Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

All Members will recall the three main issues that were raised by citizens during last year's election campaign, political reform being one of them. That election was unusual in that we saw an absence of local concerns, with a much greater focus than would normally be the case on national issues. In effect, we were given a prescription by voters for the type of reform that is expected. This is the second electoral amendment Bill we have had since then and it represents an opportunity to deliver on the radical reform sought by so many. Unfortunately, while it includes several welcome proposals, it amounts to a missed opportunity to deliver the radical change that was demanded and promised. There will be other opportunities to fulfil that commitment and I hope they will be taken.

It is important we attempt reform in a way which consolidates existing legislative provisions. The Council of Europe Group of States Against Corruption, GRECO, to which the Minister referred in his opening statement, has emphasised the importance of having consolidated legislation rather than a range of Acts which may make the system less transparent. A consolidated approach is more beneficial to anybody trying to understand the system. However, this Bill reflects the compartmentalised approach to reform that has come to typify the Government's approach. There is also a clear lack of ambition in proposals which amount to a mere tweaking of the political funding landscape. The Bill achieves the minimum required, for example, in regard to the Moriarty tribunal. Having said that, the provisions providing for a linkage between gender quotas and political funding are very welcome. There is a variety of views within the Technical Group in regard to quotas. It is my view that we have gone past the point of talking and that action must be taken. As such, I am supportive of that aspect of the Bill.

Notwithstanding my overall dissatisfaction with the proposals - perhaps I am in too great a rush to see political reform - there are other aspects of the Bill that are welcome. I thank the Minister for including an amendment I proposed last year and which he referred to in his opening statement.

It relates to section 28(a) in Part 5 of the Bill and allows for both decreases and increases, which is welcome. I am very pleased the Minister took this suggestion on board. I also am pleased that some of the Moriarty tribunal recommendations have been included, such as the reduction in the maximum amounts that may be donated to a party or individual, a register of donors and real-time information, which is really important. However, such real-time information must be accompanied by the ability to enforce something based on that information. For example, when running in general or by-elections, all Members will have experienced the phenomenon of having clear knowledge that someone is spending over the limits. However, one only begins to examine the figures after the event. While I acknowledge this point relates to donations, if one seeks a good outcome I believe the organisation enforcing this measure must be resourced adequately.

My real concern is that Members are engaging in a debate on political funding that only deals with private political funding. It appears as though they are whispering behind the very large elephant in the room, namely, the annual Exchequer funding to the political system. I believe this funding to be in need of urgent change, not least to ensure the population of Ireland, which is being bombarded with cuts and additional taxes, is aware the political classes also are experiencing a measure of belt-tightening. At a conservative estimate, approximately €60 million per annum in Exchequer funds goes towards political funding by way of cash and resources. I acknowledge fully it is essential that the political systems should function and that public funding be provided in order that private interests do not dominate. The Moriarty tribunal report has demonstrated to Members just how damaging this has been to the profession of politics. In this context, I note the Mahon tribunal report is about to be published this week, next week or tomorrow, if the whispers are to be believed.

However, I do not believe it is in the public interest to have an overly liberal provision of funding to the political system at a time when severe austerity is being experienced nationwide and there is an expectation that something will be done in this regard. Furthermore, I have grave misgivings about the compartmentalised nature of the current funding model and the lack of transparency in the manner for which moneys received are accounted. I also mean by this comment that I consider it to be wholly unacceptable that no vouching option is available, for example, for the party leader's allowance or the leader's allowance for Independent Members. I certainly would have no difficulty in presenting what I spend from that allowance to the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. Public money should be properly accounted for and I wish to make that point. I understand the first legislation pertaining to political funding was introduced in 1938 during the de Valera era. The funding system has been tweaked subsequently and is quite difficult to understand, to the point where it is hard to track down many of the allowances for which politicians and political parties qualify. It is important for politicians to be absolutely transparent in this regard because each time something new appears to be revealed about another allowance, people lose faith and it becomes too big a matter to absorb, which is really damaging.

The entire approach to political funding in Ireland must be questioned. This means reforming both the private and public funding models to ensure there is an even playing pitch for all who participate in politics and for those who may wish to so do in future. It may not be the model that is under consideration at present. One must challenge what one means by political reform and a debate is needed in this regard. I believe citizens understood such reform would cut out waste and would reduce the cost of Government. However, taken in isolation, the proposals contained in the Bill will not deliver on this objective and its provisions do not address that particular aspect.

According to the Bill's digest produced by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, this funding is a contribution to the annual running costs, under the Electoral Act 1997, of each of the qualified political parties. In 2010, each received a basic sum, as well as a proportionate share of the sum of €4.9 million. This is not related to the number of seats won and I believe that to qualify, a registered or qualified political party must achieve 2% of the popular vote. It obviously is proposed to link this particular fund to gender quotas. I will revert to an aspect of this provision regarding gender quotas after noting that at present, Independent Members are excluded from this funding stream because they do not comprise a qualifying political party under the terms of the various legislative items dating back to 1938. However, I note a total of 17% of those who cast a vote in the last general election did so for independent candidates or for smaller parties. Consequently, it will come as a surprise that no savings accrue to the Exchequer on foot of the election of a very large number of Independent Members. What happens instead is the same pot of money is divided among a smaller group of people. In other words, the amount of funding does not reduce but the political parties simply get more. My question in respect of the gender quotas is whether the same approach will be taken if, for example, one party fails to reach the quota. Will that party experience a reduction in its share of funding while the other qualifying political parties share out the same pot? Alternatively, will it mean a reduction in the cost to the Exchequer? It should mean the latter, just as I believe there should be a change in the way it is done in respect of the large group of Independent Members who have been elected.

I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for publishing a really useful Bill's digest on this legislation. It states:

A key problem with the current political finance regime in Ireland is that is has been relatively easy for parties to raise funds from private sources without disclosing them thereby defeating the purpose of the regime in the first place.

The digest also states that according to a SIPO report of 2008, "In spite of parties declaring over €10 million in campaign expenditure for the 2007 general election, just over €1 million was disclosed in donations". It goes on to note "none of the three main parties disclosed any donations in 2009, in spite of the fact that it was an election year" and that in 2010, "None of the three main parties (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael [and] the Labour Party) disclosed any donations at all".

It continues by stating "In spite of this, SIPO's report on expenditure during the February 2011 election revealed electoral expenses of €9.2 million disclosed by candidates and parties". The three main parties were the biggest spenders, with Fine Gael at €3.1 million, Fianna Fáil at €2.1 million and the Labour Party at €1.9 million. Just last month, the Irish Independent produced a comprehensive report in this regard. Under a headline referring to the cash political parties did not tell people about, the newspaper claimed that at a conservative estimate, almost €500,000 had gone to the political parties over the past decade. The resourcing and ability of SIPO to investigate appears to be constrained. While the Bill under consideration makes some changes, I do not believe it goes far enough and I will come back to this point a little later.

The Whip system also gives a positive bias in the current funding model. When someone votes against the Government and loses the whip, the political funding, including the leader's allowance, stays with the party. This appears to value the party above the individual mandate between the citizen and the public representative and I believe this must be challenged. Of course, as earlier legislation accommodates parties that dissolve or merge with other parties, there is a party political bias in this regard. In respect of the Whip system, I note that at present in this House, allowances are paid to Whips, Deputy Whips, Assistant Whips and so on. However, although the Technical Group comprises 12 Independent Members, no such Whip's allowance is paid.

I make it clear that neither I nor the Technical Group is seeking to have such an allowance be paid. Nonetheless, some of the matters to which I refer must be addressed.

A set of accounts is to be submitted to the Standards in Public Office Commission each year. However, the format of these accounts is to be agreed between the commission and the political parties. This smacks of a lack of independence. There is a bias in favour of the political parties rather than an individual mandate, but there is no mention of such parties in the Constitution. One must question this, particularly because, as I have stated, the Constitution is the primary legal document in the State.

One must ask why citizens elected so many Independent candidates or candidates from smaller parties to the Dáil to such an extent that they now constitute 30% of the Opposition. The answer is that they wanted to inject some diversity into the Oireachtas. When one is an Independent or a member of a smaller party, one is obliged to compete against organisations with access to disproportionate levels of resources. This is a matter which must be addressed now and into the future.

A leader's allowance is paid in respect of every Deputy, with the exception of the Ceann Comhairle. I have made an estimate - based on some very complex calculations - of the amount of money involved in this regard. It is a large sum. There is a 33% reduction for parties in government. This is because the apparatus of the State is available to support the Government, which is fine. According to my calculations, however, the amounts involved are in the region of €2 million for Fine Gael, €1.3 million for the Labour Party, €1.2 million for Fianna Fáil, €600,000 for Independents, €900,000 for Sinn Féin, €140,000 for the Socialist Party and €140,000 for People Before Profit. The total is approximately €6 million and there is a need to consider how this money is accounted for.

I examined the legislation relating to this matter and discovered a number of things which appear somewhat strange and must be investigated. Owing to my interest in this matter I tabled a number of parliamentary questions and have discovered that political parties can actually use the leader's allowance which is partly funded out of public money to contract services. In one of the other parliamentary questions I tabled I sought information on the mechanism in place to ensure the taxpayer would not be obliged to pay for things twice. The reply I received was silent in that regard. This is a matter which must be examined.

Each Deputy and Senator is allowed to recruit staff under a formula set down by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. That is fair enough because one cannot function without support staff. In addition, however, provision is made for the allocation of funding for a secretariat. The primary legislation is explicit in this regard and only makes provision for such secretariats in the context of registered political parties. Large groups of Independents are excluded from the provision. Even the allocation of speaking time is organised in the context of the fund to which I refer.

I understand an additional allocation of 0.8 in secretarial grade staff per Member is provided for the political parties. I do not dispute that there is a need for such staff to be provided. However, I question the extent of the allocation. I must also question how, under Standing Orders, the Houses of the Oireachtas provide for the formation of technical groups but exclude such groups from availing of the services of any staff. Not even one member of staff can be allocated to a technical group under Standing Orders, which is extremely unfair. Again, a party political bias is built into the primary legislation. This is despite the fact that the current Technical Group comprises 12 Independent Deputies who co-operate with each other in a recognised parliamentary group which, in operational terms, is equivalent to a parliamentary party. However, no staffing provision is made in running that group. I am informed that the budgetary limit of €20 million for Oireachtas staffing has almost been reached. This is despite the fact that the group of 12 to which I refer comprises 25% of the Opposition. Where did the money in question go? The answer is that it has been shared among the political parties which are, therefore, cushioned by the decisions made in this regard.

According to information in my possession, Fianna Fáil has three administrators, two chefs de cabinet, eight secretarial assistants and four administrative assistants, making a total of 17. This has nothing to do with funding for political parties and is in addition to it. Fine Gael has eight administrators, one chef de cabinet and four secretarial assistants, making a total of 13. This is at a time when it is in government. I will not list all of the details available to me in this regard which I obtained by way of replies to parliamentary questions, but I will state 52.3 people are employed in the grades to which I refer. This staffing provision accounts for a sizeable amount of public money. I do not believe the fund to which I refer should be expanded. However, the moneys from it should be distributed in a fairer way in order to allow the Houses to function in a more organised fashion. It is not possible to recognise a grouping such as the Technical Group without providing it with the resources to allow it to function. I understand some €2.5 million is allocated each year in the funding stream to which I refer.

One of the primary aims of the Bill is to respond to the recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal, although it is also designed to address the issue of gender quotas. I do not believe anyone in the country requires an education on the unhealthy influence big business can have if it is not controlled. While the report of the Moriarty tribunal focused on the second mobile phone licence, information also emerged on the plethora of tax breaks available to those in the construction sector. Fianna Fáil used to be regarded as being good for that sector. It was always stated it did well under Fianna Fáil. However, that assertion has become something of a cliché at this stage. The report of the Moriarty tribunal intimated that only a complete ban on private funding would provide a cast-iron guarantee against corruption. In the light of our current circumstances, I do not believe such a ban is a realistic prospect. However, the tribunal did make a recommendation to the effect that tax allowances be introduced in order to allow large numbers of people to make contributions rather than limiting donations to those with plenty of money and thereby distorting and corrupting the political system.

There is another distortion to which I wish to refer, namely, that which relates to people who have a great deal of money more or less dominating the political agenda at the expense of those who are not in a position to exert any influence whatsoever. We are moving towards a more unequal - rather than an equal - society and this works against the common good. The system of funding must, therefore, be examined in that context.

The Bill aims to increase levels of transparency. Transparency International highlights, as critical to the fight against corruption, the availability of comprehensive, detailed, reliable, user friendly and widely accessible information. Simplification and consolidation are absolutely essential in this regard. People must be able to go to one location to obtain information rather than being obliged to consult a plethora of sources which have been amended during the years. Information obtained from a variety of sources can often become unintelligible. Information available from a central location is, as Transparency International recommends, both user friendly and widely accessible.

Consideration was to be given to providing in the Bill the Standards in Public Office Commission with greater investigative and sanctioning powers, as well as making provision for greater sanctions for breaches of the rules on transparency. The Standards in Public Office Commission is getting some moderately increased powers, which is very welcome. Considering the historical context, it is clear that enforcement is severely lacking, almost to the point where the office is irrelevant. I highlighted that political parties have found ways of not disclosing very large sums of money. This Bill proposes a new initiative where parties would make an annual declaration, but the new approval system and register of corporate donors represents a missed opportunity and we should really go for an electoral commission with much consolidation, including, for example, the electoral register and the boundary commission. There is much that could be put into an electoral commission and I hope that will happen.

I am very enthusiastic and hope there will be immediate action. I would like the Minister in his closing remarks to indicate he is determined to act in this way. Other countries, such as the UK, Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden, have gone down this route and Ireland is fairly unusual in established democracies in not having a rigorous and well-designed regulatory regime for the funding of parties and operation of elections. I feel strongly on the matter.

The Bills digest which was circulated questioned the desirability of public funds and whether there should be a total ban on corporate donations. The Minister indicated his opinion that he thought this might be unconstitutional, and I understand Fianna Fáil Members have made similar comments arising from advice they got. The Bills digest mentions Sweden and Finland, where parties are considered voluntary civil society associations, which is exactly what they are here. They are private civil society associations and not public associations, so I find it strange that although there is no mention of political parties in the Constitution, this is seen as the only valid type of political model that can exist within this Parliament in an equal fashion. I would question the constitutional issues regarding how politics is funded, and we may examine that matter at another point.

I support the gender quotas, although there are a variety of views within the Technical Group on the matter. We must stop talking about increasing the numbers of women, and a number of issues have already been mentioned. Only 91 women have served in this Dáil since the foundation of the State, with only 12 serving in Cabinet. Some 16% of all members of local authorities are women, and there was a worsening of the rate in the 2009 local elections. In Kildare at the time there were 43 candidates, with six of these women, and there were electoral areas without a choice of a woman.

This is not exclusively about the five Cs. What we do, as much as anything else, is a bit of a turn-off. For example, our local authority system is very one dimensional. We tend to deal with many physical issues, such as roads, waste water treatment plants and physical planning, but we do not deal with areas where one sees women in abundance, such as the community and voluntary sectors, and softer issues such as the building of communities. We must fundamentally change our local government system because it is the entry point for most people into politics. We must change that entry point in terms of what we do at local government level. Building houses is easy but building communities is where the real and ongoing work happens. If we changed the kind of debates that local authorities engaged in, we would encourage a better cross-section of people, including a greater number of women, into the political system.

Our political system was designed by conservative men and it will take a sizeable number of women being introduced to the system to achieve a critical mass and change. Visibility is also important because if many people are seen in a role, it can become a valid choice for others. None of us is enthusiastic about having to put a sanction in place and I would rather this could be achieved without a sanction, although that will not happen. This is a welcome and necessary change that should alter our culture.

I am enthusiastic about reform and perhaps my cup is half full. I hope there will be other opportunities to amend our political system but I would like to see more consolidation rather than a piecemeal approach. If we continue with the latter, the process will become unintelligible to people and we would do ourselves a disservice.

See this speech in context