Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I agree with the Senator that the regulations may not add to the attractiveness of having a public career but I hope they are not an insurmountable impediment for those who are determined to do so. I take the Senator's point. People have that disposition when they think about public life.

In the framework we are developing by way of a series of legislative enactments during the past ten or 12 years, including this Bill, when people declare their interests and clearly indicate the context of benefits received, such declarations should not relegate them to the bottom of the premiership below others who have nothing to declare. A person who has nothing to declare should not be seen as more pristine and pure than a person who has something to declare. If we want a declaratory culture we should not attach a negative sentiment to making a declaration. A declaration simply confirms a benefit which required declaration.

For example, I was not au fait with the various thresholds when I held a golf classic in preparation for election expenses. When I completed my declaration forms I was told that any donation above €650 was declarable. A number of people had entered golf teams amounting to more than that figure and I declared them. I was faced with numerous questions as to the nature of these donations and was asked what they were all about. If I had been aware of the various thresholds I could easily have escaped the need to declare them. When a threshold is applied and Members work within it they are criticised for not declaring benefits even though the regulations make it clear that benefits below the threshold are not declarable. If one does not know what the threshold is, exceeds it and then declares benefits above the threshold, as was my own situation, one will be faced with questions. I was happy to deal with those questions because nothing untoward had taken place. However, one often says to one's self that there may well have been other fundraisers involving amounts which were under the threshold which raised far in excess of what I was able to raise, or what was raised on my behalf at that particular function. There is some suggestion that I have something for which to answer while others do not. There is that sort of mentality. If one enacts legislation and thresholds are set, then people work within those parameters because there may well be people who want to offer support but who do not want to see their names all over the place not because there is anything untoward but because there is a culture that is promoted which suggests there is. That is the problem and we see it all the time in this area.

The purpose of this is to ensure there is not a relationship between business and politicians or between any individual and politicians which can, in any way, compromise people in the performance of their duty. As we all know, if anybody was to come to one and say he or she supported one at some function and he or she wants A, B and C, one would ask what that had to do with anything. One would give the person his or her money back if that was his or her attitude. One would not even tolerate that for two minutes.

The issue of the threshold always comes up. I am 24 years in politics and in my experience people do not come up to one and say, "Here is a gift for you." In fact, it is quite the opposite. In the interests of transparency and openness, we have provided a framework within which people can see what is happening. None of us has any problem handling that. It is just a matter of finding thresholds which do not result in unwarranted intrusions into a personal matter about which there is no public issue and where — regardless of whether there is, or is not, a public issue — someone else confirms to the recipient that it is within the spirit of the legislation. It is always a matter of judgment and it is not an issue which is open to absolutist argument.