I made the point earlier that the nature of parliamentary business is rapidly changing, as is the political scene. The technology, environment and the way in which we operate are constantly changing. This Dáil is certainly very different to the one to which I was elected in 1987. The requirements on Members are changing all the time and a dedicated body to oversee the funding and organisation of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas is very welcome. I welcome this Bill, it is important and timely.
The innovation of a Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is also welcome and presents very real challenges to Members and staff to ensure we all are up to the task. Conditions have been radically improved and I thank Deputy McCreevy for that. However, Members wish to repay that, perform better and be more involved in every possible way. Modernisation of the administration, which has already commenced with the new directorate structure arising out of an IPA report in 1999, is crucial. The old way of doing things in the comfort zone of the Department of Finance will not apply any longer. It was handy at times to opt out.
I heard one Deputy say we should be able to stand up to Ministers and tell them what the priorities are and that we should have the power to change things. Those of us with the dual mandate and who serve on health boards have that power. We now present a plan of action every September. I have yet to hear a suggestion with regard to changing priorities that meant deleting something. We will worry about the disabled, the environment or our own issues, but we will not wish to delete anything. We need not worry too much about that aspect of it. We need more power in meeting Ministers and questioning them – particularly in committees.
While the main thrust of the Bill is very welcome, there are a number of improvements that could be made in the general provisions that would meet some concerns of the staff and administration. I understand these have been conveyed to the Minister's Department. We have tried to discuss this with the people involved, mainly on a one-to-one basis, but the key remaining concerns which have not been taken on board by the Department of Finance include allowing the provision of funds for essential services for the Houses of the Oireachtas and the administration. I am concerned because I want to ensure that the core parliamentary service, such as Parliamentary Questions, Bills, the office bills etc. are not diminished by the new requirements. It is essential that these are maintained and covered. Staff will complain, particularly within the committees, that they have difficulty in coping with much of what is going on.
Provision should be made for a linked annual inflator for the rather rigid funding mechanism provided in the Bill. There should also be a mechanism to deal with contingencies. I will ask the Minister later what the figure is. I believe there is an "X" factor in it at present and that agreement will be reached with the Ceann Comhairle later. That needs to be teased out. If we are to have a three year budget it needs to be a respectable figure. I would like to see some factor that allows for changes that will take place, such as changes in the rate of inflation. It can be difficult to draw up an annual budget for any Department, let alone a three year one.
In discussions with interested groups, it has emerged that a board of management should be established to which the commission would delegate the day-to-day functions and which would oversee the administration. It would meet a number of essential needs. There is a question about worker representation. I know worker representation has been sought by the partnership committee, made up of staff, unions and management under the Partnership 2000 agreement. Several speakers expressed concern about their secretaries. It is essential that we recognise the input of the staff. It is not good enough to praise them here, we must recognise their actions in a statutory way. There should be worker representation. Such a board of management would give a statutory underpinning to the new directive administrative structure and move away from the rather archaic model of Clerk and Assistant Clerk of the House that has been in place for approximately 40 years. I particularly welcome the decision to change the title of the Clerk of the Dáil to Secretary General of the commission. We are told that perception is everything nowadays. Clerk of the Dáil is an archaic title and certainly does not describe the work involved and the importance of the post.
There are several other changes on the day-to-day functioning that are probably necessary. A board of management would provide a comprehensive administrative focus in managing the day-to-day services and the committees. This is where most complaints are at the moment. It would obviously work under the auspices of the commission and would mirror the best practices of other EU Parliaments and the Parliaments of Australia and Canada. Members have travelled to study how they carry out their business. These are the kind of ideas they have returned with.
It was suggested that the Clerk of the Dáil, or Secretary General, should be a member of the commission. I have concerns about that and suggest that it should not happen. The commission should consist solely of elected Members, with the Ceann Comhairle as the chairperson. The Secretary General should be the chief executive officer of the board of management, answerable to this House and various committees. I will ask the Minister to look at the proposal of setting up a board of management.
Adequate time must be allowed between the enactment of this Bill and the establishment order. A great deal of preparatory work needs to be done. I would like to hit the ground running. It must be a source of concern to the public when they read about the installation of an electronic voting system in this House but that it will not be used for a couple of months while seating is being sorted out. If we are to take this radical new approach then all of these issues should be in place before the commencement order is signed.
I am concerned about funding. There is a nominal figure in the Bill for funding over the three year period. It is important that we get that figure right. I appreciate that there will be some negative publicity, regardless of what the figure is. We should be prepared to deal with that. The Minister has been prepared to bite the bullet and commit funding where it was necessary.
This morning Deputy Killeen voiced his concern that the commission could end up being situated in a back office, away from the workings of the House. In respect of its day to day operations, the board of management should ensure that this is not the case.
The Bill deals with a number of extremely technical points and I know we will revisit them on Committee Stage. However, there are a number of aspects which have already been raised by several Members and which require further discussion. These include the provision of secretarial and research services. On a previous occasion, Deputy Ó Caoláin stated that "Ministers and Deputies supporting the Government have the use of a legion of civil servants to cater for their every need." I wish to place on record that I was left out of that particular loop. The Deputy's statement was not correct. I accept that people generalise when making statements such as that made by Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Deputy Deasy recently stated that many Members read scripts when making contributions and I accept that some people like to jot down notes to aid them when they are speaking. There is nothing prohibiting Members from using scripts. However, the Deputy went on to state that it was mainly Members on the Government side who were reading from prepared scripts. I have been watching proceedings very carefully in the interim and 50% of those who made contributions – Members from both sides of the House – did so with the aid of scripts. There are rights and wrongs on both sides but I believe that Members must be treated equally. Some people have the ability to sing, while others do not and some can speak without a script while others ad lib. Thanks be to God we are not all clones.
The main point that arises from Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments – I accept there may have been a misconception on his part because he was quite new to the Houses when he made them – is that Members on this side do not enjoy any particular privilege in terms of staff support etc. Everyone has to do the same amount of work, which is crazy.
We need to look at the entire committee system, particularly in the context of the report carried out by Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver and Michael Marsh. When I was vice-chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I had to take over as chairman when former Deputy Jim Mitchell was ill for four or five months and I was fascinated to discover the excellent level of support available to me in terms of research, technical back-up and advice and secretarial services. However, that support was only available to the Chairman of the committee and I do not know if every Chairman enjoys the same level of support. Any Member serving on the Committee of Public Accounts could take it on as a full-time job and would not have to do anything else for the entire week if he or she wanted to participate fully in its work, particularly in light of the amount of reading and studying required.
In addition to being vice-chairman of the Public Account Committee, I also served, more or less at the same time, as a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children and as Government Whip on the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. As a result, I found it almost physically impossible to attend the House to make a real contribution on any issue. It is not possible to be involved in that range of work and make meaningful contributions in the House.
It is easy for commentators to criticise Members with regard to the number of times they speak etc. One of the difficulties is that, with the honourable exception of Vincent Browne, no one bothers to review the work carried out by or the input of Members to the committees. In my opinion the committees must be seen as bodies which carry out important work on behalf of the House. Changes to the committee system are happening rapidly. If the findings of the 1997 report were put in place, each Member would only be allowed to serve on one committee. I do not know how matters will work out in this regard, but the recommendation has been made.
I will not rehash comments made by other Members but the report also indicated how far behind are the Houses in terms of research and support services compared to other Parliaments. There is a great deal of information available about the number of Members in these Parliaments, but statistics are never provided with regard to the number of support staff available to them. However, I am sure some of them have up to ten times the staff resources available to them as do Members of this House and the Seanad. Consideration must be given to this matter.
We will continue to seek changes to the way in which we work. By and large, however, I believe the tools have been put in place to allow us to do our jobs and it is up to us to deliver. We will have to do better in many areas. There are many simple things over which we have control. During the lifetime of the previous Dáil, when the Ceann Comhairle served as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, a 90 minute debate took place on a particular morning in order that we could have an hour's additional speaking time on a certain topic that evening. With adjournments, Members leaving and entering the Chamber and the ensuing row, it took 90 minutes to make the case for an extra hour's debate that evening. That is ludicrous and we should not behave in that fashion.
We have to use the time available to us in a better fashion. It could be stated that 20 minutes is too long a period for one Member to speak. Local authorities have had to put time limits in place in respect of speakers. However, it must be remembered that tomorrow evening, when only ten or 15 Members remain around the complex, the powers that be will be seeking someone to, as in the past, speak for an hour. We must give Members the opportunity to speak if they wish to do so.
When complaints were made about the amount of time available to Members representing Sinn Féin, the Taoiseach made the point that there are 81 Deputies on this side of the House about whom he has to worry. It is extremely difficult for Government backbenchers to get time to speak. Members may be given a speaking slot, but anything may happen, such as involvement with committee work, which means that they cannot contribute.
I encourage colleagues on both sides of the House to take a positive attitude to the Bill. We need to explain to people, particularly political commentators, the exact nature of its contents. There are so many commissions in place that they may mistake this commission for one of them. The commission represents the most radical change to the Houses of the Oireachtas since their establishment and it has massive potential. We are fortunate, despite forecasts about financial difficulties, to have a Minister as open-minded and enlightened as Deputy McCreevy. I believe he will continue with the work he has been doing and that this will be a better House not only for us but also in terms of service to the public. The new structures will help us provide a better service.