Alex White (Labour)

As a relatively new Member of the Houses, at certain times over the past two and half years I have scratched my head and wondered what was the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. That is not to criticise the commission or its members. My colleague in Dáil Éireann, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has made me aware of the extent of the work and its importance. I have concerns that reflect what Senator Boyle said. What do we expect the commission to do and what is its role? If I am not 100% clear on that, it is difficult for the public to have an appreciation of the purpose of the commission.

I refer to the members of the commission, not the work it does. The financial, administrative and technical services provided to the Houses of the Oireachtas manifestly must be provided. It is good that there is an identifiable body in charge of doing this, but I am never clear on how this fits in. It exists since 2003. The phrase in the principal Act and repeated in the amendment Bill in elaborated format is that the commission is responsible for the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am not particularly comfortable with the use of the phrase "running of the Houses of the Oireachtas". I have not submitted an amendment in this regard but I would prefer if this was more clearly expressed as referring to the administrative, financial and technical services required for the Parliament to function. The term "running" suggests something grander than a body that provides a service. I welcome the change in this amendment Bill so that this is renamed a service. In the same way as the Civil Service is a service to the members of the Government, the parliamentary Civil Service provides a service to the Parliament and the Members of Parliament. The wording of the principal Act is not absolutely satisfactory in making this clear.

There is very little in this Bill with which one would have difficulty other than arguing it could go further in certain circumstances. For example, there is a provision in the legislation that the service will be accountable in future to the Houses of the Oireachtas, which is welcome. One would take it for granted that the commission or the service would be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The section that provides for that is welcome, but it would be improved if there was an elaboration of how precisely that accountability is to occur. Senator Boyle or another Member said that meetings of the commission should be held in public which would present an opportunity for its work to be scrutinised in public. I have considerable sympathy for that point of view, but even in terms of its accountability directly to Parliament, what mechanisms does the Minister of State envisage the Seanad and the Dáil putting in place to vindicate that accountability provision? It is an important advance but it is not clear how it will be delivered.

The members of the commission are performing an extremely important role. There should be scrutiny of the work. We might consider meetings of the commission being held in public at which there could be a question and answer session or some elaboration by the commission members on the work they are doing. I listened carefully to what Senator O'Toole and others said in this respect. If we are to expect that level of availability and preparedness on the part of members of the commission to be subjected to public scrutiny, the job will be turned into something bigger than was originally envisaged. It brings me back to my original point, namely, what precisely is the role of such individuals. If they are to be available for such public scrutiny, as they should be, is the commission becoming a different sort of animal than was originally envisaged?

With regard to the payment of €16,000 to members of the commission, at this time we are examining the payment of various allowances and salaries. If there are five members of the commission - I have forgotten momentarily the exact number - and if those colleagues are to be prepared, briefed and have sufficient expertise to be queried in public as to what is occurring in Parliament, the services it provides, the cost of them, Members' expenses and strategies, I am not sure whether €16,000 is sufficient for that kind of work. It may not be popular to say that at the moment. If that is the level of work we are requiring - perhaps it is not and this is ultimately something that should be left to the management of that commission - that would take from its democratic-----