John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

I appreciate that the Bill is short and deals with a few specific issues regarding constituencies, the number of Deputies to be elected and some issues regarding election expenses. Deputies have an opportunity to expand the debate and raise some relevant issues regarding how elections are run from the point of view of checking the register, accountability after an election and the work of Members of the Oireachtas. While I know that, in the content of this Bill, we are speaking in terms of 166 Deputies, I wondered at the time of the passing of the legislation to end the dual mandate how long that number would remain at 166. My belief at the time and which I still hold is that over the next few years, in the context of the reform of this House, which is badly needed, we will witness a reduction in the number of Deputies. While that would not be a very popular choice for those in this House, it appears to be the natural follow-on from the ending of the dual mandate. I do not think this is a correct direction to take but it is one that perhaps is in the minds of people, other than and not including public representatives, who formulate legislation and who direct matters.

The issue in the Bill which affects Deputies is the definition of constituencies. While I know that Leitrim is affected, I come from a constituency that has been affected by the carve-up of constituencies over a long number of years and many elections. The part of Carlow that consists of Hacketstown, Rathnure and Rathvilly is constantly sectioned off to a neighbouring constituency. I know the deep feeling in the communities affected that they are not part of the county and constituency of Carlow and are part of another constituency. People have many concerns about this. While I know that it is not easy for those who draw up the legislation and make decisions on the number of Deputies and the make-up of constituencies to reach a decision on this because there will always be fallout from it, in the context of a county like Carlow which is growing, as is Kilkenny with which it forms a constituency, there should be a line set down that will not allow the county boundary to be breached. I ask that this be examined in future revisions of constituencies, not from a political perspective but that of the attachment of people in communities to their own county's identity and their feeling of being part of something that is represented through business, sport, politics and so on. On behalf of those who have been left out of the loop in the part of County Carlow in question, there is deep concern that they should be considered in any future revision as either a county identity or as part of the overall constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny.

I am disappointed the Bill makes no connection to local government in the context of the ending of the dual mandate. There is a need to review the regulations placed before the House on how Deputies engage with their local authorities and the protocols in place for county managers, directors of services and so on to respond to Deputies and Senators. That connection has been weakened substantially by the passing of legislation, and there is no corrective action in this legislation to strengthen the connection and the responsibility of local government to Members of Parliament. Each local authority should be forced by legislation or regulation to adhere to certain principles or protocols in dealing with public representatives.

Regardless of what is said, Ireland is in a unique position in that the electorate has direct contact with Members of Parliament, which does not occur in other countries to the same frequency. We are used to that culture, as are the electorate. Deputies are easily identified as they walk the streets of their constituencies. They are asked, perhaps not about legislation but to have a pothole in the road fixed or to make direct contact with local government. We are not allowed to reflect that unique connection in the context of the work we undertake. I urge the Minister of State, if it is not included in this Bill, to include that matter in broader legislation which would set down the rights of an Oireachtas Member to direct contact and information, with a period set for a response to be given to a query put to a local authority. That does not happen now and it is a bone of contention for many Members of this House. I will continue to lobby for that because I believe in strengthening that connection in the democratic process that allows us to be at one with our constituents, to ensure there is no disconnection, as is the case with our elected representatives in the European Parliament.

In making local government more responsible, I will ask the Committee of Public Accounts to ensure there is greater accountability to that body in the context of public accounts and how local authorities spend funds allocated to them. That will require a change in legislation, but the voters want that. They demand greater accountability. They demand that Members of the Oireachtas have a clear knowledge of what is occurring at local government level and that we have an input into how that is scrutinised through the Committee of Public Accounts. The House should recognise that and it should be addressed in other legislation if not in this Bill.

A stronger connection may be created by way of parliamentary questions. There is no reason Deputies should not be able to get direct answers to questions raised, be they on local government, the Health Service Executive, the National Roads Authority or the numerous quangos that spend public money without direct responsibility to this House. Likewise, Members of this House do not have a direct route to directly question how money is spent, thereby creating greater accountability in the organisation concerned. That we do not insist on the system of parliamentary questions being applied to local government that spends so much money is unusual and I take exception to it.

Deputies who, for example, query the spending of €12 billion by the Health Service Executive cannot get direct answers. They are sent on a wild goose chase and told that the Health Service Executive will respond directly to the Deputy in due course. A response is given to parliamentary questions within three days or so when the Dáil is sitting, but in the case of the HSE it can take several months to get a reply. The people who elect us believe that the levers of power exist here, that the most basic of information can be extracted from Ministers or Departments through our presence here and our engagement with the Departments. That is untrue of the HSE, the NRA and local government.

Such matters should be reviewed as they are not addressed in the Bill. These bodies should be brought under our control. The public fears these bodies might be contaminated in some way if we got our hands on them, but that is no reason to push them beyond the reach of this House, from which they could be questioned or scrutinised. We must remember that local authorities cannot be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts except by way of the Secretary General or the accounting officer of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That is not good enough. There is a perception among the people that there is such accountability. We must respond in terms of best practice in the management of our affairs and tell the public that we will do so. One means of addressing this is as I have set out and another is by setting down protocols or direction for those we are anxious to question.

The same can be said of public officials. We introduce legislation constantly on how we should behave, such as in regard to expenses. I do not mind that as it allows for best practice in politics. However, there should also be best practice in terms of bureaucracy. Many people are anxious to advance in the Civil Service and to respond to a modern Ireland that spends billions of euro. They should have a reasonable path to promotion and to put in motion their ideas of good practice. The unions within the Civil Service must respond in a more positive, proactive way to a country that is developing and spending so much money. The Government must also respond by giving these people the opportunity to give positive expression to how they wish to see the administration of the spending of multi-billion euro every year. Part of that expenditure relates to the promotional prospects of those involved. Only in recent days we learnt of the massive overspend by many Departments that come before the Committee of Public Accounts on a weekly basis. One would have to question is there a serious level of incompetence within the structure that needs to be addressed. While the Government makes money available, it is up to the people within the organisations to ensure that the taxpayer gets the best bang for his or her buck. That is the challenge that faces us.

While we modernise and mainstream the political system and apply the best practice of other countries, we have an obligation to go beyond the political structure and examine what is best practice in the context of the bureaucracy of the country and how to apply best practice to get value for money from every scheme we put in place to make improvements here, be it major or minor projects sponsored by various Departments. That aspect has never been teased out in a Bill.

Those who work with the Minister should begin that process by assessing the need to employ the professionals required in the system. There is a need to employ human resource specialists, given that Ireland plc., is now the biggest employer here, yet the number of human resource specialists in the system are few and far between. There have been too many failings of the system in recent times. At a time of great expenditure by the NRA and various Departments, very few costs accountants were brought in to examine the spending figures. That authority and the Departments have in-house accountants to deal with payment of salaries and that end of the accounts but there is a need to expand beyond that and bring into the system those who would ensure a professional output related to the cost of a project and deliver a job of which we can all be proud and about which there would be no argument. That is the type of Civil Service and bureaucracy this country needs. Meeting that need is the public challenge we face. It will be up to the largest trade union and employee representative group to take the initiative, take the bold step and to drag the system, like politics and politicians, into this new era of which we are now a part.

Regarding Members' expenses, I have no difficulty in recording the expenses I incur, the cost of my electoral expenses or from where I receive or spend money. The paperwork we are required to complete after each election, be it local elections in which I was involved in the past or in an election to the Dáil, is not clear-cut. One is required to answer a muddle of questions and read through a muddle of information. One has to extract from, for example, an advertisement placed by another person a portion of the cost of that advertisement because it was of some value to oneself. Under this process, one is open at all times to making a genuine mistake. The process needs to be simplified such that a candidate or Member would be required to complete a list of questions, provide a list of money spent directly by the organisation representing him or her and spent by the Member or candidate. I would have no difficulty with that. However, there is a difficulty in interpreting the paperwork one is required to complete or with the interpretation of the information Members supply. If we do not simplify the process and put it right, we will leave ourselves open to being accused of all sorts of things.

I recall completing the paperwork after the last local elections and after the last general election. A candidate is accountable for work other people do on his or her behalf. The way forward should be that one's political party would give an account of what is spent on behalf of the party and on candidates and candidates would be required to give an account of their expanses. When such information is presented publicly in a transparent manner, members of the public would be able to put the figures together. If one accepts donations, as a political party or as a candidate, one must show the donations received and where the money was spent. The process should be simplified to the degree that it would be easy for Members to complete the paperwork and that there would be no question over their expenses. Likewise, without there appearing to be a blurring of the mirror, so to speak, it would be easy for members of the public to calculate from the figures how much it cost to run an election.

Other contributors said that perhaps we are allowed to spend too much on elections, but I have the opposite view. The electorate demands more and more information, not only about policies but about what a candidate proposes to do. A candidate has to inform the electorate, which is a costly exercise. Placing of an advertisement on a once-off basis is costly. Printing material in a professional manner is very costly. Getting one's message across to the electorate by post or by other means is an additional cost. Much good work has been done in explaining the matter of expenses. We made the process too complex in earlier legislation and allowed it to be interpreted in different ways. If we simplified the process, a member of the public interested in this area would easily interpret this information and such expenses would be easily accounted for by the Member. That process needs to be simplified sooner rather than later.

It is time we had a debate on Dáil reform, not among the Whips but among Members, to make the work of the Dáil more meaningful to the people we represent and in terms of the work we undertake as public representatives. I encourage the Minister to take the initiative by arranging for such a debate and introducing appropriate legislation to provide for such necessary change.

See this speech in context