Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I have a track record in terms of the promotion of women from Carlow-Kilkenny in politics. I am glad to be able to tell Senator Quinn that in the most recent local elections for the county council, some five out of the 12 people elected for Fine Gael were women. Therefore, we have well in excess of the quota required for those elected. We in Carlow-Kilkenny do not just operate on the basis of greater participation and opportunity, but have people who in their own right are well able to go out, get votes and get elected. I am particularly proud of that achievement in terms of the encouragement those particular candidates received from our party in Carlow-Kilkenny.

The gender balance provisions have generated a good deal of comment and I welcome the constructive manner in which points have been made. I acknowledge that some of Members are reluctant converts to the approach taken in the Bill. However, unless we take action, experience has shown that the current gender balance in Irish politics is unlikely to improve to any great extent. I also recognise that many Members, including some within my party, would like to see the Bill go further than it does. When I introduced the Bill at the start of this debate, I reflected on the fact that the legislation before us is a significant step. I reiterate this view, but the Bill only represents a small step in the approach needed to achieve gender equality.

I also outlined how the gender balance provisions are to apply and why the provisions are structured as they are. They are designed to be ambitious, effective, fair and legally robust. The measures in the Bill link the payments made to qualified political parties by the State under the Electoral Act 1997 to candidate selection at a general election. Payments are made under that Act to parties that contest general elections, based on their performance at those elections. There is no linkage between these payments and local elections or elections to the European Parliament. I am, therefore, not in a position to apply a similar measure to candidate selection at local or European elections, as has been suggested by many speakers. However, I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, will bring forward additional proposals to promote and assist political parties and others to ensure we have greater participation of women in Irish politics in all elections.

A number of Senators have suggested that the gender balance measures should be applied at Seanad elections. I welcome the enthusiasm shown by Members of this House to embrace the spirit of the Bill and I note how far people are prepared to go. I note in particular the contributions of Senators Mark Daly and David Norris but they fail to realise that the nomination process for Seanad elections is very different from that of the Dáil. It would not be feasible to apply a gender balance provision to a registered nomination body for one of the vocational panels or to an individual who nominates a university candidate.

There is an idea that the Bill should have a sunset clause, as has been suggested by Senator Power and others. I realise the thinking behind the proposal is that after a certain period of time and once the desired effect has been achieved, the gender balance measures would lapse. It is an interesting proposition but I am not inclined towards it on this occasion. People on vocational panels and who wish to nominate candidates have the right to do so and give an opportunity for people of both genders to contest. I do not want to be overly prescriptive and put a certain number of candidates on each vocational panel.

There are people who oppose what is in the Bill and while I disagree with them, I respect their right to hold a differing opinion. I reject the suggestion made by Senator Mullen that the Bill represents some form of social engineering. Such a term is not only unduly emotive, it is utterly wrong. I agree with the comments made by Senator Hayden as what we are doing here is providing an opportunity for women to stand before the electorate. It is a matter for the people to decide who is elected for a constituency, so this modest proposal is designed to facilitate greater participation of women in Irish politics. Senator Mullen and others have quoted from an article written by the former leader of the Progressive Democrats, Mr. Michael McDowell, in the Sunday Independent last November opposing the gender balance provisions. It is not the first time Mr. McDowell has indicated that pieces of legislation which have gone through both Houses were unconstitutional and I do not believe he was right in what he wrote. The article grossly misrepresented the legislation before us and it included deliberately repugnant scenarios designed to mislead and scare people, particularly in mentioning issues relating to emigration.

I categorically reject this analysis. The Electoral Act provides for funding to democratic political parties that contest general elections and that have support from the electorate. On the legal points raised in the article, Senator Bacik's response - published in the Sunday Independent a week later - rightly challenged and roundly rebutted the arguments that were put forward.

Senator Bradford has correctly pointed out the cultural changes required in politics in general, and it is a matter for political parties to be encouraged and lead by example in ensuring that the spirit of what we are introducing in legislation is brought to the fore in implementation at national level. All of the executive councils, political parties and other relevant groups should be conscious that it would be foolhardy to ignore the new provisions in this legislation for Dáil elections in respect of selecting candidates for local elections.

In contributions to the debate, reference has been made by Senators Keane, Cummins, Power, Norris, Mac Conghail and others to the current and past failings in the system of political funding in this State. Senator O'Keeffe made reference to her own direct and difficult experience in courageously attempting to reveal these failings. I again reassure Senators that the measures contained within the Bill are comprehensive and far-reaching. In developing this Bill the Government has had particular regard to recommendations made in the Moriarty tribunal report, published in March 2011, which I now want to address.

The tribunal report did not recommend that corporate donations be banned, although it noted that the desirability and feasibility of a complete ban on privatepolitical funding is pre-eminently a matter for the Oireachtas, and for public debate and consideration, having regard to constitutional issues that might arise and to the national financial exigencies. It is therefore my view that the restrictions to be placed on corporate donors in the Bill will go beyond what the tribunal was in a position to recommend.

The provision in the Bill for the publication of political party accounts will address the Moriarty tribunal recommendation that all income of political parties be disclosed. It will go beyond this recommendation by providing that the expenditure of parties is also reported and open to public scrutiny. The tribunal recommended that all political donations, apart from those under a modest threshold, be disclosed. I believe that the reductions in the donations thresholds we are introducing are substantial and significant, and they address this recommendation.

Senator Mac Conghail specifically raised a point about the party leaders' allowance and payments made to Independent Members of these Houses. This issue was also alluded to by other Senators during the debate. My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has responsibility for the legislation dealing with the party leaders' allowance, which is the Oireachtas Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 2001. I understand the Minister is currently giving active consideration to the introduction of reforms to the arrangements currently in place and intends to bring proposals to Government shortly.

Currently, Independent members of these Houses do not submit an audited statement in respect of their use of this funding and the leaders of political parties do so, and that issue must be examined. The matter, raised by Senator Mac Conghail and others, falls outside the scope of the Bill before us but I assure him that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has been made aware of the views expressed by Members.

Senator Power, in leading the Fianna Fáil response to Bill, stated that the measures dealing with political funding do not go far enough. Reference was made to a Bill from her party on political donations that came before the Dáil last May. The Government voted against that Bill because it was too limited in scope. The principal measure in the Bill was to restrict corporate donations but loopholes would have allowed a number of corporate-type bodies to continue to make political donations unhindered. The measure to enable the publication of political party accounts in that Bill would have placed the responsibility and cost of auditing the accounts on the Standards in Public Office Commission rather than on the political parties. This approach was not consistent with existing audit requirements that apply with the State funding of parties under the Electoral Act and through the party leaders' allowance. The Fianna Fáil Bill provided for a reduction to €2,500 in the maximum donation that may be accepted by political parties, which is the same as the figure in the Government's Bill. For a candidate and elected representative, the maximum donation was to be reduced to €1,000, which is also the same as the figure in the Bill before us.

The Fianna Fáil Bill in 2011 did, however, recommend lower thresholds for the declaration of donations than the Government Bill, although the party had the benefit of having seen our proposals in the programme for Government. It is the right of an Opposition to suggest that we would do more and be more radical but all reasonably thinking people would see this as a fair and balanced approach.

There has been criticism that the Bill, while restricting corporate donations, does not provide for an outright ban. Reference has been made to a Fianna Fáil Private Members' Bill on political donations debated in the Dáil in November 2011 that sought to have a constitutional referendum on this question. The constitutional issues that could not be overcome were referenced by Senator Power. This Bill will work to that end to the maximum possible effect in reducing and restricting donations. Even if it were feasible to ban corporate donations to political parties in Ireland in a constitutional way, issues will arise with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. An outright ban on corporate donations raises particular questions with reference to the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution, relating to freedom of expression and freedom of association.

The Fianna Fáil Bill did not have sufficient regard for the compatibility of the proposed constitutional amendment with other legal and justifiable constitutional commitments. The wording did not fit those requirements, and it is a fair conclusion that the amendment was being inserted in a part of the Constitution that would be inappropriate to the subject matter. The proposed new article would have been sandwiched between Article 29 on international relations and Article 30, which regards the Attorney General. It was the wrong amendment in the wrong place, which is why the Government voted against the proposal.