JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 7 Oct 2008

Local Elections: Discussion with Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Vice Chairman

I welcome the Minister and his officials to discuss the proposals on spending limits for local elections. Members may recall from correspondence dated 29 May 2008 from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that he is seeking consultation with the joint committee on the inclusion in the Green Paper of expenditure limits at local elections. It was agreed at our meeting on 24 June 2008 to meet the Minister after commissioning research from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service on this topic. A research paper has been compiled and circulated to each member in advance of today's meeting. I extend our thanks to Dr. Sophia Carey and Mr. Niall Ó Cléirigh from the Library and Research Service.

This informative meeting will involve the Minister making a presentation followed by a question and answer session.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley)

Chairman and members I thank the joint committee for agreeing to meet me to discuss the issue of spending limits at local elections.

Today's meeting builds on a very positive engagement by the committee in electoral and other matters since my appointment as Minister. In particular, I am conscious of the significant work of the committee on the register of electors. I know the committee has also been briefed recently by my officials regarding the Green Paper on local government reform, Stronger Local Democracy-Options for Change, which covers a wide range of issues, including the establishment of spending limits at local elections. I have no doubt that the level of ongoing engagement and interaction between us will help to advance the ambitious programme of electoral and local government reform set out in the programme for Government.

As members are aware, the Electoral Act 1997 is the principal instrument for regulating election spending. This landmark Act introduced limits on election expenditure as part of an integrated package of measures, including an element of public funding for political parties and a disclosure requirement for political donations above certain thresholds.

The spending limits, which have increased in line with inflation over the years, have operated in respect of Dáil elections, general elections and bye-elections, European Parliament elections and Presidential elections since 1 January 1998. These measures represented one of the most innovative and radical overhauls of our electoral system since the foundation of the State and have been strengthened over the years to bring greater transparency and accountability into spending by, and funding of, political parties, public representatives and candidates.

In particular, the 2001 Electoral (Amendment) Act introduced significant new requirements with regard to political donations, such as capping the size of donations, prohibiting foreign donations and requirements for a mandatory political donations account, with bank statements being furnished to the Standards in Public Office Commission. I fully endorse and support these measures.

Having said that, I am the first to acknowledge that, as implementation of the system has evolved, various issues have been raised by the standards office, the media and others, including political parties themselves, about aspects of the regulatory framework. I am conscious of the complexity of the system as it currently stands, as well as the issues that have been raised regarding its effectiveness as a whole. In this regard, the programme for Government commits to establishing an independent electoral commission to progress a significant programme of electoral reform and modernisation, including an examination of the issue of the financing of the political system. Everyone involved in the political system will recognise the scale of the task involved in rolling out this work. As a first step, I expect to receive shortly the report arising from an initial consultancy study commissioned by my Department relating to the establishment of an electoral commission.

On the specific issue before us, my concern at the absence of spending limits at local elections is a matter of public record. While details of expenditure, as well as donations over a very low threshold, must be disclosed, the current statutory requirements need, in my view, to go further. The programme for Government indicated that the issue would be examined in the Green Paper on local government reform. Submissions made in the course of preparing the Green Paper were generally supportive of some kind of expenditure limit. The paper outlines two main options: to introduce a fixed expenditure ceiling; or linking limits to a proportion of Dáil expenditure. The Green Paper refers to fears that control systems can be overly complex and introduce additional bureaucracy without commensurate benefits. Moreover, overly bureaucratic rules can militate against attracting new talent into the local government arena. The Green Paper proposes that we engage on a cross-party basis on this challenging issue and that is why I asked that we meet here today.

On how we might proceed to address this issue, a number of potential options can be identified. For example, the model adopted in the case of the 1997 Act as amended, for spending limits at Dáil and European elections, suitably adapted, could be applied to local elections expenditure for candidates at such elections. That approach, involving oversight by the Standards in Public Office Commission, which has proved to be a robust mechanism for ensuring compliance with spending and donation limits, has served us well for the past decade and is worth considering as a possible approach for local elections, with some necessary changes.

Alternatively, the option of giving additional functions to the local authorities merits consideration. Under the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999 candidates and political parties are required to submit details of statements of all election expenses incurred at local elections to the relevant local authority. Candidates at the elections are also required to submit details of the donations received. Under that Act, local authorities are given the function of reviewing the statements received and are conferred with powers and functions similar to those performed by the Standards in Public Office Commission under the 1997 Act, as amended, regarding Dáil and European elections. This includes power to draw up and publish, to persons covered by the Act, guidelines relating to compliance with the Act and, on request from such a person, to give advice to him or her. There is also power to prosecute candidates or parties who fail to comply with the requirements of the Act. There may be potential to draw from the experience gained in the local elections in 2004 in the operation of this aspect of the 1999 Act and to explore the possibility of assigning similar functions to local authorities in respect of overseeing compliance with limits on donations and elections expenditure at local elections.

However, I have no preconceived ideas about what the best approach is to addressing the issues. That said, I do not think it would be beneficial to split the functions of both elections spending and donations between bodies. The oversight, compliance and enforcement role in respect of both issues should fall either entirely to the standards office or to the local authorities, in the interests of administrative efficiency. I would be interested to hear the views of the committee on these important issues.

Regulatory controls in this area must achieve the objective of a level playing field for all and must be underpinned by clear and simple rules capable of being complied with and enforced. Complexity and bureaucracy would inhibit rather than further our objective of transparency and accountability. In formulating a statutory framework for local spending limits we must also be conscious of the resources that will be required to implement it. It is against this background that the proposed spending limits and the mechanisms underpinning them will have to be fully teased out. The issues involved are detailed and complex, as we know from practical experience with the Dáil and other electoral codes.

This matter includes a number of core, often interrelated, issues. First, determination of the spending limits amount or amounts. Second, whether different amounts should apply to city and county councils and town councils. Third, the relationship between spending by national parties and spending by candidates. Fourth, the election period to which the spending limit applies. On this point, the Standards in Public Office Commission, in its contribution to the Green Paper process, suggested three months. The Labour Party, in its Bill published earlier this year, proposed nine months. Fifth, the regulatory authority — to which expenditure is to be reported — its functions and the powers that will be available to it. In this regard, there is the issue of scale. The number of councillors, at more than 1,600, far outnumbers Deputies, Senators, Members of the European Parliament, and so on. Furthermore, at the 2004 local elections, there were in excess of 3,200 candidates. This compares to 470 at the 2007 general election and 44 at the 2004 European elections. Similarly, with regard to constituencies, there are in the order of 270 local electoral areas compared to 43 Dáil and four European Parliament constituencies. Sixth, the detailed arrangements for disclosure and publicising of spending. Seventh, the timing of the coming into operation of any new arrangements. Reasonable advance notice is required for candidates about the requirements they will have to meet.

In coming before the committee today, I hope to engage with members on the issues I have outlined and to explore the scope for an all-party approach. I thank the members for their time and courtesy in meeting me today and I look forward to hearing their views.

Vice Chairman

Before I call on members to contribute, is it agreed to circulate the report? Agreed. I will give the Minister a copy.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I welcome the Minister and his officials to discuss this issue and agree that all-party consensus is necessary. Fine Gael is in favour of placing a spending limit on local elections. However, this is not a simple matter and local elections are quite different to Dáil and European elections — not just due to the number of areas involved but also due to differences in population between electoral areas. The quota in an area of Cork, perhaps Deputy O'Sullivan's area, could be 3,000 while it could be 1,000 in Leitrim or other small counties. How can one reconcile these issues and ensure fairness to all candidates, irrespective of whether they are members of parties or independent candidates? It is also necessary to ensure that the floodgates are not opened in such a way that a person with a good cheque book can buy his or her way into office. This is a difficult matter to reconcile.

Restricting expenditure would suit everyone because a great deal of money is wasted in all elections. Everybody feels that the more they spend and the more literature they put in letter-boxes the more they will be noticed. However, the harm one can do by tormenting people with election literature can be in direct proportion to one's expenditure in some cases. Election literature in letter-boxes must compete with many commercial entities that advertise in the same way.

We will be glad to work with the Minister to devise a solution to this. The Minister mentioned that different amounts should apply to city, county and town councils and the solution will have to include some variation of this. Based on the size of the electorate, a mechanism can be built into this process. The national parties do not, generally, get very involved in local elections and they tend to remain local matters. Nevertheless, the local parties will have to expect restrictions on expenditure, which I am sure they will welcome, and perhaps they will have to confine their spending to a single set of posters and a single set of canvass cards. I am sure that every national political party will subscribe to measures that will reduce the level of spending expected of them in local elections.

There are opportunities here to bring sanity to the type of profligate campaigning we have seen, particularly regarding literature. However, I once made an agreement with a tidy towns committee that no posters would go up in the city centre but my opponents were the first people to put them up. I will not say which opponents — I am merely saying that voluntary co-operation does not always work. These things must be underpinned by statute.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming before the committee this afternoon. I particularly thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which provided us with a detailed, informative document. It is stated in the introduction to the report that funding shows spending is positively and significantly related to electoral success. This applies across the board from town councils to the European Parliament — there is a direct correlation between spending and electoral success. The report also points out that limits on electoral spending are important in fighting corruption and safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process. From the outset, it is acknowledged that there is a problem in Ireland because we do not have electoral spending limits but we concede that there is a connection between electoral spending and electoral success. This is what the report states.

The report gives a definition of two types of spending, day-to-day spending, such as leaflet drops informing people what is going on in their communities, and spending during elections. Every person running for public office, whether in a European, Dáil, local or town council election, is required to keep records of bank accounts and donations. At the end of the electoral process, they must state how much they spent. The introduction of a spending limit is only putting a cap on that figure.

One counter-argument by the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, which is contained in the report, does not make sense. He described it as being overly bureaucratic when the sums involved were too insignificant. I recall one candidate in the last local elections, who is now a Senator, spending €40,000 on his campaign. By any measure, that is not small potatoes. I question the then Minister's comments that these sums are so insignificant that we should not pay too much attention to them.

Regulation and accounting systems are in place but there is no limit in spending. That is all that is absent. Is the committee in favour of putting a limit in place? If so, would the Minister favour taking up the committee's recommendation?

The Minister pointed to the recommendation on the period for a lead into a local election. One recommendation was that it should be three months while the Labour Party argued for nine months. Will this time limit be in place for the next local elections in 2009? If so, what time frame will be in place for their introduction? The responsibility for this lies with the Minister, not the committee. It is the sole responsibility of the Minister under legislation to set a spending limit. The committee can make recommendations from now until the next and subsequent local elections but it takes the Minister and his Department to implement them.

Regardless of what the committee agrees this evening, several issues must be addressed. The best approach is a joint party one. The committee can get this going but ultimately the Minister needs to take on board the committee's recommendations. There are systems difficulties that Deputy Phil Hogan has highlighted. If we were to take a more pro rata approach to general election constituencies which have electoral spends for three-seat, four-seat and five-seat constituencies, there would be a certain level of inequity with the population counts in local authority wards. In some local authorities, the ratio of councillors to ward populations can be greater, such as in Dublin. There should be a blend with regard to the number of seats for a local ward with the number of people living in it. Spending is taking place already for the forthcoming local elections. No limits apply while they apply for general elections. Spending is related to electoral success. The absence of spending limits creates an environment in which corruption can occur.

I appreciate the Minister's invitation for the committee to inform his Department about this. He is quite practised in inviting opinion but, ultimately, it is his responsibility. I would not like the signal to go out from the committee that it is examining this issue in an open-ended process. If the Minister invites opinions from the committee, I would like him to give a time frame in which it could present its submissions and ideas. Consequently, I invite the Minister in return to set a deadline. Does the Minister intend to introduce spending limits for the 2009 local elections?

Deputy John Gormley

I intend to introduce spending limits. There is not much point in attending the meeting if we do not intend to have spending limits in place. I am on the record as saying that.

I want the committee's views on this issue. From what I have heard from the principal Opposition parties, a consensus is emerging around this. There are issues around the time line, whether it is the three-month or nine-month lead into an election. In practical terms, as time is pushing on, I do not know if the nine-month option is a runner.

Local election dates are set by the Constitution; they must be held every five years. Candidates know well in advance when they will take place, not like in a general election when it is not so sure. Candidates have this advantage in local and European elections and it allows them to spend and spend on a campaign.

Deputy Phil Hogan disputed the fact that the more a candidate spends, the more votes he or she will get. Every political scientist will point out that the more one spends, the more votes one gets. In the United States, the first task for any candidate is to raise funds, something which Barack Obama has been very successful in doing. I am sure some elected representatives may spend unwisely but all the evidence suggests the more one spends, the more votes one gets.

This has led to an uneven playing field. It has given certain candidates a distinct electoral advantage. The report contains a breakdown on party spending. I notice the Green Party spend is a paltry amount with an average of €860 per candidate. I am afraid I will have to tell my party it needs to spend a bit more to be able to compete with the likes of Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The Minister is in the business of taking money now, so he will be fine. He could be contaminated like the water, however.

Deputy John Gormley

Deputy Hogan referred to the election posters issue with which we are dealing. Some residents' associations and others prefer not to have posters in certain areas. There is also the issue of the plastic ties used to keep the posters up and the litter they cause. We are dealing with this issue in the consultation process which should come to an end shortly.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch is right that responsibility lies with me. I am here to take on the views of the committee. However, I was the one who felt this was necessary. I want to and must bring forward these spending limits but I want to do so in a way which is as consensual as it can be. That is the purpose of today's meeting. We have a job to do and we must do it quickly because campaigning for the local elections has already started.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome the Minister's interest in this very important issue. I would like to make a number of points. First, there is a huge difference between a rural and urban constituency. Second, new candidates are, obviously, not as well known as established candidates. We must be very careful not to put obstacles in the way of new people who want to come into politics.

It is important for any candidate, whether he or she represents a party or stands as an independent, that he or she can get a message across. I favour a personalised canvass, and I try to do that. However, others have different ideas. People who are proficient in new technologies may have an advantage over others.

None of us likes to see the countryside littered with posters. I believe they are necessary for new candidates but I agree that their number could be limited. Sometimes one drives along a rural road and sees a picture of the same candidate on every pole. Why would one give a vote to a man who is stupid enough to put a poster, costing €10 or €11 each, on every single pole.

I can understand the Minister's point of view. I do not object to regulation. However, it must be done in a way that preserves a level playing field and gives no one an unfair advantage. Once a law has been enacted it is very difficult to change it. I would not rush into taking these measures. It is said they must be in place for next year's local elections. I would not worry too much about that. I would prefer to wait and get things right.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I have been contesting elections since 1974 and contested local elections from then until 2004. It was only in the 1999 election that I heard of candidates spending as much as £10,000 to get elected to local authorities. I often tell the story of a local election in the 1980s. Fianna Fáil had always taken four of the seven seats in the Kells area. The total cost of that election for Fianna Fáil was £74, spent on posters and literature, and we took five of the seven seats. I do not believe money gets a candidate elected. I never spent large sums of money between 1974 and my last local election in 2004. When I contested the local election in 1999 as a Dáil candidate, I could not understand people spending as much as £10,000. There should be a spending limit. I cannot say what the limit should be but it should not be very high.

We must also consider the length of the pre-election period when the spending limit applies. As the Minister and Deputy Lynch both observed, the campaign for next year's local election has already started. It was noticeable during the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign that local election candidates had put up posters. This issue should also be considered before the next general election. The current situation is crazy. One can spend all the money one likes before the election is called while the limit applies only when the Dáil is dissolved. Parties and candidates spend enormous amounts of money before the dissolution of the Dáil. We should consider a limit and it should not be too high. The present system is not fair on an ordinary person who wants to enter public life. I regard myself as a very ordinary person. When I entered public life in 1974 I could not have afforded to spend more than a couple of hundred pounds on an election campaign. An ordinary person cannot compete against those who can afford to spend €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000 on election campaigns. We have heard of such figures being spent in Dublin and other local authority areas throughout the country. It is crazy and should be banned. We should have a spending limit.

Chairman

I agree with much of what Deputy Brady has said. I do not believe money elects candidates. I too have been contesting elections since 1974, I never spent much money on elections and never lost a seat. However, contrary to what Deputy O'Sullivan said, it is essential that this measure be in place before the next local election. We are wasting our time if we are talking about an election in six years' time. Goodness knows who will be the Minister then. It may be a member of this committee. We must deal with this matter in time for next year's local elections.

Deputy Brady made a very good point about postering by councillors and local election candidates during the Lisbon treaty campaign. It was a cynical exercise which turned people off. Potential candidates and all sorts of people who had no interest in the Lisbon treaty had their photographs on poles. It is essential that these measures be in place before the local elections.

Deputy Seán Fleming

It is inevitable that measures such as those outlined by the Minister will be in place before next year's local elections. I have both a financial and political background and I have analysed election spending as much as anyone in Ireland. I am satisfied that some academics who have written on this subject have deliberately created the impression of a connection between spending and votes gained. Glib statistics are produced by academics with a particular political leaning. These academics have construed research in a way that has been accepted by some people. They have shown that candidates who get large numbers of votes tend to be high spenders while those who get few votes spend very little. They deduce from this that money gets votes. That is absolutely wrong.

Very well established high vote getters, because they are high achievers, will be more inclined to spend more money. Such candidates would get their votes even if they spent less. A no hoper candidate might spend very little. He will fail to get elected, not because he spends little but because he is not a good candidate.

Some academics in esteemed third level institutions in this city tend to assume all candidates are equal, which they are not. Some candidates are more inclined to be elected, money or no money. That basic factor has been left out of all research, for deliberate reasons. These academics have an agenda. One can spend considerable amounts of money and get nowhere.

The issue of turnout is more important than this debate. The highest turnout in recent local elections has been 60% so approximately 1.5 million voters will not vote in next year's local elections. We in the Oireachtas would be far more useful to the system if we promoted greater participation in the democratic process rather than putting restrictions on those running for elections, which is what we are attempting to do.

A lot of people complained about the amount of the expenditure, and where it came from, during the recent referendum on the Lisbon treaty. There was a lot of expenditure on both sides, perhaps more than would be customary in a referendum. However, that generated far more debate, more intensity on the ground and a far greater turnout. That should be factored into any figures we produce. The allowable expenditure should be enough to generate a good public contest. I am not and never have been a high spender, but I agree with Deputy Johnny Brady that, while the limits should not be too high, they should be high enough to engage the public. If candidates are restricted and it is a very low-key election it will be over before people know about it.

It is not spending which is the problem but the collection of the money. It is not how much one spends which leads to corruption but from where one gets the money. The main focus should be on disclosure of donations, limiting some and abolishing others. If candidates receive a lot of small donations to run an effective campaign then that is fine and no corruption is involved in printing a few thousand leaflets. More emphasis should be placed on regulation.

I have a black and white view on posters. Good legislation is in place and local authorities should enforce it, which they do religiously in my area. Local authorities in several constituencies make sure they are taken down within seven days and mine has prosecuted me and others for leaving posters up eight days after polling. That ensures posters are taken down. We could sanitise the process too much. Some people do not want posters because they do not want politicians and a residents' association which does not want our posters in its area does not want to look at us either. In a democratic process we are entitled to put across our views, while respecting local communities. Only a foolish candidate puts his or her posters in a town or village where there is a strong feeling against undue littering. If a candidate takes down his or her posters and cable ties within seven days there should not be a problem and many complied with that rule to the letter and in spirit.

I accept we are moving towards greater regulation in this regard but I enter the foregoing as caveats. I accept that there are issues surrounding the size of constituencies and there is no comparison between the population of a local authority area in Dublin and one in my county. I suggest we keep the existing timescale in the run-up to the election because it is good for democracy. We are talking ourselves into the view that candidates spending money to promote their policies is bad and should be outlawed. We do not want to talk the profession down too much.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

The Minister said: "Regulatory controls in this area must, I believe, achieve the objective of a level playing field for all and must be underpinned by clear and simple rules which are capable of being complied with and enforced." If we can do that, we will have done a good day's work. This is a very complicated issue and much more so than for Dáil or Seanad elections because there are so many candidates. Candidates running for election should be known reasonably well within their own areas and there is no need for a plethora of posters. We could also recycle posters from one election to the next for candidates who are established.

The Minister says he may set up an independent electoral commission to underpin his proposals. That is fine but elected Members, in conjunction with the Minister, are well able to put together simple, straightforward regulations for local authority elections and we do not need a high-powered commission. I am concerned about the cost of implementing the programme, taking into account the number of candidates and the number of people who will have to oversee it.

Local authorities have played a role in the past and the mandatory reporting requirements were very effective. We all want to encourage new candidates and we must not do anything in this legislation which would prevent new candidates from going forward for election. Some candidates have a big team of voluntary workers while another goes around on his own, knocking on doors. I firmly believe in the team effort as I have a good team myself which I believe was the reason I was successful, rather than any posters or other publicity. The key to getting elected was having a team canvassing on the doorsteps. We have all been told about the date by which posters must be taken down but we are not clear about the date on which they can be erected. In the past, some candidates have argued that there was no date for the erection of posters.

In local elections, a national organisation, a county organisation, an area organisation and a local branch organisation all make a contribution to the local candidates but I do not know how the Minister intends to control those organisations. On whom does he intend to place the responsibility for making disclosures?

Senator Paudie Coffey

I thank the Minister for consulting with the committee as it is beneficial to canvass cross-party views. I agree in principle with putting a limit on election spending. It is important we encourage new candidates into the political process and a lack of finance should not be a barrier for people who display an interest in engaging with the political process. They should not be fearful that they might not raise enough money and the Minister's proposals will go some way to addressing that issue.

We must be careful to achieve a balance. New candidates are automatically at a disadvantage because they are not as well known as those who are already elected. They have not had the opportunity to go before the electorate and need the opportunity to sell themselves, using whatever media they choose, be they posters or literature. They also need a mechanism whereby they can publish their manifesto and details of where they stand on various issues. They need to spend money to get their message out as they are at a disadvantage to sitting councillors. We should, therefore, allow sufficient spend to enable candidates to sell their message and make their views know in the public domain. Achieving a balance in this regard is where the real challenge lies.

It is important we strive to increase awareness, thereby encouraging the political process. As previous speakers said, there are significant challenges for all politicians with regard to turnout and the engagement of young people in elections. A certain amount of money will have to be spent in that area and I am sure candidates will play their part. I would like the Minister to consult with local authority members' associations and organisations on their views. These are the people who have been through the mill, are experienced and will have views.

We need to be careful with the size of electoral areas. One size does not fit all. There could be a six-seat rural electoral area and a six-seat urban electoral area. The geographical spread of a rural area will demand more expenditure, because there are many more towns and villages to be covered. Reaching the highways and byways make it more difficult to get a message across than in main streets, side streets and estates in an urban area. I do not agree that the limit on a six-seat urban area should be the same as a rural one. There is a difference. I hope the Minister takes that into account in his calculations.

Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned the recycling of posters. Posters are needed because people need to know who they are voting for. New candidates need to have their image and message out there. Posters are a good way to achieve that. We need to look at recycling and there should be an initiative for all parties and politicians to lodge posters after an election, if they will not reuse them. The scouting movement is very interested in old posters and mine were used in the recent jamboree for flooring, covering and crafts. I was delighted to find a home for them. The organisation stands over every poster it takes.

Senator Ciaran Cannon

I welcome the Minister and thank him for this discussion which needs to take place. There are exceptions to every rule and statistic. In general, we must accept that spending more money means more votes. Research carried out in Ireland and internationally has proved this time and again. There can be an exemplary candidate who spends very little and gets elected. Equally, there can be a less than exemplary candidate, who spends a lot of money, and also gets elected. If one takes two candidates of equal ability and potential, and one spends more than another, more than likely the candidate who spends more will be elected.

A friend of mine was contemplating if he would get involved in the local election campaign next June; he was thinking of running as an Independent. He asked me what he would need to spend. I said to him, "How long is a piece of string?" That is the situation. It is not what one needs to spend, it is how much one is able to spend. The unfairness whereby the ability to spend may dictate the outcome of an election must be ended. Every new candidate entering local politics would be better informed of their potential success if they knew in advance how much money they would have to spend on a campaign. If the absolute limit was defined, irrespective of the means a candidate five miles down the road has, candidates could not exceed that limit. One enters a race knowing of the limit, and the amount of money myself, my campaign and my team may have to commit to. If we had a limit in place, people would enter local politics in a more informed position than is currently the case.

I agree with Senator Coffey's proposal that there should be some distinction between rural and urban constituencies. During the general election campaign last year, when I visited Michael McDowell's campaign office in Ranelagh, there was a map on the wall. I asked a member of the team what part of the constituency was on the map, and he replied, "That is not part of the constituency, that is the entire constituency". I had come from canvassing in east Galway the previous evening, where I was asked to cover 3,200 square miles. One could walk the area of Dublin South-East in an evening. There must be some distinction. Covering that amount of ground with literature, posters and an effective team will cost more money.

There has been discussion on how cumbersome, bureaucratic and difficult this system could be. This must be looked at closely, as well as the cost to the taxpayer to put it into operation. We need to look at the difference between urban and rural. There must be a reasonably straightforward and bureaucratically simple way to put this system into place. It needs to be in place for the next local election.

Senator Camillus Glynn

I apologise for being late as I was in the House. There are a number of core issues in dealing with spends for local elections that must be addressed. We must look at the practice that has set in since the last local elections and the number of members who have vacated their seats in the interim. In the county council borough of Dublin the number is 18. There may be five or six who vacated their seat due to the dual mandate legislation, but there is an inordinate number opting out.

I have been involved in local government for many years, and I was nominated to stand for the Seanad by a local authority organisation. More and more members have decided that if they are to stay in local government, they must do so on a full-time basis. If one looks at most counties, and my own is no different, there are quite a number of full-time members. The reason for this is because they have to be full time. Even replacements have vacated their seats in the interim.

There is something seriously wrong. The issue was raised about people who have a lot of time and may not have to spend a lot of money. Some members find it necessary to devote all their time to being a councillor, because it is a full-time job. I was born in the country but I live in a town, and I have a foot on both sides of the wall. There is an imbalance that must be addressed in having the same spend in a four-seat and seven-seat electoral area. I agree that established candidates have an advantage. I am not disposed to a proliferation of literature, but I believe there must be some means of propagating the candidature of candidates.

I ask the Minister to take a common sense approach. One electoral area cannot be measured against another. Town councils are local authorities that are not often mentioned, but they are very important bodies. The Minister and Deputy Dermot Ahern recently rolled out the municipal policing committees. Initially, town councils were not to be involved, but common sense prevailed and they are now involved. I compliment the Minister and his colleague for this.

Something needs to be done to curtail the amount of literature spread around. There is an overuse of literature. Nevertheless, there must be a balance. The points made by Senator Coffey and other members must be taken seriously. The Minister has a unique opportunity to tackle an issue which should have been tackled years ago. I know he will not waste this opportunity and I hope he takes the right decisions because a number of imbalances must be corrected.

Deputy John Gormley

I thank all members for their contributions and for the stimulating ideas they expressed. I share Senator Glynn's concern at the number of councillors who are finding it difficult to make ends meet and have had to resign from local authorities because it was not financially viable to continue. When he talks of full-time councillors, I presume he refers to people who do not have a wife and children to support.

Senator Camillus Glynn

In fact, they do. How they do it is a mystery to me.

Deputy John Gormley

In that case, I admire them even more. I do not know how they can do it. We have become acutely aware of this problem in the context of the Green Paper on local government. I have gone around the country and talked to local authority members and this issue has come up again and again.

I can assure Senator Coffey that I will be meeting the representative associations again next week to talk about elements of the Green Paper. We will, of course, discuss the matters we are discussing today.

A number of members referred to the difference between rural and urban areas. The joint committee's report, which is an excellent document, refers to this issue. Table 6, on page 37, lists election spending by council. It contains some food for thought although it is difficult to discern some of the statistics. They were compiled by Benoit and Marsh, who are academics and, no doubt, friends of Deputy Fleming.

The figures seem to show that candidates in Dublin local authorities are spending much more than those elsewhere. This would include the very small constituency of Dublin South-East, with which I am familiar and to which Senator Cannon referred. Urban constituencies present their own difficulties. An urban constituency may not be widespread but in urban areas one increasingly finds gated communities to which canvassers cannot get access. These apartment blocks, which have sprung up all over the place, can only be accessed by letter and this costs more money. As members have rightly pointed out, these are complex issues which must be teased out. In all Dublin constituencies in order to access apartment dwellers, who make up a huge number of the electorate, one must use direct mail, which is very costly. On the other hand, candidates in rural areas must spend more money on petrol and I accept that fully. There are pluses and minuses in this issue and it needs to be teased out. I will examine it with my officials.

It is important that measures are not bureaucratic and complex and that people can comply with them. The last thing one wants is a bureaucratic arrangement which is off-putting. Members have mentioned the need to attract new people into politics. One will not do that by making running for election too costly or bureaucratic. We must avoid such pitfalls when we draw up these new rules.

I have listened carefully to what has been said and I agree with much of it. I would probably dispute the analysis of the relationship between spending and success in elections put forward by some members. However, the views expressed have been constructive and stimulating. I will act on those suggestions and I thank members.

Chairman

Thank you, Minister, and we thank your officials for taking time to attend. This has been an informative meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.46 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 October 2008.