Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sure she would be delighted to be here to get her teeth stuck into the Minister again, but she has other priorities at present. I take this opportunity to congratulate Deputy Creighton on the birth of her daughter, who might be here in years to come reading the report of this debate.

We had a very good discussion on both Second and Committee Stages of the issue before us, that is, the parliamentary allowances that are paid on behalf of Members to the party leader to deal with issues surrounding parliamentary representation in this House and the need to fund the operation of the House from a Member's perspective. The Minister's argument is that Members on this side of the House who were elected for a party and who are no longer members of that party are not entitled to any funds, on the basis that they were elected on a party platform, people voted for that party at the election and the money should remain with the party. While there has been an argument about introducing a list system here, we do not have such a system.

As I said on Committee Stage, the vast majority of the space on a ballot paper is taken up with details about the candidate, not their party affiliation or the party logo. As a result, a certain proportion of those moneys were, I believe, legitimately raised on the basis of the candidate and should therefore be returned to the Exchequer. Our proposed amendment would mean that the funds which we believe are not legitimately being claimed by the parties in the Government should be returned to the Exchequer, just as Deputy Higgins has done in the case of his moneys. His party is the only one in the Opposition that is down a Member since the election to have returned the relevant proportion of those moneys to the Exchequer. We believe the government parties should lead by example in that regard.

The Minister has argued that the general election is the snapshot, it is set in stone at the day of the election and, as a result, that is the date that must be taken into account. I will argue that the snapshot is only used in certain circumstances. However, perhaps he will clarify the current position with regard to our former colleague, former Deputy Patrick Nulty. Does the Labour Party continue to receive moneys for former Deputy Nulty until the by-election takes place or has that money been stopped because there has not been a by-election?

The Minister made the argument that people go before their party and secure the party nomination, so they are flying the flag for that party and for a particular agenda and set of proposals or manifesto. In my case, the current Taoiseach came to my home town, stood in the square of my home town and gave a crystal clear, unambiguous commitment about health services in that town. People went out and voted on that basis. Who is being disingenuous in terms of standing by the commitments, agenda and pre-election pledges that were given? Is it me or the Taoiseach, who continues to receive those moneys? It is disingenuous that the parties opposite can receive a substantial amount of money, amounting to approximately €2.5 million, over the term of this Government for Members who are no longer within their parliamentary parties.

I put it to the Minister that there are exceptions to this practice and that it is not set in stone on polling day. The best example in this regard is the John Bruton-led Government between 1994 and 1997. The Government changed mid-stream. The party funding structure also changed mid-stream based on the fact that the leading party in the Opposition became the leading party in the Government and the leading party in the Government became the leading party in the Opposition. There was no election to bring about that change, yet the weighting of the funding did change. One can look back further, to the situation that occurred with the Workers Party in 1991-2, when seven Deputies were elected and six of them left the party to form Democratic Left and one Deputy remained in the party. Does the Minister consider it right that the single Member should legitimately receive funds for a party of seven Deputies? I do not believe it is right and proper that it should happen, yet the Minister is arguing that it should. The legislation and the argument the Minister has made to date are on the basis that this is set on the day of polling. On polling day in 1989 the Workers Party received sufficient votes to elect seven Members of this House. The party would continue to receive funding on that basis, even though the vast majority of the Deputies in that party had left it. I do not believe that is fair or balanced.

The Minister is changing the name of the allowance from the party leader's allowance to a parliamentary activities allowance. I contend that I participate in this House in the same way as any other Member. As I said to the Minister on Committee Stage, I have a problem with the fact that I do not have a right to receive committee papers, which I believe is wrong. In fairness, the Minister endorsed my position and, hopefully, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, will change that. I believe I have a right to be a member of an Oireachtas committee, but that is an argument for another day. I contend that I participate in both the committee work and the work in the House, so neither I nor any other Member of the House should be denied an activities allowance on that basis.

Section 2(12) of the legislation also provides for a further derogation with regard to a change in circumstances mid-stream. The legislation provides for a situation such as occurred with Democratic Left, where Democratic Left was subsumed into, although others would argue it took over, the Labour Party. Regardless of how it happened, Democratic Left became part of the Labour Party and under this legislation it would take its funding and amalgamate it with the Labour Party's funding. That is a change in circumstances mid-stream. In fact, I am sure it was the case if I recollect correctly, and other colleagues in the House might be able to clarify it, that during the general election campaigns in 2002 and 2007 there was probably a quite vociferous debate between the Labour Party and Democratic Left regarding their political agendas. It is to say that somebody who voted for Democratic Left voted for Labour Party policies. The Minister argues that it is set on polling day based on the proposals and agenda put forward by each political party, so how can he justify a situation where mid-stream that money can move with those Members into a new party or into a party to which those Members were opposed at the previous general election and got their votes on that basis?

I believe what is being proposed in this legislation is unconstitutional. It is morally wrong that some Members of this House are treated differently from others.

Not only do I believe that it is morally wrong and not only do I believe that it is unconstitutional, it undermines the legitimacy of this House. The role and purpose of this House is to question and scrutinise the decisions of the Government. Particular Members of this House who did that job and upheld their role under the Constitution are deliberately now being penalised under the legislation. As bad and all as that is - the Minister will argue against it - what galls me about the gross abuse of this allowance is that one of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues was quoted in a Sunday newspaper as saying that all of the resources available to the Fine Gael Party would be used to ensure that I and my colleagues here would not be re-elected to the House. If that does not raise a question over the constitutional use of those particular funds, I do not know what does. At a very minimum, what should happen is that those moneys should be returned to the Exchequer. They should not under any circumstances be used to undermine my constitutional role as a representative in this House. It is wrong that a Cabinet member could make such comments and claim to be using funds for such purposes.

I urge the Minister to accept the amendment I have tabled. I believe it is fair and reasonable. The example has already been given by Deputy Joe Higgins when he returned funds to the Exchequer. It makes far more sense to see those moneys returned to the Exchequer. Let the moneys be used specifically in the Department of Health to deal with children with profound disabilities whose parents have to go begging to our offices and the offices of every Deputy in the country to try to get access to a medical card, to get access to basic medical rights. Let the moneys be used for that rather than to undermine our role, enshrined in the Constitution, to represent all of the people in our constituencies to the best of our ability.

See this speech in context