David Norris (Independent)

The bits he read out were quite exciting but were not, as my friend and colleague, Senator Quinn, pointed out to me, up to the standard of his original intervention which had a certain kind of punch. All that old rubbish about things written in sand and chiselled in stone and that we must turn a blind eye to people's faults because they were in the past is not ethics.

As I said on the Order of Business, one of the problems with this is there is no definition of ethics. That leads me to conclude the Government does not have the slightest idea what ethics are, which is pretty plausible. I would have to say that not only does the Government not know, neither do the principal parties. The Minister knows perfectly well what happened the last time with all these limits and rubbish like that. Those in political parties charged with soliciting donations sent missives throughout the country soliciting contributions for approximately threepence ha'penny underneath the limit. They received millions which they did not have to declare. That is precisely the understanding of ethics of all the principal parties and not only Fianna Fáil. They are all at it.

This is a kind of subterfuge and fig leaf to fool the public. The Minister kind of glanced at that in his concluding remarks when he said this was to reassure the public. I hope the public is not that gullible because this will do nothing in terms of ethics. This is because the people involved do not know what ethics are nor do they have the slightest understanding of what standards in public office, or in any kind of office, are.

I have been horrified over recent years by the number of people of all parties in this House who are plainly on the take over planning issues. I am not prepared to say we should turn a blind eye because they are human and that we should forgive them. That is fine in a Christian sense but we must attack the rot. I do not believe this Bill will do that. It is another little farrago which pretends to address the issue.

Decent people in this House — they exist in all parties and I presumptuously include myself among them — are put to the expense, trouble and irritation of signing off on all these blasted documents, which mean damn all, and then taking them off to get them notarised. Why do I have to pay €15 or so to get a declaration sworn that I have not got anything from anybody? Is it to keep the noses clean of the people who have been on the take for years?

I refer to the language here. We have heard people say at tribunal after tribunal that it was a political donation. It is a political donation when it suits and it is not one when it does not.

I sympathise with the Minister who I think is a decent and honourable man, but I refer to the company he keeps. I refer to this stuff about the gene pool and persons of like mind. As I said earlier, have a look at them. There is a whiff off them which would blind Almighty God.

I would say to Senator Hanafin that I do not believe it is fair to pillory people, especially those who are not in this House, but there was a public libel action as a result of which somebody who is a Member of the other House was found to have no reputation. Now that person just assumes she will be brought into Cabinet at some stage. The Minister can shake his head but I would like to see the Taoiseach shake his.

Even in regard to that individual, if we are serious about ethics in public life, let us have a look at banks. They got away with murder. Many people in this country who were bank officials, including this particular woman, were put up to it by banks. What about their ethics? Allied Irish Bank, for example, threatened a journalist who told the truth and said the late Mr. Haughey owed a million pounds. It denied that in public, undercut him and exposed him to the dangers of libel. Did anybody ever do anything about that? That is where the real issue lies and not in saying I got sixpence ha'penny and the loan of bicycle from my granny, which is the kind of nonsense involved in this legislation.

I refer to so-called dig outs, Paddy the plasterer and all this type of stuff. I have great affection for the Taoiseach. While there are many ways in which he has done a good job, as Minister for Finance he received very large and confusing sums of money for which he has offered very peculiar explanations. His excuse was that legislation was not in place then and he says it is being introduced now to ensure people know how to act.

The point about ethics is that if one does not know behaviour is wrong until it is included in legislation, one is on very shaky ground. I agree with that branch of philosophers on the law who say it is almost impossible to legislate for morality. They observe that when such legislation is enacted, it is for public consumption. If there is someone in either House with malign intent, the Tánaiste knows as well as I do that the Bill will not stop them. The legislation is designed to tell the public that we are doing something, but it is an enactment which is unlikely to be effective where someone has a serious, fraudulent intent. The Bill is a waste of time which will not prevent dig-outs and all the rest of it.

I pay the Tánaiste a compliment through the Chair. He would have made a very fine barrister as he has a command of detail and can home in on it as I found out this afternoon. I do not know if the Tánaiste was watching the politics programme I saw last weekend on which it was said that while Government parties spent €15 million on the election, they returned only about €6,000. While I cannot stand over the figures, I will not withdraw from the contention that there was a great deal more in the coffers, mostly from business interests, than was accounted for openly. The contributions of business have had a disastrous effect on the American political system. Such contributions, especially those from sectoral or industrial interests, should be monitored carefully.

I would not give a damn if everything had to be recorded. I received a couple of offers of financial assistance in this election. I wrote back to say that while I was extremely grateful because nothing could be a more convincing indication of the genuine nature of a person's support than the tangible offer of money, I did not feel I could accept. I have an income as a public representative and receive allowances and certain secretarial services. The offers were not for significant sums of money, which was what was terribly moving about them. Of the offer of €10, I thought "God bless that lad down in Kilkenny who offered it". While I was touched by the offer, it would not have been honourable to accept it. If I had, why should I not have had to record it? The whole lot should be recorded, especially by political parties and not just by individuals.

The legislation is a lamentable waste of time. It is a fig leaf intended to gull the public because we are, rightly, concerned that there are some in our midst who do not have the standards expected of people in Irish public life.