Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.

Senators Keane and O'Keeffe summed up our difficulty. We would love to live in a perfect world, but we do not and will not. Later this year the constitutional committee will examine the electoral system. That might be a little removed from this debate but in one sense it is central to it. Most countries in Europe do not have a facility for private funding of political parties, so the taxpayer funds those parties. However, those countries have a different type of politics with list systems and party headquarters dominating the show. People are not funding individuals because they do not vote for individuals but for political parties.

If there was a list system here, in which the electorate did not vote for a candidate but for a political party, it would then be much easier to suggest state funding of political parties. However, at present people who might support or even be members of the Fianna Fáil Party might well decide to fund their local Fine Gael candidate with whom they have a personal friendship. We have that type of complicated thing here because of our electoral system. That is a debate for another day, perhaps, but it is one of the reasons it is not so easy and neat to simply ban all types of personal and corporate funding and to move to taxpayer funding. We do not have the politics or the electoral system which would make it an easier option.

Senator Keane's response to the amendments is quite balanced. In our innocent days, we all would love to have seen all types of private and corporate funding removed, but I do not see any marches on the street by taxpayers demanding to fund politics. Most taxpayers are of the opinion that they are paying enough tax already and have no wish to fund political party activity. It is either one way or the other, that is, either private, corporate or controlled funding or taxpayer funding. That is a debate that will not be concluded today but it is not as simple as banning all corporate funding, as the amendment suggests.

In our current electoral system our type of politics is often more competitive within the parties than between the parties. We generally do not have a competition of political ideas at elections but a competition of individuals. That is why it is so expensive and why there are so many posters, leaflets and so much advertising. That is the type of politics we have. It is not a national debate on ideology or ideas, but generally a local, hurling match type of politics. That is the reason politics is so expensive and the reason it is difficult to control expenditure and funding. I hope the constitutional committee will look at that big picture, although it is a debate for another day.

The Minister has got it as right as possible in the Bill. We are, in a way, trying to square a circle. We will not come up with a perfect answer but at least we are making things much better than they were. I hope the Minister will respond to the point I made earlier. I do not believe a word from the mouths of the politicians who claim to be living on the average industrial wage.

That is hypocritical cant, but we need to challenge it. If these people are handing over tranches of money to their respective political parties it is illegal, under current electoral law. That money should be returned to the taxpayer.