Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

As other Deputies observed, it is opportune that we are discussing this issue on the day of the publication of the report of the Mahon tribunal. We have not had the opportunity to study that report in detail - it will be nice bedtime reading for us all - but the headlines grab the attention in pointing to a clear rejection by the tribunal of the evidence of the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. It could hardly be otherwise when one considers the entirely threadbare character of that evidence. Corrupt practices were identified on the part of Pádraig Flynn and others. It is unfortunate that a significant number of those found guilty of engaging in corruption or corrupt practices are now dead, whereas some of those still living seem to get off more lightly.

This report forms the backdrop to the debate on this Bill. Its provisions have their roots in the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals, which put a spotlight on the correlation between big business and the political establishment and political decision-making process. These measures are being put forward in part as an attempt to deal with that. One must recognise the points made by the Taoiseach approximately one year ago, when he stated the Government was committed to the most comprehensive programme of political reform since the 1930s. Clearly, this measure falls well short of that objective and would comprise only a tiny piece of that entire agenda. The link between big business and politics and the practice of money buying influence in Irish politics has existed since the foundation of the State and goes far beyond any of the measures that are identified in this Bill, allegedly to curtail it.

Such practices have been evident since the 1960s in particular. While much attention justly has been given to the carry-on of former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, in the past, in many ways what he did was to take the situation to a new level. The practice of buying political favour was in existence well before that and I refer to the obvious example of the infamous Fianna Fáil Taca fund-raising organisation in the 1960s. Monthly meetings for top construction companies were organised to gain access to Ministers, in return for a bite to eat and the hand-over of a couple of wads of cash and so on. Such absolutely reprehensible practices were contributed to by companies such as McInerney, Sisk, Gallagher and so on, which, in the years of the boom came to dominate the skylines in respect of construction. It was not an accident that while those dinners were taking place and this money was changing hands, the Government sat on the findings of the Kenny report and refused to implement reports to control the price of building land. This inaction, more than 30 years ago, has led to the crisis we now face, the price of which now is being borne by hard-pressed homeowners, people living in sharply constructed dwellings and so on, as well as the taxpayer who is bearing the consequence of the overall debt.

We are the ones who are paying these bills because, despite the disbandment of Taca when its existence became common knowledge, the practices continued thereafter by Fianna Fáil in particular although obviously not exclusively. Fine Gael has had its own problems in this regard, some of which were identified in the Moriarty tribunal, such as the carry-on of former Fine Gael member, Deputy Lowry, and so on. The only difference is Fine Gael probably was not in power for long enough to have sufficient favours to offer and perhaps did not appear as often in consequence. However, even the Labour Party was trying to get in on the act. I recall the infamous incident during the 1990s when that party offered dinner at £100 per head to gain access to Deputy Ruairí Quinn, the then Minister for Finance. The Labour Party was of course obliged to back off because of the negative publicity but it was considering such a measure, thereby aping the conduct of the other parties at the time. This is not to mention the pristine Progressive Democrats, who were found to have a skip-load of documents when the party conducted a spring cleaning of its head office, only for the paperwork to end up in the hands of the Sunday Business Post. The paperwork revealed a ten-year period of massive political donations to the Progressive Democrats from the likes of Larry Goodman, P. J. Hayes of Waterford Glass, PJ Hegarty & Sons, builders, Irish Distillers, Irish Continental Bank, Martin Naughton of Glen Dimplex, John Sisk & Son, Cement Roadstone, Stokes Kennedy Crowley, Arthur Cox & Co, solicitors, Fyffes, GPA etc. It reads like a never-ending list. At the time, Mary Harney stated these moneys never had any interest or impact on decisions to privatise economic policy, which is complete and utter nonsense. The dogs on the streets know it is nonsense and needed neither the Mahon nor the Moriarty tribunals to show this.

This is because historically, the political establishment in Ireland has been bound by a thousand threads to big business and money interests within this society. One needs only to consider what happens to Ministers, once they resign or end their political lives in the Dáil. In a number of cases, a practically seamless transition is evident from the Dáil Chamber onto the boards of companies all over the place. While Members could spend the entire afternoon going through them, it is important to put on record a flavour of some such transitions. Charlie McCreevy was appointed to the board of Ryanair, with a payment of £57,000 at the time. Bertie Ahern stood down in 2008 and left behind a legacy of disaster for the people to shoulder, including massive unemployment and a crippled economy. He swanned onto the board of Parker Green International, an international property company, and is chairman of the Swiss-backed International Forestry Fund where he now plays a role in its efforts to get its hands on our State forests. He also is on the board of other international companies. Incidentally, it is not only Irish politicians who benefit in this way, as Tony Blair landed a £2.8 million advisory role with the investment bank JP Morgan and so on. Former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald was on the boards of hedge funds, while Albert Reynolds chaired Bula Resources and John Bruton was on the board of Ingersoll Rand.

Ministers for Finance are particularly in vogue and Ray MacSharry ended up on the boards of Eircom, Ryanair, Bank of Ireland, Irish Life and Permanent and London City Airport, as well as that of John Magnier's organisation and so on. Alan Dukes, David Andrews, Joe Walsh and Dick Spring were appointed to the boards of Anglo Irish Bank, AIG, Bank of Ireland and Eircom, respectively. Tom Parlon went straight from the Dáil to become director general of the Construction Industry Federation. The list goes on and on and really demonstrates a web that historically has tied wealthy interests in Irish society to the political establishment.

The idea of State funding is put forward as a solution to this connection. However, I consider this to be far too much of an innocent solution to what is an endemic problem. It is not a solution to the overall problem and I note that all the rules concerning standards in public office, ethics and so on have not changed what has happened. The amount being spent on elections has, if anything, risen but it simply is managed in a different way. All Members will have observed many candidates in their respective constituencies spending huge amounts of money in advance of elections being called and so on. Such candidates might put up billboards on people's private lands without declaring such expenditure, without getting its equivalent monetary value and so on. In principle, I am opposed to State funding of political parties and the taxpayer should not foot the bill in this regard. However, while the system is in place, there is no doubt that it most definitely should be operated on the same basis for everyone, that is, on the basis of a level playing field. Sadly, the present system does not do this. It clearly favours those who already are in power.

This is an absolute fact and if Members contemplate serious reform, they must address some of these issues, including salaries for Deputies, Ministers and so on. The original idea behind paying people to work in Parliament in Britain was that it was meant to facilitate working-class representatives to take their seats in Parliament. Obviously, what has happened subsequently is that it has become a highly lucrative career for many people, as well as an enticement into public life that is unacceptable because it is out of kilter with the average industrial wage and the average living conditions of ordinary people. It may be one reason there is such a disconnect between what happens in this Chamber and the real world outside, because most people who dwell in here do not live a normal lifestyle in that regard.

I wish to deal in particular with two aspects of the Bill under discussion. I refer to the question of trade union donations and the issue of gender quotas for political parties with candidates. As for the first issue regarding trade unions, I fundamentally object to the bracketing and comparing of trade unions with private companies that donate to political parties. It is not in any way the same thing.

See this speech in context