Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share my time with Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill 2013 and have a number of points to make on it. We welcome the Bill and I doubt anybody in the House will have a problem with it. The Bill is designed to provide for a reduction of 10% in the rate of allowances payable and this is in line with changes that have occurred across society. Perhaps it is even a little more than agreed in recent pay agreements, but we must lead by example. The Bill also provides for the auditing of the parliamentary leader's allowance for Independent Deputies and Senators.

The issue of this allowance came to light some time ago when the Committee of Public Accounts was examining allowances across the public service, and of course it looked at the Oireachtas. It was never a secret that these allowances were paid to Senators, but it was not well known. Few people knew of it, including many Members of this House. I expect those in receipt of the allowance were fully aware of it, but I doubt they broadcast it too loudly. The system was in place, and it is only right that it should be included under the general rules and guidelines and that the moneys be properly accounted for, audited and reported to the Standards in Public Office Commission. I welcome the Bill and Fianna Fáil will support Second Stage. However, we have a number of questions to raise and will probably table some amendments. I am sure the Minister will understand my thinking on these, though he may not agree on all of them.

We support the principle of the legislation, but would like the Minister to clarify some issues in his summing up. The party leader's allowance is being renamed the parliamentary activities allowance, but whose name will be on the cheque and who will be the payee? I suspect that formerly the name of the party leader was on the cheque, but who will be the payee now? Second, I intend to propose an amendment in regard to the parliamentary activities allowance, as the Bill provides that the allowance be made from the Central Fund to the relevant party leaders and Independent Deputies in respect of categories of expenses arising. I do not believe this allowance should be paid from the Central Fund. It should come through voted expenditure, like all other expenditure that comes through this House each year. I have raised this issue several times. The Government will spend approximately €50 billion this year. Some €40 billion of that is voted expenditure, through the line Departments and various State agencies. However, €10 billion of expenditure is not voted through this House at all. It is not discussed in the House and there is no formal mechanism for discussing it here. The Government may say that it or the Opposition can choose to initiate a debate on the issue, and perhaps we should.

It is wrong that €10 billion of taxpayers' money is spent each year without discussion or being voted on in the House. The main element of the €10 billion is the payment of interest on the national debt and we understand there are complications in that regard. We understand that when the NTMA, on behalf of the State, borrows at a particular rate, the people who lend us money may not be comfortable if the annual interest owed to them may have to be voted through the House of Parliament, especially in difficult times. I understand the complication in this regard. However, in regard to other payments, such as the payment to politicians, it is wrong that they should not be voted through in the House each year. It is wrong that these payments are put through the Central Fund and that this expenditure is not brought to the House to be voted on. It is wrong that payments to judges are not part of voted expenditure. I understand the independence of the judges and the Constitution has been well tested in that regard. It is within the competence of this House to vote on the costs of administering the system.

Certain other payments under the electoral Acts, including the free postage scheme and payments to returning officers for various elections, are paid through the Central Fund. This expenditure should be voted through the House. It is wrong that there appears almost to be a slush fund that is not discussed here. The Central Fund is not under the remit of the Minister for Expenditure and Reform but that of the Minister for Finance. I suggest that all of these moneys, other than the interest on the national debt, should be under the remit of the Minister for Expenditure and Reform. I believe it is his job to be answerable for expenditure relating to the political system, payments to the courts and other payments.

Payments we must make to the European institutions and our contribution to the EU fund also come through the Central Fund account each year. I know the contribution is set, but if, for example, we have to make a payment of €1.5 billion, there would be nothing wrong with putting that figure in the Estimates each year and discussing it, and if the figure rose or fell during the year that could be dealt with. Whatever the case, we should have a debate on the payment.

We have debate after debate here and in committee rooms about payments, schemes, Pillar 1, Pillar 2 and single farm payments, but we do not debate the amount of money paid out by the Irish taxpayer to European institutions. There is a one-way debate because the money we pay out is never voted through a line Department. It does not even go through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This is an anomaly as not all of the money is due through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; some of it could be for the Structural Fund or the Social Fund. The biggest amount is with regard to agriculture. The funds paid by the Irish taxpayer to the European institutions should go through the line Departments rather than through a central fund which is not discussed by the Oireachtas on an annual basis. Perhaps there is a halfway house, as we should have a formal debate on the Central Fund each year. I believe they should be voted through, but we should definitely have a halfway house. We should have a formal debate and perhaps as spokesperson on public expenditure and reform, I will initiate it. I have given the Minister a flavour of what is in the account. I am speaking from recollection, but I know from examining it last year that improvements could be made. It is not right that the funds should be paid without being voted through the House each year in the same way every other public expenditure is voted through. We will table an amendment in this regard.

The big issue referred to by the Minister in his opening comments was that the payment was calculated on the numbers elected in the preceding general election, which brings us straight to the crunch issue about Members who leave a political party. We will propose an amendment in this regard. On the one political point to which he did respond, the Minister stated this suggestion missed the point entirely because the money given to a party which reflected the wishes of the electorate was not an individual's and was never theirs to control. The party did not stand for election; the individual did. He or she might have been a member of a registered party, but it was the name of the individual which was on the ballot paper. We do not have ballot papers with Fianna Fáil in two spots, Fine Gael in another and the Labour Party in another. As names are attached to the ballot paper, the fund should attach to the people concerned. The legislation provides for a halfway house on this issue, while section 2(12)(a) on page 5 deals with a party dissolving. The legislation includes arrangements for the establishment of a new party after the dissolution of a party and amalgamation is agreed, whereby members of the previous party are now members of the new party. The principle of money moving to a new organisation, whether a party or another mechanism, is provided for in the legislation and the same should apply in this case. It is not right that Deputies who fight an election campaign are forced out of their party for abiding by that election campaign. When one considers the votes received in an election, the individual must be considered.

It is proposed that the combined allowance for parties in government be reduced by one third. This is a long-established mechanism, but just because it has been in place since 1938 does not make it right in 2014. This reduction is not sufficient in this day and age. Not only does the Government have the support of the entire Civil Service, press offices in Departments and specific allowances covering transport and the allocation of staff in parliamentary and constituency offices, but Ministers also employ special advisers, many of whom receive payments above and beyond the normal payments in the public service which were personally approved by the Minister. On top of this, a huge amount is paid through the parliamentary allowance. I consider this extra payment to be a top-up for Ministers. It is not enough that they have the full Civil Service and special advisers, but they also want a major top-up from the allowance. There should be a substantial payment for parties in government and by definition parties in government will always be the biggest parties because they would not be in government if they did not have a majority. I propose that the amount be reduced by 50% rather than the 33% proposed by the Minister in the legislation. He agrees with the principle of a reduction for Government parties, as I do, but I am being more specific.

I understand the issue regarding the allowance not being subject to income tax, but I do not see anything in the legislation whereby the fund into which its is paid should produce a tax clearance certificate each year. This is an important issue. Those of us who stand for election obtain a tax clearance certificate when we are elected, but for each of the five years in between elections one is not required to produce a tax clearance certificate. I do not suggest we should do so, as we go before the electorate and must do it again at the next election, but there should be a mechanism whereby the fund has tax clearance. It should be a straightforward procedure.

I am not sure about the arrangement which applies when a person who is elected as a member of a political party then becomes the Ceann Comhairle. Is the amount for that person deducted from the payment to the party? It should be because it is nonsense. Let us clear this anomaly. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the position. With no disrespect to the current incumbent, if the Taoiseach receives tens of thousands of euro in respect of the membership of the Ceann Comhairle who was elected as a member of the Fine Gael Party, it is ridiculous, absurd and not right. Any reasonable person will accept if it is the case, the practice must cease forthwith. I hope the Minister will accept what I state in this regard.

We will discuss the points I am making on Committee Stage. Section 10G(5) states that when the commission comes forward with its proposals and guidelines, the Minister may refuse to approve them or may amend them. Essentially, the commission is the puppet of the Government and if it does not do what it is told, the guidelines will not be approved. The Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, is a trustworthy organisation and we had a good discussion on it yesterday. A new chairman has been appointed and it has respected members, including senior officers such as the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman and the Clerk of the Dáil. They are absolutely impartial and nobody could question this. If we stitch into the legislation that if this body comes up with something and for political reasons a Minister chooses to refuse to adopt the guidelines, the power should be taken away from the Minister because he or she would be meddling in an area in which everybody would agree SIPO should be the competent authority. The Minister should not be able to get back at it on such an occasion.

I made the case on Independent Members having to be audited and everybody accepts this. Will the Minister clarify the issue of the 120 day timeline? If an election is called in April, people will be on the hustings and a party could have a new leader by June or July. It might be difficult in a general election year to get the accounts in on time.

I appeal to the Minister, as I did yesterday, to find a mechanism to have a gender balance on the Standards and Public Office Commission. It has six members, five of whom happen to be gentlemen; there is one lady. I realise some of them are set offices, but there was an opportunity to appoint a former female member yesterday instead of the former male member, given that it had so few lady members. It is something the Minister should consider.

I accept that increases or decreases should be in line with those of the public service, but will the Minister specify what type of increase would be involved? Under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, FEMPI, this year will see a different range of increases or decreases. It starts at 4% at €62,000, with a larger cut at €85,000; the higher the amount of money, the bigger the cut. The Minister has not stated where will this fit into the threshold. General increases in payments in the Civil Service depend on FEMPI. Does this mean that when FEMPI no longer applies, the decreases will be paid back?

At the end of this month we must all fill in forms and depending on whether we have nil or actual donations, some forms go to the Clerk of the Dáil and some go to SIPO. Will the Minister, please, make life easy and have all the forms go to one place? I must scratch my head in figuring out whether a form goes to the Clerk of the Dáil or SIPO.

See this speech in context