Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I want to make a couple of points. On the lack of time, I vehemently opposed the use of the guillotine and the restriction of the debate to 90 minutes. We did so on multiple occasions, from meetings of the Business Committee to the Order of Business. Shoehorning more than 100 amendments into 90 minutes is not a way to deal with this. It is bad process and it is bad for democracy. I do not support it at all. It means we are not getting sufficient time to go through these amendments at all. I have made that point before.

On the amendments, it is clear that the Bill seeks to introduce a new form of fundraising for political parties, specifically to apply for lottery licences. Let us be very clear: this is not about small donations or raffles. Without these amendments, everybody involved in politics would be absolutely free under law to seek and receive small donations and have small fundraising events. That is not what these amendments are about. Specifically, they would allow one to apply for a licence for a lottery with a prize fund of €360,000. Let us not kid ourselves because none of the smaller parties in this Dáil or democracy will be looking for licences for lotteries with prize funds of €360,000. This is not about getting small donations from friends, family, communities and neighbours, which is a healthy part of democracy; it is to introduce a new form of fundraising. It is absolutely legitimate, given the proposal of the Government, to have proper scrutiny and debate so we can discuss subjects such as the safeguards that will be put in place for this new form of fundraising. That is what should have happened on Committee Stage. There should have been a genuine, rigorous debate on the safeguards needed and why such large lottery funds are needed if the object is to get small donations. You do not need a large prize fund to accept, receive or seek small donations; you actually do not need any. Fundraising can be done using a prize such as a bottle of wine, as many of us have used in the past. With regard to fundraising I have been involved in, with me as a candidate or otherwise, the extent of any prize fund was something like a bottle of wine or a couple of books. We are not talking about the types of prize funds in question. The latter are on a totally different scale. Let us not kid ourselves about that.

Not having the debate or discussion on safeguards or on why the Government feels it is necessary to have such large prize funds is an issue. How is it that the political system and democracy can exist at the moment without such large prize funds? There is no scrutiny, debate or explanation whatsoever, so I ask the Minister of State to explain his position. The answers we have got have all been about small fundraising efforts, but these do not require large prize funds like those in question. Large prize funds are geared specifically towards what the larger political parties could do. There is a range of dangers associated with how donations made could be misused or abused. We have had no discussion on the safeguards. Let us hear about the safeguards that are planned.

Given the history in this country of political donations, their impact on our planning system and how they have led to planning corruption, resulting in lengthy tribunals at a huge cost and findings against elected representatives from what have traditionally been the two larger political parties, in particular, we cannot brush aside major changes to the law and the political fundraising process as not worthy of proper scrutiny and debate, or as something that can just be rammed through at the last minute, without proper time.

As others have said, there are other issues that people, including those from civil society and NGOs, have been looking to resolve for years. They have not been resolved in this Bill, despite people looking for that to happen. There is a disparity between how that is being treated and the absolute priority the Government has given to this matter, while not allowing proper time for scrutiny and debate. It is not in any way acceptable.

See this speech in context