Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

Although I am a new Deputy, I have followed the work of the Dáil closely over a number of years. One of the biggest problems when debating legislation is the tendency of many Deputies to fail to engage with the detailed contents of the Bill before the House. Even though no benefit can be gained from being partisan because the media ignores 95% of all debates, too many Members seek to prioritise partisan attacks ahead of more constructive exchanges. A significant extension in the amount of time for which the House sits has been proposed, but it is clear that additional time will not deliver an improvement if the approach to debate is not changed.

I acknowledge those Deputies who took the time to look closely at the comprehensive proposals in this Bill. I remind those who preferred to make cheap points that the next election is probably over four years away. If we cannot be constructive in these early weeks of the new Dáil, it does not bode well for the rest of the term. In light of the contents of the Moriarty report and the histories of many of the parties represented in this Dáil, the lack of self-reflection in most of the contributions was striking. We are all politicians. We represent different local and party interests. Robust exchanges are part and parcel of what we do. The dismissal of a proposal simply because it comes from an opponent is the type of politics that was supposed to have ended when the people cast their votes on 25 February last.

This constructive Bill deals comprehensively with the core issue of how political funding is handled. It operates within the boundaries of what is constitutionally possible at this time. In effect, it bans corporate donations. A fuller ban will be possible if the constitutional amendment we published yesterday is enacted. The legislation is based on the principle that elections should be decided and funded directly by those entitled to vote and no one else. It goes much further by introducing greater transparency to all aspects of our political work. It responds in detail to the key recommendations of the Moriarty report.

I wish to refer to the two tribunals that were established to investigate these matters. One of them was ongoing until a couple of months ago and the other has been ongoing since 1997. I am particularly concerned about the cost of the two tribunals. The basis and rationale for their establishment was the fact that the making of donations within our political system had not been properly regulated over the years. The last 14 years of investigations, which resulted from the lack of regulation of our political system, did great damage to the political fabric of this country. In addition, they exposed the damage that was done to Irish politics over many years by a minority of people. The Moriarty tribunal cost more than €100 million and the Mahon tribunal is set to cost more than €250 million. Therefore, more than €350 million has been spent on two tribunals that have investigated what went on in politics as a consequence of the failure to address certain issues and ensure this type of legislation was in place before now.

Politics has been funded by the State for a number of years now. State funding was first made available at around the time of the establishment of the Moriarty tribunal. The most recent figures for State funding of political parties show that some €5.5 million was provided to political parties under the Electoral Acts. The figures in question, which relate to 2009, have been provided by the Standards in Public Office Commission. A further €8 million was provided for the funding of politics through the party leaders' allowances. Therefore, a total of €13.5 million was made available by the State in 2009 to fund party politics. The failure of the State in previous years to get involved in and take a serious attitude to the funding of politics led to the establishment of two tribunals that are to cost us €350 million. That money would have funded the political system for many of the years in which the damaging activities that the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals were established to investigate took place.

The Bill before the House is absolutely key and important. It is not possible to introduce an outright ban on corporate donations until the referendum on the matter later this year. This legislation proposes to bring greater transparency to the way in which corporate donations are made. It will make it significantly more difficult for donations to be made. I will sum up some of its key proposals. All corporate donations of more than €100 will have to be declared within 14 days, authorised by a general meeting and registered with the Standards in Public Offices Commission. Any donation by a company or trade union that exceeds €100 will be difficult to make and will have to be extremely transparent. The company or trade union will have to apply to the commission to be registered as a "donating company" or "donating trade union". It will have to give the commission full details of the organisation, membership and shareholding of the company or trade union. It will be required to have secured support for the donation through a vote of its members or a general meeting. If a donation is subsequently made - obviously, a donation to a political party could not exceed €2,500 - the Bill will require that any donation of more than €100 be published in the accounts of the company or trade union.

The company or trade union will be required to publish in its accounts details of any Government contracts worth more than €1,000 into which it entered, or intended to enter, at the time of the making of the donation. This builds on another important recommendation in the second report of the Moriarty tribunal, which is that donors should be obliged to identify any relevant financial, commercial or other interests if their donations exceed a certain threshold. This includes an obligation to identify any Government contracts or any involvement in procurement processes. This requirement is not limited to the company but includes its directors, shadow directors or significant shareholders. Failure to comply with these requirements will be a criminal offence, punishable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding €5,000.

Another key change in the Bill is the reduction in the maximum allowable individual donation to political parties and third parties from €6,348 to €2,500, with the level at which these must be publicly declared to fall from €5,078 to €1,000. It also reduces the maximum allowable donation to a candidate from €2,539 to €1,000 in any one year, with the level at which these must be publicly declared reduced from €634 to €500. While a donation above €1,000 for political parties and a donation above €500 for an individual candidate must be declared, any donation above €100 from a company, trade union, society or building society must also be declared.

The Bill also introduces an amendment to section 23A of the Electoral Act 1997. The amendment is based upon one of the recommendations in the Moriarty report on political funding which identified a problem where one donor makes a series of donations, all of which are under the declarable threshold. The amendment provides that where a donor makes a donation in the same year to two or more persons of the same party, these would be treated as one donation to a political party or third party. As a result, the amendment ensures that not more than €2,500 per annum could be donated by one donor.

Another key recommendation of the second Moriarty report regarding political funding was that political donations should be disclosed in a reasonable timeframe following an election. For this reason, the Bill requires the publication of donation statements within 25 days of polling. Currently, the timeframe is 58 days for unsuccessful candidates and 31 March of the following year for successful candidates.

The Bill also provides that the Standards in Public Office Commission will audit the accounts of political parties each year, with the income and expenditure account, balance sheet and donations statement to be published.

The contribution made by the Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, last night on behalf of the Government was surprising. At times it sounded as if it had been written by two separate people. On the one hand, the Minister of State's speech was generous and constructive in recognising the quality of the Bill and the collective interest in seeing its objectives realised. He also outlined in detail the major programme of reform in this area which was enacted in the past 14 years. I thank the Minister of State for his statement that this legislation has meant that many of the core abuses pointed to in tribunal reports could no longer take place. For example, the tour of the country made by staff of ESAT who personally visited constituency fund-raisers for Cabinet Ministers in 1995 could not have been kept secret if the current law had been in operation. In addition, the issues concerning the Telenor donation which ended up in an offshore account could not have arisen under the legislation introduced by the previous Government.

On the other hand, the Minister of State was sent in to the Chamber to perform the role of justifying the fact that the massed ranks on the Government benches will be sent in tonight to vote down the Bill and delay the achievement of its objectives. To do this, he cited a list of minor issues to which he attached inflated importance. His point concerning other types of corporate entities which should be covered could be addressed by a Committee Stage amendment, as could other points he made regarding definitions. Some of the most important parts of the existing electoral Acts are short and simple sections and it is not true that definitional issues cannot be addressed on Committee Stage.

The Taoiseach was wrong today and yesterday in claiming that the Fianna Fáil Party had indicated that the Bill was flawed when we introduced it. We did nothing of the sort. We indicated that we expected it to be amended in committee. This is the first time an entirely new Bill, as opposed to legislation published in the previous Dáil, has been dealt with by the 31st Dáil. Perhaps Deputies have forgotten that nearly all legislation can be amended extensively in committee. One of the Standing Orders requires Ministers to point to areas on which they anticipate amendments will be introduced. To argue against the Bill on the basis that it cannot be enacted exactly in its original form is to ignore the reality of the legislative process.

On those occasions where a Private Members' Bill has been enacted, major amendments have been made on Committee Stage. I spoke earlier today to Senator Feargal Quinn who is making great efforts to pass legislation in the Upper House to facilitate early payment of subcontractors. If the Senator's legislation is passed, it will be the first time in 40 years that a Private Member's Bill originating in the Seanad will have been enacted. This is a terrible indictment of the political system and one which makes it difficult for any party to pour cold water on a Bill which tries to address this problem. None of the parties in the House can take the high moral ground on the issue of having an Oireachtas which is open and allows all Members to participate.

The Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, also criticised the Bill for not being sufficiently comprehensive. In doing so, he listed the Government's entire political reform agenda while omitting to mention that it is not proposed anywhere in its agenda to deal with political funding legislation. All parties support the establishment of an electoral commission, work on which has been under way for some time. There are, however, no proposals to enact legislation in this regard in the coming months.

The Government has not pointed to a single area which is omitted or a single difficulty with drafting which cannot be dealt with in committee. This point relates to the different proposals contained in the speeches of Sinn Féin Deputies and members of the Technical Group. Having listed the major reforms enacted in the past 14 years, the Minister of State unfortunately fell back on the already tired line that my party was in power for 14 years. He knows full well that a Bill would have been enacted by now if the Dáil had been sitting in February. He is also aware that the Bill before us and the constitutional amendment represent the first time any party has ever put forward a detailed proposal to end corporate donations.

I have been a Deputy for two months and I am proud to have my name attached to this Bill. The Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, has been a Member of the House for nearly 20 years and many other Members have been here a good deal longer. Unless they believe they did not have any responsibility for legislation during their time in the House, they should explain the reason they failed to introduce a ban on corporate donations, either in government or opposition.

To claim that the Bill lacks "vision, credibility and detail" is untrue. Ministers have asked Deputies to vote down the Bill on the basis that they will introduce a measure in this area shortly. Where similar circumstances arose in the past, Governments have, as a statement of good will, declined to vote down Bills and instead attached a qualification to the vote. Under this procedure, a date is set for the Bill to proceed to committee if the Government fails to fulfil its commitment. For example, a Fianna Fáil disability access Bill became law because the rainbow Government failed to enact promised legislation in time. Availing of this procedure would have been a more convincing response to the Bill than the over the top opposition we have heard.

The net effect of voting down the Bill tonight is that we will have to wait longer for a ban on corporate donations and the other reform measures proposed in the legislation. The Government's measure will emerge at some point in the next month. Under the rules of the Dáil and Seanad and other formal requirements, the legislation will not be in operation during the period when candidates are raising money for the presidential election. Perhaps it is the intention of Fine Gael and the Labour Party to have one last visit to the trough before the ban comes into effect.

This is a good and comprehensive Bill which fulfils my party's election promise to bring this matter to a vote early in the new Dáil. Its date puts off the fulfilment of the Government's promise. I commend it to the House and recommend its adoption.

See this speech in context