I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2009. It is timely as the local and European elections, and possibly some by-elections, are scheduled for 5 June. It is important the legislation is processed as soon as possible.
This straightforward Bill is not establishing any new principles in the electoral process. It is extending the well-established principles for national, European and presidential elections to the local authority level. One could argue that this was an inevitable process and, from that point of view, it has not generated the level of knee-jerk reactions we might have had if we were breaking new ground.
The legislation sets out to introduce spending limits on expenditure by candidates and political parties at local elections. All Members will be accustomed to this procedure. The legislation also provides for the administration and oversight of the scheme by local authorities as an extension of their current statutory responsibilities in respect of the existing arrangements for disclosure of donations and expenditure at local elections. Everyone is aware that councillors are obliged to complete donation statements each year and have become used to doing so. In such circumstances, I am sure that difficulties will not arise. The legislation will incorporate the same procedure in respect of expenditure at local level and spending limits will apply.
In the most recent local elections, people were obliged to provide information on how much money they spent. Such information has been of assistance because it was used to set the new limits with regard to expenditure. There was no limit on expenditure in the previous local elections, so we are breaking new ground. I do not believe, however, that the new limits will pose a problem or that the need to keep track of expenditure will give rise to difficulties. The difference between what happened in the past and what will happen in the future is that the limits will be specified in legislation and people will be in breach of their statutory duties if they do not comply with the provisions of the legislation.
A number of provisions in the Bill relate to the timing of expenditure. The Minister indicated that "the date on which the spending period commences at the election must be not less than 50 and not more than 60 days prior to polling". He also stated: "The spending period ends on polling day at the election." I have not read the small print in respect of when, for accounting purposes, the expenditure period will be considered closed. I presume, however, that this will be at the close of the polls. When the votes have been cast and the polling stations are closed, one can do nothing further. Expenses incurred on count day, such as those relating to taking one's party workers and volunteers out for a drink when the polls have closed, will not count under the expenditure limits, and rightly so. Such spending does not affect the outcome of an election because the votes have already been cast.
I was struck by the language used in section 7 of the Bill. I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but I have admitted defeat in respect of this section because I could not make head nor tail of it. The section states: "Section 20(5) of the Act of 1999 is amended by inserting "or section 21(3A) (inserted by section 8 of the Electoral (Amendment)(No. 2) Act 2009“ after “subsection (4)”.” I have no idea what this means. As a result, I was obliged to obtain my understanding of the legislation from the explanatory memorandum.
Members could not be expected to understand what is intended in section 7. Perhaps this is due to the way in which we do business, namely, we enact legislation and then amend it and then amend the original amendments. Eventually, legislation is introduced which is unintelligible, even to the relevant Minister. We are reliant on the officials in the Department to ensure that the drafting of the legislation was done correctly. However, what is contained in section 7 is not plain English. It would be of assistance to the entire political process if the legislation with which the House deals was couched in plain English. I do not intend to criticise those responsible for drafting this legislation, I am merely offering it as an example. The position with regard to Finance Bills and Social Welfare Bills is similar and dealing with such legislation becomes a mammoth task. As already stated, I am relying on the explanatory memorandum for my understanding of the Bill and people will understand why that is the case. I hope the officials have got matters right. If we were to verify some of the detail in this legislation, we would be obliged to train as Parliamentary Counsel.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position vis-à-vis section 5, in respect of which the explanatory memorandum states:
Section 5 provides for the insertion of a new subsection in section 19 of the 1999 Act to require the publication by a local authority in its annual report for the year in which the election is held, of aggregate details of election expenditure in respect of each candidate at the election. It also provides for the details of donations received by a candidate at the election to be published in the annual report.
I do not have a difficulty with this information being published or otherwise made available. However, I am not sure whether the annual report of a local authority should contain details relating to people who failed to be elected or who did not even reach the quota. A local authority's report should focus more on that authority's normal activities. I accept that this is being done in an effort to make the position more transparent. At present, however, all Oireachtas Members must disclose details relating to the donations they receive. Such details are supplied to the Standards in Public in Office Commission — they can be inspected at its offices — are published in newspapers and are available on the Oireachtas website. In my view, publishing such information in the annual reports of local authorities represents an attempt to be overly transparent.
Details such as those may become the focus of local authorities' annual reports and all the good work being done by such authorities will be forgotten, particularly when these reports come up for approval. Matters of interest to ordinary citizens and the real content of local authorities' work may also be overlooked by the media because there is no doubt that people are interested in information relating to donations. I am completely in favour of public disclosure, but perhaps another mechanism might be found to facilitate the publication of information relating to donations.
I have a major difficulty with section 7. This is a standard provision in most items of legislation which probably dates back to Victorian times. It appears we have an obsession with money when it comes to drafting legislation. According to the explanatory memorandum, the import of section 7 is that a person who is found guilty of the offence of spending too much money on election posters can be disqualified from membership of a local authority and that this disqualification "will apply and have effect for the remainder of the term in office of the members of that authority".
Provisions similar to that contained in section 7 have been included in previous legislation. As already stated, a person found guilty of the offence of spending too much on election posters can, under this section, be disqualified from membership of a local authority. However, if one is a murderer, rapist or paedophile, one can serve as a member of a local authority. I cannot fathom the obsession with spending in Irish law. It is probably a hangover from Victorian times when if one did not pay one's debts, one was considered a person of no standing. Like Oireachtas Members, local authority members who cannot pay their debts and are declared bankrupt are automatically disqualified from membership of those authorities. However, one could commit every other type of crime — some of them extremely heinous — and one would not be so disqualified.
I cannot understand why we are focusing on the serious but technical offence of overspending on posters or leaflets as one which should disqualify people from membership of local authorities. That is daft and is a hangover from the period prior to Independence. Disqualifying someone from membership of a local authority as a result of their overspending is not an appropriate sanction. There are others ways in which we might deal with this matter. If the purpose of section 7 is to dictate that people who are not fit for office should not be members of local authorities, I could identify 100 more serious crimes which should be included in it. That said, however, members of the public are entitled to elect people to membership of local authorities, even if those individuals are not of good character. In that context, I must question whether there is a need for any restrictions in the first instance.
We recently celebrated the 90th anniversary of the first Dáil at the Mansion House. I was struck by the fact that most of the Members of that Dáil were as láthair because they were imprisoned in this and other jurisdictions. However, even those who were in prison were not disqualified from membership of the House. Under the legislation before us, people who spend too much money on election posters will be disqualified from membership of local authorities.
I have made my point but I do not know if I have been successful in getting the message across. We debate this matter each year in respect of different items of legislation. We will not move forward until there is a change of attitude in respect of financial matters. I am not excusing those who overspend on posters or whatever, but it is awfully selective to identify this one aspect and bar such individuals from participating in our democracy as a result. We must not forget that the people are entitled to elect whomever they wish. This fact is not reflected in the approach that lies behind provisions of this nature.
There has been much discussion in respect of the posters used for election campaigns. Everybody is familiar with the issue. Posters can be up for 30 days before an election and for seven days after polling day. There is good existing legislation on this issue relating to national elections, as well as the Litter Pollution Act. Those provisions should carry on under this legislation. People are conscious of the environmental and Tidy Towns issues involved.
However, in recent years we have taken the option of over-sanitising the electoral process, which has taken the craic and fun out of it. Let us recall the Lisbon treaty campaign. There were many posters up for that campaign and there was the biggest ever turn out for a referendum. I am not saying there is a direct correlation but there can be a correlation with the level of political activity in terms of putting the issues before the people. When I pick up my daily newspapers they contain full page advertisements for the various supermarkets. I simply turn the page; one does not see them anymore. Every supermarket has full page advertisements and I do not know whose advertisement says what. However, it is different if one is going out of one's estate and seeing the posters. They are only up for three weeks and it does not kill anybody.
I believe in a good poster campaign. Everybody is aware of the problems with canvassing. One can canvass new estates but one will be lucky to find 50% or 60% of the people at home. If people have moved into an area in recent years, they do not know who the local candidates are. They also would not know the new candidates. At best, in the course of the three or four weeks of a campaign, one will do well to meet 20% to 30% of the electorate. One will never meet 100% of it; it is not physically possible in that time frame. One cannot get leaflets into every house, so postering is one way of campaigning.
I am very strict about posters. I fully support the legislative requirement that all posters must be removed within seven days of the close of polls. Local authorities, quite rightly, probably make an example of the politicians, as I have heard from throughout the country. In the 2002 election, of a total of 1,000 election posters for myself and the rest of my party's candidates, two were still up eight days after polling day. We were fined and paid the fine. That was only right.
A view has been expressed by many Members of the House to which I do not subscribe, even if I am in a minority. There is a legislative requirement that posters must be removed within seven days of polling day. I have heard Members say that if a poster has been left up, the local authorities should telephone the candidate's office and give them a day or two to take it down. That is rubbish. That essentially means there will be no seven day requirement and the person will wait for the telephone call. I have heard several Members of the House suggest this. It is a black and white issue. The person has seven days to remove the posters and there should be no compromise on it.
Candidates should put up as many posters as they wish. I have never heard people complain about them. They only complain if the posters are not removed after the election. I urge candidates to ensure they remove the posters within the seven days. Legislators should not ask local authorities to remind us. They are already prosecuting auctioneers and others for putting up illegal signs and hoardings for their shops and businesses. Those people do not get 24 hours to take down their posters; the litter warden simply arrives and imposes the fine. The same should happen to politicians. Members of this House should not ask for concessions in that part of the legislation. There should not be one law for us and a different one for everyone else.
Something unusual happened to me previously, and I thought I was the only one to whom it had happened until I heard that it had happened to several of my party colleagues after the last local election. I guarantee that every poster put up by my party in my constituency was taken down within seven days. Six weeks after the election a poster appeared. I took it down myself. A week later, another poster appeared. Somebody started playing silly games in several constituencies. The posters were pristine. Obviously, somebody had taken them down when they were first put up. They were clean and there was no weather damage. They must have held onto them——
