Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We have had this same debate for three consecutive weeks and obviously there is no meeting of minds because I have heard the same argument repeatedly. As I tried to explain to Senator Bradford, clearly very inadequately, his presentation is a fundamental misunderstanding, certainly a misrepresentation of the facts. It is not the Senator's money, as he put it. He said, "It is not for me". It is not for the Senator, no more than the Labour Party allocation is for me. It is not his money to take away with him anywhere.

It is a determination that we support parliamentary activities in Parliament qua parliament. The legal mechanism is that we make that determination at the outset of the Parliament, on foot of the numbers elected by the people to sit in these Houses. We do it on a sliding scale to avoid over-endowing the larger parties and on a differential basis to specifically advantage the Opposition over the Government. I have explained that ad nauseam. The notion that the money is not spent on the Senator is a fundamental misrepresentation of the truth. It is not for the Senator, no more than the Labour Party money is for me. It is for the activities of my parliamentary family in research, support, policy formation, promulgating our views, allowing people to communicate with us and in all the matters the Senator listed as being allowed.

I have known Senator Bradford for a long time and I know he is a bright individual, so it is obviously my lack of communication that has failed to explain that fundamental issue. It is not the Senator's money to take away or to give back to anybody. If one thinks logically about it, there is no fixed sum of money. When the Senator was a member of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party, was he among the first ten or the second ten? How much money was his out of the pot? That is not the way it works. It is not assigned to individuals. It is determined by the full scale of the party returned to Parliament by determination of the people or the electoral process.

I am a little confused by the presentation of Senator Healy Eames. She said on a number of occasions that every Member deserves a chance and asked if they were lesser beings.

The amendment proposes that the State should take back the money, not that it should be given to anybody. It does not matter in terms of endowing anybody or about those concerned being lesser people or anything else. Deputy Healy Eames would not be any better off if her amendment were carried. It would simply mean that small pool of money, relatively speaking, would be lost to the activities of Parliament and that is something I would not support. I certainly would not support the notion that a Member would be advantaged by walking away from a political party that had been determined by the people, or by the electoral system that elects Members to this House, and that Member could take their allowance with them.