Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We have had a long debate on this issue, which is entirely extraneous to the issues of the Bill. This is not new legislation to create the funding model to which the Deputies, who have spoken on these amendments, are referring - this has been the practice. The first purpose of the Bill is to reduce the full quantum of money available to fund political parties in recognition of the reductions that have been made across politics generally. The second purpose is to bring further accountability into the system where moneys paid to Independent Deputies in this House and the other House will be fully accountable in the same way that moneys paid to political parties are accountable. That is what the Bill is about. We have spent the vast bulk of time in the Seanad, on Second and Committee Stages here, and again now on this extraneous matter. I understand that people feel very strongly about it, but it is not the core purpose of the Bill.

I thank Deputies for their views. I understand how deeply felt they are and I respect them. I believe the vast majority of people who spoke respect that I am entitled to have an alternative view without impugning me. There is a Deputy or two in this House for whom everything is personal and they cannot make an argument without making a personal argument, which is not a helpful way to advance arguments in this House.

While I accept the depth of the argument and I have listened to the substance of the argument, I do not agree with it and I will repeat why I believe this is so. The parliamentary activities allowance, formerly called the party leader's allowance, is funding provided to support parliamentary activities and by extension our party political system as it operates in the Oireachtas. We operate on a party political basis here. While there is no constitutional underpinning for that, it is a fact of life that we organise ourselves and the vast bulk of Members - not all - debate in parties. We have conventions to determine policy, present our platforms to the people and seek election on a party ticket. Some others do it on an individual basis and they are entitled to be funded as individuals through the parliamentary activities allowance. It is not intended as an individual pot of money for each Member who is elected to allocate as we choose.

The Deputies opposite say that I have no right to hold on to money, but I do not hold on to a cent. I do not have any money and I am sure Members of the parties opposite do not see any of the money. It is part of funding our political system in this House and I believe Members opposite know that. There is no requirement for a party to give money to any individual and I am unaware of any party doing that. It is up to the party to decide how to expend money within the confines of the legal framework set out. It is not the role of primary legislation to become involved in the internal workings of political parties. That is a matter for parties themselves within the overarching framework that has grown over time and that is, I hope, enhanced by this legislation.

I believe the approach proposed in the amendments would impact to the detriment of smaller parties. If these amendments were to apply, a smaller party, for example, would stand to lose €64,368 if a Deputy were to resign from that party, whereas a larger party would lose €25,754. That would impact much more seriously and detrimentally on the smaller party than on the larger party.

I wish to deal with one or two of the points raised by the Deputies.

I should also take the opportunity to congratulate Deputy Creighton on the birth of her daughter, and I wish her and her daughter well. I am sure it will be a good political household and we may well see another Creighton or family member in this-----

See this speech in context