The same Deputy is in possession and he has 17 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Ethics in Government and Public Office Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I fear there is no relief for Members of the House. Last night I indicated, when dealing with the provisions in Part II of the Bill which deals with the registration of Members' interests, that there are a number of fundamental flaws in the Bill. However, before returning to the Bill I would like to deal with another issue, that is the way this debate was reported on RTE, in particular on the "Morning Ireland" programme. Two matters were dealt with in that report. First, it was suggested that a proposal had been made that political parties be funded by the taxpayer. Deputy Howlin was at pains to point out this morning that that was not part of the Bill. Second, the RTE presenter referred continuously to Fianna Fáil opposition to the Bill. The Government are opposing the Bill and I would remind RTE that this is a two party Government. Fianna Fáil are opposing the Bill on the basis that it has many defects which were outlined last night. This was ignored in the report carried on RTE this morning.
Another issue ignored by RTE is the registration of Members' interests with which I dealt at some length last night.
The Deputy might get a mention in the morning.
That forms a central part of the Bill. It was not rejected in principle last night but rather because it was suggested that the matter could be dealt with by way of statute. As I pointed out last night — this point was also ignored by RTE — the question of whether this issue should be dealt with by way of a statute or order or under the rules of the House was addressed very thoroughly in 1981 by Fine Gael and Labour. In their Programme for Government at that time they promised to introduce a statute but following discussions between them they concluded, as both the Minister for Finance and I concluded last night, that the best way to deal with the issue of registration of Members' interests was by way of amendment to the rules of the House. The Minister for Finance indicated — the Ceann Comhairle is aware of this — that the matter has been before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for some time and the fact that there has been no progress is not because this side of the House are opposed to the principle. I hurl back any inputation that we are opposed to that principle in the face of the national broadcasting station.
That is terrible.
As I said, the issue is before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at present. The Minister suggested last night that the matter could best be handled as it is handled in the European Parliament, the German Bundestag, the Israeli Knesset, the Japanese Diet and the British House of Commons but it is not the way it is dealt with in The Netherlands where the scheme is operated on a voluntary basis.
Another relevant point is that the Coalition Government, who were in office until 1987, spent some considerable time considering this issue and I give them credit for that. They teased this matter out and came to the same conclusion I came to last night, that the best way to deal with the issue the registration of Members' interests was by way of an amendment to the rules of the House.
Another myth peddled this morning is that the Minister pushed the idea that we should consider funding the political parties from the Exchequer. I have very mixed feelings about that. However, the Minister said something entirely different last night. He responded to a suggestion made by Deputy Gay Mitchell that we should look at that issue. The Minister said, quite rightly, that if other parties in this House put forward proposals they would be considered. There is a heck of a different between that and a suggestion that the costs of the activities of political parties be met by the taxpayer. I hope the errors will be corrected.
I now wish to turn to the Bill. Last night I dealt with Part II of the Bill which dealt with the registration of Members' interests. I have no problem with that; indeed, I would favour such a register but would argue that the objective of the Bill is not achievable as it is set out and because a series of problems will have to be surmounted. However it can be achieved by making a relatively simple amendment to the rules of the House. I suggest that this is the most appropriate way to go about it. I am aware that this view is shared by Members of the other parties represented on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I now want to deal with Part III of the Bill which deals with the registration of income and expenditure of political parties. Sadly, we cannot legislate for good; we can only create a political climate where people can act in a positive way. In a very good contribution last night Deputy Howlin made the point that the Americans regulate the funding of political parties. With respect, I know a little about this. Last year I spent some time observing the mid-term Congressional elections in a number of US states.
Was the Deputy fund raising?
Unfortunately, I was not. However I spent some time examining the way they raise funds. One campaign in particular sticks in my mind and that was the extraordinary battle between Jessie Helmes and Harvey Gantt in North Carolina. Jessie Helmes stood for what he called North Carolina values and Harvey Gantt stood for progress and democracy.
That is a long way from Rathdrum.
The extraordinary thing is that it seemed easy to walk around or avoid what looks on the surface to be a very good structure to prevent political corruption by way of contributions and kick-backs to political parties. Jessie Helmes found himself in an extraordinary situation where the largest building in North Carolina was filled with people who made phone calls all day looking for $10, $15 and $20 contributions which do not have to be notified. One can make as many of these contributions as one likes. That is one way of getting around procedures.
Unlike Deputy Howlin, I do not believe the procedures he proposed will help but I do not blame him for trying. Unless we put forward proposals, examine and tease them out we will never know what is good, bad or indifferent. Having examined the way the law operates in this regard in other states is strikes me that the proposals put forward here will be about as useful as a colander for holding water. For example, we have no problem knowing who the leaders of parties are although one or two of our minor leftish parties perhaps have some difficulties in knowing who pulls the strings. We know the address of party headquarters, the names and addresses of officers, the normal fiscal period, the financial secretary's address and a whole series of things that are set out in section 20 of the Bill.
The one issue we do not know about is contributions and that is the core issue Deputy Howlin was getting to. I do not believe the issue of contributions is as pernicious in this House or in this country as some people suggest. I give full credit to Deputy Howlin for making the point clearly yesterday that he does not believe there is wide-scale corruption within the contribution system. I, for one, never accept contributions. It is a principle I have established. I do not know how we are going to create in statute what Deputy Howlin is looking for, but the provisions set down here are very easily avoided. They are not what they set out to be. They are not protecting us from people who would do evil things. For example, there is no problem in avoiding the provisions of this if one sets out to do so. Multiple contributions are not dealt with here. One can make contributions of £50 today, £50 tomorrow and £50 the next day and it mounts up fairly fast.
Therefore, the Bill is being opposed by the Government not because the principles involved in this Bill are not good. Some of the principles which this Bill seeks to progress are good. The problem is that the manner in which they are addressed in this Bill is not efficient and will not be effective. I commend the Labour Party for dedicating a portion of their limited Private Members' Time to this, as one Deputy from that party said last night, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue of ethics here.
I object to the suggestion that a Bill governing ethics should apply to Government only, to Ministers, Ministers of State and the Attorney General. Ethics should apply to everybody in public office. If an interest is to be taken in the issue of ethics a line should not be drawn at the 166 Members of Dáil Éireann or 60 Members of Seanad Éireann. An ethics debate is needed——
The Deputy did not read the Bill.
I did.
He must not have read the explanation.
The Deputy knows me better than that. I read it fairly well, and he was not here last night when I contributed.
I was here last night.
He was not here throughout the entirety of it. The point I make is that this ethics issue needs to be examined in a way which goes far beyond this Bill's examination. All office holders and all Members of Dáil Éireann and the political parties in Dáil Éireann need to consider this issue from time to time. The opposition from this side of the House to this Bill comes not because of any problems with principle but because of very serious problems with the practicalities of the Bill. Where this matter has been thrashed out at Government level not just recently but going back over the last ten years one issue has been studied in detail. When Fine Gael and Labour were in Government they had precisely the same view as to how we control the issue of interests, that is by regulation of this House. I do not blame them for trying to score the odd political point on it or for trying to take the high ground on it, but let us just deal with the factual situation. The issue is a serious one which needs to be dealt with seriously. The problem is the Bill is so full of flaws that it cannot be commended to the House.
Needless to say, I stand to support this very important Bill. In a sense it is a historic Bill which should be accepted wholeheartedly by all and sundry and without a shadow of doubt by the Opposition and Fianna Fáil, because a legislator is one who makes the laws of the land and must be seen above all else to be honest. If we are not seen to be honest by the people on whose behalf we legislate, then democracy is on rocky soil. The problem in Ireland today is that large numbers of people are questioning the honesty of politicians. When once again we are knocking at doors or in pubs or wherever at election time I am sure we will hear the throw-away but insulting remarks that are very offensive to us politicians, such as, "Sure you are only in it for what you can get out of it". That is very hurtful but we cannot run away fom the fact that people feel that we are not all above corruption, we are not upright citizens of the State. Above all they believe we have powers or channels open to us that leave us above the law on many occasions.
One classic example of people's perception of what we are is the fact that thousands of people out there believe that one need not bother, that a politician will soon fix one's parking fine. That opinion is widespread and people come to politicians to have their fines fixed. The logic then is that, if we fix their fines, as they believe we can, we ourselves never have to pay fines. I assure the House that is not so, unfortunately. I am supposed to be a law abiding citizen as is nearly everybody else but on accasions I err and let the meter run out and so on, and I can assure people that fines have to be paid.
This image of us is bad for democracy. Recent publicity about politicians who have been able to avoid prosecution for allegedly, say, driving under the influence of drink, reinforces the view the public have of us that politicians do not have to go to court because they are politicians and somehow there is a law for them and a law for the rest of us.
The curse of land rezoning and material contraventions very often results in adding substantial value to property that on some occasions is owned by politicians or known to be owned by politicians' friends or members of political parties. That does nothing to enhance our image; in fact, it is extremely damaging for it. It is another contribution to the confused views people have of us. As happens in housing estates that a few bad apples get a place a bad name, so it is in politics but unfortunately in politics when the mud sticks it is very difficult to come up looking whiter than white. However, I believe sincerely that the vast bulk of public representatives are honest and hard working people. Therefore, it is more important than ever, given the huge gulf that exists between ourselves with our relatively good incomes, status and standard of living and those of the armies of unemployed and lowly paid, that we should be prepared to expose our interests and directorships, if any, as provided in this Bill so that the public can and will believe us when we say our only interest here as public representatives is to create a better society for all our people and we are not just in it for what we can get out of it.
We can be proud that there have been no major scandals or incidences of corruption of the type which have afflicted other parliaments. I am thinking of recent scandals in Japan and the Netherlands. The more this Government refuse to take on board the principles outlined in this Bill, the more suspect we will be in the eyes of the public. Have we anything to hide? The Minister for Finance might answer on behalf of Fianna Fáil. If we have nothing to hide then we should support the Bill. The public should not be encouraged in their suspicions as to what the life of a politician is all about. We as a nation have never been scandalised by events such as the Learfan aircraft manufacturing scandal that shook the Netherlands. We have never had cases of senior Ministers, Taoisigh or Heads of State bringing our State into disrepute by having to resign in disgrace, as happened recently in Japan. A scandal is unfolding in the United States involving Senators who were in receipt of substantial contributions from wealthy financiers. The Senators felt obliged to come to the rescue of the financial backers by interceding on their behalf and trying to call off investigators. We should be grateful that such issues have not arisen here but we can never be complacement. This Bill presents us with a golden opportunity to remove the suspicions people have of us.
Official gifts exchanged between Ministers or Heads of State should never be seen as anything other than the property of the State. The cost of gifts presented on behalf of the people of Ireland is invariably borne from the State coffers. The exchange of gifts is not a personal act but rather an indication of goodwill on behalf of the people. Gifts received should be accepted by the recipient on behalf of the people.
The exchange of gifts very often commemorates historical events. The Office of Mayor of Dublin was instituted in 1229, while from 1641 the holder of the Office was entitled to add the prefix "lord". Isaac Butt became the first freeman of the city in 1896, but Dublin has a very long history, as indicated by the celebration of the millennium in 1988. Many famous people have played a part in Dublin's history and numerous gifts must have been exchanged, yet if one visits the Civic Museum in South William Street one finds no items identified with the mayors, lord mayors or freemen of the city. Where have these gifts gone? The people have lost out because they were not preserved for the benefit of the city.
I agree with much that Deputy Mitchell said last night. His party seem to have a problem in that people run away when they see them coming in case they will be asked to subscribe a few bob for the party. I am delighted to say that we in The Workers' Party do not experience that when we ask for a few bob.
They print their own.
Fundraising is time consuming and people feel they should be devoting their energies to more important political activities. This Bill is an attempt to put in place a legal framework to ensure public accountability. There is an overwhelming need to set high standards in high places. This country is an exception in that we do not limit the gifts which public office holders can receive, nor do we expect our legislators to declare their financial interests. The case for reform in both these areas has often been made and it is only a matter of time before a structure is put in place.
I welcome the indication by the Minister for Finance regarding State funding for political parties. Deputy Mitchell referred to the fact that we should have some controls over the amounts of money that political parties and individuals within political parties can spend. We have to send our members to rattle tin cans in places like public houses and to go from door to door and from church to church. Certain of our opponents who have access to quite substantial sums of money can effectively make a presentation at election time which is disproportionate to the amount of work which has been carried out. There is a need to balance the books and to control the amount of money that parties and individuals are allowed to spend. I presume that the Minister for Finance was speaking yesterday on behalf of the Government. Surely the disbursal of Exchequer funds is better than below-the-counter dealing in political donations. The continuing allegations that succcessive Governments made political decisions that were beneficial to commercial interests would not arise if political party finances were open to public scrutiny.
It is ironic that Mr. Michael McDowell, Chairman of the Progressive Democrats who as we all know, represent the other half of the Government, is opposed to the public funding of political parties. All Members of this House receive public funding, the State pays our telephone expenses in Leinster House, and pays wages of our secretarial assistants, and we receive our allocation of 1,200 envelopes pre-paid every month. Salaries are paid to TDs and Senators and we have the various other facilities provided to Members of the House. Even the Taoiseach's nominees to the Seanad receive State funding. We are very lucky also that we receive not only a salary for coming to work but also £25 per sitting day for walking across the threshold of the building. That places us in a position that would make many a trade union member in outside industry envious. Perhaps the Progressive Democrats' opposition has something to do with the ease with which they can still raise money from, for example, their friends in the corporate sector. One wonders what happened to the earlier radical ideas to publish the names of donators of over £1,000 to the Progressive Democrats. Or, perhaps, the opposition to public funding relates to the declining political fortune of the Progressive Democrats and their fear of losing out in the proportionality system that operates in the Dáil.
The section of the Bill which deals with gifts to office holders has a glaring omission in the range of office holders covered by the Bill. For example, the Office of President is not included. Such an important public office should be included in the legislation. There is an assumption that politicians are corrupt, that corruption in political circles is widespread but I, for one, do not accept that that is the case. Politicians need to protect themselves from such allegations. The best way to do so is to introduce measures in this House that set out rules in relation to receiving gifts and to declaration of interests. Unfortunately, this House has refused to do so in the past but I hope this Bill will spur moves to open a process of accountability.
For over two years a proposal has been before the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileages to set up a register of financial and other interests of Members of the Dáil. For some reason this proposal has not been dealt with to date. The Minister for Finance came into the House last night and stated expansively that these are matters entirely for the House to decide, a responsibility given to this House by the Constitution. One must ask then when the proposal which has beeen before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for over two years will be dealt with. Will it be dealt with next year or in the lifetime of the next Dáil, or, in the next Dáil session? Is it the case that those who hold public office find that receiving gifts is a long standing tradition? If that tradition brings into question the advisability of those in office receiving expensive gifts from either other foreign governments or business interests, and create an atmosphere of being bought for political favours given in return, at least, the system should be reformed to protect honest and hardworking office holders. I would like to mention the instance of the famous gifts given to the Taoiseach, to his wife and to certain members of the Cabinet in 1983 by a Saudi prince at an official function in Iveagh House. Whatever about the gift-giving tradition as such, we cannot allow an impression to be created that favours are bestowed by the Government of the day in return for very expensive gifts. I have no doubt that, for instance, the dagger and some other items, will find their way into our museums eventually. The Taoiseach is on record as saying that in due course the dagger will find its way into proper custodial care and will be well and truly looked after.
A Deputy
On someone's back.
Be careful.
In other countries the political leaders have seen it as a wise move to limit and regulate the gift-giving tradition. In the USA, for example, all official gifts which are valued at over $140 cannot become the property of the President of the United States. In fact, the US operates a system of whisking away all gifts to be catalogued and valued. Each year, they publish for all to see in the official Federal register, a list of gifts received. Why can such a small country as the Republic of Ireland not follow this example? I recall the case of a senior American official who, on returning from Japan, brought home a gift of a small wrist watch and being sacked for having had the audacity not to declare the gift. Equally in the United Kingdom they have very strict rules for gifts given to the Prime Minister and Government Ministers. They place a monetary value of £50 on gifts which are given to the Prime Minister or to Government Ministers and which they may keep. When the gift is in excess of £50 in value it becomes the property of the Office and not of the person. There is a subtle and important difference between the gift to the person and the gift to the Office. I ask sincerely why we cannot have such a system?
Needless to say, The Workers' Party will be supporting this Bill. There are very important reasons the Bill should be supported, not least of which is that, for example, listeners to "Morning Ireland", following the last election were stunned one morning to hear the usually mild mannered Minister for Tourism and Transport, Deputy Séamus Brennan completely lose his cool when an interviewer asked him the kind of simple straightforward question that nobody should be embarrassed to answer, least of all Government Ministers. The question posed was: "Does Tony Ryan contribute to Fianna Fáil?" If we had the type of register we are seeking that information would have been readily available. If there was accountability and if £1,000 gifts which were being received were recorded then there would be no need for any Minister to be embarrassed, to lose his head and subsequently go on to kick up such a stink that almost cost a man his job.
Reference to the Minister is obviously quite in order but I would be concerned about any reference to a person outside the House who has no redress against reflections made on him in this privileged assembly.
I will not mention the RTE interviewer. The question was in the context of the very favourable arrangements that the Minister, Deputy Séamus Brennan, made to keep Ryanair in business. The irony of this row — which started off as being a simple question — was that within 24 hours Guinness Peat Aviation issued a statement confirming that they did, in fact, contribute to Fianna Fáil, and to three other parties in this House. Why was the Minister so agitated? If the proposed Bill had been enacted there would have been no need for the Minister to become excited at such a straightforward question because the record would have shown that Guinness Peat Aviation, through their boss, had made contributions. That person is not the only one who makes contributions to political parties and everybody knows that Fianna Fáil are not the only recipient of corporate funding particularly at election time.
I recall that one of the mining companies in Donegal insisting on The Workers Party receiving money, which was unsolicited, and placed it in an account. We had a great joy giving the money back to them; we did not accept it. At that time it came out quite openly that these companies were making contributions to all the political parties — they had a ball in every court. When the Minister was asked a straightforward question he got very agitated but he never said whether Dr. Tony Ryan contributed to Deputy Brennan's own——
Again, I deprecate reference to a person outside the House.
I am talking about a contribution from GPA. If GPA, through one of their board members did not so contribute was it not the straight and simple thing for the Minister to have said so.
The matter of accountability for financial contributions to the individual politicians, and the amount of money an individual politician is permitted to spend either seeking election or throughout the year is an extremely sensitive and topical issue. There are international comparisons to show why we should not continue as we are, and why there is every reason to introduce this Bill.
I compliment the Labour Party on the amount of work they put into this Bill and I will support them when the vote is called. This Bill once and for all will help allay the fears of people that politics is a dirty business. I would be very encouraged by an indication from the Fianna Fáil Party that they no longer wish to be misunderstood, if that is the case, that they are happy to forget the period when TACA were involved in collecting so much money for the party, and that their links with industry, commerce and trade are purely on a political footing and decisions taken by various Ministers, or by the Government, are not a quid pro quo or political payola for the people who are providing the financial resources to back the party.
I take great offence and I know Members on this side of the House and all honest politicians take offence, at the slanderous allegations made against politicians. People express their views on politicians in a nasty and throw away manner. Ministers, TDs, Senators, and all politicians time and time again enforce those fears by their behaviour and by not being open and declaring their interests in land, property or business. We can no longer continue to behave in this way. I instanced the case of GPA, but the most dangerous incident of all was the alleged relationship between the Minister for Communications, Deputy Burke, the Broadcasting Bill and those involved with Century Radio. When one casts one's mind back to the Broadcasting Bill one has to forgive the public who accused us of being semi-corrupt politicians. If the public see such apparent political preferences for business people who are known to be party members or supporters then we will never be able to hold our heads high. I ask the Government to accept the principles of this Bill.
I welcome the opportunity afforded to us to debate the wider issues relating to the ethics in Government and Public Office Bill. I compliment Deputy Howlin on bringing it forward. However, I cannot let pass much of what Deputy Burne said in his contribution. Whilst he stated he was not making any slanderous allegations against politicians and that he resented the public at large making cynical and slanderous statements about politicians, he more or less did that by innuendo when he instanced Ministers' performances in their respective portfolios. He questioned why the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, became so annoyed when asked about funding by GPA. I could put a similar point to the Deputy, and ask why the leaders of The Workers' Party became annoyed when very substantive and well researched articles were written in the early eighties about covert funding of that party via bank robberies or from a famous incident when millions of forged £5 notes were discovered. Associations were made in the public media with that party.
That is an absolute slander.
I never said those allegations were true. I never interrupted the Deputy when he made slanderous innuendoes against Ministers in my party and my party.
There is not a shred of evidence to support the Deputy's allegations.
The Deputy is becoming very agitated.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Martin should be allowed to continue.
I respectfully suggest that the Ministers became agitated for exactly the same reason the Deputy is now becoming agitated. I am not making these allegations; those allegations were made in the public media and they have never been substantively refuted by The Workers' Party. The Workers' Party have not explained to this day how they have enjoyed quite an extraordinary capacity to fund their election campaigns over the past decade.
GPA agreed they gave money to the Deputy's party.
They have never explained their extraordinary capacity to fund quite a comprehensive research operation.
Dedication.
Much more than dedication is required. We can all throw broadsides across the House.
I never saw the Deputy with a tin can.
We can all engage in innuendo and make slanderous allegations about how one funds one's political operations but suffice to say that the allegations levelled at The Workers' Party in the public media have never been substantively refuted. We just had blunt denials and, perhaps with the connivance of certain people in the media, the matter has been conveniently swept under the carpet. It was not the tabloid press who made these allegations; they were made by journalists for whom I have considerable respect and who at times made allegations against other parties. They could not be considered to be partisan in their coverage of the proceedings of this House or, indeed, of the political parties of this House.
I suggest that the Deputy should address the provisions in the Bill.
Certainly. The essence of the Minister's argument in his opening address was that what the Bill was endeavouring to achieve need not necessarily be achieved by statutory basis or by legislative means, that essentially the issues covered by the Bill could be dealt with under the auspices of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and under the rules of the House. Indeed, some measures in the Bill are already on the agenda of that committee, particularly in relation to the registration of political party funding, the registration of particular interests of Members outside the House, and so on. The Minister correctly made the point that the Bill is not necessary or appropriate. There is a certain implication in the Bill that there is widespread corruption going on, or that a tremendous number of gifts is being handed to Ministers, which is leading to corruption. There is no evidence to substantiate that. Indeed, Deputy Howlin went to lengths to deny that implication. I agree with what Deputy Roche said last night; I never cease to wonder at the capacity of politicians to constantly beat themselves with a stick.
There are many other areas of public administration and public life for which one could pose the same arguments that have been heard in relation to the Bill. The public service is one clear example. Any member of the public service can from time to time be compromised in his or her dealings and there can always be conflict of interest and so on. Why restrict the provisions of the Bill to office holders, to Ministers, the Attorney General or the Taoiseach? Why should the Bill not apply across the board? Furthermore, one must bear in mind that although the issue was contained in the programme for Government from 1981-86 and the Labour Party and Fine Gael agreed at that time to bring in such a measure once those parties came into Government they failed to deliver. The issue was quietly swept under the carpet and was left there without implementation. What a wonderful conversion there is once those parties are back in Opposition. For the sake of publicity or whatever Members can start to move Bills of this kind. However, if they get back into Government such Bills are put to the bottom of the list and never find their way on to the Statute Book.
There is a code of conduct already in existence for Ministers. A Government procedure instruction spells out a code of conduct on gifts and conflicts of interest. Ministers are fully aware of their positions and their duties and responsibilities. We live in a democracy, we have a free news media, we have free comment and we have a free Press. More important, the Dáil is supreme in these matters. Every Minister has to come before the Dáil and has to have the confidence of the Dáil. Quite distinct from the Government, every Minister must have the individual vote of the Dáil even when first appointed, and subsequently might have to withstand motions of no confidence and so forth. Every Minister has to have the confidence of the Dáil at all times in the discharge of his or her duties. That is a very important point. The electorate have ultimate control of that issue. Given that we are in a democracy and a free world, the electorate can analyse for themselves, can assess the performance of Ministers and the manner in which they conduct their business, and can vote accordingly at regular intervals in general elections.
The present Bill is also too cumbersome. Section 2 (2) has already been mentioned. That section offers and escape route for everything and is the Bill's major weakness. It excludes any gifts made to an office holder by a personal friend, by a member of the family of that office holder, or by the spouse of the office holder, for purely personal reasons. Because of that section and many other sections, the Bill cannot be enforced and could never be enforced.
The Minister also pointed out that the Bill is inappropriate in an EC context. Some EC Ministers might get on much better with each other on a personal basis than they do with other Ministers. Under section 2 (2) who would determine whether a gift was received because a Minister was a personal friend? That provision would be very difficult to sort out and enforce.
Furthermore, one should also understand that in some cultures the giving of gifts is part of establishing relationships with other states, with other Governments, and so on. It is almost part of the political behaviour of Far Eastern countries in many ways. Very often that can be frustrating because it means that it takes so long to get things done, but it is part of the culture of those countries.
The method envisaged by Deputy Howlin in the Bill could be cumbersome — to bring in a valuer to value the gifts would be rather ridiculous if the value was about £250. I am not confident that the process works well in the United States. The United States has its own problems, and Ireland should not look automatically to the United States or to Europe for the solution to every problem and every issue.
I welcome the fact that towards the end of the Minister's speech he brought up the funding of political parties. That issue was contained in the final paragraph of his speech and generated a considerable degree of public interest. I agree with the Minister that consideration should be given to the funding of political parties.
I want to point out that already allowances of a sort are paid to political parties specifically in relation to parliamentary activities. That provision goes back to 1938 under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, which provided for the payment of annual allowances to the leader of the largest Opposition party and to the leader of the second-largest Opposition party only. That Act was amended by the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act, 1960, which provided for times when there would be one Opposition party only, two Opposition parties, or three or more Opposition parties.
The legislation was again amended in 1973 to provide for the payment of an allowance to be leader of the Government party or parties, the allowance to be paid to the leaders of qualified parties only. A "qualified party" is one that contested the previous general election as an organised party and had not fewer than seven Members returned at that election. In the present Dáil there is one qualified Government party, Fianna Fáil, and three qualified Opposition parties, Fine Gael, the Labour Party, and The Workers' Party. The Progressive Democrats are not a qualified party as they had fewer than seven Members returned at the previous general election. The allowances were increased by the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act in line with increases recommended for parliamentarians in report 30 of the review body on the public sector.
As matters stand now, political parties are being funded in respect of their parliamentary duties: Fianna Fáil receive £118,422, Fine Gael get £169,000 and the Labour Party and The Workers' Party get £95,442. I make that point to illustrate that already there is a precedent of a sort for funding the activities of political parties. What the Minister is advocating in many respects is consideration of an expansion of that position on a broad basis of funding political parties per se.
There are several difficulties. People have already asked whether the taxpayer would be satisfied or happy to fund political parties. The issue is a little broader than that. It is an issue that transcends that in many respects. Democracy itself is work funded. I agree with the concept of funding political parties.
One of the great deficiencies in our system — and I have made this point in the Dáil before — is the lack of secretarial and research backup for individual political parties and for individual parliamentarians. Such provision is nothing short of appalling. Funding towards that would be very desirable and welcome. It would have a very beneficial impact on the performance of our parliamentarians. Because our system is so centralised and bureaucratic, the public representative is very often at a disadvantage. He or she is constantly faced with expert advice from people in the public service or local authorities, be they planners, engineers, or whatever. Those people are carrying out research full time. They produce documentation for public representatives. There really is a case to be made for public representatives to have access to independent expertise and research. At present that depends on the activity and energy capacity of each individual parliamentarian to pursue his or her own research. Two or three aides who would concentrate on research are needed. In that way there would be better performances in the Dáil and the public would get better value for money because alternative viewpoints would emerge as against the viewpoints from local authorities or Government Departments.
In the whole area of transport policy in cities and counties, in many respects councillors, and indeed Dáil Deputies, are at the mercy of planning departments or of a particular school of thought on a given issue. In third level colleges, universities and so on there are many different views on issues such as transport policy, waste disposal or whatever, and it is important that public representatives have the capacity to gain access to that type of information. At present, with the help of a secretary, they spend so much time on constituency work, dealing with correspondence and so on, that there is very little time to engage in research. A very strong case could be made for funding political parties and targeting that funding towards research with a view to improving the performance of Deputies.
Deputy Gay Mitchell said last night that funding of political parties should be in proportion to the strength of the parties and the strength of a candidate's first preference vote in the last election. The only difficulty I would have with that is that in many respects it could be seen as reinforcing the existing political strength in the House. It would make it very difficult for Independents or new groupings to emerge. I am speaking against myself and my own party in this respect because obviously we would benefit to the greatest extent under the arrangement mentioned by Deputy Mitchell. When living in a democracy other parties and groups must have an opportunity to emerge. Some other modus operandi should be developed in relation to funding. The status quo could be copperfastened forever if party political funding were to relate solely to the achievements of the last general election because issues very and crises emerge. If we go back over history, political parties have been formed and have developed and grown on the basis of a single issue at a particular time. Cognisance must be taken of that and whatever system is developed should be flexible enough to accommodate such a scenario. I took part in a debate recently on the question of glasnost in eastern Europe and whether there would be glasnost in Ireland. It was respectfully suggested that there would never be glasnost or perestroika in Ireland if the system of funding that people are talking about was brought in. That is one reservation I would have in relation to that matter.
I have mentioned the question of research, but the Bill does not deal with that issue. It is a matter that should be considered by all political parties. Deputies who have said that the taxpayer would not be satisfied with this idea have been political point scoring, and it is a rather cheap point to make at this stage. The Minister's suggestion is worthy of consideration by all parties in the House. It is important to note the context of his statement. He was merely opening up an opportunity for debate and not laying down any sacred laws or coming down definitively on one side or the other. He merely made the point that the issue is not addressed in this Bill and that perhaps it should be addressed on an all-party, non-partisan basis.
It is important to put on the record that money does not in itself win elections. Underpinning the debate here — it has not been directly said — is the idea that if you have money you will be elected, but that is not true. In my short time in politics I have witnessed people entering into the fray of general elections or local elections and spending a lot of money, sometimes £30,000 or £40,000, but not getting elected and not even making an appreciable impact on the electorate. That is worth bearing in mind. Irrespective of the number of posters you print, the number of advertisements you take in newspapers or the number of leaflets you produce and distribute, you may not win an election. The electorate are too wise to be codded in that way. To be elected a candidate must have a certain degree of support in a local community and certain qualities that appeal to the electorate irrespective of how much money or resources they have at their disposal. The notion is beginning to emerge that if you have plenty of money you will get elected but that is erroneous, and there are plenty of examples around the country which would bear out my point. That should be borne in mind when debating matters of this kind.
The Minister also said that there could be serious constitutional difficulties with aspects of the Bill, particularly when dealing with the register of Members' interests and so on. Under Article 15.10 of the Constitution each House of the Oireachtas has the exclusive right to determine its own rules and procedures. Questions concerning Members' private finances seem to be covered by that article. While other matters pertaining to Oireachtas members, such as the electoral system, allowances and so on, are governed by legislation, the basis for such statutory control is explicitly laid down in the Constitution. By enshrining provisions concerning Members' private interests we would be running the risk of being in breach of the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. That is a matter that should be addressed by the Labour Party and by Deputy Howlin in winding up the debate.
I will come back to the issue which gave rise to the introduction of this Bill, the implication that there is something inherently corrupt in Irish political life. There has been no public demand for this Bill. I have not received one letter or one phone call from my constituents urging that a Bill of this kind be introduced. The reason it was introduced — and this has been borne out by some of the speeches we have heard tonight — was basically to throw more innuendo at the present Government and at certain Ministers, and that is particularly sad.
A sad fact.
Despite people's protests that they were not going down that road, that was the bottom line in bringing in this Bill and in the speeches we have heard. We can all have different persepectives on issues, and mention was made of certain policy decisons by Ministers. Of course one could say that The Workers Party or the Labour Party will invariably take one perspective of the matter.
Ask RTE what do they think of the Broadcasting Bill.
The Deputy knows more about RTE than I do.
Look at Century Radio and Ryanair.
Let us consider those issues. Century Radio were set up as a result of a demand from the electorate for a multiplicity of broadcasting networks. The Deputy does not look at it from that perspective. The Opposition or the people from the left look at it from one narrow perspective: what is in it for a Minister or a politician. They do not look at it from a public point of view. The policy underpinning that legislation was a very popular one with the people, basically to give people a choice in broadcasting.
The Bill was based on the policy of——
With all due respects, at no time did I interrupt Deputy Byrne. I would respectfully ask him to allow me the courtesy of continuing. I was making the point that it depends on what perspective you take of the matter. Many people would consider the air transport legislation as maintaining competition in the airways and that if Ryanair went to the wall we would be back to the old days of Aer Lingus monopoly and high air fares, which would have a detrimental impact on the tourist industry, jobs and so on. The same applies to broadcasting; there would have been a monopoly despite the fact that the people were way ahead of the Legislature by supporting illegal radio for over ten years. Eventually, the Legislature caught up with them and legislated for a multiplicity of broadcasting services and giving people choice of access to different news and information gathering. Of course, other Members of the House did not want to look at it that way, they said the legislation was brought in to feather someone's nest.
Airlines have been the losers as competition increased, they are losing money. Deputy Byrne does not represent rural Ireland, The Workers' Party are thin on the ground there which probably illustrates reaction to their views on these issues, and the great fear in rural areas is that regional airports could close or suffer irreparable damage if we do not maintain the Ryanair operation.
Why are they not going into Knock?
Acting Chairman
Please allow Deputy Martin to continue.
There was a very strong policy basis underpining that decision but again the allegation was made that somebody's nest was being feathered. However, as I pointed out, money is being lost wholesale in that operation as it is a very expensive business. Any objective economic analysis will make the point that Ryanair are losing a lot of money and that regional airports are in some difficulty. This is all in the context of the Government's policy to promote the tourist industry and to create an extra 15,000 jobs per annum in the industry.
Whose nest has been feathered in the broadcasting area? It has not proved profitable for many people, it is a great hole down which money has gone.
Aer Lingus and RTE are footing the bill.
I have been extremely patient——
Acting Chairman
Please, Deputy Byrne, allow Deputy Martin to continue. He did not interrupt you.
Quite a lot of money was lost in the area of private broadcasting and the people who got the licences, with respect, are probably wishing they have never received them and would be delighted if someone could bail them out. There has been very little rational debate in all these areas, it is a question of slanderous allegations. There has been very little objective analysis of these issues and perhaps Deputy Byrne, in being drawn out on this Bill, is giving his real reasons for supporting it as opposed to those he advanced earlier. He likes to have a good bash at Fianna Fáil and their Ministers.
I agree with what the Minister said, there is food for thought in his contribution. The question of funding political parties should be discussed on an all-party and non-partisan basis in the House.
I am delighted to have the privilege of making a short contribution on this Bill. In principle, I am in favour of what the Bill sets out to do and we all understand the reasons for introducing it. I have reservations about some of the details but more about that later. We all accept that people in public office should be protected in a number of ways. First, they need to be protected from themselves in the sense that there is always a tendency for people on the other side — whatever side that is — at any time to use information or to imply certain things and, for political purposes, to exploit a situation which may be damaging to the other person. That will apply as long as politics are politics and as long as we have the adversarial system which, of course, is democracy; we must accept that.
In the local authority system there has been a declaration of interests for a number of years which has worked very well. I can honestly say that in my time, over the last ten or 15 years as a member of a local authority, I have seen that system assiduously applied. When a discussion arises on a subject in which a contributor may have an interest it is crucial at that point to declare the interest. There are pros and cons because in one section of the Bill there is a proposal to declare liabilities and debts in excess of £1,000. I do not know about other Members of the House, but I can assure you — from my personal knowledge of politicians over the years — that it would be very difficult to find one who did not have a liability of at least £1,000 in some shape or form. It may be useful to disclose that information to this House, for example, to local authorities or health boards but it may not be beneficial from the point of view of the politicians concerned or political parties to have that kind of information made public because the fact that a person owns property or a business means that it may be used against him; so too can a liability be used against someone in public office. For example, in the rezoning of land if it becomes publicly known that a person has a financial liability there are people outside the political system who will automatically see it as an opportunity to achieve their own particular objectives. The pros and cons need to be carefully assessed and weighed up before we opt for one side or the other.
I fully agree with the declaration of interest and the register but, when that information becomes public knowledge, a person attempting to achieve an objective may well use information they got through the system to achieve it having regard to the strength or weaknesses they see in the party or politician at whom they are looking. I do not want to go into it in too much detail but I have had the doubtful pleasure of discussing with people involved in public life that very possibility, the vulnerability of being liable and having that knowledge made public. The danger which could then arise is that the public figure might be an usable commodity to the advantage of the unscrupulous person who is totally outside public life. It is then that the person outside public life can call the tune. It is a dangerous and difficult situation.
There was a reference to the system in the United States. I mean no disrespect but I am rather dubious about it. It is well known that business and politics work hand in glove in the United States. It has been written and talked about for the last 50 or 60 years and we have read and heard a lot about it. There are advantages but there are serious disadvantages and on countless occasions we have read about the disadvantages. The danger is that when you have disclosure to the broad masses outside which perhaps gets into the hands of unscrupulous people, then all sides of the House are left open to attack, not from the people inside but from those outside who may well decide to use information for their own benefit.
I understand why the declaration of the interests of a family is contained in the Bill because there is something similar in relation to the Companies Bill which was put there for a very good reason. There may well be difficulties in this area if the spouses of people involved in public life have to declare their interests in private businesses. I would have no difficulty including such information in a register which would be held by the Clerk of the Dáil or the Clerk of the Seanad, as the case may be. While I accept that the public are entitled to have access to information, some members of the public may put pressure on the spouses of Members of this House, thereby putting them into a difficult position.
I want to refer to the funding of political parties. It is timely that we should be addressing this issue. Some people are in favour of public funding of political parties while others are definitely against it. Those who say they are against the funding of political parties by the state do so on the basis of the public's reaction to the use of taxpayers' money to fund political parties. There are various reasons the general public have an aversion to such a proposal. However, if people want a democratic system they should be prepared to pay for it. If we want to have a democratic system, then we must ensure the system can be funded legitimately.
I do not see why political parties should not be funded by the State. There is nothing wrong with that. I am not making an allegation, but it is a well known fact that political parties receive donations from people in all walks of life. People are entitled to make such donations. However, if political parties and democracy have to depend solely on this type of funding, the time may come when a few people who make large contributions could exert a disproportionate amount of influence on a certain political party. This applies to all parties in the House at any given time. I am not making an allegation against anyone in the House.
As time goes on the need can be seen to provide some kind of structure where legitimate political parties can be funded by taxpayers' money, for which they would be accountable. Political parties cannot continue to rely entirely on funding, for which they have always been grateful, from private individuals, collections, etc., because the demands on political institutions are far greater now than they were ten or 15 years ago and the need to provide a steamlined service for the public is much greater now than it was ten or 15 years ago and vastly greater than it was 25 or 30 years ago. The demands being made on political institutions are growing all the time. The need to fund political parties is also growing all the time and, despite what the public might say disparagingly from time to time about politicians, unless they can be legitimately funded by the State, then political parties will have to rely more and more on the other type of funding about which allegations have often been made in this House.
While I am on this point, I should like to say that both individuals and businesses have made contributions to political parties for the very good reason that they recognise the democratic system. A different system of Government is operated in some other countries and the people there do not have the right to vote in elections, change Governments, or remove them from office. People in this country have that right and both private individuals and business people recognise that they are part and parcel of the democratic system and that the political system is a natural progression of business, enterprise and life in a country. For that reason these people have made contributions to political parties in the past and will no doubt continue to do so.
It has been alleged from time to time — unfortunately the system leaves itself open to this — that people who make contributions automatically expect favours. It is wrong to say that, even on a limited basis. Just as there has always been abuse of every system, there are always exceptions to the rules. There will always be people who will try to manipulate others and allegations will be made about people in public office and outside it. We should not assume that this is the general practice and that every time someone makes a contribution to a political party they automatically expect some kind of recompense by way of planning permission, a Government contract, etc. It does not always happen that way. People make contributions for no reason other than they agreed with something that was done or said.
The poor cannot respond in the same way.
There are positive and negative aspects and once information is made available everyone should be equal. One cannot equate every argument with the argument about the alleged rich and the poor. We cannot make a decision on every issue which comes before us on the basis of whether we are on the side of the rich or the poor. There are other matters which also have to be taken into account. Questions about wealth or influence are neither here nor there.
I am sure many poor people have contributed what they could afford to political parties or systems. It is as big a sacrifice for the poor to make a contribution to a political party as it is for a wealthy person. I do not think the issue of whether one is rich or poor arises in this context. The theory is that if we all get enough information we can destroy each other; we will have so much information on each other that no one will be able to enter public office, say anything or go into business. If a poor person gets a local authority house someone will suggest that he got it by unfair means. That is not the way the system works and it should never be brought down to that. I am surprised Deputy Byrne should make such a suggestion. Deputy Byrne is a fine public figure and he should not resort to such tactics.
I support the Bill in principle. However, I have some reservations about certain sections for the very reasons I have outlined. Section 4 of the explanatory memorandum states that "... where the Secretary receives notification, either from an office holder directly or from the Committee, of the making of a gift, he shall proceed to ascertain the value of that gift ..." It then goes on to refer to valuation, etc. It continues:
However, an office holder may agree to pay to the Minister for Finance the amount by which the value of the gift exceeds £200; in those circumstances the Government may refuse to accept the gift and, upon the payment being made, the gift vests in the office holder.
That section attempts to meet all possible eventualities but it is singularly unsuccessful in dealing with any of them.
Debate adjourned.