Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997

SECTION 14.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 65:
In page 11, to delete lines 30 and 31.
—(Deputy Dempsey).

Amendment No. 65 is being discussed with amendment No. 66. Amendment No. 94 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 94 are also related. Amendment No. 231 is consequential on amendment No. 94. They deal with the same subject and we may discuss them together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We are getting to the heart of this Bill. The Minister has admitted that many of his amendments are technical. We have discussed a number of important principles. My amendment proposes to delete section 14. The Minister said on a number of occasions that this Bill arises from the 1992 programme for Government and the subsequent negotiations between Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party. However, the Minister must see those negotiations in the context of the time in which they were entered into and the experience of political parties during the past few years.

I was firmly of the belief that the electorate felt that there was a need to fund the political system. We would have been prepared to accept the funding of political parties but I am not convinced that the electorate still feels the same way. This Bill is substantially different from the one we negotiated with the Labour Party.

This section must be seen in conjunction with other sections dealing with issues such as disclosure and the control of election expenditure. I do not think the public wants political parties to fund their day to day expenses from the public purse. The section in the original Bill agreed between the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party was considerably different. Maybe I am arguing from the point of view that one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. The Minister said on several occasions that we agreed to it eventually but there is no doubt that Fianna Fáil had severe reservations about this and other aspects of the Bill. It is fair to say that, because the amounts of money talked about at the time the agreement was made were substantially more than those involved here, it was more acceptable to Fianna Fáil as a larger party. Other aspects of this Bill will affect both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael more than any of the other parties.

In the proposals before us the Minister is asking Fianna Fáil, as a large political party, to accept all the constraints of the Bill without any guarantee that it will be able to continue on the same scale as at present. I am not referring only to fundraising but to administration, etc. The Minister's proposal means that we will receive about £400,000 less. As soon as payments to political parties are agreed to by the House and we attempt to have a Church gate collection to raise funds — our national collection amounted to £329,000 last year — we will be told where to get off. In effect, the Minister is saying that the State will give the party £400,000 while taking away a source of party funding. It will probably not happen immediately but it will go over a number of years. Members of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael who are present should be honest enough to admit that. Because we will lose a source of finance, our net gain will be about £70,000.

The annual cost of the administration of Fianna Fáil is about £1.5 million and the Fine Gael figure would be similar. Those costs probably double in an election year.

A quarter of a million pounds on posters.

Yes, but it is all right for the Labour Party which has one candidate in each constituency and a third of the number of representatives which Fianna Fáil or half the number Fine Gael have in the Oireachtas.

How many?

The Labour Party has 33 Deputies and I do not know how many Senators. Fianna Fáil has over 90 representatives.

Fianna Fáil has 2,700 branches, to which I will refer later in relation to the expenditure limits, and a considerable number of councillors. It is a large organisation. Its sources of funds will dry up. The national collection is one matter. I do not know what effect disclosure, which arises under a later section, will have on people. Fianna Fáil's fundraisers have reported that quite a number of people have said they will disclose if they must but they will still make donations. However, we do not know if that will be the case.

The Minister is asking Fianna Fáil to take a leap into the dark and accept these sections on the payments to political parties. Within two or three years a large party, such as Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, could be crippled financially and have no real way to raise funds. Political parties should be about more than raising funds. The purpose of my amendment is to delete the section and I would also delete some of the other sections related to election expenditure.

If the Minister is to go down the road of making payments to political parties, let us do it properly. Let us make sure that political parties are properly financed. Let us not have half-baked ideas or cripple larger parties. I am not going to make personalised accusations against the Minister but I believe this and later sections of the Bill are ideologically driven, not for all the high moral motives which I hear from various people but to try to cripple the two largest parties in the State because, irrespective of whether the Minister believes it, that is exactly the effect these sections and provisions will have on the two largest political parties.

The third reason I oppose this is the Minister will use this section to justify Part V of the Bill. He will say that because we are handing out State money to the political parties, the State should have control over what political parties spend on elections. That is why I propose the deletion of Part V — I hope that forms part of my list of amendments. The Minister will use this section to justify that. The sensible thing is to delete both of these sections because the Minister will not be doing politics or politicians a service because of public opposition to funding the political system. The large political parties will be hamstrung and unable to provide the necessary backup and facilities.

I ask the Minister to delete this section of the Bill.

Deputy Dempsey is right. This is the meat of the Bill. To delete payments to political parties, as his amendment suggests, guts the Bill and that is his intention notwithstanding his acknowledgement that he and his party negotiated and accepted the principles of this Bill on the formation of the Government in the beginning of 1993.

Deputy Dempsey is also correct in saying that Parts III, IV, V and VI of the Bill are an integrated package. As such they limit State funding to political parties. In Deputy Dempsey's view this is too modest. However, I believe it is adequate. We do not need to continually increase the volume of expenditure on elections or on the business of politics. The payments system in the Bill is reasonable. It puts a disclosure threshold in place but does not, in its current form, forbid donations to political parties. It simply requires substantial donations to be declared and open. Deputy Dempsey feels that the impact of that will be to shut off political donations but I do not think that will happen. Most people, businesses and companies who donate modestly to political parties will continue to do so. Nobody will be ashamed of making that knowledge public.

We live in an era of transparency and the Bill seeks to provide that for the public. It also puts a ceiling on the amount that may be spent by a candidate or a political party at election time. That is a good move. We have already had a debate on the definitions and I do not want to go over that ground again but we should not be in a position where somebody with money can spend an unlimited amount on an election campaign. Many countries have recognised the need to impose some kind of a ceiling on such expenditure. There is a limit to the amount that may be expended on newspaper space and other campaign expenses. The three proposals — limited support to political parties, disclosure of substantial political donations to political parties and candidates and a cap on election expenditure — fit well together and are in tune with the mood of Ireland, notwithstanding Deputy Dempsey's views which have changed over the past number of years. The mood is clear; people want political donations and funding declared. The only way we will dispel the public's perception of party funding is to ensure that donations are made public and transparent. People can then have confidence in the system.

We have had an era of innuendo and suspicion. Politics and politicians have suffered as a result because there is a general feeling that people who make substantial donations can buy power and favouritism. This measure is designed to deal with that issue and to ensure the public retains confidence in the political system. The principle is right and was negotiated with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Democratic Left all of whom supported it at one stage or another.

Deputy Dempsey is also correct in suggesting that there have been amendments to the Bill since it was initially published, most of which arise form the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the funding of the divorce referendum campaign. The Bill is fairer as a result because it takes a broader look at political funding. It now seeks, in a very broad way, to fund the political system, not just political parties. Funding will not be confined to parties whose candidates are elected; it will be based on a percentage of the vote a party gets whether its members are elected or not. Independent and non-party candidates are treated in the same way as party candidates. That is a genuine improvement.

For all of these reasons, I am not convinced that the Bill will have the awful effect on the bigger parties which Deputy Dempsey suggests. The Deputy is letting his imagination run away with him if he thinks there is some kind of conspiracy by the Labour Party to do down the bigger parties. That notion is fanciful. We want a system which is fair to everybody and the proposed system has been negotiated on that basis.

This Bill will affect major donations. I do not think somebody will make a major donation as has happened in the past but perhaps that is not a bad thing. If people want to make huge donations to political parties, the public has a right to know in case there are consequential decisions which might be seen to be compromising. It is necessary to have transparency.

I ask Deputy Dempsey to accept Parts III, IV, V and VI of the Bill which we have discussed at length and which stand together. Their content is well laid out and has been debated over the years. I do not envisage anything other than public support for these measures. People cannot have it both ways. If one asks the public whether they want large business to fund the political system they say they do not. If politicians are not to be seen to be dependent on substantial, big business or corporate donations then the only alternative is some limited form of State funding. A range of western democracies — I can give the Deputy the list if he wishes — already have some form of State support for their political systems. If one looks at what happens in developing political systems and at the current chaos in some of the emerging east European countries that are trying to establish a democratic system that is not beholden to sinister elements, one will see what can happen. It is in the interests of democracy to have a clear, transparent and open system where donations are made public and where there is a cap on election expenditure.

Deputy Dempsey has made the point well on a number of occasions that those who give huge sums of money do not always receive the benefit of it. Every citizen should have a fair chance of being elected to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have made this case ad nauseam and I ask Deputy Dempsey not to press his amendment.

Whatever happens, it is essential that the present system is changed because the manner in which politicians have to beg, bow and scrape for money is demeaning and degrading. If one were to look at the minutes of the meetings of any district or constituency branch executive, what would one find? Would they deal with serious issues such as the difference in policy or outlook between Fine Gael and its partners? They would not. Rather, they spend at least half of their time dealing with the issue of fundraising.

I believe that if someone gives a politician £100 for a ticket, that politician is under some obligation to that person. The obligation increases the larger the sum of money concerned. The manner in which political parties had to fund themselves over the years was wrong and was bound to explode at some time along the line.

If donations were an extra layer of funding on top of basic funding, that would be acceptable. Basic funding must be provided. The Minister is correct in saying that we should cap the expenditure on elections. However, we should not cap expenditure on the cost of running a party or on research, an area in which we are lacking. We should expend funds on research as happens in Germany.

There is an extraordinary amount of unnecessary expenditure and hype at an election. I must admit that, to a certain extent, I was responsible for an escalation in expenditure. In 1981, I produced a press budget for Fine Gael which was exactly eight times as much as the party had spent in the 1977 election.

You introduced RTÉ levels of expenditure.

I should add that we won the election. However, we should curtail expenditure. As the Minister said, an election is often a competition between the various parties and if expenditure is not capped the parties will increase it, irrespective of whether they have the money. They will spend first and try to collect afterwards. We should tackle this if at all possible. The real beneficiaries are the newspapers and other media. Having said that, posters are a service to democracy. They heighten awareness that there is an election.

They create an atmosphere.

Yes. They may not do a great job for a party or a candidate but they are a major contributory factor in bringing the public out on the day, although they are not environmentally friendly. The Minister is right, there must be a change in funding and we should have done it years ago. Deputy Dempsey said the public may react unfavourably to what we are doing but anything politicians do relating to money is suspect because of the cynicism which exists. If we argue that we cannot carry on as we have been, people will accept that. I believe this will be accepted as a major improvement in the way we run our democracy as distinct from our parties.

There are other elections such as Presidential elections, local elections, by-elections, referenda, etc. We have far too many elections and for that reason I favour Deputy Dempsey's idea of examining the electoral system and considering fixed term elections. We have had 25 elections in 75 years, one every three years, and there have been by-elections which have diverted us and cost a great deal. Bigger issues are involved.

The Minister has honed in on part of the Bill we are not discussing yet relating to disclosure.

The Deputy raised it.

I mentioned it in the context of our discussion but it was not my main argument. The Minister will know I have tabled few amendments to that part of the Bill and those I have suggested are designed to tighten the provisions so that politicians will not be at a disadvantage as regards other people. I have nothing against the principle of disclosure.

I take Deputy Nealon's point and I do not disagree with much of what he or the Minister said on this section about financing political parties. As I said, if we are going to do this we should do it properly and fairly and if the Minister is going to preserve this provision in the Bill we must address the issue of fairness. It is not fair to provide £390,000 for Fianna Fáil, £200,000 for Labour and £240,000 for Fine Gael because that will not provide the adequate funding for political parties which the Minister says he wants to achieve. He does not aim to provide total funding for the parties and the political system. However, if one takes into account the running costs of a party such as Fianna Fáil and the fact that, as Deputy Nealon said, the church gate collection will cease when State funding begins, our branches and constituency organisations will have to raise £1 million per annum. I do not know the running expenses of the Labour Party but I do not think Fianna Fáil's day to day running costs are extravagant. We accept the principle but the electorate will reject it. If the Minister persists with the provision, he might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. The system he puts in place should be fair but what he proposes in this part of the Bill is not fair to the larger parties.

As to disclosure, the reaction from people who give us money shows that this provision will not shut off donations. In common with other parties, we are seeking money in the run-up to the election. People are willing to contribute, most of them do not mind and will accept the £4,000 limit although they would prefer it to be £10,000. I have nothing to say against disclosure.

The Minister spoke about a perception. He and I have too much respect for the electorate to think it can be bought with high spending at elections, so I am not unduly worried about that. To some extent it is unfair to larger parties with many candidates but we can deal with that at the proper time. None of the parties is dependent on big business and no favours are granted exclusively on the basis that donations were made. Various allegations have been made but nothing has been proven. Our system is and has been largely free of corruption.

If the Minister expects me, as a representative not just of the public but also my party, to accept he is trying to deal fairly with everyone as regards funding for political parties, he will have to return on the specifics of this section. I proposed the deletion of this section so we could have a broader discussion and to see if the Minister could indicate that he would look again at the original deal made on this point.

That is unconstitutional.

How is it unconstitutional?

The Minister has been asked to see the Taoiseach at 10.15 a.m. Will the committee agree to adjourn at that time until 1.30 p.m., when we will sit until 3 p.m.? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Are Deputy Dempsey's figures accurate?

The Minister for Finance and I explained in December that, as a result of the McKenna judgment, we have separated different types of funding which must be seen in context. The first is support for the parliamentary activities of parties, as mentioned by Deputy Nealon.

That is in the Constitution.

That is right. Fianna Fáil gets £765,000, Fine Gael, £397,000; the Labour Party, £297,000; the Progressive Democrats, £185,000; Democratic Left £97,000; the Green Party, £25,000 and others get £30,000. Each Independent gets £10,000 for research and support.

That is influenced by whether the party is in Government.

Yes. There is an additional sum for those not in Government which is why the figures for Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are considerably more.

What is the figure for Fianna Fáil?

It is £765,000.

It is approximately £10,000 per Deputy.

There is a sliding scale.

Which is unfair to us. Individual Deputies should get £30,000.

That amounts to £1.8 million. There is a system for funding the political parties outside Parliament. Every party which gets a threshold of 2 per cent, whether they have members elected, will be entitled to that. We need to be seen to treat everyone fairly. Someone could be elected if they got 2 per cent of the national vote in one or two constituencies, but someone could get 2 per cent nationally and not be elected.

One person could be elected if they got 2 per cent of the national vote.

Or they could get 2 per cent and not be elected.

They would still get money.

Everybody who gets 2 per cent will get money because they have a political party to run. New parties have made the point that if they get a threshold of 2 per cent, they should have access to funds.

It will enable them to grow.

It will help to support the democratic system. They have only a small entitlement to money. We fixed the pot at £1 million and everyone gets a percentage.

Even a raving loony or fascist party?

If they get 2 per cent of the national vote.

Or if six independent candidates in six constituencies decide to call themselves a party?

No, they must be a registered party.

Anyone could be a registered party. That is why an amendment was made to section 25.

The amendments make it difficult to register a political party. What is wrong with the system?

It is madness.

The 2 per cent threshold is low.

It is not. Deputies should look at the parties which reached it at the last election.

It is low.

It is to get Democratic Left in after the next election when it gets 1 per cent.

We cannot be exclusive. There are smaller niche parties which have a right to be represented. If we look at the threshold in other countries ——

It is 5 per cent in Germany.

——it varies from 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent to 4 per cent or 5 per cent.

Strong regional parties could only have 2 per cent nationally.

Sitting suspended at 10.15 a.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.

We are discussing amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 94, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 94 and amendment No. 231, which is consequential on amendment No. 94. We have had much discussion this morning and previously on these amendments.

I said something to the Minister earlier on the principle of this and the point of view I put forward on funding political parties. While we may agree or disagree on whether the electorate wants this, the Minister is intent on including this section. Will he adopt a more realistic attitude to the amounts of money he proposes to make available to political parties which is crucial from our party's point of view?

Will the Deputy change his attitude to the section?

The Minister said we made an agreement when in Government, but we did so on a completely different basis. If the Minister is intent on including this section, so be it. The people can make a judgment on it and on us. The Minister said many sections and amounts of money were not written in stone. Will he give me an idea as to whether he is prepared to talk about changing the £1 million included in the Bill?

That figure has been negotiated between the parties in Government and is a reasonable sum. I do not want to trespass too far on the willingness of the electorate and the taxpayer to support the political system. The sums involved are reasonable for the general running of a political party. I cannot give a definitive answer as to whether there will be some movement. If the Deputy said he supported the principles of the section and an amendment of the figures, I would be happy to discuss it further with Government, but I would have to know that in advance.

The proposal is totally unreasonable in that it is too low.

The Government is committed to enacting this legislation as quickly as possible and to having it in place for the next election. I said that at the beginning of this debate.

I have made no bones about it from our point of view. We have a difficulty with the amounts and so on.

If we revisit the figures, everybody would benefit proportionately from an increase. I do not know how the Minister for Finance or my Government colleagues would react to that. If I believed I would build greater political consensus on the principle, I would be willing to discuss it with them.

This section will be included regardless because we are in a minority. There would be greater political consensus if the figures were more realistic.

Would the Deputy be prepared to go further on the disclosure thresholds?

The disclosure thresholds are very low at present.

Would the Deputy go lower?

No. I do not believe they are connected.

The Deputy made the connection when he said that the effect of the disclosure would be to freeze off——

It is one of our fears. I was honest with the Minister because I have met fundraisers in the party who are trying to raise funds for the election and so on.

Quite successfully.

I hope so. We can always get credit in advance. Although fundraisers have said there is not much disquiet and that people will comply, we do not know that until the Bill is implemented. I gave the figure of £1.5 million for ordinary running costs each year. I do not know if Deputy McCormack or the chairman know the Fine Gael figures. I take it there will be a fall out even in the church gate collection, our major fund raising event for party administration. We will both have to make an act of faith.

What type of figure would the Deputy consider?

I would like to go as close as possible to the original figure but I know that would not be feasible because it was not accepted by Government before. I suggest a figure between the two amounts.

I will bring the Deputy's point of view to Government. However, I cannot give the Deputy a commitment in this regard. I am anxious that we have as much political consensus as possible. It is important because no matter which party is in Government after an election, it will be governed by these rules. I would like to be fair to everyone. There is no agenda other than trying to address a few basic principles which are important. All parties have agreed in broad strokes to the principle. We may be able to build a broader consensus by adjusting figures. Nothing is written in stone on that front but I cannot make arbitrary decisions on expenditure.

I accept that. I will withdraw the amendment to give the Minister a chance to discuss it with the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 11, line 31, after "POLITICAL PARTIES" to insert "AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTION EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES".

This is a technical amendment to extend the title.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70 are related to amendment No. 67. Amendments Nos. 67 to 70, inclusive, may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 11, subsection (1)(b), line 38, to delete "of a candidate" and substitute "of at least 10 candidates".

This relates to the definition of political parties. We have proposed a longer amendment which deals with the process of registration.

Have we dealt with the new section 18?

We are on section 14.

In some respects, this amendment is linked to later arguments I will make regarding the registration of political parties. The Minister spoke earlier about being fair to everybody and giving people the widest possible opportunity to be involved in the political system. I do not oppose that nor do I believe that people should necessarily get involved in existing political parties. However, it is a mockery of serious political parties, which are striving to develop policies, conduct research and contribute to the political system, to deem as a qualified party entitled to payment a party that puts forward one candidate at a general election. No group which puts forward one candidate should be deemed to be a political party or get payment from the Exchequer as a result. Nobody could treat such a party as a serious political party.

This amendment relates to the section dealing with party registration. Every registered party must be treated in the same way. There is at least one regional party functioning in Kerry which is likely to run a candidate. It qualifies for registration as a political party.

Because of our lax laws.

We will debate that later. It is important to deal with this issue correctly. The later amendment proposed by the Deputy seeks to rewrite the process of registration and I am loath to accept it. This legislation is about establishing the political system here and we must be as open as possible. There is also case law involved.

I understand the constitutional concerns of the Minister and his legal advisers. However, this could lead to severe splintering of the political process and that is not in the interest of political stability or of the country. I recall what happened in Germany when a similar situation pertained under the Weimar Republic. It was not possible to form a stable government and there were disastrous consequences.

Under Standing Orders of the Dáil a political party must have a minimum of seven members. If this Bill is enacted, one member of a party who is elected to the House will have to be recognised as a party and will have the same rights as parties with 60 and 70 members. There is already disproportionate treatment of small parties in the House. Proportionality should work both ways. The concept of a one member party appears to stretch constitutional demands too far.

The legislation is based on careful legal analysis of a Supreme Court judgment. We have tried to base support for political parties on electoral support in terms of votes. That is why we have established the 2 per cent threshold; it is not based on members elected or candidates fielded. It is reasonable that the 2 per cent threshold should activate the payment system. Unless a party is registered it will not qualify for payment. We can address the issue of tightening up the registration procedure but once a party is registered and receives the requisite percentage of the vote, it must be entitled to payment like any other political party.

In theory can a party which puts forward one candidate receive 2 per cent of the vote? Is the Minister referring to 2 per cent of the vote in the constituency?

No, nationally.

It would not be possible to get 2 per cent of the vote with one candidate.

It would not be possible.

Would the party not be disqualified for funding?

Yes. Two per cent of the vote was 37,000 votes in the last election.

At least five candidates would be required to secure 37,000 first preferences. Why not make it a realistic figure? We are including a theoretical figure to make the provision look right when, in practice, one candidate cannot get 2 per cent of the votes. That defeats the purpose. We need a system to get this right rather than just having it look right.

The focus is not on the number of candidates. That does not matter. We must provide that the party contests the election and payment will be on the basis of achieving the threshold of votes. A party might not have a candidate elected and still get 2 per cent of the vote.

Of course.

It does not matter if the party fields one or ten candidates. The two criteria are, first, that the party is registered and, second, that it secures the percentage of the vote.

Why is one candidate mentioned?

That indicates that the party must field a candidate. In essence, we are saying the party must contest the election.

It would be better to contest the election and get, say, 2 per cent of the vote, rather than specifying——

What does contesting the election mean? Does it mean field one candidate or contest the election in every constituency?

A candidate has to be elected.

That is what is in the Bill.

That has been amended. The original 1994 Bill says that he must be elected. Page nine of the blue book before members sets out the amended wording for section 15 and includes the following:

(a) the party registered in the Register of Political Parties. . .

(b) the party authenticated the candidature of a candidate at the last preceding general election of members to the Dáil; and

(c) the total first preference votes obtained by candidates whose candidatures were authenticated by the party at that election expressed as a percentage of total first preference votes obtained by all candidates at that election was not less than two per cent.

It safeguards us.

Yes. If the section is read as it would read in the amended section 15 set out in the blue book it will be seen that the situation is as I explained.

Presumably the figure of 2 per cent refers to 2 per cent of the total first preference national vote?

Yes, by all candidates at that election.

Is it not necessary to specify "national" vote?

I am advised that the wording is taken to mean that.

What about a candidate who obtains 2 per cent of the vote in a constituency claiming that he got 2 per cent of the total vote?

Is it necessary to include paragraph (b) in the section? The provision demeans political parties by referring to the putting forward of a single candidate and the total first preference votes obtained by candidates.

If the party does not have any candidates it cannot get 2 per cent of the vote.

It is not consistent with the other provisions.

It is consistent. Deputy Dempsey does not like the notion of a candidate or candidates.

It is covered under paragraph (c).

I will consider that.

Suppose there is a reform party which splits. Does paragraph (b) not exclude it? If a party splits why cannot it get funding?

I do not understand the question.

Suppose a reform party contests the election and wins 60 seats. A split ensues, with 30 seats going one way. Why cannot the two factions share its portion of the £1 million, based on the fact that it is a registered political party and it has Members in the Dáil, which would satisfy the criteria? It cannot prejudice the Exchequer because the money is merely being divided.

It has nothing to do with prejudicing the Exchequer or with sums of money. I have considered these issues from a practical viewpoint. I do not want a mechanism that would encourage parties to split.

It would not encourage them, but it would treat them fairly if they split, for whatever reason.

Until they rectified themselves and presented themselves in their new livery at the next election. I do not believe that a party can be established and make the assumption that it won X per cent of the vote at the election in its previous incarnation. It is predicated on the party standing and getting a political endorsement of at least 2 per cent of the vote nationally.

Mr. McDowell

Had this legislation been in existence, the Workers Party would have continued to get funding even though it was reduced to only one Deputy. What is the point of that?

It is important that there be validation of the party. At that time, the Workers Party fielded candidates which were elected. Until such time as the electorate is again asked to give an opinion——

The cheques from Moscow would have continued. Would it not be clearer to give Members of the Dáil the same status?

What happens if a person leaves a party and becomes an Independent? Can the Deputy draw the annual allowance for Independent Members?

It has nothing to do with this Bill.

However, the principle is the same.

This Bill is focused on funding political parties which are registered as such and obtain a threshold of votes and on the recoupment of money to candidates of all and no political persuasion who hold their deposit in the election. The question of funding for research, etc., is incorporated in legislation sponsored by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, and was enacted last December.

The principle is the same.

I support the Minister. Any incentive that might allow parties to splinter should be discouraged. The only logical way in which support for a party can be measured is by reference to the support it obtained in the last election.

On the basis that the Minster will consider removing paragraph (b) from the revised section 15——

It is fuller with the paragraph included. I do not know why the Deputy considers that the phrase "the candidature of a candidate at the last preceding general election" somehow demeans a political party.

We should be as concise as possible; this is not necessary.

The Deputy knows what lawyers are like.

That is why I suggest it be deleted. It demeans political parties if anybody can put forward candidates at a general election and be deemed to be a political party.

The candidates must be registered under paragraph (a).

Anybody can be registered under that provision.

Very few parties have been registered in the past number of years.

How does the Register of Political Parties define what is a genuine political party?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 11, subsection (1)(b), line 39 after "Dáil;" to insert "and".

This is a minor drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 11, subsection (1), lines 40 to 44, to delete paragraphs (c) and (d) and substitute the following:

"(c) the total first preference votes obtained by candidates whose candidatures were authenticated by the party at that election expressed as a percentage of total first preference votes obtained by all candidates at that election was not less than two per cent.".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 70 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 12, lines 1 to 31, to delete subsection (2).

The changes provided in these amendments take account of the detailed legal advice obtained in light of the judgments in the McKenna case. They are designed to meet the emphasis in the judgments on fairness and equality in the electoral system and the democratic process.

Will the Minister explain the effect of deleting this?

It is unnecessary because of the new thrust that the McKenna judgment requires us to take in regard to it. In the new section, there is a definition of "qualified party" which is as I propose in section 15.

Therefore, membership of political parties is entirely irrelevant.

No, a group has to register as a political party. There is a body of amendments to deal with the criteria for registration later.

Has subsection (2) become redundant because membership of political parties is irrelevant?

Exactly.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 72 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

A qualified party is a political party which complies with a, b, and c. The definition of a political party is one that is registered in accordance with the Registrar of Political Parties. What does the word "political" mean? Can the ICMSA, for example, register as a political party?

The criteria for qualification for registration of a political party are laid down and I will deal with them later. The Registrar of Political Parties must determine which are qualified in accordance with the law and judicial pronouncements on this matter.

I am worried that the definition is circular because political party means one registered in accordance with the law. There is no explanation for the word "political" in that context.

A register of political parties is kept in Dáil Éireann.

I accept that.

If the ICMSA wishes to become a political party, it has to make an application to the Registrar of Political Parties, qualify under the criteria laid down and be enshrined in it. If any party is so enshrined it qualifies.

Why did the Minister put the word "political" in front of the word "party"?

For ease of comprehension.

With respect, the Minister is providing a circular definition. He says that a political party means a political party in the following——

That is not true. I defined "political party" in the definitions section.

As a political party which qualifies with certain things.

I now define a "qualified party". It goes beyond simply being a political party.

It is a political party which complies with certain criteria. The Minister tabled an amendment to section 2 to insert the word "political" in the definition of a political party. What does he mean by the word "political"?

I explained when we dealt with that amendment.

I am slightly worried about it because the Minister must have some reason. He included the word "political" on advice. What does he achieve by doing so?

It was for ease of comprehension. A party can be an individual and a political party has a normal meaning in English. A political party is a party registered with the Registrar of Political Parties under the procedures laid down. That is clear.

It is not a criminal offence to set up a political party outside the Act.

No, but it would not qualify for funding.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Due to typographical errors in printing of the first and second list of amendments on the above mentioned Bill, the corrections to the following amendments should be noted -Amendment No. 73: in line 3 of subsection (4) (a), the reference to "general hearing" should read "general meeting"; Amendment No. 121 is proposed by the Minister for the Environment whose title has been omitted from the list of amendments.

Amendment No. 222 is related to amendment No. 73 and both may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 12, before section 15, to insert the following new section:

"REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES

15 — (1) The Electoral Act, 1992, is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 25:

‘25.-(1) (a) The person who for the time being holds the office of Clerk the Dáil shall be the Registrar of Political Parties (in this section referred to as "the Registrar") who shall, subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, prepare and maintain a Register of Political Parties (in this section referred to as "the Register").

(b) If and so long as the office of Clerk of the Dáil is vacant or the holder of that office is unable through illness, absence or other cause to fulfill his duties, the Clerk-Assistant of the Dáil shall act as Registrar for the purposes of this section.

(c) If and so long as the Office of Clerk of the Dáil and the office of Clerk-Assistant of the Dáil are vacant or the holders of those offices are unable through illness, absence or other cause to fulfill their duties, the Chairman of the Dáil may appoint a member of the Joint Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas to act as Registrar for the purposes of this section.

(2) (a) A political party may apply to the Registrar to be registered in the Register as a party organised in the State to contest a Dáil election or a European election or a local election.

(b) An application for registration under this section shall be in such form as shall be prescribed by the Registrar.

(c) Where a party is registered as organised to contest a particular type or types of election, the registration shall have effect only in relation to elections of the type or types concerned.

(3) Neither an application for registration nor an application for an amendment of the Register under this section may be made in the case of—

(a) a European election, in the period commencing on the date of the appointment by the Minister by order of a day to be polling day in accordance with section 10 of the European Parliament Elections Act, 1997 and ending on the date of the issue by the Registrar of a copy or copies of the Register for the purposes of that election, or

(b) a local election, in the period commencing on the date of the appointment by the Minister by order of a day to be polling day in accordance with section 21 of the Local Government Act, 1994 and ending on the date of the issue by the Registrar of a copy or copies of the Register for the purposes of that election.

(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Registrar shall register every political party which applies in accordance with this section for registration provided that at the time the application is made —

(a) the organisation and direction of the party are governed by a constitution, articles of association, rules or other regulations which have been adopted by a general hearing or delegate conference of the party and which provide for—

(i) annual or other periodic meetings or conferences of the party; and

(ii) the conduct of the business of the party by an executive committee or similar body elected by the party; and

(b) (i) the membership of the party as certified to the Registrar in writing by a person qualified for appointment as auditor of a company in accordance with section 187 of the Companies Act, 1990 comprises not less than 300 persons (or, in the case of a party applying for registration as a party organised to contest a local election only, 100 persons) each of whom has reached the age of 18 years, or

(ii) at least one person who is a member of the Dáil or an Irish representative in the European Parliament (or, in the case of a party which applies for registration as a party organised to contest a local election only, each of three persons who are members of a local authority) certifies in writing to the Registrar that he or she is a member of the party.

(5) The following particulars shall be entered in the Register in respect of a political party registered therein—

(a) the name of the party,

(b) the address of the party's head-quarters,

(c) the name or names of the officer or officers of the party, one of whom shall be the duly elected leader or chairperson (or the equivalent officer) of the party, authorised to sign certificates authenticating the candidature of candidates of the party at elections,

(d) the type or types of election for which the party is registered as being organised to contest.

(6) Where a political party which is registered in the Register as a party organised to contest a European election informs the Registrar that a member of the party who is an Irish representative in the European Parliament is a member of a political group formed in accordance with the rules of procedure of that Parliament, and if that member of the party certifies to the Registrar in writing for the purposes of this section that he is a member of both such party and such group as aforesaid, the Registrar shall note on the Register, in relation to the party, the name of the group.

(7) A political party shall not be registered in the Register if its name—

(a) is identical with the name of any party already registered in the Register or, in the opinion of the Registrar, so nearly resembles such name as would be likely to mislead, confuse or deceive,

(b) is, in the opinion of the Registrar, unduly long.

(8) (a) The duly elected leader or chairperson (or the equivalent officer) of a political party registered in the Register shall notify the Registrar of any changes in the name or names of the officer or officers referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (5) and the Registrar shall amend the Register accordingly and where such person fails to so inform the Registrar, whether at the request of the Registrar or otherwise, the Registrar shall cancel the registration of the party.

(b) Where any doubt, dispute or question arises in relation to a notification under paragraph (a), the name or names of the officer or officers entered in the Register pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) shall, untill the doubt, dispute or question is resolved, be deemed to be those entered in the Register prior to the said notification.

(9) Where the particulars entered in the Register in accordance with subsection (5) (other than those referred to in paragraph (c) thereof) change in any respect, an officer of the party referred to in the said paragraph (c) shall apply in writing to the Registrar as soon as possible for an amendment of the Register in respect of such change and the Registrar shall consider each such application and may, subject to the provisions of this section, amend the Register accordingly.

(10) The Registrar shall, with respect to each party registered in the Register, inquire in writing at least once in each year from an officer of the party referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (5) whether the party desires to remain registered and, unless he receives an affirmative reply to such an inquiry within twenty-one days from the date of the making of such inquiry, he shall cancel the registration of the party forthwith.

(11) (a) As soon as he has considered an application for registration or an application for an amendment of the Register, the Registrar shall notify the applicant of his decision on the application (stating reasons in the case of disallowance) and shall cause notice thereof to be published in the Iris Oifigiúil.

(b) Where the Registrar has disallowed either an application for registration or an application for an amendment of the Register, and has stated his reasons for so doing in accordance with paragraph (a), such statement shall be regarded as a sufficient statement of the reasons for the disallowance.

(12) Where it appears to the Registrar that a political party registered in the Register has ceased to meet the criteria for registration set out in subsection (4) or has failed to comply with the requirements of this section, he shall, following such inquiry as he thinks fit, publish in the Iris Oifigiúil notice of his intention to cancel the registration of the party.

(13) A decision of the Registrar shall be questioned only by way of an appeal under this section.

(14) (a) For the purposes of hearing appeals under this section there shall be an appeal board which shall consist of a Judge of the High Court, (to be nominated by the President of the High Court), who shall be chairman, the Chairman of the Dáil (or where he is unable, through illness, absence or other cause to fulfill his duties or the office of Chairman is vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Dáil) and the Chairman of the Seanad (or where he is unable, through illness, absence or other cause to fulfill his duties or the office of Chairman is vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Dáil) and the Chairman of the Seanad (or where he is unable, through illness, absence or other cause to fulfill his duties or the office of Chairman is vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Seanad).

(b) The appeal board shall, when considering an appeal under this section, consider—

(i) the grounds for the appeal stated pursuant to subsection (16) (a), and

(ii) such information (if any) as was made available to the Registrar in connection with the application for registration, the application for an amendment of the Register, or the cancellation of the registration, as the case may be,

and no other information.

(c) The Registrar shall give to the appeal board such information in relation to every appeal considered pursuant to this section as the appeal board may reasonably require of him.

(d) The decision of the appeal board shall be final and shall be complied with by the Registrar.

(15) (a) Any of the following persons may, before 12 noon on the seventh day next following the date of publication by the Registrar of a notice in the Iris Oifgiúilpursuant to this section, appeal to the appeal board against such of the decisions of the Registrar as are herein after specified:

(i) in the case of a disallowance under subsection (11) of either an application for registration or an application for an amendment of the Register, the party by which the application was made,

(ii) in the case of an allowance under subsection (11) of either an application for registration or an application for an amendment of the Register, any party registered in the Register at the date of the giving by the Registrar of such notice

(iii) in the case of a cancellation under subsection (12) of registration, the party whose registration it is proposed to cancel.

(b) Where no appeal is made under this subsection within the period specified in paragraph (a) the decision of the Registrar shall thereupon become final.

(c) Where a party is registered in the Register, the registration of the party shall not be affected by any appeal pending under paragraph (a) (iii).

(16) (a) An appeal under this section to the appeal board shall be made in writing and shall state the grounds on which the appeal is made and shall be delivered or sent by post so as to reach the Clerk of the Seanad on or before the time specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (15) together with the deposit referred to in paragraph (b), and any such appeal which is received by the Clerk of the Seanad after that time shall not be entertained or considered by the appeal board.

(b) An appeal under this section shall not be considered by the appeal board unless at the time the appeal is made a deposit of £500 is lodged with the Clerk of the Seanad by, or on behalf of, the appellant, which sum shall on the determination of the appeal be returned to the person by whom it was lodged unless the appeal board considers the appeal to be frivolous or vexatious and directs that the deposit be forfeited.

(c) A deposit forfeited under this section shall be disposed of by the Clerk of the Seanad in such manner as may be directed by the Minister for Finance.

(d) The Clerk of the Seanad, on receipt of an appeal under this section, shall notify the Registrar of such receipt as soon as possible and any such appeal shall be open to inspection at all convenient times by the Registrar.

(17) The Registrar shall maintain a copy of the Register at his office and shall furnish, on request, to any person a copy of it.

(18) The Registrar may require any person to give any information in his possession which the Registrar may reasonably require for the purpose of his duties under this section.

(19) (a) The Registrar may require from any political party which applies to him for registration or for an amendment of the Register all such information as he reasonably requires for the determination by him of the allowance or disallowance of the application, and the Registrar may disallow the application of any party which fails or refuses to give any information so required of it under this section.

(b) Notwithstanding the authority of the Registrar to request information, it shall be the duty of every political party which applies to him for registration or for an amendment of the Register to provide such information as may be necessary to satisfy the Registrar that it is entitled to be registered in the Register in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(c) The Registrar may require that information furnished to him for the purposes of this section be accompanied by a statutory declaration made by the person by whom the information is furnished (or by such other person as he considers appropriate in the circumstances) that, to the best of the person's knowledge and belief, the information is correct in every material respect and that the person has taken all reasonable action in order to be satisfied as to the accuracy of the information.

(20) On the day of the issuing under section 39 of a writ or writs, the Registrar shall sent to the returning officer or each returning officer a copy of the Register then in force.

(1) The Register then in force at the commencement of this section shall be deemed to be the register prepared and maintained under this section and each political party registered therein shall, on the date of such commencement, be deemed to have conformed to the requirements of subsection (4).'.

(2) Rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the European Parliament Elections Act, 1997, is hereby amended by the deletion of 'On' and the substitution therefor of 'Not later than'.".

I may take time on this and I hope the Minister does not think I am filibustering. I thought the amendment might be tabled in various sections and we would deal with them as a series of amendments.

On a procedural point, this is basically a huge redrafting of the procedure for registration of political parties. There is some merit in looking at this but it does not belong in this Bill. We need to build a fair consensus in the political system before we redefine draconian terms of what constitutes a political party. There are very broad ranging impacts on this set of proposals. It will greatly narrow the possibility of registration of political parties. Eminent constitutional advisers are Members of this committee and are sitting on either side of Deputy Dempsey. I am not sure that parts of this would survive constitutional purview. I ask that this be looked at separately so that we can come to a political consensus to amend the registration process without further complicating this Bill. Even within the Deputy's party a broad discussion is needed on the impact of this measure.

If I thought the Minister was not going to put in place other aspects of the Bill as they affect political parties until we had that broad discussion I would have no difficulty acceding to his request. I agree this is an extensive amendment but it is not draconian.

I did not mean draconian, I meant broad.

It was designed to replace section 25 of the 1992 Act. Political parties will receive funding under the Bill but the criteria for registering parties in the 1992 Act are not sufficient. The Minister probably does not intend it to be interpreted as I have done. I make no apologies for being a member of a political party and for ensuring that an organisation must fulfil certain criteria to be a political party. Without labouring the point, political parties have served the State well. I do not mind people running as Independents or regional political parties but if a political party is to be worthy of the name it should have basic, minimum standards. Before I propose my amendment, is the Minister prepared to guarantee that we will discuss the registration of political parties before this Bill is brought into effect?

I cannot give that guarantee but as soon as this is done I will discuss the proposals with the committee and try to reach a consensus on defining the registration process separately from this. I am not my own master on the Government decision to bring this into force. I am under instructions to have it enacted as quickly as possible.

Does the Minister not agree the Electoral Bill is the right place to define a political party? Where else should it be defined?

I do not say it is inappropriate to this Bill but it is inappropriate to do so by way of a huge block of amendments which fundamentally change the existing legislation. I would like time to discuss it further within my party and the Government parties. Given that the amendment was submitted the week before last, the Deputies opposite might not have had an opportunity to consider the implications of registration for the political system. I would happily look at this separately from the Bill, immediately after its enactment, to try to come to a consensus because it is an issue on which we should strive for consensus.

That means it would be dealt with in another Bill.

We could immediately introduce a Bill to amend the current legislation on registration of political parties.

If it facilitated the debate, we could arrange to place on the agenda a discussion on the registration of political parties immediately after Easter.

The only reason we had a system of party registration was to provide a description on the ballot paper. In the UK a candidate is allowed to describe himself as he pleases on the ballot paper, using up to 12 words. One could dispense with the system of registering political parties. Now, however, we are going further in that we are giving money to these entities. It is, therefore, reasonable from the public's point of view to ask what the entities are and how they are registered. It is an intrinsic part of this Bill.

One would have to be a good goldsmith to get one's hands on the Irish Exchequer.

If a party is set up to advocate a fundamentalist position, whether on the left or the right, it would be entitled to receive money under the Bill, even if it was organised in consultation with international organisations

Only if it gets the qualifying degree of electoral support. We cannot pick and choose political parties or deprive people of legitimate support because we do not like what they say. In France, the National Front gets votes and if it reaches the threshold it is entitled to the political supports available to parties in France. We do not need to like what they say. There are fundamentalists.

That is one of the fundamental objections to this Bill — fascists, racists and anti-semites can receive public money to help them propagate their policies

Only if they have public support.

. If they put forward candidates and receive 2 per cent of the vote they receive a pay out from the Exchequer to help them receive 4 per cent the next time. That is the kind of thing which helped Hitler into office.

That is what democracy is about.

It is about tolerating different views.

The Weimar Republic did not have to subsidise Hitler.

We can take this to absurd degrees. There are legal norms in the Incitement to Hatred Act and other legislation which provide that racists comments would not be tolerated. I do not think the political system can decide it likes and will give money to one political entity and not to another.

That is what happens when one starts giving out taxpayers' money.

We have had a long debate and we know Deputy McDowell's fundamental objection.

It is shared by the vast majority of the people.

In the Deputy's absence we were making great progress towards building a consensus on the principle of funding.

In the last six weeks the Taoiseach has said that Sinn Féin is the same as the IRA and that the two are one movement. This Bill means that the party will receive public funding if it reaches the 2 per cent level of support.

Yes. I loathe the notion of Sinn Féin receiving money. Equally, I loathe the notion of Sinn Féin receiving 2 per cent of the vote. However, people may vote for the party and it is part of the political system. One thing we have striven for since the Downing Street Declaration is to bring groups like Sinn Féin into normal politics and debate, putting their arguments peaceably to the people of the Republic and Northern Ireland. The fundamental principle of supporting political parties with taxpayers' money is accepted in a range of democratic countries and once it is accepted we cannot pick and choose, we just set the threshold of electoral support. All groups will be required to comply with the law of the land and the norms on incitement to hatred, etc.

There is a difficulty because legitimate political parties could be excluded if the 2 per cent threshold was increased. However, if the threshold was 2 per cent of the vote, winning at least two seats and taking those seats——

We cannot do that.

Why not?

The thrust of this Bill is not the support for parliamentary parties, that is, having people elected to Parliament. They are supported in the Bill introduced by my colleague, the Minister for Finance. This Bill supports political parties and is based on the support from the electorate regardless of whether the party has Dáil Members. A party can carry out normal political activity without electing people to the Dáil. For many years, the Green Party had no Dáil Members but was a legitimate party. If people feel strongly that the 2 per cent threshold — which is roughly 37,000 votes and not too many parties will qualify for more than that — should be higher, I will entertain that. None of these figures is set in stone. The idea is to be as reasonable as possible. However, we cannot pick and choose who qualifies and who does not.

The public wants to be satisfied that if money is being paid out to parties the registration system is properly run, which is why this amendment has been tabled. This issue is not separate from the Bill.

Looking at the figures from the last election, Sinn Féin would not have qualified. It got 1.6 per cent in the last election, with 27,800 votes for 41 candidates.

I want to phrase this carefully. There is a high level of anti traveller feeling, for example. There is nothing to stop anybody, particularly in constituencies where there is a perceived problem with travellers, setting up an anti-traveller party with the prevention of the provision of halting sites as its sole aim. That is not an incitement to hatred. An anti-traveller halting site candidate headed the poll in one town in an urban council election in Meath and two candidates were elected on the same platform in another town. There is nothing to stop such people getting together and saying they are a political party because of the looseness of the registration procedure, getting over 2 per cent of the national poll and getting State funds to propagate a policy which is at total variance with the stated policy of all other parties.

The Chairman asked us to focus on the amendment. Our net point is that if money is to be paid to political parties a proper registration system must be established under this Bill. I am prepared to be reasonable about this. I will consider withdrawing the amendment provided the Minister says we can talk about the amendment after Committee Stage.

As soon as the Bill is enacted.

No, we cannot do that.

I am not entitled or authorised to take this Bill off the agenda and deal with some other issue. I am not prepared to do that.

I am not talking about taking it off the agenda. I am talking about providing a proper registration procedure for the people to whom the Minister advocates giving taxpayers' money. If the Minister wishes to complete Committee Stage now, as he said he did, I am prepared to withdraw this amendment if we can agree a registration procedure after Committee Stage, which should not take too long. We could then finalise the Bill on Report Stage with a proper registration system.

The Minister cannot tell me the Department has not looked at this inside out and upside down because there have been court cases and it has been examining it since 1992. The Department has no intention of examining the registration of political parties if it can avoid it. Either we discuss this fully now or we get an undertaking from the Minister to discuss it before Report Stage.

I strongly support Deputy Dempsey. This is the right place to deal with this Bill, despite the Minister's protestations that it is for another day and other legislation. This Bill is the first legislation to give public funding to certain unincorporated associations. If one wants to formalise and regularise those associations, one does it at the time one provides funding for them.

I am not in a position to give an undertaking in the form required by the Deputy. I have said that as soon as this Bill has passed all Stages I will work through the details of registration with this committee. That is as much as I can say. I ask the Deputy to accept that as a reasonable approach.

I am not doubting the Minister's——

I do not have the authority to stop the procedure at the end of Committee Stage and engage in a dialogue about registration.

If the Minister is not in that position, it would be best to deal with the amendment during Committee Stage. I gave fair warning that I had quite a lot to say on this amendment. I hesitate to move this amendment because I do not think the debate on it will be finished by the time Committee Stage is supposed to conclude.

I should warn Members there is a proposal to sit all day next Thursday. Perhaps the convenors will discuss that this afternoon.

I will be at a conference in Kenmare.

In the printed version of the amendment the heading "SECTION 14" should read "SECTION 15".

This amendment is designed to replace section 25 of the 1992 Electoral Act. The amendment proposes there should be specific criteria for the registration of political parties to replace the current provisions which allow the registrar to do it based on his opinion. It also proposes to abolish the outdated concept of registration of a political party in part of the State.

It attempts to identify authorised officers within parties to ease some of the problems created for the registrar when a party splits, such as The Workers' Party and Democratic Left. Muintir na hÉireann has had at least three splits since it was formed. It allows for amendments to entries of the register of political parties. It also extends and refines the circumstances in which an appeal may be made and by whom. It prohibits application for a registration at election times. It defines matters to which the appeal board may have regard in hearing appeals. It suggests that appeals should be lodged to the Clerk of the Seanad rather than the registrar. It empowers the registrar to cancel registration in certain technical situations.

The amendment is very reasonable and long overdue. It is necessary to tighten up the current regulations which have been seen to be less than adequate over the years, particularly in light of a variety of court cases dating back to 1979. Deputy Lenihan mentioned that the only reason the registrar was put in place originally was to allow people to put the name of their political party on a ballot paper. However, given the proposal that people will qualify for taxpayers' money on the basis of registration, it is time to address this issue and provide for proper registration criteria.

I was surprised to learn that it was sufficient for the registrar to form the opinion that a party was a political party and that he could, therefore, register a party as such. It is ridiculous that a group can become a political party on the basis that the registrar forms an opinion that it is genuine and organised in the absence of criteria defining these terms.

The Bill provides for all kinds of regulations and for the disclosures of payments in respect of all political parties. There should be a level playing field when addressing these issues. Objective criteria must apply to all those wishing to register as political parties. Parties should have a semblance of an organisation, including a leadership structure, an executive, etc. The opinion of the registrar is not sufficient in this respect.

The minimum criteria we propose are reasonable and straightforward. We suggest that before any party is registered it should have a constitution, articles of association or rules, annual or periodic meetings, an executive, a minimum of 300 registered members and one Member of Dáil Éireann. If we continue with present arrangements any group of misfits could call itself a political party. Given the importance attached to the registration of political parties, especially after the passing of this legislation, standards must be established to which all adhere. The registrar is in an impossible position if the sole criterion is his opinion on what constitutes a genuine political party.

The main reason for moving the amendment is the provisions in the Bill allowing taxpayers' money to be paid to individuals. The amendment does not allow a political party to be registered once an election is called. It also proposes the abolition of registration in respect of part of the State because of the statutory provisions in place.

The section dealing with the identification of authorised officers caters for splits in a registered party. Such a party will be required at all times to keep the registrar informed of the names of its officers and those authorised to authenticate candidates for the party at elections. In effect, the persons whose names are registered hold the registration of that party and can control its identity and participation in elections.

In recent times, parties have split and factions have assumed their electoral identity. In such circumstances the registrar, a non-political person, must judge and arbitrate between competing factions and effectively make a political decision. The registrar has no power to cancel registration in such circumstances. This amendment would allow him to do this. It would be a reasonable way out where competing claims arise over the ownership and authorised officers of a party.

The effect of part of the amendment is to pin registration to an authorised officer. This is reasonable because it allows the registrar to cancel registration without having to adjudicate on a political matter. In addition, the amendment would allow the registrar to amend entries. At present, registered parties are required to keep the registrar informed of the names of their authorised officers, but there is no provision whereby a party can change its registered name or address or alter other details, such as the class of election it is to contest.

The amendment also introduces the concept of an application for amendment to the register in respect of the registered details. It would facilitate the registrar in adopting a more flexible approach to registering political parties and it would also exclude those intent on becoming political parties through the back door, such as lobby groups.

One of the purposes of the Electoral Act, 1992, is to allow people to put the name of a political party on the ballot paper. Since its enactment, there have been eight appeals regarding the registration of political parties. In one instance there was a judicial review which went to the High Court and the Supreme Court. A number of difficulties have arisen because of the use of the words "genuine" and "organised" and the term "the opinion of the registrar".

As the Minister acknowledged, there have been calls for changes to the section. However, these calls have been ignored by the Department because it has the luxury of holding the legislative reins of administrative power and it will not be in the firing line when the regulations are implemented. The Department's actions are not open to judicial review because of the restrictive nature of the Electoral Act.

It is necessary to define in the Bill who can or cannot be registered as political parties. Before taxpayers' money is spent, we must attempt to define a political party and how it can be formed. The Minister has difficulty with parts of the amendment but the Bill provides an ideal opportunity to deal with this matter. The Minister should not oppose the amendment. If he wishes to alter certain parts of it, he can introduce amendments on Report Stage. Proper registration of political parties is required. The amendment may not be perfect but it goes some way towards defining political parties in terms of our system. I ask the Minister to consider it more favourably than he has to date.

The Clerk of the Dáil, who is the registrar of political parties, wrote to the committee on this subject.

The amendment contains many elements and it must be considered separately. The fact that it is a single proposition makes it more difficult to positively address elements of it. My Department held discussions with the registrar of political parties over some time and I acknowledge this area must be considered. My amendment No. 222 deals with one aspect of it. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment so it can be dealt with separately. We must ensure that action taken in the entire area of registration is right.

We cannot construct a registration system which makes it impossible for smaller parties to register. In addition, we do not need a system which makes it impossible for regional parties to register. For example, in the context of local elections, it is possible smaller and regional parties will not organise outside a county and parts of the amendment would make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to be registered.

I have great respect for the registrar of political parties but the compelling case made by Deputy Dempsey in terms of the burden placed on him does not reflect reality. There have been two applications for registration in recent years. The registrar is not swamped by a mountain of applications for registration which take up much of his time. I agree difficulties in relation to a number of issues need to be properly addressed. However, it is more important to get it right than to address the burden placed on an individual who is charged with a job.

I am anxious the amendment is not pressed. I will deal with the substance of the proposals seriatim,a word much loved by a council colleague of mine in County Wexford who shall remain nameless. The first proposal relates to the omission of registration for part of the State. The registrar stated in his correspondence that substantial difficulties of interpretation have arisen in relation to this concept, not least those outlined in Loftus v.the Attorney General.

If difficulties exist, the judgment of the Supreme Court in that case provides guidance for the registrar in reaching a decision. Two groups are registered as parties to contest local elections on the current register. Given the small number of new applications for entry on the register, it is difficult to understand the need for the amendment. The main purpose of the register is the registration of parties and the fact that difficulties might arise for the registrar is not in itself a sufficient reason to change the rules. If the facility to register for part of the State is removed, it could be argued that small parties might be deprived of registration as they would not be organised to contest elections on a national basis. The concept of limited registration for political parties has existed since 1963. Removal of this provision would represent a significant policy change which must be debated.

Has anybody ever registered a regional party?

Yes, two are currently registered, including the South Kerry Independent Alliance. Its registration address is High Street, Killarney, County Kerry. It is registered for the constituency of South Kerry and the Killarney area in the constituency for local elections.

How many members does it have?

It does not say. I do not know if the other party is a sister of Deputy McDowell's party but it is called the Donegal Progressive Party. It is registered at Raphoe, Lifford, County Donegal, to contest elections in the constituency of Donegal.

It is a Protestant party.

These parties have a legitimate right to exist. I do not want to foreclose the option of groups functioning, registering and operating exclusively in certain constituencies or a region because only two parties are registered at present. This aspect must be carefully considered.

The second proposal relates to the amendment of entry details. I have no difficulty with that but I wish to deal with it separately. The third proposal relates to prohibiting applications for registration at election times. Under the amendment, no application may be made in the period commencing on the date of the appointment by the Minister by order of a day to be polling day for the European election and ending on the day the copy of the register is issued to returning officers. Local elections are mentioned but there is no reference to Dáil elections in the amendment. The registration of political parties would be prohibited in the run up to European and local elections but not Dáil elections. However, that omission is not my difficulty. There is merit in the proposal but the text is defective.

Dáil elections are not included because the register of political parties is published immediately after the declaration of a Dáil election. In effect, there would not be time to do it.

The fourth proposal provides that the criteria for registration should be specific provided that, at the time the application is made, the organisation and direction of the party are governed by a constitution, articles of association and rules or regulations adopted by the party. It also provides for a range of other matters. I defer to my three legal colleagues; I am intimidated and do not know what Deputy Dempsey and I are doing here. Accepting this amendment will make work for our colleagues because including these conditions for registration would be open to challenge in the courts and could be interpreted as being oppressive restrictions on recognition. In the Loftus case the Supreme Court said the words "organised to contest a Dáil or local election" refer not to the degree of perfection of the organisation, which we would all probably welcome, but to the fact of being organised for that object and purpose. The words "genuine political party" do not depend on the extent to which a group or body in question has established itself in the public consciousness or in the range or effectiveness of its organisation. It must be adjudged a genuine political party if is bound together by the cohesion of common political beliefs or aims and by being organised for electoral purposes as an entity to such extent and with such distinctiveness as to justify its claims to be a truly political party in its own right.

The Minister cannot seriously think he can give public money to a body which has no rules.

The case law considered by the distinguished Justice Finlay——

That is a different issue. According to the Minister here we are to give money to a body who need not have a rulebook.

That was on the basis of existing case law. If we made the law and a case goes to a judge, he will interpret what we meant in law.

That is true.

Is the Minister saying public money should be given to a group of people without rules?

I am not saying that. We put down clear criteria for the draw-down of funding. Here we are talking of the criteria for registration. I am open to a considerable overhaul of the registration procedure. This long amendment must be teased out carefully and I wish to have the space to do so. I probably have no objection to the bulk of this but let us examine this within the political system. I have spoken on smaller or regional parties and we can come to a consensus about modifying the registration regime without going the exact road mapped out by this amendment.

I acknowledge Deputy Dempsey's points on the identification of authorised officers, limitation of appeal board matters, appeals to be the sent to the Clerk of the Seanad instead of the registrar and the registrar's ability to cancel registration in certain circumstances of technical breaches of conditions of registration. Would the Deputy agree to my proposal to disentangle this? It is all one amendment. Deputy Dempsey says it does not all stand up.

The Minister has only addressed the omission of parties registered in part of the State. I accept the general point that this might be divided into a series of amendments. Perhaps that could be done at the next committee meeting.

Are we not going to dispose of it now?

I am not trying to be obstructive.

This is not a political issue.

However it needs to be sorted out.

I put forward a mechanism for dealing with that.

The Minister did not because he was going to give money to parties registered under the current regime which I do not believe are political parties.

They have 2 per cent of the popular vote.

I will be speaking about the Minister's extensive programme of reform for local government next Thursday in Kenmare and he would not deprive me of that opportunity to say some nice things about his plan. When we resume he might respond to this.

The Minister might meet with Deputy Dempsey on progressing this matter.

Is Deputy Dempsey withdrawing the amendment or am I to bring forward an amendment?

To address my points, the Minister might propose his own measures to us at the next meeting.

Could the amendment be withdrawn so this can be discussed fully on Report Stage?

Would it not make more sense for the Minister to come forward with his proposal and then Deputy Dempsey can see if he is happy with that?

I do not doubt the Minister but we know what will happen on Report Stage: the Bill will be guillotined in an hour or maybe without any discussion.

I am giving fair time to this.

I appreciate that.

The meeting will adjourn until Thursday, 10 April, or Tuesday, 15 April. We will meet on Tuesday, 8 April, and Wednesday, 9 April, with a view to concluding Committee Stage if possible. This gives the Minister and Opposition spokespersons time to discuss this in order to find a way to make progress.

The Select Committee adjourned at 3 p.m.

Top
Share