Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the electoral (amendment) Bill. The last election signalled a significant yearning among the public for a reform agenda. Personally, I have not seen any real evidence of a commitment to radical reform emerging from the Government yet. I live in hope and welcome some provisions in the Bill, although certainly not all of them. Real, radical reform is what people were crying out for, but there has been no significant evidence that yearning will be satisfied. I am talking about radical reform whereby we diminish the coercive impact of the Whip system in the Houses and reduce the overweening influence of the Executive over the Parliament that is facilitated by that system. We need more open votes and an effective accountability structure in committees. We have not seen this yet, although I accept we are changing the committee structures. I have yet to see a real, radical commitment to reform, for which the people are crying out, in local authorities, with elected members being given more power. The jury is out on the Government's commitment in this regard, other than to tokenism. Part of the legislation is welcome, but there is also an element of tokenism which I will outline in giving my views on gender quotas.

Previous speakers have alluded to the corrosive influence of private funds on Irish politics. That has been well documented in various tribunal reports and it is only right and proper that the Government should act on its commitment to reform that area. I accept the constitutional restrictions and that people's entitlement to support political parties made it impossible to ban donations entirely. It is an expensive business to run a political party and people might wish to support that process for many reasons, political, personal and ideological. It would not be right to diminish that form of political commitment. The limits being imposed in the Bill are welcome nonetheless. They need to be followed up by placing an obligation on political parties to publish their accounts with a detailed outline of how they use the significant public funds they receive. The quid pro quo, rightly, in the legislation to diminish the corrosive influence private funds have had over political parties is that somebody must pick up the slack and the reality is the taxpayer will do so in providing increased funding for parties. In tandem with this, there must be accountability to clearly show how the funds are spent, including the leader's allowances and so on. Independent candidates receive significant funding and there should also be an obligation on them to publish a detailed account of how the money is spent. This aspect of the legislation is welcome, but elements are missing, including the commitment to publish accounts, which need to be worked on.

The other issue I would like to address is gender quotas. It is a truism that more women are needed in politics. The House is much the poorer for not having the balance of views and opinions that increased female participation would bring with it. We have been the poor relations for many years by international comparisons in the context of facilitating greater participation by women. Is the solution to use the big legislative stick to make provision for gender quotas? Will that in itself advance the cause of women in politics? It is a retrograde step that smacks of tokenism and will undermine the commitment of women involved in grassroots politics, while serious legal and constitutional issues need to be addressed. It is alleged that political parties are old boys' clubs which put impediments in the way of women who want to pursue a political career. However, of the 176 independent candidates who stood in last year's general election, only 8% were women. There is no old boys' network and somebody who is politically motivated can put himself or herself on a ballot paper. Approximately 15% of the candidates for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil were women, but the Labour Party led the way and Sinn Féin was second. Where there was no impediment to getting on the ballot paper as an Independent, however, only 8% were women. This explodes the myth that political parties are old boys' clubs where in smoke filled rooms every effort is made to thwart the ambitions of would be women politicians. That is not the case and I am fortunate to share a constituency with a female party colleague, Deputy Áine Collins. She will have her own views on the legislation and I suspect we differ in this regard, but she is in the House on merit. She has a track record of involvement in politics from her early days through canvassing, leaflet drops and acting as a director of elections and she worked the political system. She would not say that within our organisation in Cork North West that there was a glass ceiling in respect of how far she was allowed to progress and the evidence is that she is in the House. However, we need to address the issue of greater participation by everybody in politics. Many practical measures could be implemented to encourage this.

I refer to my reservations about the legal basis of what is proposed. The Fourth Report of the Joint Committee on the Constitution published in July 2010 dealt at length with the issue of quotas. Chapter 5.30 states:

The Committee was advised that measures which went further than merely encouraging political parties to take positive measures with regard to female candidates would raise serious constitutional questions. The right of political parties to organise their own affairs and to select their own candidates without interference is a key feature of political liberty in any free society and this right is plainly protected by the right of association in Article 40.6.1°. The Committee considers that any measure which coerced political parties to select certain types of candidates or which imposed a quota in that regard would probably be unconstitutional.

Chapter 5.31 further stated:

The Committee gave consideration to a proposal under which enhanced political funding would be available to political parties who fielded a sufficient number of female candidates. But since it is clear from the Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. Minister for Environment [2002] 4 IR 191 that any form of preferential funding of candidates using public monies is prima facie unconstitutional, the Committee did not consider that this was a practicable proposition.

With regard to the reform, why is there secrecy about publishing the Attorney General's advice on matters that do not threaten State security? Why not publish the Attorney General's advice on this matter? The joint committee had access to significant legal advice and it was clearly advised that what we propose to enact was unconstitutional. The Constitution does not mention political parties, but it makes reference to freedom of association and clearly guarantees that right. This form of electoral engineering, which the latter part of the Bill is about, is a step too far. There is a fundamental hypocrisy in the Bill. It first seeks to address the accepted undue influence of private funds over political parties, but the flip side is that it tries to leverage through public funds an influence over policy and electoral matters. There is an inherent contradiction and flaw in this, which raises the most fundamental constitutional issues. If we were a Government of reform, where serious issues do not affect the security of the State, we would have an open and transparent debate on this issue. The party whip should not be imposed in divisions on legislation such as this. Let the cards fall where they may. Other Members probably share my views on the legislation and believe it is the wrong way to go.

I nail my colours to the mast. The House is much the poorer for more women not being involved in politics. More women should be involved at every level in politics - grassroots, local authority and the Oireachtas - but this is not the way to achieve that aim. Other options are open to parties to address the issue. Why not change the party rule book rather than use the Legislature to deliver change with a big stick and use public funds to engineer the result? Internationally, the best results have been achieved without legislation. There is a sinister opportunity for those who may wish to exploit it, with power vested in a handful of people at the top of political parties, to thwart the ambitions of individuals under the pretext of this legislation. Concentrating excessive power in the hands of a few turns many off participation in grassroots democracy. We need more women to become involved in politics and there are ways to achieve this objective. This legislation is not the way forward. It is a form of electoral engineering and a step too far. As a Government driven to implement genuine reforms, it should allow a more open debate and refrain from imposing the Whip. Furthermore, the legal advice on the constitutionality of what is proposed should be published without delay.

See this speech in context