Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I was not sure if the Senator was aware of that. The Minister mentioned an open government forum. These things often have a habit of becoming almost weighed down as vehicles themselves. They have great aspirations and then they become weighed down with their own importance. I wonder if the Minister could come back to us because I would welcome a debate on how Ireland partakes in the open government partnership, which I believe takes place in April 2014, in order that it does not become a talking shop and a pretence. I do not think the Minister is trying to do that, but it may become that.

I suspect this Bill may get more attention than some of the others because it is specifically about cutting money. The public is always saying that politicians' pay and allowances should be cut. In fairness, I do not blame anybody for saying that. A level of financial comfort was afforded to the political class that was improper at any time, but especially in a time of difficult and tight accounting. It is important to say that public representatives should be sufficiently remunerated to ensure there is a level of respect and that they are less likely to be open to bribery and corruption. We know that in countries where pay for public representatives is very low, it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that people are open to corruption. If we want to govern, we must first ensure we put our own house in order. That is basic common sense and I see this Bill as part of that process of putting our very disordered house into some order.

I welcome the reduction of allowances to party leaders. I know those allowances have existed for a long time, but when we see CEOs of hospitals writing to the HSE outlining their concerns about cancer patients and the amount of money we have to spend, and while we cannot put the two issues in the same place, they are a very stark reminder of how very tight the public purse is and how very difficult it is to balance the budget. People will see that some effort is being made to reduce those allowances. Putting clear guidelines in place and giving more authority and strength to the Standards in Public Office Commission is very welcome. I still see something of a charade in respect of SIPO in that no candidate is taken to task during a general election campaign, which means they can spend all the money they like and need only account for it afterwards, by which time they may well be elected. I know that is not in this Bill, but I have observed it and SIPO is tied by its own constraints. I imagine its officials will welcome the strengthening of the office in this Bill.

There has been something of a charade when it comes to politicians' expenses over recent years, and The Daily Telegraph was to the fore in publicising events in the House of Commons. We read about people claiming for the cost of manure and cleaning out their moats and so on. It is interesting to note, however, that the cost of MPs' expenses, including staffing, has risen quite considerably since that scandal. While everything came out into the public domain and many copies of The Daily Telegraph were sold, some things did not change. This goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to effect change. Even last week, MPs and Ministers were criticised for claiming expenses on electricity and gas in their second houses while the cost of these utilities was increasing.

Again, that puts politicians on a kind of separate planet. We sometimes get tied in with that and it is difficult to separate the two. I realise it is a different jurisdiction, but the Minister will understand my point.

Finally, there is a bar stool argument to be made for abolishing all State funding for political parties. It is an attractive one, the equivalent of banning all politics. However, it is worth pointing out that if the State does not continue to fund political activity, it will become privatised politics left to the whim of large corporations, philanthropic donations or even greyhound racing events to raise funds. That would be back to having a banana republic, where purveyors of bananas, beef or computer games would fund political parties. We all remember the Galway tent, the hideous variation we had for funding political activity. It is not a model I wish to have. In a way, this legislation and the other legislative measure being introduced will finally nail the Galway tent and state that we absolutely do not want a system in this country in which private corporations are the funders of our political system. We cannot have that. Much as people would like to ban all moneys given to political parties, that could only lead down a very slippery path to enlarging the Galway tent and all that went with it. I certainly do not want that.

I welcome this Bill and commend it to the House.