Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation before the House, which is short and relatively straightforward but long overdue. I have raised this with the Minister for a considerable period of time and I thank him for the manner in which he addressed it. The concept of a leader's allowance has been knocking around since the foundation of the State and is, without fear of contradiction, one of the most abused forms of payment anyone has had the pleasure of receiving. It was used as a form of patronage when a certain party in the House could not cobble together a majority. Before we knew where we were, every Member was in government, every Member was a leader and every Member was an equal partner. Some were given secret deals and some deals were so secret someone managed to leak the terms of the deal to constituents in Dublin North-Central. When push came to shove, the occupant of the Taoiseach's office from Dublin Central was no longer flavour of the month and the Member walked away from him but the leaders allowance remained. It is mind-boggling that in 2010, an Independent elected to this House received €41,152 into the hand and Independent Senators received €23,383 into the hand without any receipt. Likening it to net income, it amounts to almost €80,000 gross income, in addition to a Member's salary, for the benefit of being elected as someone not within the party. The concept of the allowance has been totally abused and has gone out of control.

From 2001 to 2013, figures released as an answer to a parliamentary question show some €4,190,854.83 was paid to Dáil Members. Some €1,691,944.25 was paid to Senators, amounting to a total of €5,882,799.08 without a single receipt. In the context of what the country has gone through over the past years, having that system in operation was a scandal. The Minister's Bill will go a long way to addressing it. People can huff and puff about how they tried to raise it with the Minister and tried to get the Minister to introduce legislation but, of the €5,882,799.08, I do not think any of it was returned or refused.

The Minister touched on a number of key points, one of which was vouching. The public will no longer accept Members being in receipt of public moneys without vouching. The difference between the leader's allowance for parties in contrast to Independents is that there is a vouching system for parties. They must, rightly, vouch for the money to the Standards in Public Offices Commission, SIPO. That does not exist for Independent Deputies and Senators and the money can be spent on anything. Theoretically, it is supposed to be used for political work but in Westminster MPs use it for draining moats and installing PVC windows. The sum of €41,152 could be used for anything, which is wrong. This week, Members received notifications from the Oireachtas one-stop shop and SIPO about 2013 expenses incurred and the register of our interests. This is right.

This is the last edifice of the culture that must be eliminated. It was the type of issue that gave politics a bad name. I have no problem with people being well remunerated or paid a good salary as, in fairness, everybody in this institution - be they Deputies, Senators, staff members or clerical officers - works hard and deserves to be paid appropriately. In 2014, we cannot justifiably retain a system where a person would retain in excess of €40,000 without a single receipt being presented. That is unacceptable.

In his speech the Minister referred to what would happen within 120 days of the end of the financial year, and if there are issues of non-compliance, the Minister can arrange to have the leader's allowance suspended until the issues are rectified. As the Bill moves through the House, will the Minister consider the matter in more detail? What happens if there is an absolutely flagrant abuse of the allowance? If somebody were to drain a moat or buy new gutters or PVC windows, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform should have some mechanism of clawback either in salary, the parliamentary representation allowance or other mechanism. After what we have seen in the past three or four weeks with certain individuals in the charities sector, we know a rigid procedure should be put in place. There should even be the possibility, if the process is abused beyond the guidelines as outlined by the Department and the Standards in Public Office Commission, of criminal penalties.

Ultimately we are trying to achieve absolute fairness. The political process should be adequately funded so people should not feel they must go out with a begging bowl to ensure they can adequately perform in their job as a Deputy or Senator. By the same token, if allowances are used for purposes for which they are not intended, there should be retribution in the form of penalties. The best way of enforcing a penalty in this regard is by taking back the money.

The Minister also indicated he is standing over the basis on which people can find themselves as Independents having come from a political party, and I agree with those sentiments. There cannot be a system in politics like we could have in the HSE, where money would follow the patient. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a person could be elected to party A before winding up as an Independent, going to party B and perhaps falling out with that party to become an Independent again. The accounting mechanisms required to follow such a pattern would be too onerous, and the process would not reflect the wishes expressed through the ballot box of the people who elected the individual in the first place. There is no way of knowing how people will end up politically when we vote for them but we must trust our instincts. If people vote for a person in a political party, there is an expectation that although the person might not wind up continuing in the party, the funding stream should remain with the party. Staffing levels, research facilities and all the structures in place cannot operate on the idea that "they come and go", as it would be grossly unfair to staff. None of us knows when this may affect us but if we are realistic, if a person is elected as a member of a party to which funding is allocated, it should stand as such. Otherwise there would be a mentality of "they come and go", which would do nothing for staff members or in trying to instil some financial discipline in the area.

Deputy Catherine Murphy made some comments regarding the Technical Group, and some of the reports in yesterday's Irish Independentare quite worrying. If, for argument's sake, a person is essentially kicked out of the Technical Group and removed from a committee because of a failure to provide payment in respect of services provided by the Technical Group, it is a worrying development. What differentiates the Technical Group from parties? Members might argue that it is not a party but if it quacks, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. There is obviously a whip system in force in the Technical Group, meaning that people can be kicked off committees. A person can be unfortunate enough to sit in this Chamber and vote himself off a committee; that is the first time I have seen such an act.

This indicates there is a bit of work to be done in defining what is an Independent Deputy and the Technical Group. I have brought the matter up as a Topical Issue and in oral questions to the appropriate Minister, who has always been up-front with his replies. We must be honest with people. The Technical Group has leaders, whips, people who could be considered spokespersons and slots on committees. It also has a levy placed on members to fund its activities. That is a party, and the Minister should examine the mechanism for registering the group with the Standards in Public Office Commission. That is if the reports in yesterday's newspaper are correct and Members are expected to pay €260, as I am only going by what I read, and not everything in it may be accurate. People have a right to know where the money is going, to whom it is going and its purpose. If a person wants to know anything about Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour or Sinn Féin, he or she only needs to go to the Standards in Public Office Commission to get chapter and verse of everything that a party does, including staff numbers, costs, where people are based, the names of general secretaries etc. That is the way it should be.

It is different if a person is kicked off a committee or votes to kick himself off a committee because he did not pay €260 for a service. Nobody on this side of the House knows what the Deputy is getting for that, and perhaps it was right that he was kicked out. I do not know. There should be an accounting mechanism for those kinds of activities. If a person is an Independent, that is fine, but if a person is pretending to be an Independent while part of a party called the Technical Group, it should be clarified. The Technical Group should operate on that basis, and the structures of the House should reflect that. It is not happening now, which is regrettable. The Technical Group has had clear issues with leadership, which is its own matter. It is different if a person is kicked out and removed from a committee. There are serious questions to be asked in that regard and there may be an opportunity for some of the people from the group who have already spoken or will speak to enlighten us on what the €260 per month, as reported in the Irish Independent, is used for. As the Minister knows, the report may not be accurate.

I welcome this Bill, which is timely or perhaps long overdue. There was a time when patronage had crept into Irish politics to a degree. We saw this with convenors or assistant convenors of committees and chairpersons of sub-committees. There was a time when everybody on this side of the House had a job, except for two unfortunate Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party who seemed to fall out of favour with a certain individual. It is not a bad thing that this practice has stopped. We have a way to go and further improvements must be made.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly is correct in that the 10% figure may not be sufficient. Given the unvouched amount that currently applies, the Minister could go a bit further. I welcome the process will be vouched from now on. The Minister might reconsider the penalties, rather than just suspending the allowance for failure to comply with regulations and guidelines set down by the Minister or the Standards in Public Office Commission. If a person knows the money will be clawed back or there will be another adequate penalty, he or she will consider the process in a different guise.

I welcome the Bill. I know there will be minor amendments to be made throughout the course of its passage, and in the Seanad there was a suggestion to change the name from the leader's allowance to the parliamentary activities allowance. That is a good idea and some of the Senators, in particular, made some good contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context