Amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Connor is out of order as it imposes a charge on the Exchequer.
Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill, 2001: Committee and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 1.
May I speak?
No, I am sorry, it is out of order. The Senator may be able to make points when we deal with the section.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I am very disappointed that the Chair has had to rule my amendment out of order on the basis that it would impose a cost. I want to make a few points about the problem Members of the House have concerning the secretarial assistance available to them. My amendment states:
In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(13). That the secretarial service available to each Member of Seanad Éireann be based on one full-time secretary to each Seanadóir and that the working location of the secretary can be in a place other than in Leinster House by agreement.".
I did not make any reference to a constituency, or anything like that, in the amendment. This matter arises because I happen to be one of the Members of the House who, with another colleague and on a work sharing basis, has a secretary based where I live. That arrangement was agreed to back in 1998, and agreed subsequently for other Members of the House. I understand, however, Members on the Government side of the House later applied to have that concession but the Department of Finance intervened and stated it could not be allowed. As a result, there was correspondence between my party's staff administrator, the Department of Finance and the personnel section of the Office of the Houses of the Oireacchtas. With your permission, a Chathaoirligh, I will read the relevant paragraph from that particular correspondence, which sets out the position:
As a result of some staffing changes in the Seanad Office in recent weeks, one of your colleagues requested a similar arrangement with regard to his secretary. However, when permission was sought from personnel by me on this occasion it was refused by the Department of Finance. The relevant authorities in the Department of Finance, while conceding that Fine Gael sought and secured necessary per mission on two previous occasions, maintain that this permission should not have been granted. The personnel division has now agreed that in the case of three Senators who already have constituency-based secretaries – yourself, Senator Caffrey and Senator O'Dowd – this arrangement will be ring-fenced and left in place until the next Seanad election, following which no appointments of secretaries for Senators in their constituencies will be permitted. Following the next Seanad election, secretaries to Senators must continue to be based in Leinster House. Personnel section, on the advice of the Department of Finance, has explained to me that there are implications relating to the McKenna judgment in doing otherwise.
I do not quite understand what is meant by the McKenna judgment in relation to "doing otherwise".
The McKenna judgment states that one cannot confer on somebody an unfair advantage through the use of public funds. Therefore, if the Senator is elected in the constituency of Longford-Roscommon, and was perceived to have had an unfair advantage over another candidate, it is implicit from the McKenna judgment that the whole election could be in trouble. That is the reason many would think it is overly zealous activity by the Referendum Commission to spell out the arguments for both sides, but to get over that problem it must be exactly equal. I do not think that Ms McKenna, who brought her action on another matter, ever thought it would imply what it does but it is the definitive judgment at this stage.
If I may say so, that is broadening it very much. As I understood it, the McKenna judgment was made on the basis of the rules that apply in the contesting of a referendum; it has nothing to do with a general election. They are separate issues.
My record shows that I am not a great advocate of what I would call a lot of nonsensical stuff that goes on in all kinds of areas. The Senator can take it that the McKenna judgment and matters arising from it relate to the issue that the use of public moneys, in whatever way, cannot be seen to confer advantage on one person over another, whether in a referendum or anything else. This matter was always there but it had never been interpreted in this way.
Quite recently, there were some arguments in the newspapers that raised the question of whether Deputies would be entitled to use their offices in Leinster House once an election was called. The argument is that because they are no longer Deputies they must be equal to candidates who have never been in Leinster House. This is the way we are heading on the altar of correctness. That argument also relates to the use of Oireachtas envelopes during election campaigns. All these questions arise from the McKenna judgment. Perhaps they should have been investigated many years ago but they are there now.
At the last election, all advisers, including many programme managers, took unpaid leave to overcome this problem.
Mr. Ryan
And a very good idea it was, too.
They all took unpaid leave at election time.
Constituency secretaries did not.
I am told that the Department of Finance never agreed arrangements for Senators' part-time staff outside Leinster House. I accept what Senator Connor is saying. He strikes me as a reasonable individual. However, this is the altar on which we have hoisted ourselves.
We risk confusing the McKenna judgment with what might happen in a general election as opposed to the conduct of a referendum. Patricia McKenna took the case on the basis of a referendum issue when she felt that the Government was spending public money encouraging people to vote in favour of what it was proposing. I have no great difficulty in supporting the idea that if a Government puts forward a proposal to be decided by the people in a referendum, it is right that it could use public money in putting the arguments in favour of it. However, that was the judgment given in the courts in relation to the conduct of referenda. I know that lawyers will give any kind of legal advice—
The Department of Finance gets stuck with these problems that other parts of the Civil Service do not want to solve or for which they want to blame somebody else. It is like colleagues in government who say that they cannot give money because the Minister for Finance will not let them. The reality is that I devolve the best part of £50 billion, £60 billion or £70 billion out of the Department. Sometimes I wonder why Ministers are being paid. It is their job to prioritise what they want and they can move the money. If they want more money to give to one particular area, they can come to me and say that is what they want the following year and I will go along with it. That is used against the Minister for Finance. The same thing is used about the Department of Finance when other areas of the public service will not make decisions.
About two years ago the secretary of a Department came to me saying that it wanted to change its printing machine here in Leinster House. As it was going to be a more modern one it was going to cost more. I thought it was a reasonable request and granted it, but it ran into all kinds of difficulties as to whether that machine would be used for non-parliamentary purposes. We had to get some interpretation for that problem. We have gone significantly down this road in the way it is being interpreted.
I can probably guess who Senator Connor's running mate would be in an election in Longford-Roscommon. However, what about a candidate in Longford-Roscommon who is not a member of any party or a member of a party who is not a Senator or Deputy?
Does the Minister think that Senator Connor would have an unfair advantage?
As a result of the McKenna judgment, the courts are likely to interpret that Senators Finneran and Connor, who have been here, have an unfair advantage over Joseph Smith, Fianna Fáil candidate with Senator Finneran, or Joseph McGowan, Fine Gael candidate with Senator Connor.
Or Councillor Kelly or Dr. Kelly.
All the Kellys.
I sympathise with Senator Connor wholeheartedly. Since he became a Member of the Seanad in 1997, Senator Bonner has been on to me about secretaries for Senators. I am just pointing out the constraints that exist. They are not getting any easier.
I said that I would allow some latitude to Senator Connor, but I cannot allow the debate on section 1 to be broadened out to a debate on all the implications of the McKenna judgment.
Your reputation is well founded on being a great protector of the Members of this House. This is a fundamental issue, the interests of the Members of this House. The Minister has given us the benefit of all his advice on these matters. However, there is nothing unreasonable about any Member of this House who has the right to a secretarial assistant to have that person located in a place other than Leinster House if that is convenient and can be agreed. Is there any Member on the benches opposite who disagrees with that? No, there is not.
I know that this will go to the Oireachtas commission, but in the meantime the Minister might have a role to play. God knows when the Oireachtas commission will become effective. Each Member of this House should have at the very minimum a single secretarial assistant. Nobody in the House disagrees with me on that. Furthermore, the location of that secretarial assistant can be outside Leinster House as long as that can be agreed between the Member and the person employed. That is eminently reasonable. It might take two years before the Oireachtas commission is in place and until then the Minister has responsibility. Given the remaining lifetime of the Government, statutorily, it might never see the light of day. It will be the end of the year at least before even the heads of a Bill could be published.
In the other House, more than one secretary per Deputy is needed. There should be research assistants also. I have experience of both Houses. I urge the Minister to hear this reasonable plea. There is not a colleague on the other side of the House who disagrees with what I am saying. I am taking advantage of this legislation, which has some relevance to this, to make these points.
Mr. Ryan
I risk stretching the Cathaoirleach's not inconsiderable indulgence. There has been considerable speculation in the media that Patricia McKenna might choose to run for Dáil Éireann. If she did so, what would be the position regarding her MEP's office in Dublin? Who would regulate it and what would the regulation be? Under the aegis of the McKenna judgment would she be entitled to make use of the considerable resources she has and which she uses with considerable effect? There might be a certain delicious irony in that.
The way systems interpret the law depends on what the system wants to make of it. I have seen constitutional judgments that were interpreted in the narrowest possible way to minimise expenditure. For instance there were court judgments about equality legislation and the narrowest possible interpretation was put on them to minimise expenditure. A Supreme Court judgment about referenda is now being reinterpreted with a breadth that could result in the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, driving his own car around the country during a general election. Any of his staff who are not established civil servants will be de facto redundant for the period. There has to be a rational balance here. The principle that was involved in the McKenna judgment is not the one that should govern all these things.
We will probably have to wait until the next case re the McKenna judgment to finally decide all this.
Mr. Ryan
One could argue that the correct procedure is for the Oireachtas to cover all these grey areas and then see if it is challenged in the courts. On the other hand, the Government could not ethically or legally introduce legislation where it has a firm opinion from the Attorney General that it is unconstitutional.
I do not know a definitive answer to that. The Attorney General's role is to give advice, like any adviser.
Mr. Ryan
I agree with the Minister's view on advisers. Whatever he thinks of his advice and whatever I think of what he does with his advice, I fully support his assertion that Ministers are not there as simple ciphers through which advice is turned into law. That is the essence of democracy and I could not agree with the Minister more. I agree with him about far more things than he realises.
I have allowed the Senator some latitude and now I wish him to return to discussion of section 1.
Mr. Ryan
You have been very indulgent, a Chathaoirligh. I have two questions to ask the Minister and I will ask one in an abstract manner simply because I am curious. Senator Cassidy and the Members on that side will fall around laughing. Is my interpretation correct that a Member of this House who was elected as an Independent subsequently joins a political party—
—and goes back.
Mr. Ryan
No, I am not really worried about the money. I am interested in what the law means. Does he carry with him the allowance he would have got as an Independent?
I am having that matter checked. I do not know the answer.
Mr. Ryan
It appears from the Minister's speech that it is. It is a matter of curiosity. Truthfully, I do not think that most Members of this House—
Is the Senator not sorry he became a member of the Labour Party?
Mr. Ryan
No, I am not.
Senator Ryan makes the point that he may hold on to it.
Mr. Ryan
It appears from what the Minister said that I might hold on to it even if I am only a lonely Independent astray, which is a phrase I will cherish for many years. I want to ask the Minister about a particular phrase in the definition of expenses that I do not altogether understand. It is section 1(14)(g) which refers to the purchase of support services for a parliamentary party from the party. That does not make sense to me, though that may be due to my dimness.
It means that the Labour parliamentary party could purchase support services from the Labour Party.
Mr. Ryan
Essentially, it would pay for some of the staff.
Yes, that is what it is designed to cover.
The Bill provides this allowance for Independent Members. It describes an annual allowance for his or her parliamentary activities. In view of the fact that there will be no audit of these moneys, how will the Minister be satisfied that the money will be spent on parliamentary activities?
In 1996 they were given £10,000 and that is now about £15,000. There is no audit procedure in place. If people use the money for non-parliamentary activities they run the risk I referred to in the earlier part of the debate about Senator Connor and winning the election in Longford-Roscommon. The moneys given are not supposed to be used for other than parliamentary activities.
They will have to show how they were spent.
No. Until now none of the money given to the various parties has been subject to audit, but it is only supposed to be used for parliamentary activities. The fairly large sums of money given to party leaders have not been audited. The money was given for parliamentary activities. Sean McEntee who brought in this allowance in 1938, and was not very popular within Fianna Fáil for doing so, announced a principle with which I agree. He said the money should be given for the health of parliamentary democracy, it should be given to the Opposition to help the whole process, and he also said that the party leaders could decide where the money should go. It should not be subject to scrutiny with very good reason. Why should everyone else know what that parliamentary leader wants to do with the money? Why should Fianna Fáil know what the Fine Gael leader wants to do? He may have very good ideas as to what to do with his Deputies, the principle being announced in an era of non-communications. Sean McEntee asked why everyone else should know and left the decision at the discretion of the parliamentary leader. That is a principle I subscribe to and I would prefer not to have to bring a Bill like this before the House. It is not in the interest of anyone that it is known what the leader does with that money. It is his job to make his party the most effective to win the next election and to get into power.
During recent events and at tribunals accusations were made that the parliamentary leaders' allowance was given for what some construe were not parliamentary activities. I do not want to make a judgment as to whether they were, but according to the McEntee tenets of 1938, subscribed to over the years, the money has not been interfered with by any Minister for Finance. It has been given to the party leader for he or she to do with it what he or she would. It is interesting to know if these accusations of improper activities are true and we have decided to audit the parliamentary leaders' allowance. I have endeavoured to make it as light as possible on the basis of the McEntee principle. Senator Ryan and I would agree on liberals and I am sure he has noted that over the past 20 or so years the most illiberal people here are those who call themselves liberals.
Mr. Ryan
Hear, hear.
I happen to side with most liberal issues and those who wanted liberalisation of everything from divorce laws to homosexuality laws. However, I give those who do not agree with me on any of these issues the right to be heard. There is a monstrous group in official Ireland that says those people cannot be heard at all. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that though I may disagree with you, I give you the right to be heard. I would prefer not to have to interfere with the McEntee tenets, but things have changed and we have to have more openness. The parliamentary leaders' allowance will be audited. That was not done up to now but I decided I would oppose this on Independents.
I find it very difficult to take all this logic in, particularly Senator Connor sharing a secretary in a constituency. There is no additional cost to the Exchequer. The cost is the same as if the secretary was here.
The rules are being changed regarding the parliamentary leaders' allowance but no procedure is to be put in place for the Independents' allowance. What constitutes parliamentary expenditure? Earlier I mentioned putting an advertisement in the paper wishing a festival well and paying a subscription to a golf classic for a GAA club. To me they do not constitute parliamentary expenditure and I fail to see why the audit is not extended to all these payments.
That may not come out of this money.
We will never know unless an audit is carried out.
We never knew until now what the money given to parliamentary leaders was spent on or where it went.
We are leaving the past behind. We are going forward now.
There is a fair difference between an Independent and a political party with a number of members. Maybe some future Minister will change his mind about this but that is my decision.
Mr. Ryan
If the Government had a safe majority without the support of four Independents would the Minister still feel so strongly about not auditing the Independents' allowance?
I would feel exactly the same. It may be news to some of the Independents that they are getting this increase in money. I had no contact with any of the Independent Deputies on this matter. I would feel the same if we had a majority of 20, as we did in 1977.
The Independents in the Dáil will receive £22,000 and those in this House £12,500. At the least they should have to make a return to the Department of Finance showing how they spent that money. Could we not ask that the Independent Deputies who will receive £22,000 and the Independent Senators who will receive £12,500 at least make a return at the end of the year to the Department of Finance showing how that money was spent? That does not make it subject to audit but the statement could be open to the public.
This Bill was drafted with the help of the leaders of the political parties and no leader raised this question about the Independent Members. Deputy Mitchell started this debate the other day at the end of the process when everything had been dealt with.
It just shows there is better scrutiny here.
Deputy Quinn did not raise it in 1996 either. When I was a younger politician – Senator Ryan as an Independent would not have had this difficulty – members of large political parties such as Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party spent their time imagining conspiracies by everybody else. It is a phobia with politicians. If they all did a bit of work—
Mr. Ryan
It was very real in Fianna Fáil in the Minister's time.
At least it was up front.
The Senator was born into it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.