling School and Leinster House. The new building would match as closely as possible the facade of the buildings at the opposite side of Leinster House and would, in effect, complete the Leinster Lawn frontage. The resultant building could have up to 5,000 sq. metres of space, including a basement area, under the new construction. Access to that building would be through the main hall in Leinster House. The most appropriate use for the building would be as committee rooms, interview rooms etc., and offices.

Primarily because development of the College of Art site will involve relocation of existing activities and as there are time constraints, development of the Fisheries Yard site is proposed as the first phase. When completed the new building will act as a clearing house for Oireachtas staff and those at present located in the College of Art. It would also accommodate the most urgent Oireachtas requirements and ensure minimum disruption to Members and functions of the Oireachtas.

Subject to agreement of the brief of accommodation requirements within the next couple of months, it is proposed to commence work on the Fisheries Yard site early in 1995. Construction work and fitting out will take about a year. At that stage it is hoped to have the design of the College of Art development completed and to have in place arrangements for the vacation of the property. Building work will then begin. The new library arrangements will be put in place when this work is completed and following negotiations and discussions with various interested parties.

While the accommodation proposed is urgently needed the programme is an ambitious one requiring the co-operation and goodwill of Members of the House, staff, the public and all users of the House. Consultations will take place with all the interests involved. In that context I have written to the chairman of the Joint Services Committee asking that committee to co-ordinate the consultation process with the Members and I have asked the Clerk of the Dáil to co-ordinate the response of the staff and other users of the House. When I have the results I hope to be in a position to consider how best the requirements can be met and to advise the Government on the matter.

I know all Members and staff will welcome the proposals as outlined. It is important to note and I was very conscious of the fact that decisions should not be made for Members and staff without full consultation and if we are to make the facilities fit into a modern parliament it is necessary to move quickly. I am satisfied that the procedures we have put in place will allow Members and staff to make a major input before any final decisions are taken.

Mr. Sheehan:

I have reservations about certain details announced by the Minister of State, particularly the urgency he attaches to carrying out the work. He should state the total cost of the plan which I believe is in the region of £10 million and think again before spending such a sum on this development when there are other pressing needs.

I have doubts about the plan. There is no provision for an underground car park. Secretaries cannot park their cars in Leinster House. Because of the traffic they find it impossible to be on time in the mornings and have difficulty returning home in the evenings. There is urgent need for such a car park and the Minister of State should take his time and see what is needed to streamline the day-to-day working procedures.

Present-day standards are a vast improvement on those under which our predecessors languished. Before I became a Member I visited the House and saw four or five Deputies working in one room. There was one secretary for every three Deputies. Conditions have changed since and this matter should not supersede other urgent problems.

The College of Art site is designated for committee rooms and the library. There is not much wrong with the present library facilities and if a Member attends to the needs of this constituents he will not have much time to spend there. He would be weighed down with the problems of his constituents and that would keep him busy during the time he spends in Leinster House.

How can facilities be improved for members of the public who visit the Chamber? The ushers give excellent service and attention and devote much of their time acting as guides to visitors to the House.

I question the Fishery Yard site development and ask the Minister of State if he is justified in spending £10 million on modernising the Dáil and its precincts while the potholes get bigger by the day. Some of them are visible at the main entrance to Dáil Éireann from Kildare Street. The chickens are coming home to roost. Island people do not have access to ferry services due to the non-provision of proper piers and landing slipways. Fisherman cannot land their catches and depart the fishing grounds due to lack of proper pier and landing facilities. Young married couples and their families are forced to live in dilapidated caravans and shacks while the Minister of State is thinking of spending £10 million on grandiose plans for the refurbishment of this House.

Elderly people are compelled to live in poky, damp tenements without proper heating or sanitary facilities. Geriatrics are denied proper hospitalisation facilities and housing. Thousands of people are waiting for hip operations for years and many applicants for local improvement grants have been waiting for decades for grants to construct proper road access to their property and eliminate the muddy car and cow tracks leading to their properties.

The tourist industry cannot expand due to lack of finance to extend proper water supplies and in Schull it is at a standstill due to the failure of the Minister for the Environment to provide finance to carry out stage 3 of the Skibbereen water scheme. I do not see any logic in the expenditure by the Government of £10 million on this grandiose refurbishment plan at a time when the tourism industry in my constituency, vital to so many people, has ground to a halt because of the failure of the Minister for the Environment to give the green light to stage three of the Skibbereen water scheme which would bring a supply to the tourist resort of Schull.

Mr. Dempsey:

If the Deputy could solve all those problems with £10 million I would give it to him straightaway.

Mr. Sheehan:

Due to the long delays in the payment of cattle and sheep headage grants, beef premium and other grants, some farmers could be included in Stubbs Gazette— some of them have to wait for 12 months and longer for payment. In addition, children are being taught in overcrowded classrooms due to a lack of funding for new schools. In Clonakilty, the home town of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 200 children are taught in five poky classrooms and have to climb over desks on their way in and out of these rooms. It is nonsensical for the Government to propose spending £10 million on the refurbishment of Leinster House when such problems exist in so many areas.

The time has come for common sense to prevail — the Government should first solve the litany of problems I outlined before it considers refurbishment of Dáil Éireann. The Government should get its priorities right. There is nothing seriously wrong with the facilities available for Oireachtas Members which warrants the expenditure of this exorbitant amount on a refurbishment plan. I have great reservations about the expenditure of this huge amount of money at a time when so many other problems need to be resolved. The people to whom I have spoken are highly critical of the Government which is so naive as to propose the expenditure of £10 million on the refurbishment of Leinster House at a time when people are crying out for funding which would enable them to make a livelihood in their areas.

I wish to bring to the Minister's attention the need for an underground car park for Leinster House. Such a development would not be too costly and would be of great benefit to the staff who have to park their cars a quarter of a mile away from Leinster House. The Minister should give consideration to an underground car park instead of building huge conference and committee rooms, which will be used by the chairmen of committees and their secretaries and will merely serve to give a false impression of prosperity, which we do not enjoy.

The Minister should cut his cloth according to his measure. If he can satisfy me that all the problems to which I referred will be solved I will have no problem about giving the green light to this development plan. However, I have serious reservations about the expenditure of so much money on a refurbishment plan for Leinster House when there is dire poverty in many areas. The time is not right for this refurbishment plan: consideration should be given to it only when the Government has got the £7 billion from the EU between now and the end of the century, a mere six years away, and all the problems to which I referred have been rectified. I wish to give the remainder of my time to Deputy Gay Mitchell.

An Cheann Comhairle:

I would prefer if the Deputy had indicated that before he commenced his speech.

Ms O'Donnell:

On a point of order, it was agreed at the Whips' meeting that the spokepersons could not share their time.

An Cheann Comhairle:

Is that so?

Mr. Dempsey:

It was agreed at the Whips' meeting that the spokespersons would have 20 minutes and could not share their time.

An Cheann Comhairle:

I have no option, therefore, but to call Deputy O'Donnell.

Mr. Sheehan:

I have not finished.

An Cheann Comhairle:

I thought the Deputy was giving way.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

He was offering to give way.

Mr. Sheehan:

The Minister should give further consideration to the points I have raised before he embarks on this elaborate plan which looks highly presentable on paper but is not acceptable in reality. People have not forgotten the expenditure of £17 million on the refurbishment of Government justify spending another Merrion Street a few years ago. How can the Government justify spending another £10 million so soon after that expenditure?

As Setanta Centre is large enough to accommodate committee meetings, I do not understand the urgent need for extra accommodation for this purpose.

I would find it very hard to sell this plan to my constituents who cannot even get enough funding to improve the piers and landing slips in their areas. In one case a doctor had to wait an hour and a half for the tide to come in before he could land on Whiddy Island, which has no pier, to attend a patient. Even though money for the construction of a pier on the island was allocated years ago under the Whiddy package, for some unknown reason that money was used instead to pave Grafton Street for the Millennium celebrations. When the doctor gained access to the island he experienced difficulty re-embarking on the launch to take him back to the mainland. Instead of spending millions of pounds freely on grandiose, elaborate proposals converting this House into a kind of palace——

Mr. Dempsey:

It will merely bring it into the 20th century.

Mr. Sheehan:

——we should await the 21st century when the Minister's purse might be larger. I could not sell this proposal to my constituents, to those awaiting the construction of a pier on Whiddy Island, another in Baltimore to facilitate the Naomh Kierán ferry and the big fishing fleet in west Cork operating out of that area. Neither can I condone the delay in extending piers all around our south-west coastline, particularly that at Ahakista, one of our most beautiful holiday resorts.

The Minister of State should rethink before embarking on this spending spree. While I appreciate he is in charge of the Office of Public Works and that there are many demands on the funds available to him, he could spend £10 million upgrading all the facilities falling within his remit rather than allocating it to one project which could wait until the end of the century. Bearing in mind that the Taoiseach offered Northern parliamentarians 30 seats in a new Dáil, on the abolition of the Border, that would be the time to remodel this House. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider this proposal while so much remains to be done for the unfortunate electorate.

Ms O'Donnell:

I agree with Deputy Sheehan that this Government has a voracious appetite for spending other people's money. Nonetheless we are here to debate the improvement of our library facilities in this House. My party is of the view that only what is absolutely necessary in terms of enhancing the facilities in this House should be undertaken, that there should be no profligate use of taxpayers' money on providing resources to facilitate Members and staff.

As the Progressive Democrats Whip, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. On being elected to this House I was surprised to find how limited our Library resources were. I tend to take my legislative duties quite seriously — in fact I might even lose my seat on that account — but it does appear to me that we are badly resourced, particularly in terms of research facilities. Through no fault of theirs, but because of lack of funding and neglect over the years, our Library staff can provide a reactive facility only to Members. There are only nine staff demonstrating how under-resourced they are in personnel terms alone. Indeed our Library staff are heroic in their efforts to provide Members with the services demanded of them. The lack of computerised cataloguing and information technology generally renders it impossible for nine personnel to provide the services required by some 166 Deputies and 60 Senators.

An adequate library service is particularly important in the context of the growing committee system. As a member of a small party, which experiences difficulty in terms of human resources, in participating properly in that committee system without adequate research facilities, my party would be in favour of the recommendations contained in this report, that our Library facilities would be converted not merely into a reactive service but a research unit for the benefit of Members of both Houses.

The Joint Services Committee compared our services with those provided in other modern democracies, showing clearly that we fall short in providing even the minimum requirements expected of legislators. The report did not blame the staff, but pointed to the need for retraining and additional skilled staff to be employed to accommodate the introduction of a computerised, information technology unit. There should also be an audit of the very valuable archival material stored somewhere in this House of which no proper account is held. If this is not undertaken urgently there is a danger that this valuable archival material will be neglected, if not damaged irreparably. Since I understand we hold these documents as trustees for the State and future generations of parliamentarians we would be failing in our duty if that material were not properly bound and catalogued.

One of the recommendations of this report was that the Library research unit provide Members with a briefing service on forthcoming legislation. Huge amounts of information can be stored on small computer discs which would enable Members to access such information rather than drawing on the personal services of Library staff, which would also enormously improve their performance as legislators. If Members are to contribute in a considered, intelligent manner to debates they need this backup facility. There was much talk in the House recently on the demands made of Members in combining their role as legislators with that of local representatives. The abolition of the dual mandate would be one way of enhancing the status of TDs and local councillors. They should be separate roles.

There should be consultation and open debate on access to library facilities. At present such access is limited to Members of both Houses although an exception is sometimes made at the request of Members. Political correspondents should also have access to an enhanced library service. It is my understanding that they too will prepare a submission to the Minister of State. At the same time it is important that no ground be ceded on the privacy of the Library for Members, which is a beautiful room and provides them with a refuge in their scrutiny of legislation away from the demands of their individual offices.

It must be remembered that we are discussing the Library facilities within the context of the overall development of Leinster House. The glaring omission from the plans in the glossy catalogue was a commitment to provide a créche for the 600-plus who work in this House. After 20 years of the women's movement and many years' meetings of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights who lobbied for a créche, the lack of such a facility appears to be the remaining bastion of inequality. Child care in general is an issue of the workforce, children's rights, of integrating work with the political process and family life and, therefore, I was extremely disappointed to hear the Minister of State talk in terms of feasibility. Thousands of pounds have been spent, through the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights, on the commissioning of reports. As there is now a Minister for Equality and Law Reform, who recently accepted a report prepared on child care which had been delivered four years later— which he is now carefully considering, as he does every report on women's rights — some impetus should be given to the provision of child care facilities, not only for Members but for all the men and women who work to support Members of both Houses in this building.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Liz O'Donnell to resume her contribution. I will be allowing extra time to the Deputy if she so desires.

Ms O'Donnell:

As I was saying, there is general disappointment that there is a deliberate absence in the document of any indication that there will be the long awaited creche facility for women and men who work in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Strong rumours abound in the blue print of a draft proposal to provide gym facilities for Members of the Oireachtas. If gym facilities are introduced at the expense of child care facilities I will lead a picket outside this House. Should that happen it will be the first time I have ever taken part in a picket.

The proposals before us relate to two new buildings on seperate sites. I am concerned about the planning implications in relation to the College of Art development, to which the Minister referred, and the implications for that development on the Leinster Lawn frontage. This document provides that the new committee facilities will be created in the space between the retained structure, matching as closely as possible the facade on the opposite side of Leinster House. I refer you, a Cheann Comhairle, to the Local Government Planning and Development Regulations, 1994, published on 19 April 1994 by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith. In his press release the Minister indicated that as and from 15 June most development by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works will, subject to exceptions from minor works, be subject to normal planning requirements. He went on to say that there will be some categories of State developments which, for security reasons, will be excluded from those planning requirements, including Garda stations, Army barracks, prisons, courthouses and some Government offices. Within that category of exempted developments is there anything relating to the Houses of the Oireachtas? This is a very dangerous issue.

Leinster House comprises buildings of national architectural importance and any dilution of planning regulations would be a cause of concern. The planning and development committee of the city council, of which I am a member, has had cause in the past to be worried about the activities of the Office of Public Works in regard to their stewardship of historic buildings in the city.

The Minister said that alternative consultation arrangements will be put in place for these developments. If the bottom line is that the planning decision to go ahead should not be made by the State, no amount of consultation or alternative arrangements will satisfy me that there is an objective assessment of the planning implications of any buildings in the vicinity of Leinster House if it is left to the local authority to make that decision. The exclusion of the House of the Oireachtas from the strict and rigorous planning regulations is a mistake and flies in the face of the Supreme Court judgment in relation to interpretative centres.

I have had reason to discuss conservation and planning in the city with people who are so involved. They have expressed a questioning attitude as to why the word "security" can absolve the Office of Public Works from planning regulations for the Houses of the Oireachtas. The security implications could be dealt with in a way that does not cede ground on planning regulations.

Recently I raised with the Minister of State the procedures entered into in relation to the shop at the entrance to Leinster House. The highest standards of care should prevail in relation to the conservation of the facade of Leinster House. Because no change was involved in changing the shop from its previous use, section 84 consultation was not required. As it so happens the shop is sensitive and does not present itself as a blemish on the facade of the House of the Oireachtas. The regulations announced by the Minister concerning planning and conservation, particularly of the facade facing Leinster Lawn and that relating to the Fisheries Yard, are not sufficient. Some of the facade will have to front onto Kildare Street, between Agriculture House and the National Museum and I am worried that the planning regulations will not be strictly adhered to.

The lack of crèche facilities in the House is a lost opportunity. In public policy terms it would have been an opportunity for this House to take a lead in the provision of child care facilities for workforces throughout the country. What hope is there of giving effect in small and medium sized businesses to the proposals in the childcare report if the Houses of the Oireachtas, where over 600 are employed, cannot take the lead in providing childcare facilities for Members and staff? Let me impress upon the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and other committees with clout, the political importance of how we in this House are perceived and how the public will perceive spending £10 million on improving facilities without making a gesture to public policy by providing childcare facilities which would act as an example to citizens and employers around the country.

I am concerned about the planning implications of the development and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Ms McManus:

I welcome this debate as it is important to have an opportunity to consider the future needs of Members and staff. It is ludicrous that the debate is taking place now instead of when we could have made a serious input before decisions were made. We are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted and that is indicative of what is wrong with the Government's approach: first the decision, then the press release——

Mr. Dempsey:

Nothing has been decided yet, the document is an outline of how it will look.

Ms McManus:

——I have been here long enough to know——

Mr. Dempsey:

Not long enough——

Ms McManus:

——that when something is on track and starts to steamroll, it is impossible to make any dent in its progress. I have no doubt the Minister will add or withdraw a detail here and there, as he did with the interpretative centres, an experience from which I have learned. Decisions are usually made in substance before they ever come to be debated in this House.

Mr. Dempsey:

The Deputy is wrong in this case.

Ms McManus:

That has been my experience——

Mr. Dempsey:

The Deputy has limited experience.

Ms McManus:

——and having worked as an architect I have some understanding of the process involved in coming to determining how a building is planned and constructed. One does not start at the end, one does not start by describing the building but at the beginning of the process, at understanding the needs of the brief and the specification. That is not what we are doing here. Already we have attractive pictures of the plans of the building. That is my approach and it is the democratic one. It is reflected all over Europe where there is a tremendous drive to enable people to get involved in the democratic process, a bottom-up approach enabling local communities to have a say over their own destiny.

That is not a characteristic of this House. I do not think the Minister would agree that we operate in a modern, open, outward looking progressive way. I believe his inclination is towards that way of thinking and he must understand the limitations that have to be challenged so that we do not end up faced with a fait accompli that we now debate. I do not begrudge him the glossy brochure — I understand some Deputies voiced their concern — but I understand the force of advertising. This is advertising. What concerns me is the substance of the Minister's approach. First there is the failure to understand modern developments in communications, which is extremely worrying. There is a failure also to understand the needs of modern democracy. Perhaps being around this place too long blunts one to the deficiencies of it, but I am a relatively new Deputy.

I do not believe this proposal is the solution. I do not believe the money will be well spent, because at the end of the day it will not serve the people, the general public, and surely that is the purpose to which we are all committed. I do not believe I have to be on campus. I do not understand the term "campus" as referring to this House. I do not have any worries about crossing the street and meeting a protester. I do not see this as a negative thing in my life, it is a healthy experience. I do not understand the major drive to bring everyone on campus.

It is interesting to compare the report of the Joint Services Committee on the Library and this publication. I compared them. The report on the Library facilities deals with important issues, technology, staffing and only at the end of the document does it deal with the issue of space and accommodation. That report does not go far enough but it is certainly a more realistic approach than the Minister's proposal to invest in bricks and mortar rather than looking clinically and coolly at the needs of the Oireachtas and the capability of technology to meet those needs.

As Deputy Sheehan says, the Minister has gone for the grandiose building project. I suppose it will be christened "Albert Hall". It has been christened "Dempsey's Den", but that sounds cosy. "Albert Hall" is probably more appropriate. The experience with the interpretative centres is characteristic of the Office of Public Works' policy to build. It can become an obsessive policy. It is a human urge to build, particularly when it fits in neatly with the ministerial desire to spend money and have something concrete to show for it and possibly to stay within the budget, no matter how useless the end product is. I suggest that the Minister remember H.L. Mencken's advice that for every complex problem there is a solution which is simple and neat and wrong. Investment in buildings is immensely satisfying; it is evidence that a person has done something at some time in his career. A building very quickly becomes a monument and a monument often ends up being dedicated to the person who built it rather than to the people for whom it should serve.

I have argued very strenuously against the Office of Public Works' approach to interpretative centres and I believe the same empire building philosophy lies behind the Minister's proposal. I can give a simple example of what I am talking about. Last weekend, the first day of the bank holiday, I visited Knocksink Woods, Enniskerry, in my constituency. The Minister opened a visitor's centre there over a year ago. Even though I am the local TD I did not know much about it. I was amazed to find people queuing up to visit the centre, a centre dedicated to educating people about conservation located in a woodland suffering the depredations of modern urban society, but it was not open. This is a building solution that does not meet the need. Everybody can acknowledge that the building exists and that the Minister did something, but that does not solve the problem.

It is important that we challenge what is at issue. I do not argue that there are not space problems — only a fool would argue that there are not — but first we must make efficient use of what space we have. For example, the political correspondents have a very small space but I do not see that a full architectural audit has been carried out of the space we have in order to ensure that efficiences have been made. I do not understand the justification for five committee rooms and five offices for the chairman. What justification is there for that? We will decided relatively soon to have a committee week. That will mean that this Chamber and, presumably, the Seanad Chamber will be free. There are already a certain number of committee rooms. With all due respect, there is no lack of space; it is more likely that there will be a problem with attendances at committee meetings. We must move away from the tendency to build each time we face a problem; we need to alter direction to keep pace with changes in technology and the demand for democracy and examine how they can be linked.

I do not believe we require all this space and have to spend £10 million to £12 million in bricks and mortar. While we may need a certain amount we do not need what is encompassed in the document. This is a waste of funds at a time of high unemployment and poverty. I am not milking this matter for political purposes; what I am trying to do is put the matter in context. There are thousands of households which lack basic facilities such as an indoor toilet.

Mr. Sheehan:

There are thousands of families living in caravans.

Ms McManus:

That is correct and the number is increasing despite what the Minister of State with responsibility for housing says.

Mr. Martin:

The Deputy is milking it.

Mr. Sheehan:

Deputy Martin should visit Bantry and Clonakilty.

Ms McManus:

We need to invest in information technology and human resources — in people rather than property.

Mr. Dempsey:

What does one do when there are six Senators sitting on top of each other?

Ms McManus:

It is as if information is sacred which has to be withheld from the Members of this House. I am not casting any reflection on the staff when I say that the Library is inadequate and inefficient and is starved of funds. Even if a researcher was employed they could not be sent to the Library. Who devised this modus operandi?

Mr. Dempsey:

Nonsense.

Mr. McManus:

Libraries will become repositories for documents; we live in an age of hypermedia, global networks and international data bases. There have been major changes in communications. It seems that we in Dáil Éireann are not of that world; this place is extraordinarily lacking in technology. We now have word processors in our offices — a tremendous battle was fought to get these and credit is due to the Deputies and Ministers responsible. My secretary informed me today that she has not yet been trained how to use this word processor. This indicates that a primitive approach has been adopted to technology. Every low and middle grade academic has access to electronic mail. We could have access to a large network of information if such technology was put in place. Even as I speak, changes are occurring in technology which cut down on the use of paper and are more environmental friendly. This is light years away from what we are used to in terms of efficiency.

In Harvard University, for example, there is a highly developed information network which was installed at a much lower cost. That is the kind of system we need here and we need the human resources to use it; it would transform the way we operate. We are operating at a disadvantage; endless information is available, yet we have to respond rapidly to legislation that is presented without having access to this information which is within our grasp through modern technology.

This may influence Deputies in deciding where to locate. Deputies are being encouraged to locate their offices in their constituencies. This is a good development given that it is important to maintain contact with one's constituency and to keep abreast of changes. It will be difficult to do this unless one has access to modern technology but it is possible. In America 40 million employees work away from their offices for a considerable length of time. Such a move would allow us to be better public representatives and legislators; we are not one or the other.

This development will take two years to complete and take us into the 21st century. I do not see the 21st century reflected in this development; I see rooms and more rooms. We have to rethink the way we use space and information technology for the benefit of the people we represent.

We are living in an era of high unemployment; there is an unemployment crisis. The Government has to marry our human resources with technology to make us more efficient. The Government has taken on staff but it is unfortunate that these include the spin doctors and publicity agents instead of staff in the back room who do the hard graft. This should strengthen the argument in favour of increasing staff.

I, too, am concerned that no reference was made to a family room. As the Minister of State is aware, since the last election a case has been made to the Ceann Comhairle and various Government Ministers by various bodies, including the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights. There have been no concrete proposals; there has been plámás but nothing substantial. The Minister informed me in response to a question that it would be provided in ancillary accommodation. Baggage rooms are mentioned in the document but not children——

Mr. Dempsey:

Support facilities.

Ms McManus:

That makes a huge difference; its significance escapes me. I do not know what the Minister of State has in mind; we are judging what is on paper. Provision is made for two restaurants and two bars but no family room. There is no place for children in this House which is the most important building in the country apart from Áras an Uachtaráin.

Recently, a Fianna Fáil backbencher brought his daughter in to visit the House. Did he explain the reason there was no place for children here and the reason the Government is indicating that private employers should provide child care facilities while refusing to provide such facilities for the 600 people who work under this roof? That is the mindset which does not understand that there are now 20 women Members in this Chamber who have family responsibilities and, more importantly, does not understand the change occurring among the electorate who understand that public and private responsibilities are enmeshed. This is the mindset which has blocked out the changes in communication technology and changes both outside and inside the home.

We need to get back to basics. There are good things about such a step. The devil does not have a right to all the good tunes. It is a good principle, particularly in the context of architecture, to go back and look at the brief. However, we do not have a brief. We have nothing except pretty drawings and a very nice picture of the Minister — I am sure he has a nice holy communion picture as well that belongs with this one. I compliment the Minister on the production but it in no way meets the needs of the public whom we represent — and they, not the Government, are the client, when it comes to this building project. We are here representing the people——

Mr. Dempsey:

And we should have the facilities to do that properly.

Ms McManus:

I do not need the Minister to tell me what my views are on my time, of which I have one minute left. My views on this are clear. We are now being wheeled in to rubber-stamp what the Minister intends to do anyway. I refuse to rubber-stamp this ill-thought-out and wasteful project. If the Minister rubbishes it and puts it in the bin, I will applaud him, but I will not support it because it is neither right nor appropriate, in the conditions of today, that we should proceed with this project.

Mr. Martin:

I intend to share my time with Minister of State, Ms Fitzgerald.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Is that in order? Did we not rule on that earlier?

Mr. Dempsey:

That was in relation to the party spokespersons only.

Mr. Martin:

I intend to speak not just on the renovation and extension plans for Leinster House but on the report on the Oireachtas Library facilities which is also before us.

I was struck by what the previous speaker said. The impression was given that in regard to the Oireachtas Library, accommodation and physical space were not a priority. However it is stated in the report:

The design of the premises occupied by the Library militates against the provision of an effective library service. The Library's books and publications occupy many separate rooms in the College of Art, Leinster House and Kildare House buildings and consequently researches into various topics can be excessively time consuming as Library staff commute between the different locations to gather material... The committee recommends an urgent review of the present accommodation situation and future needs and this should be a priority for the new Oireachtas Library Research and Information Committee.

It is clear that the recommendations in that report cannot be accommodated within the existing physical space of our existing Library.

The report brings home the huge deficit in terms of research and access to information in this House, and access to information is a very powerful weapon for public representatives in a modern democracy. For far too long public representatives have been dependent on official expert advice. The reports that come before public representatives both at Dáil and local level are those of inhouse experts who may have their own political agenda and their own views about how we should proceed in certain areas. There is very little access to independent views and research. It is crucial that Deputies have that facility. I would go further than the report goes and say that every Deputy should have a proactive research officer to assist in dealing with legislation and other issues, such as the question of landfill and incineration. Often we receive documentation from the Department of the Environment officials or from engineers at local level. We may also get information, or propaganda, from Greenpeace and other environmental organisations. Often there is an absence of a proper databank for public representatives on such environmental issues to give a proper, balanced, non-propagandist approach. The same applies to other issues. I have had direct experience of this, having been at a disadvantage in taking on the environmentalists, civil engineers etc. when they were intent on going down one road on the question of landfill, sewerage treatment etc. Often the public representative does not have expertise in a specific area and is up against it when trying to argue the case with the experts.

I welcome the recommendations which deal with improving and enhancing the quality of research facilities available to Members. A central recommendation relates to the establishment of a comprehensive research and information service which, it is felt, is essential for any modern parliament. It is clear that if we are to go down that road — and I believe we should — we will require a new building.

It is remarkable that our Library service is not computerised. Libraries are part and parcel of modern living, and they are changing in the context of the technological revolution. They are adapting to that and enhancing their facilities. It is crucial that we apply technology to our own Library services. I understand that as of now we have no computerised cataloguing or indexing system in our Library and no technology to link in to other research institutions. The Members of this committee went to Westminster and the proactive nature of the library staff and facilities there puts our facilities in the shade. What we want is proactive research. I also like the recommendation that there should consequently be greater use of the National Library which is adjacent to this House. I have used it myself in the past. It is primarily a reference library which could be of great use to public representatives. Because of its physical proximity to this House it makes sense that there should be a linkage and greater access to that resource for public representatives and Members of this Parliament.

I said earlier that Deputies should have their own research officers. Perhaps that is an outlandish proposal because of the cost, but it could come under the heading of funding of political parties which will be coming before the House before the end of the year. At the minimum, political parties should be given resources to provide for adequate research teams in order to develop better researched and informed policies. I agree there should be State funding for political parties, but a substantial portion of it should be targeted so that each political party can set up a research team to assist the party in preparing informed documents and developing new policies.

Previous Opposition speakers contradicted themselves, as they invariably do when new facilities for Leinster House or the Government are proposed. I recall the furore over the £17 million spent on the renovation of Government Buildings. Members opposite claimed it was a waste of money and a vulgar display of wealth.

Ms O'Donnell:

It was members of the Labour Party who said that.

Mr. Martin:

People who pass that building now admire the wonderful, innovative and futuristic project and praise us for taking that step. We talk ourselves down too much in this House. This is a modest proposal. Until recently two or three Deputies and their respective secretaries shared on office here. There was an incredible problem with space. It is unacceptable for Deputy McManus to suggest that we should carry out an audit of the existing space in the House and perhaps use it better. We all know there is not enough physical space within Leinster House to accommodate the growing needs. When the Duke of Leinster built this House it was not his intention that it would be a modern parliament in the 20th or 21st centuries. He had great foresight because his wife bore him 18 children.

Ms O'Donnell:

And no crèche facilities.

Mr. Martin:

It served usefully as a big crèche. That gentleman did not have any idea what would become of his grand house. I understand this House is an extension of the old Leinster House building. It was not part of the original plans, but was tastefully built. I wonder what the planners and architects at the time thought of it.

We should not undermine the Office of Public Works. There has been far too much sniping at that office. It may have got it wrong in some areas, but it got it right in many others. The Office of Public Works has been to the forefront in many heritage developments and in the preservation of national parks throughout the country. It has been responsible for very tasteful work in the Seanad Chamber. Credit should be given when it is due. It is unfair to present a picture of the Office of Public Works as an architectural terrorist organisation and say that it is out to destroy all public buildings. I am fed up with that type of talk. We need a balanced approach.

Ms O'Donnell:

The Office of Public Works is not above the planning process.

Mr. Martin:

It certainly is not and should not be.

Ms O'Donnell:

Under the regulations it is.

Mr. Martin:

By and large, that office is very sensitive in carrying out its work. Some very derogatory remarks have been made about it, for example, that basically everything it does is contrary to proper aesthetic presentation of buildings. The inference to be drawn from such remarks is that it cannot do a good job. That is unfair as the Office of Public Works has displayed significant expertise in the past in respect of many buildings, heritage parks and so on. Many male Members would also welcome the provision of a crèche or family room.

Mrs. T. Ahearn:

I hope so, there should be no question about that.

Mr. Martin:

Deputy McManus spoke about the 20 women Deputies. A consultative process is built into this proposal. The Minister made it clear that he wants the involvement of all Deputies in drawing up the plans and the final configuration of the extension. People should adopt a more constructive approach in this regard. There is a proposal for a crèche or family room which can be pursued through the consultative process outlined by the Minister. In fairness to him, the sub-committees were established through co-operation between the Whips and have proved successful. There is no reason we cannot proceed in a similar vein in respect of this extension.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Ms E. Fitzgerald):

I agree that we need to spend more money on housing, health and education. The Government has put in place a programme which will eliminate the provision of local authority housing without bathrooms and allocated substantial sums of money to the health and educational services. It is also important that in this House, the centre of our democracy, we have facilities in which our democracy can flourish and do its business.

This is an 18th and 19th century building enlarged by a very poor quality 1960s extension. It is important we get it right this time and a process whereby all users of the building are consulted is the way forward to ensure nothing is left out. We are building for posterity. It is crucial that we put an end to the position whereby some of the facilities of this House are provided off campus. When crossing over to Setanta House I often wonder how we have avoided the holding of by-elections because of Members being knocked down while crossing the road. On occasions, because of public demonstrations outside the House, Members have not been able to be present for votes. In a closer voting position than we have at present that could cause the fall of a Government. All voting Members of this House should be within the one precinct and should not have to depend on the vagaries of the traffic or public demonstrations to gain access to the building. All facilities of this House should be on site.

The consultation process should involve all potential users of the House, for example, Members, their staff, the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the press who have very poor facilities. It is unacceptable that members of the press should have to go out on the plinth in the rain to interview or photograph Members. We need a dedicated press centre. Members of the press who work in this building should be consulted in regard to their requirements.

It is important that members of the public visit this House. Those of us who bring groups here appreciate the value they place on their visit and the good service provided by the ushers in giving a tour of the building and relating the history of the House. In a modern democracy we need more than that. For example, in the public gallery one cannot tell the public what is taking place. A reception area should be provided for receiving visitors where Members can inform them of the rituals of the House which they may not understand. In that way the public could obtain knowledge of our system and the Stages of Bills taken in the House. If we can provide interpretative centres for the birds, bees, flora and fauna, we should be able to interpret our democracy and explain to our people the way politics works. If we cannot do that we will merely add to the cynicism with which the democratic process is viewed. It is important for Members on all sides that what we do here is respected and valued because this is the heart of our democracy.

Toilet facilities for the public are not sufficient and it is also difficult to offer people the basic hospitality of a cup of tea if they come here at lunch time when the restaurants are busy. We should open up our democracy to the wider public. It has been opened up through television and the press, but the public should be able to come in here and understand what is going on. That is central to our democratic process.

Group 84 — a member of which is present — emphasised the importance of having a crèche and family room. I recall many years ago, before I was elected to the House, being chastised for bringing in small children, one of whom was on my back in a papoose. Children should be made welcome in this House and it should recognise family responsibilities. Group 84 has emphasised the need to provide sufficient ladies' facilities as the existing facilities cater mainly for men as in the past it was assumed that most Members would be male. Showers should be provided, particularly as Members cannot leave the building on late sitting nights except with the Whips' permission and for those who may be going to an evening function.

Approximately 1,000 people, the population of a small town, work in this building. I pay tribute to Senator Pat Magner for his work on the Joint Services Committee to introduce facilities, but much more is needed in this area. The banklink facility is welcome, but there should also be facilities to provide women with tights or medical supplies.

The power of the committee system will grow when the draft Bill on privilege and compellability is enacted. Adequate committee facilities are needed to enable us carry out our work in a manner similar to that of the committee systems of the US Congress, the European Parliament and others. We need to move away from an adversarial Chamber-type debate to examine nitty-gritty policy matters in committee which allows for the participation of all Deputies.

It is a very good idea to provide a link between the Dáil Library and the National Library. There is a need for more open access to material, similar to the statistical information freely available in the ESRI library, without the necessity to order and queue for it. We should be able to link up with the National Library and call up such information on computer screens.

I do not have an office here, I carry out my Dáil and ministerial duties from a office located in "Charlie's palace". The room is only equipped with two power plugs and one could easily trip over the many cables. When that building was refurbished proper provision for ducts for plugs, to provide for multiple computers, photocopiers, fax and other machines to facilitate the two Departments located there, was not made.

When new members of the Labour Party took up office they were viewed as squatters as there was a shortage of office space. We need a flexible system to cater for different party strengths. This job must be done right and we should not apologise for doing that. We should proceed in a consultative way. Perhaps we would not be encountering these difficulties if the five storey block had been built to a higher standard and included a crèche, family room, public facilities and so on. We should consult with each other now to achieve something for this democracy of which we can all be proud.

Mrs. T. Ahearn:

When debating a motion on the refurbishment of the Houses of the Oireachtas one could decide to devote one's time to questioning the wisdom or prudence of allocating such a vast amount of money to the development when there are so many other needy causes, whether beds for children, homes for the homeless, repairing potholes or providing additional school resources. While I share those concerns I will contribute to this debate in a realistic way. As this is a Government proposal which will be voted through by a majority it would be wiser if I devoted my time to seeking to obtain the facilities I want rather than to other matters.

This House is an inadequate one for a modern Parliament. Whatever money is spent on this development it will be much better spent than money allocated by the Government to advisers, watchdogs viewing the success and progress of the Programme for Government and PR teams employed to decorate and add style to Government announcements. Money spent on this House will benefit all Members. This is a unique opportunity for Members to ensure that the facilities they consider deserve priority are included in the development.

I would like facilities for which I have argued for a long time. The struggle to secure child minding facilities in Leinster House dates back to the third Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights in 1990. When I took the chair of the fourth Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights I, and the other members, decided that the provision of child minding facilities was a priority. Because of the lack of space and the rules governing the provision of a crèche facility, we decided it would be more realistic and that we should have a greater chance of success if we sought a family room. We went through the stages but we were not successful because of the lack of space.

As additional space is to be provided the Minister should ensure the provision of this facility. At the last committee meeting the Minister was somewhat annoyed that members expressed their anger and frustration about the exclusion of that facility in the impressive brochure, but I make no apologies for arguing for that facility at that meeting and expressing my anger, frustration and disappointment about the lack of it. In that brochure details are given of the provision of facilities that will be given priority. As the Government's launching document for this development includes the provision of photocopying services, a shop, a tea-room, baggage and cloakroom facilities, why were a crèche and family room facilities not included among the new facilities? Surely, they deserve as high a priority as a baggage and cloakroom facility, a tea-room or a shop.

Despite having brought this matter to the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and having met the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister it is frustrating and disappointing that the Minister did not mention in his proposals for the refurbishment of Leinster House the facilities for which we have argued for 18 months and for which the previous committee argued for four years. There is no justification for the omission of a crèche and a family room when it is possible to provide baggage and cloakroom facilities. Surely a provision for children is more important? The majority of Members and staff have children.

Our hours are unsociable enough and rural Deputies, in particular, are forced to be away from their families for a long enough period without making matters worse by excluding facilities for children in the House. Leinster House is a no-go area for children. Members do not bring children to the House because children associate the building with not being allowed run, talk or make noise in the corridor and with sitting in an office watching television. Surely the Minister will agree the House is a dismal example to other workplaces in relation to children and family facilities. We expect other workplaces to provide facilities for their staff but Leinster House cannot follow the example of supermarkets and shops which provide children and family facilities. As long as children are barred from Leinster House, this will continue to be an unreal world. Children are part of our world and they should feel wanted here.

Members and staff will continue to be discriminated against if facilities are not provided for children and families. To work in Leinster House, whether as a Member or staff, you must face the fact that you will be away from your family for a long period. If people from Dublin who work here wish to bring their children in after school to help them with homework, they must take them to an unpleasant office, which is unsuitable for that purpose. Those of us who work in Leinster House have suffered for too long from a lack of facilities and the House has also suffered. If Members and staff know that they can have their families near them they will be much more contented.

The Minister should give a commitment that these facilities will be provided. What is required is a crèche such as that provided for the Revenue Commissioners' staff in Mount Street. I visited that crèche and was most impressed. I congratulate all those involved in providing that facility. There are some basic facts to be borne in mind when considering the provision of a crèche. The most important is that demand for this facility grows as people become aware of it. We are fortunate to have expert advice available from the Office of Public Works which was involved in the provision of the crèche in Mount Street. While we realise that a crèche would be oriented towards pre-school children, the problem remains of facilitating children of school going age when school is over and during holidays. This House does not go into recess to facilitate shool holidays. The facility in this case would be more modest and would not require the same level of supervision and equipment as that required in a crèche. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights put forward proposals for a family room which would contain a television, modest computer equipment and interactive CD, all of which would help keep children occupied and allow their parents get on with their day's work. A family room is a modest facility and there is no reason it should not be included in the refurbishment programme.

Now is the time to provide a crèche and it is very important that it be included in the initial stages of development so that we can ensure we keep within the guidelines. Such a provision would be a contribution on the Minister's behalf to the International Year of the Family. I hope the provision of a crèche will become a priority in the refurbishment programme. Until such time as a commitment is given in this regard the question will be raised by the Joint Committee on Women's Rights. Why should there be a question mark over this matter? One Member said this evening that there is still scope for a family room and crèche facilities. Why should this be the last item to be included? Why should it be provided only at the last minute if the space is available? That is not good enough. I am sure the Minister will agree that our families and children deserve better.

I wish to raise a point relating to correspondence from the Minister. On the provision of facilities the Minister's correspondence states that the Joint Committee on Women's Rights should forward detailed and well researched proposals, including such matters as numbers who would use the facility, who would meet the running cost and the size of the facility. The committee will be most co-operative in that regard. However, must proposals be put forward on the use and space of the baggage room? Will a survey be carried out on the number of bags that will be left in the room? Will we have to indicate the size and shape of the bags and who will look after them? Will a survey be carried out as to how many cups of tea will be served per day in the tea room or how many coats will hang in the cloakroom, so that the size will be correct, it will be worthwhile and money will be wisely spent?

The Joint Committee on Women's Rights will co-operate with the Minister, but if guidelines are laid down for a crèche and family room they must equally apply to all other facilities. Why should different provisions apply to a family room? As the majority of Members have children and all of us have relatives and friends, nobody could doubt that there would be full and valuable use of a family room and crèche. This matter could be compared to a housing programme in a rural area: sometimes there is no demand until an announcement is made that houses will be provided. The same will apply with a crèche once Members know that a crèche will be provided the demand will grow. We have no problem providing the Minister with the necessary information, but facilities in this area should not be treated differently from other facilities being provided under this programme. Surely it is not too much to ask that the children and families of the staff of this House be provided with facilities equal to those for baggage, cloakrooms, tea rooms and a shop.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, on the lack of parking facilities. It would be unwise to lose this opportunity to provide such facilities for the staff of this House. Since Dublin has not an adequate or satisfactory transport system many of the staff have to travel to work by car, but there are not sufficient car-parking facilities here. That is a daily problem and now is the time to solve it. An effort should be made to ensure that such facilities are provided.

Other Members spoke about restaurant facilities and I would like to dwell on my experience as a rural Deputy. The restaurant in this House closes down as soon as debate in this Chamber ends. There is an assumption that you eat only while the House is sitting. Many rural Deputies work here late at night and on many occasions it is impossible to get even a cup of tea in Leinster House. During the recess when one comes to Leinster House to work, after 5.30 p.m. it is not possible to get anything to eat or drink except a glass of water. This should not be allowed to continue. Those of us who are rural Deputies, who do not have homes to go to while we are in Leinster House, can find ourselves here without even the facility of a cup of tea. Such a basic requirement is not available in the national Parliament.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this motion. I had intended devoting my time to what I believed should be a priority in the programme rather than debating the wisdom or otherwise of the allocation of funds to this programme. While I have some concerns, I want to reiterate that we are frustrated and angered that in spite of our enormous efforts to have some type of facilities for families and children, there was no mention of this in the Minister of State's opening speech. That is very disappointing and I hope it is not an indication of his commitment in that direction.

I was surprised at this omission because in discussing this matter with the Minister I found him to be very positive towards our demand for such facilities, and I mentioned this at meetings of the Committee on Women's Rights. For that reason I expected those facilities to be a priority in the programme presented to the House this evening. I would like to believe this was simply an omission on the part of the Minister rather than something intentional. I hope he will assure me that these facilities will be provided in Leinster House. Whatever support or information our committee can furnish to him in this regard will be given. The provision of these facilities is our aspiration and not only would this be a worthwhile contribution from the Minister in this International Year of the Family but it would be worthwhile to all of us. It is only by having succeeded in providing these facilities in Leinster House that we can then demand on a firmer footing, that they be provided in workplaces throughout the country.

I look forward to a positive response from the Minister in relation to the issues I have raised.

Mr. Haughey:

I welcome this debate and it is timely that we now focus on the Oireachtas and facilities available to Members. Members will use this occasion to air their grievances about various matters but it should be put firmly on the record of the House that the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, has gone a long way to improve the facilities available to Members of this House and to ensure that much needed reform is discussed and, slowly but surely, introduced in this House. While there was much wrong with the procedures of the Oireachtas in the past, these issues are finally being addressed and this debate is obviously part of that discussion. That should be recognised and also the role the Minister of State has played in bringing about improvements in this House.

I wish to focus in particular on the role of the Oireachtas in the political system, because it is pertinent to this debate. It has been perceived, traditionally, that the Oireachtas did not play its full role in framing public policy and laws in general for this State. There are many reasons for that; there is little doubt that the strong party discipline in this House over the years has ensured that the Oireachtas does not play the role that it might, particularly when one compares our procedures to those of other Houses of Parliament.

One could also focus on the perception that TDs have of themselves and of their role. Traditionally, Members of this House perceived a limited role for themselves and this was encouraged for various reasons. The staff and facilities available to Members were meagre and, in addition, Deputies generally took a local view of the many issues that were raised here. Members of this House see themselves as administrators rather than policy makers but that is slowly changing.

Constituency work, which dominates the life of a TD, is important and I do not subscribe to the view that TDs should not get involved in constituency work. It is very well coming into this lofty Chamber and debating various issues in an ivory tower-like way but unless TDs are in touch with what is happening on the ground, they will not be effective. TDs play an important role in their constituencies but they must be aided in their work if they are to be effective legislators.

At present, each Member of this House has one secretarial assistant. I would suggest that is not sufficient. Government business is becoming increasingly complex and Members must be able to do their job effectively and they must have access to research. Researchers should be made available to Members to examine all aspects of public policy. The way we go about that is an issue which must be discussed. Obviously the proposals before us today include the expansion of the library system, and I welcome that, but there should be an individual service for TDs, perhaps through the library system, to avail of research and background information on the various complex issues which are brought before this House. The way people are elected to this House can sometimes leave Members ill-equipped to deal with complex issues.

In recent years there has been an enormous expansion of the role of the Minister and of the Government in bringing legislation before this House and in making policy. Ministers' offices have been expanded to take cognisance of the increasingly complex nature of Government. Advisers and communications experts are available to the Government. I do not want to go down that road but ministerial offices have expanded for various reasons and other people also have a greater input into the system. Traditionally, the proximate policy makers, including Ministers, Ministers of State, Members of the Oireachtas and the public servants, made the laws. That system was influenced by political parties, pressure groups, the public service, the mass media and public opinion but in this age of social consensus and the increasing contribution of the social partners, the role of the effectiveness of the TD is now in question.

Trade Unions and other vocational groups have direct access to Government and have a much greater role in bringing about changes in public policy and, therefore, the TD must now examine his or her role seriously and the role of the Oireachtas generally. That is what this discussion on Oireachtas reform is all about. Members of this House must become more familiar with aspects of Government policy and facilities and services must now be put in place in the modern Ireland to allow TDs do their job effectively. Traditionally Deputies have been locally orientated —"all politics is local" to quote the famous expression of Tipp O'Neill — but now the electorate demand that the Oireachtas play a greater role in policy making.

This Government has a huge majority and that causes problems for the backbench Deputy, particularly on the Government side. The allocation of time to the Government is less than half the time allocated to various debates. Backbench Deputies find it very difficult to contribute to a discussion and put forward their views and those of their constituents. The committee system was introduced to deal with that and there are proposals to expand the facilities for committees.

It is probably the fault of committee members that frontbench spokespersons often predominate at meetings and all the time is allocated for the major party spokespersons. The committee system needs to be examined to ensure that backbench Deputies can put forward their views without difficulty.

Facilities and services for Deputies have improved. The salary has improved and that benefits the system. Traditionally a Deputy was a part-time member and he or she — more likely he — had a business or profession and was unable to make a 100 per cent input to the political system. The improvement in salary means that more Deputies are fulltime public representatives and can devote themselves fully to constituency work and law making. Telephone services, constituency offices and so on leave a Deputy with more time to deal with the complex issues of the day.

The refurbishment of Government buildings was criticised. I do not have to defend previous expenditure on such buildings. They are a showpiece and have earned the country a reputation which money cannot buy. It is only fitting that a Government have appropriate offices.

The inquiries office is a hatch and gives a bad image of Leinster House. Some refurbishment and redesign of that office at the front entrance could be undertaken. I welcome the provision in the plan for interview rooms as, if the interview room is occupied, one must go outside the House to a nearby hotel to interview people or meet delegations. There is no reference to electronic voting which would be an effective and major reform. How far advanced is it?

This Chamber looks extremely well on television.

Mr. E. Kenny:

And so does the Deputy.

Mr. Haughey:

I appreciate that. By comparison with the House of Commons it is an excellent showpiece. I understand an information officer is to be appointed to the Houses of the Oireachtas and I wish her well in her new post. I wonder how effective that post will be. Politicians the world over have a bad image, although the reputation of Irish politicians is probably better than those in other countries. The media play a role in that regard. Newspapers must sell and if they reflect politicians in a bad light that will benefit their sales. We should not be particularly worried about it.

There is no mention in the document of crèche facilities. I wonder what stage that proposal is at? That issue needs to be considered. The participation of women in all aspects of society is very much a real issue. I do not say the provision of a crèche in Leinster House is solely a women's issue — it is one for all Members. However, if mothers are to play an active role in politics Leinster House is the place to be and if family commitments and the rearing of children hinder that the Oireachtas must deal with it.

The sitting hours of the Dáil have improved and this benefits the family life of Oireachtas Members. The hours are more sociable and allow Members participate in other work outside the House and spend time with their families in the late evening.

I welcome the discussion. The role of the Oireachtas needs to be examined carefully and facilities need to be provided. We are making tremendous progress in this area, and I welcome the proposed developments.

Mr. E. Kenny:

I wish to share my time with Deputy Flanagan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. E. Kenny:

In view of the initiative he took in this regard some time ago, when I saw Deputy Haughey entering the House I thought he would refer to the proposed review of Government progress announced by the Labour Party.

Mr. Flanagan:

He referred to social consensus.

Mr. E. Kenny:

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, on his announcement — it arose from a rather innocuous question tabled by Deputy Deasy — of the Government's proposals in regard to the refurbishment of Leinster House. During my first few years as a Deputy I spent my time wandering around the corridors like a lost child and every time there was an election Deputies had to change offices. We served our constituents from offices in the basement, the top floor and the old Labour Party quarters. I recall rural Deputies who were not, to put it mildly, au fait with the wonders of electronics leaving dictaphone machines on while looking for letters on their desks with the result that tapes came to an end before half the letter was dictated. I also recall elderly benign ladies taking letters in shorthand prior to typing them up on old manual typewriters. I think two secretaries dealt with the queries and correspondence of all members of the Fine Gael Party at that time. I also recall the time when Members could only make two telephone calls to areas outside the precincts of Dublin — one to their homes and one to their constituencies, for example, to the county council——

Mr. Flanagan:

To the sub-postmistress.

Mr. E. Kenny:

Facilities have improved over the past 20 years. The refurbishment of Leinster House should not turn into a quest for a crèche — it is about a bigger matter. While the provision of a crèche is very important, this plan is about the provision of facilities which will meet requirements during the next 100 years. This plan is not about the provision of facilities for present and future Members of the Oireachtas; rather it is about the provision of facilities which will serve people well into the next century. It is in that context that I congratulate the Minister on providing time for this debate which will give the Government a clear view of Members' requirements and opinions.

I was not present for all of the Minister's speech and I am not sure if he said that this work will be carried out by way of direct contract or whether it will be done on a lease and buy back basis, as happened in the case of a number of State facilities in the recent past. In the context of a modern, efficient and working parliament and democracy for, of and by the people, the facilities in Leinster House are entirely inadequate and it is time they were improved. I welcome the development plan from which we should work in the interests of not only present and future Members of the Oireachtas but also the public.

There was great hullabaloo a few years ago about the expenditure of £20 million on the refurbishment of Government Buildings by the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, whose son so eloquently addressed the Chamber a few minutes ago. There is no reference to the expenditure of that money now and when one considers that we are a member of an expanding EU and members of the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly today to admit four new members to the EU it is only proper that the Taoiseach should have at his disposal facilities becoming to his office from which to conduct business. While many people, including members of my party and other parties, castigated the then Government for the expenditure of that money the facilities provided in Government Buildings will last for the next 100 years. The review of Government to be carried out will obviously identify wastage of money on a huge scale, but great value for money can be achieved in this context if the refurbishment is carried out properly.

The setting up of the special committees of the Dáil, for which Fine Gael had been calling for many years, was a very important advance. Once legislation giving committees the right to call witnesses has been passed it will be very important for committees to have proper facilities where they can meet with lobby groups and other organisations which want to put forward their ideas on the matters being discussed. Proper debate on legislation and its consequences by these committees will lead to great savings and, hopefully, reduce the necessity for tribunals. In addition, people of doubtful repute will be obliged to come before the elected representatives of the people to answer for their activities.

I agree with the Minister that the Library is located in a very beautiful room, but it is inadequate for the needs of the staff and Members. If Deputy Flanagan wants to make a speech on a health, education or agricultural matter he must carry out the research himself as, with respect, the Library staff cannot, unlike the staff in the Australian Parliament and other parliaments, bring up on screen all the information on the topic under discussion. I had occasion with Minister of State Dempsey to see the facilities in the Australian Parliament, on which a colossal amount of money was spent. Members of that parliament have access almost immediately to all the information published on a particular subject over the past ten years. It makes common sense to expand the Dáil Library in terms of its size and the ability of the staff to purchase materials, periodicals and newspapers. However, the increase in the budget to £250,000 over a period is infinitesimal in comparison to the budget for the libraries in other parliaments. Members should have at their disposal all the information they require to do their job for the people who elected them.

Concern has been expressed about the condition of the soil in Fisheries Yard. Obviously proper consideration will be given to this point so as to ensure that no problems arise with the structure of the building in the future. I note the Minister of State said that the Fisheries Yard will be developed first in 1995 at which stage a detailed design will be ready for the College of Art. In particular I commend the retention of the present facade as far as possible in the completion of the building. When the Office of Public Works undertook similar projects they did a magnificent job.

Over the years I tabled parliamentary questions about the provision of a facility room for Members of the Oireachtas to keep themselves in reasonable physical shape. There is much hot air generated in this House but the only physical exercise in which Members can indulge is climbing or descending the staircase instead of taking the lift. I was a member of a recent delegation attended by a doctor, not in this country, when it was discovered that the blood pressure of six Members was well over the limit. Whether that was caused by the location or the stress under which they labour I do not know——

Mr. Flanagan:

Aviation consequences.

Mr. E. Kenny:

I am not talking about a large facility but one on a small scale should be made available to Members. In addition, facilities for staff of the Houses is a matter of concern. In this respect a Bill will be introduced to provide facilities for staff, which I hope will be passed. Over the next 20 years Members elected to this House may wish to have their constituencies served by secretaries located in the area and existing accommodation here may not then be required. However, I have no doubt other uses will be found for it.

Unless underground car parks are provided it will be very difficult for everybody to park their cars here. I know many secretaries must leave the building to feed parking meters, some park their cars several miles away and travel the remainder of their journey by bus, which is inconvenient.

It is important that this be seen not alone to be an open, transparent house of Government but that young visitors from primary and secondary schools have a clear understanding of its value and workings, demonstrating that the money spent on these buildings is not wasted but spent in the public interest, enabling Members elected to do the job required of them by the electorate.

I also support pleas for the provision of a proper interview room. I had occasion recently to interview a man with a serious marital problem. It was not possible to conduct that interview in private in the existing interview room because there was a delegation sitting around the centre table and two or three other Members engaging in telephone calls.

Our Library staff labour under severe difficulty, necessitating an increase in their numbers if they are to cater for a greater number of periodicals, information and computer back-up systems. In the report commissioned on library facilities I understand that the amount of archival material stored in the basement of this House not catalogued or put into any kind of chronological order is astounding. It is a disgrace that that material, much of it dating back to the foundation of the State, has not been catalogued.

This proposed building extension will not merely be for the benefit of Members but for the electorate and their representatives over the next 50 years. Therefore, we should ensure, before final contracts are signed, that there is value for money in a democratic and political sense so that future representatives will have at their disposal the requisite facilities to do the best they can for the electorate. Indeed if the electorate do not consider they are performing that task adequately, they have the right to voice their objection.

I place great emphasis on the specialist committees being allowed to perform their task adequately. We do not have suitable facilities for these committees which, in a small parliament, places enormous pressure on Members, particularly those of smaller parties, running from meeting to meeting to be familiar in themselves with the various matters being discussed. If committees are provided with specialist committee rooms, if the legislation on compulsory attendance and rights of privilege is introduced and implemented and their meetings televised, it will make riveting viewing for the electorate. They will see democracy at work and elected representatives performing their task.

I congratulate the Minister of State on this proposal and I hope it will come to fruition. Additions and recommendations will be advanced but, within the overall context, I hope we will get value for money.

Mr. Flanagan:

I am grateful to Deputy Enda Kenny for affording me an opportunity to make a brief contribution.

As somebody who occupied, along with the then students of the College of Art, portion of the building concerned in the late 1970s — against what might be described as fascist oppression and annexation from next door — it is important that I do a public U-turn this evening and welcome the proposal of the Minister of State to expand the facilities within the confines of this building.

It is amusing that the debate is billed under the heading of "statements", the parties having been requested to make statements on a document that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dempsey, is pleased to announce the Government has approved. What is the status of the document? For example, why is this House not being asked to approve the proposals? Why are we not being asked to agree — or disagree — with a Government proposal to spend £10 million over a given period? I should have thought that the least required at this stage would have been a commitment by the Houses of the Oireachtas to spend the money, or at least a statement of intent. I put it to the Minister of State that he was not prepared to ask the House to approve spending money in case he might not garner the support of the remaining 165 Members. If that is the case, it is particularly regrettable and sad.

I look forward to approving capital spending and to the statement of intent to proceed with these much needed facilities at the earliest opportunity. We are debating this proposal in a vacuum, we are asked to make statements on it even though we know the Government has approved it. Are there Members within the ranks of the Minister's party who are not prepared to deal with the matter or bite the bullet so far as this issue is concerned? It is this type of behaviour which has largely contributed to a very poor perception on the part of the public at large of public representatives. We get the facilities we deserve.

I regret the Minister of State has not asked the House to approve his programme, to approve the setting aside of moneys at some future date, other than by way of a bland debate which I hope will signal at least the start of this badly needed initiative. God knows, the facilities we have are of a type no other western democracy would tolerate. I compliment the Minister of State on his initiative.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Dempsey):

Deputy Flanagan has confused me by his contribution. I will have no difficulty coming back when there are firm, definite proposals to put before the House in relation to the development of Leinster House and I will do so if that is the wish of Members opposite. I would go so far as to say that if they are not happy and want a unanimous proposal. I would be happy to withdraw the proposal before the House. During the course of the debate I found it difficult to refrain from interrupting some Deputies because some of the speeches were hypocritical in the extreme. Unfortunately one or two of the Members I am referring to are not in the House to hear my reply. It is difficult to deal with people who say they want a particular facility and on the other hand say that money should not be spent. People speak about consultation and democracy and attack me for the fact that I brought the proposals to the House without fleshing them out in any detail.

I felt Members of this House, through the Joint Services Committee, would fill in the details and state the required facilities. If I came into this House with a document fully fleshed out, without consulting with the Members, without having consultations with the staff, without consulting other users of the House, the same Deputies, as in the case of visitor centres and so on, would be up in arms saying we have another example of the Government brow beating or attempting to brow beat people.

Deputy McManus, who criticised the Office of Public Works for not consulting with people in relation to other matters, criticised me for not consulting and on the other hand she lacerated the Government precisely because we did not come into the House with a finalised document. Had I come into the House with a final document, I could have written Deputy McManu's speech. She would tell me it was totally undemocratic, that she favoured consultations taking place with Members of the House and that it should be a bottom up approach. She criticised me because I came in with a document that gives a broad outline of where I think the development should take place, but not detailed enough for Members to accuse me of presenting the House with a fait accompli. I do not understand that hyprocritical behaviour but coming from the party she represents it should be easy to understand that they are in favour of nothing and against everything.

The proposals I put to Government were a broad outline of what Members and staff were saying to me, as Chief Whip, in relation to the needs of Leinster House. The reason I did not mention figures is that the proposals, for which I sought Government approval, are not finally costed. When questioned by journalists I mentioned a figure of £10 million but that figure is not final. Once Government approval was obtained I succeeded in getting the Government to agree to a consultation process so that Members of this House, staff and users of this House would have the opportunity to say: "We need a crèche, a gym, showers and so on" Yet, some Members accuse me of trying to bulldoze proposals through the House. I have no intention of bulldozing anything through this House, if the Members say we do not need this development then so be it. I ask Deputies not to come crying to me as Government Chief Whip, or whoever will be in my place in years to come, saying it is not right to have six Senators sharing one room or two Senators and a secretary sharing one room or that staff should continue to work in present conditions.

Mr. Sheehan:

Not very long ago we had six Deputies sharing the one room.

Mr. Dempsey:

Somebody should ask Members whether it is a good and efficient way of doing business that the Procedural Office, the Journal Office, the Questions Office and so on, are scattered throughout the House. The Library facilities are totally inadequate and would not do justice to an ordinary secondary school. It is not right that Members and staff should have to put up with those kinds of facilities. We have put in place an agreed committee system. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Deputies opposite put proposals before the House in relation to committees, on which the Government acted. Those committees are working in cramped positions which are not suitable to this House. I share Deputy Kenny's view in regard to committees but they cannot make further progress due to a lack of facilities. I defy anybody, whether in this House or in the media, to say that as Members we can do our job properly in present conditions. I defy anybody to say that staff who have been victimised and have accepted the new regime in relation to committees and so on without a word deserve better than the present conditions.

The proposals I have put forward are not proposals for the current Dáil but for the 21st century. Deputy Kenny referred to the time when there was one secretary to three or four Deputies. Apart from the facilities given to us a few years ago each Deputy has a secretary. If we are to put a new system in place we must have new facilities.

Mr. Sheehan:

That is six years away.

Mr. Dempsey:

I make no apologies to anybody for fighting for facilities for Members of this House. I may be Government Chief Whip but I have a commitment to a progressive approach to the facilities Members should have in order do their job properly. Deputy Haughey mentioned the apparatus of Government and the expansion which is taking place. The Deputy is right in saying that; there are advisers. I dare say that if people on the far side of the House are in Government at some stage in the future they will use the same apparatus. It is only right that the Opposition, backbench Deputies—

Mr. Sheehan:

There is an escalation of advisers.

Mr. Dempsey:

——and so on should have the same back-up so that they can do their job properly and scrutinise what Government is doing. I have no difficulty with that. Members of this House should support the proposals.

Mr. Sheehan:

Priorities come first.

Mr. Dempsey:

Democracy is a priority so far as I am concerned.

Mr. Sheehan:

Priorities come first.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Sheehan, you had a good hearing; let us hear the Minister out.

Mr. Dempsey:

In order to have a proper democracy there must be proper facilities for elected representatives so that they can do their job of scrutinising the work and policies of Government. I have no difficulty with that and I wish other Members would have the same commitment rather than paying lip service to it.

Mr. Sheehan:

What provision is the Minister making for the 40 extra seats for candidates from the North?

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Sheehan, please desist.

Mr. Dempsey:

There is a consultative process. Every Deputy will have the right to make a submission. I believe strongly that the proposals should be fleshed out, that Members and staff should have an input and the development should then go ahead. I have no difficulty with the demand to put the matter to a vote.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 4 May 1994

Leinster House Development: Statements.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 May 1994