Fiach MacConghail (Independent)

I reiterate what Senator Power said. The opportunity to discuss this Bill in the Seanad behoves well for the level of debate that takes place in this Chamber. It has been a great discussion.

A good deal of exposure was rightly given on Second Stage to the gender quotas but these sections are fundamentally important also in terms of building trust in the future politics of the Republic, and between politicians and citizens, and also encouraging more citizens to become involved in politics. The more trust we have and the more the ground rules are clear for all of us in terms of accessibility and ability, the more level the pitch.

Our amendment is the nub of the issue. It is the nub of the Moriarty tribunal findings and, I presume, it will be the nub of the Mahon tribunal findings in terms of the banning of corporate donations. The Minister mentioned on Second Stage that there might have been constitutional reasons Fine Gael or the programme for Government could not move on the banning of all corporate donations. If there is such advice the Minister might share that with us to ensure we can understand and debate that, although I know what the Minister's argument will be. We intend to move an amendment to ban all corporate donations. The Minister will come back to us and say his advice is that we cannot do that but we would like to see that advice. That will make this a more productive debate and there will not be any gamesmanship. I know that is not the Minister's intention but it is something we might seek with a view to having a better debate on that issue.

While the ban on corporate donations was not recommended in the Moriarty tribunal report on the basis that it was a matter for Government, the report intimated that only a complete ban on private funding would provide a cast iron guarantee against corruption. It stated that the only cast iron guarantee against corruption and abuses in the political system and against the risk of distortions in the democratic process that may arise from the private funding of political parties and political representatives would be to provide for a complete ban on private political funding and, as in some other European countries, to fund political parties entirely from the public purse. I stated on Second Stage that I would encourage private donations by citizens. Donating as part of a democratic political process is an important piece of activism on behalf of the citizen. However, I have yet to come across substantial reasons corporate donations cannot be banned as opposed to meddling with the cap of €100 and suddenly there is an enormous amount of paper work involved as well, never mind the fact that we are being ambiguous about and prevaricating on the "yes" or "no" issue. This is a clear and simple "yes" or "no" scenario, and putting limits on it will allow people to get around. It would be difficult to limit contributions and it does not stop family members, for instance, who also happen to be directors of corporations giving funding individually. Under the current Act a donation from a private business and a donation from directors of that private business which is made in a private capacity are regarded as separate donations. That would remain the case if this Bill is passed as all individuals must have equal rights to donate to a political party, regardless of where she or he works.

The proposed legislation provides for a cap of €2,500 on donations to political parties. That is the legal position. That does not prevent six like-minded individuals who are connected to a corporation from donating €2,500. Therefore, the Bill proposes to cap donations to parties by any donor at €2,500. With donations capped at €2,500, individual donations from, for instance, six directors, could be €1,500 and with those added to a donation from a corporate donor, the maximum that could be legally donated would be €17,500 in one calendar year. That compares with €44,000 under the current Acts and is 39% of what can be legally donated under the current legislation. I seek the Minister's advice as to why corporate donations cannot be banned entirely.

The real test of the reduction in caps proposed in the Bill in achieving the stated policy objective is whether it reduces the probability that political parties rely heavily on financial donations from particular corporate donors or individuals who are associated with the interest of such corporate donors. By reducing the cap, the Bill addresses a weaknesses in the current statutory framework, which may have allowed substantial sums of money to be legally donated to politicals parties and candidates. It could therefore reduce the reliance of political parties on large donations from corporate donors. However, as the position I outlined also demonstrates, as I explained in the case of six directors, it will remain possible under this Bill for a group of individuals to collectively make a decision to each individually donate money to a political party while lower sums of money, in aggregate, could be considerable.

We should get rid of the ambiguity, ban donations entirely and build a trust between the citizen and the politician without it being mediated by big business or a sense of a limit which could be got around, as would be possible under the Bill, by bundling, whereby individuals could come together and circumvent the current proposal. In this amendment, together with my fellow Senators, I propose the banning of corporate donators entirely.