Dáil debates

Friday, 18 November 2011

Private Members' Business: An Bille um an Naoú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht (Uimh. 2) 2011: An Dara Céim, Twenty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Timmy DooleyTimmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Bill. While there is a difference of opinion about some aspects of how we should deal with the area of donations to the political system it is right and fitting to address it and, where possible, to try to find a compromise. The lead speakers from all sides have spoken and, to some extent, anger has been vented. Nevertheless, it is necessary that we work collectively to try to resolve the situation that has evolved in the country. Whether we like it or not there is a perception among the public that, in many cases, politicians of all colours and politics, regardless of the high moral ground that some have sought to take today, have been corrupted and are corruptible. I do not believe this is the case. Notwithstanding events that have taken place in the past and decisions taken by my party, the party opposite or any party in the House, I believe, by and large, decisions are taken for the right reasons.

Unfortunately we, as a Legislature, have lost the confidence of the people and we have to address that.

I too recognise the fundamental right of citizens and individuals to involve themselves in the political process through the provision of a donation of whatever size. As other speakers said, at a certain stage certain views are taken into account, such as that somebody is attempting to buy influence or impact the outcome of certain decisions which taints the entire process. We must be very careful about the funding of the political system because if the provision of donations is banned completely the capacity for people who are not part of the political process to participate is limited.

A speaker on this side referred to reducing the amount of spend, leafleting and posters. That is fine if one is in the system but if a person who comes from outside wants to participate and does not have the benefit of having a position in a local authority or the national Parliament he or she does not get the same access to the media. It is costly for a person who may have great ideas to capture the variety of media available now. We cannot suggest that the solution to the problem is the banning of all donations. It is necessary to ban corporate donations.

Having said that, I am not casting a slur on genuine politicians who over successive generations have accepted donations from corporations. Such donations were not given with any expectation or malicious intent. Some were given with intent and perhaps very few others were taken with the expectation that something would be delivered at a later stage. Such cases comprise a minute blip in the system but it has been enough to damage the entire political process. It is incumbent on all of us to accept that perception is the reality, and we must address it and put the appropriate measures in place.

I am disappointed by the contribution of the Minister. I am not being partisan but he seems to have identified all of the legislative and constitutional issues that arise, as well as referring to the charter of fundamental human rights and European legislation. While I am sure he is well-intentioned we have to find the capacity to move beyond those concerns. If necessary, we should put a system in place to which politicians could sign up on a short-term voluntary basis if it is not possible to put in place the constitutional ban required. We have to do that if, as politicians, we are prepared to show the entire parliamentary process is amenable to the electorate and not special interest groups. That is the perception that is out there but I do not accept it is the reality.

I made clear that the vast majority of donations are given because people have a view or like the particular vision, work ethic or direction of a particular party or group of parties on the management of the country. People do that for the right reasons, if they are in a position to do so.

I am disappointed by the Sinn Féin contribution. I have great regard for Deputy McDonald. I admire her work in the European Parliament and here, but she does no justice to politics or her party when she seeks to take a political cut at Fianna Fáil. We are well able to handle and address that. However, she sought to involve the teaching profession and suggested in some cases a county councillor on the board of a national or a secondary school would be in a position of influence in terms of who got jobs. For many years it was suggested in most instances a parish priest made the wise decision in consultation with the board and principal of the school. In all instances decisions taken on the appointment of teachers are done in a fair and equitable manner. I reject the suggestion that there has ever been any influence by the elected members of our or any other political party. Much of the commentary has been taken completely out of context.

There have been suggestions it is a brass neck effort by our party because of our history, the perception that existed and evidence deduced at various tribunals that the current crop of elected representatives should be shy about introducing reforms. We on this side of the House were elected at the last election and have a mandate for reform. We will not be blinded, blighted or diverted from introducing appropriate legislation to deal with the reform agenda. We will not be deterred by any slurs, innuendo or reference to the past sins, either direct or by omission, of members of our party.

There are issues in most political parties in the House, to which previous speakers have referred, with malpractice or adding to that perception. For that reason it is brazen of Deputy McDonald to call into question the bona fides of those of us who are elected to this Parliament to introduce the reform agenda. I will not discuss the issues of the past.

Deputy McDonald has to be taken at face value in terms of her mandate. I will not raise some of the tenuous and not so tenuous connections to the past sins or malpractice of members of her party, some of which were carried out by people who were elected and are part of the current crop of Members of this House and in another jurisdiction.

We have to work collectively and it does not help the process to get into a contest about who can rake up the greatest amount of dirt from the past. It is a requirement for all of us to work collectively to regain the faith of the Irish people. We need to show them that politicians are largely noble in their desire, work ethic and ability to introduce legislation and do the right thing on behalf of the Irish people and the country, rather than of one interest group, sector or corporation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.