Amendments Nos. 7 and 101 are related to amendment No. 6 and all may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 4 and 5, to delete the definition of "‘the Act of 1977'".
The Bill, as drafted, contains reference to various provisions of the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977. That Act was repealed by the recently enacted European Parliamentary Elections Act, 1997, which restates in consolidated form the law relating to European elections. These are purely drafting amendments to change the cross references to the provisions of the 1977 Act which was in the original Bill to the corresponding provisions of the newly enacted 1997 Act. I ask the committee to accept these technical amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 7 and 8 to insert the following definition:
"‘the Act of 1997' means the European Parliament Elections Act, 1977;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 is related to amendment No. 8 and both may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 43 to delete "Number".
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 amend the definition of the consumer price index number to take account of the new consumer price index series, the base period for which will be November 1996, as advised by the CSO. It is simply an updating of the consumer price index to the now accepted definition.
Will the Minister indicate the section in which the CPI comes into play?
The reference is in section 60, page 45.
Why is the CPI provision an enabling section rather than being mandatory? Why is the Minister allowed to disregard the effect of inflation? Why is there not a specific statutory duty on him to revise the figures every 12 or six months in accordance with the CPI?
It is simply a matter of convenience. If the current inflation rate is under 1 per cent——
I know that at the moment it may not mean anything.
——it would be meaningless to try to adjust it. When there is a meaningful figure to amend one will be obliged to do that. However, one is not obliged to do it on an annual basis, which could be quite meaningless and provide for odd sums of money.
I am not against rounding it up to the nearest pound. However, 1 per cent of £5,000 is £50, which is not nothing. I do not see why it should be anything other than mandatory. I do not see why Ministers should say they will let it be eroded for a number of years and then they will think about it.
They would argue about it at Christmas.
Exactly.
We will debate this when we reach section 60.
That is a long time away.
I sincerely hope not. This is simply a definition of the consumer price index; there is no difficulty in just refining the definition in modern terms. I will happily answer the questions in relation to making it mandatory. I am trespassing on section 60 but, as elections are generally not annual events, it makes sense to round up the figures when it is appropriate to do so. I have no objection in principle if people are focused on doing it annually, but we can address that issue in section 60.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 46 to delete "1989" and substitute "1996".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 6 to 10, to delete the definition of "‘non-party candidate'".
The amendment provides for the deletion of the definition of "non-party candidate" because it is no longer necessary due to the revised funding proposals. Under the proposed new provision for reimbursement of candidates' election expenses, non-party candidates are treated in the same manner as candidates of a political party. They are all entitled to a refund of election expenses subject to specified conditions. The amendment proposed that there be no reference to non-party candidates in the Bill. It is not needed, because in implementing the McKenna judgment no quantifiable difference is made between party or non-party candidates.
I accept the Minister's comments on funding, etc., but I have proposed amendments to other sections of the Bill which would provide that constraints would be placed on politicians, a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a political party or a Member of the European Parliament.
In connection with payment or disclosure?
Both. If a person decides to be a candidate at an election but is not a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas or a local authority he can accept donations of any amounts under the terms of the Bill. Similarly, an independent member of a local authority intending to become a Member of Dáil Éireann can accept all kinds of donations. This puts elected Members of the House and of local authorities at a disadvantage. In view of this, the definition of "non-party" should remain at least until Committee Stage has been concluded.
The Deputy's amendments do not refer to non-party but to individual politicians. Amendment No. 95 to section 19 in the Deputy's name states: ". . .after "party" to insert "or politician". The definition of "non-party" is therefore not relevant to what either he or I want to do. We want to ensure that everybody is treated fairly, but this does not require the inclusion of the definition of "non-party". It does not occur in the Deputy's amendments.
That is correct, but I am trying to provide for non-party people——
That can be done by disciplining anybody.
This is an important point. A non-party Deputy in my constituency——
Deputies are covered.
It is important to distinguish between party and non-party members. The non-party Deputy in my constituency gets a direct payment from the Exchequer which I do not receive.
It amounts to £10,000.
This must be unconstitutional. We may be highlighting an untenable position here. I am one of four Deputies in the constituency, one of whom gets approximating £10,200 to use as he likes, provided he accounts for it. I do not have that opportunity.
This is an important point. The Bill must be seen as standing beside the parliamentary allowances legislation that was enacted just before Christmas. According to our legal advice, it is impossible to draft a funding mechanism, other than the one we have drafted, that is fair to everybody. One cannot advantage, in terms of electoral expenses, parties who do not get people elected if they get the same quota of votes as somebody who did not get a person elected on a national basis.
We have devised a process where parliamentary allowances are payable for parliamentary research, work and support, but these are payable to the parliamentary parties. However, under the legislation introduced by the Minister for Finance and enacted by the Oireachtas a payment was introduced for the first time for non-party Deputies to give them allowance for research, support, back-up, etc. While it is not paid to individuals in a party but to the party on a collective basis, the individuals have access to the support generated in terms of researchers, back-up, data, etc. It would be unfair to deprive non-party Deputies of access to public funding for the same reason.
We have removed party funding from the original measure, except for everybody who gets 2 per cent of the vote in a general election, regardless of party affiliation. Every party who gets 2 per cent of the vote will be entitled to access this new party fund, whether or not they have party representation.
Where is that provided?
Sections 14 and 15 cover the relevant aspects. Finally, we have provided for the possibility of recouping election expenses up to a maximum of £5,000 if the quota is retained.
The effect of these measure will be to advantage individual Members, not parties.
It is enacted——
I cannot see how it can be right that the only non-party Deputy in my constituency can claim £10,000 personally. This Bill will further accentuate that because it provides that individual Deputies will be able to claim back as much as £5,000. Will that be the case for party members?
Yes.
No, my party will claim it.
The first point made by the Chairman is not relevant to this Bill. That debate is over in that legislation has been enacted. Our constitutional advice is that it is impossible to fund political parties for their parliamentary activities, which has been the case for generations, and not fund independent Deputies. Independent Deputies need access to parliamentary research and support in the same way as others. It would be unfair for an independent Deputy to have no support for research or back-up when the Chairman, as member of a party, has a funded research department or a funded back-up system from the State. It is not suggested that what is in place is adequate, but everybody is treated fairly under the new system, which is right and proper.
The recoupment potential for election expenses must be on an individual and not a party basis. Each candidate will make the declaration and if candidates expend more than £5,000 they will be entitled to recoup a vouched £5,000, assuming they save their deposit with 25 per cent of the quota. That will go directly to the candidates and not the parties.
Many people found the Supreme Court decision bizarre. It is equally bizarre that the Government is using it as a basis for the Bill.
It is within the Constitution.
I disagree. Article 15 of Constitution——
Deputy McDowell's hour is approaching.
——states that Members of the Oireachtas are entitled to payment for expenses incurred as parliamentarians. This provision specifically includes travel, etc. That is one element of the three pronged approach and there is no need to justify it. Provision is made for it in the Constitution and the McKenna judgment means nothing in that context.
Deputies who have a party title cannot be treated differently from other Deputies.
We accept there are different types of equality in terms of passing laws which are fair to as many people as possible. However, some people lose out. The McKenna judgment and the fact that Members of Parliament are being financed cannot be used as justifications for the Bill. They are separate matters.
I have difficulty accepting the logic of the Deputy's argument. The Bill stands on its own merits and I will argue it on that basis. The approach is linked. The parliamentary supports have been removed but the traditional way in which parliamentary allowances were paid has been amplified to encompass every Member of the Oireachtas for the first time. This aspect was covered in the Bill in December. Similarly, this legislation seeks to treat all candidates equally. Party and independent candidates will be treated identically in terms of recouping a portion of election expenses.
The recoupment of political funding is not predicated on one's success in the election other than in terms of the votes one receives. That may appear to be one and the same but it is not. A party could get 2 per cent of the vote nationally without having anybody elected or having two candidates elected. The advice I received was that I could not make that distinction. If funding is to be made available for political parties, it must be on the basis of treating all parties equally. That is the general thrust of the Bill. It is a fairer system than the one which pertains.
The other way of treating everybody equally is to give nothing to anybody.
That is true.
Save the taxpayer.
That brings us back to the fundamental argument about whether we should have a State funded political system or one which is funded by individuals or corporate funding.
Or trade unions.
There is great public disquiet about corporate business funding of politics and politicians. A tribunal of inquiry is dealing with that issue at present and the matter must be addressed. It has been addressed in many other democratic societies, such as the United States which is planning to tighten its disclosure thresholds.
It does not work.
We must address the issue. Otherwise, those with clout in society, that is, those with money, can support political parties and individuals and those who do not have access to money have a lesser chance of advocating their cause. That is fundamentally undemocratic and wrong. The approach in the Bill is not virgin territory. It has been well travelled in other jurisdictions where there are disclosure thresholds. If members want a tighter disclosure threshold here, I have repeatedly said that I am open to it to ensure there is confidence that people are not buying influence in political circles. The corollary is that the State picks up some of the cost of funding the political system to enable that level of openness to be established.
That is part of the problem. The Minister mentioned the UK but one cannot compare the position there with the Irish system. The arrangements in the United States and elsewhere, with the exception of Malta, cannot be compared with the Irish system because Ireland and Malta are the last two countries in the civilised world with multi-seat constituencies and proportional representation. I do not accept that people can buy influence and votes. I accept there is a perception that if somebody gives a huge donation to political parties, he or she expects something in return. However, if we base politics on perception, we are going down a bad road.
There are relatively few very wealthy people in Ireland trying to influence the political system. The proportion is tiny and a politician who tries to satisfy a small minority of wealthy people as opposed to the wishes of the majority of his or her constituents would not be elected. Everybody is aware of examples — the Minister mentioned one last week — where people spent thousands of pounds trying to get elected to local authorities. I cannot name one person who was elected on that basis because it turns people off. We can discuss fundamental aspects but we cannot compare the position in Ireland with other systems. Our system is open and people have access to politicians in a way that does not exist elsewhere. I do not accept the contention put forward by some commentators that people with money have more access to politicians. I have a series of clinics on a weekly basis and any Tom, Dick or Harry can put across his point of view.
We are aware of the public's reaction to what happened before Christmas in relation to the Bill. It is obvious now, in a way which was not clear previously, that the public does not want to fund political parties except under the current system. They do not want taxpayers' money used for that purpose. I do not want to knock on doors and meet people who will ask how much their vote is worth because I will receive £5,000 for seeking votes. I do not want to face that during a general election. Taxpayers do not want to fund political parties and I ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill.
It is relevant to consider sections 15 and 16.
I referred to them.
It appears that there is a proposal to give £1 million to parties——
Did the Deputy not know that?
——in accordance with how they did in the last election, for the duration of the lifetime of a Dáil. That is fine but it is most unfair to new parties because they must fight an election against other candidates funded by the taxpayer. If one was to set up a new party like the Progressive Democrats or split, like Proinsias De Rossa did from the Workers' Party to set up Democratic Left, one would take on the taxpayer for the remainder of the life of that Dáil. They keep the money and the person setting up the new party gets none; that person has to fight the election against parties that can use the taxpayers' money to subsidise party activities to prevent him or her getting elected.
The Minister has said he does not want a situation where money can buy influence in politics. I agree with the principle that over a certain threshold, certain contributions to the political process should be made public. It will make it clear that a rich person giving money to a party has influence there and the public can draw conclusions thereafter. Also, it will have the obvious effect that the Labour Party wants: it will stop those contributions not because the contributor is ashamed, but because everyone can see what he has done. It will expose people to the inverse of influence, which is victimisation. That is very serious. A person who supports the Progressive Democrats or Fianna Fáil could be victimised by his opponents for something done in private, not intended for the public domain. This is State control. It is saying one cannot give £600 to a friend standing for the Dáil without that going on the public record, which is outrageous. Many good friends have given me moneys of that order in the past to help my campaigns. They had nothing to gain, they are friends but they would be exposed to publicity and muckraking journalism.
That works both ways.
They can now go under certain limits but the Minister is trying to prevent people giving contributions to parties, which is what this is all about. People will not do this in future; they do not want their names in a list in The Irish Times as happens to lawyers doing criminal aid. There would be lists of people who contribute to me but it will not be a long list because in future people will not contribute.
It was said of Dr. Garret FitzGerald that he would say something was fine in practice, but how would it work in theory, and this is a prime example of that. The result of this will be that the funding of political parties will collapse. They will be more and more dependent on the State. Those who bend the rules and take brown envelopes will prosper under this regime. Idiots like me who feel a moral obligation to comply with the law will spend their lives filling out forms and asking people not to give £600 but to split donations. That is what will happen because of this theoretical, ideological, Stateist Bill, designed to stop political parties from being independent of the State. It will also stop new parties opposing the present parties because for the first three to four years of their existence they will be fighting the taxpayers' money and will be unable to raise money from the public. If the Progressive Democrats were founded now, with this Bill enacted, we would be opposing parties working with State funds and would be unable to get funding from the public, without their names being reported in the newspapers. That is deeply unfair and it is what the Labour Party is about: bringing in ideological State control.
The Deputy should save that for the Sunday Independent. I can see an article coming.
I agree with Deputy Dempsey. The people do not want this. The Minister can read a Sunday Independent poll which showed that 87 per cent of people did not want this.
And 92 per cent did not want to pay income tax.
So what? Why does the Minister feel he knows what they want better than they do? If it comes to political honour and integrity we can match the Minister more or less with our record. Nobody could say the Progressive Democrats, privately funded and in favour of private funding as we are, are less honourable than the Labour Party, which is imposing its views on us.
I share the concerns of my colleagues on this side of the House. The Bill is fraught with danger in that there is a risk of discrimination against parties in favour of individuals. Our democracy has served us well and nobody would challenge that. Over the years, many rich people did badly at elections but perhaps the Minister could rethink aspects of the Bill.
He referred to a tribunal sitting at present. Perhaps the terms of reference of that tribunal to make recommendations to the House on how these issues should be addressed. Today's debate does not encourage me and we may damage the democracy that has served us so well by introducing legislation that will frustrate the present system in multi-seat constituencies.
Having had ideological perspectives pressed upon me, I will respond to those before proceeding. This is the core of the Bill and Deputy Michael McDowell is right; people with money should be allowed to spend money as they choose in funding political systems. However, we have come through a period of 10 years or more where people have spoken of golden circles——
Who spoke about that?
——and deals where money was suspected of going to political parties. There are parties who, in policy terms, would make it a profitable investment for companies or individuals to invest in a political ideology. A great number of people do not have access to such money and they are gravely disadvantaged by our system. Deputy Dempsey said it will not have an effect on the individual. However, the focus is not on the individual but on the political parties. At election time, large political parties spend huge sums of money campaigning. We are trying to put a rational cap on what can be spent. I do not know if Deputy McDowell has a view. It is wrong ——
That we should try to get our policy across to people.
We are being given money each year between elections.
That is to run a political system. One million pounds is very small to run a political system as developed as ours. I hope it will not allow a situation to arise where a political party will be able to spend £2 or £3 million on an election, as suspected in the past. The laissez-faireattitude of Deputy McDowell and others is to fill newspapers with advertisements. It is not fair on those who cannot afford to spend such money and who represent people who cannot afford to do so. That principle was not invented by the Labour Party or by me but it is one which is enacted in the laws of many developed and good capitalist countries because they see the distortion of the proper democratic procedure which is implicit in a system where undisclosed dollops of money go to politicians or political parties to be expended at election time and where there is an understanding that although one may not do a favour for the contributor, one knows where their friends are.
That is an unreasonable accusation to make against people who subscribe to political parties.
It does not apply to everybody but there are those who hold that view and there is a suspicion in this regard. Deputy McDowell said the people have no enthusiasm to fund political parties, but they are also opposed to corporate funding of political parties.
There will be limits on that.
There will not be limits. The proposal is simply a disclosure threshold. If the Deputy wants to impose limits, I will be happy to consider it.
I am convinced this principle is not novel. I understand why some Deputies have difficulties with it but it is fair, reasonable and the principle towards which most democracies that have not already enshrined similar provisions in their system are moving. I said publicly at Christmas when discussing the other Bill that people must make up their minds to support some measure of State funding for the political system or a system which is beholden to donations, well-intentioned or otherwise.
People may talk about raffles and church gate collections which are important but large parties also generate substantial sums of money. Members do not have to tell me that because I was in negotiation with the large parties and I knew they needed time to generate huge sums to pay off debts. That was explained to me when I was in negotiations before this Bill was introduced.
They will have even larger debts with this carry-on.
I am not happy with a situation where a party feels it can generate money of the order of £1 million, £ 2 million or more from the corporate sector. There may or may not be any strings attached. What we propose is a fundamental measure of reform and I ask Deputies to support it.
Will the Minister withdraw this amendment until we go through the Bill and deal with the sections about which we are concerned? He can resubmit it on Report Stage.
I can live with that. I am advised it does not occur anywhere so that we do not need a definition. If it makes the Deputy happy, I will withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14 to insert the following definition:
"‘personal representative' has the meaning assigned to it by section 3 of the Succession Act, 1965;".
Amendment No. 11 provides for the insertion of the definition of the expression "personal representative" in section 2. That expression is used in sections 18, 25 and 44, as amended by amendment to the sections. It refers to a situation where a candidate dies subsequent to the election but before the disclosure of money.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 14 after "except in" to insert "Part VI or".
The term "political party" used in the Bill, other than in section 60, is defined as a party registered to contest a Dáil or European election. However, it is necessary to provide for a wider definition if the expression is to be used in relation to Part VI which relates to expenditure at a presidential election. Expenditure at a presidential election on behalf of a candidate by any party, including those registered to contest local elections, must only be subject to the requirements of that Part. It enables the principles which apply at local and European elections to apply to presidential elections.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 14, after "means a" to insert "political".
In section 2 the expression "political party" is defined. This is a technical amendment to that definition. For the sake of completeness, the word "political" is being inserted before the word party to put beyond doubt that we are referring to a political party as opposed to a party.
What about an unincorporated body sponsoring a candidate? Is the Minister excluding organisations such as the ICMSA, the IFA or the pro life movement?
No, they are dealt with separately.
We live in the real world and if we allow people sponsored by unincorporated bodies a completely relaxed regime and hammer candidates of political parties, there will not be a level playing pitch.
That is declarable.
The Minister is creating a notion of a political party. I presume the ICMSA is not registered as a political party, but supposing it ran candidates in every farming constituency and poured money into their campaigns, will we find out who is giving the money to the ICMSA so the candidate can get sponsorships?
They must declare themselves. Section 28(7) states:
Before incurring any expenses at an election a person (other than the national agent of a political party or the election agent of a candidate or a person authorised by any such agent for the purpose of subsection (4) who proposes to incur election expenses (within the meaning of this Part), shall furnish to the Public Office Commission in writing—
(a) the name, address and description of the person proposing to incur the expenses,
(b) a statement of the nature, purpose and estimated amount of such expenses, and
(c) an indication of the person's connection, if any, with any party or candidate at the election.
That does not cover where the money comes from. If the ICMSA proposes to give money to Joe Bloggs who is standing as an independent farmer in County Meath, it is not clear whether it must say the money came from Tony O'Reilly or Michael Smurfit. It does not have to be transparent, but political parties must say from where their funds come.
If the ICMSA is expending money it is required to declared that openly.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 20, after "election" to insert "or a local election or a referendum".
The definition of "polling day" in section 2 refers to a polling day at a Dáil, presidential or European election.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 23, to delete "20" and substitute "21".
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are technical amendments to the definition of the Public Offices Commission established under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. The amendments are required to provide for the correct reference to the Act and to a provision of the Act in section 2. This is just technical cross-referencing.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 23, to delete "1994" and substitute "1995".
Amendment agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 7, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsections:
"(3) Where a provision of this Act imposes a duty to be performed in respect of a preceding year or a year the reference in that provision to year shall in relation to the year in which the provision comes into operation be construed as a reference to the period between the day on which the provision concerned came into operation and the following 31st day of December.
(4) Nothing in Part V or VI shall apply to the incurring of expenditure before the coming into operation of those Parts.".
This amendment provides for the addition of a new subsection in section 2. The wording is convoluted but I will explain it. In essence the amendment deals with two issues, the donation statement and the statement of election expenses. With regard to election expenses to be declared and donations to be declared, this provision will only come into effect on the enactment of this Bill. There are two forms of declaration in relation to donations, one for the receiver of the donations and the other for the accounts of the company which makes the donation. It would normally be understood that measures of this type should not be retrospective. This amendment clarifies that point.
Speaking specifically of the forthcoming election, the Minister is saying this legislation will not have retrospective effect. If a party or Deputy has already paid for posters which will be used in the campaign, or has received donations, they will not be affected by this Bill? Does this Bill come into effect on the day that it is signed by the President or on the day of the commencement order of the regulations?
Amendment No. 17 means that in relation to donation statements and expenses incurred, the clock would start subsequent to the date of the enactment of the Bill. That is not the day it is signed by the President but the day it is brought into effect by statutory instrument. Expenses incurred before the Bill is enacted would be exempt.
Or donations received?
Yes. We could not implement this retrospectively, but to avoid doubt I am making it explicit that the year, for these purposes commences——
Between the coming into law of the Act under the statutory instrument and the next 31 December.
Yes, the next end of year.
I was warming to this this morning and I would like the Minister to think about it. If a £50,000 cheque is on its way to the Labour Party, the Minister can select the day on which this Bill comes into operation——
If there was any cheque coming which I wanted to avoid declaring——
The Minister can guarantee any contributor to the Labour Party that he will fix it so that they will not have to declare a contribution. Joe Soaps like me have to sit and wonder when the ministerial pen will sign the statutory instrument. That is wholly obnoxious.
The Deputy is being more than disingenuous.
I am thinking of how I might behave.
Since the Deputy wants to make a party political point, all the donations——
If our roles were reversed the Minister would be deeply suspicious if I alone knew of the date on which all donations could be received without being declared.
The day the Deputy can sign any statutory instrument fills me with terror.
The Minister has seen nothing yet.
That is what I am afraid of. Any donation to my party is a matter of public account. I have no more freedom that anyone else in determining the date on which this Bill is enacted. That is a matter for the Oireachtas. My only decision relates to the date of commencement. I want this Bill commenced immediately after its enactment. We should not get hung up on the commencement date.
The purpose of this amendment is to avoid placing people in a position that is illegal. Any reasonable person would think it unfair to put in place legislation with retrospective consequences. The commencement of these regulations will be subsequent to the enactment of this provision. That is normal and fair. If people have difficulty with that principle and wish to have an earlier commencement date——
A definite commencement date.
I cannot pre-empt the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Minister can say this shall come into effect on, for example, 15 May or such earlier date as he may prescribe. He should make us as aware as he is of when donations become discloseable. There is no need for a situation to develop where the Minister can choose to sign a document in the Customs House from when everything will become discloseable. I strongly object to this.
There are two points of view being expressed. I strongly agree with the principle of ensuring that this legislation is not retrospective. That is reasonable.
I agree with that.
This matter was discussed on section 1(6) when I said I would happily look at a Schedule for commencement on Report Stage. I have given that commitment.
Everybody knows this legislation is being discussed and they have an opportunity to get in their donations.
Up to a point. When we look for donations people ask about the legislation. This amendment clarifies the position and people would be happy to donate.
I am not encouraging people.
It is most objectionable that one player can fix the time that suits his political interest.
That is profoundly unfair.
It is not, it is simply factual. If the Minister were in my position he would say exactly the same.
I am promoting legislation and I want the commencement date to be as soon as possible after enactment. I am giving that guarantee. If necessary, we will go through all sections and write in the specifics on this on Report Stage. The Deputy need have no fear. I shudder at the prospect of anybody trawling around to get in money in advance of the commencement order being signed.
What planet was the Minister born on? He should talk to his party fundraisers before he shudders.
I probably come from a different political culture. We do not have people slushing in money of the order that would be discloseable under this section.
Unfortunately, neither do we.
Is the Minister saying that his party does not receive donations over £500 from anybody?
I did not say that. I said we do not have a slushing around of large sums of money.
Neither do we.
I want the provisions for disclosure to be in place as quickly as I can organise it. It is in the interests of democracy and politics that——
The Minister should be under no illusion. The Labour Party has raised considerably more in corporate donations than the Progressive Democrats Party has since 1992. That is a fact. I have looked at the Labour Party accounts.
I will show Deputy McDowell the accounts for Westmeath.
Deputy McDowell has an advantage over us in that our accounts are open to him while his party's accounts are not open to us.
More fool the Minister.
And all the money was not raised on £100 a plate lunches. I am concerned that we might complete Committee Stage and Report Stage by the week after Easter and that an election could be called suddenly.
Can the Minister tell me how the commencement of this Bill will operate in relation to section 16? If section 16 is brought in by statutory instrument on a date prior to the dissolution of the Dáil, will the £1 million be divided?
No.
How much of the £1 million will be used?
Nothing will be payable to political parties under that section until after the election. The proportional distribution of the money will be based on the result of the next election.
Can the Minister refer me to that provision?
It is provided for in an amendment.
Is it only being brought in now?
It is part of the tranche of new amendments. They are all related.
I wish to be clear about this. Is the Minister saying that one of the 150 amendments prevents any party from receiving any money during the lifetime of this Dáil?
Yes, absolutely. I refer the Deputy to amendment No. 82.
Is that an amendment to section 16?
It will not be section 16 as it will be changed.
I could not follow it. The sections keep changing.
It provides that the first payment should not be made until at least three months have elapsed after the declaration of the result of the general election following the coming into effect of this part of the legislation.
The Minister indicated that the legislation is only prospective regarding donations from the date of commencement of the Act.
That is correct in relation to all the provisions. We cannot retrospectively legislate on this matter.
Members of the Oireachtas are strictly accountable under the ethics in Government legislation for any donation in excess of £500. Therefore, they are put at a disadvantage. Does that include election expenses?
No, election expenses are covered in this Bill.
Are they explicitly exempt?
They are exempt from the ethics in public office legislation.
If somebody says "Here is £1,000 for your election campaign", that is not covered under the ethics in public office legislation.
Disclosures of that kind would come under this Bill. There is no requirement for a double disclosure.
If somebody offers me £1,000 towards election expenses——
For the sake of clarity, double disclosure is actually required. It is covered under the ethics legislation if it is a gift to the Deputy himself.
Is "gift" sufficiently wide to encompass a donation towards election expenses?
Yes, apparently so.
The effect is that there is complete discrimination, as a result of these legislative measures, between Members and non-members of the Oireachtas contesting elections.
We will redress that imbalance through the enactment of this current provision.
The fact is that the imbalance is there.
Both measures will dovetail when we enact them.
Will a person contesting an election, who is not a Member of the Oireachtas, be obliged to make any disclosures of gifts prior to the lodgment of papers with the sheriff?
That will happen subsequent to election.
Consequently, even when the legislation is enacted, there will be a complete differentiation between Members of the Oireachtas and non-members contesting elections.
There is a burden of disclosure placed by the Ethics in Public Office Act which applies to all office holders, including Members of the Oireachtas, chairpersons of semi-State bodies and others designated under the Act. That is over and above any burden that will fall upon them as candidates in an election.
Is it accepted that, prior to being elected, they would make out a declaration equivalent to that which they would if they were a TD? Why should one group of people, because they are in office, contest elections with a degree of public knowledge of their affairs, whereas their opponents in an election are completely exempt from it?
With respect, we are mixing up the requirements of the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Bill that is currently before us. The burdens, about which the Deputies are complaining, fall on people by virtue of their membership of the Oireachtas. That is right and proper. If that disadvantages them, it is because there is a degree of transparency required.
The instant the Dáil is dissolved, we are no longer members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
That is right. One can collect as many gifts and so on as one wishes.
Therefore, the Ethics in Public Office Act does not apply to us, excepting Ministers and office holders.
I did not draw up the Ethics in Public Office Act myself. If the loophole, to which the Deputies refer, exists, it would be well to enact the Electoral Bill soon to ensure that loophole is plugged. The Electoral Bill applies to every candidate seeking election.
Only from the time they lodge papers with the sheriff.
No. It is retrospective in so far as once somebody is a candidate the disclosure is subsequently required.
They can only be a candidate when they have lodged their papers with the sheriff.
How far does it relate back from that?
It relates back to the commencement of this Act for the current year and thereafter on an annual basis.
In subsequent elections, will it relate back to all election funding?
Absolutely. There will be an annual disclosure——
This is so ridiculous.
There will be a declaration of expenses subsequent to any election.
If the measure is enacted this year, there will be a real differentiation between candidates and it is possibly unconstitutional to attempt to bring the measure into force for the forthcoming election. Different groups of candidates are being discriminated against because of the short period between the commencement of the legislation and a general election.
How are they being discriminated against?
Because private individuals are free to raise as much money as they like.
The reality is that the Deputy has burdens placed upon him, not by virtue of his candidacy but by virtue of his membership of the Oireachtas.
We will not have those burdens once the Dáil is dissolved.
The Deputies' declarations will have to be up-to-date to the end of the previous year.
When I am making my declaration for the following year, I make it from January to the 8 April this year when the election is declared. Then there is a period of a week or ten days until the close of nominations when I am not a Member of the Oireachtas. If this legislation is not in place at that stage, it does not affect me because I am not a candidate. There is a ten day period when no legislation applies to me.
I will have to take advice on that. There is an element of logic to what the Deputy is saying. If there is a gap of any duration which is not covered by the legislation between the Deputy being a Member of the Oireachtas and being a candidate for the Oireachtas, I will have my advisers revisit that. I will also consult those responsible for the Ethics in Public Office Act to see whether there is requirement to amend it.
Will the Minister have a look at all the discussion surrounding the McKenna judgment and the constitutional issue of equal treatment for everybody? I do not feel like contesting an election against somebody who can raise £40,000 or £50,000 up to the time they are nominated by virtue of the fact that they are not a member of the Oireachtas.
Once they are candidates, everything is subject to subsequent disclosure. Perhaps that is a difficulty for the Deputy.
It is only subject to disclosure when the election is over.
I am not sure. There will ultimately be transparency about the issue. It is obvious that there could be a period of time in which money is swallowed up and will never surface.
The Minister is forgetting that somebody like Deputy Dempsey who, for one reason or another, is reasonably sure of being a Deputy for Meath after the election has to face up to the reality that he has to satisfy his party as to where his donations are coming from. A new candidate who spends £50,000 or £100,000 in Meath might say "I will face up to the problem of disclosing this afterwards if I succeed, but in the meantime I will do my level best to damage Deputy Dempsey's chances and to put out unmerciful propaganda".
The Deputy is deliberately complicating the issue. The issue is that anybody who spends money in an election will have to account for it subsequently, whether they are successful or not. The Deputies' problem, as I discern it,——
It is the Minister's problem as well.
The problem to which the Deputies are alluding is that Oireachtas Members are subject to an annual disclosure requirement which might disadvantage them in comparison to those not subject to such a requirement. I am not sure that arises. The annual disclosure requirement is by virtue of the Deputies' current positions as Members of the Oireachtas.
Which expires——
Yes. Everything expended during the election campaign will be accountable for and will be in the public arena once this measure is enacted.
Not everything.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Minister's ideal scheme can only be implemented following this election, whereby all donations made in contemplation of an election are properly accounted for, whereas for this particular election certain donations made will be immune from any disclosure. These donations will be made exclusively to persons who are not Members of the Oireachtas.
That is not true.
The practical effect of this legislation will be to create a real differentiation between two distinct groups of people. One group will be discriminated against at the expense of another.
That is not true. As Deputy McDowell has pointed out, it is open to political parties to receive donations now, prior to the enactment or commencement of this legislation.
The Minister is talking about future elections.
No. The point was made by the Deputy that, in order for this to have effect, we should not apply it to this election but for the next election. In terms of the forthcoming election, whenever it takes place, the burden of disclosure and all that follows from it in terms of donation statements and so on will only begin after the commencement of the sections of the Bill. It is not retrospective. One could argue that political parties have an opportunity at the moment to circumvent the meaning of this Bill. I regret that.
I think the point Deputy Lenihan is making is that outgoing TDs or Senators contesting the election would be at a disadvantage in comparison to newcomers.
That is correct. The Minister's ideal scheme will cover that in the long term but not now.
It is quite separate. Under the Ethics in Public Office Act duties fall on people who are Members of the Oireachtas. They are duties because we must have transparency in the way people, as Members, get money so that there would not be any public anxiety that they might be unduly influenced. That was debated and decided in the enactment of the ethics legislation. That is separate from what is required here, which is a disclosure in relation to election expenses.
The Minister has forgotten that he is asking Members of the Oireachtas to fight the battle with one hand tied behind their back when their opponents have both hands free.
I do not accept that point.
That is convincing.
I have made this argument four times.
There is a cap on expenditure so it is a foolish argument.
We are talking about disclosure.
They cannot spend any more than a set amount no matter how much they get.
It could be spread around.
Some candidates have an advantage over others in terms of fundraising.
I fought the last election with two hands tied behind my back in terms of expenditure.
Deputy Penrose was elected. There is no need for this Bill.
The Deputy was elected without spending anything. That is why this is nonsense.
People sell themselves on the doorsteps to get elected.
There is little logic in the Deputies' points.
Deputy Penrose's remarks are redundant.
The Deputies are trying to undermine the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1994, which requires everyone who holds office to make declarations. If this Bill is not enacted, that burden still falls on them. Deputies can argue they are disadvantaged in terms of those who have no such requirements. However, it is not germane to the provisions of this Bill.
We are at a disadvantage.
The Deputy should have argued that when the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1994, was introduced.
We thought the Minister would make a better job of this Bill.
This Bill has no bearing on the Deputy's point.
The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, was not as co-operative as the Minister.
The Deputy's point refers exclusively to the burdens placed on Members under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1994. This Bill does not place an additional burden on Members. The so-called discrimination has nothing to do with this Bill.
I have allowed a lot of latitude on this point and it is time to move on.
This Bill is being introduced too near the general election and it is introducing an element of discrimination.
The Deputy should not get excited because we are months away from a general election.
If it takes us so long to agree on this amendment, one can imagine what will happen later. I agree with this amendment which is necessary to prevent people being retrospectively charged with offences they did not know they were committing. It underlines the futility of trying to pass this legislation before the next general election. It would be better if all parties discussed this with the Minister and agreed a code of disclosures. This amendment makes a laugh of the provisions on expenditure because people will have spent their money on printing posters and literature. They will only be buying drinks or meals for workers.
It is substantial moneys humbug. It is absurd that when this Bill is passed I will be able to tell my director of elections designate to spend the money now because the limits do not apply to us anymore.
All £2,500.
It is ridiculous.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am interested in the definition of 'commercial price'. There is a differentiation between "where the person by whom the property or goods are supplied or lent or the service is supplied carries on a business . . . ." and "where the person by whom the property or goods are supplied or lent or the service is supplied does not carry on a business . . . . .". The Minister may or may not know — I presume he will tell me such things do not happen in Wexford — that it is possible to pay someone to deliver election literature from door to door.
An Post.
In urban areas, such as Dublin, one can pay people £2.50 to distribute 1,000 leaflets. I do not know if that happens in Wexford. If I do my accounts after an election and decide on a commercial price under section 2(1)(b), must I account for the money I gave to a commercial distributor to hand out leaflets and for the value of the services of branch members who distributed them in their areas?
There is a clear definition between commercial contracted work which must be paid for and voluntary effort which is specifically excluded. The exclusions are contained in section 19(2)(b) which states that "each of the following shall be deemed not to be a donation ——". Section 19(2)(b)(iii) states:
benefits derived from services rendered by an individual, including the use of the individual's motor vehicle, on behalf of a political party, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, . . . .. where the said service is gratuitous and is not part of that individual's work carried out under a contract of employment or, where the person is self employed, in the course of the person's business or the practice of the person's profession.
That relates to donations. What about expenses?
It is cross-referenced in section 28(1)(b)(v), which states "any of the matters referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 19" are excluded.
I have tabled an amendment on the definition of "commercial price". Section 2(1)(a) states: "(allowance being made for any discount which is normally given by the person in respect of the supply . . . . .".
Yes, that is in section 2(1).
So there is no need for those amendments?
Correct.
It is supposed to build on the example given by Deputy McDowell whereby party branch members distribute leaflets voluntarily but refreshments are purchased for them in a local licenced premises afterwards. Does that fall within the definition in the Bill?
If there is a significant expense involved, yes. If one was, for example, to buy a meal for everybody, that is a disclosable expense. Guidelines will be issued by the Public Offices Commission. If one buys drinks for friends that is not disclosable, but we have to specifically state this in the guidelines. If, however, one buys dinner for 40, that is disclosable. We already had this discussion on Second Stage.
There will be a bona fide canvasser in this legislation?
I have a big family so if we all go out and I afterwards buy a meal for them——
Out of pocket expenses.
I know about out of pocket expenses, but no distinction is made in this legislation, as it was in the Ethics in Public Office Act, between members of the family, friends, donations or anything else. Is it only family members?
We do not specify. Reasonable living expenses of a candidate are exempt. Buying ones brother a meal would be reasonable living expenses. We can amplify these in regulations, although we cannot cast the net so widely as to encompass everything. We will strike a reasonable balance but even in the regulations we will not be able to enumerate everything. It will be what is reasonable under each of those headings. It would not be reasonable to run up £500 or £600 entertaining expenses every night and claim that as out of pocket expenses.
The point I am making is a more general one on the Bill. Although I cannot recall the exact provision, a firm distinction was drawn in the Ethics in Public Office Act between donations or gifts from family members, but in this Bill there is no such reference. If my brother, father or any other member of my family gives me £1,000 towards my election campaign will they have to declare that?
Yes, otherwise your father would simply be the recipient of all the money and he would hand it over to you without making any declaration. That would make a nonsense of the Bill, would it not?
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 7, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3. (1) The Minister may, by order, vary any monetary amount specified in section 18, 20, 21 (4), 23 (1), 27, 28, 29, 39, 40 (1), 43 or 44, or in regulations made under section 18 or 60 or in an order made under section 30 (1) or 45, having regard to any change in the consumer price index since the coming into operation of the provision for the time being in force specifying the amount in question, including an order under this section, and may, by order, amend or revoke any such order.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘change in the consumer price index' means the difference between the consumer price index number last published before the date of the order under this section and the said number last published before the date of the coming into force of the provision specifying the amount applying immediately before the making of the said order, including an order under this section, expressed as a percentage of the last-mentioned number.
(3) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.".
This provides for the insertion of a new section in Part 1 before section 3. It is a technical drafting amendment. In the Bill as drafted, power is given to the Minister in section 29 to vary the limits on election expenses set out in that section to take account of the consumer price index. The definition of change in the consumer price index is included in that section. It is a standard requirement that every order varying the amount under that section will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as it is made. It is now proposed in this section to extend the power to vary limits etc., to other sections. The new section, provided for by way of this amendment, sets out in a single section the power to vary by order amounts or limits specified in the Bill, except the funds payable to political parties, obviously, which are limited to general increases in civil service pay and penalties imposed under the Bill.
The proposed section sets out the definition relating to changes in the CPI as well as for laying the order before each House. I ask the Committee to accept it. Basically, it allows a procedure for the numbers to be changed in accordance with movement in the CPI. The Minister may make the order and then it has to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Am I right in saying the only way these monetary amounts may be varied is by the CPI?
Even the CPI can be annulled by the Oireachtas.