Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Dempsey.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "Electoral Act, 1994" and substitute "Electoral and Party Political Funding Act, 1997".
A substantial part of this Bill deals with electoral law and I have no difficulty with having it described as an electoral Bill but a substantial part of it also deals with party political funding and matters related to party political funding, the registration of parties, etc. It would be more honest to describe it thus. It is an Act to make provision for matters electoral but it is also to make provision for the funding of political parties. As such, that reference should be in the title of the Bill.
It comes back to the point I made last week on inviting submissions on the Bill. Without having invited any, there have been a couple. If it had the opportunity, An Post would also make some observations on the Bill. In keeping with the thrust of my approach to this Bill, we should be up front about it and spell out clearly what it involves. Most people would regard electoral Bills as simply involving matters to do with elections and without the insertion of this wording in the title they are likely to be deceived by what they see.
I support this worthwhile amendment. The title of a Bill should indicate its substance. That should apply to all Bills irrespective of the subject matter involved. The title, as proposed by the Minister, is misleading in as much as it does not indicate the full thrust, principle and substance of the Bill in question. I accept it is an electoral Bill but the taxpayers need to be told at the outset that at the heart of this Bill is a proposal that they will be called upon to pay for electioneering. We must be honest and upright with the citizens and we should not mislead them with the title of a Bill nor should be seek to introduce legislation by stealth by using a title which only conveys a fraction of the intent and content of a Bill. I appeal to the Minister to take on board this amendment in the name of Deputy Dempsey and give this Bill a title which would indicate its content and intent clearly from the outset. Anything less can only be seen as misleading the electorate.
As Deputies will know, the idea of a short title is to be all encompassing. If one wanted to encompass all the individual components of this Bill, one would insert many other things in the short title. That is never done. This Bill will make provision for a constituency commission, the disclosure of political donation, party funding, a limitation on election expenses as well as amendment of electoral law, such as the extension of postal voting. All of those matters are not encompassed in the short title of the Bill. The Bill involves a fundamental change in electoral law and that is why it is the Electoral Bill. It was so entitled when it was originally published in 1994 by my predecessor, the then Fianna Fáil Minister, and contained a component on the funding of political parties and it was quite acceptable to Fianna Fáil then.
In terms of the comment about it being pursued by stealth, the notion of stealth is that one does it slyly, discretely and quickly. This is the slowest moving Bill with which I have dealt. It was published by my predecessor, it has been years in gestation, it had to take account of Supreme Court decisions in the interim and the Bill before us is very well thought out, so I reject that assertion. Other amendments have been tabled which, if they are accepted by this committee, will add further to the scope of the Bill, such as the establishment of a referendum information commission——
It is out of order.
——and the registration of political parties. It is not the practice nor the policy to try to reflect every issue in the short title of a Bill. I ask Deputies to accept the logic of this and deal with the substance of the Bill in an open way.
All of the other matters to which the Minister refers were subject previously in one way or another to electoral law. The one matter which does not appear anywhere previously in relation to electoral law is funding of political parties. I accept the point about the constituency commission, etc. However, there are fundamental differences involving the sections dealing with election expenses, the funding of political parties and other matters. Therefore, it should be included in the Title of the Bill. Will the Minister ensure that it is included? In order that the Minister need not waste his breath reiterating what Fianna Fáil agreed on previous occasions, Committee Stage would be very short if he put forward the Bill to which my party agreed. This Bill is fundamentally different——
It is fairer.
It is not.
It reflects the Supreme Court decision.
It is not fair to Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, but the latter party is so interested in trying to remain in Government it will not upset the Minister. Thankfully, I am not hampered by the same constraints. The Bill represents a real attempt to tie the hands of both major parties but we can deal with that matter later. I believe the amendment is reasonable and clear. If the Minister accepts it we can proceed to deal with the next amendment.
The Minister was inaccurate when he stated that this Bill is the longest running piece of legislation before the Houses. The Bill before the committee is fundamentally different from the initial Bill introduced in the Dáil and it has been changed in many ways. There are 150 ministerial amendments.
They are merely technical amendments designed to update the legislation.
At our previous meeting, I recommended that, because of the nature and scale of those amendments, the Bill should be reintroduced in the House and a new Second Stage debate initiated. The legislation varies to such an extent from the Bill as presented that the Minister is inaccurate when suggesting that this version has undergone a lengthy gestation period. That is not the case and the reality is the opposite. The Bill is being rushed through with inordinate haste. That part of the Minister's argument is not acceptable.
It is an open-ended debate.
If there was proper respect for the manner in which legislation is treated in the House, it would have been correct and proper to submit the Bill under a new title and reintroduce it to the Dáil for a Second Stage debate. The same applies to other legislation, such as the Universities Bill, being hurriedly debated at present. That is not the way to make laws.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Noel. Byrne, Hugh. Cullen, Martin. Dempsey, Noel. Keaveney, Cecilia. |
McDowell, Michael. O'Hanlon, Rory. O'Keeffe, Ned. Wallace, Dan. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Broughan, Thomas P. |
McDowell, Derek. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Mitchell, Jim. |
|
Creed, Michael. |
Nealon, Ted. |
|
Finucane, Michael. |
Penrose, William. |
|
Howlin, Brendan. |
Ring, Michael. |
|
Kenny, Seán. |
Ryan, John. |
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, lines 18 to 20, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) The Electoral Acts, 1992 to 1996, and this Act may be cited together as the Electoral Acts, 1992 to 1997 and shall be construed together as one Act.".
These are purely drafting amendments to the collective citations in section 1 to take account of the fact that the Bill was not enacted in the year in which it was presented. They amend various references to collective citations to the Bill and other Electoral Acts. It is purely an updating and I ask that they be accepted on that basis.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (3), line 23, to delete "1994" and substitute "1997".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, lines 25 to 28, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) The collective citation 'the European Parliament Elections Acts, 1992 to 1997' shall include this Act in so far as it relates to European elections and the European Parliament Elections Acts, 1992 to 1997 shall be construed together as one Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, lines 29 to 32, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) The Local Elections Acts, 1974 to 1994, and Parts VII and VIII, in so far as they relate to local elections, may be cited together as the Local Elections Acts, 1974 to 1994, and shall be construed together as one Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The effect of subsection (6) is that the Minister can choose when to bring in the Act or implement any part of it. I strongly object to this. For instance, he could introduce the provisions on expenditure of political parties at Dáil and European elections while delaying Part IV relating to the disclosure of donations. If we are putting in place a single electoral system — which I think is hugely mistaken — it does not make sense for the Dáil to allow the Minister to omit all or any section of the provisions on disclosure of donations or to give him discretion as to when they should start. I ask the Minister to explain why he is giving himself the power to introduce different parts of the Act on different occasions and selectively to apply parts of the Act at his discretion. That is completely unwarranted and a disgrace.
This is standard in virtually all complex legislation to allow for the drafting of the appropriate legislation. It is my intention to bring all the sections into force as quickly as is practicable after the Bill is enacted by the Oireachtas. The Deputy will be aware that the Child Care Act, the Waste Management Act and many other statutes are introduced in a manner which is practicable, invariably through an enabling provision of the type referred to by the Deputy to enable the Minister to do so.
That would be all very well if we could ever take into account the Minister's intentions. I never heard a Minister tell a committee that he had no intention of introducing a particular part or section of a Bill but the Statute Book contains many sections in various codes which have never been implemented. Sections 19 to 23, inclusive, involve the disclosure of donations and under section 1(6) the Minister is entitled to say he will commence the other provisions of the Bill without bringing those sections into effect. The Minister is asking me to take his word for it but why should I?
I am an honourable person.
Come off it. If the Bill becomes law why should he have the power to introduce some parts of it and not others? This is supposed to provide a single approach to electoral law and I see no reason why the Minister should be given the power to state that the disclosure of donations shall not take effect until he decides.
If there is a particular difficulty in regard to my intentions as to disclosure and if, as is clear, my word is not good enough for the Deputy, I invite him to bring forward an amendment to that section when we reach it——
Which section?
——to bring it into operation on the enactment of the Bill, notwithstanding this clause. That could be introduced on Report Stage. Of all the sections of the Bill I am anxious that one should have immediate impact. Further, I will have lower thresholds for disclosure if that is supported by the committee. I have no difficulty with this point. This is a standard provision in any large, complex Bill. To instance one area, it will take time to bring into effect the postal voting regime.
Will it apply to the next election?
It will depend, first, on the period of time it takes to enact this legislation, which I cannot be clear about, and, second, on the date of the election. However, it is my intention, with the co-operation of this committee, to have all the elements of this Bill in operation for the next election.
Why does the Minister not simply withdraw section 6(1) and say this Act will come into operation on the day it is passed?
For the reasons I have just given. There are other sections of this Bill which will require careful thought in terms of drafting the regulations.
Why does the Minister not get on with it?
I am not master of the date of the next election, no more than I am master of the length of time it will take for this Bill to pass. It is fair and reasonable for the standard provision to apply. If, as I said, the Deputy has concerns about one section on which I have given my word, that section can be focused on separately.
I am asking the Minister to indicate which sections or parts might not be in force before the next general election.
I have already answered that question but I will repeat, for the sake of clarity, that it is my objective that all sections will be in force for the next election. However, I am not the master of either the length of time it will take——
The Minister can draft the regulations now.
——to enact this legislation or the date of the dissolution of this Dáil and the calling of the next election. Both of those are outside my immediate power.
I ask the Deputy to accept my bona fides as regards trying to have this legislation in place. It is my intent to have in place for the next election a disclosure threshold, an expenditure limit and the ability of candidates who hold their deposits to have some measure of their expenses recouped. We can debate those and other provisions such as postal voting and the establishment of an independent electoral commission, which will not come into play instantly.
I do not know whether the election will be at the very end of this year or within the next number of weeks. I cannot focus my decision making on the clauses of this Bill on what might be the date of the election. I ask the Deputy to accept my good faith in this matter.
All of us, including Deputy McDowell, accept that different provisions of an Act can come into force at different times. That is a standard procedure in Bills. However, we rarely debate such a political Bill which affects every one of as individual Members of the Oireachtas and officers and candidates of political parties.
Deputy McDowell's point is very valid. I note what the Minister said about amendments on Report Stage. He could be put under severe pressure to put in place the section relating to disclosure before the election and he could decline to put in the section relating to the funding of political parties. He keeps referring to discussions on this matter when Fianna Fáil and Labour were in Government. Both matters went very much hand in hand and part of the difficulties which arose in relation to producing a Bill hinged on this central point.
We could end up with the worst of all worlds where disclosure provisions would be included, of which we are in favour, but with none of the "benefits" of the Bill. We must, at the very least, have something in the Bill to indicate that the commencement orders for Parts IV, V and VI will be at the same time.
I will look at that for Report Stage if that satisfies the committee.
Question put and agreed to.