Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Jul 2001

Vol. 540 No. 1

Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. McGrath

Is it not remarkable that in this day and age we have finally come to the stage where we are to ask the leaders of political parties to provide audited accounts for the vast sums they get from the Exchequer? We can see what happens in relation to other Departments. If a farmer makes a mistake of one digit on his application form for headage payments, he is out. If someone getting rent allowance is caught doing a few hours work, their allowance is cut off. For years the leaders of political parties have received millions of pounds without having to produce accounts. This measure would not have been introduced if a forum in Dublin Castle had not found unfortunate discrepancies in those accounts. The founding fathers of the State had different motivations, even if there were no leaders' allowances at that time, and there would have been no need to audit those accounts. Unfortunately we have had episodes involving blank cheques and shirts which have brought this measure about. It is a good move.

The Minister should accept some amendments to the Bill to improve accountability. Deputies who are members of the major political parties do not get one penny of the leader's allowance, which all goes into the leaders' fund and is administered through the leader's office, providing badly needed backup staff. However, Independent Members will get an allowance of £22,000 and will not have to account to anyone for it. They can spend it as they please. It is not taxable. In a sense, therefore, it is the equivalent of £44,000 in income. They can do what they like with it: they can use it to win elections or entertain their friends, in whatever way they please. The rest of us are then at a big disadvantage, particularly if one is sharing a constituency with someone who has this allowance; one is then at a major disadvantage when it comes to constituency work or holding one's seat. It is unfair that Independent Deputies will get that money without being subject to scrutiny. The Minister should look at this.

We should also look at fundraising and corporate donations. It is a sad part of democracy in Ireland that we have to raise funds. When I joined our political party first many of our meetings were dominated by how we would raise a few pounds to keep the ship afloat in elections. It was terrible drudgery which drove away many good people, as they were coming to meetings for months and the first item on the agenda was selling tickets or fundraising for elections. Thankfully much of that has now gone, though when I was elected first 12 years ago we were £38,000 in debt in my constituency. It was terrible drudgery clearing it but thankfully we did so and the Minister will be happy to hear we have enough money to fight the next election.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

The Deputy is opposed by two good candidates from my party. Not many areas are blessed like that.

Mr. Connaughton

Blessed is not the word.

Mr. McGrath

We will take them on and do our best to keep two tigerish fighters like them at bay. I am confident we can do so.

It is interesting that Fine Gael is the only party which does not accept corporate donations any more. It was interesting to hear the Labour Party talk about how it wants corporate donations phased out. However, it did not say a word about trade union subscriptions. I find it ironic that when one looks at donations after elections, Labour Party candidates and Members have received substantial sums from trade unions, while the rest of us ordinary mortals do not. We must be anti-trade unions, though I am an active, paid up member of a trade union and do not receive anything from the trade union movement when I stand for election, yet our Labour Party colleagues get substantial sums. How can one marry the idea of having no corporate donations while having trade union subscriptions? Those subscriptions are not all from people who vote the one way; they are from members of my party and the Minister's party who are members of those unions, yet their subscriptions go towards funding the Labour Party at election time. I find it ironic that that party is against corporate donations while accepting trade union subscriptions. It should go the whole hog if it is to go down that route at all.

The way we run the business of the House is also tied into this measure, when one sees how the political parties are treated. The way we run our business militates against the bigger parties. When there is a debate on a Bill or motion, a number of Members from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party can speak, but an Independent Member can probably get speaking time at the expense of many others. That is not fair. Even tonight we are restricted in time. When I entered the Dáil first, which is not that long ago, though the Minister is here much longer, generally there were no restrictions on speaking times. A Member could speak for as long as they liked and some spoke for three to five hours.

Mr. McCreevy

That was not a great system.

Mr. McGrath

It was not a great system and needed to be modified.

Mr. J. Mitchell

That was what robbed the Opposition of its power: the filibuster.

Mr. McGrath

We have gone to the other extreme—

Mr. McCreevy

I remember the late Deputy Flanagan making very long speeches.

Mr. McGrath

—and we guillotine Bills too quickly, which prevents many backbenchers from making valuable contributions. Every Member would like to contribute on health, the topic of this week's Private Members' Business, but we end up having two or three minutes to speak. What good is that in a debate on something as fundamental as health? We need a radical overhaul of the way we do our business. We should reach out more to individual Members of larger parties, who do not get the chance to speak and are unfairly treated in comparison with Independents and members of smaller parties. On the Order of Business the leaders of small parties get almost as much time as the leaders of the big parties. That is militating against the bigger parties and making matters very difficult for us.

Deputy Mitchell referred to resources. Members are very restricted now and must keep documents on all issues relating to finance at election time; one must almost keep track of how many times one sneezes in a day.

There is a great burden on Members and we need additional resources. The Minister has been very generous in looking after Members' interests. I hope he can see his way to giving additional secretarial services to Members which will not be given to political parties. There is no point allocating an additional 15 or 20 secretaries to Fine Gael because that will be of no use to me as a backbencher. If I get the additional secretary, I can use him or her for research and so on.

It is difficult for Front Bench spokespersons to scrutinise legislation, Estimates and so on properly. We met the Minister five times last week on Bills and other documentation from the Department of Finance. He has a plethora of capable civil servants to help him out. While Deputy Jim Mitchell has an assistant, he and I are virtually on our own in trying to scrutinise what is happening. That must change. Front Bench spokespersons should get additional assistance. Perhaps there should be a system whereby, in Deputy Mitchell's case, a person from the Department of Finance would be seconded to him for the period. This would mean Deputy Mitchell would have access to sources and information within the Department and that a civil servant would be able to provide a professional service to him. There is the danger that a spokesperson might feel the civil servant might not provide him or her with independent advice, but I believe our civil servants are sufficiently professional to be able to provide such a service adequately and well to allow the type of scrutiny needed for Bills, Estimates and so on.

Mr. Fleming

The Bill is a key element of the Government's strategy in helping to restore public confidence in the political system. We know there has been a deterioration in that confidence in politics and politicians and this is one of the elements we are introducing to help restore that level of confidence.

One of the main reasons this legislation is being brought forward is to ensure there is a mandatory statutory audit of all the leader's allowance accounts from now on. Until now, there has not been any such statutory audit and it is a welcome development that it should be put in place.

I am especially pleased that the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, and his party have performed a somersault on this proposal. I am disappointed they are not present because it is a reflection of the party which is strong on preaching to us on standards in public office but, when it comes to the practicalities of doing something about it, none of them is present to debate the legislation.

In referring to that somersault by Deputy Quinn on this legislation, I have in mind the revelations at the tribunals about the leader's account and an interview I gave on this topic to the RTE 9 o'clock news on 7 October 1999 having spoken at a tribunal earlier on the leader's account. I said I was convinced there was a need for a change in the legislation governing the leader's account and that the sooner the Oireachtas introduced it, the better. I said I would like to see legislation whereby the leader's account would be paid into a dedicated bank account and would not be mixed with funds from other sources and whereby there would be an independent audit each year and the accounts would be published and laid before the Oireachtas.

On the same news bulletin, the same RTE reporter asked the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, if in light of the revelations at the tribunals the legislation governing the leader's account needed further reform. His response was: "I think it's tight enough at the present time". That was subsequent to the revelations at the tribunals and he did not agree with my call on the same news bulletin for an audit of the leader's account. I welcome the somersault by Deputy Quinn and the Labour Party in supporting the legislation brought forward by the Government. One wonders why he had such an attitude to a simple and straightforward suggestion which was gaining currency at the time. It is something the Labour Party will be asked to address before too long.

It is a somersault of monumental proportions and is another example of the Labour Party preaching to the rest of us but not always acting in the best interests of the electoral system. We witnessed it last week with the Electoral (Amendment) Bill which the Labour Party opposed even though it outlawed large donations, be they from the corporate, trade union or private sectors. The party's members preached to us every day about the need for such legislation but when it was introduced they opposed it on Second Stage, they will oppose it on Committee Stage and, in all probability, they will oppose it on Report Stage.

We witnessed a further example this evening of the double think of parties of what they like to call the left when Deputy Joe Higgins complained about the legislation. He said he was opposed to this legislation because he could not make large donations to his party as it would be outlawed. He had the audacity to suggest there should be special provision in the legislation for TDs to make donations to their parties above the statutory limit which applies to all other individuals. I have never heard such an outlandish comment from the left. He suggested that legislation on donations should be passed with a special exemption for TDs. I reject that concept. The same rules should apply to us as apply to every individual.

The Labour Party opposed this legislation when it was put to the test. It also complained about the expenditure limits. They are the same for every party and if the Labour Party runs more candidates, it can spend more money. If it runs candidates in every constituency, it can spend the same amount of money as us and if it runs more, it is legally entitled to spend more. The Labour Party seems to think this type of legislation is a plot by the large parties to spend large amounts of money. The same rules apply to Labour and it can spend the same amount of money as us if it chooses to run candidates in every constituency. The fact that it chooses not to do so is a matter for it.

This legislation, which introduces the statutory audit of the leader's account, is part of a package of legislation brought forward by the Government. We are not just making law but making history because this is something which has never been done since the foundation of the State. The legislation bans large donations and introduces strict expenditure limits for the next general election and statutory audits on the leader's account. These are what the public has complained about and we are addressing them by debating the legislation which will stand the test of time. The people will say in future that, when confronted with difficulties in the political system, we introduced and passed the legislation and ensured it operated. I compliment the Minister for introducing the legislation and look forward to its speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome the legislation. As a result of revelations from the tribunals, a long-standing system was brought to a sudden halt. I remember the interview to which Deputy Fleming referred. Were it not for the revelations at the tribunal, he would not have said what he did. It was because of what was revealed in Mr. Haughey's case that a convention to which all party leaders had subscribed since 1938 was put in a whirlwind in that anything that had been done before could not be trusted. It is important for the public to understand about the leaders' allowance. People outside of this House genuinely believe the leaders' allowance is for the sole personal purpose of the leader of the party, which is entirely wrong. Political parties, whether in Government or Opposition, could not live up to their responsibilities if there was not some type of State funding. I have always believed the Exchequer should fund elections because I totally oppose corporate donations. They were necessary up to a point but if people want the sort of transparency they tell me they want, we should adopt the continental system. If we had that system, including the famous polls we now have every second day, taxpayers would not be willing to fund it. There is a price tag on democracy and political parties must be able to sell their manifestos leading up to general elections. The lifeblood of democracy is that people should be aware of what the political parties will do when they get into Government, therefore, there is an onus on the Exchequer to fund that system. My view on that issue might not be the majority view but I guarantee it will not be too many years before we reach that point. If there is a cap on corporate donations, a way will be found round that issue. While capping corporate donations is a huge step for the Government, only time will tell whether it will work.

I agree with the provision for a public audit of the leaders' account. I compliment the Minister on this proposal which, in the circumstances, is the only thing that can be done. It is the only point of view one could take following the disclosures of the recent tribunals. I am not aware of the details of the leaders' accounts but I know what they must be used for. I assume there will be sufficient flexibility to operate entirely above board in regard to politics, political parties, messages and so on.

I note that the leaders' allowance cannot be used for election purposes. Many people would have an open view on this aspect because electioneering is very expensive. As Deputy McGrath mentioned earlier, it is difficult to get sufficient funding to get one's message across at constituency level. Despite what Deputy Fleming said in regard to the controls in place, many constituencies find it exceedingly difficult to reach the limit set down. I am aware of nine or ten constituencies that would not reach the target, which further re-enforces my view that the Exchequer should carry more of the can in future. In fairness to the Government, and successive Governments, the amount of Exchequer funding will increase as the years go by. If there is control at the top, there will not be as great a financial burden on constituencies.

This parliament has a long way to go before it operates as a parliament should. There have been great strides in the past 20 years and, in fairness, the committee system works relatively well. The level of debate has been excellent on occasions in the committees on which I sit but the problem is that in general the public is not aware of committees sitting, unless something extremely sensational is happening. A huge amount of good work is done in committees which occupy several hours of our day, sometimes several days a week. The problem is that no one knows these meetings are taking place. It is very important that the electorate should be aware of the work we are doing. If the committee system is to become an integral part of this House, which I hope will be the case in the future, we will have to give greater priority to the type of exposure this House gets – it is not getting a great deal of exposure this evening. The public would be very interested in some of the topics I have heard discussed at committee level but the opportunity did not arise.

A great deal of work needs to be done in this House to ensure Bills get the type of scrutiny necessary. Deputy Mitchell has spent a lifetime on this aspect. On the nod, we agree to expenditure amounting to £100 million or £200 million. This has been the case under every Government. The system must be tightened up, therefore, there must be much better research facilities. There are a number of reasons parties should be given this type of back-up. I was Minister of State for almost five years and I have been a member of the front bench on many occasions in various capacities. What Deputy McGrath said is true. When one faces a Minister and his civil servants one is at a great disadvantage, even though that is not their intention. Anyone who has been in a Department is aware of the disadvantages. Most of the time one does not have any assistance. In fairness to Mr. Haughey in the early 1980s, it was a huge step forward when each Member got a secretary. I recall the newspapers commenting on it at the time and one would think we were made up for life and that we should not have got the facility. As everyone knows, that was very important and we now need to take the next step.

In so far as the question of research is concerned, we are blessed with very bright young graduates. Numerically speaking, many of them would not be engaged in this House but it would be another outlet for their talents. More importantly, that they were trained and went through the system in the Oireachtas, would mean a great number of people would know how the system of government worked, including the Opposition and Government side. We are lucky to have such people in our midst and this would be money well spent. We have debated this issue for a long time but we are not making much progress. In fairness to the Minister, he has made the role of TDs much better than it was when he took office. That is how it should be because there has been a dramatic change in the way we operate inside and outside the House in the past five to six years. Everybody wants an answer immediately. A few years ago, one could hang on for a week, but one cannot wait an hour now.

Mr. McCreevy

One could wait until one could remember what the problem was about and where one put the piece of paper on which one had written it. One hoped to be able to respond to the person concerned when they asked "did you fix that for me?" or perhaps that only happened to me.

Mr. Ring

No.

Mr. Connaughton

That day is well gone.

Mr. McCreevy

It is gone.

Mr. Connaughton

Many well organised groups have research facilities which we do not have.

Mr. McGrath

That is correct.

Mr. Connaughton

That is the point. All one has to do to become educated on certain topics is to turn up at the local hall. One will be educated very quickly on such occasions.

Help and assistance should be provided to Front Bench spokespersons, regardless of who is in Opposition. This is not a political matter. I do not know when it will happen but changes occur and parties cross the floor of the House. In my view, anybody who is doing a reasonable job as a Front Bench spokesperson on behalf of their party is entitled to the type of back up service that was mentioned earlier. There is nothing wrong with the proposal made by Deputy McGrath; I made a similar proposal many times over the years.

In fairness to those involved, I had no problem with the Civil Service in any Department I shadowed or in which I worked. Regardless of who is in Government, one is given information of a certain type. I have been around long enough to know that one will not be told about policy matters and that one should not look for them. However, there is no reason somebody from, for example, the Departments of Finance, Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or the Marine and Natural Resources should not be seconded to assist a Front Bench Opposition spokesperson in a number of areas. I appreciate one will not be told what the Minister intends to do next or about strategic policy matters. However, the person could assist with mundane matters, such as information about who to contact in the Department. This type of information is vital, particularly with regard to the Estimates.

A little more information is contained in the Estimates now, but I remember some dreadful instances years ago where huge sums were allocated to a Department but one did not know whether it related to oil wells or a satellite in the sky. It could have been anything. The position has improved a little and the committees are able to consider them in more detail. However, personnel from Departments would be a huge help in that regard. There is nothing wrong with this suggestion. I do not understand how it could cause any embarrassment to anybody on any side. I appreciate that policy matters and strategy will not be given to the Opposition, but there is an array that information that could be provided. This information is available to the public; it is only a matter of somebody getting it quickly.

Reference was made earlier to Private Members' time. When the Minister was in Opposition Private Members' motions were timely and of great public interest – they would not have been tabled if that had not been the case. It might not have been a subject that was favourable to the Government, but that is politics. However, something is obviously wrong with the system if a debate cannot be extended beyond 90 minutes when there is public interest in a matter and a score of Deputies want to contribute to a debate on it. Deputies want to discuss it and the public want to listen to the debate, but it is curtailed. Not many people will be watching this debate on television, but everybody wants to contribute to certain debates, for example, on health issues. This aspect must be carefully examined.

In the context of time restraints, guillotines are not a good idea because all 166 representatives have their own agendas. I heard filibustering over three or four hours in the House in the past and I do not agree with such tactics. However, the system has become too restrictive and many of our colleagues feel they do not have an opportunity to discuss matters as they were elected to do. The other problem is that they do not get the exposure on the committees they thought they would get or that they should receive. Unless we come to grips with this issue, there will be many disgruntled Deputies and the electorate will not like what is happening.

The Bill, in so far as it goes, is welcome. One hopes that, in the future, the type of refinements I mentioned will be implemented because, ultimately, they will lead to the better democracy for which we all hope.

Mr. Ring

I welcome the Bill. Deputy Connaughton said democracy is not cheap. We saw today when a leader was brought before the courts that democracy did not work in another part of Europe. There is supposed to be democracy in another part of this country, but there are regular knee cappings there. Democracy is not cheap but it is still the best way of ensuring people are represented. I am not aware of any other system that has worked as well. The people have an opportunity to change the Government every four or five years. This Administration has been in office for over four years but the interview board will have an opportunity in the next few months to decide who they want as Taoiseach, as Ministers and as Members of the House.

I recall meeting Deputy Connaughton when I entered the House in 1994. He gave me a wise piece of advice coming in the door – it does not really matter in what part of the House one sits as long as one has a seat in it. He was right; it was good advice.

Mr. McDowell

I hear what the Deputy is saying.

Mr. McGrath

The offer is still open.

Mr. McDowell

The door is still open.

Mr. Ring

We would all like to be in the Minister for Finance's position and I hope we will have such an opportunity at some stage.

I recall coming down the steps into the House and meeting the then Ceann Comhairle. The then Chief Whip introduced me to him and I sat down. The Ceann Comhairle wished me well, but nobody told me where the toilet was located. Nobody told me what I should do in the House or where I should go. I was the loneliest man in the House that day and I wondered if I was up to the job or if anybody was there to assist me.

Mr. Connaughton

The Deputy got over his loneliness well.

Mr. McCreevy

He managed very well.

Mr. Ring

I remember leaving my office in the west where I was a small auctioneer with a photocopier, a fax machine and a modern telephone system. When I arrived in the House, I had an office that I shared with somebody else and a telephone, but no fax machine or photocopier. Although I do not always agree with the Minister, he is like me in that he says what he thinks. It sometimes gets him into trouble, as it does me, but I do not mind because the people elected us to speak on their behalf. However, I thank the Minister for changing the circumstances I mentioned. Members now have their own offices with a fax machine and a modern telephone system. There are also more photocopiers. Matters have improved.

I arrived early in Leinster House today because I had deputations and committee meetings. I have not opened my post yet because I have been dealing with telephone calls, committee business and political problems I encountered in my clinics yesterday. I was at a clinic yesterday at 8.50 a.m. and I left it at 3.40 p.m. I went to a public meeting in Knock and I attended a political meeting last night. I started doing other work late last night before heading for Dublin in the middle of the night. I do not have secretarial assistance when my secretary is sick or on annual leave. Legislation comes before this House on a daily or even an hourly basis but it is brought in for the benefit of big business and not of people like ourselves who work one to one.

Democracy must be funded and the correct decision has been made in that regard. Funding for political parties should be audited and it is right to put an end to donations of £50,000 and £100,000 to political parties. Donations of that size are merely corruption under another name. I do not like them and I have not ever liked them.

I fought three general elections and won two. During the 1997 general election my supporters' greatest complaint was that my colleagues, both in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, had vans, jeeps and all sorts of vehicles travelling throughout the constituency. I remember going to a first round Con nacht championship match in Galway and seeing the road postered from Westport to Tuam and vans from all political parties. My supporters came home devastated.

Mr. McGrath

Who topped the poll?

Mr. Ring

That is precisely the question I want to answer. One cannot buy votes.

Mr. McCreevy

As a betting man, I was prepared to put money on Deputy Ring at that time, although it is a long way from Westport to Kildare.

Mr. Ring

The Minister for Finance can be criticised on political and policy issues but he has done a good job in relation to this House and I compliment him on that.

The time has come for party leaders, particularly the leaders of Opposition parties, to be given the resources they need. If a public representative attends a local public meeting he will find the manager of Leader or other community organisations with a team of secretaries, paid for by the State, while the TD, with no such help, is expected to be an expert on all legislation going through the Oireachtas. He might have spent the day meeting deputations without an opportunity to familiarise himself with the legislation being debated in the Houses, while his secretary is overworked and unable to cope with the volume of work presented to her.

The Minister is a reasonable person. He knows the day has gone when a query could be noted on the back of a cigarette packet and dealt with a month later.

Mr. McCreevy

That is right.

Mr. Ring

A constituent came to me yesterday with a query and then telephoned me early this morning, before any office was open, to know if I had a reply. This is the level of service now demanded by the public. People want instant information and instant action. If we are to cope with such demands we need extra resources. Many community groups have better facilities and staff than public representatives, yet we are expected to be experts on all legislation and to be present everywhere.

I compliment the Minister for Finance. Many members of my party were afraid of criticism from the public. The Minister has no such fear. I hope his actions will not damage him politically

Mr. McGrath

Would Deputy Ring put money on him?

Mr. Ring

We must bring the business of the Dáil back to the House. Too much of the business of the House is dealt with on "Morning Ireland" and elsewhere in the media. It is being presented to the media by spin doctors behind the backs of the Members. All announcements, Bills and Ministers' statements should be presented first in this House. If a Minister announces a matter outside the House he should be brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We have been elected to this House, which is the national parliament and the people have respect for this House. We have not shown the same respect for it and we are now paying the price for that lack of respect. Announcements are made on "Morning Ireland", then discussed by Pat Kenny on his radio programme and perhaps brought to the Dáil a month later when they are old news and no longer important.

All announcements should be made in this House and parliamentary questions should be answered. What we have now is not Question Time, it is merely protection for the Minister. The current rules mean Deputies cannot get an answer because the Minister can filibuster for one minute and avoid giving an answer.

If the public are to provide resources for political parties, we must respect the people who elect us and this House. If we do not have respect for one another we cannot expect the public to respect us. We must bring back the power, the respect and the business to this House.

Mr. Deenihan

As a former Minister for State I will be a beneficiary of this Bill and I thank the Minister for Finance for that.

Mr. McCreevy

The Deputy is referring to tomorrow's Bill.

Mr. Deenihan

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this Bill. The introduction of long service increments for Members is a good idea.

Previous speakers have referred to the importance of research to Deputies. Many Deputies are forced to rely on American interns for our research. While these interns are highly qualified they cannot meet the demands placed on Deputies when dealing with complicated legislation.

At any one time a great number of Bills are before the House. Deputy Jim Mitchell, as convenor of the finance group, had to deal with eight Bills in recent weeks.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Ten.

Mr. Deenihan

This was without any back-up service. While he dealt with the tasks very well, he would be the first to accept that he would have done so more effectively if he had had adequate support. This Dáil is now in its final year and so, this Bill provides a mechanism for future generations of Deputies. I hope those future generations recognise the Minister for Finance as the person who put these provisions in place. I also hope the Minister's officials provide us with adequate research back-up services.

During the debate on Second Stage the Minister referred to the validation of leaders' allowances. Deputy Fleming referred to the same question this evening. All allowances should be properly validated and audited. The recipients of public money must be held responsible for it. In the past money was used for the wrong reasons and without any great benefit to the taxpayer. We are evaluated by the people and we are held accountable to the electorate at every election. The people who work as researchers and in other back-up services and the civil servants should all be in a system of evaluation to ensure they are giving value for taxpayers' money. I welcome that proposal where the party leader will be required to prepare a statement of his or her expenditure and have it audited by a public auditor and not an employee of any State institution.

Overall the facilities in this House leave a lot to be desired. We are now only catching up with other national parliaments. I have a background in physical education and I have said before that a gymnasium is needed in Leinster House. If people were fitter, they would have more endurance, they would work better and they would be more productive. There is also the possibility that they would last longer in politics; they would certainly live longer. The corporate sector is responding to this challenge. Most big companies have personal trainers available to their employees. Senior executives use gymnasia on a daily basis.

Of all the occupations and professions, politicians are under the most stress. We are at the mercy of the people and that is the strength of democracy. We must apply to retain our jobs every four years or less. It is a very stressful occupation and we do not have the facilities here to ensure that we do that job better. We are provided with research and secretarial resources and we are properly paid but it is very important that our health is also protected. I am pleased that there is provision for a gymnasium but I note that it is now on the long finger until next April. Unfortunately many people in this House will not benefit from it but I hope future generations of TDs will benefit. I hope to address other issues tomorrow.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and I will make my Second Stage reply now. If Deputies wish to pick up on any specific points again, I will be able to deal with them on Committee and Report Stages.

At some stage I told Deputy Jim Mitchell that to minimise future confusion the Parliamentary Counsel thought it best to take the old subsection or section which was to be grafted on and to rewrite it entirely, repeating verbatim provisions which were in the 1996 or 1998 Acts which are not actually being changed. I wish to point out to Deputy Deenihan that I also am confused with the names. The names of the Bills today and tomorrow are the reverse of what you thought they would be. The Bill I am dealing with now, which is known as the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill, I referred to as the Audit of Party Leaders' Allowance Bill and that is what it was known as. When the Bill came back from the Parliamentary Counsel, it had changed into this name, whereas the name of the Bill to be taken tomorrow, which I call the TDs Bill, is a name I cannot recall at the moment. It is all very confusing.

Mr. J. Mitchell

We should change it now.

Mr. McCreevy

These things are legal and that is why there are these particular names. Apparently, the Title of the Bill must encompass the purpose of the Bill. This Bill will be the Audit of the Leader's Allowance Bill so I do not blame Deputy Deenihan for being confused because even I cannot now remember the names of the two Bills at all. I used to refer to one as the Audit of the Leader's Allowance Bill and the other as the TDs Bill.

Many Deputies referred to back-up facilities and the lack of secretarial assistance. I take this opportunity of making a contribution on this topic. Deputy Rabbitte made a particular point today on the Order of Business when he asked the Taoiseach a particular question about whether this was going to be the subject of a consultancy study. I wish to clarify this point. I have pretty clear views on what Deputies, and in particular Opposition front benchers, require in order to function with full effectiveness and carry out their duties to this House. From informal discussions with my fellow Members, I know that my analysis is not miles away from theirs. It is certainly tempting for me to identify the change and give fellow parliamentarians what they need and deserve in terms of secretarial back-up.

Some time ago, the Government and the Committees on Procedure and Privileges of this House and of the Seanad decided as a preliminary step to introduce new arrangements for financing and resourcing the Houses of the Oireachtas, to have consultants carry out a base line study of the staffing needed by the Houses and very explicitly specified that it also deal with the non-civil service staffing resources needed by Deputies and Senators. The consultants have been recently selected and that exercise is about to commence. One thing that has been brought home to me very vividly since I took this job is that consultants have very few inhibitions in charging for what they were signed on to do and I do not think it makes sense for me to introduce major changes just as those studies begin.

The Taoiseach was also asked on the Order of Business today about the Oireachtas Commission Bill, proposed by Deputy Jim Mitchell as Chairman of the PAC. The Heads of that Bill were brought to Cabinet to be sent to the Parliamentary Counsel. The Government decision authorised us to enter into discussion with the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad because many of the changes relate to them.

As proposed by Deputy Jim Mitchell, there will be a Houses of the Oireachtas Vote which will be administered by the commission. It is intended that the commission will be made up largely of parliamentarians with the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad and some other people. The Clerk of the Dáil will be designated the Secretary General of the commission and the commission will run the Houses of the Oireachtas. A sum of money will be voted to the commission and it will be responsible for everything in the Houses of the Oireachtas. In order to begin with a proper amount of money it necessitates a proper study. When the results of the study are available in some months time and we know what extra resources, particularly in terms of staff, are needed, I will then form a view after consultation with party leaders and Opposition spokespersons as to the amount of money that will be given to the commission. It is proposed that there will be a personal representative of the Minister for Finance, possibly a Minister of State or the Minister himself, on the body. Only certain functions will be reserved to the Minister for Finance. The body will have to make the decisions.

It is my intention to give the body enough money at the start and that will not be reviewed for about three to five years. There will be no more interference than that from the Department of Finance. It will be up to the commission to allocate money to front benchers, for example. I expect that TDs will have at least one extra assistant, a research assistant or whatever they wish. I was very tempted in this Bill to give front bench spokespersons an allowance or to give them a person. I decided that the best way was to leave it all with the commission. I will enter into discussions with the Opposition before the Bill is finalised.

The big secret is what amount of money will be given to this body at the start and its plan for the future. We will get away from the nonsense that every time the Estimates are published a sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has to seek my approval for extra money for typewriters and computers. This involved rows with the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Houses of the Oireachtas blame the Department of Finance. The Department is asked if it has anything to say and it all comes before me. I have responded generously to those issues. All of this will be gone. There will be none of this reporting, fighting and arguing. The commission will run the whole business. To respond to a point made by Deputy Rabbitte, that is what the consultants recommended—

Mr. J. Mitchell

When were the consultants appointed?

Mr. McCreevy

The consultants were appointed about a week or two weeks ago, following a tender process. They are being appointed for six months. The heads of the Bill to set up the commission are drafted. We hope to progress the terms of the Bill with the commission in the next couple of months. The Bill should be ready at the time the consultants' report. It will then only be a matter of making a decision on the amount of money. All the detail is in the—

Mr. J. Mitchell

Will the Minister have a vesting day on 1 January as proposed?

Mr. McCreevy

I am not sure what the work load of the Dáil is for the latter months of the year but it is my intention to have this as quickly as the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government can do it. In recent weeks the Parliamentary Council has been active on my behalf and I hope can be as active in the autumn. The commission will be set up more or less on the underlying principles which Deputy Mitchell outlined in his report. We will discuss any necessary changes.

Mr. McDowell

Does the Minister intend to have an annual budget.

Mr. McCreevy

No, a budget will last for at least three years. An annual budget would bring it under the control of the Estimates process. This is what Deputy Mitchell did not want in his Committee of Public Accounts inquiry. I agree with him. If it was subject to the Estimates process every year it would mean debates and cutbacks and so on. I will not have that.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Will it be the estimate plus the rate of inflation every year?

Mr. McCreevy

Whatever it will be it will be at least for three years or, maybe, five years and perhaps in the interim we will have to add to it. We will not have it as part of the annual Estimates process because that would bring mean fighting about it every year. We will start off with a high figure and it will be that figure plus inflation, for three years. The figure will be worked out at the start. If anything extra turns up in the interim, that we have not thought about, the sum should be large enough to accommodate it. All the fighting the poor Minister for Finance had to endure about staffing and people making representations to him will be moved to the commissions which will be made up mostly of Oireachtas members. It will be a far different process and they will have to make some touch decisions. I am sure they will not say "yes" all the time. I am just getting rid of the problem and giving it to somebody else.

Deputy Derek McDowell raised that and other matters relating to the resourcing of parliamentarians and in that context mentioned the Library. Almost 30 years ago a decision was taken to recruit graduate staff to the library whose duties included carrying out research for Members. These have been used over the years particularly where briefing for inter-parliamentary group meetings were concerned but spokespersons and individual Members who are likely to be engaged in hard-fought parliamentary battles prefer to draw for research, on party employees, lobby for support, or buy it in rather than use a House resource which is equally available to their rivals. This, I expect, is an issue that will be dealt with in one stand or another in the consultancy exercise.

Deputy Connaughton and others made the case that a civil servant could be seconded to front a spokesperson. If they think about it they might consider that that is not a very good idea. Civil servants are non-political and are there to serve all parties. If one civil servant worked for Opposition spokespersons the danger would be that he or she would become identified with that party and that may not be for the betterment of the civil servant's career. It would not be a particularly good idea to go down that road.

Deputy Mitchell made the point here and at other times that TDs will need a compliance officer going around. Deputy Mitchell and I have been Members of the House for the same length of time. Certainly I do not have records going back 24 years. They are in files, somewhere if someone could actually find them. The great advantage of moving house given the amount of stuff we gather over the years – we live in a very small house – is that somebody on my behalf, probably my wife, made a policy decision to burn everything, good and bad. I do not know why people keep stuff because 99% of it will not ever be required again. I found the most amazing things, all kinds of objects and so on but she took the great decision to keep burning. It was probably the best thing to do.

Deputy McDowell said the Bill might be lacking in teeth. The real sanction is twofold. Public criticism by the commission which will now be seized upon by political opponents and by the media which may reduce the saleability of the Leader of the party and the cold reality of having the allowance stopped will certainly concentrate minds. Parties usually have a need for money and a leader who abandons even temporarily, a reliable source, is unlikely to be popular with his parliamentary colleagues.

I considered the whole question about the allowance to Independents before the Bill was drafted. I come from the starting position, more or less like McEntee in 1938 that this money is primarily for party leaders and that they should decide what to do with it. The least possible interference should be in the Bill. As Deputy Mitchell said time has moved on and unfortunately we do not live in that kind of environment where people were trusted entirely. I do not want to insert into the Bill—

Mr. McDowell

We are also into serious money.

Mr. McCreevy

Yes, that is the difference. We are dealing with substantial amounts of money for the Fianna Fáil Party, Fine Gael, Labour and the other parties. The figures have been mentioned by some Deputies. For the two major parties it amounts to more than £1.5 million. For the Labour Party it is more than £800,000 and fairly substantial increases are provided for. The average amount for an Independent Deputy is £22,000. I realise Deputies Mitchell and McGrath are tabling an amendment but I do not honestly believe I will impose an audit requirement for that amount of money on an individual backbench Deputy. There is a big difference between £22,000 and £1.5 million annually. I concluded it was not worthwhile. Coming from my starting point I would prefer as McEntee said in 1938 that it would be up to the party leaders to decide where that money is to be spent and it should not be influenced by any other considerations.

Mr. McDowell

I would have thought it was a virtual certainty that if £22,000 is paid to some people on these benches in the next few months that some of that money will be used for electoral purposes. The rest of us who are members of parties do not have that facility. If one is an Independent Deputy it is likely that one's priority at this moment is to get re-elected and that £22,000 is almost certain to go, at least in part, to that purpose.

Mr. McCreevy

There is some logic to what the Deputy has said. It is a bit like expenses given to Deputies and civil servants which are to be used for total reimbursement, for instance. It is hard to draw the dividing line. On the whole question of minimum allowances to Independents and whether they should be provided, the clear advice to both Deputy Quinn, my predecessor, and I is that it is very important there be equilibrium between all parties and the Independents. There is a skewing of the allowances in favour of the smaller parties and the Independents, but to get over the legal question, every Member elected to this House is entitled to the same—

Mr. J. Mitchell

Imagine the Taoiseach and Deputy Reynolds spending £22,000—

Mr. McCreevy

The Deputy is hoping he will, very shortly, whenever we face the people. Deputy Joe Higgins complained that his party is restricted in the amount it could receive from him. I suspect what he had in mind was restrictions on political donations under the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. The Bill before the House is concerned with payments necessitated by parliamentary non-electoral purposes. It is not a matter of choice, as Deputy Higgins suggested, about whom it relates to. It must be used for the purpose for which it was given. The only way it can be given to a party outside this House is in payment for services or research which they may be in a position to supply and which are seen by the commission as a genuine sale.

I have looked at the question of auditing the Independents but concluded against going down that road. Every one person party in the House is working on the basis that they – Deputy Higgins and Deputy Ó Caoláin anyhow – will come back with many companions after the next election. We are respecting their ambitions and taking them seriously. Deputy Higgins, as leader of his party, will have to supply audits. He was worried about what money he can give to his party and so on. He may not be aware that, as a result of a row in 1998 about the increases, I promised in this House that I would oblige him at the next election. There is a provision in tomorrow's Bill that the Deputy can refuse an increase specially designed to accommodate the consciences of Deputies who feel they should not take increases from Buckleys or Gleesons or whoever it may be. That is to oblige people like Deputy Higgins who kicked up a row in the past about salary increases for Oireachtas Members. I specifically included this provision in the Bill before the House tomorrow morning, which will be taken by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, as I will not not available then. Accordingly, Deputy Higgins will not have to worry about these matters in future. If he does not feel like taking the money, he does not have to. I do not consider it worthwhile having a full blown audit for a small amount of money, although I could have gone down that road.

Deputy Jim Mitchell suggested that each Deputy would almost need his or her own compliance officer. I accept there are additional impositions but I hope the way the commission will operate will allow greater resources to Deputies. My intention is that we will have a Parliament in which Deputies are reasonably well paid, have good facilities and plenty of back-up services and will not have to take an apologetic cap-in-hand approach. In the business or professional sector, including accountants, doctors and solicitors, I have yet to see people going to the cheapest practitioner in the locality. If we devalue ourselves, people will think less of us.

Deputy McDowell mentioned, in an interesting aside – I cannot tell him where I learned of this – that, soon after his election, he went to a meeting of his European group and met a Swedish colleague who produced books and pamphlets which he had written. That is not unusual. Keith Joseph would be regarded by many as the guru of Thatcherism, if there is such a concept. It is customary that a new Minister in a Department is briefed by the Secretary General on various matters, given an organisation chart of the Department and generally brought up to date on current issues. When Keith Joseph became a Minister – and I have this on the highest authority of somebody who served with him – he completely reversed the process by handing his books to the Secretary General, saying "Read those over the weekend and you will understand what I am about". Perhaps, when we have our new system in place here, our parliamentarians, when they go abroad or become Ministers, will be in a position to do likewise.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now proceed to Committee Stage in accordance with the Order of the House.