Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

Caithfidh mé a admháil go bhfuil saghas díomá orm nach bhfuil níos mó san mBille. Ní fheictear ann ach ar dhá rud. I am slightly disappointed. I would have preferred to look at the bigger picture of political reform rather than at the two areas the Bill encompasses. I know certain things move slowly and I accept the need for due process, consultation and ensuring all angles are covered. However, it has long been acknowledged that many aspects of political life are in need of reform. The Bill only covers the two aspects of funding and gender. In the course of the time allowed to me, I will look at other aspects relating to political reform.

The Government came to power with a considerable mandate and on a great wave of positivity and expectation that things would be different and that reform was coming sooner rather than later. I thought we would be moving at a different pace, grasping those nettles that have been stifling society.

The constitutional convention is a good idea, but I wonder about how it is to be set up and whether that will enable or inhibit what it is setting out to do. I know a constitutional convention cannot cover everything, but two aspects being covered, reducing the voting age and the length of the presidential term, are fairly straightforward. It only requires that they be put to a vote. Those two items could be covered in a referendum.

The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, commented on the significance of making space in civil society for promoting and protecting human rights. I support the suggestion from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties that there be wider ranging participative consultation. Amnesty International has called for the constitutional convention to examine human rights law and how best to protect economic, social and cultural rights. It is vital the constitutional convention look at these issues. There was wide-ranging consultation on the White Paper on Irish aid. That set a very good example.

Figures on gender balance are startling. We are in an area of male domination, but only numerically. Intellectually, socially, work-wise, and in multi-tasking and juggling demands, women are the dominant force. A report published in May of this year shows Ireland well below the European average with regard to the proportion of female members of parliament. The European average of women members, in both lower and upper houses, is 24.68%. The highest is 44.99% and the lowest 8.7%. Ireland hovers around 15%. In the 27 EU Governments, the average number of women ministers is 25.71%. The highest, in Sweden, is 54.17% and the lowest, in Greece, is 5.56%. That might have been a contributing factor to Greece's current woes. Ireland has 13.33% women ministers. We do better in the European Parliament, where the average is 34.26% and Ireland has 33.33%. The figures there range from 61% to 0%.

We know we are in a very male-dominated Dáil. Quotas are proposed. At the next general election, 30% of all candidates must be women, or political parties will face a cut in State funding. A side, but important, issue is whether political parties should receive State funding at all. The Bill does not take into account women who stand as independent candidates.

I am against quotas as a way to address the issue of more women in politics, even though I understand the arguments for them. Parliament is not representative of society in any event. If that is the principle on which this proposal is operating, it follows that there should be quotas for other groups in society who are not represented here, such as certain socioeconomic groups, age groups, minority groups, new communities, the unemployed and those with disabilities. We know that certain professions are over-represented in the House. Everyone who is elected has a duty to represent all their constituents. I do not see women Deputies as representatives of women and men Deputies as representatives of men.

The idea of quotas smacks of tokenism. Women, if they choose to stand, are very well capable of being elected on their own merits. We need only look at any community throughout Ireland to see examples of women who are taking dominant and strong roles and getting the work done. In Dublin Central, two of the four Deputies are female. We have a perfect gender balance. Of the two local authority areas in Dublin Central, the inner city ward had a 50:50 male:female ratio until a recent move by one of the councillors, and the Cabra-Glasnevin ward has three female councillors for every two males.

Why do more women not stand for election? I pay tribute to those who do stand, and I do not denigrate anyone in the House but I believe women have more sense than to stand for the Dáil. Women, in spite of our reputation for talking, are doers. We do not see enough doing in this House but we hear a great deal of talking.

Putting women candidates on the ballot paper is tokenistic. Apart from anything else, it does not guarantee that women will be elected. It pays lip service to the aim of getting more equal representation between men and women in the Dáil rather than actually achieving something.

The Bill lets the parties off the hook. They can point out that they have put women on the ballot paper and that it is not their fault if they are not elected. Political parties have much soul searching to do with regard to election strategy, and I acknowledge the Labour Party as different from the others in this regard. I am talking about decisions to stand one, two or three candidates, vote management, and so on. Women are sometimes put on a ballot paper, but in such a way as to make it difficult for them to be elected. I have heard women Deputies say this, in this Dáil and the previous one. Women have been on ballot papers and not been elected. This can depend on where the woman is put. At the last general election count in Dublin Central, I saw some ballot papers where only women candidates were voted for. I am not sure that is a good idea.

We know of some of the reasons for the under-representation of women in political life. We know of the barriers at the various stages from self-selection through party selection to the election itself. We know of the five Cs a woman needs to enter politics, including child care. I do not totally accept the argument about child care, because men have children too. I dislike the way child care is seen as the prerogative of the mother. It is an issue for fathers also. Why is child care not cited as a factor in male representation?

There is evidence from Ireland and other democracies that the sex of a candidate is of less importance than to a voter than the candidate's party, the policy positions taken and whether a candidate is a member of a Government or Opposition party. I presume the same is true for non-party candidates.

Deputy Tuffy referred to quotas, the principle of democratic representation and voter choice. There is a valid argument that quotas could be seen to contravene the liberal democratic principle of merit and to violate the principles of fairness, competence and individualism. The point was made that gender quotas could, in some instances, skew the selection process in favour of less able candidates at the expense of other more able candidates, on the basis of their gender. Another female Deputy said, on that point, that she was relishing the prospect of voting for a mediocre, less able woman because she had been voting for mediocre, less able men for years. I believe there is no such thing as a mediocre or less able woman. The point is one of fairness. Political reform is needed to ensure women will want to stand as Deputies in the first place.

Some theorists propose that the more highly educated women are, the more likely they are to participate in politics. However, although there are greater numbers of women leaving third level institutions, they have not translated into more women entering politics. Much more is needed in the area of political reform to bring about change in that regard. I do not believe quotas are the way forward, but I accept that they have worked in other countries.

We know that for far too long there was an unhealthy relationship between certain political parties and business and we see the results around us in society. The unethical, immoral and illegal system of donations in return for favours must be eliminated. We must also eliminate the possibility of loopholes to get around the system. One can set the maximum amount that can be accepted as a donation, establish a register of corporate donors and a threshold above which donations must be declared by companies, trade unions and other bodies. It is all very well to set this down on paper, but the important thing is to implement it, in addition to ensuring there are no loopholes.

In June 2009 I stood in both a by-election and the local elections for the first time; therefore, I was somewhat paranoid about receipts and keeping within the limits. For the by-election I had to furnish the receipts, which I did, but it was not the same for the local elections. Those responsible took my word on the amount I said I had spent. I am in favour of supporting a Bill which seeks to address the problematic relationship between politics and business. The Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, argues that there is a strong case for adopting a new approach to the general funding of parties. I presume it would include Independents. Because of the need for increased transparency such funding must be scrutinised. Unfortunately, even in countries in which there are strict requirements for disclosure there is still a way to buy policies.

The Library and Research Service's Bills Digest has an alarming statistic about parties spending more than €10 million in campaigns, yet only €1 million was disclosed in donations. In 2009 no donations were disclosed by parties, even though it was a year in which local and European elections took place. In 2010 more than €67,000 was disclosed in donations - the lowest figure since the introduction of the system in 1997. None of the three main political parties disclosed any donations, yet in the general election in February electoral expenses of more than €9 million were disclosed. Members of these parties must pay a massive membership fee to cover such expenses. There is a need for greater scrutiny, but it must be real and meaningful.

We talk about equality, parity and fairness. The allowance introduced for Independents was intended to address the imbalance between those involved in political parties and Independents. Funding had been going to political parties which meant Independent candidates were disadvantaged. There are considerable disparities in the allowances for Independents and what is received by political parties. I acknowledge and support what Deputy Stephen Donnelly has said on the matter. When we take everything into account, between Exchequer funding, leaders' allowances and staff resources, we see clearly the extent of the imbalance and unfairness. The total annual amount of Exchequer funding for Fine Gael was more than €2.25 million; iapproximately €1.25 million for the Labour Party ; just under €1.25 million for Fianna Fáil and approximately €700,000 for Sinn Féin, while there was nothing for Independents. The amount received in leaders' allowances was €2.5 million for Fine Gael; €1.75 million for the Labour Party; more than €1.5 million for Fianna Fáil; just over €1 million for Sinn Féin; €350,000 for the ULA and €950,000 for Independents.

If we look at total funding per group, there is more than €5.5 million for Fine Gael; approximately €3.5 million for the Labour Party; €3.75 million for Fianna Fáil; approximately €2.2 million for Sinn Féin and €950,000 for Independents. When one breaks down the figure among Deputies, it works out per Deputy at €67,000 for Fine Gael Members; €83,000 for Labour Party Members; €172,000 for Fianna Fáil Members; €147,000 for Sinn Féin Members, €86,000 for ULA Members and €41,000 for Independent Members. I have rounded up the figures. Allowances are also made for additional staff. We are aware of the amounts that can be involved in salaries for the various political parties. No allowances were made for staff for Independents. Provision is also made for facilities for extra staff such as computers and telephones.

As an Independent and following the work of the longest serving Independent Member in the Dáil, I believe in equality and having a level playing field. I am prepared to eliminate all allowances, but it should be done across the board in order that there is no unfairness, or else everybody should be brought down to the level of allowance received by Independent Members. That would ensure a much more level playing field.

I include referendums among the areas in which political reform is necessary. It is important and positive to give citizens a chance to have their say, apart from at election times. Citizens were deprived of a vital referendum on the bank guarantee. One measure of reform would be to reduce the length of time allowed for a referendum campaign. One month is too long and a shorter timeframe would be preferable. We have a discerning electorate, as we saw in the referendums on judges' pay and the extension of powers for Oireachtas committees. One went through and the other did not.

There has been much talk about Seanad reform and the abolition of the Seanad is part of the programme for Government. A blanket abolition of the Seanad is not the essence of parliamentary reform. There should be a discussion on the issue and a rational debate on the pros and cons of the Seanad. There have been some excellent debates in the Seanad and its blanket abolition is not required. However, there is no doubt that election to it is elitist and undemocratic. There is a value to the Seanad such as the debates on various topics and legislation and we must examine how to make the most of it. However, appointment should not be at the behest of university graduates or Members, the convoluted system of panels or include nominees by the Taoiseach. That said, the Taoiseach made some inspired choices in the current Seanad. I look on it as a place in which to honour those who have made real contributions to society such as some of the current Members, but it must be done democratically rather than in the way it has been used and abused as a training ground for prospective Deputies and a retirement home for others.

On the number of Deputies, the way forward is to examine the work of a Deputy and to divide up the work and the number required to do it rather than saying we should get rid of a certain number of them without being sure of the effect on a Deputy's work.

I was most surprised that so many committees were amalgamated. From my experience of voluntary work, the smaller a committee the more focused it is and the better the work that results. Large committees were set up. On the basis of allocating only two minutes of speaking time to each member, with a membership of at least 20, up to one hour would be spent on contributions rather than in discussing an issue. I welcome the rearrangement of committees and hope it will prove to be a forward step for them.

I am disappointed that we are not covering more issues. It would have been good to see a list of what would be addressed. My focus is on political funding, gender quotas and a few other aspects of the legislation.

See this speech in context