SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2001

Vol. 4 No. 1

Electoral (Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill, 2000: Motion.

Mr. Gilmore

I thank the Chairman for convening this meeting to consider the Electoral (Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill, 2000. I have been asked that this meeting be convened since the Dáil, by order on 14 December, referred the Labour Party Private Members' Bill to this committee. I move:

That the Committee commence consideration forthwith of the Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill, 2000, referred to it by order of the Dáil on December 14th last.

I move that motion to enable the committee to begin immediately its consideration on a section by section basis of the Labour Party Private Members' Bill. The Bill will ban corporate funding of political parties and of politics. It provides for four new measures. It will confine the right to make contributions or donations to a political party or to candidates at election time or to individual politicians and to individuals who are registered in a register of electors. It will confine such contributions in the case of individual candidates or politicians to £1,000 and in the case of political parties to £2,000. It will also change the requirement for the declaration of contributions requiring political parties to declare publicly any contribution over £1,000 and require any individuals to declare any contribution of over £250. It also provides for a system for accounting for the parliamentary leaders' allowances.

Chairman

Item 1 of the agenda is - consideration of correspondence from Deputy Gilmore and legal advice received from the parliamentary party. Has the Deputy a copy of the motion so that it can be circulated?

Mr. Gilmore

Yes.

The motion is straightforward. It seeks that the committee proceed forthwith to consider Committee Stage of the Bill. The principle of the Bill has been agreed by the Dáil as a whole. Second Stage was debated in June 2000 and passed automatically on 1 December and was referred to this committee on 14 December. Effectively the general principle has been accepted by the Dáil on Second Stage. It is clear that a majority of Members of Dáil Éireann favour an end to the corporate funding of politics. As I understand it, this Bill has the support of the Labour Party, the Green Party, Fine Gael and a number of prominent members on the Government side. I refer in particular to the constructive contributions made in the course of the public debate on this issue by Deputy Fleming, the statements made by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, comments made by Deputy Brian Lenihan and, more recently, comments made by the Tánaiste which come close to the position that is being put forward by the Labour Party. Among those who have not expressed a public opinion on it, there is now an acceptance privately on the Government side that the days of corporate funding of politics are coming to a close and the only issue which now has to be decided is how quickly we bring them to a close.

It will not serve politics well to drag out this issue in the hope that by prolonging consideration of it, it can be dragged through a general election which can be fought on the basis of corporate funds which are collected before the axe falls, and then, at some stage in the future, wound up in some way. The main lesson that those of us who are actively engaged in politics have to learn from the tribunals and the public debates that have surrounded them is that the day of the corporate funding of politics is over and the quicker Dáil Éireann and the Oireachtas move to bring it to a close, the better for politics.

This Bill provides the basis on which the Dáil can do that. I am conscious that over the course of recent months, the Taoiseach, at different times, and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government have indicated their wish that this matter should be considered by an all-party committee. This is an all-party committee which meets in public. I do not see any advantage in having this issue considered by an all-party committee in private. This is where we can consider it and that is the response the Labour Party will give to the invitations from the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to have this matter considered by an all-party committee. This is an all-party committee and we will consider it here.

This Bill is clear in terms of its purpose and intention. I propose that we proceed with Committee Stage so that we can go through it section by section, line by line. If the Minister for the Environment and Local Government wishes to propose amendments, we can spend whatever length of time is necessary to debate their merits. That should be done in the open. This is the all-party committee in which this issue should be considered.

My proposal is that we proceed to Committee Stage forthwith. I note the Minister is not present, although he is a member of this committee. He should be present. When a committee is considering a Bill referred to it by Dáil Éireann and for which the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has line responsibility, either the Minister or one of his Ministers of State should be here to respond to it on behalf of the Government.

If there is a difficulty in proceeding to Committee Stage today after we have commenced our preliminary discussion, I do not have any difficulty with considering it this day week, this day fortnight or within some reasonable period of time which would allow the Government side to consider whatever amendments it might want to put forward. We must consider it, however, and I ask that we proceed to do that.

Chairman

Before calling the next speaker I believe I am right to suggest that the Minister will only attend for a consideration of the Bill. I call Deputy Kelleher.

Mr. Kelleher

Deputy Gilmore stated that a clear majority of Members of the House supported the banning of corporate donations. If that were the case we would not be discussing a Private Members' Bill; we would be discussing the previous Labour Government's Bill. However, that is not necessarily the case.

In the past the Government requested that the Labour Party would come into negotiations on an all-party committee basis to discuss corporate donations and the funding of political parties in general. To date, because of pre-conditions, it has been unwilling or unable to move along that line. The Minister has brought forward the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, which is currently being debated in the Seanad where the Opposition has an opportunity to put down many amendments. I am sure the Government will listen to the various viewpoints and take them into account as best it can but we encourage the Labour Party to come into the all-party process which the Government has requested it to do on numerous occasions but which, to date, it has refused to do.

This is a serious issue and at this stage the Labour Party should have entered into some negotiations with the other parties in Dáil Éireann to resolve it. Deputy Gilmore is right. There is concern in certain quarters about the way political parties are funded but that is where it should be resolved.

Mr. S. Ryan

Behind closed doors?

Mr. Kelleher

It is unfair to use this committee as the mechanism for that, particularly when there is a Bill before the Seanad which will come to this committee at some stage when the Opposition will have an opportunity to table amendments. It is regrettable that the Labour Party should use the valuable time of this committee to discuss two parallel——

Mrs. Owen

So much for the democracy of this Parliament. Push the Bill to this committee. I have heard it all.

Mr. Kelleher

——Bills when the Opposition will have an opportunity to table amendments when the Bill comes before this committee.

Ms Clune

Is that leadership?

Chairman

Deputy Noel Ahern.

Mrs. Owen

Chairman, I indicated my wish to speak before Deputy Ahern. I saw him putting up his hand.

Chairman

I have a list of speakers here.

Mrs. Owen

A note of my name was handed to you, Chairman. I saw Deputy Ahern a minute ago——

Mr. N. Ahern

I do not mind if Deputy Owen wants to go ahead.

Mrs. Owen

No, there are many others who wish to speak.

Mr. Howlin

On a point of order, Chairman, perhaps you might read out the list of speakers.

Mr. N. Ahern

I indicated several times that I wished to speak.

Chairman

The next speaker is Deputy Noel Ahern followed by Deputy Ó Caoláin, Deputy Owen, Deputy Howlin and Deputy Mitchell.

Ms Clune

Chairman, I had indicated my wish to speak also.

Mrs. Owen

Before me, in fact.

Chairman

That is noted, Deputy Clune.

Mrs. Owen

Never mind.

Mr. N. Ahern

I would like an opportunity to discuss this issue. The motion is acceptable on one level and it would be appropriate to go ahead with it because for several weeks now we have listened to a great deal of hypocrisy from some parties, mainly the Labour Party. The Labour Party has been given a free run on this issue. One would think there was no other political issue except corporate donations and funding of elections. I would be anxious to have a debate and to deal with some

Bill——

Mr. Howlin

But, on the other?

Mr. N. Ahern

——but there is a precedent in regard to the way this House operates and that precedent has been followed by various Governments, namely, Government Bills before the Oireachtas are given priority and Opposition Bills take second place. I am not saying that is a good or a bad precedent but it is the way the House has run its business for years and if that is wrong, let us hear the facts.

This morning the Leader of the Labour Party said that when it was in Government it took on board suggestions from the Opposition. That was a different case, however, in that the Opposition had prepared Bills. The Government had not. It might have been thinking about bringing forward a Bill in the deep recesses of the Department but such a Bill had not seen print, so Deputy Quinn was not comparing like with like. He was not talking about two Bills which were before the House. That is the reality. If that precedent is wrong, let us know but I understand that precedent has been followed for many years by all Governments.

I would like to discuss the main issue in detail, but I am bound by the precedent of the House.

A Deputy

The Deputy is not.

Mr. N. Ahern

We are because every club, organisation or parliament——

A Deputy

Is the Deputy saying we cannot overturn precedents?

Chairman

Deputies, please speak one by one. I want to make it crystal clear that I will not tolerate interruptions.

Mr. N. Ahern

One must take note of it and if the other Bill comes before the select committee within a few weeks, why should we proceed with this one and duplicate the work?

Mr. Stagg

It is the direct opposite, it is not complementary to it.

Mr. N. Ahern

It is the same type of issue——

Mr. Stagg

It is the direct opposite.

Mr. N. Ahern

——related to corporate donations. I have heard all the comments, but do not ask me what is the difference between corporate and personal donations.

Mr. Stagg

We will explain that to the Deputy.

Mr. Howlin

He should give us a chance to do so.

Mr. N. Ahern

I have been listening to the Deputies speak on this issue for weeks and they have been given a free run on it, but have not got through to anyone. If there was a problem in the past in politics, it was because donations were not disclosed. Much of what was introduced in 1996 or 1997 were rules proposed by the Labour Party, which had merit. I do not know why the Deputies are changing the sands——

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy fought them tooth and nail.

Mr. N. Ahern

——before there has been an opportunity to ascertain whether those rules are good or bad, given that they have not let us down in any shape or form. Anything that has emerged in the public domain pre-dates all that. Why we are trying to change a system before it has been put to the test is beyond me.

Some corporate groups may donate £200,000 to the political system and such donations are recorded in their annual reports and, thus, publicly disclosed. Fianna Fáil may be given £120,000, Fine Gael £90,000 and Labour £75,000. I fail to see what is wrong with that. Such donations are harmless. It is easy for us to be arrogant and tell the world what we want. It costs money to run political parties. I do not know if the Deputies opposite have other ideas on how the political system can be funded, but I do not hear the public screaming that they want to fund it. We could all speak on the hobbyhorse of how poorly funded are Opposition parties, in particular, and the unfair competition they must face. I have heard many Opposition members, usually spokespersons, be they on the Government side or on the Opposition side, speak of the number of times they have been called to Buswells Hotel and lobbied on one Bill or another and presented with lovely packages by PR companies and for the want of their own research have run with that presented to them. We have all done that.

Mr. Howlin

The registration of lobbyists Bill addressed that.

Mr. N. Ahern

I am aware of that, but there is unfair competition. I am anxious that the Minister's Bill comes before the Committee soon, as I support changing the amount of money that can be spent on the ground in the run up to an election.

Mr. Stagg

The Deputy's party has withdrawn the Bill to facilitate that. It was dropped in the Seanad and there is no hope of it coming before this committee.

Mr. N. Ahern

There are two elections, the election of Deputies to this House and the election fought on the ground. It baffles me to hear the stupidity voiced by other parties, given that in any constituency, including my own, my party is not the big spender on the ground and I note a colleague of mine is present. During the last election in my constituency, Labour money, Independent Labour money, DL money and Fine Gael money was spent. I also spent a few quid and I am not behind the door in saying that. I was forced to spend it to try to keep up with the rest of the candidates and no Member can say that I spent the big money in my constituency.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. N. Ahern

I expended energy, but one must compete and one must have money to do that. If the figures included in the Bill in 1996 or 1997 are not changed before the next election, there will not be a proper election, as only about 25% of the people will be aware one is taking place. Compared to what candidates spent in my constituency in 1997, if we are confined to spending the type of money provided for in the Bill in the run up to the next election, no one will know an election is taking place unless from the television, as we will be so confined in our spending we will be able only to put up one poster and issue one leaflet.

Mr. Howlin

The amount is £20,000.

Mr. N. Ahern

Then we will wonder why the numbers who vote decreased.

Mrs. Owen

Deputy Ahern has made a good case for discussing this Bill.

Mr. N. Ahern

The figures are ridiculous. I want to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Howlin

Then let us do so.

Mr. N. Ahern

I am anxious to do so, but the proper and sensible time to do so will be when the Government Bill is introduced.

Mrs. Owen

Lord, make me holy, but not yet.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I support the proposal that this committee should proceed with its consideration of the electoral amendment donations to political parties Bill, 2000, on Committee Stage. It is up to this committee to order its business. This Bill has been referred to us by the Dáil. The Government has argued that it covers the same ground as its Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, and, therefore, precedent dictates that its Bill should be taken first, but I do not agree. The Labour Bill focuses on donations to parties and candidates, while the Government Bill deals primarily with the conduct of elections, including election expenditure. There is a critical difference between the two. I support Deputy Gilmore's proposal and I will vote accordingly.

In the engagement on Second Stage I recorded my opposition to the Labour Party Bill and I do so again here today for the reasons I explained on that occasion. Its stated purpose is to ban corporate donations, yet - I have taken the time to read and study it carefully - it neither defines such donations nor seeks to ban them. That is the factual position. Its approach is to restrict donors to registered voters in the Twenty-Six Counties, the effect of which would be to remove the right of people in the Six Counties or abroad to donate to any party or candidate of their choice. That is the reality of the effect of the Labour Bill, as presented.

As the sole Deputy of my party here, I consider it must be very special to represent such an electoral threat but the reality is that the design of that Bill is purposely intent on trying to thwart the financial support for Sinn Féin, as we have been recorded, as being at least among the most successful, if not the most successful political party, in raising funding in the United States and elsewhere.

Mr. Howlin

There is no doubt about that.

Mrs. Owen

We could devote a seminar to finding out how it has done that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

In a speech by the Taoiseach on 3 December, he stated that the Government would also favour a ban on donations from outside the jurisdiction. The Labour Party Bill is exposed as an attempt to thwart the growth of my party and it seems that the other political parties, including Fine Gael and the Government Parties, are on board with this project. We must face up to that.

Mrs. Owen

We are trying to thwart the growth of Sinn Féin. We are honourable in our endeavours.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

When speaking on Second Stage I made clear my opposition to corporate funding of political parties. I said the cosy relationship between big business and political parties, irrespective of what parties were involved, must end.

I do not believe the Labour Party Bill or the Government's proposals address this issue directly, having looked at both or at least at what is available so far. On Second Stage of the Labour Party Bill the Government promised a process of consultation with the parties on the funding issue. I found that objectionable. There are other small parties in the House who would equally wish to record their disappointment. There was no process of consultation with me and my party on this Bill, despite the fact that there was a further assurance in that regard from the Government Whip. Leaving aside our differences, I hope people would agree with my view that the process must be inclusive and offer the opportunity for the myriad of views to be reflected in the consideration of this issue.

The Government's Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000 is now before the Seanad. I opposed that Bill also because, in my view, it provides primarily for greatly increased electoral spending. Despite Deputy Noel Ahern's protestations to the contrary, I believe it is designed to aid the major party in Government in terms of future electoral endeavours. We should seek to limit election spending, not to increase it.

I wish to refute a misrepresentation of 12 March. Deputy Hayes, a former member of this committee, stated in a commentary published in The Irish Times on that date that all the Opposition parties, excluding Sinn Féin, now favoured a ban on corporate donations. I am anxious to put the record straight once again. That is a misrepresentation and I take this opportunity to correct it. The support my party enjoys both at home and abroad is from ordinary citizens, many of whom had to emigrate as a consequence of the failures of political parties governing this State over the decades since the formation of the State. We do not rely on big business to bankroll our political project. We are dependent, wholly and solely, on the goodwill and support of ordinary Irish citizens both here and abroad. I reaffirm my opposition to corporate donations to political parties.

I look forward to the cut and thrust of the debate before us and I support the motion for the reasons I have outlined.

Mrs. Owen

I do not know where to start after that contribution. There was a certain amount of rewriting of history, a few lapses of memory,——

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Not at all.

Mrs. Owen

——information as to why some people might have been in another country and are now giving money to Sinn Féin and the reasons they had gone there. There was a degree of fudging at the corners. However, this is not the day for that type of debate.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

True.

Mrs. Owen

I note the Pavlovian team is here. It has been given its marching orders and told what to say——

Mr. Kelleher

The Deputy got her marching orders too.

Mrs. Owen

I did not know that Deputy Ahern wished to be on the side of this legislation. I wish to return to the principle we are discussing here. We are discussing the primacy of the committee system of the House. Irrespective of what Bill it is, the Chairman is in charge of the committee and we look to him for protection and to ensure the committee is not used as a dumping ground for something that might be embarrassing to the Government.

The Government accepted Second Stage of this legislation and sent it to a committee. We have heard from the two Fianna Fáil members who spoke today that they do not perceive the action of sending the Bill to the committee to be anything more than dumping it out of their hair in the Chamber. If we allow this to happen to this committee, it will happen to all committees. I am a former Minister who accepted Opposition legislation——

Mr. Kelleher

The Deputy's was not published.

Mrs. Owen

——and it is wrong to claim that it only happens when no legislation has already been announced by the Government. If the same energy and dedication which has been put by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats into stopping this legislation being discussed here were otherwise deployed, we would have completed the discussion. The Bill might have been voted down, as is the democratic right of the committee, but think of how much further on we would be if we had had a discussion on this legislation and made amendments to it. If the Minister's legislation were subsequently introduced, many of the arguments would have been rehearsed and amendments might already have been agreed across party lines as to what should be included in the Minister's Bill.

It is wrong of the Chairman to allow himself to be manipulated by the Minister. On what basis was the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, asked to reply, given the way he replied? Usually when legislation comes before a committee the committee will decide it will take it in, for example, three weeks, write to the Minister to notify him of that, ask if that date suits and, if not, ask him or her for a different date. One would not ask if the Minister wants to come and take the legislation. The committee would be supreme and sovereign in making the decision that it intended to discuss the legislation. The Minister could eventually come to the committee and claim the committee is putting the cart before the horse or make whatever other argument he or she might wish to make. Why did the Chairman allow a letter to be sent to the Minister which gave the Minister the option of saying he does not wish to discuss the Bill and that the committee should not discuss it either until his legislation is available?

I also want to know more about the legal advice we received from Lia O'Hegarty, parliamentary legal adviser. What were the terms in which she was asked - I assume the adviser is a woman - to give the advice? It states that legally the committee is entitled to delay consideration of the Bill pending consideration by the Houses. That looks as if she was asked to comment on whether the committee can delay the Bill as opposed to advising on the powers of the committee. In other words, the Chairman asked for the type of advice he got.

In the second paragraph she states that it is not for her to advise on procedure. It is strangely worded legal advice. It looks as if she was almost set up to give the legal advice in this way.

Mr. Kelleher

That is very unfair.

Chairman

Are you pointing your finger at me, Deputy Owen?

Mrs. Owen

I want to know——

Chairman

I sought legal advice for the committee.

Mrs. Owen

You are not giving us legal advice.

Chairman

We sought this legal advice. It was 100% above board.

Mrs. Owen

Okay. I withdraw the set up but what was in the letter?

Chairman

You can see, as clearly as me, the legal advice we got. I accept it as genuine and above board. I had nothing to do with it. I made the request after Deputy Gilmore asked and the decision was taken by this committee. I stand over our actions.

Mrs. Owen

Perhaps I should rephrase my question. At the end of the submissions, could you or your officials read the e-mail of 2 March requesting the legal advice? I wish to be clear why the legal advice is worded in that way. That is what I am querying. The first sentence says that legally the committee is entitled to delay consideration of the Bill. That sounds as if the question was: "Are we entitled to delay consideration of the Bill?" That is front loading the advice we received. Clearly this advice does not say we cannot do it ourselves.

As a committee we need to ensure that anything we do does not give credibility to those who try to claim that these committees are nothing more than a gathering of Members or that they are just a type of show. Every member takes his or her committee work seriously and we must be careful to guard the primacy of our committee work. If a majority of the committee members wanted to consider this or any other legislation, it should be allowed to proceed irrespective of whether the Minister likes it or there are five other similar Bills. If we follow the way in which the committees are supposed to operate, we should consider this Bill. If the Fianna Fáil Party members are told to vote it down, that should be allowed to happen. If they wish to amend the Bill with better provisions, divisions should proceed.

However, the current position is wrong. This committee will be considered by other committees as having done them a disservice if we give in on this matter and do not proceed with the Bill. It does not matter if the Minister has different legislation. As others said, his Bill is a direct contradiction of this legislation. It is not simply a case of amending his legislation when it comes before the committee. I do not understand why the Chairman, for his own sake, does not tell the Minister to get lost. He should tell the Minister that he intends to put the Bill before the committee and that he wants the committee to take a lead in this area. He should say he does not want the committee to be made a patsy by a Minister who decides a matter should not be discussed. If the Government members really wanted to deal with this area, they would be glad to get the debate over and done. I am sure they do not want an argument. Deputy Ahern appears anxious and he likes to express his opinion. He is not always led by his brother or anybody else.

Mr. N. Ahern

A few minutes ago the Deputy said we were told what to do.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy does not want to be told what to do, but that is what is happening. They are being led and told what to say.

Mr. N. Ahern

Nobody tells me what to do.

Mrs. Owen

The members are being told not to allow this Bill to go through. I ask the Chairman to protect the committee. We look to him as our saviour and protector and he must look after us.

Mr. S. Ryan

Steady on.

Ms O. Mitchell

I support the motion. There are few matters with which the public is in total agreement. However, the public agrees the system for funding politics needs to be changed immediately. I am not sure of the background to the legal advice, but it states that the committee is entitled to delay consideration. If that is the case, the committee is equally entitled to consider a matter. It is entirely up to the committee whether it takes the Bill. There is no point postponing it pending the introduction of the Government's Bill. If we did so, the committee would do a gross disservice to itself, politics and the public by appearing to be unwilling to deal with this issue.

I do not know why the Government is so intransigent on this matter and so determined to get its own way. It is not something on which it should draw battle lines because dealing with this matter is in the interest not only of the political system, but every politician in the Fianna Fáil Party, the Progressive Democrats Party, the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party or even Sinn Féin. It is in all our interests to ensure that we are not continually on the treadmill of raising money for our political parties. Aside from the issue that it creates a perception for the public that it is potentially compromising, it is also a huge distraction from what we should do as politicians. The sooner we get ourselves off the hook of raising money, the better for us all.

Mr. Howlin

I regard this issue as among the most important matters facing this committee and politics. I am amazed that any Deputy would suggest that discussing this matter was a waste of time as one Fianna Fáil Party Deputy suggested earlier. There is a growing consensus in the Fianna Fáil Party and in all other parties in the House that the era of corporate funding and business interacting with politics is over. We should try to construct its end in a way that benefits politics. Every Member of the House, with perhaps one or two exceptions, wants to engage in that process as a matter of urgency. However, for whatever reason, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Taoiseach have decided to veto this process.

I am proud the Labour Party set an agenda on the issue of reforming the way in which politics works at the beginning of the 1990s. We did not do this from any position of self-righteousness, but because we wanted to set an agenda. A trilogy of legislation was introduced - the Freedom of Information Act, the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act, which I had the privilege of introducing in 1997. Those bedrock Acts have greatly helped in transforming the public's opinion of politics. Many political leaders, including members of the Government, have taken refuge in those enactments although representatives of those parties fought the legislation tooth and nail while in Opposition. I make these points from the two perspectives of being a member of the team that negotiated the programmes for Government that included those Acts and as the Minister who introduced one of the Acts.

I vividly remember the months I spent at the committee dealing with the Electoral Act, 1997. I also remember the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats whose then spokesman, who is now the Attorney General, said the Bill was so flawed that it was probably unconstitutional and so bad that it was incapable of being amended.

Mr. N. Ahern

What year was that?

Mr. Howlin

1996-97.

Mr. N. Ahern

Is the Deputy sure it was not earlier? Is he sure the Fianna Fáil Party was not in Government with the Labour Party?

Mr. Howlin

The Fianna Fáil Party was not in Government in 1997 when I introduced the Electoral Act. I was not the Minister for the Environment in the previous Administration. History has a habit of being changed. I read a statement on the Fianna Fáil Party's website some weeks ago - I read the website regularly——

Mrs. Owen

Does the Deputy not read it every morning?

Mr. Howlin

——from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the Electoral Act, 1997, was introduced by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. The Taoiseach wants to take full responsibility for establishing all the tribunals of inquiry, but it is galling when Bills the party fought tooth and nail suddenly become its legislation when it suits the argument.

Mr. Power

We will have to rectify that.

Mr. Howlin

I do not want to revisit history, but I will not allow it to be rewritten.

Mr. N. Ahern

I do not want that either.

Mr. Howlin

The debate needs to be advanced. The silly accusation being made repeatedly by members on the Government benches is that the Labour Party has imposed a veto on this issue. However, we will not enter a cosy club behind closed doors and deal with this issue over several months until the Government decides it wants to face the electorate on the basis of its proposals, which will add an additional £1 million to the Fianna Fáil Party's campaign. We will not do that. Deputy Noel Ahern asked what was wrong with this type of funding and with corporate donations and what was a corporate donation. I will quote from someone for whom he might have some regard, the Taoiseach, his brother.

Mrs. Owen

That is a bit much.

Mr. Howlin

The statements I will quote from the book, Bertie Ahern - Taoiseach and Peacemaker, by Ken Whelan and Eugene Masterson, were given by the Taoiseach and he approved the transcript before the book was printed.

Mr. N. Ahern

The Deputy should read it because it is impressive.

Mr. Howlin

The following is the Taoiseach's comments on corporate funding, which does not cause his brother any great difficulties:

On the general question of taking unsolicited donations Ahern is equally emphatic: 'When you co-operate with these guys they have you. If someone comes along to you and says, "Listen, I'd love to support the party; here's £20,000" - sure you know bloody well they're going to be back to you. I mean, I was occasionally slagged off about my anorak and not looking the best or having a few pints or whatever, but I'd rather have that life. Who wants to have islands, helicopters, boats?

If the Taoiseach is of the view that if someone gives £20,000 they will "be back to you", that is enough to end that level of interaction between politics and business. We need to do something about that now. We do not need obfuscation and silliness. The Deputies of all parties represented here want to deal with this issue. There is no joy in looking for funding for political parties. No matter how pure a donation, there is a view among the public that nothing is given without some strings attached.

I am also heartened by the support of Deputy Ó Caoláin for the motion but I am a little bemused by his emphatic opposition to external funding. This is a big issue. We must decide if we want money gathered in the United States to fund politics here. I understand his attachment to it. I am informed by one reputable journalist from his research that US$4.5 million have been generated in recent years by Sinn Féin. That sum would dwarf all other fund raising by all political parties. A letter was posted on the website of the Tara Division of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in Atlanta, Georgia, on 1 February this year.

Mr. M. Higgins

They are not working class Irish Americans.

Mr. Howlin

I am sure they are. The letter is signed by Mr. David Fitzgerald. It is obviously not geared to women because it begins "Dear Brothers". It states:

In a recent meeting with Gerry, I asked him what the Irish-American community in Atlanta could do to help in this continuous peace process. He said that any help we could provide in retiring the accumulated debt would be greatly appreciated. To that end, we're organizing the Atlanta St. Patrick's Day Ball, honoring Gerry Adams and benefiting Friends of Sinn Féin, on Saturday, March 17 at the Four Seasons Hotel in midtown. We would like your help.

We are currently organizing a Host Committee and would be honored if you would join. There are three levels of participation.

GOLD SPONSORS ($10,000) receive priority seating for ten at the event, invitations to an exclusive St. Patrick's Day luncheon and private reception with Gerry Adams

SILVER SPONSORS - ($5,000) receive preferred seating for ten, invitations to a private reception with Gerry

GREEN SPONSORS ($2,000) will receive a table with seating for ten guests [the green sponsors do not get to meet Gerry]

Individual seats ($250)

There is enormous scope for funding within the United States. However, we should fund politics from within our own jurisdiction from people with a stake in the outcome of the political decisions made by the people elected to this Parliament and political system. These are issues we can tease out if the debate we want to commence is allowed to commence.

Chairman

Did the Deputy see anything in that nice letter about Independents?

Mr. Howlin

There are not any dollars yet.

Chairman

That is no good.

Mrs. Owen

The Chairman would go down a bomb in America.

Mr. Howlin

I do not know about your fund raising capacity, Chairman, but knowing your political capacity, I am sure it is the equal of any.

This is an important debate. I make these points trenchantly but I hope fairly. We need new politics. There is a growing consensus within all parties in this Parliament and among the population which supports and sustains us to end the nefarious link between business and politics. The editorials and the people have said it. We can split hairs on what constitutes a personal donation and whether it is given by someone who holds corporate office. However, the Bill says the person must be a registered voter and he or she must give their own money. If company money is given, it will be unlawful. If a person gives his or her money, it will be capped at a modest level and disclosed. The thresholds in the Bill are open for debate; they are not written in stone.

If Deputy Ó Caoláin feels passionately about the funding of politics externally, he should make the argument and we can weigh it up. The notion of pretending that we will engage in a committee behind closed doors is a trap into which we will not fall. The time is now and the forum is here. I ask colleagues across the political spectrum to support the resolution proposed by Deputy Gilmore.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I concur with the concluding comments of Deputy Howlin. I have no doubt that if his party leaders had been as successful as Sinn Féin, he might not be as enthusiastic for the proposition today. That is just part of the reality because they failed.

Ms Clune

I support this motion. This Bill was discussed on Second Stage in the Dáil and it was agreed to send it to the committee. The legal advice given to the Chairman suggests there is no reason the committee cannot consider the Bill. The committee is entitled to delay consideration of the Bill or to consider it. The appropriate course of action is for the committee to address the question of when it will consider it. I do not have any objections to supporting this motion. I am sure the committee will decide when we will consider it. The Fine Gael Party supports it and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss both sides of the argument and to table amendments. The Labour Party is open to that.

Suggestions have been made that the public is not clamouring to ban corporate donations to political parties. The public is totally disillusioned with politics as a result of recent media reports, reports from tribunals and allegations about contributions to political parties. It is time we, as politicians, discussed such a Bill and put systems in place to restore confidence in political parties. There is always the perception that a corporate donation will compromise a political party. We must eliminate that from our political system and restore public confidence in it.

I will be delighted to go through the Bill in detail, line by line. It behoves us all to do so on Committee Stage, in public, where everybody has a chance to put their views on the table. Let us thrash it out from all sides.

Mr. Kirk

I have just joined the Select Committee but the issue of political donations is not new and has been on the political agenda for a long time. Depending on one's standpoint in the political arena, and on the basis of what has been said today, clearly there are widely differing views on how the matter should be addressed.

The Taoiseach's invitation to all parties in the Oireachtas to join him to discuss the issue, and hopefully to reach agreement on how we should fund the political system, seems a good starting point. We all accept that it costs money to run the political system, including parties. If we have a hit and miss arrangement in place where perhaps one party has a huge advantage over another - and a number of examples have been cited here that clearly confer significant advantages on smaller parties - we need to examine it. As Deputy Gilmore said, this legislation is tackling the problem on a piecemeal basis rather than in its totality. If we take corporate donations, with full transparency and disclosure, out of the system completely, how will they be replaced, irrespective of which party benefits, whether it is Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or Sinn Féin? Is the Labour Party proposing that we should have 100% funding of all political parties? If that proposal is being made, who will decide how much each party will receive at varying times? On what basis will campaigns by Independents, who surface from time to time on various issues, be supported financially? I am sure the Chairman will be interested in that question. If all parties in the Oireachtas, acting in unison, decide to ban all political donations, and if we decide that Sinn Féin should not receive the £4 million plus that Deputy Howlin mentioned earlier——

Mr. Howlin

Dollars.

Mr. Kelleher

It is all in dollars lately.

Mrs. Owen

The dollar was not as strong then as it is now.

Mr. Kirk

Even in dollars it is a significant sum of money and it is enlightening. I am sure that representatives of other political parties around the table were unaware that sort of money could be obtained in the United States. It speaks volumes for Sinn Féin's fund raising capacity that it can generate so much money, but whether it distorts the political system in Ireland, sin ceist eile, that clearly has to be considered.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Does the Deputy think one seat is too much for us?

Mr. Kirk

No. I am just making the point - when talking about the political system, not even about a political party - that if an injection of that amount of money can create an element of distortion, that matter obviously has to be considered. We can debate this legislation but essentially it is a piecemeal approach to what is a much broader and more complex issue. All the political parties really need to sit down together to discuss this. The invitation from the Taoiseach to all political parties to decide how this is to be approached, not alone in the short-term but also in the long-term, should be addressed immediately.

Mr. Power

I am surprised at the amount of time that has been devoted to this matter in the Chamber.

Mr. Howlin

That is depressing to hear.

Mrs. Owen

That is democracy.

Mr. Power

That may be so, but there has been much criticism. In particular, the Labour Leader, Deputy Quinn, has singled out the Minister for the Environment and Local Government for special mention in relation to his duties, both as a Minister and as a treasurer of the Fianna Fáil Party. His criticism has been most unfair. The Labour Party introduced a Private Members' Bill which was referred to our committee. The Minister introduced a Bill in the Seanad which passed Second Stage and provides for amendments to the Electoral Act, 1997. He indicated in his speech to the Seanad that he is quite open to suggestions and amendments from all parties, but that the Government is considering amendments. He has told us that he has still not finalised some of those amendments. Even if we were to take the Labour Bill before us today, the Government is not in a position to finalise its amendments. I accept what the Minister has said in that regard.

The public does not have a great interest in this matter, and certainly not to the same level as some parties would portray. Few candidates have spent as little money as I have on elections. I took part in the last local elections and did not spend a penny, although people might put that down to meanness. The amount of money we have wasted both as parties and individuals, has been ridiculous.

Mr. M. Higgins

We have the charisma.

Mr. Power

My honourable friend, Deputy Noel Ahern, mentioned something about following suit, and it is a mistake that many candidates and parties make. When they see another candidate advertising, they feel they must do the same or they will lose out. I still do not know what the difference is between corporate and private donations. If we were to accept the Labour Bill, I could meet Dr. Tony O'Reilly tomorrow morning in Kilcullen and he might give me £1,000. I would say, "Thanks very much, Tony". But if Independent Newspapers sent me a cheque for £5, I would have to send it back. That does not make sense to me and it will not make much sense to the public either. Given the fact that we will be declaring them, I cannot see where the problem is about corporate, private or personal donations. In order to deal with the Labour Party's Bill, it is important to have an alternative funding system in place, but we do not have that at the moment.

I resent the lecturing we have had from Labour representatives today and in recent weeks. Deputy Howlin mentioned the trap the Taoiseach was trying to place him in. The Taoiseach was quite open in inviting him, along with representatives of other parties, to discuss this issue.

Mr. Howlin

The most devious and most cunning.

Mr. M. Higgins

I wonder who said that.

Chairman

Quiet, please.

Mr. Power

He is the most efficient anyway, and is producing the goods. It is no wonder that Opposition Deputies are so concerned. As far as I am concerned, there is no trap and it is an open invitation. If Opposition Members have the courage of their convictions, I cannot see whythey are afraid to discuss the matter with other parties.

Mr. Howlin

That is what the spider said to the fly.

Mr. Power

It is not as if Labour will be dealing with Fianna Fáil on its own; the Fine Gael Party will also be there. The conspiracy theory in which the Deputy always seems to believe, is in his imagination.

Mrs. Owen

And the Progressive Democrats?

Mr. Power

Attitudes have changed. Some months ago a number of Fianna Fáil members suggested banning corporate donations. It is unlikely that all members of the Fine Gael Party agreed with Deputy Noonan's decision to ban such donations. They may be afraid to say it openly, but privately many of them think it is madness and that it will create many problems unless an alternative funding system is put in place.

The Labour Party has castigated Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin for past fundraising but it is not that long ago when a Labour Party Minister for Finance had his junior Minister issuing invitations to people to attend a function at £100 per plate and avail of a rare opportunity to gain access to the Minister. The Labour Party is now proposing that what was acceptable four or five years ago is to become a mortal sin today. Life is not like that. Until an alternative system of funding political parties is in place it would be inappropriate to deal with the Labour Party Bill.

Mr. Howlin

That is laughable.

Mr. Kirk

What about the Green Party?

Ms O’Sullivan

I am not a member of this committee but I am a member of another one. I am concerned that the wishes of the Minister appear to be overriding the rights of this committee to do its work. Some members have said it would be a good idea to establish an all-party committee to deal with this issue, but this all-party committee is the appropriate forum to deal with it. Why can this not be done? Contrary to what Fianna Fáil Party members of the committee are saying, the public is very concerned about politics, including the issues of funding and whether votes can be bought.

Deputy Noel Ahern suggested that there is no precedent to have a Bill proposed by an Opposition Member debated in this way. I published the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill. It was dealt with by the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. It was substantially amended by the Government and is now law.

Mr. N. Ahern

The Government had not published a Bill at the time. That is the difference.

Ms O’Sullivan

At around the same time the Government had given a commitment to deal with the general issue of child abuse. The Bill I published was accepted as being part of the contribution by the Opposition. The Government published legislation to establish a commission on child abuse, which addressed another aspect of the issue. I use this to illustrate how different aspects of an issue can be dealt with in different ways through the work of the Opposition and the Government. Similar work could be done here. The Government's Bill is in the Seanad and the Labour Party Bill can be considered by this committee.

The Labour Party is not seeking to throw its weigh around but is anxious to have the wishes of the Dáil implemented. It referred this Bill to this committee. The legal advice given to the chairman does not address the right of the committee to consider this Bill. It has a duty to deal with the Bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Kirk

The Deputy should join the all party committee.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

A number of Fianna Fáil members of the committee have called on other members to join the all party committee. This is the committee that is responsible to deal with this issue. As a representative of a small party I have not been invited join the all party committee. This is a contradictory position for the major party in Government to hold.

Mr. M. Higgins

It would be helpful, Chairman, if you could indicate the matter on which legal opinion was sought. It has been communicated to members of the committee that legally the committee is entitled to delay consideration of the Bill pending consideration by the Houses of the Oireachtas of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000. That may be an extract from a legal opinion or it may be a reply to a sole question on which legal clarification was sought. It could be put the other way in that legally, the committee is entitled to consider the Bill. The form of the question put for legal opinion is crucial.

This is not a legal matter only but a political matter. The question is whether it is politically appropriate to consider the Bill. That is dealt with in Deputy Gilmore's motion. It is very important in terms of the way committees work.

There are at least as many precedents that would justify the consideration of the Labour Party Bill as there are against. It is not accurate to say that the sole conclusion to be drawn from them is that one should either seek this legal advice, which is very partial, or be governed by it. This is a very important matter. If the information given to the committee is accepted it could be interpreted as meaning that an opinion was sought on how to obstruct the consideration of a Bill that had passed Second Stage in the Dáil. That would have serious implications in terms of the political future of the committee system. It would mean the Chair could seek measures to obstruct rather than proceed with the business of the committees.

I am not impressed with those who say the public is not clamouring for action. We must try to agree on a formula by which we may proceed. There is a consensus across parties on the need to eliminate corporate funding. Deputy McCormack and I share a constituency where the difference between the top and lowest spenders is approximately 400%.

Mr. McCormack

I qualify as the lowest spender.

Mr. M. Higgins

The lowest spender spends approximately a quarter of the amount spent by the highest spender. The Government does not have a Bill dealing with the same matter and it is pointless to compare this case with cases where the Government had introduced legislation dealing with the same matter.

There is an urgency about this. Constitutional referenda are planned to be held on 31 May. Having discussed the Labour Party Bill and the funding of parties, people might address the weakness in the Constitution in terms of the absence of a specific reference to political parties. Perhaps a legal obstruction to the handling of individual contributions and the limits to be placed on them may be identified, in which case this area may be appropriate for a constitutional amendment. If that is the case why not use the vehicle of a Bill that has passed Second Stage in the Dáil, deals comprehensively with these matters and could generate amendments? At that stage potential alternative legislation could be introduced. To state, however, that one should strike down the possibility of this Bill being debated and await the introduction of legislation which does not deal with the same matters and which does not extend the territory substantively is irresponsible.

There are a number of other issues that arose. The vast majority of members of all parties enter politics because they want to give public service. For that reason, if State funding is a model let us also consider it. I believe the Tánaiste is moving towards adopting a view on this, although some of her remarks have been, to put it in generous terms, disparate. If one can identify how to assist Independent Members and others - there may be constitutional impediments to so doing - let us also consider what mechanism would be most appropriate in that regard. The idea that the public will not know an election is taking place unless a candidate spends £30,000 is rather depressing. I suspect that members of the public are always aware of when elections are taking place. Over the past 30 years, I have not ever spent more than £12,500 on an election campaign.

There is merit in what is being proposed by my party, the effect of which would be to confine financial contributions to those on an electoral register. Deputy Ó Caoláin opposes that proposal, but my point is that we could discuss our differences when the Bill is being debated. I would imagine that there is a distinction between the average member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America and a person who emigrated from Connemara in 1955 and now lives in Boston.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

They could be one and the same person.

Mr. M. Higgins

There is a great deal to be said for social mobility. However, we can deal with such matters when we debate the Deputy's amendment on Committee Stage.

The proposed limits on donations are quite reasonable. People have made a great deal of the distinction my party draws between corporate donations and private donations which are corporate donations. This could be discussed on Committee Stage.

I would recommend caution in respect of one issue, particularly given that I spent many years working as a political scientist. We should limit corporate donations because it is right to do so. We should not conduct straw polls to see if the people are demanding that we limit them. If we did that, we would give a great deal more credibility to what I would term a "corrosive cynicism" about political life which is more popular than it should be. It is regarded as both acceptable and fashionable to be cynical about politics but I regard this as a cowardly attitude. It is a form of sloth and ignorance which is frequently combined with a lack of appreciation of history and an absence of sensitivity towards the real issues. I refuse to state that it is a superior position.

That being the case, there are many other aspects of reform we should consider in relation to politics. We will be able to discuss these on another occasion. Like its counterparts, this committee is poorly funded, its deliberations are rarely reported adequately and it is poorly staffed. The committee system is a joke, there are few facilities available for research staff and there is a lack of library support. If the Minister for the Environment and Local Government intended to introduce a comprehensive Bill which incorporated a wide range of reforms aimed at restoring confidence in politics and which dealt with the various matters I have raised relating to the Houses of the Oireachtas - possible constitutional amendments, recognition of political parties, funding and encouraging new people to enter the political system - one could then state that the Labour Party's Bill was the lesser of the two. Unfortunately, however, my party's Bill, which has passed Second Stage in the Dáil, deals with matters in respect of which the Minister has only made proposals outside the House. Is the Government's Bill before the Seanad or has it been withdrawn? If that is the case, how can it be stated that there is a Government alternative?

If there is not a Government alternative, we have returned to the point at which I began. When a legal opinion was sought, did anyone inquire whether, in the event of there being identical Government legislation, the Private Members' Bill could be delayed? If that is the case, the wrong question would have been asked. The Government Bill is not identical, nor perhaps is it current. There is a powerful case that we should proceed with the debate on the Private Members Bill because much of the discussion we are having now is appropriate to a Committee Stage debate.

Spending huge amounts of money on election campaigns is utter madness. Can Members imagine what would happen if it was suggested that national or provincial newspapers would be obliged to carry election advertisements free of charge.

Mr. Kirk

It would reduce the cost of elections considerably if they did so.

Mr. M. Higgins

The reality is that there should be an upper limit on expenditure and there should be disclosure. These are principles upon which Members should agree. In addition, as the Taoiseach has stated in interview for his forthcoming biography, there is no way that one will be approached by an innocent person with thousands of pounds who will state that he or she will not be back for something.

I hope Deputy Gilmore's proposal will not be voted down. If it is, however, what will those who oppose it be saying? They will be stating that we cannot discuss this Bill, which deals with the principles of accounting, declaration, limits, etc., and will be advocating that we debate legislation which does not deal with such matters. In many instances, the provisions of the Government Bill run contrary to those in the Labour Party's Bill. I cannot see how they will be doing other defeating the principles contained in Deputy Gilmore's Bill. If that is the case, how can they reconcile their earlier assertions that everyone is in favour of introducing legislation and it is only a matter of which legislation we choose.

As Deputy Gilmore suggested, if it does not begin today, the committee's consideration of Committee Stage of the Labour Party's Bill should commence next week or within the next two to three weeks. Constitutional consultation may be necessary at some stage, but if so, consideration of the legislation should be completed in time to allow this matter to be dealt with in the form of a constitutional referendum on 31 May - when other referenda are due to take place - if that is how the Government intends to proceed.

Mr. Killeen

It is fair to say this has been a constructive debate, with the exception of the occasional and understandable attempt at political point-scoring.

Mrs. Owen

I am sure Deputy Killeen will not engage in such activity.

Mr. Killeen

I probably will because it is part of our job.

The nature of the debate illustrates that many Members have given a great deal of thought to the funding of political parties and the state of the political process in general. It is clear that the committee should have addressed this matter before now, either in the way it has done or in a different manner.

I will now deal with a number of the points that have been raised. The first of these involves legal advice and the Chairman will recall that I proposed that such advice should be sought. For the first time since I have been a Member and, perhaps, for the first time ever, the Parliament has its a parliamentary legal adviser. Heretofore, the political process was bedevilled to some extent by the fact that the only legal advice that was granted currency or validity was that which came from the Attorney General, who, clearly, was charged with being the legal adviser to the Executive. Many of the difficulties that have beset Irish politics - and politics in other jurisdictions for that matter - have arisen because of the weakness of the Parliament vis-à-vis the Executive.

The funding of parties has been a weakness in our political system. I welcome the fact that this committee, as with any other element of the Oireachtas, has de facto its own legal adviser to whom it can turn. Further to today's advice, there may well be questions that need to be addressed to the legal adviser, and not just by this committee but by others. It is an institution that has the capacity to improve the efficacy of Parliament in a meaningful way. It is helpful to have received this advice, but it begs three or four questions that ought to be pursued, if not by this committee then by somebody else.

No speaker has mentioned a letter which each Member of the Dáil, and Senators for that matter, recently received from the Public Offices Commission. Three or four issues are raised in that letter which have not been effectively addressed and which will have an enormous bearing on the capacity of sitting Members to fight the next election. Those issues also have a fundamental bearing on the funding requirements for parties and individuals whenever the next election occurs. I am critical both of Deputy Gilmore's Bill and the Government Bill because they are being presented, in a vacuum, separately from considerations which will arise from the outcome of determinations by the Public Offices Commission. We will walk away from these issues at our peril, and we would be foolish to do so.

Mr. Howlin

On a point of clarification, the problem is that in its communication the Public Offices Commission told us it will not issue guidelines until the legislation is enacted, which is reasonable.

Mr. Killeen

I have gone to a great deal of trouble to follow up the issues raised by both Bills. I disagree strongly with the approach that is being taken, but that is another day's work. Those issues are not adequately addressed under the proposed legislation, but they should be. Regardless of which Bill we are dealing with by way of amendment, I do not think the issues can necessarily be addressed. In his sensible address, Deputy Howlin called for a forum to progress the debate. One of the difficulties is that the Taoiseach has proposed one forum but the Labour Party envisages another one. Many people say that this committee is the forum in which decisions should be made. It should be borne in mind, however, that three parties are not represented here - the Progressive Democrats, the Greens and the Socialist Party.

Mr. Howlin

And anybody who is an Independent.

Mr. Killeen

Yes. It is a more fundamental debate than one to be undertaken in the context of legislation, although it looks as if it will happen in that context.

Mrs. Owen

Does that mean the Deputy does not want to discuss the Minister's Bill here either?

Mr. Killeen

It will happen in the context of one Bill or the other.

Mrs. Owen

We could at least start the teasing out process.

Mr. Killeen

Whether it will be an all-party committee along the lines the Minister suggests or in this forum with one Bill or the other, a number of issues remain to be addressed. Until today, I thought that the principal purpose of Deputy Gilmore's Bill was to capitalise on the current media interest in funding.

Mrs. Owen

Shame on the Deputy. It is unworthy of him.

Mr. Killeen

Following the debate, we have to accept that errors have been made by all parties. As Deputy Gilmore said, it is accepted that there is a need for a clearer delineation of the separation between corporate interests and politics. We all accept that but there are some difficulties involved in how we should go about it. Listening to Deputy Ó Caoláin, it is clear he feels that much of the debate is about gaining party advantage from putting particular requirements in legislation. There is some validity in what he says. The matter needs to be teased out a good deal more.

A few speakers have mentioned the cost to the taxpayer of picking up the bill for most of the political process. While I would not shy away from that issue, I believe there will be an outcry over that cost. We should not ignore the issue.

On balance, the best approach would be to set out positions separately from legislation. However, since it has to be done in a legislative context and since there may well be some urgency, I do not see any reason the Minister's Bill ought not be the vehicle for doing this. However, I disagree with as much of that Bill as with Deputy Gilmore's Bill. I have set out some of my points to the Minister already. There is a fundamental weakness in the approach which seeks to limit expenditure without limiting the forms in which that expenditure can be made. That matter could usefully be examined, but it is for another day.

Mr. McCormack

I am a bit puzzled because we have spent over an hour - and will have spent two hours before we are finished - in agreeing not to discuss a Bill which we have been discussing for the past hour and a half. Some very valid points have been made during this discussion. Everybody seems to be quite happy with the debate today, so why can we not continue it a bit longer, or adjourn to another day and continue where we left off? We seem to have overcome the objection to the principle of discussing the Bill because we are doing so. We have established a precedent that we are willing to discuss the Bill.

The only difficulty Government Members seem to have is that not all parties are represented on this committee. The difference between this committee and the one being proposed by the Government is that this is a public forum for debate, open to the press and representing part of our constitutional duties. Nobody is ashamed of what we are saying and some people have expressed their views quite clearly, although some are still hedging their bets. The situation may become clearer if we had some more runs at the issue. Then we would know where everybody stands on the issue of funding political parties, including corporate funding. I know more clearly now where some Government members of the committee stand on the issue.

We will have to get the other parties who are not represented here to participate. Fianna Fáil is well represented on the committee and it would be quite easy for it to give a place to the other Government party. We might be able to fix up the Greens and then everybody would be here in their legitimate role as members of the committee to discuss and vote on various aspects of the Bill. We have started very well in discussing for two hours something that we did not want to discuss. Let us continue. There should be no difficulty in continuing. Let us get down to the real boxing instead of shadow boxing and we will be doing our committee and its function a great service.

Mrs. Owen

And the Minister can show that we have debated the Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

I would like to take up the two points made by Deputies Killeen and McCormack. We have had a very constructive discussion over the last hour and a half about a Bill that we have not yet started to discuss formally. We should give serious consideration to some of the suggestions made by Deputy McCormack in his final contribution rather than voting down the proposal to consider the Bill. I want to come back to that point in a couple of moments. I concur with the views expressed by Deputy Killeen on the issue of legal advice. It is fortunate that Parliament now has access to independent legal advice. The decision to seek that advice arose from my raising at meetings of the Joint Committee the need for a meeting of the Select Committee to be convened. It was agreed at the previous meeting of the Joint Committee that legal advice would be sought. I questioned at the time whether it was necessary to seek legal advice because it appeared the orders of reference of the Select Committee are so clear that there is no doubt the Select Committee is not only entitled to consider the Private Members' Bill but the Bill, having been ordered by the——

Mr. Kelleher

It is what it is not entitled to do.

Mr. Gilmore

Yes and, by the same token, if legal advice states that the committee is entitled to delay consideration of the Bill, I expect the corollary also applies, that it can proceed with consideration of the Bill.

I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin for indicating his support for the motion. If we are unable to proceed with the discussion, I look forward to teasing out with him why the Labour Party Bill is expressed in the terms it is. I hate to disappoint any sense of paranoia he may feel about the purpose of the Bill, but it is expressed in positive terms. It is expressed as conferring on registered voters an entitlement to contribute to political parties or to politicians. It will be an interesting debate, if we are allowed to proceed with it, to tease out the meaning of self-determination. Our Constitution defines who may participate in electoral politics and in the election of the various governing organs of State and who is entitled to vote and to be registered to vote.

There is an issue which has been debated before and on which I have views, namely, whether recent emigrants ought to have some consideration in that context, in which case, if they were entitled to be registered to vote, a consequential entitlement to contribute to a political party would follow. Perhaps that is another debate we should have. Similarly, if a wealthy business person decides to reside in Monaco for whatever reason, they are not entitled to be registered to vote. No matter what corporate entity they own or control, they are not entitled to contribute. The fact the Bill is expressed in positive terms and confers rights on individuals, and it is the individual who is entitled to be registered to vote and is the unit of politics in the State, means consequential rights flow from that and we should have the opportunity to tease that out.

Fianna Fáil Members who spoke made an unconvincing case for not proceeding with the Bill and I got the impression their heart is not in this case. The argument that there is some type of precedent that, because there is a Government Bill dealing with wider electoral matters in the Seanad, we cannot proceed to consider this Bill is nonsense. The Government Bill in the Seanad does not deal with the issue with which this Bill deals. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government indicated in a public statement his intention to introduce an amendment to that Bill which may deal with it——

Mr. Howlin

We have not seen it.

Mr. Gilmore

——and which we have not yet seen.

Mr. Killeen

Is it possible to introduce additional sections to the Minister's Bill when it comes to the Dáil incorporating some of what Deputy Gilmore believes is necessary?

Mr. Gilmore

I was going to make a practical suggestion. Why can we, as a committee, not proceed to consider Committee Stage of this Bill?

Mrs. Owen

Yes. It could be subsumed.

Mr. Gilmore

It may well be that, by the time we have concluded our consideration of it, the Minister's Bill, which has been initiated in the Seanad, may have found its way back to us, in which case, if there is a convergence of the two Bills, they can be married.

Mr. Kirk

I raised this issue at a recent committee meeting. We have a position with the new committee structure where committees can decide to call in officials on almost any issue. I will give an example. I am a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. It goes without saying that the issue of foot and mouth disease is current. Our committee decided to invite technical and administrative officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to a meeting to discuss the issue. There is also a committee dealing with agricultural matters. It simultaneously decided it would invite the same officials to another meeting to discuss the issue. We are all in favour of building efficiencies into the committee system——

Mr. Howlin

Select committees are only committees of the Dáil.

Mr. Kirk

——but two committees discussing the same issue——

Mr. Howlin

No, there is no other committee.

Mr. Kirk

——is a duplication of work.

Mr. Howlin

No, the Deputy has missed the point. There is no other committee in this case.

Mr. Kirk

Two Bills on the same issue running simultaneously through Parliament is a bit of a joke, to put it mildly.

Mr. Gilmore

That would be the case if the two Bills dealt with the same subject. This is the only legislative proposal before the Oireachtas dealing with corporate funding of political parties. The other Bill, which has been published by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, deals with various matters ranging from photographs on the ballot paper to electronic voting——

Mr. N. Ahern

To spend at election time.

Mr. Gilmore

Yes. There is no proposal in the Bill published by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government which is before the Seanad for dealing with corporate donations.

Mrs. Owen

It is wrong to imply there is.

Mr. Howlin

Is there a suggestion we have a veto on Government proposals?

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to deal with the issue of the all-party committee which was raised.

Mr. Kelleher

Which has been snubbed.

Mr. Gilmore

No, it has not. This is an all-party committee. Any Member of the House is entitled to attend this meeting. I have indicated, as have my party colleagues and there has been general acceptance of this, that we do not want to promote the Bill in an adversarial way but in a constructive fashion. If amendments are tabled, we can consider them. This committee is where we should do it. The Taoiseach has essentially proposed that there be a private discussion between representatives of political parties around the issue of funding.

Mr. N. Ahern

Yes, so no one would be grandstanding.

Mr. Kirk

He wants to address the totality of it.

Mr. Gilmore

No one is grandstanding and we can discuss the totality of it here. A number of people raised the question of how, if corporate donations are banned, political parties will be funded. Why can we not discuss that here? There is a strong case for discussing that in public at this committee. It is about time we had a dialogue with the public about the funding of politics.

It costs a great deal of money to produce the leaflets Deputy Ahern distributes around Finglas, to produce the newspaper Deputy Ó Caoláin's party publishes, to organise an Árd Fheis or for a political party to put together policy documents. It is about time we had a discussion in public in order that people who write to us individually querying our policy or position on various issues know that a cost is associated with the formulation of that policy or position.

Everyone in the political arena knows that politics in Ireland in the latter part of the previous century has been funded largely through corporate donations. We have reached a point in history where it must end, and I am sure most people in politics accept this must happen. What does one put in its place? We have to discuss that in public. If we do not, the kinds of fears that have been expressed about moving to State funding will arise and there will be a huge row. Of course members of the public will rebel if they are presented with something that has not been discussed in public.

We have started a very good preliminary discussion on this question at this committee. That discussion should continue. We have three alternatives. One is that we accept the motion I am putting forward. While I accept the motion says we should proceed forthwith, I accept that the reality is that we are probably talking about some reasonable date in the near future when the Minister is available and so on. That is one way of doing it. A second alternative open to the meeting is to vote that down but I ask the committee not to do that. The third relates to the suggestion of Deputy McCormack, which is that we should continue this very good preliminary discussion, and I would be happy to accept a reasonable date to which we might adjourn to continue that discussion.

I appeal to the Fianna Fáil Members not to vote down my proposal. The chair also has a vote on this and, while I respect and understand his arrangement with the Government, this will not bring down the Government. The chair can exercise his independence as a Deputy and as chair of this committee. I ask the chair not to support any move to vote down my proposal. I also appeal to Fianna Fáil Members not to vote down this motion. If they do so, we will back to the issue of corporate donations the next time some massive skeleton comes out of one the tribunals.

I recall the beginning of this Parliament when we had discussions in the House about setting up tribunals. Proposals to extend the terms of reference of Moriarty were voted down and a couple of weeks later we were back, in the face of another magazine or newspaper article, to do a volte face. This can be voted down today and Members can say, "we got the Labour Party Bill off the agenda", but when the next skeleton comes out of the tribunals we will be back here again. I will put my motion but if there were agreement on an adjournment of consideration to a date perhaps two weeks in future to continue this preliminary discussion along the lines suggested by Deputy McCormack I would agree to that. I appeal to Fianna Fáil Members to agree to that also.

Mr. McCormack

I second that.

Mr. Kelleher

Deputy Gilmore has made a very convincing argument and the ideal forum for discussion in broad terms of party funding and electoral reform is the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government. It is probably on the work programme and we would be able to convene meetings of the joint committee to discuss those and other issues.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. N. Ahern

You were getting places but now you are going backwards.

Mr. Howlin

No, no.

Mr. Kelleher

It is a lot broader than corporate donations. There is a consensus around the table that this is more than just a matter of donations to political parties; it is a matter of funding and electoral reform, which could be discussed easily in the joint committee. It could then come forward with a consensus and a report.

Mr. Howlin

No, a report would be another delay.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kelleher

Another way to discuss this would be for the Labour Party to put down a large tranche of amendments to the Government Bill going through the Seanad which would incorporate parts of this Bill. We would have one committee meeting to discuss one Bill as against several meetings to discuss Committee Stage of two Bills.

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy is not treating this seriously.

Chairman

I thank everyone for their contributions. We had a good discussion. The question is, "That the motion be agreed to."

Mr. Howlin

What motion?

Chairman

Deputy Gilmore's motion. The question is, "That the committee commence consideration forthwith of Committee Stage of the Electoral Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill, 2000."

Mr. Howlin

On a point of order, I thought we were close to taking a step forward, not by getting a report from a joint committee, but by reconvening this committee as a select committee——

Chairman

The work of the joint committee is a matter for the joint committee.

Mr. Howlin

This is a select committee and it is quite proper and routine for preliminary discussions on issues of a Bill to take place before debate on the sections of a Bill. We have already done that today and in a spirit of consensus, I appeal to our Fianna Fáil colleagues not to vote down this because they will not kill off the idea but allow another round of preliminary discussions with the Minister present at a select committee meeting in two weeks.

Mr. McCormack

There should be no need to put this as we have consensus.

Chairman

The question is——

Mr. McCormack

I think we have consensus and there is no need to put the question. I thought Government Members were agreeing to a continuation of the debate as we started it today.

Mrs. Owen

They are saying to put it back to the joint committee.

Chairman

I am sorry but I have a motion before me.

Mr. Howlin

Is there an amendment as well?

Chairman

I have a motion and I have to put the question.

(Interruptions.)

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The amendment is worthy and we should not be phased by the opportunity to debate this. A continuation of this process is the correct option. It is sad that we are being offered the misnomer of an all-party committee which will exclude me, a member of this select committee, from that opportunity. It is patently dishonest of people to talk about an all-party opportunity. This is the opportunity and I wish to record my support for the amendment.

Mr. McCormack

If we are able to continue this discussion next time perhaps we could incorporate the chair's feelings on the dual mandate, which might help the chair to support our view of this. The chair will have the opportunity to discuss that.

Chairman

The question now is——

Mrs. Owen

On a point of order, the chair must put the amendment first.

Mr. Gilmore

We discussed an amendment and it is unusual for me to amend my own motion but I move:

"That this meeting of the select committee be adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday 4 April and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government be invited to attend that meeting."

Mr. McCormack

I second that.

Chairman

I have a motion.

Mr. Gilmore

The chair has an amendment now.

Mrs. Owen

The chair must put the amendment under Standing Orders. We are all members of a local authority and know damn well——

Chairman

The only time we can ask the Minister to come in is when we are discussing legislation.

Mr. Gilmore

We are discussing legislation.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Owen

Chairman, you have to put the amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

Chairman, on a point of order.

Chairman

I have given the Deputy ample opportunity all day and he cannot point the finger at me.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not doing so, Chairman.

Chairman

I have been more than reasonable as regards time.

Mr. Gilmore

Chairman, I am making no complaint about you.

Chairman

That is fine.

Mr. Gilmore

I am proposing that this meeting be adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 April and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government be invited to attend. Chairman, you are required to deal with that motion before the substantive motion.

Chairman

I am sorry, Deputy, but I am making a decision.

Mr. Gilmore

You cannot make that decision, Chairman.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Howlin

That is out of order, Sir, and against the rules of the House.

Mr. Gilmore

Chairman, I am proposing that the meeting adjourn. I do not wish to argue with you. I have proposed that this meeting be adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 April and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government be invited to attend. That is a perfectly orderly request.

Chairman

Is that agreed?

Mr. Kelleher

No.

Mrs. Owen

Deputy Kelleher is the only member who disagrees.

A Deputy

We disagree.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Howlin

They do not even want us to meet again to discuss the matter.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputies should take a chance.

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy

We want to give the Deputies a chance to table the motion again.

Mr. Howlin

So we can hear the committee's views. It is called democracy.

Mr. Kelleher

The joint committee is the place for such a procedure.

Mr. Howlin

The Minister cannot appear before the joint committee.

Mr. Kelleher

The Minister can appear before the joint committee, as can anyone else.

Chairman

Does the committee agree to adjourn until 2 p.m. on 4 April?

Mr. Gilmore

Agreed.

Mr. Power

Chairman, I do not think you are reading Deputy Gilmore's proposal correctly.

Mr. Howlin

Deputy Gilmore should read his proposal again.

Mr. Gilmore

I am proposing that this meeting of the select committee be adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 April and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government be invited to attend.

Mr. N. Ahern

To do what?

Mr. Gilmore

To discuss the matter.

Mrs Owen

To hear more of the Deputy's wisdom.

Chairman

Is that agreed?

Deputies

No.

Mr. Gilmore

Chairman, I wish you to put the question.

Question put.

Mr. Gilmore

Vótáil.

Question put: "That the committee adjourn until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 April".

The committee divided: Tá, 7 7; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Clune, Deirdre.
• Gilmore, Éamon.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Owen, Nora.
• Timmins, Billy.

Níl

• Ahern, Noel.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Healy-Rae, Jackie.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Power, Seán.

Chairman

We have an equality of votes——

Mr. Gilmore

On a point of order——

Chairman

It is not in order to make a point of order while a vote is being taken.

Mr. Gilmore

I am trying to be helpful and save the Chairman some embarrassment.

Chairman

I will run the meeting as I see fit. The question is decided in the negative.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Gilmore

How is it decided in the negative? Does the Chairman intend to vote again?

Chairman

Where there is an equality of votes, the question is decided in the negative.

Mr. Gilmore

What Standing Order states that, Chairman?

Chairman

I do not know who made the Standing Order but it was not me. I am informed it is Standing Order No. 85.

Question declared lost.

Mr. McCormack

In light of the equality of votes——

Chairman

The question now is on the original motion that the committee commence consideration forthwith of the Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill, 2000 referred by an order of the Dáil of 14 December last.

Mr. McCormack

In light of the equality of votes, I propose that we continue this debate at the next meeting without requiring the Minister to be present, if that is where the difficulties arise.

Chairman

We must proceed.

Question put: "That Committee Stage be taken now."

The Committee divided: Tá, 7 7; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Clune, Deirdre.
• Gilmore, Éamon.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Owen, Nora.
• Timmins, Billy.

Níl

• Ahern, Noel.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Healy-Rae, Jackie.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Power, Seán.

Chairman

As there is an equality ofvotes I am deciding the question in the neg-ative.

Question declared lost.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4.22 p.m.