asked the Minister for Finance if he has given consideration to the public funding of the parties represented in the Dáil to enable the political parties to develop facilities to allow wider public participation in their activities.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Funding of Political Parties.
18.
The Deputy will be aware that allowances for expenses are paid from the Central Fund to the leaders of the political parties, and that voted funds are also made available for secretarial assistance for Deputies who are not office-holders. In view of the many demands on the Exchequer, I would not be prepared to consider an extension of these arrangements.
Would the Minister agree that in the democratic system political parties are the main means by which citizens may influence policy in the State both between elections and at elections? Would it not be in the public interest and the democratic interest to give such facilities to political parties so that they can have adequate research staff to enable citizens to take part constructively in their activities and to free political parties from dependence on private contributors who thereby gain extra influence by funding political parties? Would it not be in the interests of democracy to have the taxpayer pay the sums required for political parties to maintain services?
I question the implication by the Deputy that people acquire influence or undue influence by subscribing to political parties.
Surely the Minister is not serious.
I am thinking in terms of the members of my political party who go around knocking at doors night after night, who go out and collect at church gates and so on and are not afraid to do it. There are people who do not like this job. It is a difficult job but if you cannot get people to do it, do not ask the taxpayer to pick up the tabs.
What about the Burlington?
Is that an indictment of the general secretary of the Minister's own party, Senator Brennan, who has recommended the course that I am suggesting to him? I ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude on this.
The position is as I have outlined.
Does the Minister's statement reflect a Government decision taken since the recent discussion between the general secretaries of the parties or has he decided this unilaterally without allowing the Government to discuss the matter that came up for discussion between the general secretaries?
The Deputy can be assured in the first instance that the basis of arriving at decisions is an internal matter which should not be the subject of questioning here in the House. He can take it that the reply which I have given will not be repudiated by the Government.
Have the Government had an opportunity to consider this matter raised by the general secretary of the Minister's party and discussed with the general secretaries of the other parties? Has he not permitted the Government to discuss it?
If the Deputy wants to attribute certain words to the general secretary of my party I would require a little more than just a free summary assertion by Deputy FitzGerald in the House.
I am not attributing words. I am referring to discussions between the general secretaries of the parties in the last few days. The Minister has pre-empted the Government considering this matter by giving a negative answer before the Government could consider it.
That is a matter for us.
It is a matter for the three political parties, particularly Fianna Fáil.
In case there is any misunderstanding, I have pointed out here in the House in respect of questions on other aspects of this, that if the political parties get together and agree on a different way of allocating the moneys which at present are allocated to political parties I would not be opposed to that. Is that what Deputy FitzGerald has in mind?
Would the Minister ponder the implications of a system which gives inadequate funding to political parties at present, which does not enable parties in Government or opposition to give the kind of services needed if citizens are to take part constructively in their activities? It is the right of a citizen in a democracy to be in that position. Instead the parties are handed over to private contributors and depend on such patronage in the main for maintaining their services. That is not in the interests of democracy.
There is another school of thought on this, and that is that if parties have sufficient support and confidence from people they will subscribe to them. If they do not that is a problem for the party concerned. The idea that political parties should be funded by the taxpayer and that the political parties in parliament decide what that funding would be is one that a number of people would object to. Whether he agrees or not, the Deputy must recognise that that point of view will be held by a lot of people.
The taxpayer should pay the burden, otherwise you are handing secret influence over to the wealthy.
We have extended the time to complete questions. I am calling question No. 19.
Since the Minister has raised the question of voluntary contributions to parties in opposition to State contributions, does he propose in future Finance Acts to make contributions to political parties from commercial companies something that they must declare publicly?
That is a separate question.
Deputy O'Leary was and may still be treasurer of the Labour Party. When he was in Government he made strenuous efforts with some little success to collect money from voluntary contributors, commercial and otherwise. Is it suggested that all of those should be published, too?
I am on record over the years as favouring the course I have suggested here. I know who in this House collects the lion's share of the contributions, and the Minister knows too. It is to change that situation that this whole area was made transparent and to give to the ordinary citizens the same rights as the wealthy.