Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83 and 87 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 18 to delete "subsections (2) and (3)" and substitute "subsections (2), (3) and (4)".
Section 16(1) specifies that payments under this section will be made by the Minister for Finance in quarterly instalments in arrears in each year. Subsection (2) provides that no payment may be made on or after 1 April in respect of that year unless the audited statement relating to the use of the previous year's payments and the donation statement in respect of the previous year have been furnished by the party to the Public Offices Commission. The commission must certify that the statements furnished to it comply with the guidelines issued by it under section 3 and Parts II and IV of the Bill.
Amendment No. 82 provides for the insertion of new provisions in section 16 to clarify that payments made to political parties under the Bill will not commence until a period of three months has elapsed after the result of the next general election has been declared. Legal advice on the implications of the judgment in the McKenna case is that any proposed scheme of payments provided for in the Bill should be made after the next general election and should be based on the level of support obtained at that election. The proposed new subsection (2)(a) in the amendment provides accordingly. The new subsection (2)(b) makes clear that payments made to a party after a general election will apply to and continue to be made during the period from polling day at that general election to the day before polling day at the subsequent general election.
Section 16(1) as drafted provides that payments shall be made in quarterly instalments in arrears. In the proposed new subsection (3), it is specified that any payment which may be due to a party on the dissolution of the Dáil for a period of less than a quarter shall be made to the party. This provision will remove any doubt in relation to the power of the Minister for Finance to make payment of a sum for a period of less than a quarter.
Amendment No. 80 is a drafting amendment to subsection (1), consequential on the insertion of the new subsections in section 16. It has the effect of making payments under this Part subject to the provisions of the two new subsections inserted by the previous amendment as well as the existing subsection (2).
Amendment No. 81 provides for the deletion of the reference to "each year" in subsection (1) as the effect of amendment No. 82 will be to relate payments to the period between elections. Payments will be made quarterly commencing on polling day at such elections.
Amendment No. 83 provides for the deletion of the reference to "in respect of that year" in subsection (2). It is possible that a payment due in the month of April may relate wholly or partly to the previous calendar year, depending on when a quarter commenced.
Regarding amendment No. 87, section 16(3) provides that if this Part comes into operation later than 30 September in any year, payments in respect of that year will be made in not more than two instalments. Payments to be made under section 17, as amended by later amendments, will commence after the next general election and will not be back-dated to 1 January. This amendment provides for the deletion of section 16(3) to take account of this new provision.
The Minister of State said payments commence from polling day. Do payments cease on the date of dissolution or will they continue until the next polling day?
The next polling day.
The interregnum between dissolution and the election is covered.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 20 to delete "in each year".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 14, between lines 20 and 21 to insert the following subsections:
"(2) (a) The first payment under this Part shall not be made until not less than three months have elapsed after the declaration of the result of the general election held next after the coming into operation of this Part is completed in each constituency.
(b) Payments made under this Part, calculated in accordance with section 15, after the general election referred to in paragraph (a) and each subsequent general election shall apply from polling day at such election and such payments so calculated shall continue to be made in respect of the period up to and including the day before polling day at the general election held next after the first-mentioned polling day.
(3) Where, on a dissolution of the Dáil, the period between the end of the quarter in respect of which payments were last made or due to be made before such dissolution and the polling day at the general election occasioned by such dissolution is a period of less than a quarter, the payments due to qualified parties for such period, calculated accordingly, shall be made to such qualified parties for such period.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 14, subsection (2), line 22 to delete "in respect of that year".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 14, subsection (2), line 27, to delete "Minister for Finance and".
This Bill deals with politics and politicians. Under this section, many documents must go to the Minister for Finance for his approval and the Public Offices Commission. The purpose of the amendment is to delete the reference to the Minister for Finance.
Amendment No. 85 suggests that the Public Offices Commission should receive the information political parties are required to supply. It would check it and when it is satisfied everything is in order, it would certify that to the Minister for Finance. When the Minister for Finance received the certificate, he or she would then issue payments. Most of this information is in the public domain anyway. Irrespective of the identity of the Minister for Finance, he or she should be one step removed in this area. The certification procedure should be carried out by the Public Offices Commission which is an independent body.
This is the purpose of the amendments but they are not a reflection on the current Minister for Finance or future holders of that office. However, from the public perception point of view, it is important that the commission, which is an independent body that will look after this matter and the Ethics in Public Office legislation, certifies that everything is in order. It is not clear in the section whether the Minister can overrule the Public Offices Commission, submit observations or refuse to pay sums to a political party because he is not satisfied everything is in order.
This could give rise to difficulties of a political nature in future if a Minister for Finance says for political reasons that he or she has a difficulty making a payment because he or she is not satisfied with various aspects. He or she may decide two days later to issue the payment but the damage will have been done to a political party in the meantime because there was doubt about the accounts it submitted. However, if the Public Offices Commission dealt with this area, it would certify that everything was in order and the Minister would merely be responsible for making the payments.
It is important that the Minister who is responsible for paying the money is included in the section. Ultimately, the Minister will be accountable if mistakes are made. It is important that the Minister is furnished with the information. However, it involves swings and roundabouts. There will be different Ministers for Finance of different political persuasions. Since the Minister will be ultimately responsible for providing the funding for this purpose, it is better that he or she is included in the section. To exclude the Minister would not necessarily be an improvement.
I am not suggesting the exclusion of the Minister for Finance but his exclusion from the certification procedure. No matter who that Minister is, there is a danger of political motivation for the Minister not signing. Perhaps the amendment is unclear but the parties must send all their information to the Public Offices Commission where it is investigated. I suggest that as it decides whether the information submitted is in order, it should issue a certificate stating that the party concerned has complied with all the relevant conditions. The Minister need only know that that is the opinion of an independent body set up for that purpose and can then pay the money. We might say that a Minister would not do something out of political motivation, though we have had suggestions along those lines in the past week, but in an area as political as this my amendment should be considered.
The Deputy might look at amendment No. 86 because it deals with this issue. It states: " In page 14, subsection (2). line 27 after "respectively" to insert "and the Public Offices Commission has certified to the Minister for Finance that the said statement and report, and the said donation statement and statutory declaration were completed in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commission under section 3, and comply with the provisions of this Part and Part IV, respectively." That is my proposed procedure.
That amendment would be acceptable if one did not have the earlier section. I cannot see why one would need to do both. The Minister of State wants to insert her amendment after "respectively", which leaves section 16(2) intact. I have no great difficulty with that procedure but it should be entered earlier in the Bill. If the section of the amendment stating "has been received by the Minister for Finance" was replaced with "has been received by the Public Offices Commission", we would not be very far apart. The amendment introduces the Minister for Finance as the person who is certifying and performing the same role as the Public Offices Commission. If the Minister for Finance was omitted from the amendment of the Minister of State we would be on the same wavelength.
I do not see this in the same way as the Deputy. Amendment No. 86 states clearly that ultimately the Minister will have to carry the can so it makes no fundamental difference if the information is provided to the Minister for Finance and the Public Offices Commission and the certification procedure is carried out.
Put bluntly, it does. If I were to submit the application on behalf of Fianna Fáil, my audited accounts and statements are going to another politician, the Minister for Finance, who should not have that information. It will be in the public domain but he should not be involved in the certification procedure. As the amendment of the Minister of State says, the Public Offices Commission certifies the application. Why should a party send a statement and the auditor's report to the Minister for Finance as well as the Public Offices Commission? That Commission certifies the application and it is rubber stamped by the Minister. This is nonsensical and unnecessary. If the application goes to the Commission and it certifies it, the Minister should then pay or not. If the Minister is answerable, he should be the last person to deal with this.
I do not see that that is a difficulty.
It is a difficulty.
Perhaps the Deputy would withdraw the amendment so that we can look at it again. We seem to agree on amendment No. 86.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 85 not moved.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 14, subsection (2), line 27 after "respectively" to insert "and the Public Offices Commission has certified to the Minister for Finance that the said statement and report, and the said donation statement and statutory declaration were completed in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commission under section 3, and comply with the provisions of this Part and Part IV, respectively".
We will have to take the Minister for Finance out of the earlier part.
The Deputy will want to bring the Minister in to answer questions.
The Minister should not be involved in certification but we can argue that again.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 14, lines 28 to 30, to delete subsection (3).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.