Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It feels like an awful long time has passed since last Thursday's debate. Having managed to get on to the runway last week, I must now try to get airborne. The three speakers immediately preceding me were Deputies Donnelly, Naughten and Shortall. As one would expect, Deputy Donnelly did a fair amount of number crunching on the party leaders allowance which is to be renamed the parliamentary activities allowance. We want to translate this term and decipher precisely what it means. My head has been melted in the past three years by the convoluted and turgid language in which everything is written, spoken and, in many cases, read in this House. It is a great pity that so many contributions are made from a script because the best speeches I have listened to in the Chamber have been from Deputies who have done their homework and express their opinions in ordinary English.

The purpose of the party leaders allowance is to pay for "expenses arising out of parliamentary activities, including research". People at home want to know on what the significant sum of money provided to Senators and Deputies who are elected or appointed to their respective Houses is spent. I have had something of a roller-coaster experience in 2013, as have several other Deputies and Senators, because the money that was earmarked for our expenses arising out of parliamentary activities, including research, has been cancelled for the remaining term of this Dáil and Seanad. Anybody with a sense of fairness and reason will agree that this decision is wrong and we should not lose the offices in which we work in the precincts of the House or our position on committees. In my case, other than the Chairman, I put in more hours than any other member of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform on which I sat before my expulsion. The same applies to Deputy Naughten in the case of the Joint Committee on Health and Children. This is not right.

The decision to change the amount allocated to the expenses pot I described is also wrong. I would have no problem if the proposal had been to reduce the figure in line with the Croke Park and Haddington Road agreements or the reduction in resources and remuneration applied to public servants. This mechanism must be easy to understand. Why does somebody not start with a fresh page that sets out the amount of money to be allocated for the parliamentary activities, including research, of 166 Deputies. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State have the support, at close call, of the Civil Service. As such, they have immediate access to considerable parliamentary knowledge and research. Independent and backbench Deputies do not have easy access to such resources. The proposal before us calls to mind the schoolyard bully who beats up pupils who have been expelled. The Government's proposal refers to Members who have left their positions. None of the Deputies or Senators in question left their parties - they were expelled. If the schoolyard bully beats somebody up and then takes his lunch, the insult is doubled, which is what happened in our case.

We received a mandate from the electorate to represent and legislate in the best interests of our constituents and to do so in accordance with our conscience. I am drafting a Bill which uses the same words as those used in Article 38(1) of the German constitution, which is known as the Basic Law, which states that Members of the Bundestag - in our case it will be Dáil and Seanad Members - are responsible only to their conscience when carrying out their work and duties. The translation is exact so nothing is lost. Article 38(1) article was introduced when the Bundestag was established in the years after the Second World War with the purpose of avoiding what occurred in the years preceding the war. It has worked well in Germany, even in the case of coalition governments with slim majorities. Ultimately, responsible Members of Parliament must act in accordance with their conscience and should not incur any costs or loss of resources for carrying out the parliamentary activities and research they require to perform their duties.

I recommend to all Deputies the tremendous speeches made by Deputies Naughten, Donnelly and Shortall on this Bill last week. Deputy Naughten, in particular, explained in honest and simple terms what should be done in this regard. A set amount of resources must be allocated for the activities, duties, responsibilities and research of Members and divided up fairly. It does not matter if internal responsibilities change slightly. For example, if a Deputy is appointed as a Minister or expelled from his or her party, he or she still has a mandate. I was mandated by those who elected me to act at all times in accordance with my conscience. That is the mark of a civilised country and if it were not the case, we would be living in a tyranny rather than a democracy.

As observed in a paper written by Mr. David Farrell of UCD, and rightly so, never before has a Government in this country had such a majority and it is acting like a cartel. Parliamentary new thinking is not welcome. As far as I can recall, never before in the history of this State have so many Members been expelled from a party on such a ground, as happened last July. It is shameful.

This legislation should simply have laid out that expenditure for last year under these headings is to be reduced by a particular amount and divided between a set number of Members of Parliament and that there is to be a reduction in respect of ministerial Members of the House because they have immediate access to the Civil Service. All of this should have been set out in simple English. I had to seek assistance from my parliamentary assistant in regard to when I was due to speak on the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Bill 2013, which around the Houses is called the leaders' allowances Bill even though it deals not with leaders' allowances, but with parliamentary activities allowances. This Bill should be called the expenses of research and political activity of all Members of the House Bill. The public would then know what it is about. It does my head trying to translate everything.

I gave the Taoiseach a copy of Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, which deals with behavioural psychology and behavioural economics. It is an excellent, classic reference book. The Minister's Second Stage speech on this Bill, which is 12 pages long, frames and hypnotises people. As stated by David Farrell, there is a cartel at work, one which tried to abolish one of the Houses, namely, the Seanad. One has to pinch oneself, wondering if that is true.

Only through discussion in Parliament can ideas be discussed, agreed, disagreed or developed. One's thoughts are only as good as the language in which they are expressed. Some of what is contained in the Minister's speech is unbelievable, including: "[We are all] aware of the enormous impact of the difficult decisions the Government has been forced to take due to the parlous state of the public finances that it inherited." That sentence is not needed in the context of parliamentary research and so on. At least ten pages of that speech were not necessary.

On democratic reform, the only democratic reform of this House, which has been hard hitting and real, was that experienced by seven people thrown out of their party. That is the reform that has taken place. The remainder is only tinkering, bandaging, illusion, misperception and strange language. The Minister also said in his speech: "The Government is determined to ensure that greater transparency and accountability is associated with political funding, as the people should be able to see that the money they provide is used in an effective and proper fashion."

Seven people will get nothing for the next two and a half years. What am I or my colleagues supposed to do? While I might sound like a grumpy person, I am not. These are the facts. There is a hypnotic effect in here. There are currently few Members in the House. Members do not come here because they expect to hear only sleepy, dozy, unmeaning, multi-syllable bureaucratic, lever arch files transposed into words and spoken. With respect to the Ceann Comhairle, often when I am Acting Chairman of this House, I have to fight to stay awake. There is no engagement.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the House and congratulate him on his declaration for Europe. Bonne chance.

The Minister also stated the following in his speech:

It has been suggested that in the event that a Member of a party loses the party Whip, the parliamentary party should have its funding reduced. Not only does that suggestion miss the point that the money given to the party, reflecting the wishes of the electorate, it is not the individual's and was never theirs to control or spend in that fashion.

They are the words of a person with the mindset of a bully. Unless Members do what a party says, their ability to research ideas and information in order to do their job will be taken away. That is unbelievable. Talk about double-speak; that is treble-speak. It is all over the place and impossible to understand.

I would like to put forward a suggestion. When one is not happy with something, one should measure it and see what one can do to fix it. It is very simple. I have no problem with a 10%, 15% or 20% reduction or with allowances being audited, but how this is to be done should be set out in simple language. The sums should be written out on paper, totted up and so on and then divided by a particular number of people. Also included at the top of the page should be information in relation to the ten or 15 people who have special access to information and the discount which applies to them. All Members of the Dáil are legislators. They are pari passuin their responsibilities. The Government is great at saying pari passuwhen it comes to depositors, bondholders and so on, when it should not be so. It takes guts to be fair. I am challenging the Government to be fair. This proposal should be scrapped and the allowance should be divided by 166, separating out the allowance for the 20 or so Ministers, thus making it fair. The allowances should be reduced and subject to auditing. The public are not idiots. They will understand it. Out of respect, that is what should be done.

It is often said that things are shown up in a bad light when they are looked into. This type of stuff brings a big cloud over everything. Reference is also made in the Minister's speech to political accountability, reform, parliamentary inquiries and freedom of information. Simply put, we need to pull back the curtains. In medical terms, the best cure for any disease, cut or wound is light. The curtains should be pulled back on NAMA and Irish Water. Otherwise we get a rolling experience similar to those we had with the Central Remedial Clinic, Rehab and so on, which is not good. They are but a few suggestions, which will require courage to implement. The result will be a reduction in the amount of ink and paper used. As I suggested earlier, it is possible to set out the budget for research and other expenses on one page. In 2008, I produced an analysis of the six balance sheets of the banks on one double-sided page, which analysis showed that the NAMA strategy was all wrong and the losses were all wrong. It showed exactly what happened to deposits for six banks at two different times. Everything is simple. Politically there can be advantage in trying to confuse.

Reference was made earlier today to the 30,000 submissions in regard to Irish Water. The review body will include people who are, perhaps, well into retirement. I would not ask somebody well into retirement to review 30,000 submissions. I would give that job to people with more energy reserves, people who have a sense of curiosity rather than people who may be tired having done very valuable work throughout their lifetime.

Those are some challenging thoughts. I plead with the Government not to run away from them, to take them on board and to simplify what is intended. It can be done with some numbers in order that it is understood by everyone.

See this speech in context