I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I propose to share my time with Deputy Gilmore. On Easter Monday I identified six issues that must be addressed in the short term to reverse the loss of confidence in politics following the revelations of both tribunals of inquiry.
The six issues I identified were a ban on corporate funding for politics, the introduction of tax clearance certificates for Oireachtas Members, legislation to provide for the registration of lobbyists, the early enactment of the Whistleblowers Protection Bill, reform of the law on corruption and the introduction of a proper system of State funding for political parties and for politics.
We have chosen, in our first available Private Members' slot in this session, to introduce the Electoral (Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill, 2000, because it goes to the heart of the problems identified in the hearings of various tribunals of inquiry – the corrosive financial relationship between big business and some parties in this House and between big business and a number of current and former Members of the House. However, I emphasise that we see this measure as just one part of the package of reforms I outlined earlier. The Labour Party wants to see all these measures enacted at the earliest possible date.
That there has been a dramatic loss of public confidence is undoubted. Many of us are on record for many years as having warned of the corrosive and unhealthy atmosphere generated by our reliance on private and corporate funding because when it comes to fundraising, whether for charities, voluntary bodies, universities or political parties, those with the largest discretionary disposable incomes are inevitably targeted.
In most cases it was normal for political donations to be made confidentially, which is no longer possible as a result of reforming measures such as the Ethics in Public Office Act and the 1997 Electoral Act, introduced, coincidentally, by Labour Party Ministers, lest their donations were interpreted as support for any particular party or candidate. No doubt some donors were genuinely motivated by a desire to support the political process in general terms.
Private funding inevitably tends to favour larger, well established parties – the corporate sector, in particular, tends to favour the party it sees as the future senior partner in any coalition Government. This is not a case of me or my party waving our fingers at those on the other benches. For the record, I want to make it clear again that my party and its representatives have solicited and received donations from private sources. In the absence of a system of State funding, we will probably be forced to continue to do so. We do not believe every businessman or even every property developer is a crook, nor do we claim that every sum of money exceeding £999 must represent the proceeds of crime or that the only honest cheque is the wage cheque of a PAYE taxpayer.
However, this system of funding has always been undemocratic. It has now been brought to such a level of disrepute that it can no longer continue, but in the absence of direct change, continue it will. In the Haughey era the suspicion grew that donations and possible wholesale corruption in public life were linked – that decisions of public bodies engaged in the public business were routinely bought and sold for private profit. Without proof we were unable to say so clearly. The extent to which these decisions have been dealt with simply as just another set of tradeable commodities to be brokered for private gain has shocked us all.
Apart from the current shocking disclosures at the Flood tribunal, we have previously learnt how a serving Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, was the recipient of funding from rich individuals and the corporate sector amounting to millions of pounds. We have also learned how a long serving Member of this House, Ray Burke, chosen by the current Taoiseach as recently as three years ago to fill the key position of Minister for Foreign Affairs, raised more than £118,000 in advance of the 1989 general election, at a time when most candidates would have spent considerably less than one tenth of that figure on an election campaign.
There seems no doubt either that some members of Dublin County Council sought and received bribes in return for favourable votes on crucial rezoning issues and that these people should and must be called to account. Those who sold their votes must be driven out of politics. Those who broke the law must face the consequences and should be shown no mercy.
However, I accept that many of those who received money from Mr. Dunlop were receiving what they believed were, in their own definition, "normal political contributions" and that no favours were granted in return for the money. They may have shown very poor political judgment in accepting donations from a man who played such a crucial role in securing support for controversial rezonings and would have been far better off had they, like Deputy Rabbitte, said: "Thank you, but no thanks" and sent the money back. It is extraordinary that Deputy Rabbitte, the one individual who was offered money by Mr. Dunlop and returned it, has been singled out for such attack over the past week.
However, given what we now know from the report of the McCracken tribunal and from the hearings before the Moriarty and Flood tribunals, it is incumbent on the political parties to attempt a restoration of some degree of confidence in the integrity and impartiality of public administration in this State. We should also set ourselves a deadline for action which is realistic and achievable. By the time the Dáil rises for the summer, all the crucial decisions about what we need to do will have had to be taken and tomorrow night's vote will be one of them. I have been happy to discuss the issues with the Government and other Opposition parties, but the Labour Party will not be party to any drawn out process, designed solely to delay the implementation of necessary measures. The last time that happened, Fianna Fáil used the time to raise over £2 million to clear its debts.
Regarding the proposals set out in this Bill, the Labour Party makes no apology for tackling first of all the party funding issue and, in particular, the corrosive and destructive effect on the political process of its reliance on private sources to fund its activities. The Public Offices Commission recently stated that we have one of the finest electoral governance systems in Europe. Perhaps it is too early to make a judgment on that, as the Electoral Act, for instance, has never fully applied in a general election, but we have been happy to base this Bill on the firm foundation of that Act.
The Labour Party's track record on these issues is clear. As far back as 1991 we introduced a Private Member's Bill to provide for disclosure of the interests of public representatives and of donations to political parties. The Bill was rejected out of hand by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government as "obnoxious" and probably unconstitutional. We were accused of generating unfounded fears and of seeking to legislate for issues that simply did not arise in 1991. Notwithstanding tribunal revelations, I suspect the same arguments will surface again over the coming months.
Constitutionality has arisen at each and every stage of the campaign to clean up politics and has been raised as an obstacle at every stage of the reform process. The Government's statement of yesterday evening states that there are constitutional issues involved, but that is a statement of the obvious. There are always constitutional issues involved in any legislative proposals. Constitutional concerns have informed the drafting of this Bill and we believe it to be sensitive to the delicate balance between competing rights that is necessary in these circumstances.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting with the Taoiseach and other party leaders. I accept that there was genuine concern on behalf of the leaders of the parties about the difficulties the political process is now in, but I was struck by the absence of any real concrete proposals from Fianna Fáil to deal with the issues. I regard the decision by the Government not to support the Bill as an act of bad faith. It is simply not good enough to defer for a further six months decisions in principle on issues such as corporate funding.
In the course of recent weeks the Taoiseach made an argument which he can scarcely take seriously himself let alone expect others to do so. He claimed that corporate donations should be retained because their abolition would disadvantage poorer politicians. In other words, according to the Taoiseach's analysis, reliance on individual donations would benefit those who moved in circles where individuals had money to spare. However, companies which apparently by definition have more than enough money to spare are in a position to bestow their bounty indiscriminately for the benefit of rich and poor alike. Of course this is complete nonsense. There can be no doubt that corporate donations go dispro portionately to parties already well established within the political system, particularly to those established in Government. By their very nature such donations are skewed. I put it to the Taoiseach that he does not want to do away with corporate donations because it is on such donations that his party's political hegemony is built.
I welcome the support of the Fine Gael Party for the Bill on Second Stage, notwithstanding its reservations. There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding between us on one issue. We are not arguing that corporate donations alone should be banned so that, for example, a firm of accountants or solicitors could give money to a party but an incorporated firm of engineers could not. Our Bill does not mention companies or corporations. What we propose is that registered electors could use their own resources, not their trading income, to make a donation to their party in the same way as they support their parish, football club or residents' association.
While I welcome Fine Gael support, I do not accept the argument it has advanced that no distinction can be made between corporate and individual funding. Individual citizens are the subject matter of politics. Citizens have the right to form parties, support them, canvass for them and run as their candidates. I do not believe it is either right, proper or necessary, to try to break that link between a party and its members and supporters. Individuals are political personages, corporations are not. Individuals can have strong political convictions, corporations rarely do. Individuals have socio-economic and political rights, corporations in effect do not.
Whether it is fair, the public perception is that the relationship between business and politics has become poisonous. That in itself should be sufficient for it to end. A ban would be good for politics and it would also be good for business. Nevertheless, I understand the concern expressed by the Green Party, a long time opponent of corporate funding, that provision for individual donations will allow people circumvent the ban on corporate donations. The Bill represents our best thinking on the issues involved and I am happy to hear the views of others who accept the principles that underlie it.
I spoke earlier about our efforts to comply with the constitutional obligations of fairness. Individual citizens have rights and one of them is to participate in the political process. It is precisely for this reason that we did not set the cap on individual donations even lower in the Bill. A system solely financed out of the public purse would suit the established parties well if that was to become the case. It would, however, be fundamentally unfair to newcomers to elections – individuals or parties – if they were barred from raising their own campaign funds while at the same time, for want of any track record, they were ineligible to receive public funds other than the existing recoupment. We need to find an appropriate balance here and I am open to hearing the views of others on how precisely that could be achieved.
Recoupment of election expenses after the event goes some way to meeting the needs of independent candidates and smaller parties. The proportion of expenses which can be recouped this way should be increased, but a rule that the only money which could be spent on elections would be by way of a State grant would serve only to benefit the parties currently entitled to such money to the exclusion of all others.
Our party's position is that nothing less is required than a complete break between party expenditure and corporate funding. For constitutional reasons and so as not to disadvantage non-party candidates, we do not propose to ban donations made from the after tax income of private individuals. As the law stands, for example, even the £5 membership sub paid by members of the Labour Party constitutes an individual donation. Our proposal is that a party or a candidate should not be permitted to receive any donation except from a registered elector. In other words, both corporate and overseas donations would be absolutely prohibited.
The Tánaiste stated recently that the banning of corporate funding is an issue she is prepared to consider. However, when it comes to backing up those fine words with actions, she has again been found wanting. Again the Attorney General appears to be holding sway. Some people in the Progressive Democrats have argued that the party could not have got off the ground were it not for financial assistance from the corporate sector. I would point to the history of the foundation of that party as promulgated by itself. Within its first year its founders, for whom I have genuine regard, addressed capacity audiences at conference halls, theatres, hotels and leisure centres throughout the State. It very quickly became the fastest growing political movement in the State. It had in that early stage all the characteristics of a mass political movement. Yet the lease on its first headquarters was secured on foot of personal guarantees entered into by its trustees, including the current Attorney General. There is no room in this version of the story, which has some factual basis, for the theory that the Progressive Democrats would not have survived its first year without help from corporate godfathers. Certainly, the new mass membership which it was seeking to attract to a new form of politics was never informed of such a fact.
This version of history also ignores the reality that the Progressive Democrats was at that stage seeking to compete with established parties with even better access to the boardrooms of Ireland than it had. In other words, it was seeking to join a game played according to pre-determined rules, rules that go further to prevent the entry into politics of any new political force than anything proposed this evening.
As regards overseas donations, there simply would be no point in reforming the donations system at home if the continued distortion in the political process caused by overseas fundraising continued. The UK has banned such donations and we should follow suit. My party has benefited in the past from contributions made by socialist and social democratic parties in other parts of Europe. We and other parties should forego contributions from abroad in preference for strengthening the links between parties and citizens active in the State. As in the equivalent British legislation, special arrangements would have to be made in respect of parties registered in Northern Ireland.
Overall, the purposes of our Bill are to restrict the making of political donations to registered electors; to reduce the threshold above which disclosure of donations must be made from the existing limits of £4,000 to a party and £500 to an individual, down to £1,000 and £250 respectively; to limit the amount which may be so donated – £2,000 to a party, including all its candidates, and £1,000 to an individual; to limit to £2,000 the amount that can be paid to a political party by way of membership fee by an affiliated organisation; to remove the existing prohibition on the spending by political parties of public money at elections; and to provide for an annual statutory audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of public moneys paid to political parties.
As regards the Labour Party and its structural links with the trade union movement, which appear to be news to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, we propose that where the constitution of a political party provides for independent unincorporated organisations of individuals to be members of that party, an annual membership fee may be lawfully paid. However, that membership fee, as is the case at the moment, would be classified as a donation and would, therefore, be capped at £2,000 regardless of the number of members of the affiliated organisation. No further financial assistance in cash or in kind would be permissible above the annual £2,000 membership fee.
I want to make it clear from the outset that in proposing these measures I start from an underlying position to which I am absolutely committed. I believe in the political process and in party politics. Political parties have a function which is essential as well as honourable. A democracy cannot function without properly incorporated political parties. They are the means by which people fulfil their roles as citizens, organise themselves to participate in public life, promote and implement social, economic and cultural goals and decide upon questions of national policy. They serve the common good. Any laws to regulate and control the funding of political parties in the public interest should recognise this proposition as a basic starting point.
It is for this reason I have always called for public funding of political parties not just to remove the temptations inherent in a system of unregulated private funding, but because the party political process, as a vital component of the wider democratic process, in its own right, is worthy of recognition, respect and support. I recall writing a piece for the Sunday Tribune in the late 1980s on this subject.
We have not included in this package any proposal to increase the amount provided by way of State payments to political parties. It is clear that such an increase is required in the context of the ban on corporate donations and the cap on the size of donations from individuals which I propose. However, that quid pro quo for my proposals is one which, for constitutional reasons, can come only from the Government. Opposition parties, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle as you would clearly indicate to us, cannot introduce Bills which involve a limited increase in Exchequer funding. It is acceptable to increase the existing Exchequer subvention as a substitute for funds from private sources. While considerable State funding exists, the system compels parties to raise private funds by debarring them from using those public moneys at election time. The parties, however, receive a refund of approximately one third of expenditure from the Exchequer for candidates who receive a quarter of a quota at an election.
I do not pretend this set of proposals is exhaustive, amounts to the last word in this area or is incapable of improvement. However, reform along these lines is urgently required. The House must be seen to be capable of reacting swiftly, firmly and coherently to the present crisis in public confidence if we are to retain any entitlement to call ourselves public representatives.
The Government's response has been disappointing. It seems designed to muddy the waters. It is important that the thrust of these measures be accepted in principle by the House. The details can be worked on. For example, the idea that the Attorney General should be charged with beginning afresh on the lobbyists Bill is a nonsense. Such a Bill will be introduced during this session and the Taoiseach can accept it or vote it down. The manner in which the Government is reacting to this legislation is entirely consistent with the opposition that Fianna Fáil mounted to virtually every Bill aimed at institutional reform pioneered by the Labour Party, including the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, and the Electoral Act, 1997. When we were in Government with Fianna Fail, it sought to delay or water them down. When Fianna Fáil was on this side of the House, its opposition was more direct. The themes were those we hear again now – unconstitutional, over-regulation, unfair to the taxpayer.
I referred to the first reforming Bill we introduced in this area in 1991, the Ethics in Public Office Bill. I hope that Fianna Fáil Members will read some of the comments they made on that modest legislation and that they will cringe with embarrassment. The current Attorney General and then Progressive Democrats Party spokesperson, Michael McDowell, described the Electoral Bill, 1997, as a "theoretical, ideological statist Bill, designed to stop political parties from being independent of the State". Such intemper ate and ludicrous but deeply felt comments do not inspire confidence in the willingness of this Administration to deliver the sort of institutional reform that the political system needs if it is to survive and recover the confidence of the public.
The public is once again looking to this House for action but it is getting inaction. The premise underlying the Government's proposal is that these issues are new and require further consideration. The reality is different. This debate has been part and parcel of political life for the best part of a generation. It figured prominently, for instance, in the 1989 general election campaign. It is an issue that Deputy Fleming has obviously considered at length from the vantage point of one personally involved as the financial controller of the Fianna Fáil Party in Mount Street prior to his election to the House in 1997.
How typical of this Government and this Taoiseach that they are not ready yet to rise to the challenge. No doubt its amendment will give it six months grace, but it will be six months in which the reputation of politics suffers further. Make no mistake, the Labour Party will not be party to any proposals that do not ban the corporate funding of politics. We need to move with haste on the principles underlining this legislation and work together on the details to make sure we get the best legislation possible.
