I would point out to Senators that due to a printing error in the printed copy of the Electoral Bill, 1994, as passed by Dáil Éireann, pages 49, 50, 60 and 61 are out of sequence.
Electoral Bill, 1994: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I would like to explain why a Bill which was introduced in the Dáil in June 1994 is only now coming before the Seanad. While the Second Stage was completed in the Dáil in October 1995, the delay in completing its passage through the Dáil was due mainly to allow time for consideration of the implications, especially for the proposed payments to political parties, of the Supreme Court judgments in the McKenna case and also the Hanafin appeal on the outcome of the divorce referendum.
The Bill was debated extensively on Committee Stage by the Dáil Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. More than 18 hours were spent debating the Bill, which resulted in the consideration of in excess of 230 amendments. Further amendments were made to the Bill yesterday on Report Stage in the Dáil, many of which were to meet concerns expressed during the Committee Stage debate. Due to the extensive amendments to the Bill as originally published, I have circulated a memorandum on the Bill with the amendments agreed on Committee Stage for the information of Senators. Due to time constraints, the memorandum does not include the amendments made yesterday on Report Stage. I have had a list of the amendments stapled to the memorandum for the assistance of Senators.
Concerning the Motion for Earlier Signature, the provision of the Bill dealing with the disclosure of donations and ancillary provisions will come into operation on the enactment of the Bill. Again, due to time constraints, it is not practicable to have the expenditure limits of the election in operation for the forthcoming election. However, the Government decided that the provisions relating to donations are to be applicable to donations received after enactment of the Bill in connection with the general election. Early signature of the Bill is required to ensure that the provisions are operational in the case of an early dissolution of the Dáil and preparation of the necessary guidelines and forms by the Public Offices Commission can be commenced at the earliest date.
The purpose of the Bill is sevenfold. It will establish on a statutory basis an independent electoral commission to prepare proposals for revision of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. It will provide for limited State funding of political parties, part recoupment of certain candidates' election expenses, require the disclosure of substantial political donations and impose limits on election expenditure by candidates and political parties at elections. It also contains provisions to set up new voting arrangements for electors who are unable by reason of their occupation to vote at their polling station. Other miscellaneous amendments to electoral law are also included in the Bill.
In relation to constituency revision, the Bill provides for the establishment on a statutory basis of an independent constituency commission to prepare proposals for the revision of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. Under the Bill, the commission will be set up on the publication of the census report following each census of population. It will be chaired by a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice.
The terms of reference of the commission set out in the Bill are essentially the same as those given to previous non-statutory commissions. They are identical to those given to the Dáil constituency commission which reported in April 1995 and whose recommendations are given effect in the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1995.
The commission must invite and consider submissions. An amendment agreed by the Dáil yesterday provides that the commission will provide a statement to people who wish to make a submission setting out the constitutional restraints and statistical details of the existing constituencies. This statement should be helpful to members of the public who wish to make a submission to the commission. The Dáil also agreed that submissions made to the commission will be available for public inspection and copies can be obtained at a reasonable cost.
By providing a statutory base, the Bill will enhance the standing and authority of the commission and will guarantee its independence. The Dáil agreed an amendment inserting section 15 in the Bill, which provides that it will be unlawful and an offence to communicate with the commission, apart from making a submission under section 10, to seek to influence the commission in carrying out its functions.
Following enactment of the Bill, the first statutory constituency commission will be set up later this year when the results of the 1996 census of population are published. The commission will review both the Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. There is general agreement that the practice of having constituencies drawn up by an independent electoral commission is an improvement on the former practice under which constituencies were revised by the Government of the day.
Part III of the Bill provides for payments to each political party which is registered in the Register of Political Parties, is organised throughout the State to contest Dáil elections and whose candidates obtained not less than 2 per cent of the first preference votes at an election. In accordance with an amendment agreed by the Dáil yesterday, this part of the Bill will not become operative until 1 January 1998 and payments from that date will be based on the results in the forthcoming election. Payments will continue from 1 January next to the day before polling day at the next election after January 1998. After that election, payments will be made from polling day to the eve of polling day at the subsequent general elections.
The case for public funding rests on the essential role which political parties play in the democratic process. It has become fashionable to denigrate politicians and political parties, even though most politicians are hard working individuals serving their constituents as best as possible. Political parties are the work horses of democracy and the functioning of parliamentary democracy which does not involve political parties of one kind or another would be difficult to envisage. Political parties provide the essential underpinning for democratic structures and make it possible for people to exercise an effective electoral choice.
Pressure on parties in a modern society demands increasing professionalism, access to an expanding range of expertise and more effective communication strategies. Today's electorate demands comprehensive, coherent and costed policies, properly presented and explained.
To function satisfactorily, parties require an adequate level of funding. Specifically, they need a certain basic level of income which can be relied on and which can be supplemented, as required, by the party's own efforts. Traditional sources of income, such as the subscriptions of members and voluntary fund raising, corporate or otherwise, are no longer adequate to meet the full cost of the operations of political parties. To share in the limited funds available from these sources, parties must compete not only with one another but with a range of voluntary and charitable organisations at local and national level. This intense competition for funds obliges party organisations to devote an undue proportion of their time and energy to fund raising. Time and energy which should be devoted to the development of policies directed towards the real problems of our society are dissipated in this way.
The difficulties associated with the financing of the political system are not exclusive to this country but are experienced in most parliamentary democracies. Throughout the democratic world there is increasing acceptance of the concept of public funding of political parties to one degree or another, but this is not to imply that the argument is all one way. While acknowledging that State funding is no panacea, the view has been taken that, in line with most of our partners in the EU, it is appropriate and in the wider public interest to propose the introduction of a modest measure of direct public funding.
The proposals in the Bill seek to approach the matter in a balanced way. Care is taken to ensure that parties will not become unduly dependent on public funding. The proposed funding is designed to supplement, not to replace, income from other sources. The £1 million per annum represents 37p for each elector on the register of electors. This is a modest sum and will only be increased in line with general pay increases in the Civil Service. Parties will be required to account for the money provided by way of an audited statement and the funds cannot be used for direct electoral purposes.
The Bill proposes to provide for the reimbursement of certain candidates' election expenses up to £5,000 or actual expenses, if less. A candidate will have to obtain sufficient votes to save his or her deposit at an election. This means a candidate's vote will have to exceed a quarter of the quota. The proposal accords with the concepts of equality of treatment as enunciated in the Supreme Court judgments as far as candidates at an election are concerned. In view of the short time between the enactment of the Bill and the June election, it is not proposed to bring this section into operation until 1 January 1998. The recoupment is linked with the expenditure limits proposed in Part V of the Bill. It is not feasible to have the expenditure limits implemented for the June election as the Bill's provisions are not retrospective in application.
It is Government policy that participation by women and young persons in political activity should be encouraged. Parties will, therefore, be required to indicate the extent of their expenditure for these purposes. The amount the parties devote to such expenditure will be left to their own judgment, but their decision in this regard will be open to scrutiny by interested groups and the public generally.
With regard to public donations, the Bill requires the disclosure of political donations exceeding £4,000 in the case of a political party and £500 in the case of an individual. This part of the Bill and the sections concerning donations at a presidential election will become operative on the enactment of the Bill. Donations received for political purposes from the date of enactment of the Bill will be covered.
Under Part IV, political parties and Members of each House of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament will be required to state each year whether a donation exceeding the relevant specified value was received during the year and giving particulars of any such donation. Following an election, candidates not elected at the election must furnish a similar statement in relation to donations received by them at the election.
Donations to branches, candidates, officers and members of a party will be deemed to be made to the party and, for the purpose of disclosure by the party, will be aggregated. A donation will include the value of property, goods and services provided free of charge or at reduced cost, as well as monetary contributions. The aggregate of all donations made by the same person or body in any year or at the same election will be treated as a single donation. The disclosure obligation will apply to donations made directly or through any intermediary.
Acceptance of anonymous donations exceeding £100 is prohibited. Where an anonymous donation above £100 is received, it must be remitted to the Public Offices Commission. The disclosure requirement will apply to candidates at presidential elections under Part VI of the Bill and provision is made for extension to local authority members and candidates by regulations under section 72.
Companies will be required to disclose particulars of any political donations exceeding £4,000 made by them, both in the directors' report and in the annual return furnished to the Registrar of Companies. Trade unions and societies registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies will be required to furnish similar information in their annual returns and this obligation will also apply to building societies.
In practice, political contributions have generally been treated as confidential up to now in accordance with the wishes of donors. However, the practice of confidentiality has given rise to suspicion that substantial political contributions may be made with a view to influencing decision making. Whether or not there is any basis in fact for the suspicion of undue influence, the existing situation is not conducive to the public trust which is an essential element in democracy. To restore that trust it is necessary to deal with the appearance of and potential for improper influence or corruption.
With the introduction of public funding for political parties, it is all the more important that the public should know whether parties are in receipt of substantial sums from other sources and, if so, the identity of these sources. However, the Bill preserves the right to privacy of persons and bodies who may wish to make more modest contributions to the parties and candidates with whose policies they are in agreement. The objective is to set the thresholds at levels which will represent a reasonable balance between these considerations.
The Bill addresses the suspicion that persons or organisations with substantial resources may seek to use these resources in an attempt to improperly influence official decisions. Even if such suspicion has no basis, the suspicion itself must be dealt with, and the only effective weapon for combating suspicion is openness.
With regard to election expenses, Part V, which provides for the limitation of expenditure at Dáil and European Parliament elections, will not be operative for the forthcoming election but will commence on 1 January 1998. It will apply to any general election or by-election after 1 January next. Expenditure limits will apply to individual candidates at constituency level and to political parties at national level with the agreement of candidates.
At Dáil elections the spending limit applicable to candidates will be related to the number of seats allocated to the constituency concerned. The limit will be £14,000 in a three seat constituency, £17,000 in a four seat constituency and £20,000 in a five seat constituency. A political party, with the agreement of a candidate, can spend up to 50 per cent of the candidate's expenditure limit. The limits at European elections will be specified by order of the Minister with the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Due to the unique circumstances obtaining in relation to Seanad elections, the question of expenditure control at these elections will be dealt with in separate legislation which is under consideration at present. I am interested to hear Senators' views on expenditure limits which should be included in that forthcoming legislation.
Control of expenditure at elections will operate through a system of agents. Parties must appoint a national agent and each candidate must appoint an election agent. Agents will be required to maintain appropriate records and furnish, after the election, a detailed expenditure statement with supporting vouchers and a statutory declaration. It will be the responsibility of the agent to control expenditure on behalf of the candidate and the political party.
At recent elections certain individuals and organisations, having no apparent connection with a party or candidate contesting the election, have published advertisements advocating support for, or more usually opposition to, particular parties and candidates. The Bill will not affect expenditure by such third parties or place any limit on it. However, where such third parties propose to incur expenditure for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election, they will be required to signify their intention to do so in advance and furnish a detailed account of the expenditure incurred by them after the election.
Recent elections have also witnessed the publication of advertisements by the "friends and supporters" of particular candidates. In future such expenditure must be accounted for by the election agent of the candidate concerned. There will also be a prohibition on publishers of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals accepting such advertisements unless the third party produces evidence that they have notified the Public Offices Commission of their intention to incur expenditure as provided for in section 32(10) of the Bill.
In a democracy it is essential that parties and candidates should have an opportunity of presenting their policies and programmes to the electorate and, for this purpose, be free to incur an appropriate level of expenditure. Looked at from another perspective, electors are entitled to know what each party and candidate stands for so that they can make an informed choice. However, extravagant spending at elections is unseemly and inappropriate. In the intensely competitive atmosphere of an election, parties and candidates can be drawn into a spiral of competitive spending which can serve no real purpose. It is in everybody's interest that there should be clear and sensible limits. In laying down expenditure limits, the Bill recognises that extravagant spending is not appropriate, particularly where candidates and political parties will be financed, in part, from public funds. It also acknowledges that excessive expenditure is ineffective in terms of influencing the outcome of the election and may well be counterproductive.
The provisions of the Bill relating to funding of political parties, disclosure of donations and control of election expenses will be monitored by the Public Offices Commission, established under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. In addition to its functions under the 1995 Act, the commission will consider all statements and returns required to be made under this Bill and make these documents available for public inspection. It will be empowered to demand additional information and documents, to report to the Dáil on any matters arising and to report any suspected contravention of the provisions of this Bill to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The commission will be empowered to allow persons who submit statements to amend any minor error or omission before laying the statements before the Oireachtas. This is to avoid frivolous challenges to election results.
The commission will also be empowered to allow an individual or party to make observations on any alleged contravention of the Act before the commission further considers such allegations and any report is sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be the function of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute or authorise prosecution for alleged offences. Offences under the Bill will include failure to furnish a donation statement or a statement of election expenditure, furnishing false or misleading statements or incurring election expenses above the permitted limit.
There will be other sanctions also. For example, payments due to a political party under the Bill will be withheld if the party fails to furnish an audited statement regarding the preceding year's funding or if it fails to furnish a donation statement. Similarly, excess expenditure incurred by a party or a candidate at an election may be recovered from any payments due under the Bill. Thus, there will be effective measures in place to ensure compliance. However, the most significant enforcement mechanism will be the force of informed public opinion. The thrust of the Bill is to make for greater openness in public life. All relevant information will be published and will be readily available to the Oireachtas, the media and the public.
The Bill provides facilities for voting by electors who because of their occupation are unable to vote at their polling station. The facilities are intended to assist fishermen, transport workers, business persons and others, including students, whose occupations involve frequent absence from home. This will meet a long felt need to which attention has been drawn by Members of both Houses over the years. Such electors may in future apply for entry in the postal voters list. At an election or a referendum a ballot paper will be sent by post to each elector concerned. The elector may vote at any Garda station, having produced satisfactory evidence of identity and on making a declaration of identity which will be witnessed by the garda on duty and stamped with the stamp of the Garda station. The arrangements proposed will provide a reasonable opportunity for voting by the categories concerned while providing adequate safeguards for the secrecy and integrity of the ballot. It is intended to have these provisions in operation for the Presidential Election in the autumn.
An important feature of the Bill is contained in section 76, which provides for the amendment to the Electoral Act, 1992, to provide for the inclusion by way of the supplement to the register of persons who reach 18 years of age during the currency of the register; the inclusion in the supplement of persons such as those who move house or returned emigrants who were not ordinarily resident at an address on the qualifying date and took up residence at that address since the qualifying date, provided they are not already registered at any address; the provision of a supplement to the postal voters list and to the special voters list of persons who are not already on either such list, and the making available, on request and free of charge, of a copy of the register of electors to each Member of the Dáil for a constituency and each Member of the Seanad resident in a constituency at a referendum. Other miscellaneous amendments to electoral law are detailed in the memorandum circulated. I am aware of comments about the opening of polling stations and I will bring that matter to the attention of the Minister and officials in the Department.
This Bill is of considerable significance, addressing complex questions in relation to the political process. I believe Members will welcome its broad principles and I commend it to the House.
I am sure the Minister of State is more than pleased that this legislation is winding its way towards a conclusion. It has been centre stage in this House and elsewhere and it continues to be a source of controversy, particularly among the public. There has been a climate of cynicism, bordering on anger, among significant sections of the electorate since the initial announcement that political parties would be funded by taxpayers' money. As someone who lived outside this country during my late teens and early twenties and who had the privilege of travelling extensively as a Member of this House and through my other profession, I would be naive not to concede that there is an urgent need to address the funding of political parties and individuals and the manner in which elections are carried out.
Despite the Government's best efforts, I am concerned that we are creating a bureaucratic giant which will get out of hand. While it is easy to be critical, the most difficult part of any debate is to put forward constructive alternatives. While I and my party strongly favour the concept of openness, accountability and transparency, there is a ground swell of opinion outside this House which is vociferously opposed to the concept of political parties being funded by taxpayers' money. I could be devil's advocate and argue against this proposal. I have always believed there is a price to be paid for democracy. However, those who are critical of the political system cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they will justifiably raise concerns about the covert manner in which donations are made by corporate Ireland to political parties without disclosure, yet, on the other hand, when an attempt is made to bring this out into the open, which involves a charge on the public purse, they cry foul.
Irish society has undergone phenomenal change over the past decade. Old certainties have been cast aside and the Church, a pillar of society for generations, finds itself on the defensive. Traditions and faith and trust in individuals and institutions are crumbling on a daily basis. The political system and those pursuing the noble art of politics are in the firing line. This legislation cannot win in such an environment.
Politicians must be proactive outside this House. They must inform the people about the work done here and about the burden placed on elected representatives in discharging their duties in return for poor pay and conditions relative to the corporate sector generally. As Leader of Fianna Fáil since 1994, Deputy Bertie Ahern has adopted a hands-on approach to these issues. He will not accept the public perception that politics is a questionable profession or that the party he leads, of which I am proud to be a member, must be questioned. Political leaders should take it upon themselves, especially coming up to the general election, to press home the message that politics, serving the public and putting the interests of the community above personal interests is a noble art.
Perhaps there will come a time when the electorate will accept that the price of democracy is the funding of political parties from the public purse. Who better to guard against any future criticisms or failure by the establishment to account for public moneys than the people? What influence, if any, does a voter have when a large corporation decides to make a substantial contribution to a political party, indulges in creative accounting in its annual report to hide that fact and, when the dirt eventually hits the fan, is discovered to have been giving large regular donations to political parties? Even if that company and the recipient of the donation publicly state there is no undue influence being brought to bear as a result of that donation, a cynical public can be heard laughing all the way to the polling station.
We, as legislators, should introduce regulations on political donations and the funding of political parties and elections. Implementing such regulations, however, is the nub of this debate. The Government is putting forward these proposals, of which the public is not in favour. Perhaps it will be in five years' time. Government speakers will say we must be brave and take the initiative. However, if we do not have consensus in a democratic society, the law will not be implemented because it will be seen as an ass and people will laugh at it. We have enough problems without increasing the cynicism which already exists about the political process by implementing some of the measures in this Bill.
As the Minister is aware, our spokesperson on the environment, Deputy Dempsey, welcomed the broad thrust of the Bill. We are opposed to the specific proposals on funding from the public purse. We are strongly in favour of disclosure because there must be openness, accountability and transparency in any dealings between those who give money to a political party and politicians or the political system will descend further into the abyss of indifference and cynicism. There is no greater threat to democracy. There is an old saying: "When good men do nothing, democracy and justice suffer". Perhaps there was no gender balance at the time and it should say good men and women.
Having set out my stall in relation to the Fianna Fáil Party's approach to the Bill, I want to address the specific issue of constituency revisions. I welcome the establishment of an independent constituency commission. The Minister and those who have contributed to this section are absolutely correct in their thinking on this. My family, specifically my late father, suffered grievously from the gerrymandering of County Leitrim during the 1960s. There was a great deal of discussion in the other House about maintaining county boundaries. It was also said that the tradition and history of individual counties should not be breached in any way. Yet a political decision was taken by a previous Administration in the 1960s which breached the county boundary of Leitrim not once, not twice but three times. We ended up with a portion of Leitrim in Sligo/Leitrim, a portion in Roscommon/Leitrim and a portion in Donegal/Leitrim. I am glad an independent constituency commission is to be established. This confirms the development of a trend which occurred as a result of outrageous decisions such as the one I have outlined. I have no doubt that had County Leitrim's territorial integrity been maintained, my father would not only have had the honour of serving in this House, which he did with distinction, but would certainly have had a better than average chance of serving in the other House. I am sure there are many similar stories to be told in political families around the country as a result of political decisions which were taken behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms where lines were drawn on maps to allegedly maintain or pursue party political advantage. We also know this works conversely, as has happened.
I ask the Minister, in his reply, to give some insight into what his thinking and that of the Government is about a more radical change in the political process in this country specifically in regard to changes in the three, four and five seat constituencies. What is the Government's view on the proposal, floated by Deputy Dempsey on a non-partisan, cross-party basis over the last 12 months, to consider having single seat constituencies with a single transferable vote, or to have a continuation of multi-seat constituencies with a modified list system? The demands placed on politicians and the political system as we enter the new millennium cannot be adequately catered for by an electoral system which was created for the last century. There is a definite need for a debate in this area. It seems to me that politicians are shying away from such a debate. Whenever there is any public discussion on this issue, we are inevitably referred to de Valera's two failed attempts in the 1960s to change the electoral system. Fortune favours the brave, that was 30 or more years ago and time has moved on.
The demands placed on politicians and on modern government are such that it is unacceptable that Government Ministers, with the myriad demands placed on their time not only within the legislative framework of Ireland but because of our continuing and increasing responsibilities as members of the EU, must leave Government business or important meetings in Brussels to fly half way across Europe to attend a meeting in their constituencies. They must do this because the other three or four political representatives are at the meeting and woe betide them, come the next election, if they, too, are not present. That is farcical and unacceptable and it is past time it was dead and buried. This has nothing to do with participative democracy or representation, it is to do with practicality. If less demands of this nature were placed on a Minister or Minister of State we would have a better and more efficient political establishment, better government and better laws as Ministers and Oireachtas Members would be able to devote more time to the legislative process. I hasten to add that this is not a criticism of peoples' right to challenge their elected representatives on any issue. This has nothing to do with depriving people of access to their representatives or with keeping a Minister away from his or her constituency. Such changes would have very practical effects for good government. I would be interested to know the Minister's thinking in regard to the need to put a surgical knife to the electoral system in this country.
On the issue of public funding of political parties, it is interesting to note that the proposals are that payments are to be made to those parties registered in the Register of Political Parties, organised throughout the State to contest Dáil elections whose candidates obtain not less than 2 per cent of the first preference votes in an election. We are all aware that one of the parties currently in Government is hovering in or around that figure. I wonder had that party not been in Government would the figure still be 2 per cent. This goes back to the earlier point I made about the need for a radical shake-up of the electoral process. Many of our European partners operate a political system where unless a party receives 5 per cent of the national vote, it cannot sit in the national parliament.
Is that democracy?
I am not suggesting that we be equally radical but such a system operates in many European democracies. I am curious to know how the 2 per cent figure was arrived at. Is anything less than 2 per cent democratic? One could go down this road and come up with the purest form of democracy, as obtains in Israel, and we all know the kind of Government that exists there. I would like to see a debate on the percentage of national vote needed for participation in the national parliament in the overall context of electoral reform.
The Minister will be aware that for a considerable time there has been a campaign, initiated by a voter in County Mayo, seeking to have photographs placed on ballot papers. I understand that there is a real possibility this will happen for the European elections. Does the Government intend introducing this measure for all elections or is this merely a pilot scheme?
It is an experimental scheme.
There is a literacy problem in this country. Those of us familiar with the political process, or those who know presiding officers, know there are people who refuse to admit they cannot read.
Does the Senator want photographs on the ballot paper because he is good looking?
I was going to say the same about the Minister but that might get us into trouble. I am thinking in terms of the hidden people who refuse to concede they have a literacy problem and who spoil their votes.
That is true.
I am convinced that a certain percentage of spoiled votes may be accounted for by that. I fully support the idea of Friday voting and of polling booths remaining open until 10 p.m.
I wanted to make a final point about people who are on holiday abroad at the time of an election. Are there any provisions made for people who will be outside the country on holiday or business on election day? Such provisions exist in other countries and we should operate a similar system here, especially in relation to summer elections. We all know what happened about the four votes in north Kerry.
The issue of emigrant voting has been put on the back burner. It is a hot potato which I hope we can return to. Those living outside the country for economic reasons should not be disenfranchised.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill but have serious reservations on the question of party funding from the taxpayers' purse.
I welcome the Bill and am delighted with the Dáil amendments, amounting to over 230, discussed yesterday over the course of 18 hours and the fact that we have a memorandum on the Bill as amended in the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. I compliment the Minister on his presentation. It is a solid Bill and I am delighted that at long last politicians are prepared to discuss legislation concerning themselves. We are always discussing issues relevant to the proper running of the country and a Bill discussing our own position is long overdue.
I am annoyed that despite all the amendments and discussion of them, one political party does not agree with the provision for Exchequer contributions to political parties. I am unaware of any objections among the public to political parties receiving contributions from the public purse. There may be concerns but there is no general objection. I disagree with the idea that there should be more openness about private contributions to political parties rather than contributions from the Exchequer. I am in public life for a long time and if we are to achieve balance and have a better society we must allow people to pay for what they think is best. Every section of this Bill is outlining a course for the future.
We should be clear that the provisions of this Bill will not concern the coming election and will only come into operation on 1 January 1998. If there is a change in Government I would like Fianna Fáil, which agrees with the general thrust of the Bill but not the provision for contributions from the public purse, to readily admit that any donation given by a company over £4,000 must be disclosed. This provision is long overdue as is the provision under which an individual can make a maximum donation of £500. In the context of what has been said about politicians in general over the last few months, it is better for me to say to people on the door step that they are sharing the expense of political parties. This will make them more concerned.
The proposed commission is not simply concerned with money. Tip O'Neill, a great Irish-American politician, was correct when he said that all politics is local. Senator Mooney referred to 2 per cent as the level below which parties or persons should not receive money and the question of representation at national level in such cases was raised. Will anybody say to the public that a party which gets six or seven seats cannot sit in the Parliament or that a person who receives up to 7,000 votes is not entitled to a seat? I do not think this would be a constructive approach to democracy. There is a party with perhaps 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the vote which has six seats in the Dáil. Are they not entitled to representation? Senator Mooney made the point that those receiving less than 2 per cent should not be considered. That can be decided by the commission which will be established by a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court nominated by the Chief Justice.
Changing responsibility for constituency revision is also overdue. A motion was put before the public in Ireland regarding single seat constituencies not based on a PR system. One can only imagine how that would have worked for a particular party. Senator Farrell is well aware of the huge rejection of that idea. This underlines how astute the public is, something we should not forget. Irish voters are among the most astute in the world, something that has been proven over the years in general elections.
I am glad the provisions of the Bill are not coming into effect before the forthcoming election. It is very important that we make time to explain to the public what is involved in the Bill. Contributions to a political party in excess of £4,000 will have to be disclosed. This is a long overdue provision with which I agree. I am a Member for 14 years and this is the first time legislation concerning ourselves has been debated, with over 230 amendments put down to the Bill by late yesterday evening. We should not be afraid to support this Bill because openness characterises what is being provided for.
The current tribunal and the beef tribunal were the result of a lack of openness. We should not say to the general public that on the one hand we do not want money from them but that we still think we can do our job. I would prefer to say to them that it will cost £1 million per year, a total of 37p each. This is very cheap in comparison to the amount of money spent on the beef tribunal and on the current tribunal where the issue of certain people coming before it is another question.
In the absence of this Bill the need could arise for another tribunal in 12 months time. I do not want that to happen and would prefer to explain in detail to the public why contributions from the Exchequer should be provided for. In particular I ask that every section of the Bill be examined properly in order to explain to the public what it entails, because it is constructive.
We can argue about whether those receiving less than 2 per cent of the vote should receive money, but let the commission decide upon such things. Much debate has obviously taken place, a fact evidenced by the 230 amendments. Under the British electoral system, 60,000 people may cast their ballot, but the candidate who receives 20,000 votes will represent that constituency in Parliament. That is not a proper democratic system and one would not get away with it here.
Senator Mooney made a very constructive point. The Minister of State, Deputy Currie, is at the beck and call of everyone, yet he must attend constructively to his ministerial work. He has done exceptional work for children.
We should not be afraid to consider a single seat constituency PR system under which the person the public thinks is best suited to serve them would come to the front. That cannot happen under the British electoral system.
A long time ago a particular party leader proposed a single seat, first past the post system here, so that the person with the most votes would get the seat, but that is not democracy. In some areas of the European Union people with less than 5 per cent of the vote cannot have representation in parliament. That is not fair. Anyone who is elected at constituency level by the general public should have the right to take a seat in parliament.
We must take funding out of the hands of politicians and we should set up a commission under a High Court or Supreme Court judge to consider this. The commission should be in a position to consider the matter and produce a review, having invited and considered submissions. The commission would have the right to investigate any constituency and would have power to impose fines if audited reports to prove that no overspending has taken place are not produced by a constituency organisation, party or member. That measure is long overdue.
Some individual candidates are much better off than others because they receive more money. From a democratic point of view that is unfair to the other candidates. In the forthcoming election some people will be better organised than others and in my constituency and others I drive through, there are posters on public roads. One would question the cost involved and where the money came from.
Let us look at the last European Parliament election. I remember one candidate whose name was all over the Munster constituency for a full six months before the election. I am nobody's fool as regards finance and there is enormous cost attached to such matters. The candidate in question did exceptionally well and good luck to him. It is easy for me to say that because I am a politician and I am ruthless enough to know what politics is about, but the public is not. The commission will protect the public.
This is the most constructive Bill I have seen for a long time. The legislation deals with politicians who, in turn, are prepared to talk about each other. That is openness at long last. We should not be afraid to tell the general public in a subtle and constructive way exactly what this Bill is doing. I am delighted that it will not take effect until January 1998. The impression has already been given by particular sections of the media that the Bill is being railroaded through the House, but that is wrong. The amendment provides that, from January 1998, we can go to work on it. If there is a change of Government I hope there will not be major changes in the structure of the Bill.
Having listened to Senator Mooney speaking on behalf of his party, it is clear it has concerns about funding coming from the public purse. I disagree with that. It is much better to be able to say to the public that we are taking funds from the public purse because then no one can think that companies, groups or individuals who make contributions to a party will be favoured over somebody else. That should not be the case. I cannot condone it because for far too long, as the Minister of State said in his speech, that general impression was created. In other words, there was a doubt and one can imagine what a judge would say. Is it rumour, doubt or an impression? If even one ounce of an impression was given that a person or company was doing better than others because of contributions, it must be eliminated otherwise we cannot face up to the future.
We cannot claim to be entitled to contributions while trying to emphasise our openness to young people. I am involved in local government and in the Seanad. I have been Lord Mayor of Cork and have been involved with many people in business, but I have not seen anything that I would question regarding contributions. I do not want to see, hear or know about it, and if I do know about it somebody else will hear about it. As a public representative it is my job to do that.
I welcome the Bill which is constructive and long overdue. We should not railroad anything through the House. The Bill is vital. It does not just deal with money but with constituency reviews and disputes. It is prepared to investigate individuals or parties if matters are wrong in a constituency or constituencies.
A strong emphasis should be put on the Department to let the public know, through the media, what this Bill really means as it is much needed.
I broadly welcome the Bill. The days of church gate collections are coming to an end. It was grand in years gone by because only political parties conducted church gate collections. In most rural areas there were only two main parties. Fianna Fáil collected on one Sunday and Fine Gael collected on another Sunday. Now, however, people are becoming very annoyed because somebody is collecting outside every chapel gate every Sunday. Church gate collections have become a full time job with so many voluntary organisations looking for money. The general public is getting tired of having to contribute every Sunday and the result is that collections are getting smaller. Eventually they will kill off such collections.
I have no problem with administrative costs of 37p per person but I believe we can add another 63p because the cost of every State scheme seems to be astronomical. I do not know why these schemes cost so much but that is the case.
There has been much talk of commissions. We set up a commission to assess the salaries of Deputies and Senators but politicians did not have the courage to implement its findings and put them on the back burner. In that instance, money was spent on administration which was of no benefit to Deputies or Senators. However, the perception in the media was that politicians would receive huge increases. These were phantom increases because we never received them. The commission talked about increases but there is a great difference between talking about and receiving an increase. If one appoints a commission and it produces a report, one should implement it. If it does not suit, there is an á la carte approach which cuts out the unpalatable bits and implements the rest. That is not the purpose of a commission. We should either accept or reject all the proposals.
Commissions need good guidelines. Before the last local elections the boundary commission divided the counties into electoral areas, although the local authorities were given an opportunity to make representations to it. The views of Sligo County Council, for instance, were accepted by all the political parties but the commission put the Strand Hill area north of Sligo town in with the Ballymoate area, which is 20 miles south of the town. Therefore, a voter living in Sligo would have to go to Ballymoate to cast his or her vote. It was the most stupid division of a town and it suited nobody.
Commissions often decide there will be one seat for a particular number of voters so they draw a line on the map. Then it decides that the area does not include enough voters so it incorporates a portion from elsewhere to make up the numbers, regardless of the inconvenience to voters. According to Deputy Nealon, the last boundary commission even brought the constituency of Longford-Roscommon west and south of the River Shannon, which was stupid. The River Shannon has always been a dividing line between constituencies but that was not even taken into consideration. The commission broke all the previous boundaries. If a commission is set up for a purpose, it should do it systematically with the least inconvenience to people.
We all welcome the system of voting for travellers and people going on holidays, but we are shying away from a proper identity system. Is it possible to identify people who live in big towns and cities? I was monitoring the elections in Mozambique and every voter had a plastic card with a photograph and the person's particulars. Why are we all so afraid of identity cards? Everybody should have a proper identity card. Driving licences include a photograph and that is as it should be. Why not have an identity card for all services so we would know the exact identity of a voter because it is impossible for a presiding officer to be 100 per cent sure of the identity of a voter in any large populated areas? If one questions a voter and there is a problem, one is the worst in the world. People should have proper identification. If a person goes into a Garda station, he or she has a driver's licence but how would a garda know the identity of a passenger. If everybody had a proper identity card, every student and holidaymaker would have an opportunity to vote.
There is a perception abroad that part of the Bill is being put into effect now and the remainder next year but we should put all or none of the Bill into effect now because we have ended up with the worse of the worlds.
I do not believe anybody who gave money to political parties did so for personal gain because a business person cannot do anything, due to all the present rules and regulations, without receiving planning permission and having his or her tax affairs in order. It is impossible to conduct underhand activities. This is a perception which is fed by the media and cynics, but when one asks them to put up or shut up, they cannot produce one whit of evidence to show anything underhand occurred.
I have been in the political arena for 30 years and in this House for 11 years. A politician goes before the electorate every three or four years and if a person is elected, he or she must be doing something right. Do any of the people who criticises us leave their jobs and undergo a fresh interview every four or five years? It is easy to castigate, but this is a good democracy. Any Deputy or Senator who is not doing his or her job properly and honestly will not be re-elected. That is a fact. There is that safeguard. The people in the media and elsewhere who are casting aspersions on elected representatives should ask themselves whether they could pass the same test.
We, as politicians, must do something about this perception. I was delighted Deputy McCreevy and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, did something about it on "Questions and Answers" the other night. It is time this matter was sorted out. It is time journalists who indulge in snide innuendo were told to either put up or shut up.
I blame much of the problem of perception on education. How many schools teach civics, a subject which deals with democracy and the running of the country? How many children know anything about it? Why is it not part of the curriculum? Students graduate from university but they do not seem to know much about the working of the political system.
Politicians have a part to play in changing this perception. Unfortunately, they are not completely without blame because they do not seem to be able to debate the principles of an issue. They seem to enjoy attacking and making accusations against each other. While this mentality remains in the political system, people will be blamed for acting in that way. It must be remembered that we sowed the seed of that dissension. We cannot argue on principle, instead we attack personalities within the various parties. Party political life should be above that. We should argue on the Bills and other business before the House, not on personalities.
The Bill limits the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns, which is a good development. I am not very well off and I live in the west. I recall that in the past a number of millionaires representing all parties travelled around the country in an attempt to gain election to this House. These individuals had access to the best PR, advertising, etc., but they did not gain election. However, people such as myself and others who received an allowance for travelling expenses managed to do so. This shows that the public judges people for what they are, not what they have, and it is a clear indication of the calibre of people involved in public life. The greatest tribute that can be paid to the electorate is that they make their judgments on the calibre of candidates and not on the amount of wealth they possess.
By and large, the Bill is a good measure. I hope it will solve the problems it sets out to address. However, I do not believe any legislation will satisfy the sceptics and cynics who want to criticise the political system. Such individuals will always find something about which to complain.
I welcome the provision that candidates must declare donations of above £500 received from a single donor. However, two members of a company could each donate £250 or £400. It is impossible to make such provisions watertight. The best container will lose from evaporation what it does not lose from leaks. It is a pity the Government did not introduce this provision for the forthcoming election because, while the Bill will be enacted, we will not be allowed to receive donations. We should not be obliged to wait until 1998 for the Bill to be implemented in its entirety. If it had been brought into force before the election, everyone would have received a fair crack of the whip.
With regard to the percentage of candidates who will be permitted to receive donations, the trouble is that in many cases democracy means the majority. However, the current Administration is proof that minority groups can occupy a strong bargaining position. To use an old cliché, this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. I do not know how we can come to grips with this problem or how the correct threshold can be put in place. A great deal of consideration must be given to this matter.
I agree with the general thrust of the Bill which, by and large, will help to allay people's fears. I do not believe that people who made donations in the past did so with the intention of gaining anything from the political system because the regulations governing business life are such that it is impossible to flout the law. I do not believe that major business concerns gained anything from donations made to political parties. This matter has been taken out of all proportion and attempts have been made to turn it into a political football.
I welcome the Bill and I hope it will be successful. However, I would like a ceiling or cap to be placed on administration costs because I believe politicians will get the crumbs while administrators receive the big bucks.
I welcome the Bill but its introduction has come too late. I believe that its various provisions should have been in operation for the forthcoming election. However, there is no point in dwelling on that because we must look to the future. I understand that Part 1V will come into operation this year while all other Parts will take effect from 1 January 1998.
The first issue with which the Bill deals is the proposed constituency commission. Discussion on the division of constituencies is always heated. The word "hinterland", which is absent from the text of the Bill, should be included in the commission's terms of reference. Lines are often drawn on maps of district electoral divisions and townlands which are completely unrelated to the hinterlands of villages and towns. The constituency commission should take into consideration towns and villages and the lands which surround them; it should not divide hinterlands to fit in with arithmetic patterns. In my constituency the villages of Inniskean and Ballineen are joined together due to expansion, but they were previously in different constituencies. That is not fair because the villages in question cannot work together cohesively. The commission should take such considerations into account. I am also concerned about the division of county electoral areas. I do not believe it is correct to remove districts from areas in which the people traditionally cast their votes.
I welcome the provisions relating to funding of political parties and payments to candidates. The public will be able to clearly see how much money political parties receive for running their affairs. The allocation of funding will be based on the number of first preference votes gained by each party, which is fair and representative. If £1 million is allocated and a party gains 50 per cent of first preference votes, it will receive 50 per cent of the funding. That is a good way to resolve the situation. It must be clearly stated that payments to candidates means reimbursement of their expenses. Candidates living in far flung constituencies such as the one I represent incur major expenses in respect of travel, etc., during election campaigns.
The important issue concerning the funding of political parties and the reimbursement of candidates' expenses relates to accountability and information about the amount of money paid. A cloud of suspicion hangs over every politician because it is believed they are involved in underhanded dealings. There is no doubt that people believe that if they give money they will receive something in return later. It is essential that a document should be placed in the public domain whereby people can see the origin of donations and the way they were spent. This will end the awful suspicion that the more one gives, the more one will receive in return. Some parties encouraged that practice and it is not right that all politicians should be placed under suspicion as a result. I am glad that donations of £4,000 to parties and £500 to candidates must be disclosed. That is not out of line. I hope people do not fix the figures like Dunnes Stores fix prices — £499.99 instead of £500.
I am also glad limits have been set on the amount which can be spent in constituencies — £14,000 for a three seat constituency, £17,000 for a four seater and £20,000 for a five seater. If the maxima were higher, there might be huge advertising displays which would be demoralising for smaller parties and Independents. Their efforts would be dwarfed and it would be ridiculous. Such big displays can be counter-productive, however, as voters may think the candidate is trying to bulldoze his way in.
I am sorry the voting provisions will not be in place for the forthcoming election. My constituency has a 120 mile long coastline with many ports. Fishermen have to earn a living from the sea and may be away on election day. We should also consider people who travel around the country and abroad on business, people who have to travel suddenly and students. These groups should have the right to vote but we deprive them of it if they cannot have a postal vote.
I welcome the supplementary voting register. It has been in effect for a number of years and is helpful. The local person compiling the register may not be aware that some people have reached the age of 18 — most of the compilers do a good job but some voters can slip through the net. Also, a student may have been away for a couple of years and move back home without the compiler knowing. Consequently, the supplementary voting register is useful. I am glad the Bill provides for a supplementary voting register for people with a postal vote and for those on the special voting list. Sometimes people are called away on business at short notice so the supplementary register is most important.
Due to physical or mental handicap many people cannot go to a polling station on election day. If they are on the special voting list, an official accompanied by a Garda will call to their home and be told how they want to vote. What about a person who takes ill after the compilation of the register? He or she is unable to go out to vote and cannot avail of the special voting facility. I welcome the changes but I am sorry they cannot be implemented before the election.
Advertising the register is crucial. No matter how often they are told, people will forget to check the register, especially those about to join it and those who have moved house. Those who move think they can register a month before the election — if they are registered somewhere else they cannot, but if they are not registered elsewhere they can use the supplementary voting register. I welcome the principles of the Bill.
I welcome the Minister and this timely Bill, which has been sought by the public. We intend putting down a number of amendments. Legislation which is passed in a rush is not satisfactory to everyone, but this Bill is welcome. The public wants accountability and this will provide it.
When canvassing in recent by-elections, I found that many people resented parties receiving money from the public purse — they wanted to know why they should have to contribute £1 per vote, which was the figure mentioned at the time. However, we must realise that political parties are not run on hearsay. Years ago many people gave their time and effort without remuneration to keep political parties going. The parties grew and became more sophisticated over time, so they had to hire secretaries and assistants.
I am glad the Minister has set limits on the amount a party can spend in a three seat, four seat or five seat constituency, but how will he control it? In the United States, for example, companies contribute millions of pounds to political parties for election campaigns. I am glad this country will not turn into a banana republic where we are all up for auction to the biggest company. At least we will have accountability.
I have some questions for the Minister. If a candidate or a party breaches the expenditure limit the matter could be referred to the DPP with the possibility of a prosecution. The political game is winner takes all for whoever triumphs in the ballot box. If a person exceeds the limits with a big poster and press campaign but gets elected and another candidate stays within the limits and is beaten, will the DPP be empowered to remove the winning candidate from the Oireachtas and allow the person who played by the rules take the seat? I am concerned about this provision.
I am glad politics and elections are to be made accountable and transparent. Many people think politicians are wealthy and make a lot of money. I was proud to stand for my party in three general elections, but it broke me. I jeopardised my business, neglected my family and did everything I should not have done. Every penny came from my pocket. I do not know what I would have done if I had to pay and buy meals and petrol for my canvassers. As Senator Calnan said, we must consider the rural constituencies where people have to cover large areas. If a person puts a car at a candidate's disposal and pays for the petrol, or if a candidate and his supporters are given a meal, is that taken into account in election expenditure?
Many people think that when companies contribute to political parties, fringe benefits and backhanders are given on a "nod and a wink" basis. I was involved in numerous section 4 applications in Kerry — they were the norm at one point — but the person who benefited would hardly thank me. I supported many such applications because there were certain restrictions under the county development plan. If a person needed a few feet extra to build his or her house, I lobbied on their behalf because I believed it was right to do so. Many people thought that those involved in section 4 applications received backhanders. The people I dealt with hardly thanked me.
People call to my home and tell me that I have a fine house and car. They forget that one has a mortgage on the house, a loan for the car and is barely able to keep going. One tries to keep the credit union at bay and the bank manager happy. They have a perception that politicians make money hand over fist and it is good that this Bill brings these issues out in the open.
Traditional sources for funding are archaic. It is difficult to collect money, particularly outside a church gate. We have to run hops or whist drives, etc. to try to raise funds for a campaign. A political party cannot survive without finance. It must have manpower, offices and back up services and it must be efficient. The public expect it and members of the organisation demand such facilities.
I am glad limits will be introduced as this will benefit smaller parties. They cannot be exceeded and one party cannot dominate. Every candidate will be on an equal footing and will come before the electorate on an equal basis. Money will not deter them from running and if they obtain more than 25 per cent of the quota, they will have £5,000 returned to them. However, it is small money for any candidate today. A person is joking if he or she thinks a campaign can be run for £5,000. Friends, supporters, neighbours and family take time off work to help relatives during election campaigns. If a person wishes to give up their time to canvass for a candidate, will that be taken into account in the overall expenditure?
Some sections will not be enacted until 1 January 1998 and that is unfortunate. The sooner they are introduced the better. It is correct that donations to political parties exceeding £4,000 be registered. I cannot see why any person should be ashamed to say he or she is making a donation to a political party or candidate. I know many people who support two or three candidates from different parties and give a donation to each of them. I am sceptical about the notion of revealing donations over £500 to candidates. Senator Calnan was correct when he referred to the cut price rate of £499.99. I have yet to meet anyone who will give me a donation for a campaign. I am not as fortunate as others. Perhaps I will have to do some back scratching. It is good that where a private donation is given to a candidate, he or she can furnish receipts and be accountable.
The Bill states that each candidate must have an agent to submit his or her accounts. Will the agent be an accountant, an ordinary person or a family member? How does the Minister intend to break down the accounts? For example, are petrol, food, etc., to be listed? Does the expenditure limit for each candidate apply to newspaper advertisements and publicity or to the nitty gritty of the campaign where, for example, petrol must be supplied for two or three cars in a rural area?
Donations over £4,000 to political parties must be revealed. This could result in a similar situation to that involving donations to candidates. For example, donations of £3,500 may not be revealed. How often can such donations be made? Are they only to be given when there is an election or can a person make donations of £2,500 or £3,000 to a party three or four times per year? Is there a limit on the overall figure involved at the end of the election period? That will have to be examined.
The Minister of State said that a donation will include the value of property, goods and services provided free of charge or at reduced cost. Donations to branches, candidates, officers and members of a party will be deemed to be made to the party and, for the purpose of disclosure by the party, will be aggregated. This is vague. Will the Minister elaborate on that aspect? The Director of Public Prosecutions may be brought in if an individual breaks the guidelines. It will be the function of the DPP to prosecute or authorise prosecution for alleged offences. Offences under the Bill include failure to furnish a donation statement or a statement of election expenditure, furnishing false or misleading statements or incurring election expenses above the permitted limit.
A person could defeat another candidate by a few votes by exceeding the limits. The defeated candidate could be an upright and honourable citizen. The results in many constituencies are tight. I was a candidate in the 1987 election and four votes separated the final two candidates, one of whom was the Tánaiste. If candidates thought that they were that close to a seat, they could spend an extra few thousand pounds to get votes and defeat the opponents. Will the Minister of State elaborate on this? I was within 40 or 50 votes of winning a seat in one election and I often wondered if I had carried out a bigger newspaper campaign or gained more publicity would it have made a difference?
I now to turn to the Seanad election. The Minister of State said he wished to hear the views of Senators.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.
This legislation does not go far enough. It is good that the payments to politicians provision is being introduced immediately. The provision where each candidate must get 25 per cent of the vote to retain his or her deposit of £5,000 should also be introduced immediately.
If the political system is brought into the public arena, Senators and county councillors should be included. All politicians seem to be tarred with the same brush. If one politician is reported to have received a donation from an entrepreneur to help run his or her campaign, every candidate is labelled with the same tag. The Seanad elections are different as one does not have a campaign team. However, there is expense involved in printing literature and travelling around the country. One is away from home for around six weeks and one incurs accommodation expenses.
County councillors should also be included in the provisions. Many councillors have been reported as carrying paper bags containing donations. I have never seen that type of bag in Kerry. If a politician does the best favour in the world for a neighbour, he or she is lucky to get a pint in the local pub.
Or a lucky bag.
A politician is lucky if he or she even says hello. People thought a section 4 was everything, but that is a different type of instrument.
The system of disclosure and openness should include county councillors. By 1999 a range of organisations, such as those associated with the Leader programme, will come under the aegis of local authorities and they will have more autonomy with regard to their finances. County councillors and Senators should be covered by the provisions of the Bill to promote transparency and openness. The accountability provisions allow people to examine the system.
It is good that any drift in the system toward the American model has been stopped under which many good candidates cannot afford to run for election. Under the system proposed in the Bill it remains open to anybody to run for election. I welcome the Bill. We will propose some amendments on Committee Stage which we hope the Minister will take into account.
I welcome the Bill. I share Senator Kiely's wish to see its provisions extended. I am glad postal voting facilities for voters who cannot vote at polling stations are being extended. How will this work? One does not know in advance if one will not be able to vote at a particular polling station unless the date of polling is known well in advance. It may lead to people registering for a postal vote, yet being able to vote at their polling stations. For example, with regard to students, if the election took place during the vacation they would be where they habitually live. Will the Minister of State clarify whether they must use a postal vote once they have got it?
I am glad voting is to be extended to include those who have reached the age of 18 during the currency of the electoral register. We want to encourage young people to vote and it was not an encouragement if they missed out by a few weeks. This happened to one of my sons and it was a cause of some ire. I am also glad provision is being made for those who move house. It was unfortunate for people who moved and lost their vote because they could not have the register changed.
The Bill should have addressed the problems which arise when mistakes are discovered when a person goes to vote. A friend of mine who is in her seventies went to vote at the polling station at which she had voted for almost 40 years. At the polling station the register indicated that she was only entitled to vote in local elections because she had been born in Great Britain. While she had taken holidays there from time to time, she was born in Bray, County Wicklow. She got her passport and showed it to the returning officer but nothing could be done. It is unfortunate for the voter when such mistakes are discovered on polling day. The Bill should have addressed the matter. When people are excluded on polling day due to an error on the register, even though they may have voted in the past, great dismay can be caused. The Bill should have addressed the matter so that such genuine mistakes could be rectified. I do not know how it transpired that it was suddenly decided that a 74 year old woman was born in Great Britain. She has tried to ensure that all will be well at this election but without much response from Wicklow County Council. It will be interesting to see what happens at the forthcoming election.
With regard to the universities electoral registers, the Minister will have the power to decide whether the old or new register will be used. The old register closed at the end of February but the new register does not come into effect until 1 June. This means that in the case of Trinity about 2,000 voters — who I am sure are only too anxious to vote for me — will be disenfranchised. I am sure the figure is higher for the NUI list. Leniency, so to speak, has been given to people to be included on the general electoral register and I hope the Minister will direct that the new universities registers will be used if the Dáil is dissolved and there is an election before the end of June.
With regard to the payments to political parties, I think it is far better that we know who makes payments to political parties and that the State should make some payment. However, I am not sure how it will encourage the election of women and young people to the Oireachtas. It would be better if the political parties followed the example of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, who ensured that a sufficient complement of women and young people were put forward for election in seats that could be won. It is often the case that women and young people are run in constituencies as a sweeper, so to speak, for one or two middle aged male politicians. It may be pie in the sky to think that the payments will make a difference in that regard.
The Minister sought advice on the level of payments and the limits for candidates' spending in Seanad elections. It is a good idea to have such limits because we do not wish to see extravagant spending. President Clinton's re-election campaign spent about $80 million, although election to the Seanad is not as expensive. If the political parties receive £1 million for election expenses in the Dáil elections that only works out at 37p per elector, which is not very much. Let me give the example of my constituency, Dublin University, where there are three seats. If we were funded on the same basis as a three seat constituency, that is at £14,000 per seat, given that we have about 30,000 on the register that would allow us just over 40p per elector. That is not very much. Mercifully, I have not had to spend that much on a campaign.
The amounts in the Bill do not appear to be index linked. Rather they appear to be linked in some way to Civil Service pay. On reflection, perhaps that is a better way to link them. We must be careful to ensure that the limits are realistic. The NUI Senators have a constituency of about 80,000 electors and on the basis of the funding outlined above would only have about 15p per elector. We have a free postal entitlement for one mailshot, but the costs mount up when one takes into account printing and other postal costs.
When decisions are being made on the levels of funds for Seanad elections, I hope it will be remembered that the university Senators rely on a postal vote and that while 60 to 70 per cent of our electorate is in Ireland the remainder is located abroad. They are the only element of the diaspora who get a chance to vote for Members of the Oireachtas. I believe the Government has a commitment to address the issue of voting for those emigrants who wish to have a stake in the affairs of the Oireachtas. It is important to facilitate that.
In our deliberations on the suggested changes in the composition of the Seanad, naturally I was not much in favour of Dublin University or the National University of Ireland losing their representation. However, the vocational interests of the country need to be served as well as possible in the Seanad. That was why I suggested that some of the seats being allocated to other groups could be given to the regional technical colleges, the University of Limerick, Dublin City University and the Dublin Institute of Technology, for which university status is proposed.
Those of us who must rely on a postal vote are in a separate situation from those who rely on the votes of previous Oireachtas Members and county councillors. I hope that will be taken into account when the Bill for the Seanad is brought forward.
I wish to express my appreciation of this very useful and constructive debate. Many issues were touched on, either by way of suggestion or to seek clarification. I hope to deal with the main issues as fully and helpfully as I can.
Senator Mooney referred to a number of matters concerning public funding for political parties. As I said at the outset, the amount to be provided is modest in the overall context. When one regards the implications of the limitation of election expenditure and donations disclosure, the amount being provided for is reasonable. If there is criticism, we should argue the case for public funding.
There will be public accountability for the use of the funds, where everybody will see for what the money was used. The extra paperwork involved is necessary if full accountability is to be achieved. The Bill provides that the Public Offices Commission will issue guidelines on the various matters in the Bill. Every effort will be made to provide the guidelines in simple and understandable language. The Senator said he was in favour of openness and accountability; the Bill's provisions will help in both these matters.
Senator Mooney asked if there are any plans to change the PR system. There are no plans to change the present system, but the recommendations of the All-Party Commission on the Constitution in its final report may assist in the debate on this matter.
Senator Mooney also raised the issue of candidates' photographs on ballot papers in Dáil elections. The European Parliament Elections Act, 1977, enables candidates' photographs to be included on ballot papers for European elections on a trial basis. I had the pleasure of introducing that Bill. This issue has been the subject of discussions and representations by public representatives for a number of years and was supported earlier this year by the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs.
Subject to resolving any technical problems, the intention is that candidates' photographs will be included on the ballot papers for the 1999 European elections. The question of including photographs on other election ballot papers will be considered in the light of experiences at those elections. The technical problems being examined at present are twofold. One relates to ensuring the printing process can generate photographs of sufficient quality on ballot papers. The other is the time factor. Ballot papers must be printed immediately after the close of nominations to maximise the time available for postal voting. Returning officers would have to check photographs to ensure they matched the names on the ballot paper, in addition to the wide range of other duties they must perform in the run up to an election. As Members know, our election campaigns usually last three weeks.
Senator Mooney also raised the matter of votes for emigrants. When this matter was considered in this House very recently, widely differing views were expressed on the proposals. The Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, while endorsing the principle of Seanad representation for emigrants, proposed that the six university seats in the Seanad should be abolished and the number of emigrant seats increased to at least five.
What a terrible thought.
I did not say I agree with it. Five emigrant groups expressed varying degrees of opposition to Seanad representation for emigrants, even as a first step towards full voting rights. Thirty nine other organisations and individuals commented on the proposals, eight of which were fully supportive while the remainder were either opposed to the proposals or indicated reluctant acceptance of them.
A full review of the proposals was carried out in the consultation paper by the Minister, taking into account the views of all respondents. In the light of that review the Government decided, given the divergence of views, not to proceed with the proposal for the election of three Members of Seanad Éireann by Irish emigrants. I cannot say at this stage what action will be taken on this matter in the future, but I have no doubt it will be a matter of ongoing discussion.
Senator Farrell referred to the drawing of constituency boundaries by the commission. The terms of reference are set out in section 6. While the commission has to have regard to geographical considerations, the constitutional provision concerning population per Deputy takes precedence over other considerations. Previous commissions have outlined in other reports the reasoning behind their decisions. It is a difficult task, particularly when the constitutional provisions must be implemented.
Senator Farrell also raised the question of identity documentation and the desirability of a uniform identity card. While we have not reached that point yet — it might be somewhat down the road, in fact — I would like to put on record that for the past ten years provision has existed in electoral law under which an elector may be asked to produce any one of a list of documents set out on the polling card before being given a ballot paper.
Senator Farrell also referred to the possibility of a person making more than one donation over £500 to a public representative to avoid having to disclose the contributions. All donations made by a person to the same political party or public representative in the same year will have to be aggregated. If all such donations exceed the disclosure threshold they will have to be disclosed.
Senator Calnan expressed his disappointment that the new postal voting arrangement for fishermen and others will not apply in the forthcoming election. The reason for that is the time factor. Local authorities need a minimum period to arrange for public notice to be given and to allow applications to be made and considered. Unfortunately, it is unlikely the necessary period will be available before this election. However, as I indicated in my opening statement, all the new provisions relating to postal voting are supplements to the register proper for special voters and postal voters and will apply at any other poll taken before 15 February 1998, including the Presidential Election.
Senator Dan Kiely asked if the election of a person who was found to have exceeded the spending limits could be called into question. The Bill envisages that the election of a person in that position could be questioned. However, section 44 makes it clear that an election shall not be invalidated if it appears to a court hearing on an election petition that the non-compliance with the spending limits did not materially affect the result of the election.
Senator Kiely also asked whether expenses incurred by election workers, such as petrol for cars used in the canvass, would have to be included in the candidate's expense sheet. Such items will not be regarded as election expenses of the candidate unless the person involved is doing the work on a professional basis and is being paid for the service. The cost of voluntary work or the use of one's car is not included in the definition of election expenses.
Senator Kiely referred to the proposed funding of candidates' election expenses and limits on election expenditure for Dáil elections. The Bill includes Senators for the purposes of furnishing donation statements annually. It does not provide for comparable expenditure or recoupment of election cost proposals in relation to Seanad elections. It is intended to have separate legislation drafted to cover such elections.
Senator Henry raised the question of postal voting for students. If a person is on the postal voters' list, the elector cannot vote at a polling station. In the case of mistakes or omission from the register, they can apply for entry on the supplement to the register. In the case of anyone taken off the register for some reason, registration authorities will be instructed for the next register that they be written to before their names are removed from a register. Therefore, the likelihood of somebody turning up at a polling station and finding their name is not included on the list of electors is unlikely to occur again.
Despite the fact that the lady was 74 years of age, she was listed on the register as "L" which means she could only vote in local elections. She was told she must have been born in Great Britain. She knew this was not the case because she had always known she was born in Bray. She then brought them her Irish passport indicating where she was born, but she was still not allowed vote because there are no facilities for that.
In other words, the instruction going to franchise offices will cover such eventuality in that a person's status will not be reduced as a result of an error. A person will have to be written to before their status is changed from a full voter to a limited voter.
I believe I have covered all the issues raised. I thank the Senators for their contributions and attention.
Question put and agreed to.
As the Bill was received from the Dáil only last night, some amendments may not yet be drafted. When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Today. It is proposed that we adjourn until 3.15 p.m.
Committee Stage ordered for 3.15 p.m. today.
Sitting suspended at 2.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.15 p.m.