Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

The speech made by Deputy Penrose last May contained a great deal of good detail on how the legal regulation of political funding has been radically reformed since abuses were investigated in Dublin Castle. Nearly every piece of these reforms was proposed or enacted by Fianna Fáil Governments with the assistance of coalition partners. My former colleague, Michael Smith, was the first Minister to publish a Bill to regulate political funding. He proposed the framework of limiting donations that is still in place. Under that system, donations over a certain limit have to be declared and full declarations of campaign spending have to be made. Another of my former colleagues, John O'Donoghue, introduced legislation which put in place strong penalties for the breaching of various controls and required the establishment of separate political accounts. When we ended the practice of raising funds from non-citizens in other countries, it was loudly opposed by Sinn Féin, which claimed it would somehow endanger the peace process.

In international terms, Ireland has a tough regulatory regime for political fundraising and campaign spending. Our donation, declaration and spending limits are much lower than those in most countries. Many of the donations Sinn Féin has received in Northern Ireland over the past 14 years could not legally be made in this jurisdiction. Most of the abuses of the past are not possible under current law. None of the defences used to justify the worst behaviour can now be deployed.

Despite all these changes, the faith of the public in the cleanliness of politics is extremely low. Part of this is historic and part of it is a reflection of the opportunism of politicians who try to say it is nothing to do with them. Most of it results from a core belief that elections should be funded and decided by the people alone. Corporate entities, commercial or otherwise, should play no role when it comes to elections. Most politicians say it is unfair to assume they can be influenced by a donation from a business which amounts to a fraction of the cost of campaigning. While it may be unfair, it is clear that there were abuses in the past. That has been evident at the Moriarty tribunal and elsewhere. The public has a fixed will on this matter. The need to restore public faith in politics is the most important objective for this Dáil. The introduction of a ban on corporate donations will not restore public trust by itself. It is important to proceed with other measures to reduce declaration and donation limits, increase scrutiny of party accounts and address large-scale pre-campaign spending.

The text of the proposed amendment is simple. It specifies that the only funding which may be provided for political campaigns should come from those entitled to vote in the relevant election. It further provides that limits on donations and their public declaration may be prescribed by law. The intention of this is to copperfasten existing legislation and avoid the risk of future cases, such as those recently seen in the United States, which have dramatically undermined the control of political donations. The amendment, as drafted, would remove the right of non-resident citizens to make political donations. This is being done to underpin the idea that elections should be funded by those entitled to vote in them. It should be noted that the ability of the Irish authorities to properly oversee such fundraising is close to non-existent. They cannot compel the disclosure of information or the attendance of witnesses, or take any serious step to ensure laws are being complied with. In the past, the Labour Party argued for the retention of its privileged funding from trade unions. It lifted this demand last December. Such a ban would be covered by this amendment.

This text takes a core principle and enacts it in a simple and direct way. This is not to say I do not think improvements are possible. I do not subscribe to the Government's approach, which is to think that everything that bears its name should be pushed through the House unamended. Deputies who served before this Dáil will acknowledge that I brought a number of constitutional amendments through the Oireachtas in my time and accepted many changes to the text of both those amendments and supporting legislation. The legislative process must be seen to work and amending proposals during the passage of legislation is essential to this.

Irrespective of the issues Deputies raise during this debate, this is not a complicated issue. It is one on which we should all be able to agree a text on Committee Stage. In contrast to the handling of the recent referendums, the passage of Second Stage of this legislation should be followed by a new approach. Specifically, Committee Stage should first involve the hearing of witnesses on the implications of the text. Instead of waiting until the campaign to allow people have their say, they should be invited in at a stage where reasonable amendments can be accepted. Legal, academic and broader experts should be invited in and asked to suggest improvements to the wording. Once this is done, we could then reflect the evidence in the text. In addition, once a text is agreed, we should establish a referendum commission - at a minimum two months ahead of polling day - and reflect this when we pass the Final Stages and when the Minister signs the order for polling.

There is no need to delay proceeding with this matter. It should not be referred to the constitutional convention and it does not require negotiation on the core principle. If the Government is unhappy with the text, let it introduce amendments on Committee Stage. Following the debate in May and this debate, Deputies will have had more than enough time to reflect their views on the issue of corporate donations. What is required is detailed work on the exact text to be put to the people.

In the case of a number of Fianna Fáil Private Members' Bills, the Government has been eager not to be seen to vote against them but to stop them nonetheless. As a result, it has adopted the device of letting them through Second Stage but denying them any further time. This procedure has been used at different times over the years but it is now getting out of hand, with the Government working over-time to find ways to both support and oppose reform in the same vote.

If the Government is not going to allow this Bill receive a proper consideration and the chance to pass, then it should do the honest thing and vote against it today. It should not pretend to be in favour of banning corporate donations in open debate but stop it from becoming law through parliamentary manoeuvres. The Government has promised this referendum and the Opposition supports it. We do not want to waste any more time before getting to work on the specific proposal to be put to the people.

Political reform was one of the biggest themes in the general election. Since then, it has played a major role in the programme for Government and in ministerial speeches and yet there has been no actual political reform. In fact, even regressive moves like reducing the Taoiseach's accountability to the Dáil has been hailed by the Government as being political reform. This is the triumph of hype over substance.

When the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government can describe the potential reduction of the Dáil by up to six Members as a major reform, it is now clear that the reform agenda has not even begun.

See this speech in context