David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

A number of amendments are being taken in this grouping. Our amendment No. 4 also proposes the banning of corporate donations. The Independent Senators' amendment No. 3 goes further than ours. It proposes to delete lines 11 to 41, while our amendment proposes to delete lines 11 to 37. There is a reason for what we propose in our amendment and I want to explain it because we cannot support amendment No. 3. If the Independent Senators take on board what I say, they may withdraw their amendment and support amendment No. 4.

I support a ban on corporate donations. We have to grit our teeth when we hear representatives from Fianna Fáil talk about banning corporate donations when one considers the Galway tent and that many people distrust politics and their view of it is based on what happened over many years under the term of that party, in particular, in office. That party must take responsibility for the fact that the brown envelope culture came from a certain political party and while it echoed across other parties as well, it was mainly associated with one political party. That must be said in the context of this debate and it would be foolish for us not to do so. That is not to say that Senators in Fianna Fáil or members of that party do not want to have a changed system in the future but we are where we are because of abuses in the system which came from a certain political party. Therefore, I support a ban on corporate donations.

As Senator Mac Conghail said, some people may be able to get around the system. Some positive changes have been proposed with the proposals to reduce the maximum amount that can be accepted as a donation by a political party from €6,348.69 to €2,500 and the maximum amount that can be accepted as a donation from an individual from €2,539.48 to €1,000, and to reduce the threshold at which donations must be declared to €1,500 for parties and to €600 for individuals. A previous speaker made the argument that if one gets 20 donations under €600, even if one of those donations is €599, one does not have to declare them. That is part of the problem in that there are still loopholes in the system. There are ways in which people can get around these limits. While I accept what Senator Bradford said about the need for balance in a general sense, we must also be conscious that people look for loopholes in all of this. The best way to ensure there is no association between big business, corporations or businesses generally with politics is to ban corporate donations.

I have stood for a number of general elections and I have always received over the 25% threshold in terms of getting a return back from the Standards in Public Office Commission. It is around €6,500 for a general election, which would fund a general election campaign. None of my campaigns was over that amount by much and, if they were, it was only by a few hundred euro or perhaps €1,000. If we were to examine that, we could say to political parties that is what they should spend on elections. We know that some candidates spend €20,000 to €60,000 on their campaigns. Senator Keane made the point that posters should be banned. I do not know whether my party would support that but such a move would save money and it would limit the amount of money that is spent. Some of the returns from some candidates in terms of what they spend is amazing.

I support a complete ban on corporate donations. I support the broad thrust of the amendment tabled by the Independent Senators. They propose the deletion of lines 11 to 41 but there is a number of reasons we cannot go as far as what they propose. One relates to college societies. On Second Stage the Minister said:

An exemption from the new registration requirements is given to a provider of a programme of education and training or a students' union where such a body makes a payment to a student society or club. This will allow colleges or students' unions to continue to provide financial support to student groups that promote political participation without being obliged to comply with the new corporate donor requirements. I am sure Members will agree that these grants to student societies can hardly be regarded as the sort of corporate donations which need to be restricted and that this exemption does not contradict our objective of enhancing the openness and transparency of political funding in Ireland.

I agree with that because there is a world of difference between a student society getting a payment from a third level institute to fund a political society and what we are talking about here in terms of corporate donations. The position in terms of a students' society is no different from that of a GAA club, an Irish language society, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender society, or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Student unions should not be subject to this. That is one of the reasons I cannot support the amendment tabled by the Independent Senators.

As proposed in our amendment No. 11, we want lines 23 to 32 retained, which cover a donee having to return a donation to the Standards in Public Office Commission if the money is lodged in his or her account. That is important because if one has a donations account and somebody anonymously puts money into it, or one does not know that money has been lodged in it, or from where an amount lodged has come, sections of the Bill require the donee to give that money to the Standards in Public Office Commission. Such money has to be returned. That is important. It would be wrong to remove that provision. Amendment No. 12 deals with this also. Lines 38 and 40 require the money to be returned and the use of that money would come under the remit of the Minister for Finance. For those reasons, because of amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12, which retain some of the requirements in terms of the Standards in Public Office Commission, the donations made and how all that plays out, the lines which we propose should be retained should remain in the Bill. However, the substance of amendment No. 3 in terms of proposing a complete ban on corporate donations is dealt with in amendment No. 4. It proposes to delete lines 11 to 37 and its wording, "shall directly or through any intermediary accept any corporate donations" is the same as that proposed in amendment No. 3. I hope the Senators will support that amendment and accept my reasons for not accepting amendment No. 3.

We also tabled amendments Nos. 22 to 25, which are essentially the same but deal with local government. If amendment No. 4 falls we will not be pressing amendments Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13 or 21, because if there are to be corporate donations we do want to see a proper database and registration system and so on. That would make sense. We do not want anyone to misrepresent our position - not that the Minister would. Similarly, if amendment No. 22 falls, we will not move amendments Nos. 23 to 25, because there will need to be a database and checks and balances will be required.