Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Apr 2014

Vol. 836 No. 3

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“2. Within 30 days of the commencement of this Act the Minister shall, by way of regulation, introduce a provision whereby the parliamentary activities allowance paid to the leader of a qualifying party shall be paid to that qualifying party.”.

We discussed the substance of this amendment on Committee Stage when I stated that I would move it again and asked the Minister to consider it in the intervening period. The allowance should be paid to the qualifying party as opposed to the qualifying party leader. On Committee Stage, amendments were moved concerning Members who, having been elected to qualifying parties, left those parties to become Independents or whatever. Similar amendments will be moved on Report Stage requiring the money to follow the Member. The Minister was clear in his response, in that those Members were elected to parties, with party logos and names on the ballot papers. His logic of the party being more important than the Member is the same logic I am using now, in that the payment should be to the party rather than a named individual. The Minister has given pre-eminence to the party in some sections of the legislation. As such, this allowance should be payable to the party.

We held a good discussion on this point on Committee Stage. I accept the Deputy's intention, but I still consider it proper that the administration of this allowance be the responsibility of the person who is accountable for it, that is, the leader of a qualifying political party.

I will clarify the current system. The allowance is paid electronically into a specified account, the details of which are provided to the Department of Finance by the party or the leader of the qualifying party. The Department has confirmed that the accounts into which these funds are paid are separate and distinct from those provided by the parties for receipt of electoral funding. I can confirm to the House that, in respect of all of the parties, the named beneficiary to the account to which the allowance is paid is the party in each case rather than the respective party leaders. This is an important point. In most cases, the name of the account specifies that it is designated as the account for the party leader's allowance. As such, the current position is what the Deputy seeks to achieve through his amendment.

The allowance is provided to support the activities of a parliamentary party, a definition of which is provided in the legislation. Leaders of parties are and will continue to be required to account for all of the money received in respect of the allowance and specify how it is spent in accordance with the legislation. A power of oversight has been given to the Standards in Public Office Commission as well as the power to issue guidelines on best practice in the use of the allowance. The Deputy's party leader will be consulted in the preparation of these guidelines, as will the leaders of all parties, before the guidelines are determined. If the leaders consider that measures relating to the accounts used by parties are necessary, they may wish to use that opportunity to say so. However, I do not consider it proper to prescribe such measures in primary legislation. Each leader, rightly and properly, remains accountable for the money that is provided to his or her parliamentary party. In any event, Deputy Sean Fleming stated on Committee Stage that the wording he used in his amendment was not sufficiently clear as to its intent. He has not changed the wording.

I have checked and, in every case, the allowance is paid to a named beneficiary that is not the party leader.

I thank the Minister. The allowance is paid to a named beneficiary of an account that is not the party leader specifically. As such, my amendment is unnecessary.

That is my point.

It is already the accepted practice. I will happily withdraw the amendment now that we have clarified the situation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 is in the names of Deputies Naughten, Timmins, Terence Flanagan, Creighton and Mathews. Deputy Creighton is absent with a good excuse.

Is this amendment not being grouped?

With amendment No. 4.

I will say that in a moment.

Amendment No. 2 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendment No. 4 is related, therefore, amendments Nos. 2 and 4 may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(2) Where a member of a qualifying party ceases to be a member of the parliamentary party of that party, no allowance shall be payable in respect of that member and the allowance payable under this section shall be reduced proportionately.”.

Deputy Creighton cannot be with us.

We wish her well.

I am sure she would be delighted to be here to get her teeth stuck into the Minister again, but she has other priorities at present. I take this opportunity to congratulate Deputy Creighton on the birth of her daughter, who might be here in years to come reading the report of this debate.

We had a very good discussion on both Second and Committee Stages of the issue before us, that is, the parliamentary allowances that are paid on behalf of Members to the party leader to deal with issues surrounding parliamentary representation in this House and the need to fund the operation of the House from a Member's perspective. The Minister's argument is that Members on this side of the House who were elected for a party and who are no longer members of that party are not entitled to any funds, on the basis that they were elected on a party platform, people voted for that party at the election and the money should remain with the party. While there has been an argument about introducing a list system here, we do not have such a system.

As I said on Committee Stage, the vast majority of the space on a ballot paper is taken up with details about the candidate, not their party affiliation or the party logo. As a result, a certain proportion of those moneys were, I believe, legitimately raised on the basis of the candidate and should therefore be returned to the Exchequer. Our proposed amendment would mean that the funds which we believe are not legitimately being claimed by the parties in the Government should be returned to the Exchequer, just as Deputy Higgins has done in the case of his moneys. His party is the only one in the Opposition that is down a Member since the election to have returned the relevant proportion of those moneys to the Exchequer. We believe the government parties should lead by example in that regard.

The Minister has argued that the general election is the snapshot, it is set in stone at the day of the election and, as a result, that is the date that must be taken into account. I will argue that the snapshot is only used in certain circumstances. However, perhaps he will clarify the current position with regard to our former colleague, former Deputy Patrick Nulty. Does the Labour Party continue to receive moneys for former Deputy Nulty until the by-election takes place or has that money been stopped because there has not been a by-election?

The Minister made the argument that people go before their party and secure the party nomination, so they are flying the flag for that party and for a particular agenda and set of proposals or manifesto. In my case, the current Taoiseach came to my home town, stood in the square of my home town and gave a crystal clear, unambiguous commitment about health services in that town. People went out and voted on that basis. Who is being disingenuous in terms of standing by the commitments, agenda and pre-election pledges that were given? Is it me or the Taoiseach, who continues to receive those moneys? It is disingenuous that the parties opposite can receive a substantial amount of money, amounting to approximately €2.5 million, over the term of this Government for Members who are no longer within their parliamentary parties.

I put it to the Minister that there are exceptions to this practice and that it is not set in stone on polling day. The best example in this regard is the John Bruton-led Government between 1994 and 1997. The Government changed mid-stream. The party funding structure also changed mid-stream based on the fact that the leading party in the Opposition became the leading party in the Government and the leading party in the Government became the leading party in the Opposition. There was no election to bring about that change, yet the weighting of the funding did change. One can look back further, to the situation that occurred with the Workers Party in 1991-2, when seven Deputies were elected and six of them left the party to form Democratic Left and one Deputy remained in the party. Does the Minister consider it right that the single Member should legitimately receive funds for a party of seven Deputies? I do not believe it is right and proper that it should happen, yet the Minister is arguing that it should. The legislation and the argument the Minister has made to date are on the basis that this is set on the day of polling. On polling day in 1989 the Workers Party received sufficient votes to elect seven Members of this House. The party would continue to receive funding on that basis, even though the vast majority of the Deputies in that party had left it. I do not believe that is fair or balanced.

The Minister is changing the name of the allowance from the party leader's allowance to a parliamentary activities allowance. I contend that I participate in this House in the same way as any other Member. As I said to the Minister on Committee Stage, I have a problem with the fact that I do not have a right to receive committee papers, which I believe is wrong. In fairness, the Minister endorsed my position and, hopefully, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, will change that. I believe I have a right to be a member of an Oireachtas committee, but that is an argument for another day. I contend that I participate in both the committee work and the work in the House, so neither I nor any other Member of the House should be denied an activities allowance on that basis.

Section 2(12) of the legislation also provides for a further derogation with regard to a change in circumstances mid-stream. The legislation provides for a situation such as occurred with Democratic Left, where Democratic Left was subsumed into, although others would argue it took over, the Labour Party. Regardless of how it happened, Democratic Left became part of the Labour Party and under this legislation it would take its funding and amalgamate it with the Labour Party's funding. That is a change in circumstances mid-stream. In fact, I am sure it was the case if I recollect correctly, and other colleagues in the House might be able to clarify it, that during the general election campaigns in 2002 and 2007 there was probably a quite vociferous debate between the Labour Party and Democratic Left regarding their political agendas. It is to say that somebody who voted for Democratic Left voted for Labour Party policies. The Minister argues that it is set on polling day based on the proposals and agenda put forward by each political party, so how can he justify a situation where mid-stream that money can move with those Members into a new party or into a party to which those Members were opposed at the previous general election and got their votes on that basis?

I believe what is being proposed in this legislation is unconstitutional. It is morally wrong that some Members of this House are treated differently from others.

Not only do I believe that it is morally wrong and not only do I believe that it is unconstitutional, it undermines the legitimacy of this House. The role and purpose of this House is to question and scrutinise the decisions of the Government. Particular Members of this House who did that job and upheld their role under the Constitution are deliberately now being penalised under the legislation. As bad and all as that is - the Minister will argue against it - what galls me about the gross abuse of this allowance is that one of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues was quoted in a Sunday newspaper as saying that all of the resources available to the Fine Gael Party would be used to ensure that I and my colleagues here would not be re-elected to the House. If that does not raise a question over the constitutional use of those particular funds, I do not know what does. At a very minimum, what should happen is that those moneys should be returned to the Exchequer. They should not under any circumstances be used to undermine my constitutional role as a representative in this House. It is wrong that a Cabinet member could make such comments and claim to be using funds for such purposes.

I urge the Minister to accept the amendment I have tabled. I believe it is fair and reasonable. The example has already been given by Deputy Joe Higgins when he returned funds to the Exchequer. It makes far more sense to see those moneys returned to the Exchequer. Let the moneys be used specifically in the Department of Health to deal with children with profound disabilities whose parents have to go begging to our offices and the office of every Deputy in the country to try to get access to a medical card, to get access to basic medical rights. Let the moneys be used for that rather than to undermine our role, enshrined in the Constitution, to represent all of the people in our constituencies to the best of our ability.

Deputy Naughten has very elegantly covered virtually every aspect of this. It is not legislation that excites the public and this amendment certainly does not do so. It will not remove from the television screens the ongoing shambles at the Department of Justice and Equality. However, it is a very important Bill. The Minister is one of the few members left in the Labour Party who comes from its old tradition of equality and so on. This Bill is basically unfair and in my view, unconstitutional.

Having lost the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party Whip, I do not necessarily expect to be invited to Farmleigh House to get my photograph taken on Twitter with Brian O'Driscoll or Gordon D'Arcy. I do not expect to be in Iveagh House on a Tuesday night sampling the last remaining wine in the cellar, and I do not expect to be getting a call to go to Auckland or Australia for a trip during a nice quiet period in the summer. However, I do expect to be treated on an equal basis inside this House. At the moment, I and several other colleagues are treated like second class Oireachtas Members, for various reasons not alone on this issue, but also due to the fact that we are not permitted to be on committees.

I believe this funding aspect is unconstitutional. It is not about the money per se. I do not care about the money even if it is being used to undermine some of us in our own constituencies. The real issue at stake is that we are being treated unfairly. I believe that it would not stand up to a constitutional challenge. I think the time may be coming when some of us will decide that we are not going to accept this treatment any longer, and take this issue to the court. It would be a very poor reflection on the Government if that were to happen. We are not looking for funding for ourselves, we are looking for it to be returned to the Exchequer.

This legislation is flawed. If Fianna Fáil is stuck in the polls and its Oireachtas Members cannot get rid of their leader, or if Sinn Féin Members decide they want to break from the past and get rid of their leader, but if they cannot do so and they break away, it is not inconceivable that one or two individuals are left with all the funding. That can happen. I think I am correct in saying that if one member remains in the party and the rest break away, that member can be left with the roughly €1 million worth of funding. Can the Minister explain if the Bill can prevent that? My understanding is that it cannot once one member remains in the party. Deputy Naughten pointed out earlier that members of the Workers' Party split and formed Democratic Left, and Deputy MacGiolla was left as the sole trader in the older party. If legislation allows that to happen, even though it is unlikely and hypothetical, it is a major flaw. I do not see the difficulty with what we are seeking here.

I would not be a supporter of the theories and policies put forward by Deputy Higgins but at least he has the courage of his convictions and I think the Government should follow suit and return this money to the Exchequer. I do not believe it will undermine the legislation or create any difficulty but I do not believe that the Minister can stand over this. It is unfair and it casts us as second-class Members of the Oireachtas. I believe it would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, which may well come.

The Minister can accept this amendment. He can vary it. He knows the thrust of it as he has listened long enough. I appeal to his better nature to accept it.

I would like to speak about my amendment No. 4, which is on the same topic. Before I get to the specifics of my amendment, which is related to the amendment we have been speaking about, I wish to agree with what the two Deputies have said. On Committee Stage, the Minister anchored most of his debate on this issue in respect of the people elected at the preceding general election. However, the Deputies have highlighted a couple of older cases where the make-up of a party changed during the Dáil term, such as the case of the Workers' Party. There are provisions for a dissolved party, as was pointed out on Committee Stage, but as the Deputies stated, if one Oireachtas Member remains in a party, it is not fully dissolved. Therefore, there are provisions in the legislation to change the arithmetic. The Deputies have also highlighted the situation where there was a change of government during a Dáil term without recourse to a general election. That would also have changed the arithmetic for the calculation of what is now called the parliamentary activities allowance.

I want to support amendment No. 2. My own amendment incorporates that and maybe goes a little bit further. The essence of the amendment tabled by Deputies Naughten, Timmins, Flanagan, Matthews and Creighton is that if a person leaves a parliamentary party, that parliamentary party should not continue to receive their allowance and it should be returned to the State. My amendment, which I had on Committee Stage and which essentially is here again, stated something similar but I felt that the money should stay with the Member. The Members here have taken a very honourable approach. They state that it is not about the money, which should be left to the State and used for some other good cause. However, the essential point of both amendments is that where Oireachtas Members leave a parliamentary party, that party should not continue to receive funds for those Members for the remaining duration of the Dáil. We are all agreed on that.

Five Deputies who have left the Fine Gael Party have their names to amendment No.2. A couple of Senators have left Fine Gael and I am not sure how many Members have left the Labour Party, although I am sure the Minister is painfully aware, but at least ten or 12 people have left Fine Gael and the Labour Party since the last election.

The amendment boils down to a very simple issue. Fine Gael and the Labour Party want to retain that €50,000 or so worth of funding for each of those ten or 12 Members, which is a minimum of €500,000, for their own funds, their own purposes, in respect of people who are not in their party.

I want people to understand what this amendment is about. We got caught up in the historical debate. I agree with all the references that have been said. This amendment is very simply about the proposal to allow Fine Gael and the Labour Party to retain over €500,000 of taxpayers' money for this calendar year in respect of Deputies who were members of their parliamentary parties but no longer have that status. That is wrong in every single respect. If the law allows it, the law is wrong. We are here to amend that. It is morally, politically, constitutionally and socially wrong. I am saying that if this amendment is accepted, it will correct that wrong. I cannot stand over the Minister's rejection of a proposal which would correct that wrong.

This is a money-grab. We will not get into the serious politics of the power-grabs by governments and State organisations. Money is being grabbed from the Irish taxpayer by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. A minimum of €500,000 a year will be taken. We expect that there are two years left in the lifetime of this Government. Therefore, the Government parties are saying that from this day forward, they want €1 million of Irish taxpayers' money to be paid into their bank accounts in respect of Deputies who are no longer members of those parties. I believe the Minister should do the right thing by accepting the simple reality of the situation, which is that the Government's proposal is not tenable. I do not think Deputies on this side of the House can stand over this arrangement. We cannot agree to the legislation being proposed by the Government parties, which will allow over €500,000 of taxpayers' money to be paid into Fine Gael's coffers and the Labour Party's bank account, in respect of Members of Parliament who are no longer members of those parties, for each calendar year of the lifetime of this Government. I support the amendment. I hope the Deputies who have proposed it will push it to a vote.

I strongly support amendment No. 2 and indeed the thrust of amendment No. 4. It is very disappointing that the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has not reflected on this issue. He has not moved his position at all. Every Member of this House has an equal mandate. We have all been elected by our constituencies to come here and represent the public in this Parliament. By continuing the kind of discrimination that already exists under the funding arrangements, he is copper-fastening a form of discrimination against certain Members of this House. That is unworthy of him. It is very disappointing that he has not been prepared to respect the equal mandate of every Member of this House and ensure we all operate on some kind of fair, if not equal, playing field.

This allowance has been renamed as the parliamentary activities allowance. I put it to the Minister again that every Member of this House is required to engage in parliamentary activities. The Independent Members, including those of us who now find ourselves as Independents after resigning from our parties or finding ourselves outside our parties for one reason or another, have to complete our parliamentary activities. It is arguable that many Independent Members are much more active and vocal than many Government backbenchers. We do our work, which is very demanding from a research perspective, even though we are not supported by all the paraphernalia and infrastructure of a political party. By seeking to reduce our ability to function as active parliamentarians, the Government is making a direct attempt to undermine the Independent Members of this House. That is wrong. It is very unfortunate that the Minister does not recognise that and act accordingly.

All of this plays into the problems associated with the Whip system used in this House, which is far too severe and strict. Generally speaking, Whip systems do not operate in this way in other modern democracies. I want to recognise that the successful efforts of the political parties to dominate the Parliament are not endorsed by the public. I am glad to say they are not endorsed by the Ceann Comhairle either. There is a responsibility to recognise the role of each individual Member of this House. Over a number of years, we have progressively reached a point at which the parties seem to think they own and control this Parliament. That is a very unhealthy situation. It is constitutionally and morally wrong.

The Government parties are using their might to force a regime on the Parliament which is fundamentally unfair. Their efforts to continue with a system which undermines Independent Members of this House can be considered as part of a piece with the control they try to exercise when they issue threats to Deputies who are considering leaving a parliamentary party and going it alone. They are threatened with banishment and with the loss of funding, necessary supports and speaking rights. They are told they will no longer be allowed to serve on Oireachtas committees. They face the loss of rights when it comes to Private Members' business, etc. That is part of the kind of bullying and threatening atmosphere the main parties try to create to frighten, or try to frighten, their members into toeing the party line. This approach, which involves seeking to ensure life will be difficult for Deputies if they choose to go outside the party, is fundamentally undemocratic. It is seriously unfair and wrong to treat legitimately elected Members of this House in such a manner. All of that is part of a piece.

It has been a consideration of mine for some time that this is wrong. I know other Deputies are thinking the same. It strikes me that there must undoubtedly be grounds for a legal challenge to be taken against the arrangements for the funding of individuals and parties. It strikes me that regardless of the merits of the system that has existed until now for historic reasons - perhaps it used to be unusual for Deputies to resign from parliamentary parties or find themselves outside of those parties, but it has become a relatively common practice nowadays - the introduction by the Minister of this new legislation, which copper-fastens an unfair arrangement, means that he is legislating to discriminate against certain Members of this House. I find it very hard to see how such new legislation could withstand a legal challenge. I hope it will be tested shortly. In light of the equal mandate enjoyed by all Members of this House, I cannot see any circumstances under which what the Minister is proposing to do under this legislation could be regarded as constitutional.

During the debate on the earlier Stages of this Bill, the Minister's main argument in favour of continuing this discrimination was that people elect Deputies on the basis of their status on election day. While that might theoretically be the case, we should look at what has happened in practice.

It is hard to argue that many of the people who were elected in the last general election for either of the two Government parties have not actually held true to the basis on which they were elected. It is arguable that certain people were elected under false pretences - elected on the basis of promises that were given at election time that have subsequently been reneged upon. It is not wise for the Minister to go there in terms of the basis on which people were elected to this House as a number of us now find ourselves as Independent Members because we stood by the promises that were given at election time. We were not prepared to renege on those promises that were given to the electorate. So it is a very weak argument and we could be here all evening listing the various election promises made by both Government parties that were subsequently broken. If the Minister is talking about remaining true to the basis on which he was elected, he is not in a position to throw stones in that regard, nor are many of his party colleagues.

There are several precedents of the rules having been changed when circumstances changed. Of course the Minister is choosing to ignore those precedents. In this Dáil we have had the recent precedent where Deputy Clare Daly left the Socialist Party. When she raised this issue, Deputy Higgins did the honourable thing in returning a portion of that funding to the Exchequer because he recognised that he was in receipt of that funding under false pretences. It was allocated on the basis of the Socialist Party having two Members. Once that number was reduced, he did the honourable thing and returned a portion of that funding. We are asking the two Government parties to do the honourable thing and not to continue to take taxpayers' money under false pretences.

At one point quite recently there were ten Members who had previously been members of Government parties and who were no longer members of parties sitting in the House as Independents. That meant that the Government parties were in receipt of a minimum of €500,000 under false pretences. By and large that money was used to recruit staff to do PR work, press work, research and so on. A very significant part of that would have been used to undermine those very Members for whom those parties continue to hold on to annual State funding. Deputy Naughten gave an example and there were numerous examples of the Labour Party using its backroom staff to undermine those of us who chose to leave the Labour Parliamentary Party and indeed the wider party.

It is entirely wrong that the Government parties should continue to hold on to funding that was made available for those of us who were elected to this House and are now Independents. They are doing so under false pretences. I call on the Minister to do the right thing and return that money to the Exchequer because the Government parties have no right to continue to hold on to it. At a time when funding is tight in so many areas, it is indefensible for the Government parties to hold on to €500,000 every year when they have no entitlement to that funding.

The Minister also made the point that for practical reasons the Government could not keep changing the level of funding. There are plenty of ways of dealing with that. We are not suggesting that the parties give up the funding immediately, once somebody votes against a Government party. There could be a review on an annual basis or a six-monthly basis to rebalance that funding, which would be the right way to do it if the Government parties were honourable in what they were doing and if they had fundamental respect for each Member of this House.

It is very disappointing that the Minister has not budged an inch since the spurious arguments he made on Committee Stage.

I have not spoken on it yet.

I hope he will rethink that.

We have had a long debate on this issue, which is entirely extraneous to the issues of the Bill. This is not new legislation to create the funding model to which the Deputies, who have spoken on these amendments, are referring - this has been the practice. The first purpose of the Bill is to reduce the full quantum of money available to fund political parties in recognition of the reductions that have been made across politics generally. The second purpose is to bring further accountability into the system where moneys paid to Independent Deputies in this House and the other House will be fully accountable in the same way that moneys paid to political parties are accountable. That is what the Bill is about. We have spent the vast bulk of time in the Seanad, on Second and Committee Stages here, and again now on this extraneous matter. I understand that people feel very strongly about it, but it is not the core purpose of the Bill.

I thank Deputies for their views. I understand how deeply felt they are and I respect them. I believe the vast majority of people who spoke respect that I am entitled to have an alternative view without impugning me. There is a Deputy or two in this House for whom everything is personal and they cannot make an argument without making a personal argument, which is not a helpful way to advance arguments in this House.

While I accept the depth of the argument and I have listened to the substance of the argument, I do not agree with it and I will repeat why I believe this is so. The parliamentary activities allowance, formerly called the party leader's allowance, is funding provided to support parliamentary activities and by extension our party political system as it operates in the Oireachtas. We operate on a party political basis here. While there is no constitutional underpinning for that, it is a fact of life that we organise ourselves and the vast bulk of Members - not all - debate in parties. We have conventions to determine policy, present our platforms to the people and seek election on a party ticket. Some others do it on an individual basis and they are entitled to be funded as individuals through the parliamentary activities allowance. It is not intended as an individual pot of money for each Member who is elected to allocate as we choose.

The Deputies opposite say that I have no right to hold on to money, but I do not hold on to a cent. I do not have any money and I am sure Members of the parties opposite do not see any of the money. It is part of funding our political system in this House and I believe Members opposite know that. There is no requirement for a party to give money to any individual and I am unaware of any party doing that. It is up to the party to decide how to expend money within the confines of the legal framework set out. It is not the role of primary legislation to become involved in the internal workings of political parties. That is a matter for parties themselves within the overarching framework that has grown over time and that is, I hope, enhanced by this legislation.

I believe the approach proposed in the amendments would impact to the detriment of smaller parties. If these amendments were to apply, a smaller party, for example, would stand to lose €64,368 if a Deputy were to resign from that party, whereas a larger party would lose €25,754. That would impact much more seriously and detrimentally on the smaller party than on the larger party.

I wish to deal with one or two of the points raised by the Deputies. I should also take the opportunity to congratulate Deputy Creighton on the birth of her daughter, and I wish her and her daughter well. I am sure it will be a good political household and we may well see another Creighton or family member in this-----

Maybe even a Bradford.

Yes, I presume the child's name is Bradford. I wish her well.

In terms of the points made, the Deputy talked about there being exceptions, for example, when we had a move across the House during the course of a Dáil, as in 1994. However, it of course makes sense to rebalance when the resources of Government suddenly become available to a party and are taken away from another party. That rebalancing is a normal thing within the political system. I believe people would be aghast if that was not applied and I do not think the Deputy is arguing that should not have happened. However, I am talking about quite a different thing. I, as an elected Member of a party, first contested and won a nomination against others. The electorate within the party, who selected me to stand as a party candidate, would not have selected me if they had known I would walk off the deck in my judgment, and they are entitled to know that the person selected will stand by the commitment of their work and so on. That is quite a different thing than the complete shift in resources available when a party comes into government.

The general thesis of the Deputies, namely, that somehow all Deputies are equal and, therefore, everybody should be given the same quantum of money to support them, is not the practice. Larger parties get less per capita than smaller parties because, obviously, there is a scale issue. Opposition parties get a quantum more money than parties in government because of the disparity of supports available. People have been talking about €50,000 per Deputy as a rule of thumb. However, to consider the detail, People Before Profit gets €71,520 annually per Member; the Socialist Party, with one Member, gets €71,520; Sinn Féin gets €67,433; Fianna Fáil gets €64,743; the Independents get €41,153; the Labour Party gets €36,639 in recognition of the fact we are part of the Government; and Fine Gael gets €27,858. Therefore, by a very significant margin, the headage payment, if one likes to use a crude term for this payment, payable to Fine Gael and the Labour Party is much less than that payable to the parties in opposition, and people have not argued against that. Therefore, the notion that we are equal with an equal mandate does not hold. I also reject the notion that somehow we are reducing the ability to function by not accepting these amendments. The amendments state that the money would revert to the State. That does not enhance or detract from the ability of anybody in this House to operate, in my judgment.

The point was made about parties merging. Parties can merge in the same way trade unions can merge, and where there is a merger of parties, the resources can be pulled and that is understood and provided for in law. However, that is different from an individual Member of the House making a personal decision. This is a party decision that would have to be endorsed by the party under its own constitutional provisions to merge, whether that is through a full conference, as in the case of my own party, or through whatever mechanism is available under the constitution of other parties. It is not a comparison.

In regard to the use of resources against Members, no public moneys can be used for electoral purposes and that would be improper. The moneys can only be expended in the ways set out by law.

As I said, I have listened to very long debates in both Houses on these issues. I know Deputies feel very strongly about these matters and some feel very hurt about the mechanism of their own exits from political parties, and I understand that too. However, we have to have a practical solution as well. Deputies leave and join parties. Deputy Ó Cuív lost the whip in his party and has come back again. Deputy Penrose, from my own party, was out of the party and is back again. One of the Sinn Féin Members left the party - who was it?

Yes, and he came back again. Is the suggestion that the Member should lose or gain depending on how long the censure is or whether somebody applies to come back, and so on?

My basic thesis is a simple one and it is the way this has been crafted from the beginning. There is a snapshot in time, and that is the general election. The people determine that and they own the vote and the resources that attach to it. That is the way it should be. I am not minded to accept the amendments. I respect the views expressed; I simply do not agree with them.

We have a fundamental problem in our democracy in that we have an Executive that is far too strong and that is not held to account by Parliament. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, and myself have travelled to different parts of the world and we have experience of new democracies developing in sub-Saharan African. We are the very ones who encourage parliamentarians to question government. Here, we have a situation where, when someone does question government, they end up, as the Minister puts it, being censured.

I found it interesting that the Minister eloquently made the argument that the money is not allotted to an individual and he then subsequently undermined that argument by saying that the amendment actually provides for the money to be returned to the Exchequer. It is either one or the other. Our amendment states that it is wrong for political parties to receive money for Members who are no longer in those parties.

I asked the Minister about former Deputy Nulty. The Minister might come back to me as to whether he is receiving those moneys.

He might also say if the moneys for the Ceann Comhairle are being received by the Fine Gael Party. I do not see how the Ceann Comhairle, as an office, could be carrying out parliamentary activities and be provided with that allowance on behalf of a party the Ceann Comhairle can no longer be a member of because of the way the structure has been set up.

The Minister makes the argument that re-balancing is a normal thing when we are talking about a change midstream in regard to by-elections, when there is a change of Government without an election or where one party is amalgamated into another. However, where a substantial number of Members are expelled from a party, the party continues to receive that money.

To conclude, the Minister made the point that people who are selected as candidates stand by particular commitments, which is correct. In my case, I stood by the commitment that was given by the Taoiseach and that is the reason I find myself on this side of the House.

I would like to have the Minister on my debating team because, in fairness to him, he put up a good argument for a case that does not actually exist. With regard to this not being part of the Bill, the Government has brought in several Bills that have completely unrelated pieces of legislation within them, for example, the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which included the good samaritan provisions, so there is precedent for that.

The Minister mentioned the disproportionate impact on the smaller parties. Is it not ironic that the smallest party, which it has the greatest impact on, the Socialist Party, chose to give back the money, when the bigger parties have not? This is at a time when we continually preach about austerity, difficulties and the like.

Deputy Shortall referred to the concept of a review. The Minister said people could be gone for six months or more, and asked where we would put the cut-off time. This could be done through a 12-monthly review, with the funding for the 12-month period applied retrospectively or into the future, based on what the projections are on a particular date, be it 1 January, 1 July or otherwise.

The example the Minister gave of headage payments was very interesting.

I get many representations from farmers in my county, as does the Minister. If some of the cattle are not there, the farmers will certainly not be getting a headage payment for them. If they stray off the land, not only will the farmers not get headage payments for them, they will get a penalty. If we apply the same criteria here, not only would the party be giving the money back, it would be penalised. In my case, I did not stray off the land. I was kicked off it for adhering to what I saw as the basic principles and core values of a party. I do not want to quote Neil Blaney but I would certainly see it differently. I did not stray off the land. I was kicked off it.

Finally, I plead with the Minister to look at bringing in a simple piece of legislation or amendment. He could do it on the floor of the House to review the funding, for example in 12 months' time. He does not have to jump the fence today. I know he is probably under a lot of pressure behind the scenes from some of his more militant Cabinet colleagues. I think the Minister would like to accept such an amendment and bring forward such a proposal but perhaps there are forces elsewhere that are having an impact.

The Minister is providing for this in this legislation - not for the first time obviously - but the section deals with amending the current system of funding of the parties, renaming the allowance and copper-fastening the arrangements which discriminate against Members who become Independent Members of this House. It is absolutely legitimate for us to make these arguments and seek to amend and improve the arrangements.

The Minister said the larger parties receive less. Yes, they do because there are economies of scale where there is one press office and a research unit that basically does the same regardless of whether one has six or 26 Members. That is obvious. The other point the Minister made related to Opposition parties receiving more. Again, that is obvious and that is what should happen because Government parties have access to the very considerable support and research provided by the Civil Service.

I again put it very strongly to the Minister that there is no basis for parties retaining funding for Members who are no longer members of those parties. It is receiving funding under false pretences. It is taxpayers' money and parties should not be allowed to continue claiming it. There is no defence to that situation being allowed to continue. I ask the Minister sincerely to agree this amendment.

I welcome the Minister. I know we had a bit of tension in our contributions on this matter on Committee Stage. I appeal to the Minister to make a very big effort to ignore my personality, which might be an irritant, and look at the substance of the amendment. As Deputy Timmins pointed out, it is only right and proper that the clawback of what was called the leaders' allowance in respect of Members of the House who have lost their party Whip should go back to the Exchequer if it does not stay with the Members. It is very simple and plain. Even the people of Ireland know this. There is no point in bringing them through the labyrinth and maze of what has been the tradition and how things arose. It is where we are today that counts.

It is very important that the increasing number of Independent Deputies in the House are well resourced to carry out their research and to have all the supporting work, which costs money, carried out for them. Even as we look at the preparation for the European elections and the amount of money to support the candidates, we can see that party members get two and a half times the donation allowance by law compared to Independents. That is extraordinary. The maximum donation from any source for an Independent is €1,000 while for a political party, it is €2,500. Parties have other sources of funding that blend in because there is no strict auditing differentiation as to how funds should be applied when they come. Like the currents of the ocean, one cannot separate the waters. They get money from the European party groupings to which they belong. Average citizens Joe and Mary do not really know what is going on and that is why they are dissatisfied and disillusioned. We are not talking in plain, Monday-to-Sunday, ordinary English and simple, honest, transparent speech. Diversionary bones are thrown for people to get into a lather but it is very simple.

We could start with a clean slate, as I suggested on Committee Stage, and work it out. We could work out what amount of money for 166 Deputies doing a certain amount of work and working so many hours a day and so many months a year is estimated to be a reasonable amount for research and other related work. The Government calls it activity-based funding. We could then divide that money by 166. That is the fairest and most patently obvious starting place. I appeal to the Minister to do this.

Under the alternative before this can be put into place, and the Minister should not let it be a long delay, the Government should put the funding that has been pickpocketed from the people who now find themselves Independents and doubly and trebly disadvantaged into the Exchequer so it can go back to worthy expenditure on medical cards and disability services. Let us be simple and clear and do it. It is the honest and decent thing to do. Forget about sticky plastering through legislation and creating an amendment here. Let us start with a clean slate and make it simple. One page could do it. I challenge the Minister. He is a very able person. He could put it on one page.

I will deal with the points made because we have a long debate and everybody's position is very well enunciated. Perhaps I should start by surprising Deputy Naughten by saying that I strongly agree with him. The Executive is too strong and we need to rebalance. All my political life, I have wanted a stronger Parliament. I applaud some of the initiatives that are happening to make Parliament stronger. For the first time in my political life, the committee system is working in an effective way. It needs better resourcing but that is a debate for another day.

The Deputy asked me specific questions about Deputy Nulty. When a Deputy resigns, that money ends as soon as the Member is no longer a Member of the House. In the same way, as happened with our dearly loved departed colleague who died recently, that money obviously finishes with a person's death. That is clear. After a by-election, that money recommences to the party or the individual who is re-elected. I take Deputy Timmins's points about headage points. I should not have strayed into agricultural metaphors. It is not an area with which I am familiar enough to utilise properly.

What is the story with the Ceann Comhairle?

It is not me anyway.

I thought he was gone. The Ceann Comhairle is taken into account as part of the Fine Gael elected Members. It is the same argument and issue. It is not payable to an individual. Once the election is over, the number of people elected in each political party is the determining figure. Deputy Shortall reiterated her strong view that there is no basis for doing this. I think there is and that it is reasonable and fair. In everything I do, be it in opposition or as a member of the Government, I try to be as objective as I can but I have strong opinions, as do the Deputies opposite. The question of whether they are valid or not is a matter for other people's judgement. I happen to have the privilege of being in government so I have the force of argument on this side of the House but I must bring my parliamentary colleagues with me.

It is instructive, when people talk about the rights of Independent Members, to note that the great bulk of the time on this issue has been taken up by the Members opposite arguing their side of the argument. I have talked to my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House who support me. When a vote is called, the Deputies opposite will see that they will support me. However, they are not taking up the time in terms of the force of the argument. In terms of most debates, Members on the Government benches, particularly backbench Members, find it very difficult to get speaking time. That is something we might reflect on another time.

Deputy Mathews made the general thesis point that we should simply determine what is an appropriate sum of money to be expended and divide it by 166. That negates the views of most people who believe we should not do that because it would hugely advantage very large parties. It would particularly advantage very large parties in Government, who also have the advantage of the resources of Government. We do not give the same proportion equally to every Deputy. We disadvantage those in Government for obvious reasons and then we taper the sums allocated to a political party downwards in terms of scale to ensure everybody has a-----

What about political donations?

That is a different issue and has nothing to do with this Bill.

It has to do with political parties and is part of the issue.

No, it has nothing to do with the Bill. Let us deal with the legislation before us. Deputy Mathews talked about research. He said that we should work out the number of hours of research and divide it-----

It is all part of the same argument.

We are talking about this Bill and the amendment before us.

Finally, I hear what the Deputies have said and have no doubt that these matters will be debated again. These issues will come back and we will change things over time but I believe this is the right formula for now.

Does Deputy Naughten wish to press the amendment?

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 70.

  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Browne, John.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Denis Naughten and Peter Mathews; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn