Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

Trade union donations effectively are an amalgam of very small donations from a union's members. Individual amounts from the aforementioned members would fall well below the ceiling for any individual decorations that it would be necessary to make in the course of a single year. It is clear this is different to the case of a wealthy individual or company making a donation and seeking a favour in return.

I refer to words and slogans that have been termed retail or wholesale corruption. All Members are aware of the instances that have taken place and which have been referred to in the Mahon tribunal report and so on. There have been examples of what is known as retail corruption, whereby a specific donation or bribe is made to a party or politician in return for that politician or his or her party voting a particular way or introducing a particular legislative item. A Deputy and former Minister in my own constituency was obliged to resign as a result of such behaviour.

There is another type of more wholesale corruption on the part of pro-capitalist parties - in the main these are the big business parties - which is more common but in the context of which direct exchanges of X amount of money in respect of Y decision do not necessarily take place. This kind of corruption involves buying influence, having an impact on ideologies and policies etc. The position in this regard is not similar to that which obtains in respect of the trade union movement. The link to trade unions developed in a much different way and their relationships with political parties are also entirely different.

The trade union movement in Ireland and Britain arose as a response to the development of capitalism and capitalist industry. That development took place in both countries against a backdrop where two parties - the Conservatives and the Whigs or Liberals - were in direct competition for power and were basically two sides of the same coin. In the struggle for better wages and conditions, the trade unions initially allied themselves to the Liberal Party. That was their original stance because they saw the Liberals as the lesser evil. However, a debate took place within the movement and over time it was decided that the unions needed political representation of their own in order that the needs of working class people might be catered for. That was very much the basis on which James Connolly and Jim Larkin established the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and its political wing, the Labour Party, almost 100 years ago. For Connolly and Larkin, without political representation the union movement was fighting with one arm tied behind its back and they believed there was a place for political representation for ordinary people.

If one considers the sacrifice these two individuals and others like them made 100 years ago in the context of the absolute scandal relating to the contributions being made to the Labour Party in the name of defending workers' rights, one comes to the conclusion that the latter is a nonsense. We are, after all, aware of what the Labour Party is doing in government. To this day, Labour continues to obtain contributions from SIPTU, Unite and other unions. Many SIPTU members are completely unaware that a percentage of the fees they pay goes towards funding the Labour Party. They will be horrified to discover this. On foot of the role the Labour Party has played, I strongly encourage SIPTU members who pay the fees to which I refer to investigate the position and then complete the form necessary to stop the relevant deductions being made from their union fees.

I am not stating that the principle of political funding and that of people who are members of trade unions being entitled to fund a representative or representatives of their choice should be abandoned. In my opinion, this entitlement should be defended because it is incredibly important. There is a need for political representation for ordinary working people. A debate is taking place within the trade union movement in respect of this matter. In that context, it should not just be a case of putting a stop on the money being paid to the Labour Party. A discussion should take place within the trade union movement in respect of how people might contribute to parties and candidates who advance the cause of the movement. In that sense, I do not believe we are comparing like with like. The measures in the legislation do not represent a step forward in this regard. However, neither I nor many other workers will shed any tears with regard to the Labour Party losing access to its funds.

Another issue in respect of which work must be done is that of gender quotas. The Bill contains a very weak provision in this regard. There is no doubt that there a major problem in the context of the participation of women in politics. The CSO's figures for last year reveal that women are completely and utterly under-represented at every level of the decision-making process. It is not just the fact that only 15% of Deputies are female, fewer than one third of the members of State boards and one fifth of the members of local authorities are women. In addition, women comprise just over one third of the membership of VECs. That is an absolutely scandalous situation but it is not unique. The average female representation in the national parliaments of EU member states is only in the region of 25%. That is pretty pathetic. This problem is not just limited to Ireland, although there are issues which make the position here perhaps slightly worse than in other countries.

As previous speakers indicated, where quotas were introduced, for example in France, the situation with regard to the participation of women has not improved. In countries such as Denmark, where there are no quotas, there is a much higher level of female representation. Other Deputies have probably alluded to the fact that when one considers the number of women who put themselves forward for election as independent candidates, it is obvious that the position is not dramatically different from that which obtains in respect of political parties. It is clear that imposing a measure on just those parties is taking an extremely simplistic approach to the problem.

People who use the term "tokenistic" are not demeaning the women candidates who might be selected, they are, rather, referring to the fact that the relevant measure in the Bill is tokenistic in nature. Let us be honest, this is something of a sop which was put forward to offer the illusion that the Government is doing something positive to improve women's access to politics. It is being offered at a time when the Government has probably adopted more measures that are anti-women than was the case with any of its predecessors. In this regard, I refer to the vicious attacks on the lone parent and carer's allowances and to the various measures which have hit women on both the double and the treble. One cannot engage in such attacks and then inform women that they can put their names on the ballot paper.

There is a major difficulty with regard to the participation of not just women but also ordinary workers in politics. I refer here to manual workers or, for want of a better term, ordinary people. The composition of this Dáil is wholly unreflective of society at large. It is also extremely unrepresentative. I like to believe that the adage to the effect that women have a great deal more sense is at least partly true. Who would want to be one of the handful of Deputies present in an almost empty Chamber this afternoon ready to make a contribution in a prearranged slot, particularly when the Government has a built-in majority and the outcome of any vote is known in advance?

If we are to discuss real participation, then we need real and participative democracy. Such democracy must begin at local level. The way politics is organised now, most people who become Members of the Dáil begin their journey with their local authorities. The problems exist at local authority level and there are no measures in place to address these. There is a need to stand the political system in this country on its head. We must consider taking a more locally-based, bottom-up approach that will allow people a real say in respect of both their communities and their lives. The reality is that in communities and at local level it is women who are to the fore in respect of campaigning on many issues. This must be reflected in the decision-making process.

I am of the view that the very limited provision contained in the Bill is not going to have any impact whatsoever. This provision does not even make sense and it misses one important point, namely, that gender is no guarantee of anything. This was very well highlighted by certain Members who referred to what the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, stated when in opposition in respect of last year's budget. The Minister indicated that the problem with that budget was that there were not enough women in government. When she took the helm in her own Department, however, she visited even more severe cuts on women and children than did her predecessors. Gender is no guarantee. There are many men on this side of the House who would defend the interests of women much better than any woman who would stand for election as a member of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael and who would implement policies that are anti-women. I do not believe the measures contained in the Bill will improve the situation. What we need is a system of positive encouragement in order that more women will take on the roles to which I refer.

See this speech in context