John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will definitely not use all 20 minutes, although, when one starts, one never know where one will finish. I agree with some of the points the previous speaker, Deputy Mathews, made but there are other points I wish to make as well.

I disagree with Deputy Mathews' view that the Bill should simply be scrapped and started again. The main provisions are positive. He is correct to point out that some of the terminology and the names put on legislation that passes through the Oireachtas, as well as some of the activities that take place in the House, are not very descriptive of what is actually taking place. Renaming the leader's allowance as the parliamentary activities allowance is an attempt at least to identify what the funding is used for. A reduction in the overall amount is in line with the reductions that various Departments and agencies have faced in recent years, and I have no difficulty with that.

One important aspect of the legislation relates to severance payments. It is fitting that the most recent former Minister of State is in the House at the moment. She did not take a severance payment although under existing rules she was entitled to do so. She did not take it up because she took the view it was improper to do so. She was right and I applaud her for that decision.

As well as being absolutely dismayed and disgusted with some of the activities of the previous Government because of what happened economically, a large proportion of the public was outraged by the fact that former Ministers had the temerity, when not facing the electorate in the last election, to take vast severance payments for a job which they had done so disastrously and badly for the people. The fact this legislation contains provisions to remove severance payments for Ministers and officeholders is welcome.

It is important the reporting and accounting mechanisms applicable to the leader's allowance for political parties are applied to Independent Members in respect of how the proportion of the leader's allowance that is allocated to them is spent. This is a welcome inclusion in the legislation. Only three years ago, a Member who was elected as an Independent received in excess of €41,000 of taxpayers' money annually. This was effectively equivalent to €80,000 in a salary payment and the Member did not have to account for it. That is completely unacceptable. This legislation proposes that the same measures of accounting for expenditure would apply to the spending of that money, and this is to be welcomed. Furthermore, it proposes that if the expenditure has not been incurred, then the money will be refunded. I understand approximately €6 million was paid to Independent Members of the Dáil and Seanad in the 12 years from 2001 to 2013 but none of it was handed back because it was not spent. None of this spending was accounted for. It is alarming to think there was no real proper accounting mechanism for how that money was used.

I concur fully with the comments of Deputy Mathews with regard to some of the discussions that take place in the Chamber and the lack of attendance of Members at times. Often this is not necessary because the debates are not interesting. It is the way the business of the Houses and the committees are run. Today, there are three different meetings of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I was unable to attend one of them, involving an important discussion - it is under way at present - on the possible introduction of community courts in our large urban centres, an idea first proposed approximately seven years ago but about which nothing was done, although a report was drawn up at the time. I am missing it because I wanted to make some points on this legislation. If we want to reform how the Oireachtas runs and ensure as many Members as possible can contribute to real and meaningful discussions, as they should be able to, we should examine how we order our business. We should consider whether it is time to change to the European Parliament model, where there are certain weeks for committee meetings to be held. We should consider whether we should do that here because people cannot be in three or four places at the one time and expect to make a useful contribution.

I fully agree with the sentiments of Deputy Mathews in respect of pulling back the curtains. He spoke of shedding light on all areas and mentioned NAMA in particular. I fully agree with him in this regard. There are other organisations, such as EirGrid, for example, which is topical at the moment. I will not mention some of the others which need light shed on how they operate. I see this legislation as a significant attempt to ensure that what was previously known as the leader's allowance is opened up to more scrutiny. People must vouch for how the allowances they are in a position to draw down are spent. Fundamentally, that is why I support this legislation.

The Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. I imagine on Committee and Report Stages there will be an opportunity to discuss amendments and some of the issues that have been raised in the discussion. However, it is important that taxpayers' money is accounted for properly at all times and not only because of the economic situation the country has endured in recent years. That has not been the case heretofore with regard to some of the allocations of the leader's allowance.

There was a good deal of speculation when changes were made in the legislation to allow significant unvouched payments to Independent Members. It occurred at a time when some Independents were involved in supporting the then Government or could have been involved in supporting governments with insufficient numbers of party members to have a majority in the House. The provisions of this Bill, which allow for the Independent Members' allowance to be accounted for properly, are to be welcomed, as is the main provision, which proposes the removal of severance payments from officeholders and Ministers. This reflects what has happened in the country in recent years. Politicians and the political class should not be exempt from the cuts or changes that have had to be made in the past five or six years.

See this speech in context