Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I broadly welcome this legislation. There are two categories of donations, the first of which is from those who have a desire to contribute to the democratic system. It normally manifests itself in small donations from family or friends. The second category is corporate donations to political parties, which are for influence or access. I spoke to a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the late 1990s who had attended many corporate events in the early 90s. There was a change of government in the mid-90s and he was amazed to find the same corporate clients attended the fundraising events of the new Government. The corporate donors did not change; the recipients changed the depending on who was in government. I often hear Vincent Browne harp on about how Fine Gael cleared its debts in the mid-1990s. I was not elected at the time but it is plain that the corporate donors who had been giving to the previous Government then gave to the new Government, which greatly assisted in clearing the debt. I am dubious about corporate donations and the proposed requirement on those who wish to give more than €200,000 to register with the Standards in Public Office Commission will finish corporate donations.

I welcome the fact that political parties must give a statement of account. Deputy Donnelly said that it would save €10 million if political parties were on a par with Independent Members. I thought political parties received less funding than that. I believe it is approximately €5.5 million but I may be incorrect. Irrespective of the figure, it is important that the money is audited. However, if someone wants to be corrupt, these proposals do not matter because that person will hide it somehow.

I would like to see a limit on the amount of spending between elections and a limit on the cumulative total of donations an individual or a party can receive. There should be a cap on individuals and a limit on what candidates can spend between elections. If applied correctly, money can buy entry to the Oireachtas. Notwithstanding the fact that these measures go some way to controlling it, they do not prevent people buying their way into the House. People can spend money ad nauseam between elections and that must be stopped.

It is desirable to have more female representation in the Oireachtas. The current system is not satisfactory. I do not have the solution and I do not know that the current proposal is the solution. Generally, I am uncomfortable with the concept of quotas. The argument can be made that if we are going to dip our toes in the water of quotas, we should insist on a quota for membership of the Oireachtas rather than candidates. I read an article recently about the percentage of women who stood as Independent candidates. The argument was always made that large cumbersome political parties prohibited women from standing but the percentage of women who stood as Independent candidates was lower than the number who stood for political parties. I have not carried out scientific research on it but I hear arguments for and against it. Notwithstanding that, I will support legislation despite a certain unease about the tipping of the cap to female representation. The Minister is going some way but I am not sure if it is the solution.

If we were to bring the quota system to its logical conclusion across society, where should we stop? I lament the lack of male primary teachers. Some primary schools have only female teachers. Equally, we could say the medical profession needs more women. Where do we stop? One can argue that we need to set an example but I have concerns about the approach.

Deputy Donnelly spoke about a free vote on certain matters. Deputy Colm Keaveney referred to voting times, which we should examine if we are trying to make the House more user-friendly. The vote on Wednesday evening has moved from 8.30 p.m. to 9 p.m., which flies in the face of making the Dáil more user-friendly for women, and indeed for all Members. I do not know why the time change was made.

I have often been an advocate of a free vote on certain issues, particularly Private Members' business. Those in opposition may question why the Government votes against a Private Members' motion or Bill but there is an onus on the Opposition, when introducing a proposal, to outline from where funding will come. It is often a shortcoming in the Opposition argument, including when my party was in opposition. There must be a certain discipline in government. We would all like a free vote and many politicians verbalise ad nauseam in a free manner before taking the opposite approach at the vote. We should examine the concept of allowing a free vote on Private Members' business or certain other social issues.

See this speech in context