Dan Neville (Limerick, Fine Gael)

I am sharing time with Deputy Áine Collins and Tony McLoughlin. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this reforming Bill, which deals with how parties are funded and how our democracy works. We have been in a continuum of reform over the past ten years in terms of how democracy works and to modernise the transparency that is absolutely necessary.

The objective of the Bill is to limit the potential for political donations to influence the actions of political parties by reducing the cap on donations and introducing more disclosure requirements to make political finances more transparent. Everybody would welcome a more transparent approach. There are many aspects to the Bill as it is a complicated and far-reaching measure, but I will dwell on just some of the issues dealt with in it. The argument in favour of caps on contributions is that it deters unacceptable relationships between lobby groups and civil organisations including corporate bodies through influencing political parties.

The essence of any human organisation is the human aspect of it. While Members are clearly influenced by those they meet or who discuss matters with them, 95% of the time this is highly positive. For example, today I engaged in detailed discussions with Amnesty International on the issue of mental health. While that organisation would be perceived to be a lobby group in respect of human rights issues, it plays a highly positive role in this regard. I cite this meeting as an example of how positive lobbying can be in informing and educating legislators on important aspects of Irish society. I make the point that while there often is a question mark over the whole area of lobbying, many NGOs make a highly positive contribution, through their lobbying activities with legislators, to influence legislation and Government policy in a positive manner.

The Bill itself introduces contribution limits to prevent the perversion of elections by quid pro quo exchanges or in other words, exchanges that privilege the donor's interests over those of the public. Although the common good appears to be a phrase that is not entertained as much as was the case in the past, Members have a duty to respond to the common good and to deploy the information they receive from various aspects of society, including NGOs and lobby groups, to ensure they are contributing to that common good. The donation caps prevent the economic inequality that exists in society from being translated directly into political inequity or at least play a role in preventing such a direct translation. Caps deter big donor culture and even academics who are sceptical about the effectiveness of caps accept they can serve to deter very large donations, such as can be found in the United States in particular. Such a big donor culture has been described as undesirable and it is suggested that caps play a role in deterring it. Consequently, the issue of the control and transparency of donations is extremely important.

In response to the previous speaker, the contribution of donations and the contribution of the State to the democratic system by funding political parties is vital to our democracy. No matter what their views or how much one might disagree with some of the policies of other political parties, it is important that political parties and politicians have the wherewithal to communicate in a highly complex society. Moreover, given the highly expensive communications process that currently obtains, it is important that the political parties have the ability and the resources to communicate their message in order that the electorate can objectively be as informed as possible. The entire objective is for them to be fully informed of all the implications of the decisions they will make in the polling booth on the future governance of the country. While some will decry any donations to political parties, this is a negative approach that evinces a lack of understanding on how the democratic system must operate and on the complexity of the communication system. Members must recognise the need for political parties and politicians to communicate, which is a very expensive process. In this context, I note the management of political parties in general has become very expensive.

The Bill itself will change fundamentally the manner in which politics is funded and conducted in the State. Corporate donations will be severely curtailed and the books of political parties will be opened up to public scrutiny. Moreover, the maximum amount that can be accepted as a political donation will be more than halved and there will be greater openness, with significant reductions in the threshold for the public declarations of political donations. Other measures in the Bill provide for greater transparency by donors and those in receipt of political donations. This transparency will be highly positive and the donors and those who wish to contribute to political parties should be proud of what they are doing in contributing to our highly-valued democracy. Regardless of the flaws in our democratic system and the manner in which it has let us down in many economic and societal ways, it may be said of it to paraphrase Churchill, no better way of governing one's country has been found. Consequently, those who contribute to the political system are contributing to the survival and support of the entire democratic system.

In the remaining time, I wish to deal briefly with the subject of gender quotas. While I accept the provisions of the Bill, I have concerns about the necessity for such an intervention. Members should read the contribution of Deputy Tuffy in this regard because it was a highly revealing and informative approach that asked the reason any group of citizens should need a gender quota. There is something basically wrong with a political system and a society that does not recognise the need for the involvement of women, their role and the positive approach they would have in the political system for the benefit of the aforementioned precious democracy. Women have a crucial role in this regard and some previous contributors have discussed the reasons for the differences in representation. Certainly, the involvement of women in politics is crucial and it is interesting to note that in the Scandinavian countries, gender quotas were never legalised. It is not legally necessary in the Scandinavian countries, that is, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, to have gender quotas although I acknowledge there are party policies in this regard. However, one should question the reason for the position in this democratic system and this society in general. The introduction in the 1970s of the Equality Acts was seminal in respect of equality between genders. However, in certain areas of society, we have not moved on in this regard and it is vital to so do. If this intervention is needed in the short term, it will be welcome to so do. It is unfortunate that such an intervention should be made because it should not be necessary. Society should understand and recognise the crucial and positive involvement women can have in the political system.

See this speech in context