Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I thank Members for their thoughtful, incisive and reflective contributions. It occurred to me during the course of the debate that if ever there were an argument to retain this House, it was justified because of the debate or discussion that had taken place. 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, for political reasons, of which Members will be aware. I refer, in particular, to Senator O'Toole's undoubted experience and expertise in corporate governance in the public and semi-State sectors. That is the reason the Seanad is able to make a contribution that one might not find in the Lower House. It occurred to me that the matter should be considered carefully following proposals that had emanated from certain parties on the future of this House. The second Chamber has a valuable function and role to play, as do second chambers in democracies throughout the world. We should be very careful in our rush and haste to suggest we ought to abolish it. The matter is not directly related to the legislation but since I have the opportunity to compliment Members on their contributions, the point should be made.

Throughout all the contributions there has been broad agreement among parties and Independent Senators that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is an improvement on the historical structure. Senator White referred to this point. The powers and functions were vested in an informal way in the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach and in a way not transparent or accountable to Members or the wider public. In line with corporate governance developments throughout civil society, the corporate sector, at Government level and in Departments, it was appropriate that a new and improved structure of corporate governance should apply to the Houses of Parliament. That is why the broad agreement across parties is welcome and an improvement on the position which obtained. I trust this deals with the issue raised by Senator White on the need for the legislation or the reason we are in this position. I will revert to the specific functions of the commission presently.

I will refer to the contributions of Members in the order in which they were made. On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, Senator Twomey made several important points. He referred to the code of conduct and asked why it was not readily available for discussion. While I can see from where the Senator is coming, it is the responsibility of the commission to set out the code of conduct. This is an enabling provision to allow it to do so in consultation with Members derived from political parties across the board. It would not be within the powers of the Minister for Finance who is introducing the legislation to set out the code because, essentially, it is a matter for and a function of the commission. The publication of the code is a matter for members of the commission, as is the question of whether it should be brought to the floor of the House or back to the respective political parties for consideration. It is a matter for the commission to decide in its own wisdom.

Senator Twomey made the key point about the significant increase in expenditure in the three years preceding the introduction of the Bill. His point is well made because there was a 34% increase, amounting to €120 million. It deserves a serious response and analysis. When one considers the matter seriously, it is possible to see the significant improvements. Senator Bradford referred to the outreach schools programme. It is a significant expenditure item in the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Vote and an innovative, imaginative idea to bring the concept of parliamentary democracy to schools. It has contributed to the increase in expenditure.

Senator White referred to the excellent research services provided by the Oireachtas Library for this debate and many others in this and the Lower House. This is a significantly enhanced function of the Oireachtas Library, involving significant additional expenses. Two of the key, headline items which have resulted in an increase in expenditure include the vast investment in information and communications technology, from which we have all benefited in the past three years. The Senator made the point that we should have greater ready access to it on a daily basis in dealing with legislation. The point is well made. All information and communications technology is expensive to introduce. It involves a heavy front-loading of capital expenditure, as well as ongoing maintenance costs for the period during which the investment is made.

The other great increase in expenditure relates to the increase in the number of committees serving the Houses of the Oireachtas. I realise the number of committees is a matter for separate debate. However, they require a substantial service in terms of the provision of information and communications technology, translation facilities, the recording of debates, committee clerks and so on. While the number of committees is a matter of debate, it accounts for the significant increase. I trust this gives Senator Twomey a flavour of the reasons for the 34% increase in the past three years.

Taken together, all of these developments mean Members are in a position to concentrate more effectively on their real role, that is, analysing and researching legislation and making informed contributions to the Houses. All of these developments help us to do this.

Senator Twomey also inquired as to why ministerial expenses are not included in the budget for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. I wish to make two basic points in that regard. The Bill relates to the Parliament, which is comprised of the two Houses. In that context, the distinction between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Executive branch of Government is explicit in the Constitution. Under the latter, there must be a clear separation with regard to the roles and functions of the two. If we were to transfer responsibility for the thorny issue of ministerial expenses to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, it would blur the constitutional lines. In addition, it would import an element of politics which might not perhaps best serve the interests of the commission or the Houses. Let us have the debate on that matter on another occasion.

The Minister for Finance has been extremely active in this area in the context of increasing the level of transparency with regard to ministerial expenses. I cannot indicate the level of cost incurred in replying to parliamentary questions or freedom of information requests in respect of ministerial expenses. The Minister's initiative in this area in the context of publishing details of such expenses, either on the Internet or in some other form, on a monthly basis is the correct route to take. Hoarding information over a period or encouraging the perception that it must be dragged out of Government serves no one's interests. However, I reiterate that the Executive branch of Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas are separate entities.