OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT Oireachtas Office-Holders Satisfaction Review FINAL REPORT CONFIDENTIAL 22nd May 2018 Dr. Tom Ward, Ariane Allex & Aidan Horan Governance Unit Institute of Public Administration — 57-61 Lansdowne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 T: +353 1 240 3600 E: tward@ipa.ie / aallex@ipa.ie / ahoran@ipa.ie 0 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS In March 2018, the Houses of the Oireachtas Service commissioned the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) to independently review the satisfaction of Oireachtas Office-Holders and to report on its findings and make recommendations for consideration. The methodology employed included an online questionnaire completed by Office-Holders and follow-up interviews with a selection of Office-Holders to explore some areas in more detail. In terms of the latter, we were careful to ensure sufficient diversity in terms of gender and party affiliation. The review focused on supports and services including induction and training, pre-sitting/meeting briefings, specific briefings on parliamentary questions (PQs)/Commencement Matters/Topical Issues (as appropriate), the legislative process and estimates scrutiny, support during sittings/meetings, support to the Commission, technical support, communications and travel. The outcome of the data gathering process was a rich body of information, with positive and affirming feedback and largely consistent views in areas such as: advice (to relevant House Chairs) on PQs/Topical Issues/Commencement Matters, in-chamber/meeting support, support for Office-related travel, access to legal advice, support functions such as the Library & Research Service, the organisation of Committee work, the reporting of Committee work and the general functioning of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Notwithstanding the above, in some areas there was a divergence of opinion or reduced degrees of satisfaction, which suggests that improvements may be warranted. Themes in this respect included: support in respect of certain legislative stages and the estimates process, briefings for temporary House Chairs, Policy Advisor resourcing of Committees, a shortage of Committee rooms, induction and training for Office-Holders, and the Commission’s communication with members and staff. The desired outcome of this process would be consideration by the Service and possibly the Commission of the findings and the adoption of the recommendations, subject to any modifications. The agreed actions should be developed into an action plan with clear timeframes for implementation and named action-owners. This will serve to further enhance the services provided to Office-Holders. To support this process, the relevant findings and recommendations are outlined in Section 2 and Appendix 1 of this report. The Institute of Public Administration would like to express its appreciation to the Secretary General and his colleagues and the Members of the Oireachtas for their courtesy, professionalism and valuable assistance in the completion of this review. We would like to wish the Houses of the Oireachtas Service every success in further refining its supports to Office-Holders in the very important work which they and the members of the Oireachtas carry out. 1 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT Contents SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS 1 1. 3 2. INTRODUCTION Background 3 Methodology 3 FINDINGS 2.1 Chairpersons of the Houses 6 6 2.2 Committee Chairs 10 2.3 Commission Members 16 2.4 Common Issues for Office-Holders 19 2.5 Common Issues for Members 21 3. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS REVIEW 26 4. CONCLUSION 27 APPENDIX 1: SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDATIONS 28 APPENDIX 2: SURVEY AND INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS 30 APPENDIX 3: GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY RESULTS 32 2 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION Background The Houses of the Oireachtas Service (the ‘Service’), under the leadership of the Secretary General, plays a critically important role in supporting the members of both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann in effectively executing their functions as parliamentarians. The Secretary General, whilst also being Accounting Officer, reports to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, which is the governing body overseeing the delivery of services to the Houses, their members and to members of the public. A key cohort of parliamentarians are Office-Holders, which comprises the Chairs and temporary Chairs of both Houses, the Chairs of Oireachtas Committees, and the Chair and Members of the Commission. As part of its Strategic Plan (2016-2018), the Service committed to assess the satisfaction of members with the services they receive. This follows-on from similar such reviews undertaken in 2008, 2010 and 2012. This review afforded Office-Holders an opportunity, in the context of the strategic plan, to:    to reflect on the services they receive in support of their duties; determine what areas, if any, would benefit from enhancements or change; and demonstrate the Oireachtas’ desire to listen, learn and evolve. Below we outline the methodology employed in this review and the engagement by Office-Holders (see Appendix 2 also). In Section 2, we present the findings by Office-Holder type as well as issues common to all Office-Holders and issues common to members. We also look to draw high-level comparisons with the previous review and this appears in Section 3. Whilst recommendations are presented throughout Section 2, they appear in collated form in Appendix 1. Appendix 3 presents the graphical results of the survey questions. Methodology The empirical information for this review was based on both survey data and interview material gathered during March, April and May 2018. Unlike the previous reviews in 2008, 2010 and 2012, this review adopted a different approach in terms of survey format and style with a view to extracting as much relevant information as possible and exploring new angles. This being so, high-level comparisons can be drawn and these are outlined in Section 3 below. For the purpose of this review, the term ‘Office-Holders’ applies to:    Chairpersons and temporary Chairpersons of both Dáil and Seanad Éireann Chairpersons of Oireachtas Committees1 Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission2 1 This includes Chairs of Special Committees which had begun and completed their work during the current Dáil – e.g. Committee on the 8th Amendment 2 Excluding the Secretary General given his role in supporting the work of the Commission and in the implementation of actions arising from this report. We engaged with the Secretary General in the early stages of the process for the purpose of background and his observations. 3 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT A total of 43 Office-Holders were forwarded the online survey questionnaire and 24 fully completed it, representing 56% of Office-Holders. The make-up of respondents is outlined in Appendix 2. Following on from the survey, a sample of 22 Office-Holders were invited for interview3 and 13 accepted and were interviewed. The interview cohort included all three types of Office-Holder (see Appendix 2). Whilst we would have liked to have secured a greater degree of participation from members, we are satisfied that the depth and breadth of feedback gathered is sufficient to allow us to draw meaningful findings and conclusions. Online Questionnaire An online survey was designed in conjunction with the Secretary General and Assistant Secretary for Parliamentary Services. While the survey remained broadly consistent with the previous survey in 2012 , it was more extensive, adding additional areas and perspectives for exploration with Office-Holders. It focused on key areas, such as induction and training, pre-sitting/meeting briefings, specific briefings on parliamentary questions/commencement matters/topical issues (as appropriate), bills/legislation and the estimates, support during sittings/meetings, support to the Commission, technical support, communications and travel. For most questions, the survey used a 5-point likert scale seeking Office-Holders to rate their levels of satisfaction with various services. Comment boxes were also provided for each question and Office-Holders were requested to provide a commentary where they had not expressed satisfaction with the service. Semi-Structured Interviews After the closing of the survey process, a semi-structured interview template was designed based on issues arising from the aggregated responses to the survey, particularly where there was a divergence of opinion and/or a material level of dissatisfaction arose. Report Based on the data collected and reviewed and our own experience of conducting such evaluations, this report outlines the findings of our review, including the positive areas identified, and potential areas for improvement. As with the previous reports, the results of the survey and interviews are disaggregated into three distinct sections: Chairpersons of the Houses, Committee Chairs and Commission Members. We also include some commentary and recommendations in the case of areas common to all Office-Holders and areas common to all members. Acknowledgements We wish to express our thanks to the staff and members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and particularly to Máirín Devlin and Aisling Byrne in the Office of the Commission and Secretary General for providing us with the logistical support to undertake this review. Thanks also to the relevant members’ staff who were helpful in reminding members of the online survey and in arranging and confirming interviews. We are grateful to 3 With the sample cohort designed to ensure a spread of Office-type, gender and party mix. 4 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT the members of the Houses who gave of their time to participate in the review and provided frank and honest feedback in order for us to complete the review. For the avoidance of doubt, this report reflects the summary findings, which we consider appropriate and relevant based on the process undertaken Dr Tom Ward, Ariane Allex & Aidan Horan Institute of Public Administration May 2018 5 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 2. Findings 2.1 Chairpersons of the Houses This section of the report presents the survey and interview feedback relating to the Chairpersons of the Houses or “House Chairs”. This comprises the Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Cathaoirleach, Leas-Chathaoirleach4 and the temporary House Chairpersons. Briefings (pre-sittings) In the survey, House Chairs were asked a short series of questions relating to oral briefings provided to them in advance of Dáil sittings to gauge their satisfaction. The results were as follows:    Satisfied with the timeliness of briefings (Q10) – 78% said yes, 11% said partially, 11% said no; Accuracy and quality of briefings (Q11) – 33% said excellent, 44% said good, 22% said needs immediate attention5; Recommendations made in the briefings (Q12) – 33% very satisfied, 44% satisfied, 11% dissatisfied, 11% very dissatisfied. As such, whilst the majority of feedback in the survey was positive there was some divergent opinion. Two accompanying survey comments, for example, were “what oral briefings?” and “often when I do the temporary chair I am going directly to the chamber from a committee etc and just walk straight in to [the] chair and must ask for guidance”. When we engaged with the House Chairs in the interviews – which did not necessarily include all of those who had completed the survey – there was broad satisfaction with the briefings received prior to sittings, albeit some suggested that briefings are not needed given their knowledge of the role and related procedures. Comments included “superb” and “very good briefings”. As such, the somewhat mixed feedback on this area may reflect the composition of the House Chairs group, with some very experienced TDs and some new TDs. Recommendation for Consideration R1. The Service should consider making provision for oral (pre-sitting) briefings for those temporary House Chairs who wish to avail of it. Advice on Parliamentary Questions, Topical Issues and Commencement Matters Cxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx expressed 100% satisfaction (xxxx responding “excellent”) through the survey in relation to the timeliness and comprehensiveness of advice on the admissibility of parliamentary questions (Q24). Xxxx responded likewise in respect of advice on the admissibility of Topical Issues (Q25). In the interviews Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said the advice received and recommendations made were “very thorough” and “very detailed”, with decisions made on Topical 4 5 Hereafter referred to, on occasion, as the “four principal House Chairs” Numbers may not always add-up to 100 due to rounding-up or down 6 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT Issues designed to ensure a reasonable spread across the parties/groupings, geography and policy/department areas. When it came to assessing satisfaction with the timeliness and comprehensiveness of advice on Commencement Matters (Q26), as it applies to the Seanad, one respondent xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Advice in the Chamber The survey asked the House Chairs if they are satisfied with the timeliness of procedural advice received in the Chamber (Q32) and with the accuracy and quality of the procedural advice received (Q33). The responses were as follows:   Timeliness – 33% very satisfied, 44% satisfied, 11% dissatisfied and 11% very dissatisfied; Accuracy and Quality – 44% very satisfied, 44% satisfied and 11% dissatisfied. Whilst a small minority of feedback was thus negative, there were no accompanying comments to explain this dissatisfaction. In the interviews, the House Chairs expressed satisfaction in this area with comments such as “excellent” and “very good” forthcoming, as well as “instructions in place [are] very good”. One temporary House Chair suggested that a mechanism might be put in place to support him/her in knowing the names of deputies present. Legislation In the survey House Chairs were asked if written briefings by the Bills Office are provided in a timely manner (Q27) and to rate the accuracy and quality of the written briefings provided (Q28) to support them in their roles. The responses were as follows:   Timeliness – 75% said yes, 25% said partially Rating of the accuracy and quality – 13% excellent, 63% good, 13% fair, 13% needs improvement One accompanying comment in the survey stated: “need [a] full explanation of how the process works”. In the interviews, the House Chairs were largely positive in respect of support for the legislative stages in the Houses, with the exception of the latter stages, which may help to explain some of the divergent feedback in the survey. Below is a summation of the two key points:   Report and Final Stages in the Dáil – an aide memoire on amendments, including those in and out of order, tends to be available in the Chamber whereas it could be delivered in a more timely manner, beforehand; Committee and Report Stages in both the Dáil and Seanad7 – these stages have to be carefully managed, with the Bills Office only providing a list of proposed changes, whereas additional guidance and advice may be helpful (it was equally said that some TDs or Senators want to speak 6 Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Here Committee stage, in-Chamber, would typically apply to the Seanad only (i.e. in the House), with Committee stage in the Dáil taking place in the relevant Select Committee 7 7 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT on amendments individually, rather than in grouped form, and that common sense should prevail). Recommendation for Consideration R2. The Service should put in place additional, timely guidance and recommendations for House Chairs in relation to amendments, including provision for the Bills Office to meet with House Chairs to discuss particular issues to be aware of. Other Supports In-Chamber Facilities House Chairs expressed a high level of satisfaction with various facilities provided in the Chamber, as follows:     Microphone switching services (Q44) – 33% very satisfied, 44% satisfied, 11% neutral and 11% very dissatisfied; Desk services – e.g. computer screens etc (Q45) – 22% very satisfied, 67% satisfied, 11% dissatisfied; Electronic voting facilities (Q46) – 33% very satisfied, 66% satisfied; Manual voting facilities (Q47) – 22% very satisfied, 56% satisfied, 22% neutral. Travel The four principal House Chairs were asked if they are satisfied with the timeliness of the preparations and arrangements made for travel (Q71) and if they were satisfied with the conduct of visits (Q72). The former yielded responses of 75% very satisfied and 25% satisfied, whilst the latter received a response of 100% very satisfied. ‘ New sub Heading’ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz expressed full satisfaction in respect of the support for their additional duties outside of the Oireachtas, including, inter alia, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In his interview, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8 The Seanad Committee is titled the Committee on Procedure and Privileges 8 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT     Timeliness of CPP briefings (Q13); Accuracy and Quality of CPP briefings (Q14); Recommendations made through the CPP briefings (Q15); Secretariat support both in terms of pre-meeting and in-meeting support (Q16). Receiving Delegations XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX expressed full satisfaction with the timeliness and quality of the oral and written briefings in advance of receiving delegations (Q19) – notwithstanding the earlier point above from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 9 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 2.2 Committee Chairs This section of the report presents the survey and interview feedback from the Chairpersons of Oireachtas Committees. This includes Chairs of sectoral committees (e.g. Committee on Business, Enterprise and Innovation), standing committees (e.g. Committee of Public Accounts), thematic committees (e.g. Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement) and special committees (e.g. Special Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution).9 Pre-Committee Briefings The survey asked Committee Chairs if they are satisfied in respect of the oral and written briefings provided to them in preparation for Committee meetings or receiving delegations (Q17-18). The responses were as follows:   Timeliness of briefings – 23% excellent, 54% good, 15% fair, 8% needs improvement; Quality and content of information provided – 38.5% excellent, 38.5% good, 15% fair, 8% needs improvement. The accompanying survey commentary was a mixture of positive comments and constructive criticism, including that not all information is presented in written format and that information needs to be received sooner, pre-meetings (albeit it was acknowledged that the delay can be due to delayed submissions from witnesses). In the interviews, the majority of Chairs were happy with current arrangements, including comments such as “Very good Clerk. Very good briefings”, “Very good support. Clerk very available”, “4-5 good staff” and “very good question support”. One Chair, however, stated that pre-Committee briefings are typically one hour before the meeting and that access to the Clerk can be difficult sometimes. For two others, they meet the Clerk the day before committee meetings but did not necessarily suggest that this was a problem, albeit one Chair felt a level of frustration with receiving pre-meeting briefings in soft copy only rather than a hard copy pack and suggested that the briefing should include prior review and summary of correspondence received. In terms of support to the Chair and committee members on questions, the feedback was somewhat mixed. For one Chair, the committee lacked specialist expertise and, as such, outside support (through the C&AG) is required – whilst feeling that this support didn’t necessarily consider additional question angles, beyond the immediate scope of the report content. For another, the recent appointment of a Policy Advisor to the Committee has been very helpful, whilst others mentioned the useful role played by political parties (e.g. party research personnel) in supporting respective members and, additionally, that outside bodies sometimes suggest questions. A number of Chairs spoke of the challenge presented by witnesses, including Departments, submitting material shortly before meetings. There may be merit in the Service advising on a common deadline (e.g. 9 Some of the special committees have completed their work within the current Dáil term but the Chairs’ feedback is equally important for this review 10 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 2-3 days in advance) and the Committees, through the Chairs and Clerks, strictly imposing this advance submission deadline. In addition, it was suggested that briefing material received should include a contact point for additional queries. The Clerk is naturally a key actor in supporting the effective running of a Committee and providing support to the Chairs. Given the number of Committees and Clerks there is inevitably some variance in terms of approaches. Consequently, it may be prudent for the Service to put in place a short policy and procedure on supporting Committees to try and prompt a greater level of consistency.10 Recommendation for Consideration R3. The Service should develop a common (standards) policy and procedure for Clerks to prompt a greater level of consistency in terms of pre-meeting briefing timeframes, format for briefing materials, support in respect of questions for witnesses, and deadlines for receipt of pre-meeting material from witnesses. Support During Committee Meetings Committee Chairs were asked to rate the timeliness of advice they receive on the application of Standing Orders and the content and quality of that advice (both from the Clerk)(Q34-35). In terms of timeliness, 62% said it was excellent with 23% saying good. Just 16% said it was either fair or needs improvement. In terms of content and quality, 50% of chairs said they were very satisfied with a further 42% saying they were satisfied. Just 8% expressed dissatisfaction. In the interviews, Committee Chairs were very positive about the support provided by the Committee Clerk and Secretariat during meetings. The only material matter to arise related to situations whereby the Committee meeting clashes with other relevant events in the Dáil such as parliamentary questions or legislation (in the same policy area as the Committee). It was suggested that a communications mechanism should be put in place to allow the Chair (or members) be alerted as to their speaking slot in the Dáil/Seanad, including if proceedings are running ahead of schedule. Recommendation for Consideration R4. The Service should develop a real-time communication mechanism, which will allow Chairs (and members) to be kept informed as to the progress of business before the Dáil and Seanad. Legislation Committees play an important role in conducting the Third Stage or ‘Committee Stage’ of legislation, with the Chair thus playing a key role in managing this important phase. In the survey, we asked Chairs if they are satisfied with both the timeliness and the accuracy and quality of written briefings provided to them by the Bills Office (where applicable)(Q27-28). In terms of timeliness, 70% of Chairs said yes (they were satisfied), 20% said partially and 10% said no. In terms of accuracy and quality, 20% said excellent, 60% said good with 10% stating needs improvement and 10% saying it needs immediate attention. 10 If one does not exist already 11 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT This area was also explored in the interviews, with a mixture of feedback forthcoming. One Chair said that there is “good support for Committee stage” whilst another said they “get background information. It works ok”. The Chairs’ feedback suggests that briefings from the Bills Office are in written form only and that an oral briefing, or access to, should be available if needed. Additionally, one Chair suggested that too much paper accompanies Committee stage with separate lists of amendments and that a markup version of the Bill with suggested changes could be provided. It was felt that this would help “modernise” the process. Recommendations for Consideration R5. The Service should make provision for an oral briefing from the Bills Office to all Committee Chairs in advance of Committee-stage on Bills. R6. The Service should explore methods to modernise supporting material for Committee stage amendments, including, if feasible, the production of a marked-up Bill illustrating the proposed changes incorporated into the Bill. On pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills, 60% of Chairs expressed satisfaction with the supports available to the Committee, 30% said partially and 10% said no (i.e. they are not satisfied)(Q29). One survey respondent said that while improvements had been made in respect of pre-legislative scrutiny, a lot more is required. Based upon the feedback, it appears that the Clerk is the Chairs’ main source of advice in this area and that additional support may be necessary – albeit most Committees do have a Policy Advisor and access to the OPLA. One Chair suggested that some Government legislation does not necessarily require prelegislative scrutiny. In the interviews, a number of Chairs were critical in respect of Private Members’ Bills (PMBs). Instances were mentioned of Bills being rejected by the Committee at pre-legislative stage and then being debated at Second Stage in the Dáil – with the Committee’s view being ignored. Chairs also suggested that many PMBs were poor in quality in terms of formatting and that the Bills Office or Attorney General’s Office might have a role to play – the OPLA would seem like a suitable support mechanism in this regard. Overall, some Chairs were of the view that much time and energy is being expended on PMBs with little reasonable chance of progression – particularly where a money message is required from the government, which is a de facto veto point. It was suggested that it would be worthwhile for the Government and opposition to engage more meaningfully on draft PMB legislation at an early stage so as to support those initiatives with a reasonable chance of progression and to reduce the backlog.11 Estimates Committee Chairs were asked if they are satisfied with the level of support and advice available to them for the Estimates’ process (where applicable)(Q20), including in scrutinising performance information. 56% responded yes, 33% responded ‘partially’ and 11% responded no. Two accompanying comments referred to the late submission of material from the Department and the difficulty in understanding the information provided. 11 We understand from one Chair that the Service may be drawing up guidelines to support the progress of legislation. 12 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT When this arose in the interviews, there was a sense that more help would be useful in probing the estimates and accompanying performance information (with some areas particularly complex – e.g. HSE), and that this an area where the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) could add real value. Recommendation for Consideration R7. The Service should formalise the role of the Parliamentary Budget Office in supporting Committees’ scrutiny of the annual estimates and particularly the accompanying performance information. Committee Correspondence In the survey, 92% of Chairs were either very satisfied or satisfied with the Committee Clerk’s advice on how to handle matters in respect of Committee correspondence. Just 8% were dissatisfied (Q36). Equally, 92% were very satisfied or satisfied in respect of the draft responses provided by the Committee Clerk, with just 8% very dissatisfied (Q37). The latter result appears to reflect the experience of one Chair who does not feel sufficiently supported in respect of correspondence. Access to Legal and Policy Advice Committee Chairs were asked if they are satisfied with the level of access they receive to legal advice and legal briefings (Q42) and 78% responded that they were either very satisfied or satisfied with 22% responding neutral. In the interviews, Chairs were quite positive on their access to good quality legal advice, albeit one Chair suggested a little inconsistency in service depending on the staff member spoken to. In respect of access to specialist policy advice, 62% of Chairs in the survey were either very satisfied or satisfied, with 31% responding neutral and 8% being very dissatisfied. One accompanying survey comment pointed positively to the Policy Advisor system but said that their Committee, which covers two Departments, had a Policy Advisor for just one of the two areas. Another Chair stated that his/her committee had no policy advisor. The interview responses in terms of policy advice were equally a little mixed, with some very positive commentary on Policy Advisors, others pointing to some turnover in Policy Advisors, and one Chair was unaware that their committee had a Policy Advisor. One Chair suggested his/her Committee was very much lacking technical expertise and that the L&RS could play a greater role in supporting Committees. The feedback suggests that a review of Policy Advisor support across the Committee system may be prudent. Recommendation for Consideration R8. The Service should review current Policy Advisor provision with a view to addressing any gaps or expertise deficits. Organisation of Committee Work We asked Committee Chairs a series of questions in the survey relating to the organisation of Committee work, with the feedback as follows: 13 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT       Timeliness, Content and Management of the Work Programme (Q49) – 54% very satisfied, 46% satisfied; Briefing Materials – timeliness, content and usefulness (Q50) – 54% very satisfied, 31% satisfied, 15% neutral; Overall arrangements for Committee meetings (Q51) – 31% extremely effectives, 69% effective; Travel arrangements – timeliness of preparations/arrangements (Q71) – 58% very satisfied, 25% satisfied and 17% neutral; Travel arrangements – conduct of visit (Q72) – 64% very satisfied, 18% satisfied, 18% neutral; Arrangements for the allocation of Rooms (Q59) – 23% very satisfied, 38% satisfied, 15% neutral, 15% dissatisfied, 8% very dissatisfied. As such, there is a large degree of satisfaction with the arrangement and organisation of Committee work. In relation to Committee room provision, this was a theme which emerged in the survey and interview commentary. Survey comments included “we require more committee rooms”, “for informal meetings and courtesy calls the small meeting rooms are not sufficient”, and “outside our normal allocated time slot, it is difficult to access rooms for extra meetings”. LH2000 is constrained in terms of meeting rooms and this has implications for Committee and informal meetings. One Chair suggested ‘Room A and B’ should be “use-able” and it should be possible to broadcast from them. It was also suggested that the Houses and/or Committees should meet elsewhere from time to time. Whilst this was more about “out-reach” or “bringing parliament to the people” than logistics, it may relieve some pressure on the committee rooms. One Chair also suggested that there should be a room for witnesses who are waiting to appear before a Committee, which could provide simple tea/coffee facilities etc. Recommendation for Consideration R9. The Service should consider additional rooms, which may be convertible for Committee business and “witness rooms” and, in addition, consider a schedule of Committee meetings outside of Dublin. Strong satisfaction levels were recorded in the survey in respect of microphone switching services and desk services, with one caveat (in a comment) that the Chair couldn’t always hear contributions from members. On the question of the overall level of support available to the Committee, 92% of Chairs said they were satisfied with the level of Secretariat support with 8% responding no. Mention was made, as above, of the need for Policy Advisor support. Reporting of Committee Work Committee Chairs were asked if they were satisfied with the content and quality of annual or other Committee reports (Q66) and 38% responded very satisfied and 62% responded satisfied. One accompanying comment suggested that members could be more pro-active and engaged with a view to further improving the quality and content of reports. 14 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT Chairs were also asked if they are satisfied with the arrangements in place for reporting on Committee activities and the effectiveness of this reporting (Q70) and 77% responded yes, 15% said partially and 8% said no. One accompanying comment suggested that attention given to Committee activities can be a function of the salience of the policy issue, whilst another suggested that “there should be advice on how to get the best out of reporting the Committee’s activities”. In the interviews, Committee Chairs were generally happy with the quality of their Committee reports, and their ability to use the AV room to launch reports. One Chair, however, suggested that his/her Committee’s reports, outside specific-topic reports, are too activity-focused more so than substantive, whilst another stated that the Committee used to create short videos on ‘the week ahead’ but that this had stopped with a change in personnel. Another member also pointed to the fact that Committee reports are not necessarily afforded an appropriate amount of time for debate in the Dáil itself. An issue which arose on occasion with Committee Chair interviewees was the leaking of material prior to Committee meetings. This is not something the Service can necessarily guard against but is a matter for the Committee membership. 15 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 2.3 Commission Members This section of the report presents the survey and interview feedback from members of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Induction and Training 100% of the Commission members in the survey replied either satisfied or very satisfied regarding the induction briefing provided for members of the Commission (Q3). Commission members were also largely positive about the quality and comprehensiveness of the briefings provided to them to support them in their roles and responsibilities, including in relation to:     The Governance Framework of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Q6) – 25% excellent, 50% good, 25% fair; The role and structure of the Service of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including the roles of the Management Committee and Secretary General (Q7) – 25% excellent, 75% good; General governance, including the roles and responsibilities and duties as a Commission member (Q8) - 25% excellent, 50% good, 25% fair; and The Budget of the Commission (Q9) – 25% excellent, 25% good, 50% fair. When asked if they would be interested in the opportunity for further training in the area of governance (Q5) 50% of Commission members said partially and 50% said yes. This result and some of the ‘fair’ feedback above was possibly reflected in the interview feedback. One member suggested that whilst a process is in place, it was not clear (to them) that they would be de facto directors and that the Commission “is not just another committee”. Another suggested that whilst time constraints might be an issue, and the Secretary General is very accessible, there may be merit in a full day induction/training for new Commission members, to include, for example, more detailed briefings on governance, finance and legal matters. Indeed, one member suggested it should be clear at the outset that the Oireachtas will automatically defend legal cases involving members and that provision for incorporeal meetings should also be made known to members. It was said that training should be provided for on an individual and collective basis. Recommendation for Consideration R10. The Service should put in place a formal induction process of at least a half-day’s duration, comprising both materials and briefings on the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and Commission members. Execution of Commission Business Commission members expressed strong satisfaction with respect to the execution of Commission business through a series of survey questions, as follows:  The quality of advice available and given during Commission meetings (Q38) – 75% very satisfied, 25% satisfied; 16 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT          Information notes provided outside of the Commission meetings in terms of timeliness and usefulness (Q40) – 50% very satisfied, 50% satisfied; The content of the Commission meeting agenda and supporting documentation (Q52) – 50% very satisfied, 25% satisfied, 25% neutral; Access to the agenda and supporting documentation electronically in a timely manner (Q53) – 50% very satisfied, 25% neutral, 25% dissatisfied; Access the agenda and supporting documentation in hard copy in a timely manner (Q54) – 25% very satisfied, 75% satisfied; Commission meets often enough to properly execute its functions (Q55) – 100% yes; The effectiveness of the Secretariat support during Commission meetings (Q56) – 75% extremely effective, 25% effective; The minutes of Commission meetings (e.g. in terms of clarity of decisions or outcomes)(Q57) – 75% very satisfied, 25% satisfied; How well members are kept up-to-date with issues arising from previous Commission meetings (incl. on decisions made)(Q58) – 50% excellent, 50% good; The work of, and reporting by, sub-committees/working groups which either fully or partially support the Commission’s work (e.g. Finance Committee, Audit Committee)(Q75) – 25% very satisfied, 75% satisfied. The matter of supporting documentation or papers was explored with members during the interviews and some were of the view that occasional oral briefings or updates to the Committee should either be accompanied by a written note or a note should follow shortly after. Whilst members accepted that certain legal briefings are best done orally, they felt that updates on communications or building refurbishments, for example, should not be by way of oral updates only. Recommendation for Consideration R11. The use of oral-only briefings should be an exceptional basis only. Whilst oral briefings can allow for timely updates, members should have access to a written note, either through a follow-on note or through the timely circulation of draft minutes after the meeting. The divergence of views on the electronic circulation of papers appears to be a case of meeting material being distributed in more than one email, which can be challenging to monitor and collate. Members, it seems, prefer hard copy packs in any event. Strategy, Reporting and Communications The strategic plan12 is a key document for the Commission in terms of the direction of the Service, service improvements and new initiatives, and holding the Secretary General and staff to account. Commission members were asked in the survey if they are satisfied with the contents and focus of the plan (Q63) and 50% responded very satisfied and 50% said satisfied. Commission members also appear satisfied with the implementation reports from the Secretary General (Q64) with 50% stating they are very satisfied and 12 The current plan runs from 2016-2018 17 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 50% stating they are satisfied. Members also expressed strong satisfaction with the contents of the Commission’s annual report (Q65 – 75% very satisfied, 25% satisfied). The area of the Commission’s communication with members, members’ staff and Service staff yielded critical feedback, as outlined below:    With Members of the Houses (Q67) – 50% effective, 50% somewhat effective; With Members’ Staff (Q68) – 25% effective, 50% somewhat effective, 25% not at all effective; With Service Staff (Q69) – 75% somewhat effective, 25% not at all effective. This issue arose previously in the 2012 report, and a number of interviewees who are not Commission members did confirm a lack of knowledge or full knowledge as to what the Commission does. When we explored the possible solutions with Commission member interviewees, a simple, single solution was not necessarily forthcoming. Challenges appear to include:    Securing the attention of members and staff in a very busy context; Not all parties/groupings are represented on the Commission; There can be differences in the approach taken by Commission members to convey key messages back to colleagues (e.g. some use party group meetings etc), notwithstanding confidentiality requirements. As such, the solution will need to be multi-pronged and as laid out in Recommendation 12 below. Recommendation for Consideration R12. The Commission should look to: 1. create a simple one-page illustration of the distinct roles and responsibilities of the Commission, the Committee on Procedure and the Business Committee; 2. Develop a “Commission Bulletin” for circulation on a monthly/bi-monthly basis; 3. Ensure those parties/groupings not represented on the Commission have an assigned ‘representative’13 from amongst the current membership; and 4. That members agree the best method for updating members in person (e.g. through Party Group meeting, parliamentary party meetings, Party Managers etc). 13 Not necessarily in a direct sense – the Commission is not a representative body – but someone to which they feel able to express feedback/views and to receive appropriate information from regarding Commission activities. 18 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 2.4 Common Issues for Office-Holders Induction All survey respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the induction received following appointment to the position of Office-Holder (Q2) and 65% responded either very satisfied (10%) or satisfied (55%). Of the remainder, 20% responded neutral, 5% dissatisfied and 10% very dissatisfied. The supporting survey commentary included “assistance with new standing orders and behind the scenes preparation for meetings was not as good as it should have been”; “received no formal training for [the position] nor have I been offered”; “no induction received”; “there was practically none to be honest”; and there was one positive comment: “excellent by staff and officials”. In our interviews with Office-Holders, the feedback tended to be mixed on this topic. For those who had been members for some time or at least members of the previous Dáil, they did not feel that induction was necessary - they understood the workings of the House and Committees. For others, induction was either not available or was sub-optimal/inconsistent. Some of the feedback in this regard suggests that:      There should be a formal process for the induction of all Office-Holders, tailored per office-type; It should be offered to the incoming Office-Holder as soon as possible, with that individual having the ability to decline all or part of it if they feel it unnecessary; The Clerk is a key actor and source of advice in the induction process; Induction should not be about masses of information and material; Induction should comprise linkage with a ‘mentor’ / mentor group arrangement (of previous Office-Holders) for advice and guidance. Recommendation for Consideration R13. The Service should put in place a formal process for the induction of Office-Holders, tailored by office-type, and led, pro-actively, by the relevant Clerk. Training When asked if they were offered training, which enables them to deliver their duties as Office-Holder effectively (Q4), 40% said yes, 15% said partially and 45% said no. The supporting commentary provided via the survey included “I was offered. I said yes but none materialised” and “needed more details [on various aspects]. Equally, a member said “I do receive a lot of advice” and another stated “there is not any training…I do not think I needed any specific training”. Of the areas mentioned as being potentially useful for training were: effective running of meetings, details on the operation of committees, media training, how to introduce bills, report preparation, promotion of committee work, and IT skills. In our interviews with Office-Holders, the feedback was similarly mixed. For those more experienced members there was a sense that training was not particularly necessary – that you “know the ropes” and “learn by doing”. For a number of others, training was offered broadly or to a limited degree (e.g. Irish, Interview/Radio training), but equally, for a number of other members, it was not offered and it was felt that it should be. Suggestions included: 19 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT     Group training (e.g. for House Chairs, Committee Chairs as groups); Training should involve former Office-Holders, given their knowledge base; A structured training programme should be available and offered; and Clerks should equally have access to relevant training. Recommendation for Consideration R14. The Service should put in place a structured suite of training options for Office-Holders, which is available not only on appointment or shortly after, but also over the course of their term. Translation Services Office-Holders were asked if they are satisfied with the translation services available and received (Q41) and 35% responded not applicable, 30% said very satisfied, 10% said satisfied and 25% responded neutral. Where this arose in the interviews, one Chair suggested the translation services were only available in certain Committee rooms and that translation worked one way only (i.e. from Irish to English but not from English to Irish). Services Most and Least Satisfied With Survey respondents were asked which services they are most and least satisfied with as Office-Holders. The results are as illustrated below. Support Service you are most satisfied with        Briefing documentation Budgetary advice Committee Clerk – availability, advice IT support Legal advice Secretariat support Timely communications Support Service you are least satisfied with         Absence of oral briefing for temporary chairs Communication of OPLA services Communications from the Commission Level of knowledge of procedures/standing orders Secretariat’s technical expertise Shortage of Committee meeting rooms Training provision Turnaround time on overseas expense claims 20 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 2.5 Common Issues for Members This section incorporates those issues, which arose during the review and are not necessarily confined to Office-Holders per se. Clarity of Oireachtas Roles and Services In the course of our review, and particularly through the interviews, it was clear that additional clarity may be required in terms of roles and responsibilities in Leinster House, including:   The distinct roles and responsibilities of the Commission and the Committee on Procedure (which is addressed through Recommendation 12) A designated “liaison official” for every member as a “go-to” person for advice on services, information etc. (it was suggested that the liaison could be for a group of members as distinct from one per member). Recommendation for Consideration R15. The Service should designate a “liaison official” for every member of the Houses, with one official acting as liaison for a number of members. This liaison should be a valuable source of advice for the member throughout his/her term. Constituency-Level Support In the course of our review, and particularly through the interviews, there was a sense among some members that staff at Constituency level are not supported as well as might be the case. For example, where there are IT issues it was said that the Service can be slow to respond and can be slower to respond to members’ staff vis à vis the member him/herself.14 Members’ staff are not public servants and it was suggested that those outside Dublin can sometimes be or feel “outside the loop”. It was felt that this could be addressed to a degree by periodic support visits by Service staff to constituency office staff and the offering of training outside Dublin. Recommendation for Consideration R16. The Service should develop a range of supports for non-Leinster House based staff, designed to provide tangible support services and training and to promote a culture of attaching equal importance to those staff “off-site” as those in Leinster House. The Current Dáil and Political Dynamic Through the interviews, we explored with Office-Holders how the Service has responded to, or “managed”, the changed political dynamic in the current Dáil, whereby there is a minority government in place. In some respects “managing” the changed political dynamic is for the members, parties and Government to do, which many interviewees acknowledged, but the Service does have a role in facilitating members in the changed scenario. Members spoke positively of the Business Committee chaired by the Ceann Comhairle, which agrees the weekly business for the Dáil, and of the enhanced 14 Reference was also made by one interviewee to the attitude of some IT contractor staff 21 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT supports in place, through the Library & Research Service, Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor (OPLA)(especially in relation to legislative drafting support) and the new Parliamentary Budget Office. It was said that parliamentarians “expect more” now than may have been the case previously and the Service is responding accordingly; that it adapts well. Some, though, spoke of the difficulties associated with the current political dynamic and recent change, including:       Difficulty in securing timely Department of Public Expenditure and Reform approval for key positions (e.g. Head of Parliamentary Budget Office and staff for the OPLA); Lack of clarity around some Dáil reforms, including standing order changes, which could be better explained to members; Absence of a Seanad representative on the Business Committee; Securing speaking time in the Dáil in light of current rules; Opposition TDs not having to appear for quorum purposes, which allows them more freedom to be in their constituencies and canvassing etc; Private Members’ legislation is being allowed to commence through early stages but is obstructed by the government at Committee stage (through withholding a money message). It was felt that it would be more efficient and effective for the Government to engage early-on with respective members and parties rather than waiting until a de facto veto point, when time and energy had already been invested in the Dáil/Committees. One member suggested that the Service could be more pro-active in prompting positive changes, including in some of the areas listed above. It should be acknowledged, in this regard, that this review is a pro-active exercise by the Service to canvass the views of the members and initiate potential changes where appropriate and necessary. Who Speaks for the Oireachtas? The Oireachtas is one of three institutional ‘pillars’ of the State, alongside the Executive or Government, and the Judiciary. The Taoiseach speaks for the Government whilst the Chief Justice speaks on behalf of the Judiciary. It is not necessarily clear, however, who speaks for the Oireachtas. We asked the interviewees the question as to who speaks for the Oireachtas and there was a mixed response. For the majority of respondents, it is the Ceann Comhairle whose role, it is felt, has been strengthened by his election (by secret ballot) by the Dáil. For some, the Ceann Comhairle is the “symbol of the Oireachtas” and could be more visible as spokesperson. One member suggested the Ceann Comhairle, Cathaoirleach and indeed Committee Chairs all play such a role at times. For some others, however, the Ceann Comhairle “has enough on his plate” and/or a role for the Ceann Comhairle in defending the Oireachtas could “politicise” his role.15 It was suggested that the Secretary 15 It was felt that some members, at any given time, may not be happy with a particular stance or message conveyed by the Ceann Comhairle – the difficulty associated with representing 158 people of disparate perspectives. 22 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT General could be the spokesperson for the Oireachtas (it would, however, equally be important that the Secretary General’s role not to be politicised too). The answer to this question is not necessarily clear-cut, nor is the role a “spokesperson” would play. It is the case, though, that the political system can come in for criticism quite frequently, and having a visible, vocal advocate or “champion” may be beneficial in this regard. This could be coupled with more outreach, as suggested by one member.16 Professional Supports Interviewees were asked their views on the support provided by each of the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor (OPLA), Library and Research Service (L&RS), Broadcasting/Communications Unit, and the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). OPLA Interviewees who had engaged with the OPLA were very positive about its work, including meetings personally with members, being impartial, and available. Where there were contrarian viewpoints, it was suggested that additional staff may be required and that awareness of its role in supporting members to draft legislation should be better communicated.17 L&RS Interviewees were very positive about the support provided by the L&RS, with words such as “super” and “excellent” used by a number of members. One member suggested that the service has capacity constraints and is under pressure. Suggestions came by way of providing more ‘digests’ and possibly modernising its publications. Broadcasting/Communications Interviewees were generally satisfied with the Broadcasting & Communications Unit, albeit with a suggestion that it too is under pressure, has experienced turnover and is limited to press releases in terms of communicating updates on the business of the Oireachtas. Parliamentary Budget Office The PBO is a relatively new addition to the Oireachtas having been established in 2017. As such, a number of those interviewed had not engaged with the PBO to date. One interviewee expressed some confusion as to its role vis à vis that of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC). Another suggested that the PBO must be involved in independently costing opposition proposals, which should ultimately be published and provide for greater transparency on party proposals and their implications. 16 Who also suggested that an audio-visual video should form part of all tours of Leinster House to give an overview of the type and level of work, which parliament and parliamentarians do. 17 We note that both of these issues arose in the Dunning Report in December 2016. 23 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT Supports to Members Survey respondents were asked what the Service could do better to support them and their colleagues as parliamentarians (i.e. more broadly than Office-Holders). The results were as follows, with some items repeating content earlier in this report:       Avoid Committee business clashing with Dáil business where possible Circulate all responses to Topical Issues Commission members to represent members’ HR needs Communicate the role of each Department and Committee Governance and Budget training for all members More modern telephone and computer system (e.g. faster lotus notes, integrated diary with mobile phone) More pro-active OPLA publications Morning bulletin from the Communications Unit on relevant news items Provide regular seminars on Standing Orders Secretarial support (even from pool) for rural TDs without staff in Leinster House Training for staff located outside Leinster House Training to build knowledge on questions (type, criteria), L&RS and general procedures       Other Issues Finally, in the course of our interviews with Office-Holders, other suggestions arose which do not necessarily ‘fit’ within the sections above. These include:          18 Leinster House opening hours – either 24 hour access or earlier opening times and access to support services over the weekend18; More intensive induction for new members of both Houses (i.e. not just Office-Holders) on how the House and wider Oireachtas works, including order papers, standing orders, questions and accessing resources and supports; More flexibility for members in using additional devices (iphone/ipad) for access to Oireachtas email/calendar/server etc; Office-space for Committee Chairs – one example was given of a Committee Chair sharing an office with two staff; Expenses regime treats Office-Holder as if they are an ordinary member and should be adjusted accordingly (i.e. it should allow for extra pressures and need to be in Dublin on Monday or Thursday nights); Expense rates don’t match increasing costs (e.g. Dublin hotel rates); Overnight accommodation for unexpected/unplanned overnights in Dublin; For Independent members, more clarity around allowances for research etc; For Senators, no consideration of costs associated with not having a constituency, including travelling across the country and holding meetings in venues etc; Currently 7.30am 24 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT      19 Better pay for members to attract high calibre talent; Allowance for further support staff, including research; A room in Leinster House for members’ staff to gather and have “space”; Independent and confidential support for members and members’ staff experiencing abuse from constituents and members of the public19; Further Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives (e.g. Trocaire in 2017). We understand that a support mechanism was put in place for members early in 2018 25 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 3. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS REVIEW We have reviewed the previous Satisfaction Survey Report 2012 and draw some comparisons below in terms of satisfaction and areas for possible improvement. House Chairs The 2012 review recorded a strong degree of satisfaction amongst House Chairs, which is largely replicated in this review. As indicated in the previous review, those newer to the position and indeed to the Dáil may require extra support by way of access to induction, training and oral briefings pre-sittings (in the case of temporary Chairs). Committee Chairs The 2012 review also recorded a strong degree of satisfaction amongst Committee Chairs, particularly in areas such as the Committee Work Programme and advice from the Clerk in the application of Standing Orders, organisation of meetings, production of reports and overall support. As in 2012, the matter of specialist expertise available to the Committees has arisen in this review. Whilst we understand that the Policy Advisor initiative has been initiated since 2012 there are some Chairs who feel their Committee either does not have such an Advisor or is lacking expertise across its full remit (e.g. with Committees covering two areas). Commission Members Commission members were possibly the most satisfied of the three Office-Holder cohorts with satisfaction in the areas in 2012 following through in this report (e.g. meeting support, reporting, briefings to the Commission). Notably, there was a high degree of satisfaction with reporting on implementation of the strategic plan, whereas the previous review included some uncertainty in this regard20. The one outlier, however, is the area of Communications with members (and indeed members’ staff and Service staff). This was an issue in 2012 and remains an issue in 2018. 20 Some of this may have been down to it being early in the members’ tenure on the Commission. 26 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 4. CONCLUSION The Oireachtas Office-Holders Satisfaction Review 2018 has explored the views of House Chairs, Committee Chairs and Commission members in respect of the services and supports they receive from the Houses of the Oireachtas Service. It has provided evidence of satisfaction across many areas of the Service’s work, but it has equally provided some food for thought, eliciting some divergence of views or constructive criticism in a number of areas. The latter should serve to prompt some reflection and consideration by the Service and possibly the Commission. It is fair to say that Office-Holders, by and large, have a high-degree of regard for, and satisfaction with, the services and support provided by the Service. As such, the feedback in this report is more about refinements and improvements more so than substantive change or underlying discontent. The Service and possibly the Commission should review this report and look to develop an action plan with clear timeframes and owners for implementation, with progress monitored closely thereafter over the subsequent months. Traction on these changes will provide for a further enhanced service and demonstrate the Services’ willingness to listen, learn and further evolve. 27 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 1: Schedule of Recommendations No. Recommendation R1 The Service should consider making provision for oral (presitting) briefings for those Temporary House Chairs who wish to avail of it. The Service should put in place additional, timely guidance and recommendations for House Chairs in relation to amendments, including provision for the Bills Office to meet with House Chairs to discuss particular issues to be aware of. The Service should develop a common (standards) policy and procedure for Clerks to prompt a greater level of consistency in terms of pre-meeting briefing timeframes, format for briefing materials, support in respect of questions for witnesses, and deadlines for receipt of premeeting material from witnesses. The Service should develop a real-time communication mechanism, which will allow Chairs (and members) to be kept informed as to the progress of business before the Dáil and Seanad. The Service should make provisions for an oral briefing from the Bills Office to all Committee Chairs in advance of Committee-stage on Bills. The Service should explore methods to modernise supporting material for Committee stage amendments, including, if feasible, the production of a marked-up Bill illustrating the proposed changes incorporated into the Bill. The Service should formalise the role of the Parliamentary Budget Office in supporting Committees’ scrutiny of the annual estimates and particularly the accompanying performance information. The Service should review current Policy Advisor provision with a view to addressing any gaps or expertise deficits. The Service should consider additional rooms, which may be convertible for Committee business and “witness rooms” and, in addition, consider a schedule of Committee meetings outside of Dublin. The Service should put in place a formal induction process of at least a half-day’s duration, comprising both materials and briefings on the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and Commission members. R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 OfficeHolder House Chairs Theme/Area House Chairs Legislative Process Committee Chairs Secretariat Support Committee Chairs Secretariat Support Committee Chairs Legislative Process Committee Chairs Legislative Process Committee Chairs Estimates Committee Chairs Committee Chairs Policy Advisor Support Committee Rooms Commission Members Induction & Training Pre-Sitting Briefing 28 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT No. Recommendation R11 The use of oral-only briefings should be an exceptional basis only. Whilst oral briefings can allow for timely updates, members should have access to a written note, either through a follow-on note or through the timely circulation of draft minutes after the meeting. The Commission should look to: 1. create a simple one-page illustration of the distinct roles and responsibilities of the Commission, the Committee on Procedure and the Business Committee; 2. Develop a “Commission Bulletin” for circulation on a monthly/bi-monthly basis; 3. Ensure those parties/groupings not represented on the Commission have an assigned ‘representative’ from amongst the current membership; and 4. That members agree the best method for updating members in person (e.g. through Party Group meeting, parliamentary party meetings, Party Managers etc). The Service should put in place a formal process for the induction of Office-Holders, tailored by office-type, and led, pro-actively, by the relevant Clerk. The Service should put in place a structured suite of training options for Office-Holders, which is available not only on appointment or shortly after, but also over the course of their term. The Service should designate a “liaison official” for every member of the Houses, with one official acting as liaison for a number of members. This liaison should be a valuable source of advice for the member throughout his/her term. The Service should develop a range of supports for nonLeinster House based staff, designed to provide tangible support services and training and promote a culture of attaching equal importance to those staff “off-site” as those in Leinster House. R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 OfficeHolder Commission Members Theme/Area Commission Members Commission Communications All OfficeHolders Induction & Training All OfficeHolders Induction & Training All Members Support All Members Members’ Staff Commission Papers 29 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 2: Survey and Interview Participants Survey Pool and Participants Office-Holder Type Total Pool Participants Coverage House Chair 11 9 82% Committee Chair 26 12 75% Commission Member 10 6 60% Total 47* 27** 57% Notes: * Included four individuals who hold two Office-Holder roles – n for circulation = 43 ** Included three participants who hold two Office-Holder roles – n for individual participants = 24 Interview Pool and Participants Office-Holder Type Total Pool (Invited) Participants Interview Take-Up House Chair 7 6 86% Committee Chair 9 7 78% Commission Member 10 4 40% Total 26* 17** 65% Notes: * Included four individuals who hold two Office-Holder roles – n for interview invites = 22 ** Included four individuals who hold two Office-Holder roles – n for interview participants = 13 30 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT Cross-Section of Survey and Interview Participants Invitees and Participants Status Total (Individual) Participants Male/Female Parties Invited 43 33 / 10 15 FF / 15 FG / 4 SF / 2 SD / 7 Ind Participated 24 19 / 6 12 FF / 7 FG / 2 SF / 4 Ind 31 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT Appendix 3: Graphical Presentation of the Survey Results Below are the graphs illustrating the results of the online survey, subject to a number matters to note, as follows: 1. Not all questions were satisfaction-rating questions and as such not all questions have accompanying charts. The numbers of the questions below match the respective question number in the survey (e.g. some numbers, like No.1, are missing) and as cross-referenced in Section 2 above. 2. Some survey questions comprise an aggregated result across more than one Office-Holder type (e.g. the travel question was asked of House Chairs and Committee Chairs). Consequently, while the results have been disaggregated for the purpose of reporting in Section 2 above, here they appear in aggregated form. The result in Section 2 will not necessarily align with the result below. 3. In a similar vein, in instances below, some Committee Chairs, such as Special Committee Chairs, responded ‘not applicable’ to questions – e.g. support in relation to legislative and estimates processes. For the purpose of reporting in Section 2 above, the not applicable responses have been excluded to provide a true reflection of satisfaction for those to whom the area relates. Once again, therefore, the result in Section 2 will not necessarily align with the result below. 32 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 2. Were you satisfied with the induction you received following your appointment to the position of Office-Holder? Very Satisfied 10% Very 5% 10% 20% 55% 3. If you participated, were you satisfied with the induction briefing for Commission members following the election? Very Satisfied 25% 75% 33 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 4. Are you offered training which enables you to deliver your duties as Office-Holder effectively? (If partially or no, please tell us what areas of additional training would be beneficial) Yes 40% No 45% 15% 5. Would you be interested in the opportunity for further training in the area of governance? Yes 50% 50% 34 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 6. Please rate the quality and comprehensiveness of the briefing you received on the governance framework of the Houses of the Oireachtas as set out in the Commission Acts 2003 to 2015 Fair 25% 25% Good 50% 7. Please rate the quality and comprehensiveness of the briefing you received on the role & structure of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service, including the roles of the Management Committee and Secretary General 25% Good 75% 35 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 8. Please rate the quality and comprehensiveness of the briefing you received on general governance, including roles, responsibilities and duties as a Commission member Fair 25% 25% Good 50% 9. Please rate the quality and comprehensiveness of the briefing you received on the Budget of the Commission 25% Fair 50% Good 25% 36 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 10. Are the oral briefings provided to you in a timely manner? No 11% 11% Yes 78% 11. Are the oral briefings provided to you accurate and of good quality? Needs Immediate 33% 22% 45% 37 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 12. Are you satisfied with the recommendations made through the oral briefings? Very 11% Very Satisfied 33% 11% 45% 13. Are the CPP briefings provided to you in a timely manner? Yes 38 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 14. Are the CPP briefings provided to you accurate and of good quality? Yes 15. Are you satisfied with the recommendations made through the CPP briefings? Very Satisfied 100% 39 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 16. Are you satisfied with the Secretariat Support to the CPP in terms of both pre-meeting and in-meeting support? Yes 17. How would you rate the timeliness of the oral and written briefings provided to you in preparation for Committee meetings or receiving delegations? Needs 8% Fair 15% 23% Good 54% 40 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 18. Are you satisfied with the quality and content of information in the oral and written briefings provided to you in preparation for Committee meetings or receiving delegations? Needs Improvement 8% Fair 15% Excellent 38% Good 39% 19. Are you satisfied with the timeliness and quality of the briefings received in advance of receiving delegations? Yes 41 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 20. Are you satisfied with the level of support and advice available to support you in the Estimates' process (including in relation to performance information scrutiny)? Not Applicable 25% Yes 42% No 8% 25% 21. Are you satisfied with the briefing documentation received in advance of Commission meetings? (in terms of timeliness, format, content and options offered) Yes 42 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 22. Are you satisfied with the quality and clarity of other inputs from the Houses of the Oireachtas Service? (e.g. from the Secretary General and Directors) Yes 23. How would you rate the processes for formulating Commission meeting agendas and pre-meeting planning? 100% 43 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 24. How would you rate the timeliness and content of research and advice on the admissibility of parliamentary questions? 100% 25. Are you satisfied with the timeliness and comprehensiveness of advice on the admissibility of topical issues? Yes 44 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 26. Are you satisfied with the timeliness and comprehensiveness of advice on Commencement Matters? Yes 50% 50% 27. Are the written briefings provided to you by the Bills Office received in a timely manner? Not Applicable 11% No 10% Yes 21% 45 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 28. How would you rate the accuracy and quality of written briefings provided to you by the Bills Office? Needs Immediate 5% Not Applicable 11% Needs 10% Excellent 11% Fair 5% Good 58% 29. Are you satisfied with the support available in respect of pre-legislative scrutiny of Government Bills and scrutiny of private members' bills? Not Applicable 17% No 8% Yes 50% 25% 46 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 30. Are you satisfied with the timeliness, accuracy and usefulness of briefing and advice received in relation to the daily business of the House? 11% Very Satisfied 33% 56% 31. Are you satisfied with the support you and the Business Committee receive in relation to the business of Dáil Éireann? Yes 47 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 32. Are you satisfied with the timeliness of procedural advice received in the Chamber? Very 11% Very Satisfied 33% 11% 45% 33. Are you satisfied with the accuracy and quality of procedural advice received in the Chamber? 11% Very Satisfied 44% 45% 48 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 34. How would you rate the timeliness of advice on the application of Standing Orders (e.g. voting etc) provided to you by the Committee Clerk? Needs Improvement 8% Fair 8% Good 23% Excellent 61% 35. Overall, are you satisfied with the content and quality of advice on application of Standing Orders by the Committee Clerk? 8% Very Satisfied 50% 42% 49 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 36. Are you satisfied with the Committee Clerk's advice on how to handle matters in respect of Committee correspondence? Dissatisfied 8% Satisfied 31% Very Satisfied 61% 37. Are you satisfied with the draft responses provided by the Committee Clerk in respect of Committee correspondence? Very Dissatisfied 8% Very Satisfied 59% Satisfied 33% 50 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 38. Are you satisfied with the quality of the advice available and given during Commission meetings? 25% Very Satisfied 75% 40. Are you satisfied with the information notes provided outside of the Commission meetings in terms of timeliness and usefulness? Very Satisfied 50% 50% 51 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 41. Overall, are you satisfied with the translation services available and received? 25% Not Applicable 35% 10% Very Satisfied 30% 42. Are you satisfied with the level of access you receive to legal advice and legal briefings, as required? 23% Very Satisfied 50% 27% 52 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 43. Are you satisfied with the level of access you and the Committee receive to specialist policy advice? Very Dissatisfied 8% Very Satisfied 38% Neutral 31% Satisfied 23% 44. Are you satisfied with the microphone switching services provided by the Chamber/Committee support staff? Very Dissatisfied 5% Neutral 5% Very Satisfied 42% Satisfied 48% 53 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 45. Are you satisfied with the desk services (incl. computer screens, where applicable) provided by the Chamber/Committee support staff? 5% 5% Very Satisfied 35% 55% 46. Are you satisfied with the electronic voting facilities? Very Satisfied 33% 67% 54 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 47. Are you satisfied with the manual voting facilities? 22% Very Satisfied 22% 56% 49. Are you satisfied with the work programme of the Committee provided by the Committee Secretariat? (in terms of content, timeliness and management) Very Satisfied 46% 54% 55 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 50. Are you satisfied with the briefing materials supplied to the Committee by the Committee Secretariat? (in terms of timeliness, content and usefulness) 15% Very Satisfied 54% 31% 51. How effective are the overall arrangements for the Committee meetings? Extremely Effective 31% 69% 56 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 52. Are you generally satisfied with the content of the Commission meeting agenda and supporting documentation? 25% Very Satisfied 50% 25% 53. Are you satisfied that you can access the Commission agenda and supporting documentation electronically in a timely manner? 25% Very Satisfied 50% 25% 57 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 54. Are you satisfied that you can access the agenda and supporting documentation in hard copy in a timely manner? Very Satisfied 25% 75% 55. Do you feel the Commission meets often enough to properly execute its functions? Yes 58 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 56. Please rate the effectiveness of the Secretariat support during Commission meetings 25% Extremely Effective 75% 57. Are you satisfied with the minutes of the Commission meetings? (e.g. in terms of clarity of decisions or outcomes) 25% Very Satisfied 75% 59 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 58. Please rate how well you are kept up-to-date with issues arising from previous Commission meetings (incl. on decisions made) Good 50% 50% 59. How satisfied are you with the arrangements in place for the allocation of rooms for Committee business? Very Dissatisfied 8% Very Satisfied 23% Dissatisfied 15% Neutral 15% Satisfied 39% 60 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 60. Overall, are you satisfied with the level of Secretariat support available to the Committee to support it in its work? No 8% Yes 63. Are you satisfied with the contents and focus of the Strategic Plan for the Houses of the Oireachtas? Very Satisfied 50% 50% 61 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 64. Are you satisfied with the implementation reports from the Secretary General (outlining progress against the Strategic Plan)? Very Satisfied 50% 50% 65. Are you satisfied with the contents of the Commission's Annual Report? 25% Very Satisfied 75% 62 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 66. Are you satisfied with the content and the quality of the annual or other Committee reports, drafted by the Committee Secretariat? Very Satisfied 39% 61% 67. In your view, how effective is the Commission's communication with the members of the Houses of the Oireachtas? 50% Somewhat Effective 50% 63 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 68. In your view, how effective is the Commission's communication with the Oireachtas Members' staff? 25% Not at all Effective 25% Somewhat Effective 50% 69. In your view, how effective is the Commission's communication with the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas? Not at all Effective 25% Effective 75% 64 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 70. Are you satisfied with the arrangements in place for the reporting of Committee activities and the effectiveness of this reporting? No 8% 15% Yes 77% 71. In terms of travel functions, are you satisfied with the timeliness of the preparations and the arrangements made? Not Applicable 6% Neutral 13% Satisfied 25% Very Satisfied 56% 65 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 72. In terms of travel functions, are you satisfied with the conduct of the visit? Not Applicable 13% 12% 12% Very Satisfied 63% 66 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 73. Are you satisfied with the arrangements in place to support you in your roles and responsibilities outside of the Ceann Comhairle/Commission Chair? (e.g. Presidential Commission, Council of State, public engagements/speeches as Ceann Comhairle, Chair of the Commission for Public Service Appointments, member of the Presidents of Parliament of the EU, and joint-chair of the North South Inter Parliamentary Association) Yes 74. Are you satisfied with the arrangements in place to support you in your roles and responsibilities outside of being Cathaoirleach? (e.g. Presidential Commission, Council of State, public engagements/speeches as Cathaoirleach and member of the Presidents of Parliament of the EU) Yes 67 CONFIDENTIAL OIREACHTAS OFFICE-HOLDERS SATISFACTION REVIEW – FINAL REPORT 75. As a Commission member, are you satisfied with the work of, and reporting by, sub-committees/working groups which either fully or partially support the Commission's work? (e.g. Finance Committee, Audit Committee) Very Satisfied 25% 75% 68 CONFIDENTIAL