Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister back to the House. We are on section 2, amendment No. 4 in the names of Senators Bradford and Healy Eames. I call Senator Bradford.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister was in possession.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was responding to the case made by Senators regarding this matter. I think I had made most of my contribution. I was explaining that the parliamentary activities allowance is the means by which the State supports our parliamentary system, which is based on political parties. Most of us in this House joined political parties because we subscribed to the collective party policies. From the comments made by Senators on the previous occasion it might be useful for me to explain the rationale and function of the calculation method used to determine the amount paid to parliamentary leaders to date for what is called the parliamentary activities allowance.

The purpose of the allowance is to support the parliamentary activities of parties. It is not a salary for the leader, although I believe in ancient times one or two leaders regarded it as such but-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Charvet shirts.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were found out.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----enough of that. It is not a payment to be divvied out among the members for their own use. In order to calculate the level of support which will be paid to a party it was decided to base the total amount of funding on the number of Deputies and Senators elected or nominated to each of the Houses. Other funding sources use different metrics, as I explained, such as the share of first preference votes used in the case of electoral supports but this is the method used to support parliamentary activity in the House.

As there are economies of scale for larger parties a flat rate per member would give large parties an advantage. That is the reason it is a sliding scale - the more members the party has, the less the marginal amount. It is to ensure that even small parties would have a coherent sum of money to provide the press office, the basic research and so on rather than over-advantage larger parties. That is the way it works.

Similarly, the reduction of one third of the allowance payable in respect of Deputies applies to parties in government. Even when we rebalance for scale we rebalance against parties in government because it is assumed they have additionality in terms of governmental supports that Opposition parties do not have, and that is the reason they are reduced by one third.

The legislation provides for a calculation based on a certain number of members. It does not prescribe the amount to be spent in regard to individual members by a party, nor should it. It is a matter for the party to determine. It is a pool of resources for parliamentary activities and whether they want to use it primarily for primary research or more of it for public analysis - people do focus groups, public seminars and so - that is a matter for the parties.

That is the reason the mechanism is in place. Parties provide a stable basis for the formation of both Governments and effective opposition. That is not to be in any way disparaging of Independent Members of either House who have played historically a very important part but the basic units to form a stable Government here and in most western democracies is a political party.

It is the nature of political parties that members join and members leave, often for the best and most honourable of motives. It would be wrong if a situation resulting from the internal issues of a party could lead to a change in the balance of supports to political parties. Losing or gaining members in the lifetime of a Dáil or Seanad should not affect the resources to the party. As I said on the last occasion, parties make a determination.

They construct a support and staff base. They sign contracts and it cannot be that this would be dislodged because it would be an internal change in the middle of a parliament.

It is the vote of the people that determines who is elected to the Dáil and that of the panels and selection criteria who becomes a Member of the Seanad. That is determined on election day. The parliamentary support system is put into place on that basis and in my judgment it cannot be dislodged in the life of that Parliament without reference back to the people. While I am aware that the proposers of this amendment intend that the money would go back to the Exchequer it is then money lost to parliamentary activity which is important.

I recall during the debate on the funding of politics - and I will not refer to some of the unseemly things that happened such as quanta of money being paid to the party political system or individuals - we tried to change all of that with ethics legislation and electoral law change and the suite of measures that we brought in during the 1990s. The quid pro quowas that since we would prohibit that sort of funding of political parties there would be State funding, not only for political parties but for parliamentary activity, which could not be funded in any other way. It would also be done transparently so that if a candidate followed the agenda of a person with deep pockets that person could not endow the candidate to the extent of giving him or her an electoral advantage. That is my view. That set of proposals has been resilient up to now and for that reason I am not minded to accept the amendment.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his contribution. It is interesting that we have had this debate over three meetings, although it has not been over a single five or six hour block. The Minister was here a fortnight ago and last week, and we welcome him once again today.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senators like to see me coming in here.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I continue my support of my two colleagues in their motion. I reserve most of my comments for a discussion on the section, because I want to expedite matters. I would like to correct the misplaced adverb in what Senator Bradford said. He said "I believe wrongly". That adverb should come at the end of the sentence, because I do not think that he imagines his beliefs are wrong.

I thank the Minister for making an attempt to answer my questions-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you for your elocution lesson.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you teacher.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was a teacher. I was not particularly good at grammar, but I was a teacher. I thank the Minister for trying to answer my questions about the sliding scale. I find that interesting. It is not 100% convincing, but it is an interesting observation and I will say something about it when we come to speak on the section.

It would be much better if longer periods were allocated for this Bill, so that we could really get into it. We have a little smattering here and there, and I know the Minister agrees as well. I think we could order the business a bit better.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister back to the House. This is an interesting process. There is something fundamentally wrong and unfair about the way the business of party allowances is being done at the moment for Members who find themselves, often for very honourable motives, outside the party Whip system in the middle of a term. We want the Minister to think this one through and come up with a way that would be acceptable to live with. As it stands at the moment, it is not acceptable or fair.

Senator O'Keeffe made a good point last week, as did the Minister today, that there are costs to running a political system. However, I felt there was a bias towards the party system because it was only a case of funding parties. What about Independents? The Minister made a very valid point today that this is about how the State supports the parliamentary system. Should the State not support Independents who find themselves outside the parliamentary Whip system in the midst of a term? Surely we are no less parliamentarians than Members of a political party. I think not, nor do the people who elected us feel that way.

The Minister also mentioned that parties make commitments to staff following elections, and that was a valid argument, but it does not hold. In the middle of a term during the last parliamentary session, Deputy George Lee resigned. His secretary was not kept on. She was let go. No commitment made to her was kept. Senator van Turnhout made a very valid argument that we can always give a notice period, and that there is nothing wrong with stating that there is three months' notice. Senator Bradford and I are out of the Fine Gael Party since last July, so I think it would be valid if there was a cooling off period whereby a party could retain the allowance for a certain number of months. We could live with that, but it is not fair that people conducting parliamentary business are not equally validated by the allowance system.

We are very honourably saying that at the very least, the moneys should be given back to the Exchequer. However, given his logic last week and following the debate, a number of people said to us that on the basis of his argument, it would be appropriate for those of us who were members of a party but who are now independent to build the appropriate party for the services we are getting paid for as a result of being elected Members.

Is the Minister saying that is appropriate? The current logic does not follow. Between the Members of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann at least four members of the Labour Party and eight members of Fine Gael, a total of 12, have left their parties. Is the Minister saying those Members do not have costs in running their political affairs? Of course they do. Are those costs any less because they exercised a conscience vote or otherwise? They are not.

As it stands, this is an insider job for parties and that is not good business. It is not transparent, honest, open and certainly not reforming. Let us face the fact that I and all Members, including the Minister and the Government, stood for election on the basis of reform and doing things better with less. This is about trying to get more for less; it is trying to keep a lot more money for fewer Members. That is not fair or just. As Senator Bradford said, we will not push it to a vote today. We will see the process through. We want it to be open, honest, transparent and, above all, fair. Everyone deserves a chance, and every parliamentary party Member and Independent Member deserves a chance. There is a cost to their doing business, so let the cost go to the person to whom it belongs. In this case we are putting up our hands and saying that we are happy that our allowances be given back to the State.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the proposal.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am saying that I certainly would be opposed to that but the Senator talked in terms of whether those are lesser people-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allow me to respond first.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much. That would be seen for what it was. The Senator wants her little pot of money and to walk away with it.

I also want to say that what I said on the first occasion has been misrepresented again by Senator Bradford. What I suggested in terms of resigning was that if a Member wanted his or her own allowance, there was a way to do that. I was elected to the other House under the banner of the Labour Party with the resources of that party behind me, the discernment of my selection convention who wanted a Labour Party candidate to stand and for whom to canvass, and the unpaid work of scores of party members to elect me to the House. It would be quite wrong for me to be able to say that I can make a discernment and nullify all that work and not give them the chance to put somebody in my stead if I had a conscientious objection. If I felt that I could not in conscience remain, the right thing to do would be to resign, and then to get a fresh mandate from the people as an Independent. One could then, rightly and morally, take one's pool of money at that stage, but it is quite a different kettle of fish to do so in the context that was put forward here.

I have been around this course three times and have heard the same arguments three times. I do not think we are going to have a meeting of minds on it because I understand that at the heart of this is a debate that is not about this Bill. I am very conscious of that. When people lecture me about reform, democracy and everything else when the point at issue amounts to simply taking money away from the political party of which they are no longer a member, I have to think about that. The essence of the Bill before us comprises two main planks. I am a little concerned that we are spending endless hours on the ancillary rather than the core of the Bill. The two core elements of it are, first, to reduce the allowance to all political parties by 10% as a contribution towards reducing the overall costs and, second, to bring accountability, extending it from the parties which are, and always were, required to have audited, accounted and transparent accountability for the money they receive and to transfer that to all Independent Members. Independent Members who are elected as Independent Members are entitled to a parliamentary allowance that is analogous to the sums given to the parties. They now will be required in the normal way, in the same way as parties, to account for that.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have three brief observations. I agree with the Minister that we will not reach a consensus on this. I assure him that this debate is about the Bill and what is contained in it. As the Minister rightly said, the Bill is about saving money, approximately 10% of taxpayers' hard-earned cash. We have put forward a proposal that would save another small amount of money, €1.5 million or thereabouts, over the next three years, which is an amount not to be sneezed at.

The Minister said that the calculations are done on a sliding scale and therefore it is not a question of money being for A, B, or C. I accept that the money is calculated on the basis of a sliding scale but the argument I put to him once again is that people no longer within a parliamentary party cannot be considered part of that sliding scale. It is grossly unfair that he is unwilling to accept our argument in that regard.

We can all check what we said a fortnight ago because it is on the record of the House. The Minister spoke about when people in their "preciousness" decided to vote against the parliamentary party.

The Minister referred in particular to Members of Dáil Éireann and he suggested, not I, that people who voted against the party in their preciousness, as he described it, should leave their seats in Dáil Éireann and present themselves in a by-election.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator might read the full quote.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am saying that I had no such difficulty when the Minister's current leader, the Tánaiste, quit his political party a number of years ago and went on a long political journey. I did not suggest then that he should leave his Dáil seat and face a by-election. I did not say it about the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, or anyone else because politics brings about its own events.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure he would not even have said it when the former Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, crossed the floor to vote against his own Government's Bill on contraception.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Bradford, without interruption.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a moral issue, don't you know.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not and would not say it. I am sure that when the Minister sits down with his friends in the leadership of his party, he will find that they had their own reasons for leaving the Workers Party, joining New Agenda which became Democratic Left and finally joining the Labour Party. I did not question their motives or their validity as elected representatives or disagree with their decisions. That is what the Minister said a fortnight ago, not I, when he referred to people and their preciousness.

What is before us today is the preciousness of democracy. We all agree that politics should be funded and that there is an urgent need for reform but I do not think anybody can validly say that a political party should be in receipt of moneys for an incorrect number of parliamentarians. The sliding scale to which the Minister refers is no longer appropriate in respect of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party. I think Fianna Fáil is okay at the moment from a numbers point of view but Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and the Labour Party are receiving party allowances for persons who are no longer within their parliamentary parties.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It makes no sense.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That makes no financial or political sense. It certainly makes no sense from a reform perspective. I will leave it at that. If the Minister wants to call my argument precious, fair enough. I think it is a very straightforward political argument and I hope we would be mature enough to accept that in the so-called new politics which we are trying to generate, we do not have to do things as they were done heretofore. The Minister spoke about what he described as unseemly things being done previously. I think this is quite an unseemly thing to do. It is allowing parliamentary parties to keep money in respect of calculations which no longer exist.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Senators to stay within the remit of the Bill insofar as is possible.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am staying within the remit of the amendment. We in Fianna Fáil are in a funny position. We certainly want to support the amendment but we have been where the Government is. On balance, the arguments put forward by Senators Bradford and Healy Eames make eminent sense. I was offended by the Minister's comments when he spoke about Senators Bradford and Healy Eames wanting to walk away with their pot of money. I was very offended because there is nothing in their amendment about that. It just talks about a deduction. It was very unfair to them.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say that.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did say that. He said they wanted to walk away with a pot of money, which is a very low thing to say about a parliamentarian.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not refer to the Senators in that context at all.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was here. I heard what the Minister said.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not refer to either Senator in that way.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The record will show what he said. My recollection of a comment he made a few minutes ago was that they want to walk away with their pot of money and that is not what the system is designed for. The amendment seeks a deduction. I think my colleagues heard it similarly.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought he acknowledged that they did not want that in their amendment. He certainly did the last time.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allow Senator Byrne to make his point and we will move on.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been a dismissive attitude. If this issue was to capture media attention, which it has not really done, the Minister would be doing a U-turn in the same way he did a U-turn last week on freedom of information legislation. There will be no public support whatsoever. This would be particularly true in the case of Fine Gael because there has been such anger, such a hardline attitude has been taken towards them and they have been thrown out of the party. I remember when colleagues of mine were expelled from Fianna Fáil. Senator Walsh would know far more about this. It was almost by arrangement. I do not recall significant hard feeling, although Senator Walsh can correct me. I do not remember the venom that seems to exist in Fine Gael and the attitude that they just want to get rid of these people for good.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was plenty of venom in Fianna Fáil when they kicked out Dessie O'Malley.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was a child at that time.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When one is as old as I am, those were recent times.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Senator was probably a Member of the Seanad at that time.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne, without interruption.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There seems to be a different class of affairs going on in Fine Gael. They just want to get rid of these people out of the party because they voted a different way on a matter of conscience. I think we need to take a stand on this issue. The public would support them if the issue managed to gain traction in the media which has not happened as yet.

I point to a flaw in the legislation going back to 2001. It was mentioned on Second Stage although I was not here for the previous Committee Stage debate. Senators are not elected as members of political parties. When I was first elected, I asked how the party got the allowance in respect of me. I know it is not my money - the Minister does not need to remind me - it is the party's money and the party needs it. We fill out a form on our first day to say what party we belong to but there is no reference in the legislation to this practice. I suggest the officials should look at that because nobody is elected to the Seanad as a member of a party. Had any one of us chosen to be an Independent Member at that time, the allowance would have been paid to us as Independent Members. That is the legal position because we are not elected as members of a political party. The Minister should look at that because it is a flaw going back to 2001. There is no designation at any point in the Seanad election to describe one's membership of a political party.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is correct that it is not his money. It is not the Labour Party's money nor the Fine Gael Party's money. It is certainly not the money of Senator Bradford or myself. It is the State's money and that is why we want to give it back to the State now that we have left our parliamentary parties. I do not think anything could be clearer. To clarify what I meant about, as the Minister said, "lesser beings", there is a value given to a member of a parliamentary party that is no longer given when he or she is expelled from that parliamentary party. There is a financial value which remains with the party and that is what I meant.

The Minister said this debate is not really about what he is talking about at all. I regard this as quite insulting. In my view, this debate is about the reform of politics and if it is not, it should be. This is about how political parties and Independents are funded. The Dáil has 166 Members and the Seanad has 60 Members, making 226 Members of the Oireachtas. Each Member is apportioned an allowance via the system.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not each apportioned an allowance.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will agree to differ. There is an allowance-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not each apportioned an allowance.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an allowance there. At mid-term or at a point in the Dáil or Seanad term, a re-think is needed when a Member is expelled or leaves a party. There should be some fair formula found to give the allowance to that person in his or her new status. As a mark of honour and good faith, we are saying that in our case - Senator Bradford and myself - we would like that allowance to be returned to the State. Last week, there was a big argument about the €15 fee for a freedom of information request - €1.5 million over the next three years would fund a lot of freedom of information requests in the interests of the citizens of this country.

My final question follows from what Senator Thomas Byrne said and it is a question I meant to ask the Minister previously. Members of the Seanad are not on the electoral ballot paper as members of a party. How then does a party legally get that money?

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht i mo oifig. It has been interesting, but an important point of principle is at its root. I listened carefully to the Minister. Being from Wexford, I am familiar with the discernment of the Labour Party in many elections in selecting him as its candidate. Equally, he will agree that people in Labour and other parties get votes from party supporters when they run under their parties' banners. They also attract votes from people who, based on an assessment of the candidates that is right or wrong, support them as individuals. In many cases, candidates depend on transfers that often come from other party candidates. An accumulation of support from different strands leads to people being elected. In this light, it is difficult to maintain the argument that people are elected based purely on party support and that, as a consequence, the allocation of taxpayers' funds to parties should be based on the number of their members elected to the Dáil or the Seanad.

The individuals who are making this case did not choose to be outside their party. The people in Fine Gael who supported them supported the Fine Gael platform, which was a pro-life platform, as clearly stated on behalf of the party and in individual pledges. Individual Labour and Fianna Fail candidates currently sitting in this and the Lower House also made pledges. As a consequence of the Members in question honouring the commitment they made under the party banner and as individuals on a particular issue of conscience, they found themselves not just leaving the party, but in some instances being bullied out of it. Given the Minister's background and that of his father, a strong champion of trade unionism in County Wexford, he will recognise that no trade unionist or anyone of a reasonable perspective would condone or support such behaviour. These Members were not just bullied out of their parliamentary party, but out of their offices. They were threatened with not being allowed to run for their parties in future. It was a prime example of bullying in the workplace. Nothing has been done about it. Unfortunately, our media has condoned it by being uncritical of what happened. Among others, the Minister's father, God rest him, would have been strongly vociferous about this type of behaviour in any workplace.

People have adhered to the platforms on which they and their parties campaigned. For the sake of political expediency, they have subsequently found themselves being dismissed from their parliamentary party. In this light, there are real questions surrounding the payment, which is meant to support them in their political work, remaining with the party that bullied them. The strong principle involved needs to be re-examined. Perhaps the method through which the State funds political parties needs a root and branch analysis.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have difficulties with the per capita approach being applied to Independents.

I know the Minister has changed that to some extent but there are issues none the less. If the criterion at present is that people who are elected independently are entitled to those supports, it follows that people in Fine Gael or the Reform Alliance - who find themselves in such as position, although not of their volition - are also entitled to them.

Senator Byrne referred to my own situation. A number of us had conscientious objections to a particular issue within our party, and we resigned the whip and left. However, we did not do so on as fundamental an issue and certainly not on an issue about which the party had clearly given commitments which the Senators and TDs followed through on and honoured.

At a recent international conference, I was surprised at the number of people who approached me about the decision of the Irish public to retain the Seanad. They expressed great surprise that in any part of Europe, and particularly in a country that had been so badly affected by the economic downturn, people would use their discretion to retain an institution and a group of politicians with whom they could have dispensed.

We need to re-examine the manner in which allocations are made to political parties. Political parties require funding to get their message across. It is part of the essence of supporting our democratic system and I do not have an objection to that in principle. While we have a situation whereby funding is based on the number of seats, the money should follow individuals rather than what we are copper-fastening in this Bill.

As one who looks objectively at politics, I ask the Minister to re-examine this matter. The logic in continuing it is not nearly as strong in light of recent events and particularly where issues of conscience are totally dismissed. I will not say we are unique, but we are one of the few parliaments in the world with a rigid whip system which allows no departure from what is laid down by the Government. In this instance it is not just the Government; I have also been critical of the EMC which I think is unconstitutional.

We need to examine our democratic structures which failed us in the lead up to our economic downturn. The time has come to have a root and branch study to see what can be done to strengthen them and to ensure that in future we can be more confident they will stand the test of any political, economic or social storm we may face.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have spent over two hours on this amendment and I do not want to prolong the debate, although I will respond briefly to the specific matters raised. In making his last point, Senator Walsh suggested that money should follow the individual, but that is to misunderstand the basis of why the parliamentary allowance was brought into being, which was to support parliamentary activities. A lot of individuals wanted to change or move within the established parliamentary systems determined by the people on election day. The weight of support the people gave, either directly in the other House or indirectly through the election process for this House, is the snapshot that determines the balance of supports being made. Therefore, it is not for individuals to walk away with it after that.

I have been criticised for suggesting that if people wanted to rectify that, it is open to them - not in this House but in the other one - to cause a by-election and have that tested.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why could one not do it in this House?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One could, but if one resigns I suggest that one is less likely of being able to win one's own seat. I would not recommend it to the Senator as a certainty, shall I say. In the other House, however, one would stand in one's own constituency and be able to ask the people who gave the original mandate, and those alone, to reconfirm that mandate, if one was so minded.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I achieved almost two quotas on the last occasion.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Order, please.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The notion that money follows individuals is in my judgment a misunderstanding of what was intended, which was to support the workings of Parliament. Although the Constitution does not recognise the role of parties, we all do. Senators Byrne and Healy Eames made the point that none of the people elected to this House were elected on a party ticket. It is true that there is no party allegiance on the ballot paper. In the case of the Labour Party, we looked at the quota of councillors we had and selected candidates appropriate to that. It may have been an extraordinary coincidence that the number of votes secured was closely affiliated to the number of councillors in the party.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One does not require a party nomination to get elected, as in the case of Senator Walsh.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We make those discernments. I accept that people who operate outside their parties also get elected but they still have to convince their party councillors to vote for them which Senator Walsh did very well. For anyone wishing to do tutorials about it, I would recommend it. There was no luck involved. Well travelled politicians in this House and the other House do not operate on that basis.

Reference was made to the inability to alter the fixed decision made on the day of the election. If I leave my party, the party is not disadvantaged by that in terms of parliamentary support and if an Independent joins a political party, as happened in this House, he or she does not bring the allowance into the party. It works both ways. It is a system that has worked well. I understand the motivation of those arguing the point and respect their points of view but the coherence of our parliamentary system and the supports parliamentary parties need to bring to debates in this House, communication with the electorate and the refinement and discernment of policies separate from the policies of Government, in terms of parties having to exist separately to prepare to forthcoming elections, is served well by the system I am proposing in this Bill. If the view is that we need to look at this issue generally I have no difficulty with that but that debate is not appropriate to this particular legislation.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In relation to Independents who join parties, the practice may be that they give up the allowance but as I understand it, when this was a live issue in the media during the last Dáil the legal advice was that they do not have to give it up. The Minister might confirm, unless he is changing it in this Bill, that this was never the position and that people do it because it is the right thing to do. I wonder if the Minister was to provide for this in law it would beg the question as to why it would not apply in the reverse. If an Independent joins a party today and he or she wishes to retain the allowance there is nothing, except media pressure, to prevent him or her doing so. I believe if there was media interest in this measure the Minister would reverse course pretty quickly.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is exactly what I said. The status quo determined on the day of the election holds true so that if a candidate is an Independent the allowance is his or hers as an Independent. The discernment is that it is the determination on the day of the election. That is the point I made. People leave parliamentary parties, often on a temporary basis. For example, Deputy Penrose, who left the Labour Party parliamentary party has rejoined it. While some people leave the party, others stay within the party, attend all party functions but do not take the party whip. There are all sorts of variations. The simplicity of the method in place is underscored by the often double or triple movement within a single Parliament.

Senator Bradford made the point that a school will lose a capitation grant.

It does not, of course, until the next capitation period. If children move in the middle of the year, the Department does not start cutting back the allowance in the middle of the year.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does in September.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a school year. A school gets its capitation grant for the school year.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They add up at the end of September.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister, without interruption.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a determined term. I do not want to prolong this debate because we are not going to go anywhere on it.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can speak for as long as we like.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have spent three weeks at it now.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw the amendment with the possibility of resubmitting it on Report Stage.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? I call Senator Walsh.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I could-----

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are not agreeing it, okay.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to respond to what the Minister said. I go some of the way with what the Minister is saying. I understand that political parties need funding. Our democracy needs political parties that are resourced and are able to put their case to the people. However, I point to two flaws. First, people are elected through a system that is based on individuals. In Dáil elections they may have the party logo and the same may be true in Seanad elections - I am not sure. In general people vote for individuals.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People are confused with anything else but Fianna Fáil.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect-----

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The second point I want to make-----

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the Senator can resubmit that on Report Stage.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not resubmitting in any case.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a proposal to move from-----

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, you have no proposal.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a proposal to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just a second. I had indicated and I want to finish on this point.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggest to the Minister that the fundamental flaw in his argument is that we have within the Seanad three Members and within the Dáil four, five or six Members who have not just walked away from their parties but have been thrown out of their parties for not following party policy.

Leaving that aside for a moment, I as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Minister as a member of the Labour Party and Fine Gael people as members of the their party have the benefit of the financial resources given to the party and which are used to provide a press office, secretarial backup, research or whatever. The money is spent for the benefit of each individual Member.

However, the Members to whom I have referred are deprived of that. They do not have those financial resources even though they have been democratically elected. They have a mandate from their electorate to represent them, but the State has decided through this and previous legislation not to equip them with the resources that enable them to function pari passu with every other Member of the Seanad or Dáil. We are disadvantaging a group of people who through no fault of theirs find themselves expelled from their parliamentary parties. I believe there is a significant rights issue attached to that and I ask the Minister to reflect on it. Perhaps we can revisit it on Committee Stage.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on Committee Stage. The Senator means Report Stage.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, to delete lines 35 to 40, and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 4.

If we stripped ourselves naked and gave all our worldly goods to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and jumped off the roof of this House, the public would not pay a blind bit of notice. Therefore, we are fooling ourselves if we think they will be impressed by this lot. There will not be a blind bit of attention.

I have also tried on several occasions to amend legislation of this kind in order to ensure that, for example, it is allowed against income tax. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. It is a very unusual job where entering the nomination process or applying for the job is so hazardous and uncertain and requires the spending of considerable amounts of money. By the time the various reforms have gone through - it is obvious the Government is going to start with the universities - we will have enormous constituencies. How are we to reach them? How on earth is a new person going to break through the system if he or she does not get any allowance? I will reserve my other comments to speaking on the section.

I see no good reason a Member who has been elected should not be allowed to use some of this money to defray electoral expenses. Maybe there should be a system where, based on the number of votes the candidate gets, there would be a sliding scale of reimbursement. I do not actually take seriously the Government's moral stance. I think this is all a degree of political posturing. If the Government was serious it would look at the way in which the Presidency is regarded. In terms of the Presidency, the entire financial structure has been deliberately skewed by the political parties in every possible way, including financial, against the running of an Independent.

The constitutional review body was set up and it passed various ideas. The Government selected those it agreed with and ran with them and simply tossed into the bin those with which it did not agree. Some of those with which it ran were passed by a very small number of votes, in single digits. In regard to one regarding reform of the Presidency and access to the Presidency - I have no intention at the moment of ever offering myself to the Irish people again in that role so I have no personal axe to grind - there is a democratic axe to grind. I find it quite extraordinary and I hope somewhere out there somebody is listening because I know there are those reporters who castigate us and say there were only six Members in the Chamber when the Minister rose to speak. There is not a single one there at the moment. These was one decent Member in the House for about half an hour but he seems to have evaporated. They always say they may not ever have been in the Seanad and probably could not find their way to it if they tried, but are always watching it on the monitor. Hello out there, if anybody is watching on the monitors, the Constitutional Convention passed by 95% to 5% - that was the voice of the people - that the question of nomination to the Presidency and the way in which electoral expenses were dispersed should be looked at. To put this in context, if the Minister is serious - I believe there is a degree of seriousness in him but I am not sure at what percentage I would evaluate it - about overall reform, he has to look at this if we want equality for our citizens. In the Presidential election the candidate can be funded through the electoral parties and does not have to report it.

They can pay for posters, propaganda, cars or whatever it is and they get three times the amount of donations that can be made before disclosure of the donor is required as political parties that are already at huge advantage nationally. Does the Minister think that fits in with what he claims is the ethos of this Bill?

I do not speak for the Independents but as an Independent. I will always speak in what I believe is in the interest of maintaining a strong independent voice in Irish politics. I have further remarks to make on the section but I will stop because I think we should push on with the Bill.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Senator is aware, there is provision in the Electoral Acts for the reimbursement of electoral expenses post facto. The purpose of the parliamentary allowances, which is what we are dealing with in this Bill, is to support Parliament and parliamentary activities. They are not intended to be used for electoral purposes nor should they be.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not mean to be impertinent or to interrupt but I have never received any claim form or anything that told me I could claim anything back. It may operate in the Lower House but it certainly does not operate here. I am delighted to hear that Members of the Dáil, who basically run everything, have feathered their own nests in this way. Could they put a few spare feathers in our nest?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Senator spare us that patronising tone? Nobody is feathering their own nest and none of us came into politics to do that. The Senator would take great umbrage if I made that suggestion about him so he should not make it about me or anybody else in the other House.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I get over-umbraged very quickly. I am pointing out-----

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister, without interruption.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is also my view that to allow expenditure of the parliamentary activities allowance on electoral expenses, as proposed by the Senator, would almost certainly run foul of the Supreme Court judgement in the McKenna case.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I get a very brief answer from the Minister to this question? Could he explain the impact of the McKenna judgement as it relates to this section? I did not quite understand it. It may be my obtuseness.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give the Senator a direct quote from the McKenna judgement. The judgement stated that "no branch of the government is entitled to use taxpayers monies from the Central Fund to intercede with the democratic process either as to the voting process or as to the campaign prior to the vote". Using public moneys for campaigning is not allowed. Imagine the advantage Senator Norris would have as an incumbent over another citizen using State funds to advantage him in a campaign. That has been determined by our Supreme Court not to be fair or allowable.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will end on this and we will move on. That relates to payments during the election. It does not say anything about what happens after the election and I was very careful to say that it was important that people who had not been previously elected should be remunerated on a sliding scale with regard to the votes they got. Apparently, this situation does exist in the Dáil so I am astonished as to why it is illegal in the Seanad if it is legal in the Dáil.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will get a full briefing for the Senator. Did he apply for reimbursement in the presidential campaign?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thanks to the disgraceful behaviour of the media, I did not reach the target, having gone down from 39% when the person who is now President was about 9% or 7%. I would like to let the Minister know because this will gladden his heart that I am in the middle of eight libel actions and so far, four of them have been resolved in my favour outside the court. I have now reimbursed myself by my action against a totally corrupt and dishonest media. I have recouped for myself the moneys I lost as a result of the most sustained, personalised, mendacious and filthy campaign against any person in political life that I can ever remember.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator pressing the amendment?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I want to allow the Minister's words of wisdom to marinate.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to say a few words about the section. I put an amendment down which was not allowed. The idea behind it should be considered by Government. This idea is absolutely transparent. Get rid of all the allowances. One can make any kind of justification one wants. I will not rehearse matters as I have put the historical reasons for these allowances on the record and they do not do politics any great credit. It would be a very good thing to get rid of the whole lot of them. It may not be politically possible at this stage but it is certainly something that should be looked at. We should get the rate for the job.

I would also like an opportunity to put on the record of this House that I have not changed my position on this. Some professor from some university wrote to the newspapers saying that I was more or less dishonest and had backtracked from my commitments to this, that and the other. Another person who is rather more innocent said he was very disappointed that I had withdrawn from the commitment given the Quinn-Zappone Bill. How could I give any commitment to that Bill when I only saw it the day it was introduced in this House, the same as all my colleagues?

I certainly would not have accepted the idea that we reduce our pay by 50%. According to the Minister, the Taoiseach reduced his pay by 40%. Nobody paid a blind bit of attention - not a bit. He might as well not have bothered. I do not want to work for half pay. That is something that is a mark of dishonour. I did not sign up to it. I was never given the opportunity. Nobody in this House except the two people involved were engaged in those discussions. Even they were only brought in to a certain extent because it was produced by an anonymous group of lawyers. I do not accept this idea of halving the pay of Senators. I understand there may be political difficulties here but at the end of the day, I think what Members of Parliament should get is the rate for the job established by an external authoritative source.

What happens to my colleagues who have left parties is a fine. They are fined for leaving the party. I will leave it at that. I would like to sow the seeds of that idea in the Minister's mind. Perhaps when things are more stable, we should look at making everything absolutely transparent. Everything would be out in the open. The Member gets whatever it is - €60,000, €70,000, €40,000 or €100,000 - I do not care what it is. The Member gets a nice round figure and pays everything out of that and all of it is taxable. That is the way to be really transparent.

There is another point I wish to make. There is a difference with regard to Independents. It is very difficult to justify an allowance that is to a large extent a fudge and I know it is a fudge. With regard to Independents, each one of us must prepare material on every single item that comes before the House. We are the constant presence here. We try to be here all the time. In saying that, I am not criticising my colleagues who are members of parties. Very often, they are delegated as spokespersons on specific issues but we have to cover everything. We also produce legislation. If the Minister looks at the amount of legislation that has come from these benches over the past year or two, he will see it is quite astonishing. Dealing with it entails a lot of hard work.

That involves doing one's own research, learning the techniques, trying to get a prototype build together and then trying to get some degree of professional assistance to flesh it out in such a manner that it can be taken seriously in this House. These are responsibilities that do not devolve upon my colleagues, whose contribution I value greatly, but who are members of political parties.

The Minister mentioned some of the people who put forward this business about halving our incomes. I could not help but notice that they were all people who had not been elected but who were nominated so they did not have election expenses to start off with and they are part time. We are dealing with this issue that is so important and there is not a single one of them around. They also had substantial sources of income outside this House. Therefore, I find it difficult to take that argument so terribly seriously since the Minister revealed the sources.

I feel it necessary for me to say that some of us work really hard - members of parties and Independents. It is disheartening when one tries to cover one's job and spend long hours doing so, to be told that half pay would be sufficient. Just as the Taoiseach was not noticed when he cut his pay nearly in half, nobody will notice. I heard people saying we should work for nothing because it is such an honour. This would result in an aristocracy of wealth. This House would become like the old House of Lords which sat where the Bank of Ireland is now located. Only the big people who are able to afford it will be in the House. I am glad to say there are two or three people in this House who were unemployed before they came here. They are not the aristocracy nor the elite.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has made his point.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I value the elite element in this House but I think we should look very carefully before we start these ridiculous measures of flaying ourselves in some kind of politico-religious devotion and think the people would be impressed. They will have a bloody good laugh but they certainly will not be impressed.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, lines 39 and 40, to delete “ or to an independent member”.

I wish to delete the reference in the Bill to where an Independent Member in receipt of an allowance or portion thereof under section 10, dies, that his or her personal representative should prepare or cause to be prepared a statement of any expenditure from the allowance as soon as may be, but not later than 120 days after the end of the financial year in which the allowance has been paid. I think that is daft. For God's sake, could they not be allowed to keep the few days extra? The Minister will be waiting a long time before he gets people making these returns. A relative of my grandfather's was a knight of St. Patrick and he died in 1937. The British Crown demanded return of all the regalia. It took them three years to find the regalia because he had different places of residence. They found a bit in Granston, a bit down in Doneraile and a bit in a house in London. Eventually they sent them all back.

This provision is more pettifogging. I refer to the provision about keeping records for not fewer than six years. In my view this is an onerous provision. I would like to see people in Parliament being treated with respect. I have always tried to behave honourably. I have never swizzled or cheated or inflated accounts. This year I will probably be able to produce accounts for expenses that will show I will have spent a lot more than I looked for. We are allowed €12,000 unvouched expenses and I have put down €3,000 because I was afraid that I would over-claim and then the newspapers - which are such friends of mine - would say that Norris stole this money from the Exchequer. I do not agree with the provision to have to keep this stuff for six years. I have already lost a computer; I do not know where it is but they are hunting for it. I never used it. I have no use for old receipts either.

I would like to be treated with respect. I know there is a growing lack of respect. I am still a member of the Common Room and I am sure my colleague, Professor Barrett, is also a member. In the old days, they had a book into which members wrote the expenses for their visitors' drinks. I began to think I was an alcoholic because I had a whole series of pages because I was always bringing people in for dinner and to talk with them. We would have a glass of Madeira wine, for example. Then I discovered it was not that I was an alcoholic, it was because my colleagues were stealing entire bottles of gin or brandy and not writing it in the book.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What relevance has this to the amendment?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has relevance in that I would like to be treated with dignity. I do not want to be monitored. The next thing we will have chips put in our ankles so that when we pass the gate we will be recorded. Will we be required to put up our hands and say, "An bhfuil cead agam dul go dtí an leithreas, a Chathaorligh?" I would like to be treated with a bit of respect. Unfortunately, some in this House and in the other House, by abusing these payments, have brought them into disrepute but I feel insulted by them, the same way as I feel insulted that every single year I have to go and pay €10 to a lawyer to say that I got nothing as political contributions. The people who are really crooked will get around any piece of legislation but the people who are honest and honourable and decent will find themselves wasting more and more time on this pettifoggery. I know it is unpopular to say but I do not give a damn. If my voters do not like it, they can kick me out at the next election. Some of them will not do so while some of them will but I would like to be regarded as an honourable person. This would all be resolved if we were given the rate for the job. We would then turn up, do the work and get paid.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris's amendments seek to remove the auditing requirement for qualifying Independent Members in receipt of parliamentary activities money.

As I stated on Second Stage, with the increased scrutiny of all public expenditure, it is not acceptable for Independent Members to receive funding for which they alone would be excluded from being accountable when others must be accountable. It is not workable for us to require that Members only spend this funding on parliamentary activities without requiring them to show evidence that they have done so. This is the new regime expected of us by the public.

The Senator rightly stated that, if Members do not wish to hold accounts, it is open to them to fund their activities from their own resources or salaries. If they draw down this allowance, it must be accountable and spent on things that are allowable. This must be clearly accounted to the people.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand and, to a large extent, sympathise with the public climate. People are undoubtedly going through financial hell while we are cushioned. However, I am thinking in the long term. I presume we will eventually get a bit of sense, dismantle the existing financial system and install something that has at least some element of socialism.

I will make a final request. Presumably, statutory guidelines or the like will be drafted. Perhaps there could be a negotiation between the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Certain expenses could be quantified as being almost, if not fully, automatic, for example, research, preparation of Bills, etc. I will be interested to know the criteria and the allowable expenses and what means of vouching will be regarded as appropriate. I am poor at keeping receipts and lose them all the time, but I take the relaxed view that they will turn up somewhere. They always do. However, I am worried now. I accept that other Members have abused the system. We are probably in this horrible situation of having to account for everything because some of our colleagues were blatantly dishonest about expenses. I very much regret that.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is quite right. Careful guidelines will be prepared for people's information. We will know what we can spend money on, that we will receive receipts for same and that the spending will be accounted for. Oversight will be provided by the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, via spot checks. For this reason, Members must hold on to their receipts for a certain length of time, as SIPO will periodically dip into our accounts to ensure everything is fine, as is currently done in respect of the party leader's allowance.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister would like to agree it, I would be happy, but I will not press it at the moment.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a technical amendment to correct section 10G(1), which is to be inserted into the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938. The word "independent" replaces the word "individual", which was a typographical error in the draft.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I rather prefer the word "individual", but it will cause immense difficulty for the Government, screw the whole thing up and we will have to go back to stage 1.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister a timescale in mind for commencement? I may just decide not to take any allowance and forget about everything, but Independent Members must discuss with their personal assistants and so on how this system will be implemented, what bills must be kept and where, who will be responsible for that, etc. How imminent is the commencement? Perhaps there could be a grace period. Members need to know the statutory regulations or provisions on allowances if we are to accommodate ourselves to them. There may even be some degree of to and fro between representatives of the Houses and the Minister's Department. Will this system be landed on us at Christmas or some other festival?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of that issue. Section 10E provides for me as the Minister to be able to fix a date from which the provisions of the Act relating to reporting and the retention of documents will apply to Independent Members and leaders of qualifying parties. We want the legislation to be enacted, as it was a commitment made some time ago. We will need to have a bedding down period, but the accounting will not happen for a considerable time after the money has been drawn down. Members will have many months next year to get everything right. While I am anxious that the legislation would come into effect in terms of the 10% restriction, given that it will save money, I will ensure there is proper time for people to understand and apply the provisions to their circumstances in a rational and unhurried way.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I appreciate that the 10% restriction should apply straight away. It makes no difference to me. The other provision needs a bit more adjustment.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From 1 January, will Independent Members be required to account for the money they receive from that date on? I want a clear answer. The answer the Minister gave was not clear.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no need to bully.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking a question.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a very bullying way.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It sounded like bullying to me as well, but there we are. I am clear the provisions of this Bill will apply to everyone as soon as it is practicable. Senator Norris has made a valid point. To ensure people do not make mistakes and are prepared for this system, we will allow time for there to be some preparation in the reporting mechanisms. There will be a time gap between the commencement of the requirement and the reaching of the requirement to report, if Senator Byrne understands what I am saying. We can commence that all moneys are accountable from this date, but the process of how that is done will not come until the money has been drawn down during the course of the year and the year has concluded. Have I been clear?

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I was making a point on Senator Norris's behalf. I certainly did not intend to be bullying. I was merely asking a question because the Minister's answer was vague.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I saw a political statement coming out-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not at all.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

"The Minister resiles from accountability." There is no such thing as that. I am simply saying that-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has not answered the question. When does he intend to commence the Act?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As soon as is practicable. It had been my intention to start it from 1 January. I did not expect to spend three weeks in the Seanad before reaching Report Stage, which was originally meant to be taken today.

To schedule Report Stage, however, I have to get time in the other House. I therefore cannot give Senators an absolute commitment until the will of the Houses is determined in the first instance.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne's question is fair enough and I hope it did not unduly discommode Senator Norris.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose we extend the time for five minutes to allow us to conclude Committee Stage. We have practically finished it.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the House because I have to attend a select committee meeting.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we are all reasonably at one on this issue. The current allowance payable to us is called the parliamentary allowance.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the party leaders' allowance.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am referring to the current allowance of which all Deputies and Senators are in receipt. The parliamentary allowance is vouched half-way through the subsequent year when 10% of Members are selected for auditing. I presume that arrangement will apply. From the perspective of fairness and transparency for Independent Members, I ask the Minister to ensure detailed guidelines will be published early. I speak as someone who was audited under the scheme three or four years ago. In fact, it was the first year of the allowance so it was only partial. I was obliged to demonstrate I had spent €12,500 in that particular year. I had all my facts and figures because everything was paid by cheque. My genuine political expenses came to well over €20,000 but I felt the process quite unnerving and difficult. The language of the correspondence received from the auditors was negative, to put it mildly. In fact, I would describe it as almost threatening. I could show an expenditure of €20,000 plus, yet I was literally forced to prove myself innocent. The process started in April or May of the year in question, and it was the following November before I was finally given a letter and a certificate to say that everything was in order.

I had one small query which a phone call could have answered, yet a whole chain of correspondence had to be entered into. I am sure the auditors were doing their job fairly but to have matters working smoothly we need to liaise more fully with the auditors. We should ensure that a month after one's accounts are submitted, one would have a face-to-face meeting with the auditors. We may only be talking about 15 or 20 Members of the Oireachtas, but it would be a better system to have a meeting whereby questions could be dealt with rather than having an official, legalistic and almost threatening response.

In 2011, I simply decided to go back to the unvouched system, although the money was less, because I had had enough hassle from the vouched system. Now we all have to go via the vouched system but we need to have structures in place whereby politicians are treated as being, on the law of averages, honest, decent and not trying to break any law or swindle any money. Instead, however, we were more or less being found guilty until we could prove ourselves innocent. A better system needs to be put in place as well as improved communication between the independent auditors and Members who are being assessed. We should have a meeting four to six weeks after the accounts have been submitted in order that we would not have an endless chain of rather threatening mail from the office.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear what the Senator is saying and it is something of which I am aware. It is a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission, but I will certainly convey those views directly to that body. We should have a simple accounting mechanism with money being added up, receipts declared valid and that is that, I hope. We should not make it more onerous. I hear what the Senator is saying and I will convey his views strongly to the commission.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow.