Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT (Select Sub-Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government) díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 2012

Electoral (Amendment)(Political Funding) Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Committee Stage

I remind members to turn off their mobile telephones. The meeting has been convened for the consideration of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Bill 2011. The select committee will consider the Bill until 2 p.m. if necessary. If proceedings on the Bill are not concluded by 2 p.m. we will adjourn until a later date. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Bill reforms the statutory framework for providing funding to political parties and to individuals, amending the Electoral Acts 1992 to 1997. I welcome the provisions in this regard as they will improve our systems and help make our profession more transparent, and less susceptible to anti-democratic relationships and arrangements between those who seek to apply undue influence on the political system for their own sectoral or selfish benefit. The Bill also seeks to promote greater gender balance in the Dáil, which I also welcome. This is an issue we have failed to resolve over almost 100 years and while these new provisions will not guarantee success in all objectives, they will incentivise all political parties to address the issue more proactively.

I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, and his departmental officials, Riona Ní Fhlanghaile Uasal, principal officer, and Mr. Éamonn Waters, assistant principal in the franchise section of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss in detail the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Bill 2011. The Bill amends the Electoral Act 1992, the Electoral Act 1997 and the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999. The key provisions are the restriction of corporate donations and the establishment of a register of corporate donors; a reduction in the thresholds for the receipt and declaration of political donations; and a requirement for political parties to prepare financial accounts for submission to the Standards in Public Office Commission for publication. The Bill also includes a measure to reduce by half the State funding to political parties if they do not have at least 30% women and 30% men candidates at the next general election.

Before we get into working through the Bill section by section, as we must, I wish to make one additional point. In the Dáil on 27 March 2012, I said that my Department was reviewing the recommendations in the Mahon tribunal report with a view to facilitating early Government consideration of the need to introduce amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage, where appropriate. We have done that and I wish to signal that I will introduce amendments to the Bill on Report Stage which I understand is scheduled for next week. Those amendments, which have been agreed by Government, will implement certain recommendations of the Mahon tribunal on political funding additional to those already in the Bill.

They will make it an offence to give a political donation on behalf of another person without informing the recipient of the identity of the donor and donation declaration statements will be required to include additional information. The amendments will reduce the threshold from £100 to €100 for anonymous donations and consequent on that for the opening political donations accounts, for the registration of a third party with SIPO and in the definitions of political party accounting units and of third parties. Individual cash donations in excess of €200 will be banned. We will provide that political parties must submit details of their branches for inclusion on the register of political parties and for publication. These amendments, as well as other related technical provisions, are being drafted and they will be available within the required timeframes for consideration on Report Stage.

Notwithstanding these matters, the Bill before us contains significant reforming measures and has already generated a good deal of debate in these Houses. A number of amendments have been tabled by Opposition Deputies, and I look forward to discussing these and the provisions in the Bill with the committee.

I thank the Minister. Do any Deputies wish to make opening statements? As no Deputies wish to make opening statements we will proceed.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2

Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy has been deemed to be outside the scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 is consequential to Amendment No. 17 in that ruling. Amendment No. 17, also in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy, proposes to amend the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938 in regard to the payment of parliamentary allowances. Therefore, amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.—Section 17(1)(b) (as inserted by section 50(c) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001) of the Act of 1997 is amended by substituting “by all candidates” for “by candidates of all qualified parties”.”.

This amendment proposes to change the way funding is provided to candidates as opposed to parties. There is no mention in the Constitution of political parties but it respects the mandate of the individual Deputy. This amendment does not seek to radically alter the fact that funding will be provided. Currently,100% of funding goes to qualified political parties who have a mandate of 83% of electoral vote. The Independents represent 17% of the electorate, based on the results of the last general election. Essentially this amendment does not seek to provide that funding to Independents-----

I have to interrupt the Deputy as I must insist that Members switch off their mobile telephones as they are creating disruption.

-----but acceptance of it would provide a saving to the State. It provides that funding would be provided to political parties on the basis of the percentage of the vote they get. The political parties got 83% of the vote and the Independents got 17% of the vote in the last election. The election of a large number of Independents to this Dáil is a new situation and the funding mechanism did not respect that. The practice has been that 100% of the funding was divided among the political parties and that does not respect the fact that the Independents have 17% of the popular mandate. There would be a saving to the State of €831,287.33 in respect of last year had a line in terms of funding been drawn under 83% representation held by the political parties. There is an interconnection between this amendment and amendment No. 17-----

A member's mobile telephone is causing interference. I ask members to leave their telephones outside the Chamber or to switch them off.

I do not think they cause interference.

It can also be caused by iPads.

This amendment was drafted in conjunction with amendment No. 17 which has been ruled out of order. That is regrettable. I ask the Minister to consider the new section proposed in amendment No. 17 in terms of future legislation. On the last occasion I tabled an amendment and it was not accepted. The Minister said he would examine it and, in fairness, he did consider it. It relates to providing for a reduction as well as an increase. I ask the Minister to examine the new section proposed in amendment No. 17, which would introduce a radical change. There is appetite for a change in this respect. For example, if a member of a political party loses the Whip, the payment stays with the party. There could be a good reason a member would lose the Whip. For example, Deputy Denis Naughten lost the Whip in regard to the Roscommon General Hospital and it was proved afterwards that what he had said had been said by others in his party. It is a case of not only losing the Whip but losing all the resources in that respect. Essentially, the current position does not respect the mandate a Deputy has received. That is the only reference in this respect in the Constitution; there is no reference in it to political parties.

What I propose would empower backbenchers to have some control over the funding provided and, if this amendment is read in conjunction with the new section proposed in amendment No. 17, they in turn can nominate that this money would go to a political party or to a grouping. It would change the dynamic and enhance the power of a Deputy and that is part of the object in this respect. If funding was allocated on the basis of the percentage of the electoral vote secured, it would result in a saving. It is wrong that 100% of the funding goes to political parties who have an 83% electoral representation. The object of what I propose is to reduce the funding to reflect that representation and provide a saving for the Exchequer.

Deputy Murphy's amendment seeks to alter the manner in which the State funds political parties under Part 3 of the Electoral Act 1997 and how it is calculated and disbursed. I understand from where the Deputy is coming on this. Four political parties currently qualify for these payments and during the previous Dáil six political parties qualified. The two additional qualifying parties were the Progressive Democrats and the Green Party and that shows that getting funding from the State does not necessary mean that a party will survive.

The fund was put in place in 1997. This supports political parties, irrespective of what collection of parties they are, to come together for the purposes of ensuring that we have stability in terms of a programme for Government. It is to support the development of the democratic process through political parties in various ways. I am reducing the considerable scope that political parties have had in the past for corporate donations. We are opening up a completely transparent arrangement in regard to publication of accounts and how we account for the moneys that parties get from the State. Each qualified political party that achieves a minimum of 2% of the first preference vote at a general election is paid a basic amount from the Exchequer. In addition, each qualified party is entitled to a share of the annual sum, which is the subject of the Deputy's amendment.

There is a balance to be struck in terms of supporting the political process from the public purse and reducing the dividend that will be required from individuals to support the political process, which, as we know from various tribunals, has contributed great difficulties in the democratic process. While I understand that the Deputy is trying to include "non-party" in the calculation, that would be to the detriment of the cohesive nature of Parliament in terms of not just having 166 Independent Deputies but groupings under political parties that will support the implementation and formation of a Government.

In that regard, if the political party system did not operate in the Parliament, it would not be able to operate at all. That is broadly accepted. Independents play a valuable role and they have a mandate but I agree with the Minister that it is about supporting political parties, and they are all supported in the Bill. Were the Minister to facilitate a scenario where people would jump ship and take their contribution, which goes to the political party with them, we could end up with a parliament where the balance lies with a body of Independents. That would be unworkable in my view.

If I understand the Deputy correctly, his point is that a backbench Deputy who may have the stick of a difficult issue in his or her constituency has the carrot of €45,000 if he or she leaves their party.

It incentivises people to jump ship and I do not agree with it.

I fully support Deputy Murphy's amendment. The point is not to destabilise parties in any way. I am not an Independent Deputy because I have a problem with the party political system; I fully accept that any Parliament made up of Independent Members would be unworkable. We need political parties and they should be as cohesive as possible. The issue is not whether there should be funding for political parties - I fully accept there should be funding for political parties - but how the funding works. The vast majority of public funding for politicians, both members of parties and Independents, is directed towards parties. For example, Fianna Fáil receives, per Deputy, 419% more money than Deputy Catherine Murphy or me. This means Fianna Fáil receives 4.2 times more money than I do. I would argue that this is fundamentally unhealthy. I do not believe that Fianna Fáil Deputies have 4.2 times the democratic mandate, nor does the party deserve 4.2 times per Deputy the resources allocated to me. That calculation also includes the leader's allowance of €42,000. Sinn Féin receives 3.6 times what I receive per Deputy. The Labour Party, with the full resources of the Civil Service, receives twice per Deputy what Deputy Catherine Murphy and I receive. My point is that per Deputy, Fianna Fáil receives over four times the funding that Deputy Catherine Murphy and I receive, and this is not a healthy, equal situation for political funding. It is my view that members of any political party can come together and have all political funding directed to where the democratic mandate is. The democratic mandate is vested by the Constitution in each of us as Members of Dáil Éireann; it is not vested in a party. If Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies then want to come together and decide to give this money to their respective parties, this makes perfect sense in my view. However, the current situation is very unhealthy. It does not seem right that Deputy Micheál Martin receives 419% of what I get. I would hope that I and others like Deputy Murphy have earned our right to be in this Dáil and are constructive within it.

I disagree with the point that Deputies should not be able to take their funding with them if they leave a political party. The Constitution explicitly states that accountability is vested in the Members of Dáil Éireann and it makes no mention of political parties. If a member of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael decides he or she no longer wishes to be part of that group, for equality of democratic representation that person should be able to take this money and use it. This amendment is not an anti-party amendment; rather, it strives to achieve a more equitable and healthy democratic and party system.

I am a member of the Fine Gael Party and I am proud to be a member of it. I knew what banner I was going under when I joined the party. The Clerk of the Dáil registers political parties. What are the legislative guidelines for political parties? Anyone can declare that he or she belongs to this group or that group. I know exactly what I belong to and I know the policies of my party, to which it attempts to adhere in difficult times. I ask if anyone can enlighten me as to whether a person may be removed from a party if he or she does not adhere to the policies of that party.

Reference was made to a comment of mine. Comparing an Independent Deputy and a registered political party is like comparing apples and oranges. When it comes to funding they are not comparable.

That is exactly the point.

There is a reason for funding political parties in order to avoid corruption and all that goes with it. Political parties cost money. Deputy Donnelly, you do not have a political party. Were you to register-----

Deputy Collins, if you wish to have a conversation with Deputy Donnelly, go up to the coffee dock. Please address your comments through the Chair.

The argument is based on a false premise. He is not comparing like with like.

This Dáil is a very different Dáil. The political parties are benefiting financially from the fact that the electorate decided to give a mandate to a very large number of Independents. One hundred per cent of the funding is divided among 83% of Dáil Members. I am not opposed to political parties. I have probably been a member of more political parties than anyone in this room, and I am an Independent. I can see the value of political parties but I can also see the negative side of them. However, political parties are private clubs. They may be registered but, like private clubs, they have rules to which members must subscribe and if they do not subscribe to the rules they are chucked out. Like private clubs, political parties are not necessarily open to everyone.

It is acknowledged that Independents play a valuable role but the Technical Group is not treated as a grouping in the real sense of the word. For example, a secretariat is provided to each of the political parties and this is separate to the funding. In the case of Fianna Fáil this consists of 17 people, two of whom are at chef de cabinet level, which means the expenditure is between €84,000 and €104,000. This is breathtaking. The Technical Group is made up of 16 members and it is not provided with this resource.

My amendment to section 17 provides for a fully vouched system, which is essential in my view-----

I will not allow the Deputy to refer to section 17 because it is out of order.

The mandate is the key issue because this is referred to in the Constitution. The way in which the political system is structured does not allow new entities to emerge very easily. We have to allow potential for renewal because everything is calculated on the basis of what happened in the past rather than what can happen in the future. I will press the amendment because of those points.

I will revert to the Deputy at the relevant time.

The State quite rightly supports political parties and quite rightly agrees with the necessity of having structures and administration which the Deputy, as an Independent, does not need. Each individual Independent Deputy receives an allowance under the party leader's allowance of €41,152 from another funding source and this does not apply to the members of political parties. That money goes to supporting the political structures established by a political party for the purposes of ensuring that it has policy units, organisational structures and supporting staff, whether in its head office for administration and organisation or for press office facilities and so forth. It costs an enormous amount of money to support a political party. The reason it was established in that way in 1997 was to take the funding of political parties to a different level whereby they did not have to depend on other sources of income inside the country, or outside the country in the case of some political parties. That is the way it is, and I support that. Where there is a coming together of a group of individuals under a political party structure it gives stability for government. One need not rely on the whim of two or three people who might hold a government to ransom, as happened in the past. The funding mechanisms in the past also gave temptation to political individuals and parties to solicit corporate donations in a particular way to an enormous extent, without any rules. We are trying to deal with that in this legislation and in other legislation under the Electoral Acts.

The role of political parties must be supported. Independents get support from other means and through the other supports I mentioned under other legislation, including the party leader's allowance. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is examining this and will shortly bring proposals to the Government on how to treat those payments in an open and transparent way.

In response to Deputy Bannon, under the 1992 Act parties must register under certain criteria. Section 25 of that Act makes provision for that. It is a matter for the internal structure of the party how it deals with individuals if they cross the line and go against party policy or against the party in a particular way. That is an internal matter but for the purpose of supporting a political party in a registered way the guidelines are laid down in the 1992 Electoral Act. The parties must have a structure and adhere to certain criteria.

I am conscious that we might not conclude this by 2 p.m. but we must go through the amendments in an orderly way, that is, the proposer, the Minister, the members, back to the Minister and then to the proposer. If members keep intervening with supplementary questions, we will not get to complete the amendments.

I am interested in the argument here. I have a question about the €41,000 leader's allowance. It is important that Independents are treated fairly, although I am a member of a political party. Can the Independents spend the €41,000 - which effectively pays for a full-time position - on research, PR assistance and so forth? The parties have press personnel and research facilities. To ensure the Independents are fairly treated, can they spend the €41,000 on that, or on what can they spend it?

Perhaps the Minister will clarify something. Am I right that it is open to any Independent Member of the Oireachtas to register himself or herself as a political party? What is the process of an individual forming their own political party?

Deputy Stanley's question relates to how the allowance is spent. Deputy Collins asked about the registration of political parties. I will take Deputy Coonan and Deputy Donnelly next.

I apologise for being late. Can one circumvent registering as a party if one describes oneself as a team?

If one acts as a party without being a party and calls the group a team, does that mean the group does not have to register as a party? Is that a way out?

That is very cryptic. I call Deputy Donnelly.

On a point of information, the Independent Members can use the leader's allowance for anything. Deputy Catherine Murphy and I tabled an amendment to this Bill to insist that it be vouched, but that has been ruled out of order. Members should be aware of that.

I fully agree with what the Minister said about funding political parties. That is not the issue. Why would Fianna Fáil get over four times more per Deputy? Does the Minister consider that a healthy balance? Would it not be more democratic for each of the Deputies to agree to give their funding to their party leader as members of the party? Would that not lead to a more healthy democracy?

In response to Deputy Donnelly, I can only speak for the Fine Gael Party and that is what we do. As part of our party pledge when we sign up to stand as a political party we agree to hand over the money to the political party. That might be very interesting for the Deputy; he might be surprised at that.

That is very Jesuitical.

Deputy Stanley has other sources of funding.

We have a lot in common.

Deputy Coonan and others asked about registering as a political party and the criteria for the establishment of a political party. It must be organised in the State or in a part thereof specified in the application as a party organised to contest all or any of the elections referred to in a previous section of the Act; the party must have not less than 300 recorded members or in the case of a party applying for registration as a party organised to contest elections in part of the State or local elections or Údarás elections, 100 recorded members, each of whom has reached the age of 18 years; at least 50% of the recorded members must be registered in the register of electors. Those are the criteria. Deputy Coonan is talking about a branding issue.

Can they masquerade as a team and not call it a party?

If one wishes to have a slogan for a candidate or collection of candidates, that is a matter for a team or whatever they wish to call themselves. However, they are not operating as a political party unless they are registered.

It is a way out.

On a point of information, does the Clerk of the Dáil hold that information?

Deputy Bannon, I am moving on. Is Deputy Murphy pressing the amendment?

The Committee divided: Tá, 1; Níl, 9.

  • Murphy, Catherine.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • Stanley, Brian.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

Amendments Nos. 3 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. The acceptance of amendment No. 3 involves the deletion of section 7.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

7.—The Act of 1997 is amended by inserting the following section after section 23A (inserted by section 49(d) of the Act of 2001):

"23AA.—(1) None of the following persons namely—

(a) a member of either House of the Oireachtas,

(b) a member of the European Parliament,

(c) a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European election,

(d) a political party,

(e) a third party, or

(f) an accounting unit,

shall not directly or through any intermediary accept any corporate donations.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a donation shall not be prohibited under that subsection where—

(a) a provider of a programme of education and training,

(b) the students’ union or other representative body recognised by a provider of a programme of education and training,

makes a payment to a club, society or other body, operating with the permission and on the premises of the provider of a programme of education and training, and every member of which is a student who is enrolled or registered with the provider of a programme of education and training.

(3) Where, notwithstanding subsection (1) a donation the acceptance of which is prohibited by that subsection, is made to a person referred to therein, the donee shall, not later than 14 days after the receipt of the donation either, return the donation or, in the case of a donation which is a monetary donation, the part of it exceeding the limit concerned to the corporate donor and keep a written record of that return for the purposes of it being furnished to the Standards in Public Office Commission, if required by it.

(4) The Standards in Public Office Commission shall dispose of all moneys, property or goods received under subsection (3) in such manner as may be directed by the Minister for Finance.".".

We oppose absolutely the making of political donations to political parties. The amendment states there should be a total ban on them, irrespective of whether they are large or small or whether they are paid through an intermediary or directly to an elected representative or candidate. No matter what way one tries to limit donations, they still have the potential to influence how people may view matters or policy. However, we seek an exception where a student body receives funding from an institution or students' union for a club or society. It is important that the political process be enhanced through development in third level institutions and that there be participation without having to comply with the corporate donation requirements. Donations for clubs and societies are not corporate donations. This does not contradict our objective of having openness and transparency in the funding of the political system. There is a world of a difference between the receipt of a corporate donation and the receipt by a student body, society or club of funding in order to develop itself politically in a third level institution. We believe our amendment is balanced and that the only way of handling the issue of corporate donations is to have a complete ban.

Section 8 involves the establishment of a register. If there were no corporate donations, there would be no logical need for a register. Its existence would not be warranted.

Amendment No. 5 reflects my views on the banning of all corporate donations. Amendment No. 6 refers to the register of corporate donations. The same principle applies in this regard. Amendment No. 7 ensures a candidate for election shall not directly or indirectly accept any corporate donations. There was some talk in recent days about direct and indirect donations in respect of this institution. It is important that funding from corporate donations cannot be passed indirectly, even through third or fourth parties. Amendment No. 8 is linked directly to our opposition to corporate donations. It would ensure candidates could not accept any corporate donations, as opposed to attempting to manage corporate donations. It exempts college clubs and societies. Amendment No. 9 relates to corporate donations also.

The effect of our amendment is to reduce the current limit from €200 to €100. Therefore, any sum of €100 or greater should be declared and disclosed.

Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, in the name of Deputy Stanley, would effectively delete most of the provisions dealing with corporate donations from the Bill. These sections of the Bill give effect to a ban on the acceptance from a corporate donor of a donation exceeding €200 in a particular year, unless the corporate donor is registered with the Standards in Public Office Commission and the donation is accompanied by a statement confirming that it has been properly approved by the donor. Clearly, these are crucial elements of the Bill. The Government cannot accept the amendments.

I welcome the acknowledgement implicit in the amendments from Sinn Féin that an exemption should be made for payments to student societies where restrictions on corporate donations are being introduced by the Bill. The objective of the Government is to restrict the influence of corporate donations on politics in Ireland but, for constitutional reasons and reasons associated with freedom of expression, I cannot ban them totally at this stage. Perhaps it can be considered in the future in the context of constitutional change. It cannot be done legislatively at present.

Amendment No. 4, in the name of Deputy Collins, proposes a reduction from €200 to €100 in the amount above which a donation could not be accepted from a corporate donor. We could have a conversation about the way to pitch it. I have no difficulty with the principle. It is now acknowledged that we cannot reduce the sum to €0 without a constitutional amendment. There are practical considerations, such as those of candidates who do not want to rely totally on the State when running for election. Moneys obtained from the public purse at present cannot be used for election purposes. If one wants to have a raffle or if one wants somebody to put a sign or poster in one's window, this is calculated for the purpose of returns to the Standards in Public Office Commission. A value is put on it. All this must be taken into account without strangling bureaucratically the returns process after every election. This is difficult enough already for many candidates.

We are trying to keep the system as simple as possible by reducing substantially the amount one can receive from a corporate donor to €200. One could not buy anyone's political support with sums up to €200, or €100, as Deputy Collins has suggested. It is for very practical reasons that small donations will still be allowed without tying up the entire system in a very bureaucratic way for a candidate making returns to the Standards in Public Office Commission. Therefore, I must oppose the amendments. While I am not against the principle of the proposals, we have set down the sum of €200 as the benchmark.

The Bill does bring about improvements, which we welcome, but it does not go far enough. I have stood for election three times across two counties, extending from the River Barrow to the River Shannon. I did not need corporate donations to do so. The Standards in Public Office Commission has records of how I proceeded on the three occasions. I complied fully with the guidelines, according to the instructions of my party. This has been the instruction from our party since the day the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, was put in place. I want to acknowledge the high level of co-operation shown by SIPO's civil servants. Getting one's head around its bureaucracy is a bit of a task the first time, but it is a worthwhile process. SIPO has performed an important function, but one can stand for election, raise funds and get elected without receiving corporate donations.

Does Deputy Collins wish to ask a question?

Will the 100% increase with inflation or is it an absolute amount that will therefore fall in real value by 2% or 3% per year?

I have the discretion to do that in future, but I do not propose to do so. It gives me the authority to do so in terms of the consumer price index.

Without doing it, the percentage will fall every year in real terms. Is that correct?

Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 7

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, line 27, to delete "€200" and substitute "€100".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8
Question, "That section 8 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 13, lines 23 to 31, to delete all words from and including "knowingly" in line 23 down to and including "respect."," in line 31 and substitute the following:

"knowingly accepts payments of the kind outlined in section 23AA(1)(ii) (inserted by section 7 of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012).”.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
Sections 11 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 17, to delete lines 20 to 22.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 17, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) A candidate at an election shall not directly or through any intermediary accept any corporate donations.".

Amendment declared lost.
Section 20 agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 17, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

"22.--The Act of 1999 is amended by inserting the following section after section 19B (inserted by section 58(m) of the Act of 2001):

"19BB.--(1) A candidate at an election shall not, directly or through any intermediary, accept in connection with the election from a particular corporate donor a donation the value of which exceeds €200.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a donation shall not be prohibited under that subsection where--

(a) a provider of a programme of education and training, or

(b) the students’ union or other representative body recognised by a provider of a programme of education and training, makes a payment to a club, society or other body, operating with the permission and on the premises of the provider of a programme of education and training, and every member of which is a student who is enrolled or registered with the provider of a programme of education and training.

(3) Where, notwithstanding subsection (1), a donation the acceptance of which is prohibited by that subsection, is made to a person referred to therein the donee shall, not later than days after the receipt of the donation, either--

(a) return the donation, or in the case of a donation referred to in subsection (1) which is a monetary donation, the part of it exceeding the limit concerned, to the corporate donor and keep a written record of that return for the purposes of its being furnished to the local authority concerned, if required by it, or

(b) notify the local authority concerned of such receipt and remit the donation, or in the case of a donation referred to in subsection (1) which is a monetary donation, the part of it exceeding the limit concerned or the value thereof to the local authority.

(4) A local authority shall dispose of all moneys, property or goods received by it under subsection (3) in such manner as it determines.

(5) In this section--

‘provider of a programme of education and training' has the same meaning as it has in section 2 of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999.".".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 20, to delete lines 23 to 29 and substitute the following:

" "(bb) knowingly accepts payments of the kind outlined in section 19BB(1)(b) (inserted by section 21 of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012),”,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 25 agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS

Amendments Nos. 10 to 16, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 26, before section 28, but in Part 5, to insert the following new section:

"28.--Once the number of women elected to Dáil Éireann reaches at least 40 per cent of the total number of TDs elected in one general election and remains at that level following the next two general elections, the gender-related criteria for State funding to political parties set out in this Act shall no longer apply to general elections to Dáil Éireann.".

This amendment centres around the debate on promoting a greater gender balance in political and parliamentary participation. We all share this goal. On Second Stage, most Deputies pointed out that the requirement placed on political parties by the Bill to field a certain number of female electoral candidates would work towards achieving that balance, but it is a blunt instrument.

Under the amendment, if the 40% target is reached and maintained for two subsequent general elections, the stipulation that State funding to political parties be linked with the requirement to run a certain number of female candidates will cease.

The Deputy is proposing a sunset clause.

This process will not be easy. The stipulation does not apply to Independents, as it concerns a party's funding stream, and it is easy to stand aside. This is also the case because I am female.

I am only trying to make improvements.

The amendment will defeat the purpose. Once the number of women in politics increases, the link will no longer be required. Although meeting the requirement will not be easy, it is a positive move, in that it will change the culture in politics by involving a different range of people and a larger number of women. We should not water it down.

I am concerned that the 40% will comprise women who will struggle to be serious contenders, particularly if they compete against incumbents. For example, if there are three candidates on the same ticket in a four-seater, it will be an uncomfortable position. We should not minimise the difficulty, but it will take several elections to produce the type of numerical difference that will change political culture. Take the dynamic in the Swedish Parliament as an example. Every day, our Ceann Comhairle draws attention to the heckling and so on in the Dáil. It is much more a male pastime than a female pastime. In the likes of Sweden there was a culture change and there was a much more co-operative rather than combative environment. That may be part of the difference. I would be concerned if it was watered down at this stage, as it would defeat the purpose.

As I indicated, we will take amendments Nos. 10 to 16, inclusive. There are three amendments in the name of Deputy Murphy and four in the name of Deputy Collins.

I applaud the direction being taken on quotas and it is a bold step. It is not enough and as this is an unusual time in Irish culture and politics we could achieve some radical change. There is also the democratic revolution claim.

We know that in the last election, 15% of candidates were women and that translated to 15% of Deputies. This pattern has been mirrored through various elections. The quota of 30% matters in that respect. France and Belgium have a quota of 50%, with Spain having a quota of 40% of candidates being women. The legislation will look to introduce the 40% quota in time but my analysis suggests that may not happen until 2021. I do not see why we cannot go to 40% straight away, as it is not a radical change. To hit the 30% quota, the Labour Party will only need to find an extra five female candidates across the country, which is hardly a change in culture. In fairness to the Labour Party, 27% of its candidates in the last election were women. Fine Gael would only have to find 13 additional female candidates.

I applaud and strongly support quotas not because they are fair but because they are the only known antidote to the gross inequality and discrimination that we see in Irish politics. Finding 13 extra candidates for Fine Gael and five extra candidates for the Labour Party is not much of a change. We could go to 40% straight away as it would be clearly achievable by parties such as Fine Gael and the Labour Party, and I am sure it is the same with Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil. That change would be more radical and valuable.

I was involved with amendment No. 16, which is in Deputy Murphy's name, and this is concerned with local elections. Even from my brief time in politics, I am very aware of the advantage that an incumbent elected representative - either a councillor or Deputy - has over a challenger. My concern is with the local level. I take the point made to me this time last year in the Chamber when the Minister indicated there was no mechanism to enforce this process at the local level. We may achieve 30% of candidates being female straight away - although a 40% level would be ideal - but it will be an unequal fight. The male candidates will have been elected representatives but most of the female candidates will not have been elected before, as the quota system will not have been in operation at the local council level. Only 16% of councillors around the country are women and in Wicklow, only two of the 24 councillors are women. Anybody who wants to spend any time watching some of those council meetings will understand, as Deputy Murphy noted, that they are aggressive and macho environments.

We must change the process at the local level for two reasons.

I take it the Deputy is referring to the males.

Yes, I am certainly not referring to the two female councillors, whom I know and respect. The female representation is critical at local government level for the same reasons it is critical at a national level. It is the only way to create a level playing field in general elections. I urge the Minister to move the quota to 40%, as Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil could easily achieve it at the next election. We should get creative and find some way to enforce the same quota system at the local level.

I support the idea of a quota as, unfortunately, it is the only way to bring about this level of female participation. In an ideal world there would be no need for quotas, and in my party, the Ard Chomhairle or ruling body has a 50:50 split that works on a list system. We must also be careful in thinking that implementing a quota system and the subsequent election of women will somehow make things equal. It may bring gender equality but that is separate to economic equality. In Germany, the female Chancellor has divisive economic policies, as did the former leader of our neighbouring island, Baroness Thatcher. It does not necessarily follow that gender equality brings economic equality.

I take on board the point about macho behaviour, hissing and booing when women stand to speak. Unfortunately, it also happens in the Dáil. I recall one debate in the Chamber before Christmas on a Bill concerned with septic tanks which was very robust, particularly the exchanges between the Opposition spokespersons and the Minister. The women in this Parliament are nonetheless able to hold their own with men. It is healthy to have quotas in place and we support their introduction.

I welcome this Bill. The biggest problem we are facing as parliamentarians, even across Europe, is the institutional structure of our parliaments. They are not family-friendly or friendly to women. For example, they have long sitting hours, with many sessions going late into the night, leaving family life completely disrupted. Are we going to include women who may go on maternity leave by introducing a system of proxy voting, for example? We will definitely have to consider that in time. We will also have to provide additional child-care facilities, family rooms, etc.

Following this legislation there will be major changes in institutional rules in this House and we must be up to such challenges. Currently, the parliamentary culture is not amenable to women, and this has been pointed out time and again by the current female Members in the Houses. Women have partaken in politics and are involved in political branches, for example, they may run district and constituency operations. However, they find it difficult to take the next steps because of the effect it would have on family life, etc. The Bill should go further by allowing proxy voting for women on maternity leave. Will the Minister consider this as it is important? We are tweaking the edges of this process but we must go all the way.

Before returning to the Minister I will add my own contribution. I moved legislation similar to this as a Private Members' Bill in 2008. I introduced the Private Members' Bill on National Women's Day, and the commentary on it was like that made in the 1960s about putting a man on the moon. The Bill proposed an initial figure of 20%, which was seen as very ambitious and revolutionary. Oddly enough, those who opposed the concept at the time included women. A leading female columnist stated it was typical of the Labour Party to try to engineer democracy. However, democracy does get engineered. It is what we do every day in the House. It was my belief then and it is certainly my belief now, and I welcome what the Minister has done in the Bill which proposes a higher number than I sought in 2008. This is not about gender quotas, it is about gender parity and, moreso, it is a societal issue. If a certain amount of the population is not represented in the House it means a democratic deficit exists, which results in a societal deficit. The Bill sets out to address this societal imbalance over the coming years.

I concur with what Deputy Stanley stated, namely, just because one would have a 50:50 gender split in the House it would not necessarily mean social equality. It would mean a representation of males and females from various perspectives and classes. Our neighbouring island was an example of this during the 1980s and 1990s. This legislation is a milestone and will place a footprint on the landscape of Irish politics. As Deputy Donnelly indicated, it does have to be engineered because it will not happen by accident. I commend the Minister on the general intent of the legislation.

Deputy Collins's amendment seeks a sunset clause with regard to removing the need for the legislation once the target is reached. There is nothing to stop a future Minister doing this without including a sunset clause. It is always better to put in place legislation to keep people honest in what they want to achieve with regard to the provisions of the Bill. If the targets are reached there is no need for anybody to be concerned about it, and there is nothing to stop political parties from being more ambitious than what is in the legislation. They can have higher ambition.

Deputy Donnelly states we should have a radical change but Deputy Murphy states it will be difficult to achieve the targets. One can see the balance we are trying to strike because of what is already in legislation with regard to figures of 30% and 40%. This is the first time it has ever been done. It is up to political parties and one can see where some of the moneys allocated to political parties go towards training young people and women and to increasing the participation rates of these categories. There is much activity in Fine Gael, and it is the same in other parties, with regard to using State funding for this purpose. They train and educate people and promote those not in a good financial position to participate in these events, which they could not do without a helping hand from the public purse. It costs money to do this.

In my experience a considerable amount of promotion takes place at local level getting candidates ready for local elections. This is where a substantial amount of money is spent by political parties at present. If a requirement exists that no fewer than 30% of candidates represent each gender, the local elections will be the foundation stone with all political parties zoning in on them to prepare candidates for a general election. This is the way it works. The penalty for not achieving the objective is a 50% reduction in funding, which is a fair penalty for political parties based on the figures mentioned earlier. It is an ambitious figure for political parties to achieve but they face a heavy penalty if they do not and I expect them to achieve it. As I stated earlier, there is nothing to stop them aiming for a higher level if they wish to do so.

This is the start of a cultural change process to enhance the participation of women in politics. It is a practical and pragmatic approach which over time will see a substantial increase in the participation levels of women as candidates. It is up to the electorate to decide whether these people are to be elected in the same way as it is up to the electorate to decide whether men are elected. In the Scottish Parliament when the general balance provision was removed the number of women Members of Parliament decreased. This is the best example we can get from our near neighbours on what can happen. For this reason I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I accept a future Minister may wish to do so, but I would prefer to leave it rather than have a sunset clause.

The nomination process for the Seanad was raised on Second Stage in the other House. I cannot force a nominating body to have a gender quota under the present system of electing Seanad Éireann. It is a matter for the nominating body to do so and perhaps we could encourage them. It is up to the vocational panels which exist at present. The university panels are slightly different as more often than not the candidates are Independent.

Does this mean the Minister will not abolish the Seanad?

I will not abolish anything; the people will do so if they wish.

Will the Minister advise them to do so?

Deputy Coonan, please.

This more or less covers the issues I wished to raise.

If we are to be honest, to achieve gender parity we should have a fundamental debate on wider reform of the Oireachtas and our electoral system to consider possibly changing the formation of constituencies with regard to multi-seat or single seat or having a list system. A list system would be a very progressive move in terms of achieving more gender balance whereby political parties would be mandated to promote women to fill the gap.

I recognise what the Bill is trying to achieve given that we are not going down the route of having a radical discussion on reform of our electoral system or the working of the Oireachtas. In the absence of this, we will go with it and we want to see more gender balance. However, there is a fear that some political parties will run token women candidates to make up the numbers. This fear has been expressed across the spectrum, and it may happen. It remains to be seen how it plays out. The Bill is not perfect, but the people will decide. Women stand for election and do not get elected and this is the reality.

There could also be token men candidates.

There could, but we do not have a problem with men participating in politics. We have a problem with women participating. This is the issue.

Tokenism directly relates to funding so this is how it is relevant. The point I was making is that this will not be easy, because women could be token candidates. If the objective of this is to change the culture by bringing in more women, the women must be credible candidates and this is where the point on the local elections comes in. I contested the 2009 local elections in Kildare. Of the 43 candidates, six were women and in two electoral areas no woman candidate was on the ballot paper. The absence of choice is part of the problem.

We should have a wider debate on relevance. Sometimes the Oireachtas is as unfriendly to parents who happen to be men as it is to parents who happen to be women. The hours are also an issue. It is really important that people see what we do as relevant. People must see that the time they invest in politics is something on which they will get a return. Part of this involves looking at the kind of theatre that happens with coverage of what takes place here. What is the point in investing time if all it is about is what is portrayed by the kind of message going out? If we are serious about quotas, not just from the point of view of getting funding to political parties, but from the point of view of bringing about a change reasonably quickly, we must consider starting with local elections. Without that baseline, the proposed quota system is open to the charge of mere tokenism. If we achieve a critical mass of women, the culture will change. If we change the culture, we change the relevance and that will be self-sustaining.

People talk about including minorities. Women make up the majority of the population, but the fact they are under-represented is a far more serious issue than the inclusion of minorities, because it is the majority of the population that is under-represented.

I have two specific questions on amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16. First, why do we not move to 40% representation by women straight away? At the least, we should move to 40% at the election following the next one, because the seven-year period means it will probably be three elections before we move to 40%. Second, why not apply quotas to local elections?

There is no penalty on the basis of the votes cast in the local elections. However, there is a penalty in the case of the general election. I assure the Deputy there will be a trickle down effect arising from this legislation for political parties to increase participation levels of women. This will be a good exercise for them and it is an essential part of their work to ensure they have sufficient numbers of people in order to meet the 30% requirement in the election.

If the Minister had a penalty, would he apply it to the local elections?

I would certainly apply it. I would have no difficulty about looking at that if a penalty applied. We have tried to be pragmatic about this because it is a big cultural change for political parties, as well as for the individuals concerned. I do not want a situation to arise where this initiative could fail. It will require a big shift in the mood and mindset of the political process in order to achieve the 30%. We also need to get another local election through the system in order to provide the necessary candidates, because usually 85% of the candidates come through that process. People come into politics at local level and the local elections will give the chance to hit the 40%, which is quite ambitious when we consider the numbers.

The seven years may seem like a long time, but it is reasonable for the type of change we are talking about when increasing the participation levels of women in politics so that we reach the threshold. That is not to stop any political party planning in advance for having more than 30% of both genders for the following general election.

That is 14 years away.

If the next two Dáileanna run their full term, it will be a maximum period of ten years between the 30% and 40% provision applying. Not every Dáil runs its full term, but the minimum period applying will be seven years and the maximum ten years.

We will have the next election and then the legislation provides for "seven years from the next election". That election will be held within five years -----

In three years' time.

So it is the following election. Therefore, it is three elections away, potentially 13 and a half years.

It might not be three elections. It may only be two. We will try to go the full term.

That is two full terms and the rest of this one. That comes to 13 and a half years.

It will be ten years from now.

No, it is two full Dáil terms and what remains of this one, which is 13 and a half years.

That is not my interpretation. If the next two Dáileanna run their full term, there will be a maximum of ten years between the 30% and 40% provisions applying.

Perhaps there is some way we can get clarity on this. The legislation says "seven years from the next election", which means we are guaranteed the next election and another one. Therefore, it is the third -----

We may both be right.

The Minister will examine that matter before we proceed to Report Stage for clarification purposes.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 26, before section 28, but in Part 5, to insert the following new section:

"28.—Section 17 of the Act of 1997 is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (4A) (inserted by section 50(c)(iv) of the Act of 2001):

"(4B) The amount of State funding allocated to a qualified political party in line with the provisions of this Act shall be reduced after the following local elections by up to 50 per cent unless at least 30 per cent of the candidates whose candidatures were authenticated by the qualified party at those local elections were women and at least 30 per cent were men.

(4C) Subsection (4B)—

(a) comes into operation on the date that section 27 of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 comes into operation,

and

(b) ceases to have effect on the polling day at the local election held next after the expiration of 4 years from the polling day specified in paragraph (a).

(4D) The amount of State funding allocated to a qualified political party in line with the provisions of this Act shall be reduced after the following local elections by up to 50 per cent unless at least 40 per cent of the candidates whose candidatures were authenticated by the qualified party at those local elections were women and at least 40 per cent were men.

(4E) Subsection (4D) comes into operation on the day after the day on which subsection (4B) ceases to have effect.

(4F) Once the number of women elected to local authorities reaches at least 40 per cent of the total number of councillors elected in one local election and remains at that level following the next two local elections, the gender-related criteria for State funding to political parties set out in this Act shall no longer apply to elections to local authorities.".".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 26, before section 28, but in Part 5, to insert the following new section:

"28.—Section 17 of the Act of 1997 is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (4A) (inserted by section 50(c)(iv) of the Act of 2001):

"(4B) The amount of State funding allocated to a qualified political party in line with the provisions of this Act shall be reduced after the following Seanad general election by up to 50 per cent unless at least 30 per cent of the candidates whose candidatures were authenticated by the qualified party at that Seanad general election were women and at least 30 per cent were men.

(4C) Subsection (4B)—

(a) comes into operation on the date that section 27 of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 comes into operation,

and

(b) ceases to have effect on the polling day at the Seanad general election held next after the expiration of 4 years from the polling day specified in paragraph (a).

(4D) The amount of State funding allocated to a qualified political party in line with the provisions of this Act shall be reduced after the following Seanad general election by up to 50 per cent unless at least 40 per cent of the candidates whose candidatures were authenticated by the qualified party at that Seanad election were women and at least 40 per cent were men.

(4E) Subsection (4D) comes into operation on the day after the day on which subsection (4B) ceases to have effect.

(4F) Once the number of women elected to Seanad Éireann reaches at least 40 per cent of the total number of Senators elected in one election and remains at that level following the next two elections, the gender-related criteria for State funding to political parties set out in this Act shall no longer apply to elections to Seanad Éireann.".".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 26, before section 28, to insert the following new section:

"28.—Section 17 of the Act of 1997 is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (4A) (inserted by section 50(c)(iv) of the Act of 2001):

"(4B) The total gender-related deduction for any qualified party arising out of the combined impact of the gender-based criteria for the elections specified in this Act shall not exceed 50 per cent of the total funding which that qualified party would have been entitled to in the absence of the gender-based requirements in this Act.".".

Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 28

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 26, line 31, to delete "30 per cent" and substitute "40 per cent".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 26, line 34, to delete "30 per cent" and substitute "40 per cent".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 26, lines 39 to 42, to delete all words from and including "comes" in line 39 down to and including "after the" in line 42 and in page 27, to delete lines 1 to 11 and substitute the following:

"comes into operation.

(4C) (a) Payments calculated in accordance with this Part shall be reduced by 50 per cent, unless at least 40 per cent of the candidates whose candidatures were authenticated by the qualified party at the preceding local election were women and at least 40 per cent were men.

(b) Paragraph (a) comes into operation on the polling day at the local election held next after section 28 of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 comes into operation.”.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 28 agreed to.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy, have been ruled out of order as they are outside the scope of the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.

I have a procedural question. The logic for ruling these amendments out of order seemed dubious. In such a case, is there an appeals process?

The Deputy should contact the Ceann Comhairle's office to seek clarity in such cases.

TITLE

Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."

May I ask another question? Are the Report Stage amendments concluded?

I take it the Deputy is asking whether these amendments can be re-entered on Report Stage and as far as I know they can be re-entered for Report and Final Stages, which will be taken next week. Perhaps the Minister can indicate when that is scheduled.

I think it is scheduled for Thursday, 19 July.

We need to go through the process of sending a message to the Dáil to confirm we have completed Committee Stage before then.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Barr
Roinn