FIANNA Fail leader, Bertie Ahern, has promised that under any government he will form after the election, he will ensure that "politicians are not being compromised in any way in regulating business or legislating for the public interest". This is a worthy aim.
Most people would agree that the most likely way in which politicians might be influenced or compromised is through the payment of money to their parties or their own election campaigns.
There are two places political parties can get money. One is from the State and the other is from the pockets of private individuals. Until very recently, Fianna Fail was in favour of State funding of political parties. Its Minister for the Environment in the Fianna Fail/Labour government, Michael Smith, proposed legislation which would give parties £1 for every vote.
This week, however, his successor, Noel Dempsey tells us that Fianna Fail is entirely opposed to State funding of political parties. It will, we are promised, amend the Electoral Act passed in the last Dail to remove this provision. The reason for this about turn is, we are told, that public opinion is hostile to the idea.
It is worth noting in passing that if Fianna Fail is so concerned with reflecting public opinion on issues relating to the funding of political parties, it might also take into account a recent IMS poll which found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that Charles J. Haughey should be compelled to give evidence to the Dunnes payments tribunal if he does not do so voluntarily.
The party's current position, in any case, is that it wishes to be funded entirely from private donations, but that it will make large donations public. This, we are told, will guarantee the integrity of the political process.
It would be interesting to know, however, whether its own general secretary, Pat Farrell, is entirely convinced of this. He told the beef tribunal that it was, on the contrary, the confidentiality of private donations that kept the political process pure.
"In a very real sense," he said, "the confidentiality with which contributions are treated is an extension of the secrecy of our election process and an acknowledgement of the individual's right to privacy ... An important reason for maintaining the confidentiality of contributions is not to keep the existence or amount of such contributions confidential from the public but rather to ensure that subsequent decisions by politicians which might involve or concern contributors cannot be ascribed to political contributions; specifically, our politicians do not know who contributes to the party or how much.
"The fact is that far from tainting the political process, the maintenance of confidentiality plays a vital role in ensuring that the making of political contributions cannot result or be portrayed as resulting in political favouritism." And conversely, allowing these contributions to continue but making them public, as his party now proposes, will "result or be portrayed as resulting" in the odd favour.
Labour has not yet promised to increase fish quotas, make insurance cheaper or even to run the DART until 2 a.m. (as Bertie Ahern did on Wednesday, becoming the first politician in history to promise to make the trains run on time all the time), but it has come up with a promise that deserves to be in the same league.
Sean Kenny, the party's candidate in Dublin North East, has promised to instal central heating in all local authority housing. The party will, apparently, "get" Dublin Corporation and all other local authorities - who have responsibility for public housing - to put in the radiators. This presumably is the same Labour Party whose Environment Minister has promised to strengthen the independence and autonomy of local government.
The party's manifesto is, understandably, a little more sensitive to the difficulty of central government telling local authorities what to do with their houses. Instead of promising to instal central heating, it merely proposes to "ask" local authorities to "draw up five year energy plans providing for the installation of full central heating". The one thing that might turn a polite request into a definite promise - the allocation of a dedicated amount of money - is notable by its absence. "Various funding methods," we are told, "will be considered."
Various descriptions of the process by which this vague idea is turned into a promise may also be considered.
