THE fundamental problem at the heart of the current controversy about party funding is the absence of clear, specific legislation. Our Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to political parties, ignoring the reality that parties are at the centre, indeed are the fulcrum, of any democratic parliamentary system.

The same Constitution which goes into minute detail on the size of the Cabinet and the automatic return of the Ceann Comhairle, is silent not just on the rights and responsibilities of political parties but on their very existence.

That in itself would not be a problem if the gap had been filled by evolving legislation over the years. Most European countries do have legislation governing the funding of parties, the level of spending permitted and the degree of accountability required; not that legislation in itself is a cast iron guarantee of incorruptability.

Funding has always been a problem for political parties, but in recent years the frequency and cost of elections, the need to provide professional back up and research the need to run youth and ancillary groups and a host of other relevant activities have sent the cost soaring especially as parties know they will be judged by the media and public alike on the ability to do their work in a professional and competent way. Professionalism does not come cheaply.

AT present, parties have five methods of funding. The first is from membership by definition these are modest and are kept modest to bring people in rather than create barriers to membership. In addition, such fees are also used to fund party activities at local level.

The second is through a monthly levy on all TDs, senators and MEPs. This comes from after tax income is mandatory and in the case of officeholders and MEPs is hefty.

Third, there are special events: the national collection - carried out by the same people who pay to join the party - draws, raffles, concerts golf classics, fund raising lunches and dinners. Some of this goes to the national party, but much is retained in the constituencies, which must fund their own election campaigns.

Fourth, there are donations from corporations or individuals. In general, these are solicited and are solicited on the basis that political parties are an integral part of the democratic process; that business has a vested interest in the existence of stable and effective political parties; that helping political parties do their job is in the interest of the country and represents a form of public service.

It is made clear that contributions not influence policy or lead to doubt on this score. In the current climate such a claim may be hard to believe, but it is the factual representation of the basis on which donations are solicited and received. And the vast majority of those who contribute would not have it otherwise. For any reputable business persons or company their integrity is one of their most important assets.

But that in its own way is the nub of the problem. People simply don't believe this to be the case. It's a wrong perception, but at this stage nothing is likely to change it.

The fifth method is through public funding. The principle exists at present with the balance very much in favour of the opposition parties and in particular of the Progressive Democrats who, with eight TDs, get half of what Fianna Fail receives and 50 per cent more than Fine Gael. Democratic Left, with six members, gets no funding at all.

Public money at present funds activities as diverse as golf clubs, the renovation of Croke Park and much else. Are these activities more worthy than the funding of political parties? It is fashionable, especially among some media people, to say yes, political parties should at best be treated as any other private organisation. Why should they be different?

THEY should be different because they are not private organisations but are at the core of our public life. Parliament would not be possible without the presence of disciplined, organised parties, parties to formulate policy options, to provide structures through which candidates emerge, to set the agenda at general elections, to provide vigilant scrutiny of government activities. And much more.

A healthy democracy is one where parties are strong, where competition is keen and where as many citizens as wish to have a chance to participate. A strong democracy is one where parties pioneer change or defend the existing situation and do so from an informed and independent position.

A weak democracy is one where one party is too strong or where parties are so disparate that there is no chance of stable coherent government emerging and government may very well be held to ransom by a series of minority groups or single issue parties.

There is a case, a stronger case than space permits, for adequate state funding of political parties. There is no shortage of models on which it could be based. There is a case for allowing, indeed encouraging, private sector contributions to political parties. Again other countries have learned how to do this in a way that ensures fair disclosure.

But it as some commentators are now insisting, we can't have private funding under any circumstances and we can't have adequate state funding, our political parties - all of them - are going to be seriously hampered in doing their work.

The long term answer is a comprehensive party law to address all these questions in a principled way. The proposals announced by Brendan Howlin yesterday make a good start in this regard but are still well short of the comprehensive legislation needed, and certainly should not be seen as the last word on the subject.

More immediately there is an urgent need to find agreement on how current allegations can be investigated in a calm and fair way, and if the arrangements put in place by the Dail last night need to be strengthened then there should be no delay in so doing. If they are inadequate, then they should be replaced. But there can be no delay.