SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Thursday, 22 Mar 2007

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee Stage.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Healy-Rae. This meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration by the select committee of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2007. I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and his officials to the meeting. With members' agreement, I suggest that unless the Bill is completed earlier, the select committee will continue until 12.30 p.m. at the latest. In the event that the Bill is not finished in select committee by that time, do members agree to go beyond 12.30 p.m. to complete Committee Stage today? Agreed.

SECTION 1.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. Cuffe

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, to delete lines 34 to 51.

I trust the Minister was not delayed in traffic this morning.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche)

No, two meetings in the House have already been concluded.

Mr. Cuffe

I note his apology at the outset of the meeting.

I oppose the imposition of a deposit of €500 for someone to stand for election to Dáil Éireann. In the 19th century, only the wealthy could vote or put themselves forward for election. In the 21st century, it appears that wealth will give a candidate considerable advantage. Even in 2007, the sum of €500 is not insignificant. When I first ran for office in 1991, my entire campaign cost £900, which is perhaps between two and three times greater than the sum of €500. More recently, many Green Party candidates in the local elections ran their campaigns on between €1,000 and €2,000. The obligation to present €500 to stand sends out the wrong message to those who wish to seek public office. Many candidates who put themselves forward for honourable, noble and important reasons simply do not have the wherewithal to place €500 into a box at the outset of a campaign. In Dún Laoghaire, the inner city and other areas, this will represent a considerable obstacle to putting oneself forward for office.

It could be argued that on removal of a deposit, many people will put themselves forward for election. This is not a bad thing and I also note the second requirement regarding the use of assentors for someone to put himself or herself forward for office. Consequently, there will not be a huge rush of dozens of candidates were the €500 deposit removed and it should be got rid of. Money talks in modern Irish politics and members should do everything possible to remove the financial obstacles to putting oneself forward for office.

While I understand that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will be taken together, I will only deal with amendment No. 1 initially.

Mr. Gilmore

I support Deputy Cuffe's tabling of these amendments. On Second Stage I drew attention to the provision included by the Minister in the Bill to the effect that an independent candidate may be nominated by lodging a deposit of €500. I pointed out that the reason the original Act had to be amended was that the courts had struck down the use of deposits as a means of nominating people as candidates. Although the Minister will say this it is not an absolute requirement and is an alternative to getting 30 assentors signing the nomination papers, it introduces a two-tier system into the method of nominating candidates.

On one hand, there will be a system that is perfectly democratic, which I support, namely, those who will not be nominated by a political party and who will not submit an assent or nominating form from a political party will require nomination by a number of electors. That is correct, as is the proposal that those who so nominate a candidate will not be obliged to appear simultaneously before the county sheriff or returning officer to have the nomination made valid.

However, the idea of having an alternative to such a system will allow for two types of Independents. One kind will not have €500. I appreciate that in the context of the sums of money that some candidates appear to spend at present, €500 would not buy too many bottles of champagne. However, many of those who offer themselves as independent candidates are often driven by a single issue, having been prompted by a community activity or whatever.

It is wrong to include a two-tier system in this Bill, whereby one can turn up with 30 assentors or, if one does not wish to bother to gather such a number, one can come up with €500. There should not be such a two-tier system in which one method is based on producing money, while the other is based on the production of lists of assentors. Members should stick with the latter as the method for nomination, which would be the same for everyone, regardless of whether they have money. This would be democracy as I understand it. I agree with Deputy Cuffe that the deposit provision should be deleted. The Minister is running a risk by reintroducing a deposit as it was struck down before. What would happen if it is struck down again? Where would that leave arrangements for the election?

Mr. Roche

The contributions made illustrate the diversity of opinions in this regard. The objective of the two-tier approach that is being applied is to make it easier for people. Some people may have difficulty in getting the requisite number of assentors. The amendment proposes that unless one can get the requisite number of assentors, one cannot go forward. Interestingly, in the Second Stage debate in the Dáil on 8 March 2007, Deputy Gormley stated:

There is provision in the Bill for a deposit of €500 and I fully understand the reasons behind that. We do not want people standing willy-nilly in elections. One could have a ballot paper the length of one's arm and it is a waste. It is important there is some hurdle. Obviously, people should get their money back.

The Deputy continued by stating: "I agree with the idea of a deposit, although others do not." Clearly, there is diversity of opinion within the Green Party on the issue of deposits.

Mr. Cuffe

The Green Party is a broad church.

Mr. Roche

It is not always consistent. One man's broad church can be a manifestation of rank inconsistency in the opinion of another. However, I will leave that issue aside.

Deputy Gilmore raised a more substantial issue in respect of the legal question. The first point is that the provision was included specifically to give people an alternative way to be nominated. The irony is that the amendment would make it more difficult for those who were unable to get the requisite number of assentors.

The Supreme Court judgment is interesting on this issue. It will be helpful to the committee if I quote directly from the Supreme Court judgment in which it refers to the deposit of £300 that was required under the Electoral Act 1992. It states:

In contemporary Ireland it is difficult to comprehend how a sum anywhere in the region of £300 or its equivalent in Euro (or more if inflation is allowed for in the meantime) [that is, since 1992] could be considered a disproportionate measure for such a legitimate purpose or to involve invidious discrimination, given the costs necessarily incurred by candidates and the possibility, at least in certain circumstances, of a refund of the deposit. That is on page 22 of the Supreme Court judgment.

I am satisfied that the deposit proposals are very reasonable, fair and constitutionally stand. Certainly, the figure mentioned here is entirely in accordance with the view of the Supreme Court. In respect of introducing a deposit, the concerns one might validly have that it could trespass in some way on the Supreme Court judgment are dealt with in that section of the judgment on page 22. It is fair, constitutionally sound and part of an overall package. The measure is reasonable.

The amendment proposed by the Green Party would eliminate the choice that a non-party candidate would have. It would give a candidate no option but to use the assentor system and makes the arrangements introduced in the Bill less, rather than more, flexible. It introduces difficulties for an assentor who may have a point and wishes to stand in a constituency on a single issue and make some statement on it. It makes it less easy because, of course, one would have to fulfil the requirement.

It is also interesting from the point of view of making comparisons, which we always do. It would be helpful to look at international experience, which shows that there are widespread arrangements for having some prerequisite before one becomes a candidate. This prerequisite was dealt with Deputy Gormley in his thoughtful contribution, which I believed represented the Green Party's views in the Dáil. Clearly, it did not.

Some states, for example Austria, Australia, the UK and the Netherlands, require both assentors and deposits. Deposits are very commonplace internationally, as is some form of authentification of nomination. Where assents are used, the typical pattern is to require many more signatures than is the case in Ireland. For example, in Portugal, 5,000 assentors are needed, while in the Netherlands, which is always regarded as a pinnacle of liberalism, 570 assentors are required. A total of 500 assentors are required in Italy, 200 in Germany and Belgium, 150 in Denmark and 100 in Austria, Canada and Finland. I will not go through all the other countries.

Compared with the €500 deposit here, the deposit in the Netherlands, which is frequently cited as a place we should follow, is €11,000. In the UK the deposit is €740, while in Austria it is €435. As I stated previously, significantly more assentors are needed in these countries than are needed here.

I do not think the proposition as it stands is constitutionally infirm. By way of international comparison, it is hardly what one would call unfair. When one considers the point of view put forward by Deputy Gormley in the Dáil on 8 March 2007, one can see that it is commonsense. It accords with the views expressed by many Members in the Dáil as fair and reasonable. It is constitutional and these are minor hurdles internationally. For these reasons I do not accept the amendment.

Mr. Cuffe

I respect the views of the Minister and note his discussion of the Supreme Court's views, but both he and the members of the Supreme Court are on six-figure annual salaries. He must look at those who regard €500 as a large chunk of money.

I remember the late Ms Kathleen Maher standing for office in Ballymun some ten years ago. She did not have huge support and certainly did not have a very significant amount of money. Nonetheless, she was a very strong community activist who ran for high office, ran a good campaign and got a decent amount of votes. It would have been very difficult for her to run if she had to put down a €500 deposit. It is a Victorian anachronism akin to the requirement until very recently for a person to get a ratepayer to sign his or her application form in order to obtain a library card. Many things are there because they have always been there, but this does not mean they are right.

Obviously, I respect Deputy Gormley's view that one does not want a hugely crowded field of paper candidates. Indeed, rumours have gone around that some of the major parties have put forward candidates in order to reduce the votes of opposing candidates with similar sounding names. We do not want to go down that route, but we must seek a median.

The assentors route is probably the best way of addressing this. We should remove impediments to standing for office based on one's financial standing. It sends out the wrong signals and I would be much happier if we simply had the requirement for perhaps a smaller number of assentors. I do not think the field would get two crowded. The Irish electorate is smart and capable enough to discriminate between those who are standing for decent reasons and those who are simply standing to crowd out the field.

Mr. Roche

The system envisaged in the Bill is internationally one of the simplest and easiest systems to become a candidate. Deputy Cuffe should be not under the impression that both are needed — this is not the case. It gives people an option other than the assentors. One can have one's assentors over a lengthy period during which the voting register is in operation. It depends on when an election takes place, but one's assentors can certainly be gathered over a period of several months. If one cannot gather the assentors, one can pay a €500 deposit, on which the Supreme Court has spoken and which I have illustrated is significantly lower than that in the rest of Europe. I am more inclined to the view of Deputy Gormley that some steps are needed to than I am to the view of Deputy Cuffe.

Mr. Cuffe

Imagine for a moment if, in order to be considered for appointment to a committee or board, one had the two options of getting support from one's colleagues or putting a lump of money down. Imagine if, in order to be considered for nomination to the Ard Chomhairle of Fianna Fáil, one had the two options of getting one's colleagues to support one or putting €500 on the plate. I am sure the Minister would not consider that system and would say that choosing the financial route or the support of one's colleagues is a ridiculous way of allowing people to go forward. The Minister should think on that for a second. I am sure he would reject that, certainly within his own party.

Mr. Roche

I might think the financial route would be a much easier way to go forward. I am making the very point that I made earlier to the Deputy. Deputy Cuffe said that requiring people to go forward by the assentors route might be more complex than simply putting down a deposit which is returnable in certain circumstances and which is minuscule in comparison to the €11,000 deposit in the Netherlands. The deposit is a fraction of what it is elsewhere.

Mr. Cuffe

I do not wish to discuss the internal finances of the Minister's party, but I was simply throwing it out there to illustrate the fact that money should not be considered as a possible way into consideration for office. The moment one brings it out of a political arena, it looks ridiculous. I simply do not believe it should be there.

Mr. Gilmore

I thought there was a deposit system for appointment to State boards and that the plate on which the deposit was put was the Galway Plate.

Mr. Roche

That is very droll. I will not refer to a certain regime.

Mr. Gilmore

I would not mind.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 12, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.-The provisions of section 1 regarding the manner of making nominations shall apply with any necessary modifications to European and local elections in lieu of the relevant provisions of the European Parliament Elections Act 1997 and Local Elections Regulations 1985 as amended by the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002.”.

I am advised of an omission from the Bill. If the Electoral Act 1992 is unconstitutional due to the flaw in the nomination process, the European and local election legislation is unconstitutional for the same reason. However, the Minister does not appear to be dealing with the electoral processes in question in this Bill. My amendment would ensure the provisions are extended to the European and local elections, avoiding the necessity for further legislation.

Mr. Roche

I accept that legislation will be needed for these purposes. During our initial discussion on the Bill, I pointed out that instead of using the old imperfect system of changing a line in legislation and making people work through a series of Acts, we rewrote the basic legislation in the sense we wished. That is a better way of making law than the piecemeal approach and should be adopted in the local and European cases, which is the Deputy's point.

I accept that there will need to be changes in law, but it would be better to do so in a holistic manner rather than in a bits and pieces way. Changing law a bit at a time and requiring people to examine seven or eight Acts is fraught with difficulties and makes navigating legislation difficult for people, particularly those about whom Deputy Cuffe was concerned before he left the meeting. Redrafting legislation totally is a more coherent and better practice. There would not have been time to do it in this legislation, but it will be done.

Mr. Gilmore

I propose that it be done in a holistic way, but the Minister seems to suggest that we will need to amend the local government and European Parliament Acts separately.

Mr. Roche

We would.

Mr. Gilmore

Doing it in one go would be easier than introducing new legislation. This is the type of issue that might be overlooked. I do not know what flagging system is in place to ensure the necessary amendments are made to the local government and European Parliament legislation in good time before both elections.

Given that there are fixed dates for the elections, it has been the practice for the nominating process for candidates to take place well in advance. In respect of the European Parliament elections, people can be in the field a year beforehand. Similarly, candidates were nominated a year before the last local elections. When is it intended to introduce the necessary amendments to allow sufficient lead-in time?

Mr. Roche

That is a fair point. There is a season for elections, but that season is getting longer. Our system is becoming like the American one in that people campaign for four years before an election.

Mr. Gilmore

Some people look like they are campaigning for American elections.

Mr. Roche

Certainly. I passed through the Deputy's constituency.

Mr. Gilmore

A few people in my constituency are declaring for governor of California.

Mr. Roche

I can appreciate the Deputy's difficulties. I am mystified by the expenditure level of a particular candidate in the Deputy's constituency, given the billboards and posters. The candidate does not look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he seems to have Arnold Schwarzenegger's deep pockets for fighting an election. However, that is a different day's work. I hope the candidate has all of his pre-election posters down when the election is declared. Otherwise, he will find himself in certain difficulties with the Standards in Public Office Commission.

It is not as simple as making the change proposed by the Deputy. In any event, legislation will be needed next year arising out of the constituencies issue. The franchise section is mindful of this fact and has the work in hand. It is a more appropriate way to achieve what is necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today.

Mr. Roche

I thank Deputies for their contributions and I assure Deputy Gilmore that the work, particularly in respect of the amendment he graciously withdrew, is under way in the Department. It is a better way than tabling individual amendments and the same approach will be adopted whosoever sits in this seat.

Mr. Gilmore

We will be over there.

Bill reported without amendment.