Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We like to see the Minister here. I like in particular his subtle but interesting change of philosophy in response to our amendment. A fortnight ago he made a strong political argument that once people decide to leave a political party, and he referred particularly to the Dáil, it would be his personal preference that they resign their seats and put their names before the electorate. I do not know whether Deputy Gilmore, Deputy Rabbitte or Deputy Kathleen Lynch had a word in his ear but that view seems to have disappeared. That was his strong argument a fortnight ago for not accepting our amendment. He argued that people who stepped out of a particular party, and he referred particularly to the Dáil rather than the Seanad, should resign their seats. I disagreed with the Minister on that point. I never proposed that Deputies Rabbitte, Gilmore or Kathleen Lynch should resign their Dáil seats when they left the Workers' Party. There are changes that happen in politics for various political or ideological reasons that bring about a change in people's status be they Independent or former members of a party.

Last week, the Minister dropped that argument and went on to suggest, as he has done today to a lesser extent, that an election take place because the electorate sends X number of Deputies to the Dáil or the Seanad and that a party establishes its structure, staffing arrangements and plans accordingly, with set financing. A party structure in the immediate aftermath of an election is put in place for a certain number of Deputies and Senators. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party decide to put a structure in place because they have X Deputies and Y Senators. It is not unrealistic to say that once that quantum of Members changes there is a new political situation. The Minister is correct to say that the party allowance is not allocated to an individual Member.

I repeat that the legislation is very prescriptive as to what the money can be spent on. It lists in black and white, or yellow, that it is to be spent on matters such as research, training, policy formulation, consultant services, opinion polling and purchase of support services for the parliamentary party. Deputy Howlin is the line Minister who is attempting to defend the indefensible. My very simple question last week, and I do not believe it is possible for the Minister to answer it in the affirmative, is whether the Fine Gael parliamentary party will spend any of that money on myself or Senator Healy Eames. For example, will the Fine Gael parliamentary party spend the money under the research and training heading on Senator Healy Eames and myself? Will the Labour Party parliamentary party spend any money under the policy formulation heading on Deputy Róisín Shortall or Senator James Heffernan?

I submit to the Minister that moneys cannot legally be spent by the political parties under those headings for Members who have already left the parliamentary party but for whom money is still being handed over by the taxpayer to the party headquarters. I simply do not believe it is possible to justify the parliamentary parties keeping the allowances in respect of Members who have left the parliamentary party. The reason for the Members leaving is irrelevant. The fact is that the major political parties are receiving taxpayers' money to spend on policy formulation, research and training for Members who are no longer within the parliamentary party. It is not possible to justify that. With his hat on as reform Minister, I again make the case to the Minister that if we want to bring about this new politics, which I believe most politicians and political parties promised at the last general election and which is urgently required, it is not living up to that aspiration to simply state that taxpayers' money can be handed over to a political party in respect of Members who are no longer part of that political party.

We have ploughed and harrowed the case. We have had the Minister here on three occasions. First, it was to know the Minister's views as to what people should do if they leave a parliamentary party, last week it was about the fact the parliamentary parties and headquarters put staff in place and that no changes can be made in that respect, and the Minister has expanded on that theme again today. In my view, taxpayers' money was allocated in respect of Members on the basis that they would remain in a political party. If they either leave of their own accord or, indeed, are forced out of the parliamentary party, that money should remain unclaimed. We are talking in this year of some €500,000 or €600,000. It is not going to balance the nation's books but €500,000 or €600,000 is a lot of money and, over the remaining course of this Parliament, we are talking about a minimum of €1.5 million being, I believe wrongly, handed over to political parties. I do not believe it is possible to justify it.

While I do not want to press this matter to a vote today, I will certainly revisit it on Report Stage. I would ask the Minister to again talk to his Cabinet colleagues and, on the basis of fairness, accountability and transparency, to reflect on what this money is scheduled to be spent upon, to acknowledge the fact it cannot be spent upon those of us who have left the parliamentary party and to ask the question, therefore, of why it should be paid by the taxpayers to a parliamentary party in respect of Members who are no longer within the parliamentary party. It is a relatively black and white issue. A school would not get a capitation grant in respect of pupils who have left the school. Hospitals being paid on a per-patient basis would not receive money in respect of patients who have left the hospital. An employer does not pay wages for people who have left its employment. Why should a parliamentary party receive money on the basis of Members who are no longer within the parliamentary party?