Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I fully understand the sincerity of the views expressed. I do not say that in any light fashion, but I happen to have a different view which is honestly held. I ask members to simply respect that there can be a different perspective honestly held.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton made an impassioned contribution. Starting off with my characterisation of a snapshot, there has to be legitimacy about it, but that is a point of contention. I have said the legitimacy comes from the decision of the people in a general election. They determine the composition of the national Parliament. I know it has been conflated with other issues such as electoral funding by Deputy Stephen Donnelly which I will deal with separately. What we are discussing is the support of parliamentary activity and how it is determined.

There is a view that once a Member is elected to the Dáil or the Seanad, he or she has ownership of the resources allocated. I contend that is not the case. I sought a nomination in my party and contested it. There are many people in my constituency who will vote for a Labour Party candidate, irrespective of who it is. The same goes for Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and so on. They are entitled to have their determined decision on polling day vindicated. It is not Brendan Howlin’s mandate alone because I sought a mandate on a party platform.

One can argue about the internal party machinations of Fine Gael. However, I do not want to go into them because it is none of my business. Once the people have made that determination, we want to support the activities of parliamentarians. Deputies Lucinda Creighton and Denis Naughten have said that, on occasion, it can be a moveable feast with, for example, by-elections. The difference with a by-election is that, again, the people are consulted.

It is not individuals saying that they are either being thrown out or making a personal decision to leave their political party for whatever good and valid reason. It is the people in a by-election making that determination so there is a fresh snapshot of the people who made that decision.
Deputy Creighton forcefully argued about equality, which links into Deputy Naughten's point. It is fair that we are not all treated equally. Government support from parliamentary funding is less than that for the Opposition because the Government by definition has a support base that is inherently better than the Opposition through the Civil Service so it is disproportionately in favour of the Opposition. We will deal with that by way of another amendment because people want to extend that differential. People who are arguing for equality here want to extend that differential when it comes to Government and Opposition so that is a moveable argument as well. It is also moveable by way of size of party because that makes sense. If one has a research department or press office, there is a scale issue. The same cohort of people can tend in a research capacity for 40 Deputies as perhaps for 30 Deputies so there is a sliding scale. The smaller the number of Deputies in a political party, the greater per capitasupport given to that party. I think that is fair. It might not be equal but it is fair. A small party gets proportionately a bigger slice per capitaand as the sliding scale goes up, the larger party gets less per capita. Those are two levels of inequality - one relating to the Government and Opposition and the other relating to the size of the political party. They have been embedded in the system for very good reasons and I do not propose to dislodge them. I reject the argument that all Deputies should get the same funding simpliciterbecause the very large parties would be hugely advantaged to the disadvantage of very small parties. I do not think that is fair. If I was to do that, I would hear a very strong argument against it from small parties in this House.
The other point relating to equality was made by Deputy Creighton in terms of access. Access to parliamentary time and committees were the two points she made. In terms of access to committees, she does not need to look further than this room to see how disadvantaged she is. The bottom line is-----