Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, who started his parliamentary career in this Chamber. I look forward to his response to some of the comments.

I agree with much of what the previous speaker said, but not the entire package. He has raised pertinent points which are worthy of observation and comment. A good starting point for the debate and where we stand politically is the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Act 1959. I ask Members to reflect on the Houses of the Oireachtas and the state of Irish politics in 1959 and the types of people who were elected to the Oireachtas. If one looked at the profile of members of the Oireachtas in 1959, they were comprised of wealthy farmers or business people, generally from the legal and medical fields and from some of the other privileged professions, and men rather than women. There was no space on the Irish political platform for people of modest incomes. It was expensive to practise politics. The salaries of Oireachtas Members, be they Deputies or Senators, up to 25 years ago shut the Oireachtas to ordinary people.

In the rush to score cheap popularity with the public, especially with changes to the income structure of politicians, we should be careful to ensure we do not return Irish politics to being the preserve of a wealthy elite, which it was. We need to ensure the Houses of the Oireachtas are open to people of all backgrounds. That is the reason politicians must have a reasonable income stream. We should be careful we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I recognise that many of the salaries are excessive and that some of the allowances and expenses, as proclaimed by Senator Cullinane, could certainly do with urgent review. Senator Cullinane stated that he had never claimed that mobile phone allowance. I have been here more than 20 years and I am not sure when that allowance was introduced. I could never understand why a Member of the Oireachtas should claim an allowance to purchase a mobile phone. We must try to strike the correct balance between excess and being fair. There is now a rush down the tube which is not helpful.

The public demand is for not cheaper or more expensive politics, not bigger politics or small politics, but better politics. The Minister in charge of the Bill is the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and we look forward with some degree of anticipation to the package of political reform. I say this not out of any degree of bitterness, but the debate about political reform has been about abolishing the Seanad. I would call that ladybird politics. If we believed that scrapping the Seanad is the extent of political reform in this country, that is a low aspiration for political reform. Simultaneously, we talk about changing the Dáil by abolishing eight seats out of 166. I look forward to when a referendum will be put before the people asking them to reflect on whether it is the 60 Senators with their salaries of approximately ¤60,000 and one secretary who caused most of the problems in this country or, perhaps, the other House with 166 Deputies and with salaries of ¤100,000 plus, in addition to secretaries, parliamentary assistants, constituency offices and various allowances. That will be an interesting debate. It will not be the simplistic popularity race and chase that some might wish it to be. For that reason, if no other, I would say, bring on the Seanad referendum. It will lead to a fundamental debate and a fundamental choice about the sort of politics, democracy, transparency, scrutiny and value for money we want in this country.

I am privileged to be a Member of this House and I was privileged to be a Member of the other House, but I will say with certainty that the average Senator, by virtue of the numbers in this House and the workload, participates to a much greater degree in public and parliamentary debate through his or her work in the Chamber and in the committees. If people want to focus the light on the Oireachtas and ask which House on average is providing the best value to the taxpayer, it will be very much to our advantage.

I was privileged to serve on the Oireachtas commission for a number of years in the previous term. It has done its work in a balanced and fair fashion. It has continually reduced expenditure here over the past number of years. It must continue in that vein and must try to ensure that the Houses works, provides an open and transparent place and provides value for money to the taxpayer.

The most important value we can provide to the taxpayer, in this and the other House, is to practise good open transparent politics and decision making. One cannot put a price on that but it must be demanded and expected of us. My question to the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White but, more importantly, to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform - I am not sure whether it is the Minister, Deputy Howlin, or the Taoiseach who will bring forward the proposals for adjudication on the Seanad to us and to the Irish people - is what sort of accountability, transparency and democracy do we want and value in this country? Reform of politics must be more than a one-line slogan. It must involve questioning the electoral system, the parliamentary system, the relationship between the Government and Parliament, the role of Ministers and backbenchers, and the ability of the Opposition not only to bring forward ideas but to have some of those ideas translated into political action. We do not have a monopoly on political wisdom in this country and there is much we can learn from some of our political brethren across the world.

That is probably a little preview of the substantial debates I hope we will have on political reform next year. I wish the Minister of State well with shepparding this legislation through the House. The Oireachtas commission has a heavy duty of responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money wisely and to ensure that value is provided. Although it may not be the popular phrase, as an individual Senator and on behalf of all of my colleagues in this House, I think I can say that we genuinely provide political value for money. We do not have the trappings, salaries, offices or allowances that they enjoy in the other House, but we provide genuine political value for money in this House and long may that continue.

I am sure there will be no division on this legislation. I only hope it will allow us reflect on the serious choices that will come before us over the next 18 months. If solving the problems of politics in this country could be solved by a simplistic slogan, they would have been solved a long time ago.