Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

This has been an interesting discussion. As colleagues acknowledged, the Bill is of a technical nature and, although important, is limited in scope. Many of the issues raised in the course of the debate are, of course, worthy of public debate and elaboration and Members, in their normal ingenious way, have taken the opportunity afforded them by this relatively limited Bill to engage in that broader debate. It is appropriate that we have a constant engagement on the question of reform of the manner in which the Houses do their business and on the broader reform agenda which the Government is pursuing in an impressive manner, from constitutional reform through the convention to matters such as reform of freedom of information legislation, the lobbying regime, election funding and so forth. Other instruments are being considered in various legislation. Considerable reform is proceeding all the time.

The Bill, however, is limited. I do not criticise any of my colleagues, far be it from me to do that, when I say I am struck by how little reference was made in the course of the debate to the contents of the Bill itself. The Bill, if passed, will ensure that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission can continue with its work and will have funding to do so.

Deputy John Paul Phelan dealt quite well with Deputy Seán Fleming's opening remarks. Deputy Fleming reminded us that this is the eve of Christmas and said there was a sense in which things were being rushed through. Deputy McDonald used the expression "sneaking through", if I am not mistaken. One or two other people said the same. This is a working day in the Houses of the Oireachtas. We are working today, doing the people's business until eight o'clock tonight. There is nothing sneaky about any of the business we do, today or any other day. This is just as important a day of work as any other. The notion that the Bill's being debated on the last day of the session constitutes sneaky behaviour on the part of the Government or anyone else is nonsensical. The media and everyone else have the same gaze and visibility on what we do in the Houses until business closes this evening. I reject out of hand any suggestion that because the Bill is being taken on the last day of the session it is being pushed through in a manner that is sneaky or seeks to avoid the public gaze or scrutiny. That is not the case.

The amounts of money to be dedicated to the Houses of the Oireachtas, and contained in the Bill, have been known since last October. The Estimate was presented in October of this year following detailed consideration by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. There is no lack of clarity or transparency in the process or the sums of money involved. I reject any suggestion otherwise.

Deputy Phelan also made the point that the decisions made in the budget are of relevance. The alterations and adjustments made in the Budget Statement are of relevance to this and they came only two weeks ago. There is pressure of legislative business. The Personal Insolvency Bill, for example, was passed by the Houses last night. A great deal of legislation is going through the Houses. Members will recognise that. Much of the legislation is troika related and must be dealt with. It is being dealt with, if I may say so in the presence of the Chief Whip, in an expeditious and efficient fashion by all concerned, including the staff of the Houses and of Departments, who have a huge amount of work to do on legislation across the board.

I said many of the issues raised are not strictly relevant to the Bill and if I were consistent I would remember that and not respond to them. I think I can, however, have some indulgence for a couple of minutes and refer briefly to a couple of the points made. There is a reform agenda and the Government is pursuing it vigorously. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and others raised the importance of committees and difficulties regarding the passage of business and the efficiency of committees. We should constantly address our minds to this. I was chair of a committee prior to my current appointment and I believe strongly in the committee system. It can work, has been seen to work and can be made work. This involves the co-operation and support, not only of the Government but of all members so that committees work in the methodical efficient way they are designed to do. We have seen progress in that regard. When people work together in a committee type environment we can make huge progress in dealing with legislation and with other issues.

We now have a system of pre-legislative scrutiny. Before a Bill is published there can be pre-legislative discussion in a committee. I was privileged to be involved in some of that work in the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform on credit union legislation, whistleblower legislation and so on. This is happening at present. I understand the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform has been examining the proposals by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for legislation on committee inquiries. The preparation of legislation to allow for the holding of inquiries by committees has been already approved by Government. These will be general inquiries will not be confined to banking. The committee is having an opportunity to deal with that prior to the legislation even being finalised by the Minister. That is an important advance. There is a feeling that once legislation is published there is a sense of finality about it and a reluctance to change it. Here is an opportunity for genuine engagement by parliamentarians before legislation even reaches the publication stage. That is important and progressive.

Deputy Phelan pointed out that Deputy Fleming was very enthusiastic for there to be an announcement on the referendum to abolish the Seanad. I was taken aback at how enthusiastic he was for that. Taoiseach has indicated the matter will be addressed in the latter part of 2013. It should, however, be emphasised that the people own the Constitution and own the Houses of the Oireachtas and it is a matter for them to decide if the Seanad is abolished, not for the Government, the Dáil or the Seanad. It is a matter for the people and that is as it should be.

Deputy Dooley made the rhetorical point that if there was a referendum next week to abolish the Dáil, it would succeed. We can laugh at that prospect but there is a serious issue at its heart. This is a parliamentary democracy, a country that is free to determine who its representatives are. People can vote us in and vote us out. Sometimes we must remind ourselves how important it is to defend that. We should defend the integrity of this Parliament. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan pointed out in her contribution that it costs money to run a parliamentary democracy; it cannot be done without funding. There can be legitimate queries about how much politicians should be paid or what there expenses should be, and if they should be vouched, as I always thought they should. All of those issues have been raised by Deputies but we must not lose track of the fundamental point, that we live in a parliamentary democracy and should have the confidence as Members of the Oireachtas to defend that and defend the necessity to fund it.

The issue of specifics of allowances and expenses are not germane to the issues in this debate but I have no objection to Members being critical of this or that allowance. Sometimes, however, that debate can degenerate, as it was in danger of doing in the course of this debate, to the hacking away at the allowances and salary issues that risks encouraging resentment and cynicism about the whole process of politics and parliamentary democracy. By all means, Deputies can raise specific issues and it makes for excellent copy to hack away at the issue but I ask colleagues to have regard to the importance of defending the integrity of the work we doing here, the people's business, and the fact it costs money, not just to pay our salaries but those of the people who work for us and who work in this building. They do a very important job for the State.

I have already said there was detailed discussion of the specifics of the budget between the commission and the Minister. I will, however, put the envisaged expenditure for 2012 on the record. The major elements of the €116 million are €24 million for the salary costs for the Houses of the Oireachtas service; €21 million for salary costs for Members of both Houses and MEPs; €11 million for travel expenses and allowances for Members; €21 million in respect of salaries of secretarial assistants for Members; and €15 million for pensions for former Members of the Houses, a total of €92 million. The remaining annual allocation of €24 million consists mainly of general administration expenses of €17 million for travel, subsistence, postal and telecommunications, office machinery, premises and expenses, payments in respect of the bar and catering staff amounting to €2 million and €3 million for the televising of Oireachtas proceedings, an important item of expenditure in the context of the imperative that the work in these Houses is communicated properly and fully to the public, whose business we are doing here.

There is one issue that I would like to address on the efficiency of individual Members. This is a personal bugbear of mine that has arisen in the context of the controversy about iPads. I have been a Member of both Houses and I am struck by the sheer volume of paper we carry around with us, Bills and so on. When discussing an amending Bill, like this one, how many Members would have the principal Act available to them? I had to ask the officials to get a look at it. Normally the amending Bill is issued to a Member, and that outlines what is being amended. Very often, it would be good to see the principal Act to see where it fits in. Some people are very assiduous and get that from the Oireachtas Library but most of us do not have the time to do that. How much better would it be if people had an iPad and could use it to quickly find legislation, including the principal Act that is the background to the Bill being debated, and could even access commentary on some aspects of the legislation being debated? Sometimes we lose sight of what we can achieve through efficiencies, doing our jobs better. That is then cloaked by the notion of Deputies being given a free iPad, as if it was something they would find under the Christmas tree for their delectation and enjoyment. We never deal with this issue seriously because it makes great copy to talk about these things as if they are being thrown around for free. There are very few people who would come in here thinking they would get freebies in the way this has been characterised. That is a small matter but it is of importance. We should take our business in here more seriously as politicians on all sides.

I thank colleagues for their contributions. This is important legislation and it deserves the support of the House.

See this speech in context