I welcome this Bill which demonstrates that at last we are doing something about State funding of political parties. However, in taking these modest measures, we are no great pioneers or trail blazers in facilitating the work of political parties or our democratic structures; rather we are simply following established practice in most other democracies, particularly the newer ones. Indeed, our tardiness in taking this essential step merely reflects our cowardice as legislators in introducing conditions and facilities to enable us properly undertake the work for which we were elected.
Whenever it came to the provision of reasonable conditions and facilities for ourselves in the past, always we backed off or, at the very best, passed the buck to someone else, not through any high motives but rather through fear of what the electorate might think of us.
The provision of funding for political parties, to a significant extent, will remove the fund-raising imperative that has continuously dominated the activities of most of our political parties from their foundations, clearly to be seen from any reading of the minutes of parties in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when fund raising always was the dominant feature. It is particularly important that the provisions of this Bill will remove a demeaning aspect of politics for Members of this House and, more important, will remove a compromising aspect of politics.
I am not talking about church gate collections which, after Mass, can be an interesting social occasion for everybody. I am not talking about the occasional, modest raffle but about the soliciting of the big bucks now required continuously to run a political party and mount any meaningful election campaign.
We are all aware that much of the funds coming to political parties emanate from their loyal supporters, people who want a party to succeed and prosper because of their belief in its policies, perhaps through inherited allegiance, or for a variety of reasons such as belief in a particular candidate being someone who will make a contribution at national or constituency level. Nonetheless it must be admitted that some funding comes from people with an alternative, if unstated, agenda of hoping to influence decision-making.
Political parties always have been in what I would regard as a very vulnerable financial position, the stark reality to date being that most could not function properly, or at all, without the substantial backing of people and organisations beyond their own fold. This Bill will put in place at least a basic resource to enable a modern party to survive and do its work without undue dependence on outside contributions. As with many other aspects of political life, on the question of funding, perception often is as important, if not more so, than the reality. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that no political party be seen to be beholden to any group of organisations or individuals for its financing. There is a perception abroad that big backers are rewarded in some way, which has done a major disservice to politicians generally and their standing with the electorate.
The provisions of this Bill encompass a measure of public funding for political parties, affording them some financial independence and will go some way to altering the perception to which I have just referred, as will the other elements of the integrated package the Minister has introduced, such as the requirement to disclose significant political contributions and limits on election spending.
We must remember that the cost of recent elections to most political parties has been shattering. In the course of the 1981 general election it was my duty to introduce a budget for the promotion, publicity and public relations exercise of my party which subsequently was seven times greater than the entire expenditure of my party in the 1977 election. That demonstrates how costs have escalated in the current competitive climate, much of which comes to the surface at election time when, in the heat of battle, very wise financial constraints decided in advance are thrown out the window with colossal sums of money being spent. The limit on spending provided for in this Bill should control that aspect of electioneering without diminishing in any significant way the effectiveness of any campaign or damaging our democratic system.
The electorate will understand the need for and the very positive aspect enshrined in this State funding of political parties, designed — as the Minister of State pointed out — to supplement their income from other sources. I believe the public will also welcome the requirement to disclose the sources of substantial donations. There need be no fear that the new arrangements would lead to even the remotest degree of State control over the independence and policies of political parties. The requirement of parties to indicate the extent of their expenditure in order to encourage participation by women and young persons in political activity will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to monitor. Any party seeking to make progress on its aims must concentrate on those elements. Therefore, there might well be more to be gained in the long run from leaving this aspect of funding voluntary rather than seeking any degree of compulsory allocation of funds for such specific purposes.
On the disclosure of political donations, I hope the system will not become too top-heavy or bureaucratic which could become an administrative nightmare and lead to a morass of disputes. In this respect well thought out regulations must be enforced, something that will need to be fully teased out on Committee Stage.
I also welcome the statutory establishment of an independent constituency commission to handle the revision of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies following each successive census, thus rendering permanent the type of commission that handled the more recent constituency revisions. It did a good job by and large. However, I will never understand how sensible, eminent people like those who served on that commission introduced the constituency of Longford-Roscommon into the Irish political landscape thereby crossing the great natural boundary of the Shannon, crossing provincial boundaries, the European constituency boundaries and, if one reverts to ancient times, crossing the strongholds of rival chieftains. However, whatever aberrations that commission membership may have had, it has to be said its revision was a major improvement on the days of moving quotas in the Custom House, presided over by the incumbent Minister for Local Government, with the census report in one hand and tally sheets in the other.
The Minister of State also said it was his intention to speed up general election counts. I am glad he is taking on that task, the best and simplest way of doing so being to begin the count at midnight on the night of an election. There is no reason to continue as though the ballot boxes were being brought to counting centres by horse and cart. What is wrong with beginning the count at midnight, as is the case in most other democracies, immediately after balloting has ceased and the ballot boxes have been received?
The Minister of State has also told us that at some future date voting and counting at elections will be fully automated but stated, realistically, that is some distance way. Why? We have the expertise to design and provide the necessary programmes and technology. I do not believe it would be excessively expensive. The Minister for the Environment should pursue that, we have a good name — Howlin — for the machines on the counters. In the meantime he should give instructions and necessary funding to returning officers to ensure that there is adequate space at count centres for party activists who have devoted their time to knocking on doors during the three or four weeks in the run-up to an election, to gain admission to see the fruits of their labours. It is regrettable that candidates cannot oblige their canvassers by providing them with tickets to gain admission to counts because the centres are too small. We accept there must be movement and that returning officers must do their work but they should be given instructions. If they were given the necessary funding they would be pleased to provide enough space to accommodate everybody.
Although it is probably a matter for another day I was disappointed that the Minister did not apply himself to the possibility of a fixed Dáil term. I suppose the present one is as near as we will get to a fixed term, but it is a matter we should examine. It could be introduced by way of minor constitutional amendments.
I have been a great supporter of the PR system and the multi-seat constituency on the grounds that, to an exceptional extent, it returns parties in proportion to the support they receive from the people. In that regard, it is the best system anywhere in the world. However, it has its drawbacks, a major one being because of multi-seat constituencies and the pressures to which they give rise, Ministers charged with running major Departments must spend at least 60 per cent of their time on constituency work, otherwise they will not be re-elected. There is no point in being a great Minister if one is not prepared to carry out constituency work. It is important to examine our electoral system. My preference is for a system like the German one where half the candidates are elected under a PR system from constituencies and the other half elected through a list system. If such a system were introduced here, half the Deputies in the Dáil would not have particular obligations to constituencies and could devote all their time to their work as legislators, the basic work of a TD. That might give inordinate power to parties, but so be it. It would be preferable and an advance on the present system.
I welcome the Bill and hope it is only the beginning in terms of Members of the Oireachtas providing proper facilities for themselves, such as the provision of a constituency secretary as well as a Dáil secretary, to carry out the work for which they were elected. That is a basic service Members have not provided for themselves, they do not have the courage to do so for fear of what the public would say about it. Deputies need such basic services and proper research facilities. What Opposition Deputy has had the luxury — it should not be a luxury — or the opportunity of properly researching a speech in this House unless it was carried out by a Department. I have been a Member of this House for 14 or 15 years and I had an opportunity and the facility on only one occasion to carry out research on a speech with which I was satisfied and proud. We should provide ourselves with such facilities and pay TDs a salary appropriate to their work and responsibilities. If we fail to do that, we will also fail to attract into politics and this House the talent that it needs.
