Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is right that we have to account to the Standards in Public Office and that records are kept. It is right also that the severance payments to Ministers is discontinued. Those are the broad elements of the legislation and I am supportive of them.

I will try not to cover much of what has been said. The way political funding is allocated requires a substantial change. The Electoral Acts date back to 1938 when de Valera was Taoiseach. Such funding was about providing something like a first-class ticket on the train; it was very modest and that is from when it dates. It was only in the 1990s when the economy was perceived to be doing very well that there was a change in respect of the amount of money that began to be allocated to the political system and it increased considerably. I support the idea that a large part of politics must be funded publicly because we have seen that we pay a price for relying on, for example, donations from particular sectors and where one or two sectors had a disproportionate impact on public policy by virtue of the relationship between political donations and the decisions that were made.

I was amused by what Deputy Ó Cuív said about the leader's allowance because I do not believe he has not researched how it works for Fianna Fáil which does very well out it by virtue of its size. On the leader's allowance alone, it would average in region of €64,000 per TD, Sinn Féin does better with €67,000 per TD and there is a one third discount for the parties that are in government. What is provided to Independent TDs is substantially below that. The spending of the allowance should be vouched and it should be spent on areas that fall within the various categories, for example, developing policy, communications and a range of other areas that comprise normal parliamentary activity.

Another issue needs to be addressed and I referred to it yesterday when I spoke on the motions on the nominations to the Standards in Public Office Commission and obviously some of us strayed from speaking about the individuals who had been nominated. I refer to the issue of how political parties are not declaring the donations they are coming in. A Bill's digest for another item of legislation last year stated:

A key problem with the current political finance regime in Ireland is that it has been relatively easy for parties to raise funds from private sources without disclosing them, thereby defeating the purpose of the regime in the first place... In spite of parties declaring over €10 million in campaign expenditure for the 2007 general election, just over €1 million was disclosed in donations.

That is according to a SIPO report of 2008. That Bill's digest goes on to note that "none of the three main parties disclosed any donations in 2009 in spite of the fact that it was an election year". None of the three main political parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party, disclosed any donations in 2010. The SIPO report on expenditure in February 2011 revealed electoral expenses of €9.2 million disclosed by candidates and parties. The three main parties were the biggest spenders, with Fine Gael at €3.1 million, Fianna Fáil at €2.1 million and the Labour Party at €1.9 million. The Irish Independent produced a comparative report fairly soon afterwards under a headline referring to the cash political parties did not tell people about, and reported that €5 million has been handed over in the past decade. The resourcing and ability of SIPO to investigate seems to be constrained. These needs to be a change in that respect. It cannot be a question of forever pushing that off into the future.

An area that is rarely mentioned in terms of the funding or resourcing of political parties is that of staffing. That comes under the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. I have talked to the Minister about this on a number of occasions. Some of the staffing is allocated on that basis of parties that would have common policy platforms. I do not have an issue with that and that is work that needs to be done. Some of the work involves the co-ordination that must take place for this House to function in an effective way. The Technical Group is a recognised group in the context of Standing Orders, yet its ability to function as a technical group is not provided for by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. For example, I act as the Whip for the Technical Group and I deal with the Bills Office, the questions office, the committee secretariat, the Journal Office and the Superintendent. Various Ministers ring from time to time and to avoid having to ring 15 or 16 people, my office is where the telephone call is made. We collectively hired two people to do that. It cannot be done with any fewer and it is really right at that. Such work is about the normal functioning of this House, yet no provision is made for it because it requires a change to primary legislation in order that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission can then provide for it. I will be putting forward an amendment in that respect to this Bill and I hope the Minister will accept it. Matters such as continuity planning require us to engage and it is not fair to ask any one of us to do that internal work without someone to assist with it.

It requires us to have an accountant to work out taxation. The contracts are less advantageous to the people we are hiring than those doing exactly the same work as Members of the Oireachtas. There is a good argument that the resources available should be shared in a way that allows the Houses to function. I am not making the argument that it should be on a par with parties because it is not a policy platform and merely concerns the functioning of the House. We are a large group, amounting to one third of the Opposition. It is one of the basic things required.

Although something has been done about the category of travel and accommodation, I do not take a travel allowance. I can get the bus or the train into town and I have a car park space provided. If I was working anywhere else, I would not expect an allowance to turn up to work. I have no difficulty with people receiving allowances where they must travel significant distances and provide accommodation away from home. It is entirely different but people find this arrangement incredible. There are several different travel categories. Living 20 miles from the Dáil, one can claim an unvouched sum of €26,000. That is wrong and it needs to change, as do some other allowances. If Members are in here, they are not doing two jobs as there are only so many hours in the day. For example, I see no reason why a separate allowance is paid to Members who act as Whips. We are not provided for in this respect, nor am I looking for it, but I do not see why it should be paid. People understand these things and while there is criticism about the extent of the salary, much of it is taken care of through taxation. The other moneys on top of salary are what people find difficult to comprehend and accept.

Yesterday, during Leaders' Questions, Deputy Joan Collins spoke powerfully about an individual whose contributory widow's pension had been withdrawn because a review was being carried out by the Department. She had a legitimate expectation of the widow's pension but the only people with a legitimate expectation are those with the wherewithal to go to court. In respect of excessive pensions in the past that have been reduced, people do not understand why they have not been reduced further and why the legitimate expectation argument is not used in that context. It is used because they have the money to go to court. The courts are not available to those on a widow's pension or social welfare payment because of the cost of going to court.

A number of things must change. It is right and proper that public money must be accounted for and open to scrutiny. Independent Members should be no different to any other Member. Not only have I said that, I made an effort to change it by tabling an amendment to legislation. I hope there is some element of understanding in respect of the nuts and bolts of the running of the House. The Houses of Oireachtas Commission should not be precluded from a fair allocation of resources. Some 78 people are employed under that heading and none of them are provided to the Technical Group. It concerns allocating speaking times and doing the things that ensure the House functions properly. It does not stray into the policy area and it is reasonable to seek. I will seek it in the context of an amendment to the legislation, which I support.

See this speech in context