Vol. 836 No. 4
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(2) The fund into which the parliamentary activities allowance is paid shall be obliged to produce an annual tax clearance certificate.".
We are discussing Report and Final Stages of the Oireachtas (Parliamentary and Ministerial Offices) (Amendment) Bill 2013.
Well done.
I just wanted to put it on the record because people might not know what we are discussing. Amendment No. 3 is short. I also tabled it on Committee Stage. Everyone accepts its principle. I do not have the figures before me and I am a little bit rusty, but I am sure that the taxpayer is paying €1.5 million into these parliamentary activities allowance funds, formerly known as the party leader's allowance funds, annually. The essence of my point is not unreasonable, in that, when this amount of money is paid into a particular account each year, the people responsible should produce a tax clearance certificate. It would not be acceptable for any State body to pay so much money to an organisation, be it a contractor or service provider, without seeing a tax clearance certificate. This is standard procedure whenever over deals with Departments.
As Deputies, we must return tax clearance certificates when we run for election. Those certificates hold for the period of the Dáil to which we are elected and we are not required to produce a certificate each subsequent year. I am not suggesting that that be the case either, as people elsewhere in the public service do not need to produce their tax clearance certificates each year. However, this is a specific allowance and there should be a requirement of a tax clearance certificate.
The Minister may have been right to a point on Committee Stage, but he nitpicked the word "fund" and asked whether it meant a person, an organisation, a bank etc. We did not really deal with the key issue. I had hoped that he would take the gist of my comments on Committee Stage on board and am disappointed that he did not. I will move on, however, as there may be a good way to resolve this issue.
The first amendment I moved yesterday called for the parliamentary activities allowance to be paid into an account of the qualifying party rather than into a named account of the party leader. We debated this matter then and on Committee Stage. Usefully, the Minister clarified the reality.
I checked.
The money is being paid into accounts that are not in the party leaders' names. What I was seeking to achieve was actually the case anyway. The Minister did not even need to object to the amendment, but the clarification was helpful.
The same approach could be taken in this instance. My understanding is that the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, will introduce regulations on how these accounts should be administered. These must be clear and drafts must be given to party leaders. SIPO has a public obligation to include in the draft regulations, be they secondary legislation or guidelines on auditing standards that must be followed, the requirement for an annual tax clearance certificate. Let it be done on an administrative basis instead of through primary legislation. The essence of my point is correct, in that the State should not hand out that much money each year without tax clearance certificates. I would hand the job over to SIPO and let the Minister off the hook by requiring the inclusion of this amendment in the legislation, although I suspect he will not agree to it. As SIPO requires audited accounts, it should also require tax clearance certificates and report to the House if necessary. What I am seeking could be more simply achieved in this way than via primary legislation.
I have moved my amendment to hear a short response from the Minister, but I will not push it.
I thank the Deputy. As he rightly stated, we had a long discussion on this matter on Committee Stage. Obviously, I consulted Revenue subsequently. I agree with the principle of the amendment, in that every Member should be tax compliant. As I explained on Committee Stage, however, my difficulty lies in accepting an amendment that is not practical or that will impose an unclear duty on a political party. Much of our Committee Stage discussion did not centre on legislation for which I am responsible, but on the Electoral Acts. It is probably those that we should consider.
I listened to the Deputy's comments on SIPO. The advice I have received is that SIPO could not impose such regulations without a statutory underpinning, but we must discuss the matter with Revenue. We will revert on this suite of issues when we deal with the consolidated ethics Bill that we are working on and that we hope to introduce to the House before the end of the year. I will bear this matter in mind while that Bill is being drafted.
I am disappointed that SIPO might not be able to do this. I do not understand how a local authority can require a local builder to produce his or her tax clearance certificate to avail of a small grant to do up a house when SIPO cannot ask political parties to do the same. However, I take the Minister's comments. There is agreement in principle that it would be a good measure and should be done, but it is a question of how to do it.
The practicality.
On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(2) Where a member of a party elected to Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann ceases to be a member of that party, the percentage amount of the allowance paid in respect of him or her to his or her former party shall be paid to such former party member and such amount shall be deducted from that party’s parliamentary activities allowance.”.
I want to move this amendment formally. We discussed it at length and voted on it yesterday. In light of that vote, I will withdraw it.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, line 21, to delete “one-third” and substitute “one-half”.
Some of my amendments are similar to those I moved on Committee Stage. I have not tabled all of them again, but I kept those that I felt were key.
Important.
I have confined my amendments to the specific legislation as opposed to general topics of ethics, fund-raising, parties' activities, electioneering etc. For the benefit of people who want to know the significance of my amendment, I will outline what it means in essence.
The arrangement in place with the leader's allowance is that there is a set allowance based on the number of Deputies in a parliamentary party. However, for some time there has been a reduction, and I am not sure which Minister introduced it but I believe it was Deputy Quinn when he was Minister for Finance-----
It was in 1996.
Yes, so it was Deputy Quinn. At that time there was a valid recognition that the Government has the support of the public service, special advisers, press office, research office and so forth and that it was not fair that its parties should get the full amount of the party leader's allowance, which will in future be called the parliamentary activities allowance. The legislation provides that the allowance paid to parties in Government be reduced by one third in respect of each of their members. The mechanics of it mean that the Government parties get whatever their allowance would be under the first line of computation and it is reduced by one third. I propose that it be reduced by a half. The number of people taken on by Governments in recent decades in terms of special advisers, press officers, ministerial advisers and so forth means that the amount of support available to a Minister has increased substantially. That should be recognised here by providing for a greater reduction of the allowance for the Government parties. The reduction should be a half instead of one third.
When we discussed this on Committee Stage, I had the temerity to point out that when the Deputy's party was in Government, it was happy to take the full complement of the money. It was my colleague, Deputy Quinn, when he was Minister for Finance, who thought it should be rebalanced to ensure the Opposition is enhanced and the parties in Government disadvantaged given that they have additional supports available to them. That is a good principle. The issue is what quantum should apply. I disagree with Deputy Fleming inasmuch as this allowance is not for Ministers. Ministers have parliamentary supports in terms of advisers and Departments. However, there is a big phalanx of backbenchers, particularly in this Dáil, who should be entitled, given that we are trying to enhance Parliament, to draft their own legislation for the Friday sittings, critique legislation and formulate policies, and have the support to do that. There is a need to support research and activities of the parliamentary parties on the Government side of the House over and above what is available to the Government. The balance of two thirds and one third is right.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(3) The parliamentary activities allowance shall be paid from voted expenditure not paid from the Central Fund.”.
Approximately €50 billion of Government expenditure is voted to the various Departments every year. There is a proper debate on the Estimates in the committees and that is how practically all the Government's expenditure of taxpayers' money should be dealt with. There must be a compelling reason for it not to be voted on in the House. Some people say that is a valid argument with regard to payments of the national debt because people might not be happy to lend us money if they thought the repayment was subject to the vagaries of a vote in the House each year. The State is contractually obliged to pay it, regardless of what the Parliament says, because the State has signed up to that and it is the State's word. There is a valid case to be made on that point, although I do not accept the total validity of that case. I believe there could be a provision in the Estimates that would more than encompass what we know must be paid, but that is another day's work.
A number of items are paid from the Central Fund and many of them have been sneaked in. Payments are made to the Oireachtas, to this allowance, to judges, retired politicians-----
That was always the way. We did not sneak in anything.
I agree. I am probably a lone voice in saying this in the House. There is no one here to listen to me aside from the Minister, but I think the practice is wrong. I do not know why it grew. It has existed for decades, including when my party was in Government. However, in these days of openness and transparency, I ask the Minister to think about this point. It would be valid for these allowances to be voted through the House each year and it would also be valid to vote on pensions and so forth. I understand there is some expenditure for postal purposes for elections and referenda that is not subject to a vote but is also paid from the Central Fund. Perhaps it is because one cannot properly estimate those expenditures at the beginning of the year but a nominal Estimate could be included. It would be better if Parliament discussed all expenditure. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform should try to achieve that, to ensure all expenditure of taxpayers' money is discussed and voted through the House in the Estimates process each year. This allowance should be part of that process and should also be discussed in the House each year. That is the reason for the amendment.
I do not oppose this in principle. Deputy Fleming's view on this goes well beyond funding for activities of the Houses of the Oireachtas and he has made a reasoned case for that. It happened because people did not address it rather than it being a contrived way of doing things. It probably would be more democratic if everything was required to be brought formally to the House as opposed to being paid for from the Central Fund. However, as I said on Committee Stage, I do not believe that taking out one element, the parliamentary activities fund, when all the other elements for the Oireachtas, such as wages, expenses and so forth, are from the Central Fund would be the appropriate way to do it. However, when we next have the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill before the House, we might examine the totality of it. I do not know how my colleagues in Government would react to that, especially the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the Central Fund, but it is something I will raise with him at that juncture.
I am pleased that the Minister will raise it. The Central Fund is under the remit of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform cannot unilaterally make an announcement on that today. None the less, I will press the amendment.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(3) The combined parliamentary activities allowances paid to a party under this section, shall be reduced by the amount of any payment paid to any person working for a Minister who is a member of that party, that is in excess of public sector pay guidelines.”.
There should be a reduction of the parliamentary activities allowance to a party in Government where that party has Members who are Ministers and those Ministers are paying amounts above the public sector pay norms to people working directly for them. If they want to have extra money paid to individuals through their Department, there should be an abatement of that amount through the parliamentary activities allowance.
This is the only amendment in which the Deputy is being mischievous. The rest of the amendments were genuinely tabled. The amendment is meaningless because one can set whatever norms one wishes for paying special advisers. I set low norms on the previous occasion with the aim of having controls. People could then make a case-by-case submission to me with regard to recruiting people whose income previously was greater than the set rate.
I wish to make two points on this amendment. I was surprised at the level of consensus on Committee Stage about the importance of political advisers. They are important.
Modern politics is very complicated. Yesterday I spent the day from early morning to late last night at a meeting with the EMC. A lot of advice is needed on complicated matters that also have a political dimension, as one needs to have people thinking on the same wavelength and for them to be sounding boards. There was a great degree of support for that principle when we discussed this on Committee Stage. I do not believe we should confuse the support for parliamentary activities with the support for the Government, which is separate, unique and equally important.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, to delete lines 31 to 35 and substitute the following:
“(5) (a) Subject to the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and to such exceptions, restrictions and conditions as may be provided for by regulations, secretarial facilities may be provided to a qualifying party for the purposes of facilitating the parliamentary activities of its elected members.
(b) Subject to the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and to such exceptions, restrictions and conditions as may be provided for by regulations, the secretarial facilities provided under paragraph (a) may also be proportionately distributed to include the provision of such services to a formally recognised group of the Oireachtas.”.
The Technical Group is recognised under Standing Orders. There must be a minimum of seven Members and a majority of those must not be aligned to a political party. There can only be one technical group and as a consequence, there can only be one majority and that pretty much determines that. According to the way it is interpreted, a Deputy is or is not a member of a group the day he or she is elected, so it is a fixed number at that point.
The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission runs the House and has a budget to do that. The expectation is that when there is a group of that size, there is some guaranteed mechanism of co-ordination. The Technical Group currently employs two people essentially, one of whom is on a job-share basis. We are told that it is an administrative convenience to provide names to the Ceann Comhairle but it would be difficult to foresee how it would be done without that and for the House to function, especially to know where the likes of Ministers are likely to be at any given time. Essentially this is something that makes for smooth running. With 15 or 16 Members in our group, it is not a simple task like it is for parties, which have spokespersons and so on. Considerable co-ordination is required.
Whatever about the internal co-ordination of the group itself, how we interact with the House is important. There is a lot of communication with the Government and Opposition Whips. There can be late changes which we can make and the House can then run smoothly. We liaise with the Questions Office and we are now required to provide lists and things like that, so more is required of us now than there was at the beginning. We have to liaise with the Bills Office and make sure things are on the Order Paper, and liaise with the Journals Office. If we are putting through Private Members' business on a Wednesday - we have one in every three - it will not be accepted from an individual Deputy as it must come through the Whips' office. The House demands this of us, so there is a recognition of a need for it, but there is no direct provision and the legislation has a gap.
We help to facilitate business continuity planning in case of emergencies. We have to provide a telephone number of a person who can be contacted by day and night. We provide our co-ordinator, who is employed by us separately to being employed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. We manage facilities when the photocopier breaks down. There is not just one Deputy involved and there has to be co-ordination, even for things like letting the engineer gain access.
We are located in Agriculture House and aspects such as car parking, people getting locked in, the provision of badges and so on are all examples of the practical issues that help to make this House function. Essentially it would not be expected that a political party would have to do this without that resource, but our group has been expected to do it without a direct provision of a resource. That is the argument we have been making over the last two years.
I know the Minister is not going to accept this amendment because we have spoken about it. It is very disappointing because this is the big opportunity that we see to insert this in the legislation as a matter of entitlement, where there is a group that is recognised under Standing Orders. Some will argue that we should have full parity with the parties but I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there should be a provision that is sufficient to allow the functioning of the group. I wish to acknowledge that the Minister sent me a letter about what the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission can do. It appears that we could make an argument that we could get a secretarial assistant attached to me because I have been nominated as the Whip. That is not something that is a guaranteed for a group that is a recognised group. That is the key issue here. The Minister has also told me that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission can revise its regulations but representatives of the Commission have told me that the impediment for them in dealing with us is that it is not provided for in law, and that the only groups provided for in law are political parties.
I believe we have made a valid case. We are here because we put ourselves as Independents or people from small parties. The electorate decided to elect a large number of us. Independents have been in this House since the State was founded. I acknowledge that this is an unusual situation in that there is such a large group of us but it is not the first time there has been a large group. The last time I was a Member, there was a Technical Group, and there was also a Technical Group in the last Dáil following a by-election. It is recognising the reality and giving a guarantee that there is a minimum that will be provided with regard to the functioning of the House. It is not about deciding on policy because we do not do that and we clearly cannot do so because we are a very disparate group. It is not about those functions; it is merely about making this House function in a way that works for all of us. It works for Ministers, who have one telephone number they can call and we can make sure that our group is briefed or whatever. It works for all of us, but it has to be provided for. There is a difficulty with the way that it is suggested, although I acknowledge that it would probably be the fist step in terms of progressing the issue. However, it is inadequate for the reasons I have outlined.
I thank the Deputy for tabling the amendment. The Minister might clarify subsection (5), which is being amended by Deputy Murphy. I believe people can understand where she is coming from. The amendment states that the provision of "secretarial facilities may be provided to a qualifying party for the purposes of facilitating...". Does that include research and press offices? Is it a broad definition of "secretarial facilities" or is it the traditional, narrow definition?
I will respond to Deputy Murphy in the first instance because we have had long discussions about this. The Deputy's intention is to increase the secretarial facilities, which are broader than "secretary" in the traditional sense. It can be a support made available to the Technical Group but at the expense of parties, because it shifts the money within the pool.
We have had discussions and exchanged correspondence on this. I have indicated on the record of the House that I am sympathetic to the view the Deputy has expressed. It took me a while to reach that position. It cannot be the case that Independents are suddenly seen as a party. Clearly they cannot avail of common research and policy formation services. All shades of opinion are represented within the existing Technical Group. The members of that group have diametrically opposed views on many issues. I think a valid case has been made regarding the practicalities of organising notices and co-ordination.
As Deputy Murphy knows, I examined her amendment in detail in advance of Committee Stage and again in advance of this Stage to see how this matter could be addressed. Having drilled into the proposal, and having received strong advice on the matter, I do not believe the legislative route that has been proposed represents the best way to deal with this issue as it would open up other vistas that are not intended in this regard. However, I am of the view that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission has the power under the existing legislation to provide such secretarial facilities to individual Members of this House as it determines appropriate. The Deputy is right to suggest that this would require the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to determine that Deputy Murphy, as Whip, or some other person - I do not know whether the Technical Group has a chair - is entitled to additional secretarial support. The Whip would probably be the right person to be provided with such assistance because of the administrative burden that falls on her. I would support that.
I have formally written a long letter to Deputy Murphy quoting the legal instruments and making it clear that I believe this is doable and feasible. I hope the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission will accept that. It might not go as far as the Deputy would like for a number of reasons, the first of which is that it would not be a permanent solution. Depending on the structure of the next Dáil, these arguments could have to be made again. I think they will be made in any event, even if the next Dáil is completely different in structure from this one. It is possible for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, through existing Standing Orders and regulations, to provide Deputy Murphy with secretarial assistance in acknowledgement of the additional role of co-ordinator that she performs within the Technical Group in the interests of the effective carrying out of the business of the House. Equally, the commission can decided to amend its own Standing Orders and rules for these purposes.
Deputy Murphy will acknowledge that in my discussions with her, I have been doing my best to address these issues. I know I have not been going as far as she would like. I understand the argument that an additional support official should be available to the Technical Group to provide necessary co-ordination services. If the Deputy could nudge the recalcitrant members of the Technical Group to pay their subscriptions, perhaps it would ensure that an adequate resource is available to the group to enable this work to be done effectively. I have no objection to the formal use by the Deputy of my letter when she is pursuing this matter with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. I hope she does so. If I can assist in that endeavour, I will make myself and my office available for those purposes.
The great majority of members of the Technical Group make a contribution and just one person has failed to do so.
I did not namecheck anyone.
This does create a difficulty when contracts are being agreed with people who are working. There has to be fair play when people are employed. They should be employed on the same basis as anyone else. There should be some certainty about their employment. I would be concerned to ensure they are employed on a par with people who are doing a similar co-ordinating job in the Oireachtas. I might talk to the Minister about this issue again.
Is the Minister satisfied that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is not excluded from assisting? We were told it could not assist because it was not legally allowed to do so. Is the Minister satisfied that is not the case? I acknowledge the change that has been made to the parliamentary activities allowance. It is an improvement because it is more reflective of the reality. Like some other Deputies, I find it very useful to be able to employ an extra person. That is the support we get. Those within the party system get greater support from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Fianna Fáil gets 17.25 secretarial assistant equivalents and Sinn Féin gets 9.75 secretarial assistant equivalents. It is quite a large provision of additional assistance. Both parties do well from the premium on the leader's allowance. All parties that get more than 2% in the opinion polls get support under the Electoral Acts. This does not apply to Independents.
I do not think it is unreasonable to press the point that Independents should receive a guaranteed support to enable us to function in the House in a better way. I do not think anyone who examines the functioning of the Technical Group would dispute that. The most common criticism we receive from the Government side is not that we do not do enough - it is that we are sometimes over-represented when it comes to speaking. I think most Ministers have said that at some point. I suggest that this minimum level of support is required by this active group of Deputies. I am afraid that I will have to press this amendment on a point of principle. Having said that, I acknowledge that the Minister has given me a strong letter, which I certainly intend to use.
While I am a little disappointed that the Deputy is taking my letter and also wants to divide the House, I understand her position. The Dáil is continuing to evolve, but there remains a quantitative difference between a parliamentary party and a technical group. I think Deputy Murphy acknowledges that. Each individual member of the Technical Group has a personal allowance for himself or herself that a party does not get. The members of the group can pool that money if they want. If a certain member of the Technical Group is reluctant to do so, that is unfortunate. The Technical Group can choose to set a stipend for common purposes at any level it likes from the significant amount of money that is available to each of its members. I invite the Deputy to consider that when a significant sum of State money is being provided in support of an individual Deputy, I have to be mindful that it could be used for a common purpose involving co-ordination in the House. Having said that, a case has been made for an additional person to do co-ordination and support work. That is a reasonable settlement in the current climate. Perhaps Deputy Murphy would like me to go further but there are others in the House who believe the members of the Technical Group are already doing very well on an individual basis. If they were to pool some of their money collectively, they could have quite a significant resource to use in the House. I acknowledge that the Technical Group is already a very effective force within the House.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
No. I am going to press it on a point of principle.
I am going to take back my letter.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy is out of order. Amendment No. 10 in the name of Deputy Mary Lou McDonald is grouped with amendment No. 11. As Deputy McDonald is not present, we move on to amendment No. 11.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 10, to delete lines 33 to 39.
This amendment is a simple one which concerns the parliamentary activities allowance. The Standards in Public Office Commission, known as the commission or SIPO, will prepare and publish guidelines for the purpose of providing practical guidance to the parliamentary leaders of qualifying parties, Independent Members and so on. My amendment specifically seeks to delete six lines on page 10 which essentially state that when the Standards in Public Office Commission has prepared its guidelines, carried out its consultation process and wants to issue the guidelines, these draft guidelines should submitted to the Minister for his or her approval, and the Minister shall act as he or she may think proper. I want that subsection deleted to give the Standards in Public Office Commission, which is independent in regard to the performance of the electoral funding legislation and ethics legislation, the right to be independent with regard to this legislation.
I do not think it right that the Minister should have a veto over the guidelines. Either we have confidence in SIPO to draw up these regulations or we do not. I want to remove the power of the Minister to refuse to approve the guidelines, as approved by SIPO, having gone through its full public consultation. We talk about independence in this House and about a new policing authority. If we are serious about giving these independent organisations the respect they deserve, we should not give them power with one hand but have a rein on them with the other.
I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and to delete this power which he is proposing to give himself because it is not necessary. SIPO is fully competent. We should trust it to do the job and let it get on with it.
Deputy Fleming's amendment, as he has outlined, removes the requirement that the guidelines are subject to the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform prior to publication. Under the legislation, the role of the commission has been expanded, as we can see, to ensure increased transparency, accountability and consistency in the use of expenditure from the allowance. However, it is not the intention that the commission, or SIPO, should have a sole interpretative role in regard to this allowance. It falls to me, as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, to have a properly constituted involvement in the final guidelines in so far as they relate to the allowance.
There is no question of any lack of trust in the capabilities or the independence of the commission. This legislation itself shows I have full confidence in the commission to draft guidelines for the legislation rather than retaining that responsibility within my own Department. I am moving the drafting of guidelines away from my Department and giving it to the commission, but retaining a democratic accountability within it. The Minister who is responsible has to have some oversight and it would be wrong to cede my authority in regard to the allowance. I believe the Bill provides the proper democratic oversight in its current form and I do not believe, on reflection, that the Deputy would endure with his proposal, which would cede any democratic accountability. I am responsible to this House. The Deputy's right to have a view and Parliament's right to have a view would be completely extinguished if it was solely the prerogative of SIPO.
Amendment No. 12 is out of order.
