Elaine Loughlin: What have we learned from Paschal Donohoe's Dáil statement?

Mr Donohoe said it would be up to Sipo to form an evaluation on many of the points put to him by the opposition, which of course sent TDs into a spin, and did nothing to quell the controversy. Picture: Leah Farrell/RollingNews.ie

So what exactly has been learned from Minister Paschal Donohoe's statement in the Dáil over his declaration debacle?

In truth, not a lot.

If members of the opposition went into the Chamber in the hope of finding out how exactly the former Finance Minister calculates his sums, they were left extremely disappointed.

Many on the opposition have been bamboozled by Mr Donohoe's maths, claiming the figures simply don't add up.

The figures, of course, relate to the monetary value put on the amount of time that six people spent putting up and taking down election posters over four days back in 2016.

Mr Donohoe told the Dáil that the total payment to the people involved by buisnessman Michael Stone was €1,100, of which approximately €917 pertained to the campaign period. The remainder related to work done after election day.

Then there was the company van that was also used during the general election.

Mr Donohoe acknowledged that he should have amended his election expenses form to the value of €140 to take account of the commercial value of a vehicle for the hours used.

"This was a mistake on my part and I acknowledge and apologise for that error," he said, before adding: "As the equivalent commercial value of the van was below the relevant donation limits, it did not need to be included on the donation register.

Having been made aware at the end of last year of the payment to the individuals, it is clear to me that the value of the labour should also have been declared in my election expenses form.

It was these figures provided by Mr Donohoe in the Dáil, that a number of opposition TDs seized upon.

Sinn Féin's Pearse Doherty asked how his calculation of €1,100 squared with Fianna Fáil's Mary Fitzpatrick who forked out nearly €5,000 for postering in the same constituency.

It was a point also raised by Labour's Ged Nash, who seemed on top of the maths — or at least, the rules behind the maths.

"We know that the usual price charged for erecting and removing election posters in 2016 was €5 per poster, €3 up, €2 down. If 1,000 posters were involved, then the commercial value is closer to €5,000," Mr Nash said.

The problem was Mr Donohoe didn't provide the Dáil with the number of posters put up by Mr Stone's employees.

Nonetheless, the Louth TD continued by pointing to the guidelines, which are explicit in stating that where the price charged for a service is less than the usual commercial price, then the difference between the usual commercial price and the lower price is a political donation.

"Whether provided by an individual or by a company, the true value of this service seems to be way in excess of the donation limits," he added.

If that is so, then doesn’t it follow that what you received was a prohibited donation, in excess of the donation limits? If so, then shouldn’t your amended declaration also state that you received a prohibited donation the value of which, so far, you have not returned to the donor?

But none of these additional queries were answered.

Neither was a question posed four times by Mr Doherty who wanted to know if Mr Stone had also provided assistance to Mr Donohoe during the 2020 campaign.

Instead, Mr Donohoe said it would be up to Sipo to form an evaluation on many of the points put to him by the opposition, which of course sent TDs into a spin, and did nothing to quell the controversy.