Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I will share time with Deputy Morgan, if he comes into the House.

The essential and main thrust of the Bill is about providing a triennial budget for the administration of the Houses of the Oireachtas, replenishing the budget and making an estimate in terms of the costs of administration of the Houses of the Oireachtas over the coming three years.

I am a serving member of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The budget provides for something in the order of an 8.5% reduction over the forthcoming three years. I believe this will turn out to be more than an 8.5% reduction. The finances are being well husbanded at present and the projections in the report of an bord snip nua will be realised within the three-year term. The objective of reducing the number of staff by 42 will be easily met. There will be almost 30 fewer staff by the end of this year.

Since November 2008, the commission has been considering savings. As the outturn for the end of this calendar year shows, significant savings have been identified and have accrued. There will be fewer staff. The commission is currently engaged in the process of considering the McCarthy report line by line in so far as it relates to the cost of servicing the two Houses of Parliament. Further savings may be identified as a result of that exercise, which is being taken seriously.

The projections of the authors of the McCarthy report will be met easily but, as Deputy Bruton says, that is neither here nor there in one sense. It is important that there be value for money and efficiency in the administration of the services to the Houses. It is important that the Houses, more than anywhere else, take the McCarthy report seriously, even if the Ministers do not. That the Ministers do not is clear because six have gone public to disown it and eight more do not know about its existence. It is left to the Minister for Finance to thumb through it, which is all he has managed to do so far. This does not excuse the Houses from considering it seriously to determine what is in it of merit. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is in the process of doing so and has done considerable work in this regard.

One would think from public commentary that the only purpose of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is to look after the expenses and allowances of Members. This is a gross distortion of the work it is concerned with. Not too long ago, while listening to the radio while driving to work, I heard my friend and colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, telling Pat Kenny I was going through the expense items of the former chairman of the commission, approving his foreign trips and generally getting him to check in with me to approve his telephone bills and various other details. While I could not see the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan's face as he was on the radio, I believe he said this without batting an eyelid. It was no bother to him. He told the nation that whatever expenses had been incurred were due to my negligence and failure to monitor the laundry list of the previous chairman. That kind of commentary does not help paint a proper picture of the role of the commission.

The main items that have contributed to the increasing costs incurred by the commission are the enhancement of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. Members have generally been very appreciative of the improvements. I do not know how much these services are used. Reading the Seanad debate, I did not find much evidence. Senators White and Bradford may have referred to the Oireachtas Library and Research Service but it was not referred to much. That said, it comprises a big improvement to the resources and services available to back up Members of the House.

The previous chairman of the commission launched a number of initiatives on raising awareness of the functions of the two Houses. There was an outreach programme with schools and public open days. Colleagues may have views on their efficacy. They were a good idea although there may be adjustments to make by tweaking here and there.

A not insignificant decision was made to restore Leinster Lawn. I never cease to be amazed by my friends in the Fourth Estate. I have not seen a sidebar anywhere on the restoration of the lawn. I read a great deal about it having become a carpark, but not a murmur about it being restored properly to its original pristine condition, as was required by the planning regulations. If we had exempted ourselves from the restoration, we would have heard a great deal about it.

I heard a very emotive interview between Deputy Alan Shatter and Pat Kenny - I listen a lot to Pat Kenny - in which Deputy Shatter was extremely concerned over the money we spent on the restoration. Reading between the lines, it occurred to me that the interview was really more about the election of Deputy George Lee than about the restoration of Leinster Lawn so I moved on. That was important.

Deputy Bruton properly drew attention to the increased moneys put at the disposal of the Oireachtas in recent years. He will note the big expense is associated with the committees. The Ceann Comhairle will know that the commission recommended on an all-party basis, notwithstanding the views of anybody who demurred, the reduction of the number of committees from 24 to 15. This was put to the Minister for Finance. He stated in his budget speech of the previous year that he noted the commission was going to cut the number of committees. As with the matter of Members' allowances and pay, the statutory authority is the Minister for Finance, not the commission. The statutory authority in respect of all these matters is the Minister for Finance and, in respect of the committees, it is the Taoiseach. Therefore, there is absolutely no point in pointing to the commission asking it to implement the cut.

There is no way a House with 166 Members can support 24 committees. It is absurd and ridiculous and the only reason for their existence is that the former Taoiseach wanted to give everybody who was not awarded a Ministry of State a chairmanship and stipend to keep him happy. He started to distribute stipends for deputy chairmen and convenors.

I do not know why my friend the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, is on my mind so much. Some time ago I was taken aback completely when I met him running out of a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts patting his brow and perspiring furiously to welcome me and say he, as Whip of the committee, had no quorum. "Whip of the Committee of Public Accounts" is a contradiction in terms. An audit committee does not have a Whip. Everybody was on a stipend for the reasons we know.

The Minister for Finance did not put an end to this. Many Members on this side of the House would point to the fact that we will not make too many commitments on this matter now because we have been kicked around for 12 years. Members on the Government side took 21 of the 24 or 25 positions. They did so without blanching. That was an abuse.

There are committees duplicating work done by other committees. The heavy lifting is done by the Opposition spokespersons. If one wants to have legislation prosecuted in this House, there is no point in looking to the new white hopes on the backbenches of the other side of the House. Most of them are strangers to legislation and will only attend if there is a high profile occasion. Will the Minister of State inform us when the commission's decision, now one year old, to reduce the number of committees to 15 will be implemented? Such a move would greatly help with costs of administering the Houses.

Deputy Bruton asked if politics is fit for purpose. Unfortunately, one has to say that a great many of our citizens have serious questions about it. The position of this House vis-À-vis the Executive has been consistently eroded over recent years, a development which has huge implications. This morning on the Order of Business my colleague, Deputy Emmet Stagg, raised the manner in which the guillotining of Bills has become de rigueur for the Government. On any Stage of the processing of legislation, easy resort is had to the guillotine. It becomes a question of the Government proposes and the House is expected to dispose.

I read the debate on the Bill in the Seanad, where coincidentally the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, was dealing with it. On the conclusion of Second Stage, he thanked Senators for their "thoughtful, incisive and reflective contributions". He continued:

The Seanad provides an environment in which a more reflective debate can take place that can utilise the undoubted diverse experiences, abilities and expertise available to the Upper House in a way not readily available to the Lower House ...That is the reason the Seanad is able to make a contribution that one might not find in the Lower House.

See this speech in context