Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Jun 2003

Vol. 173 No. 14

Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill 2002: Second Stage.

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

I am a recent recruit to parliamentary life. Like some other Members, I celebrated my first anniversary in the last week or so.

I offer my congratulations to the Minister of State.

I thank the Senator.

It did not take me long to notice that most of us have to cope with working long hours here during the legislative and committee sessions and with the insistent demands, in all seasons and on all days, of supporters and organisations, locally and nationally. Neither I nor the Minister for Finance ever held out the promise that if this Bill is enacted, the everyday struggle to fit all these tasks into limited time would suddenly disappear. However, what we can say is that if it is enacted, and if the changes it offers and the new institution it creates work well, it should make the work of Members more effective and possibly easier in the long term.

All Bills accumulate sections and subsections to deal with bits and pieces that might arise in the future or which are needed to fill out details. That is probably the case here. However, the Bill contains two central pillars around which almost everything else revolves. These are what might be called "a lump of money" and a new institution called the "Houses of the Oireachtas Commission", which will manage that money and run the administrative machine that supports the two Houses and their committees. I propose to deal in detail with each of these.

When dealing with legislation, it is impossible to avoid definitions. Legal phrases can be left for explanation until the particular section to which they relate comes up for discussion. Purely from the point of view of clearing the ground, one of these phrases "Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas", which crops up throughout the Bill, probably needs to be dealt with here. People in this House or in the Dáil and people generally, often use a kind of shorthand – Leinster House, the Oireachtas, Parliament, the Legislature, etc. – when referring to this place. Some even refer to it as the Dáil, which I know would be a mortal sin in this House.

This is the Upper House.

The phrase "Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas" is a bit of a mouthful for ordinary conversation, but what it describes in practice is the administrative and support machine that provides the back-up of essential services to serve and sustain these Houses and their Members in discharging their public functions here.

The essence of the Bill is that it provides for the Houses of the Oireachtas to be headed up by a commission composed, with the exception of the Secretary General, of Members of the Dáil and the Seanad, endowing them with an enhanced version of the powers vested in Ministers who have charge of Departments. More fundamentally, it provides the commission with the financial resources – a figure of €295 million is specified in the Bill – to run that office and the financial affairs of the Houses for some years without having to approach the Minister for Finance or the Government. The Bill also provides for the financial process which keeps that machine oiled and which generates the various services utilised by Members.

I will deal with the money first. At present, the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas is financed in the same way as any Government office. An allocation is proposed by the management here, argued about with officials of the Department of Finance and probably discussed by the Minister with the Ceann Comhairle and possibly with some other Members. Eventually, a figure emerges from Government, is included in the Book of Estimates and ultimately voted on, like every other Estimate, in the Dáil. This details the current expenditure of the office and the services it operates for a calendar year. Actual spending of that money requires sanction from the Minister for Finance or, in practice, his Department, either on a case-by-case basis or in accordance with spending powers which have been delegated to the office. If an overspend is threatened during the year, expenditure has to be cut back or a Supplementary Estimate has to be negotiated with the Minister and this requires going through the process again.

The Bill introduces a new arrangement whereby a sum of €295 million will be provided to meet the current expenditure for three years. This will not be voted annually, as is the case at present, but can be drawn down from the central fund, as required, over the three years from 1 January 2004. Virtually all the controls that are now exercised by the Minister for Finance will cease to exist and the commission will decide how and when the cash is to be spent.

The kind of expenditure involved is set out under the old style system in the Book of Estimates and, presumably, the commission will add its own new categories to the listing there. I do not doubt that the commission in so doing will act with sensitivity to the economic climate and awareness that this office should not be insulated from the restraint demanded in other Exchequer-funded areas.

From discussions elsewhere in this building during the past fortnight, it might be helpful to indicate what will not come from the €295 million. The major item can be capital, usually building, repairing or reconstructing premises which the Houses, civil servants and party staff occupy. That will continue to be a charge on the budget of my major area of responsibility, namely, the Office of Public Works. Leaders' allowances, which are paid to party leaders, as well as non-party Deputies and Senators, and are intended to be spent for parliamentary purposes, including research, will not be paid from the fund of €295 million.

The obvious question relates to what happens after the three-year period has passed. It would be ideal if the commission or its staff were to know when funds need to be replenished. A very brief Act would be required to replace the figure mentioned in this Bill and to specify the period to be covered by the new figure. The figure would be determined in an agreement between the Minister for Finance and the commission. If money runs out when the Houses are not sitting or when such legislation cannot, for one reason or another, be fitted into the parliamentary calendar, the old system of voted moneys does not kick in. In such circumstances, the commission would be empowered to continue its activities, up to a limit of half of the previous year's spend. A similar arrangement applies to the spending of voted moneys in advance of the passing of the Estimates.

This bother could be avoided if the commission's financial arrangements did not require a new Act; for example, if the finances could be dealt with by way of a statutory order on an annual or multi-annual basis. This possibility presented itself to the Government and was considered before the Bill was finalised. I was not there when it was discussed but I was subsequently informed of the thinking behind the final decision. Parliamentarians devote a large segment of their working time to ensuring that organisations financed from public funds are accountable and to pressing for greater transparency in public bodies. Credibility in these areas would be diminished if large sums of money were to pass to a body composed of parliamentarians in a way which might be portrayed as less than transparent. The fact that a fresh statute will be required to renew the arrangement guarantees openness, in the form of a debate in each House.

I would not like to convey the impression that the funding of the commission will be out of the public eye, other than at the end of the three-year period. Under section 13 of the Bill, a member of the commission or a Member of the Dáil nominated by the commission will present a statement of the expenditure by the Houses to the Dáil each year. The statement will show how a portion of the sum provided by the Oireachtas in legislation will be spent in the following year. Instead of being formally granted by a Vote, the Estimate will be taken note of by the Dáil. The statement will keep Members and the public informed and will also constitute the statement of estimated expenditure for the following year to be sent to the Minister for Finance so that he can include the amount in the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure at budget time. This will replace the current procedure whereby the annual Estimate is presented by the Minister for Finance. Although the commission will not be included in the normal Estimate exercise and will be removed from ministerial control, it will be accountable and transparent where financial resources are concerned.

The second pillar I mentioned is the new institution to be known as the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. It is intended that the commission will take responsibility for the finances, organisation and staffing of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is proposed that the commission will have 11 members, all but one of whom will be Members of the Oireachtas. The 11 members of the commission will be the Ceann Comhairle as chairman of the commission, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, the Secretary General of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, a representative of the Minister for Finance, up to four representatives of the Dáil to be nominated by the Dáil or by a committee established for this purpose and up to three Members of the Seanad to be nominated by the Seanad or by a committee established for this purpose.

The inclusion of the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach was a foregone conclusion. I have not been in the House long enough to know the various ways in which the seven ordinary members may be selected, but people such as Senator Dardis, who are more experienced in these matters, have informed me that each House can determine how the decisions are to be made. I am sure the Houses will make wise decisions.

A further parliamentarian will be on the commission as a representative of the Minister for Finance. Given that the Minister has been eliminated from his traditional role in relation to the office, I should emphasise this measure is not a devious plot to reintroduce such a role by the back door. The Minister will be represented because of his roles in relation to the central fund, public service remuneration and Civil Service matters which impinge on the office and Members. His representative will also allow him to have a continued role as the sponsor of legislation on Oireachtas matters.

The Bill allows for payment to be made to each of the ordinary members of the commission and the Minister's representative. This change, which was introduced in an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil, requires the making of a statutory order under existing legislation on Oireachtas remuneration.

Attempts were made to include the Clerk of the Seanad on the commission when its composition was being decided. It was suggested that a failure to do so might be seen as an insult to the House, especially as the Clerk of the Dáil – the chief officer of another House – will be a member of the commission. It may be helpful to refute any such impression at this stage of proceedings. The Bill, as it stands, provides that the person who is currently the Clerk of the Dáil will become the Secretary General of the commission and that each of his successors will hold both jobs. This is not a dramatic innovation, but rather it is pretty close to the present situation. The Clerk of the Dáil has two distinct strands to his job. He functions as the clerk of a single House of the Oireachtas and, although he does not have a title to accompany it, he acts as the Civil Service head of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

If one were to consider this matter as a sort of competition between the two Houses – something I hope one would not do – it could reasonably be argued that the Seanad is coming up in the world in relation to administrative matters. Under this Bill, the Ceann Comhairle, who is currently the political head of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, will share that role with the Cathaoirleach, as well as their colleagues on the commission. The Bill also retains the existing obligation to consult the Cathaoirleach when matters relating to this House arise.

This Bill also deals with the arrangements in respect of members of the commission during a period of dissolution and in cases of the removal or resignation of members. A member leaves the commission when he ceases to be a Member of the House which appointed him, or ceases for specified reasons to have its confidence. The Minister's representative is treated in the same way as ordinary members from his or her House. During a dissolution, the Chairman of each House remains in place until a successor is appointed and a temporary Minister's representative, who must be a Minister or Minister of State, may also be appointed. The House may be interested to know that Senators will hold the majority of seats on the commission for a brief period, given that Deputies are ousted earlier than Senators.

Some Members were upset by the proposal to provide for the dismissal of ordinary members of the commission. While I understand concerns about ill-founded allegations which may have detrimental effects on persons in public life, I cannot envisage circumstances in which either House could not remove a commission member which it had appointed if it formed the view that he or she was culpable of stated misbehaviour. Accordingly, the Bill provides that an ordinary member can be removed because of incapacity or stated misbehaviour, or to facilitate the effective functioning of the commission, but only on a resolution passed by the House which appointed him or her.

The functions assigned to the commission are set out succinctly and supplemented briefly in this Bill. I think it is sensible to do it in this way. Certain Deputies wanted to graft on to the Bill their own detailed agendas for the commission's existence, some of which had attractions. The fundamental approach taken by the Minister is that the commission must have the freedom to fix its own priorities so that it will not be trammelled in several years' time by the fashions of this year or decade.

It is a long time since the explanatory memorandum was published. The Minister for Finance insisted that the memorandum accompanying the Bill should detail the provisions of each section. I do not propose to restate the memorandum section by section. The few adjustments since then have been confined to two areas. One adjustment relates to the role of the commission in legal proceedings arising from members' exercise of their functions as Members of a House or a committee. The other adjustment, which takes up more than a page, is the detailed restatement of the Public Service Management Act which sets out the obligations imposed on the Secretary General and their adaptation to an office independent of the Government.

The commission should be empowered to deal with its finance and staff and the organisation of the office. The Minister is anxious to maximise the autonomy of the commission, but he is equally determined to retain his controlling powers on pay, pensions and conditions of members and personnel paid from the commission's budget. This provision is not a grab at local power to stymie the commission or members. It is unavoidable in a country where public service pay accounts for a massive chunk of public expenditure, where comparability is often a determinant of pay rates for groups which have no ostensible contact and where unions and members assiduously track down anomalies in small organisations which can be used to build pay increases across a wide front.

The Bill envisages the transfer of various functions from the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach and the Minister for Finance to the commission. The commission will determine the funding, staffing and organisation of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is proposed that the Minister for Finance will retain powers in relation to the rates of pay and allowances of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and in relation to the rates of pay, allowances and grading of the officers and joint staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. These powers relate, for the most part, to grades that are linked throughout the Civil Service. The commission will have responsibility for funding and staffing.

I have made clear that this Bill involves the handing over to the commission of virtually all of the Minister for Finance's functions in relation to the staffing of the office. The Minister will retain responsibility for pay and pension matters affecting Members and staff. Under section 12, the commission is required to obtain the consent of the Minister for Finance if it wishes to create posts at or above principal or higher level. The main grade above this level in the Civil Service is Assistant Secretary General, at which level there is a relatively small number of office holders. It is important that no local arrangement should lead to a dilution of the quantity and quality of work normally attaching to such posts. It is the Minister's intention to operate this unusual arrangement by sanctioning such posts only where he is satisfied that there is consistency in the work being carried out at that level across all Government offices.

One of the functions ascribed to the commission is to provide legal advice to Members on matters arising from their membership of the Dáil or Seanad. This is something that, I suspect, all of us believed was available as a matter of course. In recent years the growth of a litigation consciousness has meant that individual Members often felt under threat from matters arising outside formal sessions of the Houses or committees where constitutional or statutory immunity applied. In these situations, concerns were voiced about the propriety or legality of obtaining legal advice for them at public expense. Section 4(2)(e) is intended to remove all doubt. It should also be crystal clear from the terms of the subsection that this relates to issues arising from their status as Members and is not a free legal advice service for Members on other issues.

I thank Senators for their attention and conclude by saying I believe the establishment of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission as envisaged by the Bill will prove a great benefit to all parliamentarians, regardless of which House they reside in.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, to the House for this debate. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill is one of the most welcome items of legislation to come before the House for many a day. Decoupling is very much the in-word. I welcome the decoupling of the role of the Minister for Finance in regard to the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I also welcome the intention to set up the new commission which is almost totally autonomous in respect to its functions, staff and services.

I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, has seen fit to introduce this legislation on foot of other measures he has brought in to the benefit of Members of the Oireachtas. I commend him for biting the bullet in regard to the welfare and remuneration of Members. For years, Ministers for Finance have shied away from the obvious need to establish a definite pay grade for Oireachtas Members. They did so on the basis that there would be a public outcry. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, however, introduced a system whereby we are now linked to a particular grade within the Civil Service, thus making pay awards or benchmarking increases automatic.

In the past, news of a pay increase for Deputies and Senators became a front page story in all newspapers, while at the same time the media studiously ignored the salary awards to members of the Judiciary, Ministers and Ministers of State. Such pay rises will no longer grab the same headlines and the Minister for Finance deserves to be commended on that.

The Minister has made his mark from the point of view of looking after the welfare of Oireachtas Members in terms of a tax allowance, telephone allowance and constituency allowance. He has left an indelible imprint etched in the minds of Members of the previous Dáil and Seanad and the present Members. His legacy will also be remembered by future generations of parliamentarians.

This legislative proposal is extremely welcome for a number of reasons. The commission will be composed of 11 Oireachtas Members. I assume that membership will be assigned on a party ratio basis to ensure equilibrium.

I welcome the fact that the Clerk of the Dáil will be a member of the commission and will, effectively, be its chief executive, or as the role is termed in the Bill, the Secretary General. I do not think, however, that the Minister has made a cogent argument for the exclusion of the Clerk of the Seanad. This is something we can revisit on Committee and Report Stages.

I also welcome the concept of the three-year block grant. I am delighted the Minister has introduced a degree of flexibility to counteract the possibility of funds drying up. The fact that the commission can expend 50% of the previous year's allocation is a sensible measure. I am pleased that the legislation will require to be updated after three years, which will provide us with an opportunity of assessing the degree of workability or progress in the meantime.

The key question dominating the minds of Members of both Houses is what the Bill will deliver in terms of better facilities for Members, an improved staff ratio and services. It is useful in that regard to examine the situation in this House, which has taken on far more legislation than in the past. Bills are now frequently initiated here. We have more sittings than ever before. For example, we now sit on average three days a week. This week and next week we will sit for four days. This places far more demands on both Members and the staff of the House. In spite of this, I understand that there has not been any increase in the staff composition of the Seanad for 30 years. That speaks for itself.

The Minister acknowledges that he is a relative newcomer to parliamentary life. He landed on his feet, however, being parachuted into ministerial office on day one. He delivered an excellent speech today, as he always does. While he does not need anybody to write his speech, the reality is that somebody wrote it for him. He delivered it very well. I have been in a similar position. Sometimes I received a script five minutes before delivery time. It is a lovely feeling not to have to sit down at 11 p.m. at night after the close of business to draft a script. It is wonderful to have something tailor-made and presented off the script-writing conveyor belt.

The picture is rather different, however, for Opposition spokespersons in both Houses, in that no research facility is available to them. In the Dáil, I was the Fine Gael spokesman on education for three to four years, marking a most tenacious Minister for Education who is now the Leader of the House. I had absolutely no research facilities or backup. I put together a coterie of well-disposed experts on various aspects of my portfolio.

I was a French teacher. More recently I was landed with the job of Fine Gael spokesman on justice, equality and law reform. At the time, more justice legislation went through the House than ever before. I had to compete with a Minister who had an array of civil servants behind him. It is a well-nigh impossible task. The fact that people do it and do it reasonably well, in terms of putting the Minister under a certain amount of pressure, is a tribute to the degree of diligence that the Members apply in terms of trying to get their heads around complex legislation.

I was also party spokesman on tourism, communications and transport. Again, I was faced with the same impossible task. I am relating my experience as an example of the circumstances with which an Opposition spokesman must contend. It is crucial that we have additional research facilities. Research is vital from the point of view of participation in the democratic process and in terms of being constructive in respect of legislation. It is good for Government that the Opposition spokespersons are well briefed and able to put forward constructive ideas in their input into legislation. That is vital and it does not present a threat to the Government because ultimately it has a majority and legislation invariably goes through at the Government's behest.

While I welcome the provision for an annual report, I get the impression that it is simply an audit in relation to how the expenditure was used. I would like to see in the report a type of benchmarking in respect of whether the facilities, services and staff levels have improved and whether there has been a commensurate increase in the performance of Members.

The changes are necessary, not alone for Opposition Members, but also for Government backbenchers who have an unenviable task and who do their job without the benefit of research facilities. I share a secretary with another Senator who divides time between us. That is untenable at a time when we are initiating legislation through the House. Notwithstanding that, I applaud the fact that the Government now sees fits to initiate legislation through the Upper House. Having been in both Houses, I find that debates in this House are generally far more constructive than in the other House, in that they do not seem to be as confrontational.

We urgently need research services. A relevant example is that of the Northern Ireland Assembly which, with a much smaller membership than this House and far smaller than the 166 Member Dáil, has 28 full-time researchers available to Members of the Assembly. In the embryonic Parliament in Scotland, which is also much smaller than our Houses, there are 42 researchers. I could go through a list of parliaments where research facilities and the ratio of researchers to Members are quite satisfactory, in terms of providing the service which Members need. In addition to having an annual report as to how expenditure was incurred, together with total accountability and transparency, we also need to a report on the efficacy of the legislation in effecting delivery.

Section 7 of the Bill deals with the position of acting chairperson. The chairperson, as I understand it, will be the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil. Section 7 deals with the question as to who takes over as deputy or substitute chairperson. The explanatory memorandum states: "It also makes provision for the appointment of an acting chairperson by the commission." In an earlier discussion, the Minister acknowledged that the Clerk of the Seanad is not included in the commission. However, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad will be a member. There is no reason the Cathaoirleach should not be the deputy or assistant chairperson of the commission, under a specific provision in the Bill. I will move an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage.

I welcome the provision for legal advice to Members. As one who has spent the last two days in the High Court and will spend many hours in the Morris Tribunal, by virtue of the fact that I acted responsibly but outside the jurisdiction of the Houses, as did Deputy Brendan Howlin, I welcome the fact that, at long last, legal advice will be made available to Members of the Houses. We need legal advice urgently. We need the form of protection to which Members are entitled but which, in this particular case, we did not get. Deputy Howlin and I are both on a hazard in relation to our legal expenses before the High Court and the Morris Tribunal. We are on a hiding to nothing – we are, literally, at the mercy of the judges concerned in the High Court and the Morris Tribunal. Clearly, Members are under threat. A great deal will depend on the determination by the High Court now sitting and the Morris Tribunal as to what Members can or cannot freely do in discharging their functions as responsible Members of either House.

Again, I welcome the Bill, which is an excellent measure. I will have a number of amendments on Committee Stage which, I presume, will take place next week. I hope that, as a result of constructive input from all sides of the House, this excellent Bill will be further improved.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I welcome the Bill and also the comments of the Fine Gael spokesperson on finance, with nearly all of which I agree. This legislation is of particular interest to me, as one who worked in the Houses of the Oireachtas intermittently, mainly when in Opposition, over the past 20 years. Even if I was paid from the famous leader's allowance, I would like to believe I was a necessity, rather than a luxury.

This Bill gives the staff of the Oireachtas the status of a Government Department. In my view, the perceived status to date has been somewhat ambiguous or in limbo. People may have been unclear as to whether they were the equivalent of a Department or some subordinate part of the public service. The Bill puts them on a par with Government Departments. I believe that is to the benefit of those who work here, in that their professional status is absolutely clear vis-à-vis other Departments.

Some members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, parliamentary staff, may aspire to – and actually achieve – membership of one House or the other. Indeed, one of our most famous patriots, Erskine Childers Senior, was a clerk of the House of Commons for a period. In this regard, I support the views of others, notably the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, that there should be a portrait of Mr. Childers in Leinster House, because of his contribution to Irish independence. However, I would not necessarily hang the portrait quite next door to that of Arthur Griffith.

As a Member of this House, given where I have come from, I have had some difficulty in becoming accustomed to the degree of support, assistance and even deference we receive from a very helpful staff of the Houses. I believe we owe a similar deference to the staff of the Houses in return, as all of us are working in the same direction. I very much endorse Senator Higgins's comments on the need for further improvements in staffing arrangements and, like him, I acknowledge the steady improvements made over the years, especially the significant difference which the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has brought about.

This has been an ongoing process over the past 20 years or more, on a cross-party basis. Deputy John Bruton made important improvements and reforms in the Houses, as one of his achievements as Leader of the other House in the 1980s. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, also made improvements in conditions in the Houses. Following one of the famous leadership heaves in Fianna Fáil, a Fine Gael Deputy told me he was glad Mr. Haughey had survived, having regard to his work in improving conditions for Members in the Houses. We are steadily modernising and improving the situation in the Houses.

Having already paid tribute to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, there is a further step to be taken if we wish to attract and retain people of high calibre. If we are honest with ourselves, all of us know we could not do half our present work – and some of us might find it difficult to be re-elected – without the back-up support we receive from the general staff of the Oireachtas and our personal staff. Like Senator Higgins, I was disappointed by the decision to round down the entry level salary for secretarial assistants to Members. I hope that will be looked at again with a view to rectifying it – I do not consider it a just decision.

Of course, I accept the provision in the Bill whereby the Department of Finance has an overseeing role in relation to pay and conditions, having regard to read-across factors and so on. However, in all justice, I would like to have that issue reviewed again in the light of pay and conditions for people working in similar capacities in other democracies. Obviously, one does not expect to have, say, 27 staff to an office, as one finds in the House of Representatives or the US Senate. Ours is a much smaller country. Things must be proportionate.

As Senator Higgins pointed out, it is time each of us had a full-time secretary. There is a lot of give and take in sharing a secretary and we all try to do the best we can with the system. However, it puts a lot of pressure on the individual concerned. There is an old saying in the Bible that no man or woman can serve two masters, yet that is precisely what we are asked to do in this House. Most of us are full-time Senators or at least we devote a substantial amount of time to the work involved. The days of the part-time or amateur politician are behind us. Changes in the backup system must reflect this.

I agree with Senator Higgins that it should be written into the legislation that the Cathaoirleach is the deputy chairperson. We must recognise in the Constitution the primacy of the other House but there are two Houses of the Oireachtas and it is logical that the deputy chairperson should be recognised. The same applies to the Clerk of the Seanad. It should be written into the legislation that the Clerk of the Seanad is the deputy Secretary General. That would reflect relations in the House. As we know, the people who occupied that position in this House were persons of high calibre.

As regards backup, Senator Higgins, who was also speaking from experience, referred to the script. A Minister coming before the House is expected to be precise, accurate and detailed in what he or she says. We can be more discursive in reply as we are not held to the same degree as a Minister or Minister of State to the strict literal accuracy of our statements. It must be a joint enterprise when putting together a script under direction. That is not only justifiable but also right and proper.

I welcome as enlightened the proposed budgetary arrangements, with the principal exception of the caveat relating to pay and conditions which is justifiable. The rest is delegated, which is proper order. Spending within the House will be under strict Civil Service control, subject to general political direction. People do not need to worry or be concerned about any abuse of that power. I welcome this. Perhaps there is an element of pilot experiment, which is good.

I would like the new commission to pay adequate attention to the resources available to the Oireachtas Library, which are important. We must bear in mind that the Oireachtas Library is close to the National Library of Ireland and Trinity College in terms of getting books. However, it is not that aspect about which I am thinking. Perhaps its contents should reflect a little more the fact that we are members of the European Union. I would like to see it subscribe to a few of the principal European publications. We need to get into the habit of looking at and studying a perspective outside the purely anglophone sphere. I have had so many experiences in the past 20 years of where our vision was limited because we only looked at what the Irish and English papers said. We can learn from different dimensions from France, Germany and other countries. I do not like the trend in recent years in relation to Europe in that we seem to have become increasingly anti-French and anti-German, for which I see little basis.

I commend and congratulate the Office of Public Works, for which the Minister of State has responsibility, for all it did to refurbish Leinster House, including the Leinster House 2000 extension. I suppose it would be an extravagance at present but perhaps in time when there is adequate funding, it would be desirable to have an underground car park and remove cars from Leinster House lawn. I accept that is not a matter for now.

I support the Bill which is enlightened legislation. All Oireachtas Members would agree that is a factor in terms of improving the productivity of this House, an issue raised by Senator O'Toole or another Member yesterday on the Order of Business in relation to benchmarking. We are all concerned to improve the productivity, efficiency and performance of this House. As was once stated not too long ago, a lot done, more to do.

That is right. I am sure the Minister of State knows my views on this legislation. It is a victory for the bureaucrats. Politicians have been stitched up. There is about as much wriggle space left in this legislation as one would find in a tin of sardines. Every possible angle is covered, every possible proposal is circumscribed and every possible attempt to do the things we wanted to do is tied up.

I refer to the end of the Minister of State's speech. How long did it take him to think of the sentence at the end of it? I am sure it is the type of thing he thinks about every morning when driving from Birr. I am sure it represents his point of view and is part of his party's policy. It states:

The main grade above this level in the Civil Service is Assistant Secretary General, at which level there is a relatively small number of office holders. It is important that no local arrangement should lead to a dilution of the quantity and quality of work normally attaching to such posts.

Is that a problem for the Minister of State? Does he think about it a lot? Perhaps he might tell me how many Secretaries General are in the Department of Finance. We know there is only supposed to be one in every Department. Perhaps, therefore, he could explain to the House the reason there is still a Secretary General of the Department of Public Service, which has not been in existence for many years. Perhaps he could tell us how many deputy and assistant Secretaries General there are to enable us to have something to go on in terms of our small approach to the world and ensure we do not get it wrong when we look at it here.

There is an inference that we would dilute the quantity and quality of work normally associated with these posts. Those who work at that level in these Houses – I have known them for 17 years – act above and beyond what is expected of them in terms of hours. I hope the Minister of State will distance himself from the implication that they work below par. He is blessed, unfortunately, with the most solid advice on this legislation. I spent 16 years arguing with them and have yet to win an argument. Unfortunately, I am worried about it.

There have been two Ministers in the past 20 years. One was John A. Boland who died recently while the other is the current Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. Both showed courage in their approach to supporting the political process in terms of the people involved in it and took great public opprobrium and criticism for those decisions.

It has been my lot many times over the last ten years or more to represent the Houses of the Oireachtas in negotiations and representations, some public and some private. Over that period of time, the most amenable response I have received from anybody was from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who shows a clear understanding of the needs of Members of both Houses and makes no distinction among party backgrounds. He is as concerned about quality and output as anybody else and recognises that there is no question of diminished productivity in this House.

It is important that we set up supports for those in this House to ensure some sort of family-friendly system. It is impossible for people to have normal domestic and family responsibilities and be effective public representatives. That is not a whinge – it is just a fact. Supports such as I have mentioned would be helpful, but we have not yet managed to establish these.

There are issues in this Bill which are unclear to me, although I have spent many years working on various sub-committees in these areas. I am delighted that at last we have a Bill about which we can argue. We have been waiting for it long enough. I cannot remember how many sub-committees and joint committees I have participated in over the years which tried to deal with this matter by considering how things were done in various places. It is still unclear to me, however. I defy the Minister of State to explain in his response to Second Stage the relationship between the commission we are establishing and, for instance, the Joint Committee on House Services. How these organisations are to work within this system is not mentioned at all. The real problem with this legislation, which has not even been referred to, is that although there are two issues with which we deal every day – parliamentary procedures and services for Members – this legislation deals solely with services for Members. The distinction between the two areas is utterly artificial and is not common in other parliaments, but it is being made in this Parliament.

I have looked very closely at what happens in other places – previous speakers have mentioned some of them. We should consider how various other parliaments do their business. The New Zealand Parliament has an interesting approach. Every member has two secretarial staff, one in Parliament and the other in his or her constituency. That is completely unrelated to research, however. Senator Higgins spoke about this and he was absolutely right. In some parliaments I have examined in the course of preparing reports, there are support structures based around the library and research system so that a person who must deliver a major speech or give some input to a committee can, within 24 hours or less, have academically researched, non-politically biased information. That is what we should be striving for.

We should never forget the objective of public representation. We are not required to be experts on all the legislation that comes up week by week – taxis tomorrow, opticians this morning and so on. Nobody could do that. The point of public representation is that people are elected to assess the information, come to a conclusion and then legislate. That is not happening here. What is happening is that throughout all Stages of a Bill, people must find out all the information themselves in an unbiased way, come to a conclusion and then try to frame legislation. I do not know anybody, other than among those with a legal background, who has managed to write out a full Bill. One can write amendments – we have all produced two or three-page amendments to legislation – but to put together greenfield legislation is probably a year's work and there is no support here.

Surely it is appropriate that I should be able to bring in legislation dealing, for example, with some aspect of the environment after writing it from scratch. I should have access to a draftsperson. The Leader of the House mentioned yesterday that we had access to one, but she was incorrect. The one time I had to go through the process of developing a Bill, I had to hire a retired parliamentary draftsperson.

The Leader of the House was referring to a legal adviser.

That is right – there is legal advice. When it comes to writing up the legislation and covering all the angles, though, it is much harder. Even among those of us who have been here a long time and understand the way things operate, I do not think anyone would feel competent to write a Bill from scratch – it would be impossible.

The relationship between this commission and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is also important. Some of the roles of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will move across to this new commission – if they do not, they should. A huge, artificial distinction has been made between procedures and services. The reason is very simple: the Department of Finance has not the slightest interest in procedures. The Department does not care what we do. It does have an interest in the services, however, because that is where the cheques go at the end of the day. This Bill is finance-driven in that sense.

Senator Mansergh referred to benchmarking and he was absolutely right – we must consider the Bill in that context. The whole benchmarking issue, however, developed out of partnership. The whole point of partnership was consultation and involvement in decision making. We are here putting legislation together, but the commission overseeing everything has no representation from the staff of the Houses. This goes against every speech made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance about the importance of people bringing their brains to work, giving support to management and having an input into decision making. It is appalling that there is no place on the commission for even one representative of the staff of the Houses. It cannot be right.

I cannot see the objection to doing this. Perhaps there are people in the Houses who do not have the confidence to deal with the staff and who feel that the only way we can hold a position of status is to be above them and looking down on them, but for people who think clearly about these issue, that cannot be a sustainable position. It is absolutely appalling that there is no representative from the staff on the commission. Members should look at all the documentation that has come out. They should read about benchmarking and the 56-page document dealing with the proposals in the various areas of education, health, civil service and local government. Bringing people into the decision-making process is crucial. People are being asked to share decision-making and to have some stake in the area in which they work. We have not given the staff any access to the commission – not even observer status. There is no participation whatever. It is a formula for problems.

If I were the general secretary of the union representing the staff of this House we would be going on strike over this issue, if only because of the lack of respect for the people on whom the Members depend. We praise the staff here at the end of each session and speak of the importance of what they do. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges and every committee of the House relies on them. We would be nowhere without them. At the same time, we cannot give them any input into the commission – even a non-voting or ex officio role. It is not right.

I must return to the question of research. I accept the important point made by Senator Mansergh that we should not only be considering Anglophone parliaments, but we must consider what is happening on these islands. Our structure is that of a post-colonial, Westminster-type legislature and we must look at others of this type. I mentioned New Zealand and I could outline in great detail similar legislation they have dealt with, which is about ten times the size of ours and deals with all the issues of which I have spoken.

Look at Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Westminster. Look at the three new bodies in particular. As part of the preliminary work to this legislation, a few of us went up to Stormont to look at the level of support legislators are given there. The support people have here is a joke. We have people working in the Library of this House who are absolutely committed and supportive and who would do anything for us. However, they are completely overstretched and are in need of a research area.

In other parliaments it is like the list in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Knowledge is divided into certain areas with a certain number of people working in each section, and they become the experts in that area. Whether it is environmental or justice legislation, one can ask these people to do the research and send out the information. The Minister should know they do not write speeches, or give a party political line, but they supply information and carry out research. That is the way it should work.

I was disappointed that I could not get agreement that every Member of this House should have at least one person supporting them, either in a secretarial or political capacity. I know it is impossible to work without their assistance.

I also accept the point that not all Senators have a similar approach. I am burdened with a constituency of 100,000 people, with six of us in the group. If any one of those people decides to write to their constituents, everything stops for a fortnight. That is the reality. There is an understanding that we will increase the numbers, but it is certainly unfair at the moment. With only 60 people in the House dealing with the same volume of legislation as the other House, it would seem for legislative reasons alone there is three times the reason for having support here as in the other House. In order to make it work it must be done.

One of the problems we found, and this is the difficulty, is that very often people are loth to employ another 200 people just to lick envelopes and press labels on them. We are trying to get away from that. With a structured approach, looking at the research, the Library, the constituency work, which is equally important and I take nothing from it, we could get a balanced approach. At the moment it is not working.

Attempts to restrict the legislation are in every line of it, for example, Part 2, section 4(2)(c)(i) clause (II). It is almost impenetrable in parts.

This is an important move forward. However, it does not do what it sets out to do. Classically, most of the people in both Houses will not take a blind bit of notice of this. In the way all wrong decisions are taken, we never look after ourselves here. If ever anyone needed a trade union it is the Members of these Houses. They could say, "These are our objectives, this is when we want to get them and we are not going to stop until we do," but the Members back off every time.

This should not be compared with the Final Report of the Joint Committees of both Houses, who looked at this last year and the year before. It is a completely different thing. It does not do the business. Effectively, the reduction in the costings from, I am not sure of the figures, €350 million to €290 million, means we are going to pay the price. The whole world knows that if there is any figure that has to be right when setting up a new enterprise it is the first figure. After that it is a percentage increase on a year by year basis, which means we will not be able to do what we set out to do.

I did not have enough time to deal with the question of how the commission will do its work, how it will operate in a decision-making capacity in terms of consultation and how it will look at the needs of both Houses, where it would see mergers and make itself felt in a positive way. Legislation is crucial and it is important that we should be in charge of our own budget, but I cannot see that this will do what we set out to do a number of years ago.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, to the House.

Not for the first time, Senator O'Toole has brought his forensic powers to bear on a Bill. I agree with many of his comments. I do not agree with him on the area of financing. The sum of €295 million, which is allocated over a three year period, is reasonable. I realise it is less than the figure originally suggested, but the estimate for this year is €82 million, and that in itself is an increase from the previous year. In those circumstances the amount of money allocated is reasonable.

I accept that point.

The Bill represents a significant advance, notwithstanding some of the deficiencies about which I too am concerned and which I will address presently.

It is important that we recognise the constitutional importance of this. Article 15 of the Constitution states:

The Oireachtas may make provision by law for the payment of allowances to the members of each House thereof in respect of their duties as public representatives and for the grant to them of free travelling and such other facilities (if any) in connection with those duties as the Oireachtas may determine.

It can be seen then that we have very substantial powers under the Constitution. The reality is that someone else has to pay, and in that respect the Minister for Finance has always been in a very strong position. It is worth recording the fact that the power rests with us under the Constitution, therefore we are entitled to exercise that power.

Another aspect of this legislation referred to by several speakers is research. I share the view that our facilities are grossly inadequate in that respect. However, we have to acknowledge that things have improved enormously. I have been a Member of the House for 13 years. When I came here we had only a golf-ball typewriter. The only equipment we received on my first day here was a dictaphone. When I asked where the fax was, I was told it was in party headquarters. When I asked where the PC was, I was told I was to bring my own, and even if I did it was not insured as the Government carried the insurance on the Houses of the Oireachtas. This demonstrates that we have come a good distance from the situation in 1989 and that is to be welcomed, but we still have some distance to go.

One of the principal areas where improvement is necessary is research. I share the view of Senator Higgins that it is much more difficult, when in Opposition, to respond effectively to legislation or to anything that is coming through. This is not to make any party political point, but I believe that the legislation passing through the Houses, even statements on policy issues, could be greatly enhanced by proper research support, particularly on the Opposition side of the House.

When I was on that side of the House and amendments to Bills were required, it was frequently the staff in the Clerk's office, at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night, who were helping us to draft the amendments. That is what it came down to, unless one had the expertise of some legal eagle available to help. That is not good enough. Apart from the politics of it, there is the implementation and improvement of the law to be considered. It is just not good enough.

Anyone who has been to Capitol Hill will be aware that they have the Library of Congress with a staff of hundreds available to members. If one wants research done on a subject on which one will be speaking that evening and one asks for it in the morning, it will be supplied. That is on a different scale and I am not suggesting we replicate the Library of Congress as that is impossible. Nevertheless, there is an inadequacy here and it will have to be attended to. One of the effects of that inadequacy is to give a disproportionate power to lobbyists. They can produce facts, figures and propositions that we are not in a position to challenge or analyse properly due to the absence of an empirical, independent back up. It is an important issue.

I very much share the concern, voiced by Senator O'Toole, that staff are not represented on the commission. When I read that, I could not believe it. We fought here for years to get farmers' representatives, consumers' representatives and staff on to boards of semi-State and State bodies, in which we were successful. That is taken as read. I cannot understand why there is no staff representative on the commission; I find it incomprehensible.

I have no difficulties with the concept of the commission and the way in which it is structured, although the Cathaoirleach should have been given a concrete role. I realise that the Ceann Comhairle will be the chairman of the commission, but perhaps there is a role for the Cathaoirleach as acting chairman.

Section 3(2) states:

(a) If Dáil Éireann by resolution so declares, section 4(7), in so far as it relates to Dáil Éireann or a Committee appointed by Dáil Éireann, shall come into operation on such day as may be specified in the resolution.

(b) If Seanad Éireann by resolution so declares, section 4(7), in so far as it relates to Seanad Éireann or a Committee appointed by Seanad Éireann, shall come into operation on such day as may be specified in the resolution.

(c) If Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann by resolution so declare, section 4(7), in so far as it relates to a Committee appointed by both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, shall come into operation on such day as may be specified in the resolution.

I do not understand why subparagraph (c) is included or why both Houses are joined therein when they have been treated separately in the preceding two subsections. I am sure there is a good reason for it, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say.

I welcome the provision concerning the initiation of legal proceedings that has been covered by Senator Higgins's comments. The issue of privilege is very important, as those of us on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and even those who are not, are aware. While the general issue of privilege is slightly different to the provision as envisaged in the Bill, nevertheless it is related by virtue of the fact that legal proceedings can be initiated by the commission. The absolute privilege of Members must be protected and we will have an opportunity to enunciate that in the courts which, hopefully, will find in our favour.

If we have a constitutional right not to be impeded in approaching the Houses of the Oireachtas, which was granted to protect democracy, the logic of the other section dealing with the privilege of documents, would apply with even greater force. That, however, is something to be resolved by the courts and I hope it will be resolved in our favour.

Section 13(3) states:

In each year a statement of estimates of the Commission shall be–

(a) presented to Dáil Éireann, on a motion that Dáil Éireann take note of the statement, by a member of the Commission who is a member of Dáil Éireann, or any other member of Dáil Éireann nominated by the Commission for that purpose .

That is correct and I realise the difference, in terms of financial legislation, between the Dáil and the Seanad. However, I do not see why the statement of estimates cannot also be presented to the Seanad, if only to note it, and even if it is not a question of a financial resolution. I do not understand why, under the provisions of the Bill, the Seanad should not be acquainted with the statement of estimates because, in dealing with the audited accounts and the annual report, the legislation refers to both Houses. I understand the legislative differences between both Houses in dealing with money Bills, but, nevertheless, the Seanad should at least be advised of the statement of estimates.

Senator Mansergh was correct in stating that more people are now working as full-time Members of the Oireachtas. When I first became a Member of the House some 13 years ago, it was almost impossible to do the job unless one had another source of income. It was difficult to be a full-time Senator by virtue of the salary that was payable at that stage. While I am not complaining about this, the reality was that in my case, and I am sure in the case of many others, there was a substantial fall in income when transferring from the private sector to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Things have changed in that respect.

Senator O'Toole, some other Senators and I were involved in the presentations to the various Buckley commissions on public sector salary levels. One important lesson we drew from the second presentation made to the Buckley commission was that it was done on a joint basis by both Houses. Deputy Tony Killeen was the chairman of the committee that made the presentation and it was much more effective.

A much more unified approach is needed by both Houses. While the compartmentalisation of matters to the individual Committees on Procedure and Privileges is understandable, some of these matters have historical overtones that are now unhelpful in operational terms. For example, when we were discussing the portraits in the front hall of Leinster House, I stated that the portrait of the President should be there because any foreign parliaments I have visited all featured such portraits of their Heads of State. Happily, that was done here but the idea first had to be adopted by the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It seems to take a long time to make those simple decisions, so perhaps the process could be re-examined.

I share the views concerning the role that the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has played in improving matters in the Oireachtas. It should be acknowledged that he has been enormously helpful to Members in accepting the need to cater for their requirements. There is no question but that, over the years, the workload on Oireachtas Members has increased, which, apart from the improvement in salary levels, may have led to people to adopt a more full-time approach to their duties. I am not stating that as a complaint but as a matter of fact and I think it is good that the workload has increased.

The other good aspect of that change is that it tied salaries to a particular grade in the Civil Service, thus removing the political upheaval when Members, as it was perceived, awarded themselves pay increases. As a result, there was a huge diffidence towards improving matters. It was a good idea to tie our salaries to a Civil Service grade so that an increase in that particular grade feeds through automatically to Members, thus removing the issue from the political arena.

I have emphasised the fact that the staff will not be represented on the commission, but Oireachtas staff cannot be treated in the same way as those in other Government Departments. The point has been made that local arrangements should not apply, but sometimes the House has sat until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. and the staff in the Clerk's Office have been present to advise us. At times when Bills have moved from Committee Stage to Report Stage at 10 p.m., the staff have been able to produce the amendments within 15 minutes and supply everybody with copies. We should realise the work these people are doing, which is not the same as in other Departments. The expertise, goodwill and support for Members by the Oireachtas staff is unparalleled. The staff are always there when they are required and that fact has to be recognised through local arrangements, if that is what it takes. I also support the comments that have been made concerning the staff of the Oireachtas Library.

As Senator Mansergh said, there is a need to look beyond the fence because our horizon seems to stop at the English Channel. Thankfully, our membership of the European Union has helped in that respect, but the Senator is correct in saying that there is still some way to go because, much of the time, we do not see beyond the neighbouring island.

We have reached the point where one secretary should be allocated to each Member of the Oireachtas, although I understand that such matters require resources. The former Deputy and Minister, Des O'Malley, used to regale us with stories about Leinster House when he was first elected over 30 years ago. He had to share a secretary with four other Deputies, but the secretary had one favourite Deputy whose demands would occupy the typewriting duties, so one would be lucky to get two hours' secretarial work per week. Thankfully, we have moved on from that, but the workload has increased so one secretary per Member is a minimum requirement.

The way around the secretarial allocation issue is to allocate, as is the case in many other parliaments, a sum of money and then let Members decide whether they want a part-time a secretary, a full-time secretary and/or a research assistant. I am not saying that Members should pocket the money; they should have to vouch for its expenditure. There may be some merit in examining that system.

Closer co-operation between both Houses is needed. Most joint committees relate to areas of ministerial responsibility, matters on which perhaps there should be more joint action. The commission reflects such action.

The fabric of the Houses has expanded enormously. The new building is functioning satisfactorily. While I would like the underground car park to be built, I realise the cost. I cannot understand, when a car park was built across the road, why somebody did not allocate car parking spaces there. We were told cars would be removed from Leinster Lawn when the new building was finished. They are still parked there and I suspect still will be in ten years' time. If we are serious about the heritage and fabric of the country, we are not giving good example. The lawn should be restored and the cars parked elsewhere. It is up to somebody to find a place for them.

The Houses could be a source of revenue, which they are to an extent but they are a significant tourism asset. It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is to get in here, although I understand the security reasons. I walked in off the street into the state capitol building in Raleigh, North Carolina on a Saturday morning. Once I had proved who I was and produced my passport I could wander around the place. There is not a possibility that could be done in the Houses. I do not say that is what should happen but this issue should be examined. The public should have easier access. It must be regulated, as people cannot be allowed to walk around willy nilly. Perhaps that issue can be examined.

The Bill is a significant improvement which has helped to concentrate our minds on how the Houses work, are financed and the facilities required. From that point of view, it is to be welcomed.

I join others in welcoming the Minister of State. This is a good Bill, which I welcome. I listened with interest to Senator O'Toole's jaundiced approach to it. While I understand where he is coming from, if his fears were to be realised, he would have good cause for concern. The legislation reserves certain powers to the Minister and his officials which we hope will not be used that often. For example, a veto on the remuneration of staff is reserved to the Minister. However, I understand the reason that is the case as there would be a difficulty in providing that the commission, uniquely in the Civil Service, would be able to independently make local arrangements. Nonetheless, it is a pity in that we should have trusted ourselves a little more. However, when push comes to shove, it is a matter of whether the Department of Finance is willing to trust us, and it will come as little surprise to us that it does not.

It is good that the legislation takes the operation of the Houses out of the shadow of the Department of Finance. Multi-annual budgeting is the most important factor in this regard. I followed with interest the efforts of the Department over the past four or five years to introduce multi-annual budgeting throughout the Civil Service but it has not had the effect expected. It has not worked at all, partly because of the swings in the management of public expenditure generally. However, it remains a good principle that Departments or, in this case, the commission will know on a year to year basis how much money will be available and will be able to plan accordingly.

One of the most unsatisfactory elements of public expenditure is that Departments, agencies and bodies are obliged to make a grab for whatever money is available in a given year because they think it may not be available the following year. This makes the development of services in a sensible way almost impossible. It is good that, through multi-annual budgeting, the commission will know in advance how much will be available, for example, over a three year period. I hope it will develop services in a sensible way that will provide good value for money.

I refer to the issue of support and research services. These difficulties are experienced mainly by Members of this House and Opposition parties in the Dáil. As Labour Party spokesperson on finance in the Lower House, I had to address party issues and legislation and policy matters. However, I also dealt with European issues. As a result, I met Ministers who were members of the social democratic and socialist parties in the European Parliament prior to ECOFIN meetings. If the Department of Finance had not kindly provided briefings for me, because officials were concerned about what I might say otherwise, I would have been completely out of my depth. Nothing within the structure of the Houses prepares Members for that level of engagement. Ministers are accompanied to ECOFIN meetings by a range of officials briefed on their different areas of expertise, whereas I swam in deep water without specialist knowledge or backup.

The relationship between civil servants and Opposition parties has improved significantly during the years. Many civil servants are prepared to deal on a frank basis with Opposition spokespersons, which is in contrast to the position ten or 15 years ago, which is welcome. However, the officials necessarily feel constrained because they cannot comment critically on Government policy, which is fair enough. They work to and for Government and one does not expect that they should.

In addition to the improved relationship with the Civil Service, Opposition Members need independent research, backup and advice services. These services are provided in a number of ways in other parliaments. The Capitol Hill scenario could be followed whereby a pool of researchers is attached to the library and work on projects when asked to do so. If one wants to make a contribution, for example, on carbon energy taxes, one calls the library, outlines the general thrust of the contribution, and the researchers do most of the work.

On balance, allocating resources to parties specifically for research, for which they must account, is probably the best way to provide these services or a researcher could be provided for each Member. The latter option would probably be preferred by all Members in that they then would have two staff, a secretary and a researcher. This ignores the reality that a number of Members in both Houses do not contribute to policy formulation. It would not be a surprise, if that option was taken, to find that both members of the backup staff were used entirely for constituency work. That would not be the purpose or intention of doing this. Therefore, I do not favour going down that road.

The best way to provide these services would be through a combination of resourcing the Oireachtas Library and providing research staff for the parties which could make them available to individual spokespersons as issues arose. Independence is, therefore, an issue. Parties receive a significant cheque in the post on an annual basis for research purposes but I suspect not all of them use it for such purposes.

A provision was introduced in an Act a number of years ago which exempted Independent Members from accounting for the moneys they received from the State. Parties must account for the party leader's allowance, which is correct. We are moving to a position where political parties are increasingly funded by the State and it is right that the expenditure of the money is accounted for under broad headings. Independent Members receive substantial moneys and, while it was impossible to make them accountable when the legislation was introduced two or three years ago because of the configuration of the Dáil at the time, the Government is in a better position to ensure it happens now. The principle of accountability should be extended to Independent Members as well as political parties.

Much has been made of the composition of the commission and the lack of staff representatives. This involves an important principle. Membership of the commission must be extended to include representatives of everybody using the Houses, including, for example, journalists, without whom the Houses could not operate, or a consultative forum should be established on a statutory basis, which would facilitate the exchange of views and information on the provision of services. I understand, from reading the Official Report of proceedings in the Lower House, that the Minister is not greatly taken by that idea but it has considerable merit. Even at this late stage he might give it some consideration.

The issue of secretaries is dear to our hearts. I acknowledge the fact that some people in the House could easily use two secretaries and there are others who could get away with having no secretary at all. I do not know how one deals with that. We must acknowledge the fact that many of us need a dedicated secretary. There must either be a pooling arrangement that is more generous than the current arrangement or a secretary should be allocated to each Senator in the knowledge that there will be a certain amount of wastage. Some means must be found of providing a secretarial back-up and service to people who need it and that is not always currently available.

The problem is not helped by the fact that the pay of secretarial assistants is pretty terrible. It is unfortunate that we are introducing this legislation, which provides us with such a good framework, in the shadow of another mean, penny-pinching exercise on the part of the Department of Finance, which insists that new secretaries must start at the bottom of the clerical officer scale. Secretaries in Leinster House do a wide variety of work, which extends well beyond the normal definition of secretarial assistance. They can be constituency office managers, they frequently deal with the public and they often have a role in dealing with political parties or in the context of election. The job description is very wide and varies from individual to individual. To peg secretaries' entry level pay at the lowest level of the clerical officer grade is entirely unreasonable. Local arrangements must apply in this case. The job is quite different from that of a clerical officer anywhere else in the Civil Service and the pay rates should reflect that fact.

I am pleased that the Bill makes the commission a legal personality. The demands and pressures on Members of these Houses have increased over the years. Senator Higgins is a living embodiment of that, particularly in light of his tribulations and those of Deputy Howlin in the courts this week. I read with interest the section which deals with this matter. While it says the commission may initiate and defend proceedings, it is not clear how that would work in practice. Would individuals have the power to employ their own counsel and to decide how a particular case would work? It is not clear whether there is a clear indemnity in respect of costs and whether, for example, the cost of defending what is happening this week would necessarily be covered by the commission or whether the commission would merely have to discretion to do so. That is not clear from the section and perhaps the Minister would use the opportunity of his reply to clear that matter up for me. I assume that is intended to be the case because there would not be any point in the measure otherwise, but it is not clear from the section as it is currently drafted.

I endorse what Senator Dardis said about Leinster Lawn. It is a pity we have lost the lawn to cars. I would not object, in principle, to paying for car parking. I know the Minister and the Department have been playing with the idea of imposing a benefit-in-kind tax or simply charging for car parking. If that is necessary to get the cars off the lawn and underground, then let us proceed. It should be done.

I was taken with the idea, which was current a year ago in the Office of Public Works, of removing the railings on either side of Leinster House and creating a plaza or square on which would allow the public to come much closer to it. There would, on occasion, be a security considerations and perhaps it would be possible to erect barriers, if necessary.

There is an inner fence closer to the back of the building.

I hope that idea has not been dropped. Deputy Cullen, when he had responsibility for the Office of Public Works, was enthusiastic about it. It would open things up and create two fine public spaces which would enhance Leinster House and the adjoining streets. I urge the Minister to revisit that idea and bring it into play.

This is largely an enabling Bill. It allows us the possibility to transform the way we do things. There are some things we do quite well, some we do pretty poorly and some we do not do at all. Passing this legislation will not change all of that, but it will give us an increased capacity to deal with problems regarding the way the place operates and in respect of the services provided. It will also allow us to deal with the parliamentary procedures we follow. That bears some scrutiny and it is something we should not shirk from doing.

This is a positive Bill and I look forward to contributing further on Committee Stage.

I also welcome the Bill. I endorse many of the remarks of Senators McDowell and Dardis. I would have preferred it if the Houses had been granted their own Vote and did not have to go through the filter of the Department of Finance. Nevertheless, it is an enormous improvement. It is important that the Houses take a grip on their own administration.

I hope the Secretary General, when appointed, will take a good, hard look at the efficiency of the operation. I speak as one who does not put an enormous burden on the administration of the Houses. I am grateful that I do not need to do so. As a student of administration and management, one can see where savings could be made and where efficiencies could be arrived at and better focused on other areas.

I would like to see the Oireachtas Library being developed and research facilities being provided. Doing the latter through the Library would be better than giving each Member a research assistant, regardless of whether they want one. Giving each Member a research assistant means that everyone is a generalist. The way to build up expertise and knowledge is to have it in the Oireachtas Library rather than elsewhere.

I was struck by the membership of the commission. I also think it should include a staff member. I am surprised that the Secretary General should be both a member of the commission and its chief officer. I would also encourage some means of consultation or otherwise with the other users, particularly journalists. Democracy exists through the communication they make and the House would be much reduced in power and influence were it not for the efforts of the journalists who work here. It is important that consideration is given to their position.

Leinster Lawn should be restored. I would go further than most, in that I think Members of both Houses should give an example to the public by using public transport. One of our great problems is the clogging up of the city centre with cars.

I am struck by the number of visitors who come into the Houses and how difficult it is to buy a book about Leinster House or to get a souvenir. This could be a source of revenue.

My own preference would be for secretaries to be pooled, but with a degree of tailoring to meet the needs of individual Senators. It is unreasonable to ask them to work the unsocial hours of these Houses and then regard them as run of the mill civil servants in terms of pay and conditions. There needs to be flexibility in that regard. One of the benefits of the pooling system, particularly if it was allied to some sort of assignment within that to particularly busy Senators, is that it would allow the development of a career structure and a degree of seniority would work its way through.

Much depends on the energy the commission, in particular the Secretary General, attaches to this matter. I look forward to the first strategic plan which will be a key document. I hope it will lay out a bold approach to the development of the services of the Houses and the servicing of the Members. I wish the Bill well.

I wish to share my time with Senator Browne.

I welcome the Bill and the Minister of State to the House. I agree with the views expressed by Senators on many issues. I recall being on an excursion to Canada which had a similar operation to the one being introduced here whereby the parliament looked after its own budget, which was voted on annually. It was a great system. They drew up estimates on what the research units would cost. There were such research facilities in place that if a speaker in the Chamber needed something, he or she could pass a note and have the information delivered automatically while he or she was speaking. Before concluding, the speaker would be able to comment on the issues on which he or she was not well briefed.

Senator Dardis raised the important point that if proper research facilities are not available it will lead to a growth in the number of lobbyists and so on. This is an important point because Opposition Members cannot question briefings given to them by lobbyists and vested interest groups. It is important to be able to make our comments objectively and have information available to us through research units which are not biased.

Like other speakers, I compliment the staff of the House who work tremendously long hours. In some instances they have worked until 2 a.m., 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. Many Members do not fully appreciate how amendments are dealt with. Putting amendments together between Second Stage and Committee Stage or Committee Stage and Report Stage is an enormous task when legislation is going through. A mistake could lead to various court decisions down the road. This is an enormous responsibility in making sure the correct paper work is put before the Members of the House.

I am disappointed that the membership of the Commission does not include representatives of the staff of the Houses. It is important that this should be the case. I welcome the Bill, which is a great step forward. Many important issues have been raised by Members which I hope the Minister of State will take on board.

I thank Senator Burke for sharing his time with me. I welcome the Bill. It is a good idea to separate the operation of the Oireachtas from the role of the Minister for Finance as the person who keeps control over the public finances and yet makes money available to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Like many of my colleagues, I agree that not only should the benefits be passed on to the parliamentarians, they should also be passed on to the general public whom we represent. Obviously if we can enhance the role of our own offices it will be a good result.

Senator Bradford raised the issue of voter turnout, which is falling, and apathy among voters. This is a worrying trend for all of us and we must ask why. There is a great level of ignorance about this House. People are amazed when they come here, see the magnificent Chamber and listen to the high level of debate. Like the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, I am a new kid on the block. We have a major job to do in this House to promote the Seanad and explain to the public what we actually do. It has changed a lot for the better in the past few years.

People do not appreciate the long hours we put in. I had a committee meeting yesterday at 9.30 a.m. and left my office at 11 p.m. I do not claim to have been working non-stop all day, but I certainly was going all day doing different things. People on the outside do not appreciate this, yet one is meant to handle constituency queries and so on. In some respects, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, was lucky to be appointed Minister of State on his first day in the Dáil. However, in other respects, I am lucky because he might not appreciate what I am saying now. All of us here have only half a secretary – in other words, two Members share one secretary, who does tremendous work. However, we will need to expand that service if we are to promote the Seanad.

The Minister for Finance has a hang-up about giving the option to Senators to have a home office. I realise Senators do not have a constituency, therefore they cannot have a constituency office. In order that the argument cannot be put to me, I will use the word "home office". I am lucky that I live just an hour and a half away from Dublin but some of my colleagues live in Donegal, Cork and other far-flung places. Having an office in Dublin is unrealistic, given that we sit for approximately half a year. Members of the Seanad should be given the option of having an office at home if they wish. It will not cost taxpayers a penny extra and it will free up much needed space in Dublin.

With all due respect to the Minister's promises, I wonder about the commitment of the Government in relation to decentralisation when it will not give a maximum of 60 Senators the option of having an office at home. I would be surprised if more than 20 Senators took up the offer because most of them are happy having an office in Dublin. However, they should be given the option.

Many Senators are going to huge expense having an office at home and funding a secretary privately. This is having a severe impact on their financial situation, which is a bit unfair. I hope the Minister of State will consider that suggestion. I back Senator Dardis's suggestion about the use of the funding. The best thing we could do to highlight the Parliament is to promote the Seanad in our home constituencies and make ourselves accessible to the public at all times so that we can raise issues on their behalf.

The Minister of State said that the commission will be of great benefit to all parliamentarians. I agree with that but he should have referred to passing on the benefits to the wider public also. I have worked hard here during my first year. I am looking forward to the break and reviewing how I have performed to see if I can improve in the future.

I hope we can enhance the research facilities. It would be very easy to spend five years in this House just dealing with mundane problems of constituents and dealing with Bills on a day-to-day basis. I believe we have a much greater role than that. We should be asking the hard questions and we should have the research facilities to back up our facts. It is quite noticeable that the Government parties have huge facilities available to them.

They do not.

The Senator, without interruption.

They have more facilities than the Opposition, which is not democratic. It would be in the interests of democracy to have a properly funded Opposition party with proper research facilities. I have seen some Members come to the House with prepared scripts and it is fair to say they were not written by themselves.

That is an assumption. It is not a fair point.

It is an assumption but my point is that, unfortunately, I do not have that facility. We need to properly resource researchers on all sides of the House. Senator Burke's point about the system in Canada was quite interesting. While we cannot equate ourselves to Senators in America, they get $1 million a year to run three or four offices in their respective constituencies, including a huge back-up staff. Obviously we are not comparable but the point is worth noting.

Obviously, we welcome the Bill, although I would be concerned about the politically biased make-up of the commission. It all depends on the mathematics but the fact that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil will be members of the commission will automatically tilt it in favour of the Government. Obviously, we are lucky to have someone of your stature and independence, a Chathaoirligh, but it is something at which we could look in the future. I look forward to Fine Gael playing an active and constructive role in the commission.

I would like to point out that the Cathaoirleach and the Ceann Comhairle will be most impartial and that there will be no bias in that respect.

In theory.

I wish to share time with my colleague, Senator White.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, and thank him for bringing this Bill before the House. I want to ask him about the proposal relating to the timings for the Bill in passing through this House. It has passed through all Stages in the Dáil. Is it possible that we can amend it in this House because from my experience in coming towards the end of a session one cannot make many amendments because a Bill would have to be returned to the Dáil? Perhaps the Minister of State will outline the exact position.

Returning to the House after ten years, I can see major improvements, particularly in the physical structure. The new millennium complex is an excellent addition to the Houses. Therefore, we are starting from a very good base from the point of view that Leinster House 2000 has been put in place in which we have excellent facilities.

The budget of €295 million over three years is massive. It is a good budget for that period. It is right and proper that it should be administered by the Houses, a development I very much welcome. It will not involve radical changes, however, because the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State at that Department have been very supportive of this House but it formalises the arrangements heretofore whereby the Cathaoirleach and the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad have had involvement in their areas of responsibility.

As far as the composition of the commission is concerned, it is appropriate that the cathaoirleach of the commission will be the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann because it has 166 Members whereas there are 60 Members in this House. However, the Cathaoirleach should be deputy cathaoirleach of the commission. I recommend this and ask the Minister of State to amend the Bill accordingly. I request that he table a Government amendment to that effect. It would be only fair, balanced and proper that the Cathaoirleach of this House, the Upper House of the Oireachtas, should be deputy cathaoirleach on the basis of numerical strength alone. This would provide balance.

The Clerk of this House should be both a member and deputy chief executive of the commission. It is not a matter of sleight but of balance and fairness that the Clerk should play an important role. This is a separate House linked with the Dáil. On numerical strength alone, it would be appropriate that the Clerk should be deputy chief executive of the commission.

It is absolutely vital and essential that there should be non-managerial staff of both Houses of the Oireachtas elected as worker representatives on the commission. I cannot believe that these days the Department would deprive workers of the right to have a say in the running of this House.

Why did the Senator's colleagues in the Dáil vote against the Fine Gael amendment?

Senator Leyden, without interruption.

We can amend the Bill in this House. The Minister of State can review the situation as I recommend.

The quality of the staff here is second to none. The respect shown to me, as a former and serving Member, is equal to that experienced in any House of Parliament in the world. Visitors to Leinster House are very impressed by the courtesy shown by the staff of both Houses of the Oireachtas and staff at every grade generally.

The four representatives of the Dáil and three of the Seanad should be elected to their positions. It would be appropriate that politicians should seek support and it would be balanced in that members of the Government parties and the Opposition – the Labour Party, Fine Gael and every other party – would be involved.

On other Oireachtas facilities, there is a great case for an Oireachtas heritage centre within the Houses containing memorabilia and photographs. It would give people coming to Leinster House a feel for the place. There is a lecture theatre which we could develop.

It should be stated in the Bill that the former Members' association would at least have a right of consultation. The parking facility for former Members, offered to me as a former Member, is a marvellous tribute to those who served this House so well. I hope it will always be retained and that we will show respect to former Members who have played a role.

I want to refer to two aspects of the Bill: the commission and the productivity and performance of Members of this House. As the Minister of State called the commission the second pillar, I would support 100% the call that the Clerk of the Seanad should be deputy Secretary General and that the two positions should be under contract. They should not be permanent pensionable positions. The teamwork among staff in the Seanad is most impressive to the say the least.

There are to be four representatives of the Dáil and three of the Seanad. I plead with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance to insist that there should be three women representatives from this grouping. As one of my heroes in Irish politics, Donogh O'Malley, was a predecessor of his in the Office of Public Works, where I myself worked and was a protégé of one of his courses of vision, I would really like to see the Minister of State insist that women form part of the groups of four and three. It is up to him. If he says it, it will happen. If he does not, it will not. Leadership on the participation of women in the Oireachtas must come from the top on each occasion. Each Minister, irrespective of his or her position, must insist that women participate fully.

I totally agree that a staff representative should be a member of the commission. He or she should be elected for one fixed term by members of staff. A member of the press corps should also be elected for a fixed term. Like us, they should be elected. However, they should be elected for a fixed term and should not be allowed to hang on for dear life.

From watching what happens, wastage is an issue. I would give the commission this brief and set a target for achievement of efficiencies. There is much waste of paper around the system. I suggest that the Minister of State give the Secretary General a target for savings in the budget and the reuse of envelopes and paper. Without saying too much, there is an opportunity in that area.

Returning to the point made about members of the public coming and seeing more of the building, Deputy Parlon, as Minister of State responsible for the Office of Public Works, will be aware that the public could come in through the National Library, through the gate downstairs and out the other side into Merrion Square. They would get a feel for the Houses if they could come through that route rather than have to go around by Nassau Street into Merrion Square.

On productivity and performance, as a member of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, I have asked for the programme, Sustaining Progress, and benchmarking to be discussed at our meeting in September. We, in the Oireachtas, are very well paid. While experts appear before meetings of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, there is not adequate research. The Oireachas Library does all it can and those who work in it are outstanding but it is under-resourced. Our party research office is doing its best to cope with everybody. I would like to have objective research, which would not necessarily simply reflect Government policy. This particularly pertains to the short-term to medium-term economic outlook, both nationally and internationally.

I spoke previously about the strength of the euro and the problems it would cause for indigenous Irish companies. We need fully professional research backup. There should be a meritocracy. We should get the best people following public advertisement. Every day I wonder whether I adequately represent the people who elected those who elected me. We need the best research information to do that job properly.

I wish to share time with Senator Kitt. I welcome the Minister of State who has been most assiduous in coming to this House. We always enjoy his company. I welcome the Bill, which is important from the public's point of view. It is also important from a business point of view that the Houses are run like a Department with a Secretary General and commission. This will enhance the Houses of the Oireachtas and give us added status. As Senator White said, it will enable the public to understand the long title of "the Houses of the Oireachtas". Even when I was a Deputy, I regarded it as an insult when people referred to the Dáil. The Oireachtas is made up of the Dáil and the Seanad.

I welcome the fact that the commission will be co-chaired by the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach. There needs to be staff representation which I hope will be rectified at some point. In the modern partnership era where staff members are included in all talks with Government, it is ridiculous that there will be no staff representative on the commission. So strongly do I feel about this that I hope to speak to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach about it. Staff should nominate a person to sit on the commission. I do not know the reason this is not the case.

I echo what has been said about the Clerk of the Seanad who is an excellent person of proven intellectual ability and worth, as are all members of staff here. At times each House seems to work in isolation. We can talk about our own here. I have found the same in my experience of the Dáil. They are very dedicated and go out of their way to help.

Members need proper research facilities to avoid being stymied. While we can have recourse to Ministers' offices and Departments, it must be very difficult for Opposition Members to prepare. We all need access to background information in order to be able to give meaningful submissions and make quality contributions. Research facilities must be properly resourced. This needs to be addressed in the budget of the commission of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Staff to handle constituency matters is a separate issue. We need proper research facilities in order to prepare amendments for review and make submissions on upcoming Bills. It would be to the public good if these were introduced as a feature.

I imagine much of this will evolve. I know the commission will do very well for the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is proper and business like. We need staff representation while the research needs of Members, particularly those from the Opposition, need to be considered. I am very pleased that the Minister for State, Deputy Parlon, will be in charge of the Bill which I have no doubt will fulfil its remit.

I thank Senator O'Rourke for sharing her time and the Minister of State for coming to the House.

Senator Dardis recounted the story former Deputy Des O'Malley told of the number of Deputies who shared an office in his time. I believe my late father shared an office with him and know there was a row as to who was the favourite of the secretary. In the Dáil we have moved on considerably from this. I hope we can move on somewhat in relation to secretarial services for Senators. While Senators operate in different ways, we need personal assistants to carry out research.

Senator Dardis also referred to public access to car parking facilities and the possibility of generating tourism revenue from the Houses. It would be worth following up these ideas. For years there has been a campaign for crèche facilities. Deputy Deenihan has been campaigning for a gym. While it is a long battle to resolve such issues, they merit mention here.

There was mention of you, a Chathaoirligh, being deputy chairman of the commission, which I would support.

Co-chair.

I also support the Clerk of the Seanad being represented on the commission. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has been very positive about linking the pay of Members of the Oireachtas to a particular grade. In the past pay increases were announced, announced again when the order went before the House and announced yet again when paid. The public thought Members of the Oireachtas got three increases when there was just one. I hear the same thing on benchmarking. The media will say the first people to get the award are Members of the Oireachtas.

We have not got it yet.

Everybody will get it. We have not got it yet. I compliment all those involved in finalising the process. I agree that Opposition spokespersons need resources.

Senator Higgins and Deputy Howlin have spoken about their own legal issues. In recent years there was considerable difficulty for Senators and Deputies who, after speaking as the chair or vice chair of a committee, were served with writs. I think in particular of former Deputy Denis Foley who was Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. He had to face a legal writ because of what he said after a meeting, even though he was only reporting on what had been said. I am glad this issue has been addressed in the Bill.

I compliment the staff of the Oireachtas Library where research facilities are available. There has been a link with Trinity College in the past. While it might be under some pressure, I hope it can continue. Perhaps further links to other universities can be established. When the Oireachtas Library is not able to provide the books and literature we need, it needs to find another source.

I thank the Minister of State for coming. I am pleased he is in charge of this area. He has done a great job in a short time and I hope he will keep up the good work.

I thank all the Senators for their contributions which were well thought out. Opposition speakers have received the Bill warmly and been quite generous in their praise for the contribution of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, in improving facilities for staff and Members of the Houses.

Senator Browne referred to us as new kids on the block. I fully appreciate the increasing workload that everybody has to bear. The Senator referred to the hours he spends in the House and he did not insist that he is working flat out. I find that the days are never long enough and any spare time is spent in the office returning telephone calls. The point has been strongly made about the lack of support for Opposition front bench spokesmen. Senator Higgins has made do by himself; he is a tremendous man on his feet and he speaks very succinctly. It is difficult, but that is the way one learns. I accept, however, that a balance will have to be found.

Many Senators spoke about their wish lists for what they would like to see happening in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Most of their comments were positive and well thought out. I will not offer a verdict.

Senator White referred to her concern about gender balance on the commission. That is a matter for both Houses and I will leave it up to the Members. Unfortunately, women are in the minority.

It is quality versus quantity.

Senator White and the Leader of the House are two very forceful ladies, as are some other Members—

Not everyone would call us ladies.

The Minister of State, without interruption.

The issues raised by the Senators will be dealt with by the commission. The make-up of the commission will be vital. We know who three of the members will be and I suspect that the remaining seven will be decided before next January. Obviously that is an important decision to take. I have the utmost faith in both Houses in selecting the right people and that those individuals, when appointed, will fulfil their duties very diligently and will listen to all the proposals put forward.

(Interruptions).

Order, please.

The independence of the commission will be very important for the future.

Senator Higgins referred to decoupling which is a very "in" word at present. I did not receive a full report on the outcome of what happened last night, but I am sure—

If it can be believed.

—I will hear all about it in the coming days.

They were up all night.

The decoupling of the input of the Minister for Finance in terms of administration and passing it back to an independent commission is positive and should lead the way.

The creation of the commission will add to the efficiency of how the House does its business and should add to how we are seen from the outside. Many positive comments have been made about opening up the Houses to the public. We appear occasionally on "Oireachtas Report" and are seen by whoever stays up long enough and has an interest in it. I suspect that the overall public interest is not that great, even though many people go to and fro through the Visitors' Galleries of both Houses. It was the view of the former Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, and of the Office of Public Works to open up the place. Leinster Lawn will certainly be restored. This will have an impact on car parking space. Senator Leyden referred to the importance of providing facilities for former Members. We would need to take over St. Stephen's Green to accommodate all the cars. There may be a case for us as Oireachtas Members to give an example to the general public by using public transport. That is an issue that will be addressed and this will hopefully be done in a positive manner.

There will be increased resources, but the priorities of staff or other facilities will be issues for the commission. As Senator Browne said, it may be a deficiency that I do not have much experience of being a backbencher, but my senior Minister, Deputy McCreevy, has spent more time on the backbenches than most people. He appreciates the situation on the backbenches and would have his own views on the subject. Resources to backbenchers will be an issue to be dealt with by the commission. The money will be available to provide those services and it is a matter of getting the priorities right. The commission will be independent and can decide upon that. The make-up of the commission, whether by gender balance or by political party, will be a factor.

Regarding the issue of the deputy chairperson and the Secretary General, there is provision in the Bill for the chairman to appoint a deputy. There would be a view that the obvious deputy would be the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, but it does not say that has to be the case, nor does it say that it should not be the case. The main reason is that the business of the commission should continue uninterrupted. There may be a problem if both the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad are both working and busy at the same time, but that is an issue that can be resolved and I do not regard it as a major problem.

Senator O'Toole made a few comments. I think he finds it very difficult to get away from his old trade unionist background. He knows that compatibility at the top end of any bureaucracy is crucial. With regard to the appointment of an assistant secretary, the Bill simply makes the Minister check whether the specific duties are in line with the general run of the Civil Service as a whole. It would not make sense if there was an assistant secretary acting with the commission who did not have the same level of duties or responsibilities as their counterparts in other Departments.

The relationship between the commission and the Dáil or the Seanad was raised. The Dáil and the Seanad will decide on what committees should exist and what they should do. Their freedom in this regard will not be affected by any other group. The commission will be a statutory body, with defined statutory functions, and it will be a matter for it and the committee to work out their own practical relationship. I do not foresee any major dilemma there. The commission will play an administrative role in the business of the House and will not impinge on any other aspect.

The section dealing with the issue of legal provisions and indemnity has attracted much attention, both in the office and in the Office of the Attorney General. My understanding is that if the commission acts, it will carry the charge and the costs, which is the same position as any Government Department. The nuts and bolts will be teased out more fully on Committee Stage.

The issue of secretarial assistance was raised by some Senators. The pay element is being examined and I acknowledge the deficiency in that regard. The question as to whether Senators should have their secretaries in their home office or in their constituency was raised by Senator Browne. I am aware that a number of Senators were previously Deputies and had their constituencies and would wish to be back in that position. There are a number of young Turks, such as Senator Browne, who perhaps wish to be Deputies in the future and would like to have the use of an office. That is a matter of balance. There is provision for resources. The Seanad will have a substantial say in the work of the commission and how it applies those resources.

Senator Dardis raised the matter of legal definition. The item he mentioned has to do with the joint committees. The remainder of that section of the Bill deals with both the Dáil and Seanad committees.

The issue of employee representatives is something that has quite strong support in the House. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, was very firmly of the view that this would be inappropriate for the commission, which was created to enhance the role of parliamentarians in running their own business. There was intense debate on this subject at the amendment stage. One of the issues is that many of the people who work in Leinster House and who will be paid by the commission, work for individual Senators, Deputies, Ministers and political parties. A good proportion of the overall staff will not be working directly for the commission but will be paid by it. The classic worker-director situation will not really apply as it would in some semi-State companies. Social partnership has enhanced the role of worker-directors or worker representation. If the matter continues to be raised, we will see what can be done. However, the Minister is very strong in allowing the commission to be made up of parliamentarians who will decide on their own.

A brief reference was made to the allocation of moneys, particularly to Independent Members who will receive funds to help them to acquire support services. Attempts were made in the late 1980s to give cash to Members to organise their own secretarial and research facilities, but the proposal received a frosty reception from unions and their members. I am sure the commission will examine how it can best be utilised. Members have differing demands in terms of secretarial back-up. Some people might not take on board the wisdom of their advisers, regardless of how many of them there are, whereas others such as myself are like sponges for advice all the time. This issue will be examined.

It has been argued that the Estimate for the commission should be presented to the Seanad. The Bill provides that the Estimate will be presented to the Dáil, which has a financial dimension the Seanad does not have. The normal Estimates procedure applies as to other areas of public expenditure.

There is general acceptance that the Bill is a very positive step forward. It will allow the Houses to perform much more efficiently and it will give parliamentarians much more of a say. I do not see a conflict in the close working relationship between parliamentarians and their staff, but there will be opportunities to raise it again if it continues to be an issue. I thank the House for the kind welcome it has given me and for the contributions of Senators.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 1 July 2003.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn