Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 2013

Vol. 227 No. 5

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

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

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin)

I was about to set out the specifics of how the reform of governance is being achieved. The extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction and powers through the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012, which was debated extensively in this House and came into effect last October, resulted in the most significant expansion in the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in the 30 years since the original legislation was put in place. As for the provision of a detailed legislative framework for parliamentary inquiries, which again was debated at length in this House, the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act was enacted in July and commenced on 25 September. This legislation establishes a comprehensive statutory framework for the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries within the current constitutional framework. In respect of the regulation of lobbying, the general scheme of the regulation of lobbying Bill 2013 has been submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, which I understand is due to report back to me shortly. Drafting of the Bill has commenced and the views of the aforementioned committee will feed into this drafting process. It is anticipated that the Bill will be published later this year and enacted before the middle of 2014. As Members will be aware, extensive reform is under way of the freedom of information, FOI, legislation which provides for Ireland's FOI regime to be restored to the top tier of legal frameworks internationally for facilitating access to official information. The Bill substantially restores the legislation to its pre-2003 state and further extends FOI to almost all public bodies, as well as consolidating and modernising it to improve the functioning of the Act and to improve the structure of the legislative framework. The Bill has passed Second Stage in the Dáil and is scheduled for Committee Stage next week. In tandem with the drafting of the Freedom of Information Bill, work is well advanced in developing a code of practice to support the implementation of FOI. As for the introduction of legislation protecting whistleblowers, the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013, which was published in July 2013, has passed Committee Stage in the Seanad. The Bill, which proposes to introduce protections for workers in all sectors who are penalised by their employers for having reported wrongdoing in the workplace, meets the highest international standards and will represent a significant addition to Ireland's anti-corruption framework. Again, it is anticipated that the Bill will be enacted by year-end or early next year. An overhaul of the ethics legislation is being furthered, which is aimed at supporting and promoting ethical conduct, creating an environment in which ethical and conflict of interests are managed effectively and corrupt and unethical conduct are severely discouraged. Finally, much work is being done on the strengthening of Civil Service accountability, on which I will report to the Houses in due course.

My Department also is leading on the open government partnership, OGP. While many Members will not have heard of this partnership, I recommend that they investigate it. This new partnership serves to complement the existing objectives of the Government and provides an important international complement to national reform efforts.

The intention is that Ireland will become a full member of the Open Government Partnership, OGP, by April 2014 and membership of the OGP will reaffirm Ireland's commitment to governmental transparency.

The Government embraced reform from the very beginning, thereby demonstrating a strong commitment to facilitate more open, transparent, responsible and responsive public governance. These are just some of the areas on which it is working to restore faith in the political and administrative branches of the State, while restoring the finances to good health at the same time.

The reforms being undertaken in this legislation fit firmly within these two aims of fiscal efficiency and democratic reform. The so-called "party leader's allowance" has been around since 1938, when it was introduced to provide funding to Opposition parties in the interests of the democratic process. Over time and through successive Governments of all party colours, the allowance has evolved to become a significant source of funding and support for parties in this Parliament, as well as those Members of the Oireachtas who were appointed or elected as Independents, in an effort to ensure they are afforded the best opportunity to properly carry out their duties and serve the people. However, political funding cannot be exempted from the fiscal retrenchment through which the country is going. With this in mind, this Bill will reduce the rates of the allowance paid to both parliamentary leaders of parties and to Independent Members by a further 10%. This is the first time in 75 years, that is, since the introduction of the original Act, that this allowance has been reduced. As every other allowance has been reduced, it was appropriate to address this one as well. In a full year, this reduction will result in a saving of approximately €840,000. As I already have stated, the scope of the allowance payable under the existing legislation has grown over time. What was once an allowance purely for the leaders of Opposition parties, to spend as they saw fit, is now an extensive support provided to parliamentary parties, as well as to Independent Deputies and Senators, for use exclusively in their parliamentary activities and research. To reflect the evolution of the allowance and following a suggestion by some of the Independent Members of this House in the consultation process during the formulation of the Bill, this legislation renames the allowance as the "parliamentary activities allowance" to better reflect its true purpose and intent. Incidentally, I thank all Members, of this House in particular, who made substantial submissions to me. As stated, the name, "parliamentary activities allowance" was a suggestion from four Independent Members who made a common submission to me.

Electoral activities are funded separately. The Government has already implemented significant reform for political funding through the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012, which was brought through this House by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan. That Act will see political parties fully account for their spending and reduces the potential influence of outside funding by the further restriction of corporate donations. This Bill will build upon the changes to the Electoral Act by improving the transparency and accountability for the money from the public purse received by parties and independents for specifically parliamentary activities. The last item of primary legislation regarding this allowance was enacted in 2001. That Act saw the introduction of a limited requirement for leaders of political parties to account for the money spent from the allowance received in a statement of expenditure, to have that statement audited and to submit these documents to the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. That commission will also be given more extensive powers to review the use of the allowance and to offer guidance. By allowing for the publication of guidelines, those in receipt of the allowance will be able to ensure that the money received is spent in an appropriate manner in future. At that time, these measures were restricted to party leaders and Independent Members were not obliged to account for the funds received. In the current climate and with the increased scrutiny on all public expenditure, this is no longer acceptable. This Bill provides that Independent Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann will now be subject to the same reporting requirements that apply to party leaders and significantly enhances the level of accountability for those in receipt of such moneys.

I now propose to go through the provisions of the Bill. Section 2 of the Bill is based on current provisions and provides for the payment of the allowance to parliamentary leaders of qualifying parties and to qualifying Independent Members. It sets out the criteria for entitlement to the allowance and provides for a reduction in the current rates. It clarifies that the amount of an allowance payable to a parliamentary leader of a qualifying party is calculated on a tapering basis, rather than a flat rate basis being applied to the total membership of that party. The allowance may be used to fund parliamentary activities such as policy formulation, the procurement of technical advice or support services or for research and training. The main restriction on the use of the allowance is that it cannot be used for, or to recoup, electoral expenses. The section includes two new provisions. The first new provision provides that qualifying expenses arising out of parliamentary activities will only be regarded as qualifying expenditure where such expenditure is not otherwise reimbursed or provided for. The second new provision provides that, in view of the obligations to the Central Fund and for administrative efficiency, where an allowance is due and payable and a period of six month expires without the parliamentary leader or the Member concerned having claimed the allowance or part thereof, the part of the allowance for that period in excess of six months shall no longer be payable.

Section 3 of the Bill inserts eight new sections, namely, sections 10A to 10H, into the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938. I will deal with section 10B first as it contains the provisions whereby leaders of qualifying parties and Independent Members in receipt of the allowance must provide a statement of expenditure and accompanying auditor's report to the commission, that is, to SIPO. This section also outlines the procedure where a change in party leadership or the death of a party leader or Independent Member in receipt of the allowance occurs. Section 10A provides that should a recipient of the allowance fail to provide the required statement of expenditure and auditor's report within the required deadline of 120 days after the end of the financial year to the commission, they will receive no further funding from the allowance until such time as those documents are provided. The section also provides that should the commission find that the statement of expenditure does not comply with the legislation, the allowance will not be paid to that recipient until such time as the issues underlying that non-compliance have been addressed.

Section 10C provides for the retention of documentation by party leaders and independent members in support of the statement of expenditure provided to the commission. Section 10D provides powers to the commission to examine and assess the statements of expenditure provided to it and to make inquiries as necessary to do this. The section also outlines the process by which the commission may report its findings on the statements of expenditure received. Section 10E allows for the setting of a date when the above provisions will come into effect for Independent Members and for party leaders. This is in recognition of the fact that the necessary documentation may not have been collected prior to its being required by this legislation and that some advance notice of these requirements therefore is necessary. Section 10F provides that in the event that a party or Independent Member of the Oireachtas in receipt of the allowance loses their entitlement to the allowance, they must repay any unspent amounts received within 120 days of the end of the financial year. Section 10G provides that the commission may formulate and issue guidelines on the allowance and the statement of expenditure to be prepared by those in receipt of the allowance. This provision has been requested by the commission itself for some time, as previously no formal advisory role was given to the commission regarding these allowances. By allowing for the publication of guidelines, those in receipt of the allowance will be able to ensure the money received is spent appropriately and properly.

Section 4 of the Bill amends the existing legislation in order that any general round decreases that apply to the Civil Service also will apply to the rates of the allowance here. Previously, only general increases could be applied. This was not due to any design but to the fact that at the time the existing legislation was drafted, it was not envisaged that decreases would be implemented. Finally, section 5 of the Bill delivers on the commitment made by the Government to abolish severance payments for specified ministerial and parliamentary officeholders. These officeholders include the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, all Ministers and Ministers of State, the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach, the Leas-Chathaoirleach, the Leader of Seanad Éireann and the Attorney General. The abolition of these payments will apply to both current and future holders of the offices in question.

Currently, no person is in receipt of these payments.

The Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill 2013 is a short Bill. The provisions in the Bill are in keeping with the Government's objective to continued stabilisation of the overall cost of the public service and, as part of this objective, provide for the reduction for the first time in the rates of these allowances, and for the abolition of severance payments. Greater transparency and accountability in the use of expenditure from the allowance will also be achieved, and the money received from the allowance will not only be spent appropriately but will have to be seen to be done so. At the same time, it sets out an agenda of reform for the future through ensuring the transparent and accountable use of funds provided by the Exchequer to support the democratic process.

I look forward to hearing the views of Members of the House on the Bill and to considering amendments and suggestions put forward by Senators.

Senator Thomas Byrne

Fianna Fáil will be supporting the Bill. In particular we believe the changes to severance pay are needed. There was no reason to have that type of severance pay in the first place. It is a simple change that requires to be made. We also recognise that costs must be saved on the party leader's allowance and the funding to political parties. We accept and will support that but it should be put on the record that this funding is critical to the operation of the democratic system, and everybody accepts that, provided it is spent appropriately. The way Independent Members had an unvouched system of substantial amounts of money is a scandal. That was a product of the influence Independent Members had when parties, and my party in particular, could not form an overall majority in the Dáil. That is where that system appears to have come from but it is about time it came to an end because it enabled Independents to have a slush fund available to them that effectively could be spent on anything, regardless of the rules, as it was an unvouched system. That must happen.

This Bill will put burdens on political parties but they are no greater than the burdens on any person. They are probably not as great as the burdens on most people but it will probably have an impact on jobs within certain political parties, and on employment also, and that must be remembered when we are passing this legislation.

The Minister sets out what he says is a huge range of reforms relating to the workings of the Houses of the Oireachtas and opening up society. I acknowledge that some good things are being done but in terms of the way people see these Houses still operating, the Seanad yesterday nominated an Ombudsman without debate, major European legislation has been passed without debate, and the guillotine is still being imposed on important legislation before the Dáil such as the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. People remain to be convinced about reform.

We have had major scandals over the years, particularly in regard to retired Ministers receiving pensions while still Members of the Oireachtas. That was a cross-party affair. As of 2009, ten Fianna Fáil, eight Fine Gael and a couple of Labour Deputies and Senators were in receipt of ministerial pensions while serving. Some of those people serve in the Cabinet now, therefore, their conversion to cost-saving is to be welcomed but that is a fact and it was never right. Somebody like me who came into this House at the end of that period could see that it was illogical, that it did not have the support of the public and that it greatly angered the public because they did not appear to happen in any other job.

At the same time the public recognises that politics and law making has a cost and as my party leader said in a debate on the Seanad referendum, it is important that we spend a reasonable amount of money on law-making. We spend a huge amount of money on law enforcement through the Garda and the courts system, etc., but some money must be spent on making laws and ensuring we have the best advice possible.

The party leaders' allowance must be properly audited, spent and accounted for, which has been done for some years, because it was subject to considerable scandal. We should not forget that, and I am not forgetting it. It was the subject of tribunal discussions and findings over the years. That has changed. Thankfully, the accounting requirements for political parties were brought in some time ago and I am glad to see those extended to Independent Members. That is a welcome change which I believe the public will support because it is important, particularly for Opposition parties. We see that now in opposition. It is much easier when a party is in government because it has a phalanx of civil servants who do not do political work but some of the products of their work can find their way into political parties or in terms of helping parties in government simply by having that support. However, Opposition parties depend on this funding to be able to take part in the democratic process, do the proper research and employ people who are educated to help as it is required. The buck stops with us, the Members, however, and we must do the best job we can do, but with help that is paid for by this allowance.

We will support this legislation. I do not expect we will put down any significant amendments to it but it is important that it goes through the proper Stages of debate.

Senator Tom Sheahan

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to the Chamber to discuss this short but significant Bill. The primary purpose of the Bill is to amend and extend Part 3 of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938. In short, the Bill provides for a 10% reduction in the rates of the allowance, with a saving of €840,000, and for changes to improve the effectiveness and transparency of the allowance by providing for improved reporting and auditing provisions that currently apply to parliamentary leaders. These auditing provisions will also apply to Independent Members in receipt of the allowance. The Bill also provides for new inspection powers and for new guidelines to be introduced by the Standards in Public Office Commission.

The reduction in the allowance by 10% was first announced in budget 2013 and is a further example of one of the many reforms promised in the programme for Government. As legislators, we must always strive towards maximum transparency, and this Bill will go some way to ensuring that. The programme for Government sets out an ambitious programme of reform to deliver fundamental change in democratic and public governance in Ireland.

The public has lost a great deal of faith with the body politic. Most of the institutions of the State have let it down in some manner over the past 20 years, that is, the church, politicians, the media, etc. As we emerge from recession, we must look to reform the way we conduct political leadership in this country. We must strive to restore confidence in a system where there is none. Members should ask any person on the street about politician's expenses and leaders' allowances and see the kind of response they get. For now, we must go above and beyond what is necessary to show that efficiency and transparency are foremost in our minds when it comes to political expenses and allowances. We must not just administer the system in a fair and transparent manner, we must also be seen to be doing so.

The Bill will provide for the abolition of severance payments to holders of certain ministerial and parliamentary offices upon cessation of office, in accordance with the programme for Government. That is a promise made before coming into office and now is being implemented. We must get rid of the golden handshake culture that once defined our political and business elite. It was often ill-judged, excessive and reflected poorly on those struggling with the worst of the austerity measures.

Some will say that €840,000 is a small saving but how many special needs teachers would it allow us to take on? How many extra beds will it provide in our hospitals? The issue at play here is greater than money; it is about perception and restoring confidence in a broken system.

I again welcome the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to the House. I commend him on his efforts and encourage him to continue on his path of reform. I believe I speak on behalf of many Senators when I say that we have a new zest for life since the referendum. We have a fresh mandate-----

Senator Paul Coghlan

A new mandate.

Senator Tom Sheahan

-----from the people.

Senator Thomas Byrne

We should be debating issues as we did yesterday.

Senator Tom Sheahan

On section 2 the Minister stated:

The section includes two new provisions. The first new provision provides that qualifying expenses arising out of parliamentary activities will only be regarded as qualifying expenditure where such expenditure is not otherwise reimbursed or provided for.

I put it to the Minister that I am not a part-time Senator. I do not spend just three days a week working as a Senator in Dublin. I give six days per week as a Senator. On the other three days, when I am not in the House, I do work in my constituency, that is, my county. The Minister will undoubtedly argue that we do not have a constituency.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Not according to the Constitution.

Senator Tom Sheahan

We do have a constituency and I live in my constituency. I am contacted by people from throughout the country, but I live in my constituency. However, when people come seeking help, where is a Senator supposed to meet with those people? The day of politicians meeting people in pubs and carparks is gone. Let us be honest about this. No Member of this House is a Senator on a part-time basis. As such, we should be provided with a workspace for the Mondays, Fridays and Saturdays on which we continue to do our business as Senators. I am speaking for myself, but I am sure the same applies to colleagues. On the basis of a quick headcount, I estimate that of the 60 Members of this House, perhaps fewer than ten are able to access their offices in Leinster House on Monday, Friday or Saturday.

My personal assistant has a stack load of work for every Minister and every Department. These are queries and issues raised by people from all over the State. As I said, the whole country is my constituency. Senators should have access to a workspace to do our business when we are not in Leinster House.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I propose to share time with Senator David Norris.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is agreed. The Senators have four minutes each. I will be especially attentive to notify Senator Norris when his time is up, as he did not listen to me yesterday.

Senator Feargal Quinn

The Leas-Chathaoirleach was very generous yesterday. Senator Norris is allowing me to go first today.

Senator David Norris

Yes, it was my generous suggestion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am very accommodating, as Senator Norris knows.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I must be careful not to waste my four minutes. The Minister is very welcome to the House to discuss this legislation. I particularly commend the proposals in regard to severance payments. It is absurd that the pension levy does not apply to ministerial pensions. Indeed, it only applies to private pensions, which creates inequality in society. The Government has raided people's private pensions through the levy, but business people who are in desperate need of cash to keep their business going and feed their family cannot access that locked-up money. I acknowledge that it is possible to access 30% of the funds in an additional voluntary contribution, AVC, scheme, but it is not enough. I would like to see the Government being more open and sympathetic to the notion of easier access to pension funds, which has been done with great success in Denmark. We should not be afraid of releasing cash into the economy on that basis.

I welcome the reduction of 10% in the so-called party leader's allowance which, according to the Minister, will lead to a substantial saving of some €840,000. Will he comment on the issue of Electoral Acts funding, which I understand is separate to that? According to The Irish Times, political parties received €14 million last year under this funding, of which €4.9 million went to Fine Gael. Should we not be reviewing these payments if we are serious about saving money? In addition, it is estimated that the Seanad abolition campaign that was initiated by the Government cost taxpayers some €14 million in total. I have heard suggestions that the Government campaign itself, which included advertising and a very fancy website, cost €400,000 to €500,000. The Minister might indicate whether those figures are accurate. Information on these types of expenditure items should be out in the open so that the tax-paying public can question whether they represent a sensible allocation of money.

On the issue of parliamentary allowances, the principle of supporting Oireachtas Members to carry out their work, including researching issues, is a good one. I welcome the increased transparency in this area. It seems to me there should be some Oireachtas body or think tank which could review international legislation and seek out best practice in this area. Not all good legislation comes from so-called developed countries. Many less high-profile countries have brought forward amazing and innovative ideas that are overlooked but which we might do well to adopt in their wake. As I argued on the Order of Business today, the Oireachtas - not necessarily just this House - should be examining international developments and, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, looking to see whether we can take on board what is best practice elsewhere. I would like to see an allocation of funding for that purpose.

The Minister has taken the right steps and is moving us in the right direction. I am very impressed with the figures he provided today. I suspect the vast majority of people are not aware of the substantial savings that have been achieved in this area. I urge him to continue in the same vein, while pointing out that additional steps could be taken to advance his objectives.

Senator David Norris

I welcome the Minister to the House, but I do not welcome the Bill, or at least not all of it. The message should go out loud and clear to the public that the Taoiseach has had his salary reduced by 40% and the Tánaiste and Ministers have seen a reduction of more than 35%. We must also highlight the considerable reductions applied to the remuneration of Members of the Dáil and Seanad. In addition, there has been a 25% reduction in certain allowances for Dublin Members. That is all splendid but, as I see it, the public does not give a damn. If we left everything of ours to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, stripped ourselves naked and jumped off the roof, the response would be "So what?". These proposals are not going to impress the public. They are merely intended as a public relations exercise and represent, in effect, a fiddling and farting around with a number of ancillary matters. Of course it is ridiculous that people should be still working in their job in the Dáil - it is always the Dáil because it is applicable only to Ministers - and also receiving a pension for the job they previously did. Receiving a pension while at the same time receiving wages for continuing to work in essentially the same capacity is silly and very difficult to justify.

The Minister and his officials very courteously provided me with a submission I made on this issue. I began my letter by stating:

First of all, can I say that I recognise this is a time when many people in this country are suffering to an extraordinary extent financially and are finding it very difficult to survive. This means that it may seem insensitive and indeed even immoral for people engaged in the profession of politics, despite having accepted various cuts, pension reductions and negative adjustments in terms of income, to attempt to justify even a reduced income for themselves.

I am well aware of all that. However, the public will not be impressed by anything we do in this regard. As such, I suggest something far more radical, namely, that we abolish all allowances and engage an independent assessor of international reputation to decide what remuneration we should receive. I do not want to waste my time collecting invoices, taxi receipts and so on. It adds enormously to what is already a very busy and stressful job. I am not a part-time Senator, although there are some such. From my recollection of the debate, the four Taoiseach's appointees who recommended these changes come to mind. I am not criticising them, but the reality is that they have jobs and alternative sources of income. Moreover, they were not elected. It is comparatively easy for them to suggest, as some of them have, that we should work for half pay. Meanwhile, the suggestions from elsewhere that we should do the job for nothing would lead to an aristocracy of millionaires in this Chamber. Incidentally, that is one section of the population that seems to be growing. I do not want that. I want people in here who, for instance, have been unemployed.

I also said in my letter that under the party spokesperson system, members of political parties have people who are assigned special responsibilities, usually in one area of policy. As Independent Members, we have to cover the whole lot, which is a considerable addition in terms of the workload of research and preparation. However, we in this corner of the House are among the most prolific speakers. In addition, we have all brought forward legislation, without any assistance from parliamentary draftsmen or others.

The Minister spoke about how this legislation developed. I remember very clearly how it developed, namely, by way of another of these public relations exercises whereby we did not take national wage agreement increases. The Minister for Finance at the time, by sleight of hand, started producing these various allowances that nobody quite understood but which arrived in the form of a cheque and evened things up for us.

We are linked to the senior civil servants' trade union and they had their allowances absorbed into their core pay. That is something not dissimilar from what I am saying, which is to abolish all the allowances and then get an independent person to say how much these things cost. I think things like "half pay" are wrong. People in the army get half pay as a punishment. I also do not understand why electoral expenses are not allowed, particularly for Independents. This is huge for us as we have no support for party funds, even though a huge amount of money is made available for parties every year. These funds are needed for us to keep our job. With the enormous expansion of the university constituency, which will be provided for by the Government, why should this legitimate expense not be allowed?

From a public relations point of view, if people are not impressed by the Taoiseach taking a 40% cut, they will not be impressed by this, so it is a disaster from a PR point of view. There are simpler ways of dealing with it. I will not take the populist route. It is easier for people who have additional external sources of income, who did not have to pay election expenses so on and who are part-time in this House, to make sacrifices on behalf of the people who are in this House five days a week. I used to be here six days a week and I was the person who got the Seanad opened on a Saturday, but it was closed because it only I and a few other Independents came in.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I welcome the Minister to the House to debate reforming legislation, something he is bringing before us on a regular basis. I hesitate to disagree with the newly bearded Senator Norris that this is a PR exercise, but I must do so. It is easy to say that it is part of a PR exercise, but the Government has a responsibility to try to restore the destroyed political fabric and trust in political life. If the Government did absolutely nothing at all, then certainly nothing would change and the attitude and public respect would not alter. While we can say it is a PR exercise, if we look at it in the round - the Minister has outlined different pieces of legislation, some of which are pending and some of which are enacted - I think that over time, the kind of change that is being wrought will have an effect. I agree to some extent with the Senator. If we took off all our clothes and jumped off and said that we do not want any more money, they still would not care. However, there is a tipping point of action on this that we ought to make and I think this is one of those parts.

I again understand the Senator's point about the independent commission, and perhaps it is something we should discuss, but I think this was done in the UK and they recommended that MPs' pay ought to be higher.

Senator David Norris

I would not have any problem with that at all.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I am sure the Senator would not.

Senator David Norris

I might generously surrender some of it to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I am just pointing out the fact that sometimes we do not get the results we think we will get if we do things we think are better.

Senator David Norris

Perhaps we are worth more than we thought.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I am saying that we should have a debate about that, but I am pointing it out as a point of information.

We are changing the way in which we govern and the way in which political life is being run. There was a near destruction of public confidence in politics, politicians and in the democratic system. It is a very difficult thing to try to reform. Where do we start? What do we prioritise? I know the Minister has taken much criticism and the Government has been criticised for doing nothing and people have hurled the accusation at me that there has been no change. In the way that the Minister has laid out the statistics today, it is clear that some change has occurred. People will always want more, but I believe there are more fundamental changes to come, such as the pending regulation of lobbying Bill, the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013, the publication of the whistleblowers' legislation, and the reform and enhancement of the Ombudsman legislation.

Senator Byrne referred to the shovelling through, as it were, of the appointment of the new Ombudsman, but the new Ombudsman came before the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, of which I am a member, and his appointment was discussed at that committee. That is a new committee created by the Government as part of the strengthening of the Ombudsman's office. In fairness to the Ombudsman, he did not just march through the doors.

Senator Thomas Byrne

It was not a criticism of the Ombudsman, but of the Seanad.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I am pointing out that the new Ombudsman was put through his paces before the appropriate committee.

Senator Thomas Byrne

There was a Dáil debate------

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I was not sure if the Senator was aware of that. The Minister mentioned an open government forum. These things often have a habit of becoming almost weighed down as vehicles themselves. They have great aspirations and then they become weighed down with their own importance. I wonder if the Minister could come back to us because I would welcome a debate on how Ireland partakes in the open government partnership, which I believe takes place in April 2014, in order that it does not become a talking shop and a pretence. I do not think the Minister is trying to do that, but it may become that.

I suspect this Bill may get more attention than some of the others because it is specifically about cutting money. The public is always saying that politicians' pay and allowances should be cut. In fairness, I do not blame anybody for saying that. A level of financial comfort was afforded to the political class that was improper at any time, but especially in a time of difficult and tight accounting. It is important to say that public representatives should be sufficiently remunerated to ensure there is a level of respect and that they are less likely to be open to bribery and corruption. We know that in countries where pay for public representatives is very low, it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that people are open to corruption. If we want to govern, we must first ensure we put our own house in order. That is basic common sense and I see this Bill as part of that process of putting our very disordered house into some order.

I welcome the reduction of allowances to party leaders. I know those allowances have existed for a long time, but when we see CEOs of hospitals writing to the HSE outlining their concerns about cancer patients and the amount of money we have to spend, and while we cannot put the two issues in the same place, they are a very stark reminder of how very tight the public purse is and how very difficult it is to balance the budget. People will see that some effort is being made to reduce those allowances. Putting clear guidelines in place and giving more authority and strength to the Standards in Public Office Commission is very welcome. I still see something of a charade in respect of SIPO in that no candidate is taken to task during a general election campaign, which means they can spend all the money they like and need only account for it afterwards, by which time they may well be elected. I know that is not in this Bill, but I have observed it and SIPO is tied by its own constraints. I imagine its officials will welcome the strengthening of the office in this Bill.

There has been something of a charade when it comes to politicians' expenses over recent years, and The Daily Telegraph was to the fore in publicising events in the House of Commons. We read about people claiming for the cost of manure and cleaning out their moats and so on. It is interesting to note, however, that the cost of MPs' expenses, including staffing, has risen quite considerably since that scandal. While everything came out into the public domain and many copies of The Daily Telegraph were sold, some things did not change. This goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to effect change. Even last week, MPs and Ministers were criticised for claiming expenses on electricity and gas in their second houses while the cost of these utilities was increasing.

Again, that puts politicians on a kind of separate planet. We sometimes get tied in with that and it is difficult to separate the two. I realise it is a different jurisdiction, but the Minister will understand my point.

Finally, there is a bar stool argument to be made for abolishing all State funding for political parties. It is an attractive one, the equivalent of banning all politics. However, it is worth pointing out that if the State does not continue to fund political activity, it will become privatised politics left to the whim of large corporations, philanthropic donations or even greyhound racing events to raise funds. That would be back to having a banana republic, where purveyors of bananas, beef or computer games would fund political parties. We all remember the Galway tent, the hideous variation we had for funding political activity. It is not a model I wish to have. In a way, this legislation and the other legislative measure being introduced will finally nail the Galway tent and state that we absolutely do not want a system in this country in which private corporations are the funders of our political system. We cannot have that. Much as people would like to ban all moneys given to political parties, that could only lead down a very slippery path to enlarging the Galway tent and all that went with it. I certainly do not want that.

I welcome this Bill and commend it to the House.

Senator Kathryn Reilly

I wish to share time with Senator Healy Eames.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Kathryn Reilly

I welcome the Minister and I support this legislation.

The Sinn Féin pre-budget submission this year included a measure to cut the leader's allowance by 10%. In the past it has called for reductions in the pay of the Taoiseach, Ministers and Members of the Oireachtas. I fully support cutting allowances and salaries, but I will not take my clothes off. I doubt that the public is ready for 226 naked politicians running around.

I wish to mention a few issues in respect of the legislation. Obviously, we acknowledge that some of these allowances are used for parliamentary related activities but unless there is a fully transparent mechanism to make public all the revenue and expenditure relating to the political parties, there will be some distrust among the public. There will always be the feeling that politicians have an easy ride in comparison to the majority of citizens in the State. Young people at present, on foot of the cuts in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, will feel particularly put out on seeing the salaries and allowances of politicians. That generates disillusionment and disdain for the political system.

We would have liked the legislation to provide for the withdrawal of the committee chairperson allowance. Participation in committees should be made compulsory and there should be no additional allowance. It is part of the role of a Deputy and Senator. With regard to SIPO, expanding its role is the right way to proceed but it should perhaps be complemented by increased staff numbers and training. Introducing legislation to enhance oversight of public moneys without implementing corresponding changes to increase the staffing of these bodies could be meaningless.

In the North political parties are required under law to provide a full income and expenditure annual financial statement to the Electoral Commission. What are the Minister's thoughts on the introduction of such a system here?

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It exists here.

Senator Kathryn Reilly

Does the Minister think it is strong enough or should changes be made to it?

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Actually, it is stronger than the one in the North.

Senator Kathryn Reilly

Are there gaps in it that should be addressed?

We have raised the issue of gold-plated pensions with the Minister previously. Perhaps he would address that in his reply.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I welcome the Minister and thank Senator Reilly for sharing time.

I welcome the Bill on the basis that its aim is to achieve fiscal efficiency and democratic reform. I support that aim. The Bill gives me the opportunity to raise the allowances paid to parties and Independent Members from the public purse. The point I wish to raise is the continuation of that payment to political parties for Deputies and Senators who have lost the party whip and been expelled from the party. We are supposed to be upright and honest and to stand for fiscal efficiency and reform. Where is the reform if the Government of the day still continues to pay my allowance as a Senator who has lost the Fine Gael party whip, Senator Bradford's allowance and the allowances of non-aligned Deputies in the Dáil to the party from which they were expelled? If we are serious about reform, we will use this Bill to change that. I am not seeking that money for myself, even though we must be resourced to do a good job and fulfil our duty to the taxpayer, as every other Member has recommended. That money should be returned to the taxpayer. It is quite immoral of any party to hold that allowance because it is no longer resourcing that Member of the Oireachtas and is no longer providing press and research support.

I seek an answer from the Minister, Deputy Howlin, as the Minister responsible for reform. I am also seeking a written reply on this issue. It is a serious issue. It could amount to fraud. At best, it is the retention of funds under false pretences.

Senator Paul Coghlan

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his overview of this brief Bill. I recognise what the Minister is trying to achieve. Stabilising the cost of the public service is a goal we all share while at the same time supporting the democratic process by means of the support payments that are made to political parties for research, training and so forth. I welcome that because we all have parliamentary activities to pursue.

I welcome what the Minister is doing in regard to the corporate level and the leader's allowance as it applies to Independents. Of course, everything must be audited; we respect that. We also respect the Minister's efforts to restore trust, which is very difficult. Other speakers have referred to how we are regarded among the public. Unfortunately, it is not in a great light. This House was under a cloud during the recent referendum campaign but, thank God, all of that has been settled. We have equal parliamentary activities as legislators with the other House. The Minister probably knows what I intend to say as we have corresponded about it, along with the other Whip. I have been cast in the role of something of a shop steward by virtue of the position I am honoured to hold in the House, but I feel for all Senators and particularly for those who reside in areas outside Dublin.

Dublin-based Senators have the use of offices here on a Monday and Friday but it is otherwise for Members who live in far-flung rural parts. We are engaged in the business of being legislators and, particularly in rural areas, there is more usage of the parliamentarian or public representative by the people. People are more inclined to seek them out. I have had much experience of that, particularly in the recent past since the referendum was held. Indeed, that can be seen in the number of e-mails and texts we receive. We have issues and queries on which we must consult the Minister, his colleagues and Ministers of State on a daily and weekly basis. It is a minor issue in the overall scheme of things because we are very supportive of the Bill and the Minister's overall aim but I appeal to the Minister for a level playing pitch. I respect what Deputies and Senators do, but there are huge overlaps. Being from the deep south west, I can see that. I am sure Senator O'Donovan, Senator Bradford, Senator Cummins, Senator O'Keeffe, Senator Sheahan and others see that too.

I very much welcome what Senator Norris touched on, namely, an independent, objective assessment. It is invidious for the Minister to have to do that. It is very difficult. He should let an independent assessor come in and set the right level. Everybody needs a work space. We will not be here on Mondays and Fridays. The Minister will be approached on Saturdays. That is the custom in the country. One can get telephone calls or a visitor can call to one's house on a Sunday.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

That is very true.

Senator Paul Coghlan

It is not unknown for that to happen, as I well know. My point is that one is expected to be more available in the country and people are more inclined to approach their public representative, regardless of whether he or she is a Deputy, a Senator or a councillor. As Senator Norris said, the matter should be decided by an independent assessor or whoever is appropriate. We are not looking for anything extra but I appeal for a level playing pitch. I have no more to add. I am very supportive of the Bill and of the work the Minister is doing in his Department, and I wish him all the best.

Senator Paul Bradford

I welcome the Minister to the House. During the debate on the abolition of the Seanad he was very much committed to its dissolution but the public decided that the Seanad is worthy of its place in the Oireachtas and we look forward to working with the Minister on a broad range of reform over the coming months and years.

I have two questions on the legislation following which I will make my substantive point, which will follow up on the point made by my colleague, Senator Fidelma Healy Eames. On the language in the Bill, I refer the Minister to what strikes me as an anomaly in that it is set out on page 12 what an Independent Member means in terms of an Independent Member of the Dáil and an Independent Member of the Seanad. Having been a Member of this House, the Minister will be aware that when one is elected to Seanad Éireann, unlike when one stands for election to Dáil Éireann, one does not stand as a Labour, Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil candidate for Seanad Éireann. There is no party affiliation on a Seanad ballot paper. People are not elected as party members. Some Senators are elected-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

So the Senator was not elected by Fine Gael councillors exclusively.

Senator Paul Bradford

Some Senators, as the Minister knows, are nominated to stand by nominating bodies and some Members are nominated by four Members of the Oireachtas. The non-contentious point I want the Minister to clarify is that the definition of an Independent Senator in the Bill is "a member of the Seanad... elected... or nominated... at the last preceding general election" as a member of a particular party. Unlike the person who is elected in a Dáil election where his or her party affiliation is on the ballot paper, it is very different in the Seanad. There is a list of the candidates and their nominating bodies or their nominating Oireachtas Members are listed. I seek clarification on that.

My second request for clarification is about the list of allowable expenses for which party funding can be used. In the context of expenses, the Bill states "the payment to another person of any salary or honorarium in respect of duties arising from the person's activities in a parliamentary party". Could the Minister clarify if it is allowable under that heading that a person could be working for a Minister? Does that provide for a person to work for a Minister or does that person, who is paid from the public purse, have to work within the confines of a parliamentary party? Those are my two questions that the Minister might answer.

I strongly support the comments of Senator Healy Eames. It is not in any way possible to defend the case that political parties would continue to keep taxpayers' money to which, in my view, they are not entitled. Once I or any of my colleagues lose the party Whip, we are no longer members of the parliamentary party. We no longer enjoy or receive any benefit from the list of allowable expenses for which the legislation provides. It cannot stand up to any scrutiny, moral or legal, that political parties would continue to keep the allowances which were provided in respect of such Senators' membership of a parliamentary party. During the campaign to abolish the Seanad, it was claimed that the Government would save €10 million, €15 million or €20 million by abolishing it. At least €500,000, €600,000 or €700,000 of taxpayers' money is still being paid on annual basis to the political parties in respect of the allowance for former members of those parties.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Hear, hear.

Senator Paul Bradford

How can that be justified? There is a list of the prescribed expenses and what the money is to be spent on, namely, the general administration of the parliamentary activities, the provision of technical or specialist advice, research and training, policy formulation, consultancy services, polling or public attitude sampling and so on. The €23,000 or €24,000 of taxpayers' money being allocated via me to the Fine Gael Party should be simply returned to the taxpayer.

The Minister, Deputy Howlin, is the Minister with responsibility for reform and this Bill is part of the Government's proposal for reform. The Minister described it as being about financial propriety and democratic reform. He cannot stand over allowing the political parties to keep taxpayers' money to which they are not entitled. There is a formula for deciding how much each party gets. It is on the basis of the number of members they have within the parliamentary party, admittedly as elected, but events bring about certain changes. At best, it is politically immoral that moneys in respect of those of us who are now Independent Members of the Dáil or the Seanad should be paid to a political party. There is also a constitutional question about this. Every citizen is entitled to equality under the Constitution. Why should money being paid by the taxpayer in respect of my membership of the Oireachtas be handed over to a political party, the parliamentary party of which I am no longer a member? The Minister may not have a chance today to address that quandary. I know it is the way the law was framed many years ago but we now have to be realistic. If we are talking about transparency, fairness, accountability, openness and democratic reform as the Minister mentioned, how can anybody justify that money not being returned to the taxpayer? I will leave it at that. I thank the Acting Chairman for allowing me to make that point. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. It is an issue we will take up on Committee and Report Stages but I ask the Minister to respond to it with common sense and fairness and to make the necessary amendment to provide that taxpayers will have their money returned to them.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I welcome the Minister to the House. As my colleague, Senator Byrne said, we support the Bill in principle but I support what Senator Sheahan said with regard to rural Senators. If the plan to abolish the Seanad had worked out for the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, we would be all wagging our tails and it would be a case of croppies lie down; we would just have to take our beating and walk away. Having been in these Houses for almost 19 years and having served in both Houses, I know it is impossible for any Member of Seanad Éireann who lives outside the Pale to survive without a rural constituency office of some sort, whether it be an office in one's home or an independent office. In the last Seanad, having lost my Dáil seat, I continued to fulfil my obligation to the public, both within the Seanad populace and in Cork South-West. The running cost of my office in 2010, the year before the last election, was €23,000. My accountant advised that having regard to the cost of my rent, rates and electricity and telephone bills, it was not possible for me to continue with it and I had to close it. I now rent a room occasionally. I had 14 clinics last weekend around different parts of my constituency but not one cent is allowed for a Member to do that. Even though I am a qualified solicitor I have not taken one penny from my legal office since 2002 when I became a Deputy. I have a legal office in Bantry which unfortunately is now in negative equity. I own a share in it but it is not a milking cow. I am totally dependent on the Seanad for my income. Someone should grasp this nettle. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges put a case before the Minister about this situation but it was ignored and the view was that the Senators were looking for extra money. I am not looking for anything extra.

I have a deep passion for the fishing industry, which is in decline. It is in danger of being wiped out and we face the prospect that the Icelanders, the Spanish and the French will be running the show here.

I have travelled to Donegal, Ros a' Mhíl, Wexford and Kerry at my own expense to meet people to see what can be done to help the fishing industry. We can have it one way or the other. As Members of the Seanad - I was elected from the Agricultural Panel - we have to travel the length and breadth of Ireland. If I go up to Donegal for the weekend, and spend two or three days there, surely I should be able to claim for the expense of travelling. Is that legitimate or not? I have not done so. It is proper that we should all vouch for our expenses, but the curtailments that are imposed on Senators under the current expenses regime are quite restrictive. We can spend all of our money on advertising, but I do not want to advertise. I want to go from A to B to C to meet people, listen to their problems and bring those issues back for discussion in this Chamber. It is a ludicrous situation.

It is time for the current Government to wake up and give some meagre allowance to those who want to run offices in their home areas. Those who are prepared to pay genuine rent, and vouch for and stand over it, should be given fair play and nothing extra. It is about time for that to be promulgated and said. I do not mind cutbacks in our salaries and expenses, but I do not think Senators should continue to be treated as second-class citizens. The people have spoken. I think they said the Seanad has a purpose here. If I was living within 20 miles of Dublin - I am not, unfortunately - I would be in here five days a week. I have a family and I have to go home. I spend half of my working life in my constituency, but no allowance is given for that.

I heard someone speaking about the Galway tent. I think that is the greatest load of rubbish. I was never there. I have been involved in Fianna Fáil since 1969. I would say that half of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party - I am not referring to the very small parliamentary party we have at present - was never in the Galway tent. I was never there. I was never in the K Club or any of these places.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I never said that the Senator was.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

There is a certain concept or notion that is being used and abused. I was at the Galway Races this year for the first time ever. It was a very wet evening and I would have loved to have seen a tent somewhere. The notion that everyone from Fianna Fáil went up to the Galway tent to collect brown envelopes and black envelopes is a load of rubbish.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

If only it were a load of rubbish.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I have stood for seven Dáil elections. The year before last was the first time I got a few bob from my own Dáilcheantar - from my own organisation - towards the cost of running. I ran the campaigns at my own expense. I know we want transparency, but everyone should not be tainted with the same brush.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I did not tar the Senator with any brush.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

The Senator spoke about the concept of the Galway tent as if everyone in Fianna Fáil got riches and riches. Maybe there were abuses.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I did not mention Fianna Fáil. I referred to the Galway tent.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

The Senator made a clear innuendo. The Galway tent was where Fianna Fáil people used to come together at a certain time of the year to collect money.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

Out of the mouths of babes.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I think the Senator's innuendo was very clear. I will conclude on that point. I had not intended to speak. I support what Senator Sheahan and others have said. There needs to be a rethink of the current system so that Senators can avail of a fair, proper and transparent system of funding. If the Government does not provide for that, it will kill us in another way.

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin)

I thank Senators for their contributions and their support for this legislation. Everybody who spoke expressed support for the Bill, by and large. It is not easy to be the Minister who is always coming in to seek expenditure reductions. I wanted to put on the record the extent of the reductions already made by the political system. I do not think it is well known that the Taoiseach takes home 40% less than his predecessor, or that Ministers, the Ceann Comhairle and the Attorney General earn 35% less than their predecessors. Senator Norris asked me a specific question about Deputies. Their pay has been reduced by 20%. Current Senators are paid just under 14% less than their predecessors. Everybody here has made a significant contribution. Expenses have also been reduced significantly. As I outlined, some expenses have been reduced by approximately 80%. It is important to say all of these things.

I want to highlight the main thrust of this Bill by focusing on three aspects of it. First, we will reduce all of the so-called "parliamentary allowances" - the Leaders' allowance, as it used to be known, and the allowance to Independent Members for parliamentary activities - by 10%. Second, we will require full and transparent vouching for them.

Senator Thomas Byrne

For the Independents.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

For everybody.

Senator Thomas Byrne

We have already been doing it.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

That is what I am saying. I am extending it fully 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. We are expanding the role of the commission, for example by giving it an entitlement to give guidance and produce guidelines in relation to these matters. I think that will be helpful.

Third, we are abolishing severance payments for Ministers. That is a significant contribution. People think it is nothing. Current Ministers, whose pensions will be reduced by virtue of their pay reductions, as I have indicated, will no longer be entitled to severance payments. I always thought that was an anomaly in any event. I am mentioning these measures to make the point that all of us of all parties in both Houses have faced up as a political entity to the requirement to make a contribution and lead by example. Often, that has not resonated in the public domain. Many people would be very surprised if they knew about the extent of the contributions that have been made. Today's debate gives us an opportunity to make sure it is clearly on the record.

A number of issues that are not germane to this legislation were raised. I do not want them to take from the legislation, but I will address them nonetheless. A number of Senators made a strong and coherent case in support of a constituency office.

Senator Paul Coghlan

A workspace.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It can be characterised as a "workspace" or as anything else the Senator might choose. I think it is a reasonable request to make. When I examined the proposal, that mere fact was enough to get front-page coverage in some newspapers.

Senator Thomas Byrne

I wonder how.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The fact that I was considering it was regarded as an extraordinary deed in and of itself.

Senator Thomas Byrne

It was a nice grenade to throw into the Seanad referendum campaign.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

To put it bluntly, I think there are things we can do in calmer times and things we can do when we are still in retrenchment mode. I do not think anything that adds to cost can be pursued by us now.

Senator Thomas Byrne

Can the Minister not acknowledge that there is no extra cost involved at all?

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I would like to be allowed to speak, please. There are legal difficulties with regard to this specific matter. The advice I have received is that the Seanad is not constituency-based in the sense that the entire country is a constituency. The notion of defining where a constituency office or workspace should be located presents legal difficulty. I think it is something we need to reflect on further. I would not dismiss it out of hand. I am saying that I do not consider it-----

Senator Thomas Byrne

It needs to be made clear that we are not looking for money

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Please, allow me to speak.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney)

The Minister, without interruption.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I do not think it is possible to do it now. I do not want to get bogged down in that, as I have said, because I do not want it to take away from the really important legislation that is before us.

Senator Quinn spoke about the pension levy. We get confused sometimes. Of course the pension levy only applies to the private sector, but there are other levies that apply to the public sector. The levy that was introduced by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, applies to all funded pension schemes, public and private. I remind Senator Quinn that all public service pensions above €12,000 that are in payment have been reduced as a direct result of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts. That affects every pensioner who has a pension above €12,000. I am not talking about a reduction in the fund that pays those pensions, but about a reduction being sliced off the actual pension. That contribution continues to be paid. In the cases of the highest of those pensions, the reduction greatly exceeds any reduction that may result from the temporary levy on pension pots that was introduced by my colleague, the Minister for Finance.

We need to understand. Bluntly, I am fed up of the notion of dividing the public and private sectors. For a very long time, certain newspapers engaged in the demonising of the public sector. I have asked public servants to make a big sacrifice again this year under the Haddington Road agreement. Virtually everybody has stepped up to the plate by accepting the agreement. They have not done so happily, but they have done so in the knowledge of the parlous state of the State finances. There is a hole to fill and they are needed to make a further contribution. I applaud them. I know the people who work in my Department. I know the work they did on the budget, night and day and across weekends. I know the people who worked on the sale of State assets, for example on the processing of the national lottery licence. They did exemplary work. I know the people who worked through weekends on the Haddington Road agreement. I know people who worked on the EU Presidency where time was not an issue.

We want to understand that we have a very fine public service that steps up to the plate and should be acknowledged for the work it has done. I ask people to negotiate a reduction in their own pay. That is what I asked my team in Haddington Road to do and that should be recognised.

Senator O'Keeffe spoke about the Open Government partnership. It is something we should learn more about. It is a relatively new partnership initiated by President Obama at a side event at the UN General Assembly some years ago. The plenary session met last week in London and I was privileged to attend. Now that over 60 countries are signing up, we need a national action plan. I commissioned Transparency International Ireland to facilitate that because the NGO sector has a particularly important role to play. I am looking forward to debating these action plans in the future. At that London forum, I was asked to give the keynote speech on whistleblowing because they regard our legislation as an exemplar. It is something at which we can look with some sense of pride.

Senator Reilly spoke about the salaries of politicians. I have already mentioned that. She spoke about the chairpersons of committees not being entitled to anything extra. That is a point of view. I was brought up in a trade union household and normally, when one gets extra work, there is a recognition of that. If it was a store foreman or supervisor, one would regard that person as being entitled to a bit more pay than the person who works with them.

Unfortunately, Senator Healy Eames had to leave but she asked for a response orally and in writing. I think the writing bit will be on the public record of the House. She raises an important issue that was echoed with some passion by Senator Bradford, namely, that when a parliamentarian resigns from their political party, the party should be deprived of the funding that goes with that.

Senator Paul Bradford

Or is expelled from.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Or expelled from. We can have a debate about that. I know the resources that a political party puts into the election of Members of both Houses. There is an expectation because there is a competition that-----

Senator Paul Bradford

It has nothing to do with election expenses.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I did not interrupt the Senator when he was speaking. Allow me to answer. A resource is put in. There is a certain tautology involved in the notion that Senators are not political. I know that the Labour Party normally puts up one candidate on each panel. We normally put up two in the case of the Labour panel. We divide the number of councillors' votes because we expect our councillors to vote for our candidates. Of course, it is not political. That is a competitive spot and if we put up a candidate to fly the flag for the party and abide by party decisions and so on, we expect that person to be true to that. The Labour Party requires every candidate to sign a party pledge that says that the candidate will always comply with the instructions of the national executive of the party and that in the event that they cannot, they will resign their seat. I know of cases where people have been elected representatives for a very short period of time, involving a huge resource, and walked away. Should that person then be entitled to walk away from the resources, such as personnel, put into their election and the party be deprived of that? I am not sure that is a good thing.

Senator Paul Bradford

On a point of order, because we are being asked to refer to what is in the legislation, as the Minister knows, the legislation has nothing to do with election expenses, particularly prescribed election expenses.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

That is not a point of order.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney)

I do not think that is a point of order.

Senator Paul Bradford

We are not debating election expenses.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney)

The Minister is responding to a point raised in the debate.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I was asked about an extraneous point in this legislation - whether allowances should be payable to people who walk away or are expelled from their parties - and I am giving my answer.

Senator Paul Bradford

The Minister was not asked about that. He was asked whether it should be refunded. On a point of order, the Minister knows full well that he was not asked that question. He was not asked whether the allowance should be paid to expelled Members. The Minister said that he was asked such a question.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney)

I would advise that the Minister should be allowed to respond in the manner in which he wishes to respond.

Senator Paul Bradford

To the question he was asked.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Free speech is a two-way stream. I know some people are very loud when they walk away on their preciousness. I am talking through the Chair. Everybody is allowed to speak freely and they should not be shouted down because their views are different.

Senator Paul Bradford

The Minister was not asked that question.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Senator Bradford continues to shout me down. I believe that if people feel they cannot abide by their party pledge and certainly if they are in the other House, the appropriate moral thing to do is to resign their seat and test the people. If the people want to elect an Independent, that should accrue to them. That would be my personal view. It is slightly more complicated in this House because the electorate for replacement is different. We can debate these matters more succinctly because although they are completely irrelevant to this legislation before the House, I know they are high on the agenda of some Members and I wanted to respond as best I could to that.

Senator Paul Coghlan raised the issue of the offices again. I said I thought there was a real and valid point there but I cannot address it now. Senator Bradford asked a number of questions which I should answer. One relates to ministerial staff. The legislation specifically talks about work in a parliamentary party. It is in the legislation itself. Senator O'Donovan made a strong case for the offices.

By and large, I have covered everything raised by Senators. This is a short piece of legislation. As I said, it aims to do a number of very distinct and clear things we committed to do in both the programme for Government and the budget. The first is to reduce the allowances, the second is to make the entire system more transparent by bringing accountability to allowances paid to Independent Members and the third is to abolish severance payments. I thank the House for its support for the legislation and look forward to the detailed discussion on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney)

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Senator Maurice Cummins

Next Tuesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 12 November 2013.

Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.