Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I strongly support amendment No. 2 and indeed the thrust of amendment No. 4. It is very disappointing that the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has not reflected on this issue. He has not moved his position at all. Every Member of this House has an equal mandate. We have all been elected by our constituencies to come here and represent the public in this Parliament. By continuing the kind of discrimination that already exists under the funding arrangements, he is copper-fastening a form of discrimination against certain Members of this House. That is unworthy of him. It is very disappointing that he has not been prepared to respect the equal mandate of every Member of this House and ensure we all operate on some kind of fair, if not equal, playing field.

This allowance has been renamed as the parliamentary activities allowance. I put it to the Minister again that every Member of this House is required to engage in parliamentary activities. The Independent Members, including those of us who now find ourselves as Independents after resigning from our parties or finding ourselves outside our parties for one reason or another, have to complete our parliamentary activities. It is arguable that many Independent Members are much more active and vocal than many Government backbenchers. We do our work, which is very demanding from a research perspective, even though we are not supported by all the paraphernalia and infrastructure of a political party. By seeking to reduce our ability to function as active parliamentarians, the Government is making a direct attempt to undermine the Independent Members of this House. That is wrong. It is very unfortunate that the Minister does not recognise that and act accordingly.

All of this plays into the problems associated with the Whip system used in this House, which is far too severe and strict. Generally speaking, Whip systems do not operate in this way in other modern democracies. I want to recognise that the successful efforts of the political parties to dominate the Parliament are not endorsed by the public. I am glad to say they are not endorsed by the Ceann Comhairle either. There is a responsibility to recognise the role of each individual Member of this House. Over a number of years, we have progressively reached a point at which the parties seem to think they own and control this Parliament. That is a very unhealthy situation. It is constitutionally and morally wrong.

The Government parties are using their might to force a regime on the Parliament which is fundamentally unfair. Their efforts to continue with a system which undermines Independent Members of this House can be considered as part of a piece with the control they try to exercise when they issue threats to Deputies who are considering leaving a parliamentary party and going it alone. They are threatened with banishment and with the loss of funding, necessary supports and speaking rights. They are told they will no longer be allowed to serve on Oireachtas committees. They face the loss of rights when it comes to Private Members' business, etc. That is part of the kind of bullying and threatening atmosphere the main parties try to create to frighten, or try to frighten, their members into toeing the party line. This approach, which involves seeking to ensure life will be difficult for Deputies if they choose to go outside the party, is fundamentally undemocratic. It is seriously unfair and wrong to treat legitimately elected Members of this House in such a manner. All of that is part of a piece.

It has been a consideration of mine for some time that this is wrong. I know other Deputies are thinking the same. It strikes me that there must undoubtedly be grounds for a legal challenge to be taken against the arrangements for the funding of individuals and parties. It strikes me that regardless of the merits of the system that has existed until now for historic reasons - perhaps it used to be unusual for Deputies to resign from parliamentary parties or find themselves outside of those parties, but it has become a relatively common practice nowadays - the introduction by the Minister of this new legislation, which copper-fastens an unfair arrangement, means that he is legislating to discriminate against certain Members of this House. I find it very hard to see how such new legislation could withstand a legal challenge. I hope it will be tested shortly. In light of the equal mandate enjoyed by all Members of this House, I cannot see any circumstances under which what the Minister is proposing to do under this legislation could be regarded as constitutional.

During the debate on the earlier Stages of this Bill, the Minister's main argument in favour of continuing this discrimination was that people elect Deputies on the basis of their status on election day. While that might theoretically be the case, we should look at what has happened in practice.

It is hard to argue that many of the people who were elected in the last general election for either of the two Government parties have not actually held true to the basis on which they were elected. It is arguable that certain people were elected under false pretences - elected on the basis of promises that were given at election time that have subsequently been reneged upon. It is not wise for the Minister to go there in terms of the basis on which people were elected to this House as a number of us now find ourselves as Independent Members because we stood by the promises that were given election time. We were not prepared to renege on those promises that were given to the electorate. So it is a very weak argument and we could be here all evening listing the various election promises made by both Government parties that were subsequently broken. If the Minister is talking about remaining true to the basis on which he was elected, he is not in a position to throw stones in that regard, nor are many of his party colleagues.

There are several precedents of the rules having been changed when circumstances changed. Of course the Minister is choosing to ignore those precedents. In this Dáil we have had the recent precedent where Deputy Clare Daly left the Socialist Party. When she raised this issue, Deputy Higgins did the honourable thing in returning a portion of that funding to the Exchequer because he recognised that he was in receipt of that funding under false pretences. It was allocated on the basis of the Socialist Party having two Members. Once that number was reduced, he did the honourable thing and returned a portion of that funding. We are asking the two Government parties to do the honourable thing and not to continue to take taxpayers' money under false pretences.

At one point quite recently there were ten Members who had previously been members of Government parties and who were no longer members of parties sitting in the House as Independents. That meant that the Government parties were in receipt of a minimum of €500,000 under false pretences. By and large that money was used to recruit staff to do PR work, press work, research and so on. A very significant part of that would have been used to undermine those very Members for whom those parties continue to hold on to annual State funding. Deputy Naughten gave an example and there were numerous examples of the Labour Party using its backroom staff to undermine those of us who chose to leave the Labour Parliamentary Party and indeed the wider party.

It is entirely wrong that the Government parties should continue to hold on to funding that was made available for those of us who were elected to this House and are now Independents. They are doing so under false pretences. I call on the Minister to do the right thing and return that money to the Exchequer because the Government parties have no right to continue to hold on to it. At a time when funding is tight in so many areas, it is indefensible for the Government parties to hold on to €500,000 every year when they have no entitlement to that funding.

The Minister also made the point that for practical reasons the Government could not keep changing the level of funding. There are plenty of ways of dealing with that. We are not suggesting that the parties give up the funding immediately, once somebody votes against a Government party. There could be a review on an annual basis or a six-monthly basis to rebalance that funding, which would be the right way to do it if the Government parties were honourable in what they were doing and if they had fundamental respect for each Member of this House.

It is very disappointing that the Minister has not budged an inch since the spurious arguments he made on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context