With the permission of the Chair, I propose to share my time with my colleagues Deputy Creed.
Private Members' Business. - Ethics in Government and Public Office Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
When I spoke on the Bill last week I dealt with its pros and cons. I agree with it but there are limits beyond which we should be careful not to go. I have no hesitation in saying that it is essential we try to achieve the highest possible standards in public office and maintain them. Reference is made in the explanatory memorandum to the various interests that a Member might register such as the ownership of land, company directorships and so on but I note in Part II that details of savings or investment accounts should be registered with the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad. I should like to sound a warning that one can go too far down that road and dissuade people, who may have a worthwhile contribution to make to public life, from serving the public as a matter of principle.
The Bill contains a number of provisions which would protect the interests of the Members of the Houses of the Oireachas in the event of allegations being made. That is what the Bill should do and I agree with that proposal.
At the outset I should like to compliment the Labour Party, and Deputy Howlin in particular, for bringing forward this worthwhile and timely Bill. Internationally, we are very much out of step in that we do not have a code of conduct or a yardstick with which to measure the performance of those who hold public office. In debating the Bill we should be mindful of the great deal of apathy and cynicism towards politicians and the political process. A Bill which sets standards for public representatives by which the public can gauge their performance, is necessary in that it would go a long way towards restoring the confidence of the public in the political process and integrity to political life.
Undoubtedly, democracy is a delicate flower which needs constant nurturing and attention lest it be replaced by something far less palatable. Our democracy is being undermined by the cynicism and apathy towards the political process and politicians. Those involved in the political process are acutely aware of this malaise. I make no bones about the fact that I have firmly held opinions on who is responsible for that attitude. The politics of promises and the politics of broken promises subsequently, has a lot to answer for but a
Bill such as this would go a long way towards, addressing the problem. What is unfortunate is that the public no longer distinguish between those of us who behave ourselves and act in a manner which benefits the office we hold and those who do not. It is a plague on all our houses and it needs to be tackled immediately if we are to protect the democratic process itself. Not only is the Bill necessary to protect the interests of those who participate in the democratic process at election time but it is also necessary to protect the interests of politicians.
I can say in all honesty that the vast majority of those who hold public office, be they county councillors, urban councillors or Members of the Dáil or Seanad, are well motivated, well intentioned, honest and hard working but we have reached a point where the actions of a few have had a demoralising effect on the public who no longer distinguish between those of us who set standards for ourselves and those who do not. The democratic process has not seen fit to date to lay down a yardstick by which the public can adjudicate on our performance.
I compliment the Labour Party on bringing forward this timely Bill which should, if enacted, go a long way towards restoring confidence in the political process. However, I disagree with a number of sections. I have no objection to Part I of the Bill which deals with gifts made to office holders valued in excess of £200. There is a danger that gifts will be given to office holders in the expectation that the favour will be returned at a later stage. In an effort to allay people's fears, there is a duty on us to remove that possible stigma. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Taoiseach when he was given the dagger inlaid with jewels was expected to return the favour and if he was I am sure he would not have done so. The important point is that in passing this legislation we will be removing the possibility that a person who wishes to make a donation to individual politicians will have a legitimate expectation of receiving favours in return. While the figure of £200 is somewhat arbitrary we could tease out the worthy principle on Committee Stage.
I have no objection in principle to Part II of the Bill which deals with the registration of the interests of Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. However, I can see no reason why the spouse or children of a Member of this House should have to declare their interests. That would amount to an invasion of the privacy of individuals who have no direct connection with this House. I do not see any reason why those interests should be published. If we had an ethics commission, consisting of a High Court judge, the Ombudsman and the Comptroller and Auditor General, they could in a suspected case of conflict of interest adjudicate. I see no reason why the public at large should have access to private information on any Member of the House except in a suspected case of conflict of interest. I certainly see no need to invade the private life of a spouse or of a child of an elected representative.
I know that time is against me but I would like to deal with Part III of the Bill which deals with the funding of political parties, and the register of income and expenditure. I feel extremely strongly about this. In the absence of standards set down by this House, there is a grave danger that the political system is wide open to abuse by virtue of donations to political parties which could be given in the reasonable expectation of favourable consideration in decision making by Government Ministers. That avenue has to be closed off in the very immediate future.
We need State investment in the democratic process. We need State funding for political parties. The present system is wide open to abuse by unscrupulous people. In the past week we have had evidence of business people attempting to influence decisions which are solely vested in the Taoiseach. The crass arrogance of people who would assume unto themselves the capacity to influence decisions of that nature is hardly worthy of comment but it is a serious undermining of the democratic process.
Hand in hand with State funding for political parties we need legislation to limit the amount of money that parties or individual candidates can spend at election time. The moneys available to political parties or candidates at election time go a long way to diluting the strength of individual votes in the sense that the more money a candidate has to launch an effective campaign the more he can undermine the impact of his competitors to compete for the votes of the electorate in any constituency. In that sense there is a serious need for the elimination of that avenue of abuse.
In conclusion, there are numerous people involved in political parties whose abilities and energies are being absorbed by fund raising and, therefore, their capacity to put their ideas and energies into the political process is limited by the need to raise funds to compete in the present environment. The amount of money spent by both parties and candidates at election time is immoral and there is a need for legislation to tackle this as well, although this is not raised in any great detail in the Bill.
I support the principle of the Bill and we could tease it out further on Committee Stage if it were to get to that Stage.
As indicated last week, the Government will not be supporting this Bill in principle because we are not satisfied that it addresses the issues contained in it in an appropriate manner.
As Deputies know, the Bill is in three Parts. First, it proposes to lay down rules for the acceptance of gifts by members of the Government, the Attorney General and Ministers of State; secondly, it provides for the registration of the financial and other interests of Members of the Dáil and Seanad; and finally, it proposes the publication of the income and expenditure of political parties.
If I may, I would like to deal first with the proposal to compel Deputies and Senators to declare their financial and other interests. There is a strong argument which suggests that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue as a matter of House rules and procedure, rather than by way of legislation. The exclusive right of each House of the Oireachtas to determine its own rules and procedures, and to regulate for its Members, is enshrined in Article 15.10 of the Constitution. While some matters pertaining to Members — such as Members' allowances and expenses — are regulated by statute, these are matters for which legislation is explicitly prescribed elsewhere in the Constitution.
It could be argued that questions concerning Members' private financial interests fall within the ambit of Article 15.10 — in which case it would be preferable to introduce a scheme for the registration of those interests by way of amending the Standing Orders or House rules rather than legislating.
This view is reinforced by the fact that the Bill provides a mechanism for suspending a Member from the service of the House for not disclosing fully his interests. Article 15.10 provides that each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement. Surely, the suspension of a Member would fall into this category.
Another unsatisfactory aspect of proceeding by way of legislation is that this House is being asked to approve a Bill which will have implications not only for its own Members but also for Members of the other House. The process will, of course, be repeated, in reverse, should the Bill go before the Seanad. Again, this could be construed as being contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of Article 15.10.
As Deputies are aware, the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges have already been asked to look at the question of establishing a register of interests, although no recommendations have been made. That committee referred the matter to the parliamentary parties for discussion in the first instance, for the reason that it would be better to proceed with this proposal on the basis of all-party agreement. I still feel that the best way to make progress might be through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Government propose to request that committee to undertake a detailed examination of all the issues involved and to bring forward proposals, which the parties could then consider.
Although Deputy Gay Mitchell indicated that his party will be supporting the Bill in principle, he too has suggested that the issue might best be addressed through the rules and regulations of the House. He has already proposed that, as a first step, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges might be asked to prepare draft regulations. This would, of course, be in line with the Government's thinking in the matter. The fact that Deputy Mitchell also suggested a different format for ascertaining Members' interests involving the establishment of a parliamentary ethics commission, to whom disclosures would in the normal course be made on a confidential basis, indicates to me that there is more than one way to approach this issue.
Deputy Howlin, in opening this debate, has already indicated that his party would welcome proposals and ideas from the other parties which would establish the same principles as those being sought in the Bill.
Prior to introducing their register of interests, the British House of Commons had a well established rule which required an MP who had a direct pecuniary interest in a matter before the House to declare it when taking part in the debate and to abstain from voting in connection with it. In order to operate as a disqualification, the interest had to be immediate and personal and not merely of a general or remote character.
Obviously, in our situation, it would not be possible to allow Deputies to abstain from voting on such grounds. However, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges might wish to consider whether a simple requirement that a Member indicate his interest in any matter under discussion should be introduced. I am sure that such a requirement would be respected and adhered to by Members. In this regard, it should be remembered that while even the present British system cannot compel a Member to declare his interests, only one MP has refused to do so since the register was introduced 16 years ago and that was on grounds of principle.
I am sure Deputies will agree, therefore, that there are a number of alternatives which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges could look at with a view to recommending the one which would best suit the particular needs of this House and its Members.
While there has been some criticism of the fact that the Dáil does not have a register of Members' interests, I would like to point out — and this is sometimes overlooked — that Ministers and Ministers of State already subscribe to a code of practice, the underlying principle of which is that he or she should not engage in any activities whatsoever that could reasonably be regarded as interfering with, or being incompatible with, the full and proper discharge of his or her office. Ministers or Minister of State are not permitted to hold company directorships carrying remuneration. Even if remuneration is not paid, it would be regarded as undesirable that a Minister or Minister of State should hold a directorship. A resigning director can, however, enter into an agreement with a company under which the company would agree to his reappointment as director on the termination of public office.
Furthermore, Ministers or Ministers of State are not permitted to carry on a professional practice while holding office, although there would be no objection to making arrangements for the maintenance of a practice while holding public office and for return to the practice on ceasing to hold office.
I am sure Deputies will agree that these principles, which all Ministers and Minister of State are made aware of on appointment, go considerably further than what is being proposed in the Bill before us. I am not suggesting that back-bench TDs and Senators should also be compelled to adhere to this code of practice. I merely point it out as it is often overlooked by those who criticise our existing practice.
The Bill also proposes that political parties be obliged to register for publication their income and expenditure, including the identity of donors, of over £1,000 in any one year. The Clerk of the Dáil would be the registrar and twice a year would lay the details reported by the parties before the House. In effect, this would mean publication. Deputy Creed has already given his views in regard to the publication of the names of such parties.
The financial resources of political parties is a sensitive issue, which has regularly stimulated discussion not only in this country but in various other parliamentary democracies. In Ireland, there have always been very strict guidelines for political parties, particularly those in Government, to ensure that any information about donations is distanced entirely from the main thrust of the political machine. In Government, Ministers will not ordinarily be aware of details about business contributions, nor do they have any wish to know them in the context of the decision-making process. While it is true that political parties in Ireland enjoy greater freedom from official control regarding their finances than most of their European counterparts, it is generally accepted that this position has not been abused. I think that Deputy Howlin as much as acknowledged this fact when he indicated that the Bill is not so much designed to stop any existing corrupt practices but to ensure that the parties are above suspicion in this regard.
As other contributors to this debate have already pointed out, it is somewhat disappointing that the Bill confines itself solely to the question of the public disclosure of political contributions and ignores the broader issue of the funding of political parties generally. If we are to examine the question of party funding, we should perhaps examine the issue from all its different perspectives and then legislate accordingly, if that is considered necessary. As my colleague the Minister for Finance said in the House last week, there is not much point in legislating on one single aspect when there may be a case for taking a broader look at this whole issue.
Some Deputies have raised specifically the question as to whether the political parties should be funded mainly by the State or whether they should continue to rely on private subscriptions and national collections. If the parties were to be State-funded exclusively, it would, of course, effectively remove any suspicions of political favouritism and would also negate the need for the type of register proposed in this Bill. On the other hand, any move in this direction might most likely be met with a great deal of scepticism from the general public——
And the Progressive Democrats.
——who might have other priorities in relation to the spending of Exchequer funds. I do not intend in this debate to go into the arguments for and against State funding of the political parties because, as I have said, the Bill does not deal with this broader issue but confines itself solely to the question of the public disclosure of funds received. I repeat, nevertheless, that this is an omission from the Bill.
To deal with the specific proposals in the Bill, I feel that there must be some doubt as to the enduring benefit of the availability of the type of information proposed. The question of donations to political parties is frequently used as an emotive issue in party political discussions. If this Bill is passed, it could, in the future, lead to divisive and unhelpful debate over the Government's motives in relation to certain policies and decisions. This, in the long term, would not serve the public interest.
As I said earlier, details of contributions made to the political parties are kept quite distinct from the decision-making process and have no relevance whatsoever in relation to it. However, if these details were to be made public, as proposed in the Bill, it could, perversely, become a factor in the process. Almost every decision or policy position adopted by the Government would most likely be viewed against the backdrop of whether a party contributor would stand to benefit from it.
Ministers who at present can reach decisions based solely on the merits of a particular case might find themselves having to take into account also whether their decisions will leave them open to unfounded and unfair allegations of political favouritism. Public reaction to even the most cogent arguments are bound to be coloured to some degree by this factor.
It should also be remembered that while the wording of the Bill tends to give the impression that it is only the political parties who are being made accountable, the proposed legislation would have implications for the individuals and companies who make contributions. Inevitably, it would lead to embarrassing comparisons between various donations received. The purpose of the proposed legislation to allay public fears that contributions to political parties lead to unethical behaviour. While it is reasonable that the parties should be accountable for their behaviour, I do not believe that it is fair to legislate for private individuals on this issue.
The third proposal in the Bill deals with gifts made to certain office holders. Any gift worth more than £200 given to a member of the Government, the Attorney General or a Minister of State, by reason of his or her office, would become the property of the State. The Bill proposes mechanisms for reporting the receipt of gifts; for determining their value and whether they were made in a private or official capacity; and for the purchase by office holders of gifts received by paying the amount in excess of £200.
The procedure envisaged in the Bill is very unwieldy and bureaucratic and would be difficult to implement in practice. In particular, the clause defining the difference between a gift made to an office holder by virtue of his or her office and a gift made in a personal capacity or for purely personal reasons could lead to unseemly argument and dispute. This would be embarrassing not only for Ministers but for the person who presented the gift under dispute.
I also think that there may be a case for treating gifts presented during State visits differently from those presented on domestic occasions. I propose to give my reasons for this in a moment.
In relation to gifts presented on domestic occasions, while there are no formal guidelines on the subject, the longstanding practice, adhered to by successive Governments, has been for Ministers and Ministers of State to accept relatively inexpensive gifts to mark occasions such as offical openings, etc. As I said, this is the same practice which has applied and been followed by successive Administrations over many years and it appears to have worked well up to now. I believe that in 1983 the then Government examined the practice relating to gifts and decided that it did not need to be changed. This is somewhat at variance with what is now being espoused by former members of that Government.
The Minister for Finance rightly pointed out in his contribution to the debate last week that the vast majority of gifts received by Ministers at offical openings, etc., are relatively inexpensive. In addition, a considerable number of them would be personally engraved and, therefore, would be of no intrinsic value to anyone other than the recipient. When a gift is presented to a Minister at an official opening, it is generally accepted that it is made as a small token of thanks to him or her personally for taking the time and trouble to perform the opening. Those who make the presentation merely wish to follow the established protocol in this regard and certainly would have no wish to become embroiled in political controversy.
I believe also that the setting of an upper limit on the value of gifts could be a potential source of embarrassment to those who wish to make this type of presentation to a Minister. It could be argued that the setting of such a limit — £200 is the figure quoted in the Bill — might lead to the setting of a standard to which these people might feel obliged to conform.
Certainly Ministers do not expect to receive gifts of anything like the value of £200 when they agree to perform an official opening or whatever.
As I said already, the situation is somewhat different in relation to gifts exchanged during State visits. These visits are carried out in the context of internationally accepted practices and, in this regard, different countries have different standards in relation to the giving and receiving of gifts.
When Ireland is the host, it behoves us to avoid prurience, to respect the customs and privacy of our guests and to reciprocate as appropriate. I am satisfied that our existing practice in this matter is in keeping with long standing international practice.
On a general point, there is a tendency to constantly compare our procedures and practices with those in other countries. This can sometimes be misleading. For example, in the United States, where the system of lobbying has been developed almost to the status of an industry, it is quite valid to expect public representatives to be accountable for any income received from such sources. In Ireland, however, because of the tradition of following the party whip in all votes, the same necessity for public representatives to declare their sources of income simply does not arise. Deputies almost always vote in accordance with party policy and only defy the Whip on matters of principle or personal conscience, where financial considerations are not involved.
In conclusion, the Government will not support this Bill. The procedures in relation to the receipt of gifts by office holders, as proposed in the Bill, are impractical and, most likely, unworkable.
With regard to the disclosure of financial and other interests of Members, the Government feel that this matter should be pursued through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who could be asked to bring forward suitable recommendations for consideration by all parties in the House.
Finally, we feel that the question of the finances of the political parties might best be looked at in its broader context rather than in the narrow manner proposed in the Bill.
I would like to share my time with Deputy Garland.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
The Minister for Finance in his speech last week sought to avoid the main issues we were putting forward and to introduce a number of red herrings. The Minister made the point a number of times that the issues which are being raised could be appropriately dealt with by the rules of this House rather than through changes in legislation. Our Bill raises three fundamental issues. The first deals with valuable gifts made to public office holders. The second deals with financial interests of Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and the third with the funding of political parties.
The first two issues could be dealt with through the rules of this House. We attempted to deal with the issues of Members' financial interests through changes in Standing Orders. About two years ago we submitted a detailed set of amendments to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If they had been accepted we would have created a non-statutory register similar to the one outlined in this Bill. The only decision made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was to refer our proposed amendments to the other parties, especially Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, for consideration and consultation. Two years later I am reliably informed that neither parliamentary party has ever considered or discussed those amendments. The net effect of referring the proposals to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael was to enable the large parties to sit on them. It was only because it was apparent to us that the larger parties were never going to allow these issues to be debated seriously, that we drew up our Bill in the first place.
Rubbish.
The Deputy might say it is rubbish but it is a fact. In view of what the Minister of State Deputy Brady said tonight and what the Minister for Finance said, on behalf of the Labour Party I have been authorised to make a proposal this evening. We are prepared to withdraw our Private Members' Bill and not push it to a vote if there is general agreement in the House to the following proposition: that the issue of gifts to senior office holders together with the issue of Members' financial interests be referred for consideration to a sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges; that that subcommittee shall be representative of every party in the House; that it shall meet in public session like any other ad hoc or informal subcommittee of the House and that the Minister for Finance agree to commence immediately discussions with representatives of other political parties on the issues of funding of political parties with a view to drawing up guidelines which ultimately would be included in legislative form. That is a fair set of conditions which Deputy Brady should have no difficulty in accepting, judging by his contribution tonight.
We did not in our Bill or in any of our contributions to this debate refer to the desirability of State funding as a panacea in relation to funding political parties. The matter of State funding was raised by the Minister for Finance. He might have intended it as a serious item for discussion, or he might have intended it as a red herring to divert attention from the substantial issues in the Labour Party Bill. However, the Labour Party feel that State funding of political parties would be desirable in the context of enhancing our concept of parliamentary democracy, but State funding in this sense does not mean a State handout. If we are only to debate this issue in the context of how much more we can squeeze from the Department of Finance, this debate is a waste of time. There is no support in the community, nor should there be, for giving public money to anybody who does not have to account for the wise use of that money. Therefore, the issue of State funding and any discussions that take place on that issue must include on the agenda the issue of disclosure of private sector contributions and the issue of limiting expenditure by political parties for political purposes. State funding cannot and should not be used by political parties to top up money raised privately. Neither should political parties forever be allowed to spend whatever they like to buy votes, on flashy gimmicks and on public relations stunts. During the last election in Cork North Central we saw the buying of votes, bordering on the obscene. Fortunately for many of us it did not succeed. We want to see political parties being encouraged to compete on the basis of well researched policies and initiatives where they have the resources to communicate those ideas effectively to the public and where they operate on a level playing pitch where resources are concerned. It is in that context that we see the discussion on State funding taking place. Most countries in the European Community allow state funding. Belgium, Germany, Spain, France and other countries in Europe provide substantial state funding coupled with strict requirements on disclosure and strict limits on electoral spending.
In relation to this Bill the house should note that it is aimed not only at ensuring ethics in our public life but at convincing the general public that politics is informed by those ethics. We did not introduce this Bill in a holier than thou spirit. We do not believe we have a monopoly on integrity in this House. In my experience, short as it is, I have found that the vast majority of Members of the House can count integrity among their better qualities. I have to admit that this is not the way this House is seen by the public at large. If we are to be honest with ourselves we have to face the fact that the people we represent have become cynical and disenchanted with politics and with politicians.
There is a widespread view in Ireland today that Deputies are here primarily to feather their own nests and to look after their friends. As I said, that is not a view that my experience would confirm. However, I have to accept that the perception of politics is very often every bit as important as the reality. I believe that the vast majority of the Members of this House are people of high integrity. I do not believe that they have anything to hide. In fact, I would argue strongly that is in the interests of every Member of the House that financial interests and gifts received should be matters of public record. To put it at its mildest, it is bound to puzzle a great many people that when we have nothing to hide we should spend so much time and effort in trying to hide it.
There have also been several incidents and events in the past year or so that have contributed in no small measure to the cynicism I mentioned. Some of those instances are small and some are rather fundamental. I shall take one example. Within the past week I have read newspaper reports about an incident in which a journalist was escorted from a Fianna Fáil fundraising dinner, the excuse given being that the people attending would not like to be identified as Fianna Fáil supporters. Stories such as that give substance to the common perception that there are well-heeled people in back rooms who consider their contributions to political parties as being investments from which a return is expected in due course.
To take another small, or not so small, example, referred to already by Deputy Creed, there has been a great deal of publicity in recent days about the fund established to promote the ministerial ambitions and career of one of my Cork colleagues, Deputy Dennehy. If Deputy Dennehy were appointed a Minister tomorrow morning I should be the first to congratulate him. I want to have a Minister from Cork during the lifetime of this Government. It is a scandal that the second city of the Republic is without representation at the Cabinet table. But if a Deputy from Cork is appointed to the Cabinet, I want to be absolutely satisfied that his first loyalty will be to his seal of office and to whatever brief he is given, and that in respect of his dealings with the people of Cork his loyalty will be to all and not to one segment of those people.
I do not believe that there is some shadowy group of businessmen waiting and hoping to call in IOUs from a person they would consider to be "their" Minister. I know from all of my dealings with Deputy Dennehy that he is an honourable, hard-working, and efficient Deputy. That is why I am amazed that he could think it is in his interests for anyone to have the perception that he would be beholden for financial favours to secure his own advancement.
There have been much more serious incidents of a kind likely to add to the cynicism about politics. I do not intend to refer in detail to the Goodman affair since that is likely to be debated in the House tomorrow. But, lest anyone is in any doubt about it, I assure the House that there is a widespread view in the community that Mr. Goodman owes a large portion of his very substantial wealth to his political connections.
I ask the Deputy to refrain from references of that kind——
It is out of order.
——for obvious reasons.
I bow to your direction.
This is a privileged assembly. People outside do not have redress against reflections or accusations made against them in this House.
I certainly bow to your direction. Apart from that affair, in the past couple of years there has been the fiasco about broadcasting, in which there was all the appearance that RTE were being squeezed at the behest of private commercial interests — private interests that were not particularly successful in their own field of commercial radio. There are still major unanswered questions about the motivation for the legislation that was pushed through the Dáil at that time.
Then there was the case of another builder, whizz kid, and banker, who was jailed in Northern Ireland for wrongdoing connected with the collapse of his business. Despite the fact that the implications and ramifications of the collapse of that business were much more considerable in the Republic of Ireland, the same man faced no charge here, giving rise to questions that have never been answered.
For months, if not years, a cloud has been hanging over the whole planning process in Ireland as a result of allegations, innuendoes, and rumour, of corruption, bribery, and political connections. That cloud of suspicion has been made worse, of course, by the cavalier attitude of many councillors, especially Fianna Fáil councillors, about the need to preserve green spaces and amenity areas in our cities and towns. In Dublin alone, for example, rezoning proposals large enough to build a city the size of Limerick have been rammed through council meetings with the minimum of public debate and discussion.
Within the very recent past there have been arguments in the House about the background of the Government decision to publish Carysfort College without any independent valuation having been carried out on the property. What we know for certain in that that was a very hasty decision that presented a large property to UCD as a gift — even though UCD did not particularly want it — and, at the same time, gave another very large present to a wellknown Fianna Fáil supporter.
All of those issues put together add up to the background against which the Bill is being discussed. We would be deluding ourselves if we were to believe that our standing as politicians in the community is so high that we do not need the kind of code of conduct that would remove any taint of suspicion from our activities.
It is because I believe in the integrity of our political system that I urge the Government to accept the proposal being put forward this evening. In the event that the Government decide not to accept even the prospect of self regulation of our affairs, the Bill will be put to a vote. If the Government majority votes against the Bill, it is the political system and all of the people who believe in it that will lose in the end.
Contributions made by Deputies in the debate would indicate that some have not even read the Bill or its explanatory memorandum. It would appear that even though there is a very limited time available to discuss Private Members' Bills or motions, there is a programme from Government benches to just reject them straight away. Deputies have said that the Bill refers only to Government Members. That claim is ridiculous. The Bill refers to all elected Members in the House. Not only those in the Chamber tonight, let me add.
In conclusion a great deal of work has gone into the Bill. It is frustrating that the Bill is before the House tonight, in that no progress has been made. Again I put forward the offer I made to the Government Members at the outset of my speech: if a subcommittee is formed from the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to discuss the proposals I have laid before Members this Bill will be withdrawn and no vote need take place.
It gives me pleasure to support the Bill. Democracy is what is at stake here. The system of the funding of political parties is a source of serious concern.
The wellknown scandal of coal distributors donating large sums of money to the major parties was a matter of great public disquiet in the Dublin area. When there was a serious smog problem in the city the major parties were receiving money from the main sellers of smog causing coal, and successive Governments were dragging their feet on the issue. The funding of the Fianna Fáil party by the Goodman Group is a matter we may hear more about——
Deputy Garland, I presume that you have read the Bill.
Yes.
If the Deputy had read the Bill he would undestand that the Bill refers to ethics in Government and public office——
Yes.
It refers almost entirely to office holders.
With respect, I take your point.
Part III refers to political parties and the Deputy is entitled to address himself to that. There is a tradition here, and it is one that Deputy Garland I am sure respects as much as the Chair or anybody else, that we do not identify people who are not here to defend themselves.
Hear, hear.
I am sure your sense of equity would allow you that.
I accept that.
You can refer to organisations or institutions but you may not identify any person.
I did not identify any person, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I talked about the Goodman Group. That is not talking about a person. With respect, I did not mention anyone who might be controlling the Goodman Group and who might have a name somewhat similar to the Goodman Group. I mentioned the name of the company and I would have thought that that was quite in order.
It is all right by the Chair for a Deputy to continue to mention companies.
Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. This is something that we may hear more of in the next few days. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The coal distributors and the Goodman Group incidents are just two examples of a rot which we suspect goes deep into the core of the Irish political system. The fact that the major parties are unwilling to disclose the source of their financial power suggests that they have something to hide. The makers of various industrial poisons and dangerous chemicals and the operators of highly polluting industries have been involved in political corruption and scandals in countless incidences around the globe. This begs the question whether the same scandals are yet to be discovered here.
In many incidences we are mystified by planning decisions taken in this country, especially by means of section 4 motions, as they are clearly not in the public interest or in the interest of good planning. We can only wonder what is behind them. We wonder to what extent the party who are renowned for their support of the building industry are supported by the building industry.
It is amazing that there is no register of the interests of members of the Oireachtas. Members of local authorities have to register their financial interests and I see no reason a different rule should apply to national legislators. Most parliaments throughout the world have this stipulation and it is an extremely important one. Most of the political parties in the State represent financially powerful interest groups whether big business or organised labour and, accordingly, have a source of ready funding. The Greens are here to represent the interests of the planet but do not unfortunately provide us with money other than donations from members and sympathisers. The interests which are destroying the planet are those which are funding the major political parties, thereby ensuring their vested interests are looked after.
Regarding election funding we feel that in order to ensure that elections are decided by persuasion and political thought rather than saturation advertising, there should be a limit on the amount of money an election candidate can spend in trying to be elected. It is more and more my impression that money has at least as much influence as votes.
The Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, in the last general election and in the European elections, spent less than £10,000 but got £80,000 votes. That works out at 12p per vote. It would be reasonable if political parties were to receive this level of funding from public finance. There is, however, one aspect of this which gives me cause for concern, and that is section 20 (1) which provides that every registered political party shall report to the register the name of its leader and the address of the party headquarters. This is a particular problem for us because we have no leader and we have no headquarters. There are no leaders in the Green Party and it continually amazes me that the other parties think that the centralised and authoritatorian way in which they operate and in which they govern when in power are the only possible forms of organisation.
To conclude, this Bill is somewhat limited in scope. There is nothing of substance in it with which anyone could find fault. It is, therefore, a shame that the Government parties are opposing it and one has to ask why.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Briscoe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy O'Sullivan says it is pointless coming in here with motions or legislation during Private Members' time because everything is rejected by the Government speakers. I would reject that view. It is obvious from the Minister's contribution tonight that progress will be made as a result of this debate. I would also point out that there was a debate here not so long ago, in which I participated on a Private Members' Bill introduced by Deputy Gay Mitchell in regard to equal rights for women being provided for in the Constitution. That was an excellent debate and I believe that the Women's Rights Committee of which I am a member will take up some of the recommendations. Debating such Bills in Private Members' time can be very productive.
I want to comment on some aspects of the Bill. Deputy Creed referred to the cynicisms of politicians. I agree with him, and it is something I find hard to deal with because it is everywhere. This cynicism is caused by many things. We ourselves are part of the problem. We do not help our cause by the manner in which we sometimes behave here. At the same time I believe the introduction of this Bill will lead to progress.
Part I of the Bill refers to the gifts to holders of certain public offices, gifts to members of Government, to the Attorney General and to Ministers of State. This section would be unworkable. The provision relates to gifts exceeding a value of £200. I feel that what is behind this section is the question of expensive gifts given in the past, but the Minister for Finance outlined clearly that on many occasions inexpensive gifts are given, especially at EC level where Ministers build up good personal relationships with their counterparts. This is where problems would be created when Ministers would have to report back to the Secretary of the Government gifts valued in excess of £200. It would be quite complicated if we had Ministers coming back from Europe queuing up to pay duty on anything valued in excess of £200. I know Deputy Howlin is a generous man, but I think this is a little meanminded. There are traditions in certain countries of giving gifts. I feel that this section is not the way to approach this matter. Perhaps it could be dealt with at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
The other aspects of the Bill warrant more attention than the previous section. That brings us to Part II of the Bill. The question then is whether legislation is required. I heard the contributions of Deputy Gay Mitchell and others who seem to think that it would be possible to do this within the Houses of the Oireachtas because there is a non-statutory scheme covering the same ground in relation to members' interests in Westminster. There is a similar situation in the United States and the House of Commons has power to take action in relation to any member who does not register or who furnishes false or misleading information. This House should follow that example. Under our Constitution it would be more appropriate that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges deal with this issue. Local authority members have to declare an interest. I was interested in a remark the Minister of State made tonight that a Minister, Deputy or Member might declare his interests in a particular matter under discussion. That applies in local authorities. That is a very pragmatic, appropriate manner of dealing with this issue. We find ourselves in a dilemma. Do we legislate for something we can deal with within our own rules and regulations in this House and in the Seanad? We should use the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to deal with this model.
I understand that in the past this issue was referred to the parliamentary parties I suppose Deputy Garland would have a problem referring it to his parliamentary party — but I feel we should do that and take action. The Minister has responded positively tonight to the debate on this aspect and Opposition Members should accept that.
Political parties registering income and expenditure has been a matter of public concern. My attitude on this would be in line with that of my colleagues on this side of the House who stated that we have missed an opportunity here of looking at financing political parties on an all party basis. State involvement in funding political parties in proportion to their size and strength happens in other countries and we should look at that aspect. The most appropriate way would be partial funding from the State; there should always be the option for private funding.
National collections have always been part and parcel of our traditional means of raising funds. However, I accept the view expressed here tonight that a system that allows people with money to buy power is bad. People have put that criticism to me, and I think it is legitimate. We should consider this matter on an all party basis. I would not advocate total State funding, but partial state funding would help tackle this problem. Every citizen has the right and should be given an opportunity to contest an election.
This leads me to TDs' salaries. This was referred to in the debate last week. The salary increases we give ourselves are continually criticised, and here we are our own worst enemies in that we do not stand up for and respect ourselves on these issues. The public hear the same old story — that politicians are this and that, have a very comfortable existence, etc. That is not the case. Deputies last week gave very detailed accounts of expenses a politician has to face. I am not complaining but when it comes to this type of debate it might be restated that if we want to respect democracy and give everybody an opportunity, we should consider the whole question of state funding. There is a role for the State in the political process in relation to the size and strength of the parties. I do not wish to go on at great length about this.
The introduction of a Bill of this nature will lead to some progress. The Minister has given a positive response to one aspect of the Bill. Deputy O'Sullivan and his party should see that progress has been made. He introduced a proposal here tonight and we on this side of the House will consider it. The Minister of State has responded positively, and I feel we can make progress particularly on Part II of the Bill.
I have been in this House 26 years and I have seen many Members come and go. Sometimes I think the "holier than thou" Members last the shortest time in the House. It is a fact that every Deputy who ever proposed an increase in pay for Members of this House lost his seat at the next election. People are not fooled by hypocrisy. I say that to underline what I consider was a grossly hypocritical cynical speech by Deputy Garland, which was to be expected.
These anti-pollution people think nothing of polluting the air of this House with the lowest allegations against companies or people either against whom charges are not proved or who are not here to defend themselves. There is no mistaking the intent of those remarks. I will say no more on that, but the electorate have their own way of levelling that field and I have no doubt it will be levelled again. I do not like to predict the political demise of any person because it can happen to oneself, but the public are very quick to see through hypocrisy.
Labour and Fine Gael were in office for nine years between 1973 and 1987 and they did not think it necessary to introduce such a Bill.
Standards were high then.
Standards were high.
There are still a few of them. Do not tempt us.
This again is an attempt to catch the imagination of the public because people might write a letter here and there objecting to something or other. I think the people have been served very well by their politicians. We are among the lowest paid politicians in any country. In most countries politicians are not expected to pay the overheads of running their constituencies out of their incomes, as happens here. It would be a good idea if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges got together and appointed a subcommittee of responsible people — not that anyone on that committee is not responsible — to consider what they see is lacking. If any Member has a vested interest, let such Member declare it. As the Minister said, because we have very narrow margins under the PR system, a Government may have, as we have, a majority of one. If one of our Members was excluded from voting it could become very difficult. People have to declare their interest. I am one of that rare species, a full time politician.
Not so rare now.
No, they are probably becoming more numerous.
Section 14 of the Bill outlines registrable interests which are to be included in the statement provided to the Clerk. Certain prescribed details relating to the listed interests must also be included. Section 14 (1) (f) refers to liabilities exceeding £1,000 in value. Does that mean I would have to disclose my overdraft which is far in excess of £1,000 to the Clerk of the Dáil? Is there to be no privacy whatsoever for people in public life? Are people to be deterred from coming into public life because once you become a Member of the Dáil you have no right to any privacy whatsoever? Would you have to declare your liabilities in the bank to the Clerk of the Dáil? If they are to be kept in a secret list, as it were, what is the point of that? They would soon become public.
If a politician is bent, he will be bent no matter what the system. If politicians' are taking backhanders, it does not matter how much you pay them or what laws you have, they would still be involved in this practice. A person is either honest or dishonest. We should be very careful that we do not create a climate of cynicism. Sometimes such a climate is generated in here rather than outside among the people. There is a certain cynicism that when you go on visits abroad you are junketing. Here, again, I have found among my own constituents that there is nothing like the begrudgery which the news media claims exists. Most times when people are abroad in the interests of this country they are selling Ireland abroad and doing a good job promoting our country of which we can be very proud.
I turn now to the restrictions on public representatives and what they can do because of the uncertainty of tenure of membership of the Dáil and certainly the uncertainty of tenure of a Minister in office. It is right that the Minister in office does not practise his profession, whether he is a lawyer or in the wholesale, retail or manufacturing business. While he is a Minister he must be full-time and as the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy V. Brady, stated clearly there are already procedures in place to ensure that Ministers, on taking up office, do not remain directors of their own companies. There is no doubt in my mind that there would be all-party agreement for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to take over this matter and come up with a solution that would satisfy those people who are worried.
When elections come along they cost us all a lot of money. I am very grateful to the people who give me contributions towards my election fund. Because they happen to think I am a good public representative and the kind of person they would like to see continue in public life, I think it would be wrong that those people would be embarrassed in any way into making public that they decided to contribute to my election fund. I owe a big "thank you" to many people over the years who have contributed to my election campaign. I am most grateful to them and I hope they will continue to contribute. I do not see why any Bill should require them to make public what they give to me.
There should be no touting for business.
The Bill states that a return of receipts and expenses must set out the name of each person who contributed in excess of £1,000. I will accept a contribution from the Deputy at any time. It is ridiculous that the names of those people should be published on a list. For example, I would like to know how The Workers' Party can afford to mount such huge campaigns, they are a party whose support ranges from 2 per cent to 4 per cent in the polls, yet they have more posters and more newspapers than anybody else. It would be very interesting to hear from where they get their money; perhaps they have a magic printing press we do not know about. It would be very interesting to compare that with the expenditure of the Labour Party which is a far bigger organisation — or the Fine Gael Party or the Fianna Fáil Party. I never hear queries as to how The Workers' Party can mount such a huge campaign at election time with only between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of the public supporting them. I note from what Deputy O'Sullivan said that it seems the Labour Party would be happy to withdraw the Bill and bring it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Provided you agree.
There are certain things with which we do agree. One matter which would be interesting to discuss would be financing of political parties at election time by the State but that is something which the people might object to. The taxpayer might say: "No, I do not want to finance you". That could lead to a bigger argument because in what proportion do you give funding to the parties of the House? Is it to be based on the number of votes somebody got at a previous election? There could be all sorts of complications in that area.
We did not look for funding for political parties; that is the Minister's suggestion.
I am simply saying there is a suggestion there and it has been picked up by one or two other people that this might be done. The small parties would find the idea more attractive than a bigger party because of our broader support from the people. To a certain extent it is something that might be regarded as a boost to the smaller parties and that, in itself, might create a problem among the people. At least, when people give you a contribution it is because they want to give it. Frequently people who support other parties will give you a contribution on a personal basis because you represent a view with which they agree.
In the United Kingdom there is a system which has worked very well over the years where people declare their interests and where it is not compulsory. As the Minister stated in his speech, where these rules applied there was only one person over the years who refused to divulge his private interests. It is left to the electorate, when the next election comes along, to decide whether they want that person. I have always said that if every person in this country had to be elected to their job on the basis of the work performed by them every few years, they would work better and we would be regarded as another Switzerland. It is on the basis of our performance our integrity and the trust the people place in us that we are here. No one is quicker to see through a fake than the Irish electorate and they will find out sooner or later.
I would like to emphasise this point and I will finish with it: the holier-than-thou merchants I have seen from time to time in this House have not survived too many elections because the people were quick to see through them. This Bill is unnecessary and it tried to cast aspersions on Members of this House which are not deserved. This House is capable of policing itself. We have a Committee on Procedure and Privileges on which I have served in the past. I am aware of the effectiveness of this committee. We may argue with each other across the Floor of this House but when we are in committee together we are one team of people upholding what is in the best interests of the reputation and the integrity of this House and the image the public have of us. All of us can say we regard that highly. I am glad I had an opportunity to speak on this Bill. In the few minutes left somebody else may wish to contribute who would not otherwise have had the opportunity.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. It is important that we have standards laid down by which the political process can be gauged. This Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss the lack of standards and the way politicians are judged. We have the strongest judgment of all in the electorate, a judgment which in recent years has come all too frequently. There is no substitute for the interview board which politicians have to face every three and a half to four years in discerning the record of service they have given to their constituents and their country.
The introduction of this Bill to the House is very timely. All of us know there is tremendous cynicism about the public esteem in which politicians are held, and that is regrettable. An ethics commission as proposed by my colleague, Deputy Mitchell, under the guidance of the Houses of the Oireachtas would go some way towards adjudicating on matters where conflicts of interest arise. It would be a channel by which these matters could be resolved outside the present system. There is an impression abroad that politicians seek public office just to feather their own nests. There is an impression that there is a wealthy group of people in a club called Leinster House. A great educational and information process is required in order to inform the public more fully about the workings of the Houses of the Oireachtas, how the parliamentary process operates and about the lives of serving Members of the Oireachtas. From time to time I welcome visitors to this House, particularly school groups. Even though they may look on these visits as a reason to put aside their studies, nevertheless it is an important feature of the parliamentary process that we continue to allow as many groups as possible, particularly young people, to visit the Houses of the Oireachtas where they can see for themselves the workings of the Oireachtas and are further informed as to what happens here.
Various speakers referred to the fact that Ministers cannot continue to be directors of companies after they take office, that a conflict of interest would arise in these cases. There have been several examples in recent years of the thin line between the holding of office of a particular Minister and the various business interests of that Minister outside the House.
Correct.
The establishment of an ethics commission as suggested by Fine Gael would help to resolve many of the conflicts of interest that arise. I will not give examples tonight — they are too numerous to mention — of how various Ministers, through no fault of their own in many cases, become embroiled in public controversy. This arises as a result of a lack of rules and guidelines in this area.
The man to whom the Deputy is referring is no longer a Member of the House.
Has he been expelled already?
He was not a member of our party. He was over there.
Could we leave these recollections aside and allow Deputy Hogan to continue his contribution?
I think self-expulsion is the word that could be used. The funding of political parties has been treated with suspicion not only by people outside the House but also by people inside it. The Progressive Democrats talked very vehemently about involvement of politicians in businesses outside this House and said we should consider the matter of political funding from the Exchequer. I have been astounded in recent times to see in the media suggestions from an ex-Member of this House, who fares rather well from business interests outside of it, that bankrupt parties should not be looking for help from the State. That person accused Fine Gael of having bankrupt ideas. I find this astonishing from an ex-Member of the House who knows that is far from the case. Members of the legal profession, probably more so than any other profession, have learned to exploit the resources of this House and to be Members of the House on a part-time basis. They facilitate their business interests elsewhere in the city of Dublin while this House is sitting.
There are a few such people in the Deputy's own ranks.
I know Deputy Ahern has a vested interest in this matter. He has a good practice and I hope it continues to grow.
Deputy McGahon acknowledges that.
He might return to it full-time.
It seems the ex-Member of the House to whom I referred has lost interest in the funding of political parties in recent times because two or three of his colleagues occupy ministerial posts at present. Perhaps he finds it more convenient to gain funding from oil companies and industrialists rather than from the Exchequer. I find it very strange that a person who has experience within the House, and seems to be running the country from outside it, misunderstands the proposal for Exchequer funding for political parties. It disappoints me that a person with experience of the workings of the Oireachtas finds himself in that position.
Many people have great difficulty at election time in coming to terms with the spending of political parties on posters and so on. Were it not for the contributions received not only by individual Deputies but by political parties it would not be possible for many people to stand for election. Many of the contributions are far too small. Without support from the Exchequer, which is practically nonexistent at the moment, there is no way that democracy can function properly. Maybe there is some underground source that I am not aware of in a particular political party — certainly from the point of view of the Fine Gael Party——
(Interruptions.)
Wexford seems to have all the answers to the problems tonight, including ethics in Government. They certainly seem to have their tails up in recent times because of various efforts they have been making outside the House.
(Wexford): We beat Kilkenny anyway.
Once you have beaten Kilkenny you have beaten everybody.
Deputy Hogan has not given any impression to the Chair that he needs all this support he is getting from the two sides of the House.
He is not——
Deputy Kenny is included in that.
In deference to your sterling performance on the British-Irish Association I will abide by your ruling.
That sounded like a compliment.
It was taken that way.
You are on the honours list.
The political process is not served by members of political parties who want to contribute to the workings of the country and the improvement of their community but who run around the countryside looking for funding. I think all political parties would agree that the amount of time spent by members of organisations on the financial matters of that organisation far outweighs the time spent developing policies and looking for facilities that would make their communities better places in which to live. I appeal to the Government to review the funding of political parties and their expenses from the Exchequer and not to be dependent on voluntary organisations.
Debate adjourned.