Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. As a member of the Oireachtas commission I wish to make a few brief points. First, the Bill before us is predominantly about funding the commission for the next number of years. I note that the figure of ¤324 million allocated under section 2 for funding is for the next three years. In case it is overlooked, the Minister of State mentioned that the Houses of the Oireachtas have had their funding reduced significantly, which fully reflects the downturn. Everybody has been affected and we must now do more with less. It is worth stating, however, that when the Oireachtas commission was established in 2004, the initial funding for the first three years was ¤295 million. The figure rose to ¤397 million in 2006 and was ¤360 million in 2009.

Given the constitutional role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in holding the Government to account, the figure allocated is a tiny fraction of the overall expenditure of ¤56.2 billion. In addition, Members have taken significant cuts in salaries and allowances, which are necessary. There is a misconception that because the commission's funding covers salaries, pay and allowances to Members, in some way the commission has a say in setting those payments. That is not the case. The Minister has exclusivity on this issue.

In budget speeches it has at times suited Ministers for Finance to hang that level of responsibility for cuts in expenditure on allowances and salaries around the commission's neck, but that is incorrect. In this regard, I am referring to the former Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan - Lord have mercy on him - and the current Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. As a public corporate body it would be inappropriate for members of the commission to set the levels of salaries, allowances or expenses. As was done previously, an independent group should examine salaries and allowances and set them accordingly. They could perhaps be benchmarked against ten other parliaments throughout the world in countries of similar size and relative wealth. It should be done in that way. I do not like superficiality when it comes to cutting pay and allowances, but these are matters that Ministers and their officials will consider.

It is true to say, however, that if one had to pay a certain amount to come through the gates of Leinster House, there are those who would believe it should be more. We should be cognisant of that.

The 1959 Act is definitely out of date, although parts of it will continue to serve us well. In that regard, I welcome the Minister of State's intention to bring forward legislation in the new year. I understand that proposed changes are currently before the commission - involving the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad, the Superintendent of the Houses and the Captain of the Guard - to help them form the legislative process the Minister of State will bring forward. We must have a modern parliament, so what worked in 1959 will not work now in so many different ways. Nevertheless, there are parts of it that will. As we consider this critical process, the Minister of State might arrange for the officials who are pulling this legislation together to consult the people who currently hold those positions. In addition, I have no doubt that some of their predecessors, who are enjoying retirement, would give some good insight in how the project could progress. The group, involving four principal officers, certainly has a lot to offer but in isolation even they would admit that it is difficult to capture precisely what is needed without adequately liaising with those who currently hold those positions and those who held them in the past. Such a wider group is required to consider how that might best be brought forward.

In considering all aspects of expenditure, the current commission and its forerunners have done an exemplary job in reducing the cost of running the Houses of the Oireachtas. Cutbacks have been made in a number of different areas while, at the same time, the levels of service have increased. Of course, there is always room for improvement.

There are many good reasons, including legislation and other issues of public interest, for which we might seek to play the ball or even at times play the man. However, I would caution against anybody seeking to dig up the pitch just in the interest of scoring political points. There is a cost involved in running the Houses of the Oireachtas and people must be paid to do that particular job. Expenses are incurred, naturally, but thankfully we are moving into an area where all these expenditure levels will be reformed. It is also necessary that they should be fully vouched. There are considerations that may have to be taken into account, such as the headings under which expenses can be vouched. No doubt the Minister of State will be examining these particular areas.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is doing a pretty good job in cutting back while providing a good level of service. I would caution that there is a cost involved in doing business here. There will always be those who will say it is too much and it needs to be brought down, but the figures speak for themselves in that costs have consistently been reduced in recent years. Arguably, regardless of who is in government, the levels of service are going up.

There will always be issues of the day on which we can disagree. In addition, the public can rightfully disagree about how Members of the Oireachtas are doing their job. However, I cannot think of a more accountable system than standing for election every number of years when the public have their say.

There is a structural issue concerning wider Oireachtas reform, which will be a challenge for this Government or the next. While this is just a personal view, I think that increasingly in this country, Parliament is a tool of the Government of the day. That is not meant to be a criticism of the current Government, any more than the last one, but the Whip system ensures Parliament is a tool of the Government of the day. Policy is formulated elsewhere, while legislation comes before the Oireachtas and if one votes for it, it will go through.

Perhaps in the future, greater minds than me will introduce reforms in which the members of Government may cease to be Members of Parliament. Instead, the onus will be on Government to try to sell its policies to the Houses of the Oireachtas to get them through, similar to the way some parliaments operate. I think that may be a positive move in the future.