Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jan 2014

Vol. 828 No. 2

Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill 2013 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Peter Mathews is in possession.

It feels like an awful long time has passed since last Thursday's debate. Having managed to get on to the runway last week, I must now try to get airborne. The three speakers immediately preceding me were Deputies Donnelly, Naughten and Shortall. As one would expect, Deputy Donnelly did a fair amount of number crunching on the party leaders allowance which is to be renamed the parliamentary activities allowance. We want to translate this term and decipher precisely what it means. My head has been melted in the past three years by the convoluted and turgid language in which everything is written, spoken and, in many cases, read in this House. It is a great pity that so many contributions are made from a script because the best speeches I have listened to in the Chamber have been from Deputies who have done their homework and express their opinions in ordinary English.

The purpose of the party leaders allowance is to pay for "expenses arising out of parliamentary activities, including research". People at home want to know on what the significant sum of money provided to Senators and Deputies who are elected or appointed to their respective Houses is spent. I have had something of a roller-coaster experience in 2013, as have several other Deputies and Senators, because the money that was earmarked for our expenses arising out of parliamentary activities, including research, has been cancelled for the remaining term of this Dáil and Seanad. Anybody with a sense of fairness and reason will agree that this decision is wrong and we should not lose the offices in which we work in the precincts of the House or our position on committees. In my case, other than the Chairman, I put in more hours than any other member of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform on which I sat before my expulsion. The same applies to Deputy Naughten in the case of the Joint Committee on Health and Children. This is not right.

The decision to change the amount allocated to the expenses pot I described is also wrong. I would have no problem if the proposal had been to reduce the figure in line with the Croke Park and Haddington Road agreements or the reduction in resources and remuneration applied to public servants. This mechanism must be easy to understand. Why does somebody not start with a fresh page that sets out the amount of money to be allocated for the parliamentary activities, including research, of 166 Deputies. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State have the support, at close call, of the Civil Service. As such, they have immediate access to considerable parliamentary knowledge and research. Independent and backbench Deputies do not have easy access to such resources. The proposal before us calls to mind the schoolyard bully who beats up pupils who have been expelled. The Government's proposal refers to Members who have left their positions. None of the Deputies or Senators in question left their parties - they were expelled. If the schoolyard bully beats somebody up and then takes his lunch, the insult is doubled, which is what happened in our case.

We received a mandate from the electorate to represent and legislate in the best interests of our constituents and to do so in accordance with our conscience. I am drafting a Bill which uses the same words as those used in Article 38(1) of the German constitution, which is known as the Basic Law, which states that Members of the Bundestag - in our case it will be Dáil and Seanad Members - are responsible only to their conscience when carrying out their work and duties. The translation is exact so nothing is lost. Article 38(1) article was introduced when the Bundestag was established in the years after the Second World War with the purpose of avoiding what occurred in the years preceding the war. It has worked well in Germany, even in the case of coalition governments with slim majorities. Ultimately, responsible Members of Parliament must act in accordance with their conscience and should not incur any costs or loss of resources for carrying out the parliamentary activities and research they require to perform their duties.

I recommend to all Deputies the tremendous speeches made by Deputies Naughten, Donnelly and Shortall on this Bill last week. Deputy Naughten, in particular, explained in honest and simple terms what should be done in this regard. A set amount of resources must be allocated for the activities, duties, responsibilities and research of Members and divided up fairly. It does not matter if internal responsibilities change slightly. For example, if a Deputy is appointed as a Minister or expelled from his or her party, he or she still has a mandate. I was mandated by those who elected me to act at all times in accordance with my conscience. That is the mark of a civilised country and if it were not the case, we would be living in a tyranny rather than a democracy.

As observed in a paper written by Mr. David Farrell of UCD, and rightly so, never before has a Government in this country had such a majority and it is acting like a cartel. Parliamentary new thinking is not welcome. As far as I can recall, never before in the history of this State have so many Members been expelled from a party on such a ground, as happened last July. It is shameful.

This legislation should simply have laid out that expenditure for last year under these headings is to be reduced by a particular amount and divided between a set number of Members of Parliament and that there is to be a reduction in respect of ministerial Members of the House because they have immediate access to the Civil Service. All of this should have been set out in simple English. I had to seek assistance from my parliamentary assistant in regard to when I was due to speak on the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill 2013, which around the Houses is called the leaders' allowances Bill even though it deals not with leaders' allowances, but with parliamentary activities allowances. This Bill should be called the expenses of research and political activity of all Members of the House Bill. The public would then know what it is about. It does my head trying to translate everything.

I gave the Taoiseach a copy of Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, which deals with behavioural psychology and behavioural economics. It is an excellent, classic reference book. The Minister's Second Stage speech on this Bill, which is 12 pages long, frames and hypnotises people. As stated by David Farrell, there is a cartel at work, one which tried to abolish one of the Houses, namely, the Seanad. One has to pinch oneself, wondering if that is true.

Only through discussion in Parliament can ideas be discussed, agreed, disagreed or developed. One's thoughts are only as good as the language in which they are expressed. Some of what is contained in the Minister's speech is unbelievable, including: "[We are all] aware of the enormous impact of the difficult decisions the Government has been forced to take due to the parlous state of the public finances that it inherited." That sentence is not needed in the context of parliamentary research and so on. At least ten pages of that speech were not necessary.

On democratic reform, the only democratic reform of this House, which has been hard hitting and real, was that experienced by seven people thrown out of their party. That is the reform that has taken place. The remainder is only tinkering, bandaging, illusion, misperception and strange language. The Minister also said in his speech: "The Government is determined to ensure that greater transparency and accountability is associated with political funding, as the people should be able to see that the money they provide is used in an effective and proper fashion."

Seven people will get nothing for the next two and a half years. What am I or my colleagues supposed to do? While I might sound like a grumpy person, I am not. These are the facts. There is a hypnotic effect in here. There are currently few Members in the House. Members do not come here because they expect to hear only sleepy, dozy, unmeaning, multi-syllable bureaucratic, lever arch files transposed into words and spoken. With respect to the Ceann Comhairle, often when I am Acting Chairman of this House, I have to fight to stay awake. There is no engagement.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the House and congratulate him on his declaration for Europe. Bonne chance.

The Minister also stated the following in his speech:

It has been suggested that in the event that a Member of a party loses the party Whip, the parliamentary party should have its funding reduced. Not only does that suggestion miss the point that the money given to the party, reflecting the wishes of the electorate, it is not the individual's and was never theirs to control or spend in that fashion.

They are the words of a person with the mindset of a bully. Unless Members do what a party says, their ability to research ideas and information in order to do their job will be taken away. That is unbelievable. Talk about double-speak; that is treble-speak. It is all over the place and impossible to understand.

I would like to put forward a suggestion. When one is not happy with something, one should measure it and see what one can do to fix it. It is very simple. I have no problem with a 10%, 15% or 20% reduction or with allowances being audited, but how this is to be done should be set out in simple language. The sums should be written out on paper, totted up and so on and then divided by a particular number of people. Also included at the top of the page should be information in relation to the ten or 15 people who have special access to information and the discount which applies to them. All Members of the Dáil are legislators. They are pari passu in their responsibilities. The Government is great at saying pari passu when it comes to depositors, bondholders and so on, when it should not be so. It takes guts to be fair. I am challenging the Government to be fair. This proposal should be scrapped and the allowance should be divided by 166, separating out the allowance for the 20 or so Ministers, thus making it fair. The allowances should be reduced and subject to auditing. The public are not idiots. They will understand it. Out of respect, that is what should be done.

It is often said that things are shown up in a bad light when they are looked into. This type of stuff brings a big cloud over everything. Reference is also made in the Minister's speech to political accountability, reform, parliamentary inquiries and freedom of information. Simply put, we need to pull back the curtains. In medical terms, the best cure for any disease, cut or wound is light. The curtains should be pulled back on NAMA and Irish Water. Otherwise we get a rolling experience similar to those we had with the Central Remedial Clinic, Rehab and so on, which is not good. They are but a few suggestions, which will require courage to implement. The result will be a reduction in the amount of ink and paper used. As I suggested earlier, it is possible to set out the budget for research and other expenses on one page. In 2008, I produced an analysis of the six balance sheets of the banks on one double-sided page, which analysis showed that the NAMA strategy was all wrong and the losses were all wrong. It showed exactly what happened to deposits for six banks at two different times. Everything is simple. Politically there can be advantage in trying to confuse.

Reference was made earlier today to the 30,000 submissions in regard to Irish Water. The review body will include people who are, perhaps, well into retirement. I would not ask somebody well into retirement to review 30,000 submissions. I would give that job to people with more energy reserves, people who have a sense of curiosity rather than people who may be tired having done very valuable work throughout their lifetime.

Those are some challenging thoughts. I plead with the Government not to run away from them, to take them on board and to simplify what is intended. It can be done with some numbers in order that it is understood by everyone.

Deputy John Paul Phelan has 20 minutes.

I will definitely not use all 20 minutes, although, when one starts, one never know where one will finish. I agree with some of the points the previous speaker, Deputy Mathews, made but there are other points I wish to make as well.

I disagree with Deputy Mathews' view that the Bill should simply be scrapped and started again. The main provisions are positive. He is correct to point out that some of the terminology and the names put on legislation that passes through the Oireachtas, as well as some of the activities that take place in the House, are not very descriptive of what is actually taking place. Renaming the leader's allowance as the parliamentary activities allowance is an attempt at least to identify what the funding is used for. A reduction in the overall amount is in line with the reductions that various Departments and agencies have faced in recent years, and I have no difficulty with that.

One important aspect of the legislation relates to severance payments. It is fitting that the most recent former Minister of State is in the House at the moment. She did not take a severance payment although under existing rules she was entitled to do so. She did not take it up because she took the view it was improper to do so. She was right and I applaud her for that decision.

As well as being absolutely dismayed and disgusted with some of the activities of the previous Government because of what happened economically, a large proportion of the public was outraged by the fact that former Ministers had the temerity, when not facing the electorate in the last election, to take vast severance payments for a job which they had done so disastrously and badly for the people. The fact this legislation contains provisions to remove severance payments for Ministers and officeholders is welcome.

It is important the reporting and accounting mechanisms applicable to the leader's allowance for political parties are applied to Independent Members in respect of how the proportion of the leader's allowance that is allocated to them is spent. This is a welcome inclusion in the legislation. Only three years ago, a Member who was elected as an Independent received in excess of €41,000 of taxpayers' money annually. This was effectively equivalent to €80,000 in a salary payment and the Member did not have to account for it. That is completely unacceptable. This legislation proposes that the same measures of accounting for expenditure would apply to the spending of that money, and this is to be welcomed. Furthermore, it proposes that if the expenditure has not been incurred, then the money will be refunded. I understand approximately €6 million was paid to Independent Members of the Dáil and Seanad in the 12 years from 2001 to 2013 but none of it was handed back because it was not spent. None of this spending was accounted for. It is alarming to think there was no real proper accounting mechanism for how that money was used.

I concur fully with the comments of Deputy Mathews with regard to some of the discussions that take place in the Chamber and the lack of attendance of Members at times. Often this is not necessary because the debates are not interesting. It is the way the business of the Houses and the committees are run. Today, there are three different meetings of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I was unable to attend one of them, involving an important discussion - it is under way at present - on the possible introduction of community courts in our large urban centres, an idea first proposed approximately seven years ago but about which nothing was done, although a report was drawn up at the time. I am missing it because I wanted to make some points on this legislation. If we want to reform how the Oireachtas runs and ensure as many Members as possible can contribute to real and meaningful discussions, as they should be able to, we should examine how we order our business. We should consider whether it is time to change to the European Parliament model, where there are certain weeks for committee meetings to be held. We should consider whether we should do that here because people cannot be in three or four places at the one time and expect to make a useful contribution.

I fully agree with the sentiments of Deputy Mathews in respect of pulling back the curtains. He spoke of shedding light on all areas and mentioned NAMA in particular. I fully agree with him in this regard. There are other organisations, such as EirGrid, for example, which is topical at the moment. I will not mention some of the others which need light shed on how they operate. I see this legislation as a significant attempt to ensure that what was previously known as the leader's allowance is opened up to more scrutiny. People must vouch for how the allowances they are in a position to draw down are spent. Fundamentally, that is why I support this legislation.

The Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. I imagine on Committee and Report Stages there will be an opportunity to discuss amendments and some of the issues that have been raised in the discussion. However, it is important that taxpayers' money is accounted for properly at all times and not only because of the economic situation the country has endured in recent years. That has not been the case heretofore with regard to some of the allocations of the leader's allowance.

There was a good deal of speculation when changes were made in the legislation to allow significant unvouched payments to Independent Members. It occurred at a time when some Independents were involved in supporting the then Government or could have been involved in supporting governments with insufficient numbers of party members to have a majority in the House. The provisions of this Bill, which allow for the Independent Members' allowance to be accounted for properly, are to be welcomed, as is the main provision, which proposes the removal of severance payments from officeholders and Ministers. This reflects what has happened in the country in recent years. Politicians and the political class should not be exempt from the cuts or changes that have had to be made in the past five or six years.

Deputy Finian McGrath is not here and therefore Deputy Lucinda Creighton is next with 20 minutes.

This is a little premature but I imagine Deputy McGrath never intentionally misses an opportunity to speak. He has probably been delayed somewhere.

He is at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.

There is a good deal to say about this legislation. Although it is a succinct and short tranche of legislation, it is important in what it contains. It is equally important in what it does not contain and what it ought to contain. There are certain issues I wish to highlight in my contribution.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, for taking this debate. I take this opportunity to wish him the very best of luck in his exploits in the coming months in respect of his very courageous decision to put his name forward to contest the European elections in May. If he is successful in his endeavour, he will immediately find that the European Parliament is a far more transparent and open House than the Dáil. Perhaps he will bring some of the experiences he gleans there back to the Oireachtas, sharing his knowledge of some of the transparency measures that have been introduced in recent years, particularly in regard to expenses and supports for Members of the European Parliament. These measures are in stark contrast to practices in this and the Upper House.

The purpose of this legislation is twofold. First, it proposes a reduction in the party leaders' allowance and the allowance to Independent Members, which come under the same heading. It also provides for a change in the title of this allowance, which is quite immaterial. Second, it proposes the abolition of the severance payment to Ministers and Ministers of State when they cease to hold office. I support these measures, which are important and timely in the context of the economic crisis we have endured for five years. Deputy Róisín Shortall and I chose not to take the severance payment to which we were entitled when we left ministerial office. As Deputy John Paul Phelan pointed out, that option was available to others but they chose instead to walk away with very substantial payments which were funded by Irish taxpayers. In many cases, these payments clearly were not warranted, but Members of this House considered it appropriate to accept them. It is right and proper that these payments be discontinued.

Let us be clear, however, that this Bill does nor represent radical political reform. It does not represent radical reform of the payments available to politicians in this State. It does nor represent radical reform in terms of how we deal with, spend and respect taxpayers' money. It does absolutely nothing to enhance transparency regarding the expenditure of taxpayers' moneys and nothing to ensure fairness in the political system. In fact, it does quite the contrary, as several speakers have observed. The Bill enshrines and copperfastens the dominance of certain political parties and the abuse of taxpayers' money. It is most unfortunate.

These provisions are completely out of kilter with what my party - of which I am still a member, although I have been expelled from the parliamentary party - committed to in its election manifesto in 2011 and in the New Politics document we published in 2010. This is not just disappointing, it is a betrayal of the trust that was placed in us at the last election and the very clear mandate we received from the electorate to introduce a new type of politics and a new fairness, transparency and openness in the political system and, most importantly, to restore trust in the Irish democratic process. This Bill does nothing to achieve any of those goals. Indeed, it entrenches the very antithesis of those goals.

When I went forward for election to the Dáil for the second time in 2011, I stood very proudly under the banner of my party's commitment to new politics. That commitment was not simply rhetoric or mere words. We had a clearly articulated document which we promoted and sold to voters, the contents of which, as we convinced the public, we were determined to implement in full when in government. I was proud that we committed to radical political reform and to enhancing and developing a genuine sense of transparency in our political system. I was proud to be associated with the concept of a new politics and to stand over the promise by the then Leader of the Opposition to introduce a democratic revolution in the lifetime of a new Government led by Fine Gael. The question I and all members of my party in this House must ask ourselves now is what happened to that promise and why are we so reluctant to fulfil it.

I have a range of facts and figures to hand which are very relevant to this legislation. I will begin, however, with a very explicit commitment in the New Politics document my party published in 2010, as follows: "We will publish annual audited accounts for the Fine Gael Party on the web from 2010". This commitment was not contingent on our going into government. It was a commitment by the party to the people. That commitment has not been met and no audited accounts have been published. This is a great disappointment and I hope it can and will be addressed by the party.

Unfortunately, a failure to provide audited party accounts is not unique to Fine Gael. According to the extensive research I have undertaken, Fianna Fáil has never published any audited accounts. The Labour Party, on the other hand, does publish accounts and we can glean some useful information from them. We discover, for example, that average expenditure on salaries and pensions has increased in recent years. This happened at a time of cutbacks in both the public and private sectors. It was a period during which he Government was obliged to introduce substantial reductions in pay, pensions and benefits throughout the country, and rightly so. The Labour Party, during this period, increased the average pay for staff in its party headquarters from €53,190 to €55,698. There is no breakdown of the number of people receiving a pension from direct expenditure.

We in this House like to talk about leading by example and about transparency in every other facet of Irish society. We have seen a great deal of grandstanding and a lot of people speaking from a shaky high moral ground in recent weeks, particularly in respect of certain charities and so on. At the same time, it seems political parties, which are funded almost exclusively by taxpayers, are actually increasing expenditure from the increased moneys they receive from the Exchequer. Sinn Féin is another party which claims to publish all its financial accounts. In fact, it has only published accounts up to 2009 on its website. There has been nothing since and no information is provided on the numbers employed by the party. This is the level of transparency we are dealing with across all political parties in the State. It makes for disappointing reading. It certainly is not indicative of the type of openness and honesty to which we are supposedly committed. In some respects, what we are seeing is quite disingenuous.

This issue is very relevant in the context of the ongoing dispute regarding the interpretation of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012.

I hope most Members are aware that a dispute erupted between the chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government just prior to Christmas when the latter refused to implement a recommendation put forward by the former to the effect that a breakdown of the accounts of the various organs and units of party organisations across the State should be published. In some parties those organs and units are knows as branches, while in others they are known as cumainn. Those in Government gave a clear commitment on entering office that they would facilitate full transparency in respect of the accounts of political parties. However, one Government Minister is refusing to sign an order to give effect to that commitment and to the recommendation made by the SIPO. As a result, there is a stand-off. That is completely unacceptable. The vast majority of the fund-raising carried out by political parties is done by individual branches throughout the country. This is an obvious way for parties to avoid transparency because such branches are not accountable to the SIPO and are not subject to the full rigours of the legislation approved by this House in 2012. That is extraordinary. It is a breach of pre-election commitment and it compromises, to a substantial degree, the independence of the SIPO, which is being constrained in the execution of its independent statutory duties by a Minister who does not want to co-operate with it. That is worrying.

I wish to deal now with the Exchequer funding the parties receive. The figure for such funding for Fine Gael in 2012 was €2.281 million. This represented an increase of €107,000 over the figure for 2011 which was €2.173 million. The leader's allowance funding received in 2012 was €2.678 million. Again, this represented an increase of €99,000 on the figure for 2011. The Labour Party received Exchequer funding of €1.287 million, an increase of €96,000 over 2011. The leader's allowance funding for the party in 2012 was €1.789 million, an increase of €155,000 over 2011 in which the amount received was €1.634 million. At a time when we have stressed the need to tighten the strings on the public purse and appealed to every citizen to reduce spending and accept pay cuts and efficiencies - I supported all of this in light of the extraordinary efforts we have been obliged to make in order to try to extricate the country from the financial crisis in which it finds itself - it is grossly hypocritical for political parties to continue to approve substantial increases in the funding they receive.

For the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, to proclaim in this Chamber and in the Upper House - I read the transcripts of the debate which took place there - that this is a new form of open government and that it involves transparency and accountability in public life is nonsense. We in this House have a responsibility to point that out.

Deputies Donnelly, Naughten, Mathews and others referred to the funding parties receive per Member. Of the 75 Fine Gael Deputies elected to the Dáil in 2011, six have been expelled from the party. The Exchequer funding relating to these Deputies, of whom I am one, is more than €300,000. This money has been allocated to the party in my name and those of my colleagues. We are no longer members of the parliamentary party because we have been expelled and some of us are no longer members of the party at all. Of the 38 Labour Party Deputies elected to the Dáil in the 2011 general election, four have left the parliamentary party. The Exchequer funding relating to these individuals is €284,000 and it has been allocated to the Labour Party in respect of them despite the fact that they are no longer members.

For the purposes of clarification and for the record, the funding in question is allocated per annum.

Correct. So Fine Gael and Labour have received what are, effectively, top-ups in the amount of almost €600,000 in respect of Deputies who are no longer members of their parliamentary parties. Neither party can claim that they can legitimately spend those funds in the names of the Deputies in respect of whom they were allocated. Almost €600,000 in top-ups is being paid by the taxpayer to the headquarters of both parties in respect of Deputies who are no longer members of those parties. The position is the same with regard to certain Members of the Seanad.

Despite a budgetary adjustment of almost €9 billion in expenditure cuts, tax increases, reductions in public sector pay, etc., in 2011 and 2012, Exchequer funding for the political parties in Government actually increased in order that they might oversee that adjustment. I find that repulsive. Given that there are no compliance procedures in respect of accounting, that party accounts are not published and that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is trying to obfuscate in the interests of ensuring that he can circumnavigate the SIPO recommendation with regard to accounting at branch level, we have no idea how the funds to which I refer are being spent. Thanks, I presume, to the same Minister, we have been given a little hint as to what is involved. Deputy Naughten alluded to this when he referenced an article written by Niamh Horan and Fionnan Sheehan which appeared in the Sunday Independent on 19 January. The article quoted a so-called senior Fine Gael source and indicated that the latter had stated that he is making every effort to have me and other Deputies who left or were expelled from the party replaced at the next general election. The source also said that all available resources will be dedicated to this task.

It is not just the case that the funding being received by the two parties in Government in my name and in those of Deputies Terence Flanagan, Naughten, Shortall and others is being retained. A senior source within one of those parties, Fine Gael, has acknowledged that some of it will be used to try to manipulate taxpayers - whose money it is in the first instance - to vote in a particular way at the next general election. That is a complete manipulation and distortion of the democratic process which obtains in this country. I must question the position of the senior Fine Gael source to whom I refer. I read about this individual a great deal in the national newspapers. I have spoken to political correspondents who very openly informed me of the identify of this source. If that source spent more time in his ministerial office micromanaging the funds he says he does not have time to micromanage and less time spinning to the media and trying to manipulate the internal workings of a certain political party, he would be doing a much greater service to the taxpayers and other citizens of this country than is the case at present.

Why should the Committee of Public Accounts not account to this House and to the people on how taxpayers' money is funding the operation of political parties in this State?

This is a very important debate which forms part of the wider debate on reform for which many of us have been campaigning for many years. The Bill deals with aspects of accountability and transparency and the need to adapt to the current economic and political situation. Our people are crying out for change and are demanding sensible spending of public moneys and value for money. I will vote for this Bill if its proposals can meet those demands.

Misleading information needs to be dealt with. I refer to those who are cynical and who are misinformed about these issues. Citizens need to understand the defects and unfairness in the political system. It is necessary to weed out the bad eggs and implement necessary changes urgently. Members of the Oireachtas have a duty to support changes and reform and to stop the hypocrisy in many places in this House.

The Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill 2013 seeks to change the party leader's allowance which will be renamed the parliamentary activities allowance and to abolish severance payments for Ministers. It does not affect the parliamentary standard allowance for all Members of the Oireachtas. The party leader's allowance is a device for giving allowances needed by either a parliamentary party or an Independent Member for parliamentary activities such as research. The Bill will change the party leader's allowance regime. This also affects allowances for Independent politicians like me. The allowance will be reduced by 10% with more demanding reporting and vouching standards for the allowance overseen by the Standards in Public Office Commission.

Not all Independent Members are in receipt of the allowance; it only applies to those elected in a general election or a by-election. A person who subsequently leads a political party cannot claim a party leader's allowance. The Bill will not change this regulation. In my view that is a mistake. The Bill will abolish the current system whereby Ministers receive a payment on leaving ministerial office. This is a welcome proposal. These changes were proposed in the 2013 budget. The Bill will not affect the parliamentary standard allowance.

This Bill is the beginning of a reform process which will introduce an amount of accountability and transparency. However, in my view, further and urgent reform is required of the system of funding of political parties and Independent Members. We cannot have the brass neck to cut the respite care grant or the bereavement grant of €800 when the reductions proposed in the Bill are at the level of 10%. There has been uproar in this House about the consultancy expenses and salaries regimes in some charities and public bodies. We must lead by example.

Funding should follow the Member. I support my colleagues on this issue even if I disagree with them on other issues. Everyone must be treated equally and with respect and above all, in a transparent manner. The people want accountability. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to listen to that request. I wish him well in the forthcoming European elections.

I note Government Deputies having a dig at the leader's allowance for Independent Members. All political parties are provided with funding by way of a leader's allowance as well as other funding. I hear the smart comments from the Government backbenches. Some of us put details of our expenses on our websites, even though we were not required to do so. We use some of our leader's allowance to employ extra staff and for research and development. We try our best to be accountable. I do not say that everything is squeaky clean and that I am holier than anyone else but some of us try to be accountable.

Political parties receive in the region of €13 million in Exchequer funding annually. The money is paid to parties under the Electoral Acts and the party leader's allowance. The five largest parties receive funding of €5 million as well as €8 million under the party leader's allowance legislation. I do not think some of the Government backbenchers are aware of this funding. This funding is not subject to income tax and may not be used for electoral or referendum purposes. The level of funding is linked to pay increases in the Civil Service. However, the legislation governing the funding is silent on pay decreases. Qualified political parties must furnish statements of expenditure of the funding received.

I note that Fine Gael received in the region of €4.484 million, while the Labour Party received €2,163,293. In the current economic climate, we must question whether such funding amounting to €13 million is justified. Public representatives need funding and expenses to assist in doing their job but I ask the major political parties whether they need €13 million, in particular when prescription charges have increased per item and the telephone allowance for the elderly of €9.50 per month was abolished. The bereavement grant of €800 was abolished and the maternity benefit was cut to €230 a week, costing this year's mums €832. I raise these issues because we must look at the facts and the reality.

I refer to issues not covered by the Bill. Salaries and pensions are not included. The system must be made more accountable. Civic society is demanding changes and it is time to introduce a system of vouched expenses for all politicians. The use of the guillotine must be discontinued and legislation must be carefully scrutinised. The committees must be given powers to examine in advance spending proposals as well as powers to hold inquiries and to compel witnesses and documents.

We need to make senior public servants responsible for their decisions and actions.

I encourage the Minister and the Government to talk about real transparency in respect of the funding of political parties. We need to make parties publish proper annual accounts. We need to register and control lobbyists and, above all, protect whistleblowers, who will keep an eye on public money at all times. When we talk about reform, we need to make all appointments to State and public bodies and to the Judiciary open to public competition and Dáil scrutiny. We need to ban any individual from being a director of more than three major companies or public bodies. We need to conduct an urgent review of company law to ensure white collar criminals are brought to justice. Basically, we need to bring in these radical reforms.

Under this Bill, the leader's allowance will be reduced by 10%. The Independent Deputy's allowance will be reduced to €37,000 while the allowance for Independent Senators will be reduced to €21,000. It will be €64,000 per Deputy for each of the first ten Members elected, it will be €51,000 per Deputy for each Member elected from 11 to 30 Members and €25,000 for each Deputy elected over 30 Members. It will be €42,00 per Senator, elected or nominated, for each of the first five Members elected and it will be €21,000 per Senator elected or nominated over five Members.

The Bill repeals the 1992 additions and gets rid of the severance allowance while preserving the entitlements of those already in receipt of the allowance. The severance allowance will go on enactment, meaning that any serving Minister will not be entitled to a severance payment. The severance allowance should not be confused with the termination allowance as it applies only to ministerial posts and certain parliamentary offices. The termination allowance applies to all Members of the Oireachtas when they lose a seat. I strongly support these sections.

We need to see if we can do more in regard to costs. The financial implications of this legislation are that the 10% reduction in the rates of the allowance will result in savings of €0.84 million in a full year. I ask the Minister, who spends his life looking for an extra few bob here and there, if €0.84 million is enough, in particular when other areas are crying out for funding. I urge him to look at that figure again. A saving will also arise from the abolition of severance payments to holders of certain ministerial and parliamentary offices as the current and future holders of such offices will not receive such payments at the end of their term in office. These issues should be looked at more carefully. We should do our best to ensure more can be done.

I welcome this opportunity to have this broader debate. I urge the Minister to look seriously at some of the issues surrounding the funding. We need accountability, transparency and to bring in the changes people demand. We must get rid of the cynical view of politicians - the "You are all the same" syndrome. That is not correct. Most Members of the Oireachtas came in here with good intentions to do their best for their country and their constituents.

However, we have to lead by example. That is the bottom line in regard to this legislation, which is flawed from that point of view. There are many weaknesses in it in that it does not give us enough of a lead to tell people what we are doing. One never asks people for respect. People often say to me that one does not get respect, but one earns it. One earns respect in the community and if people lead by example, they will get respect. Some 35% or 40% of people would not then stay at home during the local or European Parliament elections. From a democratic point of view, it worries me that approximately 35% to 40% of our people are so cynical that they will not vote. It is not just an Irish problem. In the European Union and in the United States, many of the marginalised and excluded do not vote because they are so cynical about things. Many people who are very well off are also cynical, but I do not agree with some their cynicism because some of them were very quick during the good old Celtic tiger days to make a quick buck and take as much as they could. We need to challenge these perceptions.

This country should be about ensuring fairness, equality and accountability, which is what the people demand. This legislation deals with certain issues but we need to go further with reforms and changes and create a new Ireland which ensures the political system is run in an efficient way and does not squander public money. That is the bottom line. We need to cut the fat in the system and use that money to develop this country and make it a more efficient, competent and competitive one with a broader future. There are enough people in this country to do that and there are enough Members in this House to roll up their sleeves, get stuck in and do that for their country.

I welcome this opportunity raise my concerns about the legislation. I also welcome the fact the Minister and Minister of State have come to the House to listen to the debate because it is very important they get the message from both sides of the House that we need accountability, openness and transparency but, above all, we need to ensure we earn the respect of the citizens of this State.

Like the previous speaker, Deputy McGrath, my colleague in Dublin Bay North, I very much welcome this Bill and greatly appreciate the presence of the Minister. My colleagues in the Reform Alliance, including the Acting Chairman, Deputy Mathews, welcome this Bill which will put an end to severance payments to Ministers and will reduce the party leader's allowance. Many constituents and members of the public get very angry when they see the extortionate pensions, allowances and perks paid to previous Members of this House and to chief executives of State bodies.

In recent weeks, we have seen many concerning reports in the media about Irish Water and the spending and start-up costs and what was paid to consultants. The same consultants seem to be consistently employed by the State. That could be looked at to ensure the money is spread around. A cap could be applied under the procurement rules so that five or ten companies do not get all the work and that it is shared among some of the other expert consultants in the market. Spending in charities has knocked the confidence of the public in the system and has resulted in people being more disillusioned with the system and, sadly, with politics.

I have no doubt my constituents will be happy with the Bill and the fact that severance payments will come to an end. Once this Bill is enacted, Ministers will no longer receive a payment on leaving office. Many people have expressed frustration to me that so little reform has taken place in the Irish political system. I know it was the subject of debate at the Constitutional Convention in Malahide last weekend. It is looking to see how the procedures and the way business is done in the Dáil Éireann could be improved. People are angry there has been no accountability with former Ministers walking away with huge lumps sums even though they were responsible for the economic collapse of our country and the bank bailout. No one has been held to account.

I know the Government has given a commitment to do that. I suggest that my colleague, Deputy Mathews, who has always been an independent voice and spoken the truth about the banking situation, should be considered as one of the members of that banking inquiry in light of his track record and what he stands for as a Member of our Parliament.

Following the recent disclosures regarding the use of consultants as part of the establishment of Irish Water, it has never been more apparent that greater transparency is needed in all aspects of political funding. Many of my constituents have expressed concern about how the money from the local property tax is being spent. They had understood it would be used to improve local services for the betterment of their communities, but sadly this has not happened. We know that some of the money in question went into the central Exchequer to be spent on the day-to-day running of the country. Some of the other revenue was used to meet the costs associated with setting up Irish Water. People are angry that consultants are receiving pay-offs and bonuses are being given to staff without any proper transparency regarding what they are getting those bonuses for. We have learned that 299 people in Irish Water will be entitled to bonuses of €2.1 million. We are all happy that the Minister has decided to include Irish Water in the freedom of information legislation. I thank him for that. I hope it will be backdated to cover all the ins and outs of that organisation's expenditure.

It will be backdated to July of last year.

Perfect. People want to know how much has been spent to date to meet Irish Water's set-up costs. Consumers are concerned that they will face higher water charges on foot of these start-up costs.

The Minister has taken some important steps to ensure the funding of political parties is a more transparent process and to make politicians more accountable to the electorate. The Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012, which introduced measures to require political parties to disclose to the Standards in Public Office Commission details of the funding they have received above certain limits, has gone some way to make the public funding of political parties more accountable. The maximum donation that can be accepted by an individual elected representative or a candidate has been reduced from €2,539 to €1,000. The maximum donation that can be accepted by a political party has been reduced from €6,349 to €2,500. I think this will help to restore the electorate's faith in the political system in Ireland.

The 10% reduction in the party leaders' allowance is another important aspect of the Bill. The allowance in question is in place to assist political parties and Independent Deputies who were elected as Independents with their parliamentary-related activities. It helps them to carry out their duties fully and represent their constituents properly. It is important that the allowance is being reduced at a time when the public service has been cut and many people throughout the country have lost their jobs.

As the Minister is aware, the Independent Deputies who comprise the Reform Alliance were expelled from the Fine Gael Party for voting against the Government on an issue of conscience which we believed to be of significant importance. We kept our party's promise to the electorate even though we were aware of what the repercussions of doing so would mean for us as individuals. As Independents, we are not entitled to receive the party leaders' allowance as Deputies who were elected as Independents do. The Fine Gael Party is continuing to enjoy the benefit of allowances in respect of seven former members - five Deputies and two Senators - whom it has seen fit to expel and who now comprise the Reform Alliance in the Oireachtas. I would like the €300,000 in question to be returned and used, like other taxpayers' funds, for proper purposes such as the restoration of the moneys that have been taken from children's, disability and other services. That would be only right and proper. When he spoke last Thursday, Deputy Naughten suggested that this money should "be returned to the Exchequer" and used in areas where is it is much more needed, for example, to provide respite care or help with the medical costs of children with disabilities.

St. Michael's House, which is a vitally important resource in my constituency of Dublin Bay North, is crying out for funding and support. It helps 1,600 people with intellectual disabilities and their families. It has been struggling to provide the same level of service, year-on-year, as a result of the cuts in its budget. The money given to the Fine Gael Party - my allowance and that of my Reform Alliance colleagues - could be put to much better use by St. Michael's House or a similar facility that has suffered as a result of the recent economic collapse. It is upsetting to receive e-mails from constituents who are anxious that the St. Michael's swimming pool in Belcamp Park is no longer open to users on Saturdays. Those who use the pool greatly benefit from availing of this outlet. This purpose-built facility, which was designed for people with disabilities, gives children a chance to socialise. No other pool in my area can meet the needs of those who use it. Parents have raised concerns with me about the fact that this facility now has to close every Saturday, which is the most suitable day for families to go to the pool because of parents' work responsibilities during the week.

The Fine Gael Party is being allowed to continue to draw down the allowances I have mentioned and use them for its own research purposes. As Deputy Naughten and Creighton have pointed out previously, an extremely concerning article appeared in the Sunday Independent on 19 January last. The newspaper claimed to have spoken to a senior Fine Gael Party source who admitted that all steps would be taken to ensure a former member of the party will not be re-elected at the next general election. A senior party source told the newspaper that Fine Gael intends to help potential candidates "in every way and resource them" adequately. It is shocking that a political party is using public funds to block the re-election of a former member of that party.

One cannot use public money for election purposes.

Hard-pressed taxpayers would be concerned about this situation.

There is concern about the use of the funding that is going to the party in question. People would be concerned if public funds were to be used for internal party politics in this way. The funds being collected by the parliamentary party in the name of its former members are being used to actively campaign against them.

They cannot be used in that way.

This is another example of hidden expenditure within Dáil Éireann. Many people are unaware of it. I am sure most people would agree that a political party should not be allowed to claim allowances in respect of Deputies and Senators who have been expelled from that party. I hope the Minister can consider the matter. Perhaps he will propose an amendment to this Bill on Committee Stage to deal with this issue.

It has not been pleasant for me to be expelled from a party for which I worked very hard over many years. Those of us who were expelled from Fine Gael were almost immediately removed from the committees on which we had worked hard and to which we had contributed. Less than 24 hours after I voted against the Government, my profile was removed from the Fine Gael website and my details on the Oireachtas website were changed to reflect my new status as an Independent Deputy. Initially, we were even denied speaking rights in this Chamber. This meant I was unable to contribute to important debates that I knew would have an impact on my constituency. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ceann Comhairle for providing another slot in this House to facilitate me and my Reform Alliance colleagues, including Deputies Mathews and Timmins, who had been denied the right to speak.

I am glad we are able to contribute to important debates and particularly debates that have a significant impact on my constituency. I no longer have the powerful backing of a parliamentary party behind me and do not have the access to funding for research that would assist me in my role as an elected representative. It all happened extremely quickly, but I was fully aware that it might happen as a result of my vote. I knew it was more important to stick to my principle and the principles of my party that I had signed up for. Having more politicians stand up for what they believe in would help address the public's concern over politicians not keeping their promises. A measure should have been included in the Bill to ensure this practice ended and to stop political parties from continuing to benefit financially from expelled Members.

Deputy McGrath talked about respect and that politicians need to lead by example. It was immoral that many former Ministers walked off with significant severance payments and pensions. The Minister needs to make every effort possible to cut the pensions of former Members who led the country over the cliff into the economic crisis, leaving it up to the current Government to pick up the pieces.

I call Deputy Timmins who has 20 minutes.

I will not take the full 20 minutes or anything near it. I forewarn the Minister that he will be summing up shortly.

I am delighted to speak on this legislation. I wish to elaborate on the point Deputy Terence Flanagan made about funding being used to prevent an individual getting elected. What he is talking about is that the money would be currently used to promote or support a potential candidate in the area at the moment.

I noted an opinion piece in The Irish Times written by the Houses of the Oireachtas head of communications in which he bemoaned the standing of politics and politicians and that no one understands us and the difficulties we have. I tweeted - I have become a practitioner in recent times - that it is difficult to expect the public to have respect for us when one half of us castigates the other for half the day and for the second half we change places and we point out the ills of the other side and vice versa. Then, when we leave the Chamber and the precincts of this House, we expect the public to love us. It does not work like that because we generally make good copy when we are tearing the heads off each other with the occasional derogatory comment.

Notwithstanding that, this legislation is a relatively simple Bill dealing with a 10% cut across the board and the removal of the ministerial severance pay. In principle, no one could argue against it and it is appropriate in current times. The issue of funding for political parties has caused considerable difficulty and grief. Notwithstanding that the general public do not have much interest in this type of legislation and do not like the basic concept of putting their hands into their pockets to pay for the political system, they probably prefer it to what has happened over recent decades in this country. I feel, however, that the legislation is unfair and may be unconstitutional. I do not want to elaborate too much on our own position. I know the Minister thrashed this out during the debate in the Seanad and while he initially seemed hostile towards it, he mellowed a bit as the debate went on. I am not sure, however, that he has mellowed sufficiently to accept an amendment on Committee Stage.

I am a strong advocate of party discipline and of the party Whip system, which is necessary in virtually everything except perhaps some of the social issues. I know many commentators have suggested that removing the respite grant or special educational needs provision might have been social issues. However, when dealing with the allocation of economic or material resources at that stage it is not an issue of conscience, but an issue of choice. Nobody wants to cut the respite grant, but we do not have it in this bucket of money. People talk about austerity. I hear commentators continually lamenting and berating the austerity policies. In defence of the Government - I was a Government party Member for most of the time of this Dáil - I do not accept that living €11 billion of €12 billion above the country's means represents austerity. In our households, if we lived at 10% or 20% above our income, we would not be calling it austerity; we might call it being a little bit irresponsible.

It is important to remember that notwithstanding that we cannot borrow, we must be responsible in what we do. Throughout my time in this House I have grown tired of the Opposition consistently looking for expenditure and being very reluctant to outline how to gather in taxes other than the simplistic approach of taxing the wealthy by imposing a levy on everybody with incomes in excess of €100,000. By and large, we have a fairly progressive tax system.

I also get a bit weary of hearing about political reform, but it is in the context of trying to make the system better so that when we are gathering money from the public and spending that money we can do so in an efficient and progressive manner. Reference was made to Irish Water and the Minister spoke about the freedom of information going back to July of last year. When that legislation was going through here why did we not allocate enough time to debate it? Why did people not listen to the concerns Members had? I believe that establishing Irish Water as a statutory authority is a very worthwhile exercise. We would never have got our national road network in place without the National Roads Authority and I envisage Irish Water doing something similar. Even though there are many efficiencies in local authorities, all one has to do is to look at the various websites and see all the boil notices. It is impossible to put in major utility infrastructure on a local authority basis or to get co-ordination without having one authority. I would have been an advocate of a national housing authority some years ago, but I am not so sure if it is needed now; it has been fairly successful in Northern Ireland. However, it is not appropriate for Roscommon County Council and Westmeath County Council to put in separate systems when they could combine together and put in one system. So I am an advocate of it and I believe it is a very good policy.

I am in favour of the basic principle of water charges, but owing to the manner in which we introduced it we have now undermined the positives of that body. Already the public in their minds have equated Irish Water to the HSE with the view that it is overstaffed, that people, who should not be paid, are being paid, and that it has spent too much money on consultants. That is all because it was not subject to the scrutiny and openness that should have applied.

For many years I took unvouched expenses; I changed to vouched expenses for a period before the last general election. While Members claiming the unvouched expenses got less money, it was more convenient for me to take unvouched expenses because I did not have to keep a record of things and I found it easier to operate. Political life is difficult enough and most politicians are very good at looking after everybody else's business but poor at looking after their own. It did not suit me to do it. However, now it has gone to the other extreme.

While I welcome accountability, etc., when I see the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in conflict with the Standards in Public Office Commission - I am not blaming the Minister - I am reminded that we are supposed to be on the same side. This was done for accountability. Often the bodies we establish take their job too seriously. I do not use the term too lightly - it is not what I actually mean. Many years ago I studied law and the one thing I remember is that the British system - most of our law is based on the British system - had the golden rule and the mischief rule. The golden rule was that people interpreted legislation as per the intention of the legislation. If that meant going into the Committee Stage or the Report Stage of the legislation to understand the actual intention, that is what they did. However, in this country, particularly in recent years there seems to have been a move to the mischief rule by bodies and the Judiciary whereby they look at the legislation and try to arrive at an interpretation of the legislation that was not the intention of the Legislature. I have seen this when trying to find out if a certain individual had been treated fairly on the local authority housing list and running into data protection obstacles.

One cannot find out. This is equally true of political parties.

When I was a member of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party I sometimes wondered where the funding went. I recall once hearing that someone got a job in a political party, which I will not name. It was a new position and some months later I rang to speak to that individual and was put through to the individual’s secretary. The pyramid was being built quite rapidly. Public money should all be available on the website, if there is no commercial sensitivity as for most of it there is not. The money a political party or an individual gets should be published on the site and every last cent spent should be published in so far as possible, while making allowances for some miscellaneous items. I do not like the idea of auditors arriving on my doorstep, or anyone's doorstep, to find out the mischief in the expenditure. Many politicians do not claim for things because they fear they will get into trouble and they bin the receipt.

I have raised an issue about expenses for politicians with three or four Ministers for the Environment, Community and Local Government in the past. Politicians’ expenses grew rapidly in the decade of the Celtic tiger. Thirty years ago the politician’s mother, sister, brother or wife hand wrote letters late at night, working for no money. Most of the politicians who came in here would have lost out financially. I do not expect any newspaper to report it, and I do not expect Joe Duffy to have me on “Liveline” lamenting this. They lost out because there are expenses and demands on a politician, as there are on anyone in business, for which he or she cannot claim. They are hard to discern and a bit intangible. It is hard to administer but we should consider limiting expenditure between elections. There is the disadvantage that the person outside the system can spend ad infinitum.

If I have access to a great deal of money or raise funds, which I can still do, for example, if I sponsor football teams, that is a form of buying votes. If we were allowed a discretionary expenditure between elections, capped at, for example, €2,000 a year, it would take away the need that some people feel to raise funds. I appreciate that this does not come under the heading of expenses. It would also mean that people would not put pressure on for wage increases because much of a politician’s wage goes on items that cannot be claimed as expenses. If they were in the public domain people would have no pity and call it buying votes. Unfortunately, the pressure of work and the nature of the environment in which we work requires this. This does not happen in some constituencies where people try to have arrangements. I once gave what I thought at the time was a substantial donation to a student for a project. Several months later, however, I heard the student was deeply unhappy with it because another politician had given a donation which was a multiple of mine. I did not lament the bad press but I lamented having given the money in the first place because it had only got me into trouble. If I had not given it at all, I might have my reputation and my few bob.

Without deviating too much from the legislation, I can purchase out of my own pocket 1,000 posters, as Deputy Mathews did. I have not seen it but I am told that there is a very attractive poster of him in the vicinity of Dublin 2-----

It is outside the door.

I have not been outside the door.

It is in Merrion Square.

Deputy Mathews can use those posters during election time but they do not count as election expenditure. That is my understanding of the legislation and the election expenditure. It does not count towards the election expenditure, if it is purchased outside the election period. Am I correct in that?

Am I incorrect?

I am not so sure that I am incorrect. The Minister might deal with that point in his response. I have used posters for two or three elections. Like Dorian Grey, I have never aged. Like most Members, I have used posters from two or three elections back.

The first communion photograph.

I have re-presented them.

On a point of information, I wish to advise the Deputy of the time.

How much time do I have left?

The Deputy has six minutes. He can see it on the clock. This clock is the easiest one for him to see.

When one lives in a constituency like mine, one learns to have eyes in the back of one’s head so I can see all four clocks.

I have used posters from one or two elections back and did not declare them as expenditure in the election. I hope I am not going to get the cosh now. No better buachaillí, I am thinking of doing it when I leave here. That would be my interpretation of the legislation. The Minister is going to correct me.

It is expenditure incurred.

That was my understanding. Maybe I am talking too much and will get myself into a bit of trouble. Maybe it is time to stop.

I listened to Deputies Naughten and Terence Flanagan speak. I apologise for missing Deputy Mathews’s contribution. I also listened to Deputy Creighton. They all made very genuine points. No matter how one considers it, in the realm of fairness and equity, I do not expect funding to follow those who lose the party Whip. That would be chaotic. I do not know how many members are in Labour’s parliamentary party, whether it is 31 or 32.

I know the party has that appendix, like some of the other parties. It is amazing that, unlike the human appendix, most of the good in this Parliament seems to lie in the appendix to each traditional party.

The logic of this legislation is that if 29 of those Labour Parliamentary Party members decided to lose the Whip, their funding, which is approximately €1.4 million, would be left to two people in the party. That is not logical. If the same happened in Fine Gael, it would have approximately €2.3 million to spread between four or five individuals.

As this is a service matter, I have asked the HSE to respond directly to the Deputy.

That may well be. I know I am taking this to an illogical extreme but it shows the weakness in the legislation. I heard quotes from “senior Fine Gael sources” but most people in Fine Gael are fairly honourable, decent people, as they are in every party. I do not know if such a "senior source" exists. Most people are involved in the administration of fairness. Will the Minister go back to Cabinet and consider the idea that the funding not go back to the party? It should not go back to the individual because maybe one has to take a hit or a penalty if one stood under a certain banner. I can see the difficulty there. The money could go into some other fund, be it Irish Aid, or to assist in the administration of political systems in our programme countries, rather than go to one political party to spend it on removing some other party that is trying to promote a bright young star in Deputy Terence Flanagan’s constituency.

I believe this legislation is unfair. If it was challenged there is a strong possibility it would be found to be unconstitutional. That is something that may happen. The Standards in Public Office Commission has a difficult task but when it is inspecting compliance with this it should try to adhere to the spirit of the legislation, to the golden rule rather than the mischief rule.

I thank all Deputies for contributing. I stayed for as long as I possibly could, as I try to do on legislation I am sponsoring myself. I also heard most of the contributions I was not physically present for, in so far as that was possible. Some thoughtful contributions were made, by and large supportive of the legislation, but obviously wanting to touch on extraneous matters that are not captured by this particular legislation and about which quite clearly some Members, and certainly former members of political parties, have very strong views. I am cognisant of that aspect. I know some people argue with passion but, if I have a different view, it does not mean that I am wrong. It just means that I have a different perspective. Where I do disagree with Deputies, I respect their views, which were well-presented by a number of Deputies on a range of issues during the course of this debate.

For the record, I want to highlight again the main thrust of the Bill, focusing on its three aspects. First, it is important to say what the Bill is about because much of the debate focused on things the Bill is not about. We will reduce the amount paid under the parliamentary activities allowance, which was the old party leaders allowance, by 10%. This was an amendment that came from the Seanad and which I accepted. This will mean that, for the first time since it was introduced in 1938, this allowance will be reduced. If one thinks backs to 1938, we have come through fairly rough economic times in this country in terms of general standards of living, even given the awfulness of the last few years. However, this is the first time we have ever reduced the party leaders allowance, which is important.

Second, we will require full----

For the purposes of clarification, does this mean the real value of that amount has diminished hugely since 1938?

No, of course not. I am saying it has always been incrementally increased and this is the first time a Minister has ever come in and said, "I want to actually reduce the total amount payable".

The second point is that we will require full and transparent accountability for the money received. There was a great deal of disquiet about some categories of recipients having what I think one former denizen of this House called "walking around money", which was not properly accounted for. While I am very confident the vast bulk of that was spent, and all Independent Members spent it, appropriately and properly, it is important that this is done transparently so we can be sure of that.

I am extending the reporting and audit provisions in the Bill to Independents who have not been required before now to comply with external auditing or to submit documents to the Standards in Public Office Commission. All of us know of this, and I think I have filled in four declarations in the past week. I take some care with this because I am always conscious of doing everything right, as far as I can. There is a great deal of scrutiny of public affairs, which is right and proper. We have the trust of the people and we need to ensure we continue to have it. It has been dented and bruised and, some would say, crushed in the recent times. Part of my job as Minister with responsibility for reform issues is to put in place a series of structures to try to restore that over time.

We are also expanding the role of the Standards in Public Office Commission, for example, by allowing it to produce guidelines in regard to the allowance. This is important and is one of the things it asked us to do. I believe it will be helpful for everybody concerned that there are clear guidelines independently produced by the commission.

Third, as many Deputies have averted to, I am proposing the abolition of severance payments to Ministers. All current Ministers, whose pensions have already been reduced by virtue of pay reductions, will no longer be entitled to any severance payments once we leave office. I think that is right and proper. It is something we have done. These severance payments have been paid for decades. While I do not expect to get kudos for this, I want to acknowledge it.

I heard Deputy Finian McGrath talk in terms of "lead by example", which is a very powerful and real argument. However, I would put it to Deputy McGrath and everybody present that this House has led by example. It might be instructive to give the actual figures. To take the rate of remuneration of a Deputy, on 30 June 2013, the current rate payable, when the FEMPI reductions of last year are taken into account, is €87,258. This is from a peak in 2009 of €100,191, giving a reduction of 20.01%. To take the Taoiseach, there is a reduction from a peak in 2009 of €285,583 to the current rate, after FEMPI, of €185,350. That is a reduction of €117,000, or 41%. If we look through the economy, there are very few examples at that level. For the Tánaiste, the reduction is 36.6%, or nearly €90,000 in cash terms, for Ministers, it is 36.48%, or €82,000 in cash terms, and so on right through the system. Very real reductions have been made. Of course, the reduced rate will determine our pensions in due course, so there will be a 30% to 40% reduction in our pensions as well as the abolition of severance. It is right and proper that it should be done but it has sometimes gone unnoticed that it has been done.

Our families notice it.

I know that. It is true.

What about the pensions of the former Ministers who destroyed the economy?

I understood all questions had been dealt with before I took the Chair.

I will deal with all of these questions. One of the first things I did was to see how we could mitigate the pensions that were based on those high salary levels. I took very strong advice and that is why, in the FEMPI legislation, I introduced an additional take, so the marginal rate of deduction is very high indeed. I will give the Deputies the exact figures, although I do not have them to hand.

It is a case of déjà entendu. The Minister explained it very well in committee.

It is a very significant reduction, in so far as I could do so without putting the entire FEMPI legislation at risk, which I could not do because it is so important in regard to economic affairs.

On the Bill before us, there is an issue that has been raised again and again, particularly by the Deputies present, so I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to it. This is the fact parties continue to receive their allocation of funding even if individual members choose to leave the party or were expelled from the party.

There was no "or". It was only "expelled".

Some people have chosen to leave in the past. The principle I have outlined remains. This allowance, the parliamentary activities allowance, is intended to support our party political system - that was why it was introduced in 1938. It is the raison d'être for its introduction and was argued for.

That is not-----

Please, Deputy. I did not interrupt anybody and I listened to all of the debate.

It was not introduced to support individual Members of Dáil Éireann. There are measures such as staff allocations for each Member and a substantial parliamentary standard allowance in place to provide assistance to individual Deputies. As I have said, the parliamentary activities allowance provides funding to political parties using the metric of the number of Deputies and Senators who were elected or nominated as members of each party at the time of election. We have to have some metric to decide how to allocate this party funding. It is done by the most recent vote of the people in terms of the number of Deputies and Senators elected. Again, this is the metric used for calculation purposes, not an allocation to individual Members.

I will go through it in some detail in a moment. It is not allocated to individual Members. It is a system that decides the weight with which the activities of a political party are supported. While some funding is allocated to those elected as Independent candidates, that is solely because they were elected as Independent candidates and not because they became Independents after the decision of the people in a general election.

We got a mandate.

It has been suggested by several Deputies that the provision in the legislation for the merger of two parties sets a precedent for the transfer of funds from a party to an individual. However, the legislation actually provides for the situation where two parties decide to merge and the parties decide to pool their resources. It is the party funding being welded together. That is provided for and is understood.

It is very different from an individual member of a party deciding he or she does not wish to be a member of or being expelled from a party and then either wanting to take the resources with him or him or quash those resources being provided to the party of which he or she was formerly a member.

It benefits coalition parties.

The party decides what to do with funding, not one individual.

What about coalition parties?

Deputy Mathews should stop shouting Members down.

I am not shouting the Minister down. I am asking a question.

The Minister has possession of the floor.

I listened with respect to every Member so Deputy Mathews should afford me the same courtesy.

I will, but I am asking the question.

The party decides what to do with the funding, not one individual or one small group. As Deputy Ó Cuív put it, the money is our money collectively, not individually. We have been consistent in our interpretation in this regard. This is the reason the Ceann Comhairle is included in the calculations as the money is for the party, not for the use of the Ceann Comhairle. He was elected as a member of Fine Gael and, therefore, is included in the metric for the calculation of the allowance distributed between the parties. That is why if a Member dies, the money stays with the party until a by-election is held and the money is then decided in terms of the vote of the people subsequently. It is not for the individual Member. It is for the party grouping to which that person was elected by a vote of the people. People have strong views on this but we will have further discussion on this matter on Committee Stage.

The second point to which we responded is that raised by Deputy Donnelly who provided figures which he claimed showed that the funding provided to parties far outweighs that provided to Independent Members. Those figures provided by Deputy Donnelly were re-used by several other Members in their contributions. They are misleading and I want to explain why. Deputy Donnelly included all funding provided to parties and simply divided the totality of funding by the number of Deputies in order to compare the parliamentary activities allowance received by Independent Members of this House in a manner that suited the narrative he was presenting. Deputy Donnelly has gone even further in so far as he ignored Senators in his calculations, as did Deputy Catherine Murphy in respect of the figures she subsequently referred to. Deputy Donnelly has also included funding provided to parties under the Electoral Acts, which is calculated on the basis of first preference votes with no relationship to Deputies in a party. It is the votes cast by the people that determine that allocation so one cannot divide that up on a Deputy basis. Funding under that Act is also intended to fund a much broader range of activities by parties than simply parliamentary activities for which the allowance we are discussing here is intended, for example, improving female and youth participation in politics.

The reality is that when one takes the total current amount of the allowance paid to the parties based on the number of Deputies at the time of election and the allowance paid to Independent Deputies and divides the figure by the number of Deputies, the average amount paid out is €39,681. Independent Deputies such as Deputy Donnelly receive €41,152 so Independents actually get above the average.

As I have already stated, this allowance is designed to support a party political system.

Nothing for the next two and a half years.

The Minister, without interruption.

Let us tell the truth.

This is not Question Time.

The Chair should protect me. The Deputy is incapable of listening to anybody but his own voice.

The Minister does not listen to us.

It is unfair of the Deputy to suggest that I am not telling the truth. I have never been accused of that in 30 years in this House and will not stand idly by as the Deputy does it now.

I am getting nothing. That is the truth. When the Minister says he is getting nothing, I will believe him.

The Minister must conclude. The Minister, without interruption.

I have explained ad nauseam but the Deputy understands it better than me that this is a party funding system. He does not agree with it but shouting me down does not help convince me of his argument. As I have already stated, the average per Member is €39,681. If one looks at the individual allocation, it proportionately gives an advantage to the smaller parties and a greater advantage to parties in opposition. So the average amount per Member of the People Before Profit Alliance is €71,520; the Socialist Party, which now has only one Member, gets €71,520; Sinn Féin gets €67,433; Fianna Fáil gets €64,743; the Independents get €41,152; the Labour Party gets €36,639, which is below the average; and Fine Gael gets €27,858, which is well below the average of €39,681. If we are going to argue facts, let us argue facts and be accurate and honest.

By and large, I have covered the substantive issues that the Deputies have raised relating to the Bill. It is a short piece of legislation, as many Deputies have properly indicated. Its aim is to do a number of discrete and specific things about which I have spoken. I have not heard anybody disagree with the actual Bill. They only spoke about what they wanted to graft on to the Bill. I think there is agreement that the parliamentary activities allowance should be reduced by 10%, that there should be full accountability by all who receive it and that the current severance payment available to Ministers should be ended. I thank Deputies for thoughtful and passionately felt expressions of views that I respect. All I ask is that if I hold a contrary view on some of the matters, that would also be respected.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share