Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Yes, I presume the child's name is Bradford. I wish her well.

In terms of the points made, the Deputy talked about there being exceptions, for example, when we had a move across the House during the course of a Dáil, as in 1994. However, it of course makes sense to rebalance when the resources of Government suddenly become available to a party and are taken away from another party. That rebalancing is a normal thing within the political system. I believe people would be aghast if that was not applied and I do not think the Deputy is arguing that should not have happened. However, I am talking about quite a different thing. I, as an elected Member of a party, first contested and won a nomination against others. The electorate within the party, who selected me to stand as a party candidate, would not have selected me if they had known I would walk off the deck in my judgment, and they are entitled to know that the person selected will stand by the commitment of their work and so on. That is quite a different thing than the complete shift in resources available when a party comes into government.

The general thesis of the Deputies, namely, that somehow all Deputies are equal and, therefore, everybody should be given the same quantum of money to support them, is not the practice. Larger parties get less per capita than smaller parties because, obviously, there is a scale issue. Opposition parties get a quantum more money than parties in government because of the disparity of supports available. People have been talking about €50,000 per Deputy as a rule of thumb. However, to consider the detail, People Before Profit gets €71,520 annually per Member; the Socialist Party, with one Member, gets €71,520; Sinn Féin gets €67,433; Fianna Fáil gets €64,743; the Independents get €41,153; the Labour Party gets €36,639 in recognition of the fact we are part of the Government; and Fine Gael gets €27,858. Therefore, by a very significant margin, the headage payment, if one likes to use a crude term for this payment, payable to Fine Gael and the Labour Party is much less than that payable to the parties in opposition, and people have not argued against that. Therefore, the notion that we are equal with an equal mandate does not hold. I also reject the notion that somehow we are reducing the ability to function by not accepting these amendments. The amendments state that the money would revert to the State. That does not enhance or detract from the ability of anybody in this House to operate, in my judgment.

The point was made about parties merging. Parties can merge in the same way trade unions can merge, and where there is a merger of parties, the resources can be pulled and that is understood and provided for in law. However, that is different from an individual Member of the House making a personal decision. This is a party decision that would have to be endorsed by the party under its own constitutional provisions to merge, whether that is through a full conference, as in the case of my own party, or through whatever mechanism is available under the constitution of other parties. It is not a comparison.

In regard to the use of resources against Members, no public moneys can be used for electoral purposes and that would be improper. The moneys can only be expended in the ways set out by law.

As I said, I have listened to very long debates in both Houses on these issues. I know Deputies feel very strongly about these matters and some feel very hurt about the mechanism of their own exits from political parties, and I understand that too. However, we have to have a practical solution as well. Deputies leave and join parties. Deputy Ó Cuív lost the whip in his party and has come back again. Deputy Penrose, from my own party, was out of the party and is back again. One of the Sinn Féin Members left the party - who was it?

See this speech in context