I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee of Finance and General Affairs has considered the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996, and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
Electoral Bill, 1994: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Amendment No. 222 is related to amendment No. 73. It is proposed to sit no later than 10 p.m. with a break from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
I propose we finish at 6 p.m.
I agree.
I also propose we break for the Order of Business.
We will adjourn from the end of Question Time until 5 p.m.
Deputies will recall that at the last meeting this amendment was discussed at length. It relates to section 23 of the Electoral Act, 1992. We had convinced the Minister he might move on the amendment and he indicated that he might bring forward his own suggestions. Has the Minister of State anything to say on this section?
I apologise on behalf of the Minister for the Environment. I understand the committee had an extensive debate on the registration of political parties. The revised section 25 submitted by the registrar of political parties contains nine main amendments to the existing section and the Minister undertook to examine these.
I see no problem with the amendments dealing with providing a mechanism for amending the register for changes in the details of a party, lodging appeals with the Clerk of the Seanad instead of the Clerk of the Dáil, who is the registrar, and the late submission of applications at election times. However, would the committee agree to a cut-off date of 14 days before the moving of a writ for an election, after which an application for registration would not be considered for that election? The registrar has to circulate a copy of the register to returning officers on the third day after the day of issuing a writ or writs for an election, so there is not much time to consider new applications. There are three amendments which need to be considered by the Attorney General's office. These deal with the grounds for the cancellation of registration, limiting the matters which can be considered by the appeals board and the circumstances in which an appeal can be made and by whom. The existing provisions in section 25 may be adequate to cover two of these matters, but the statutory limitations on what the appeal board can consider in an appeal needs further consideration.
One amendment would include the party leader as one of the officials who would have responsibility for notifying the registrar of changes in officials of the party. This is unnecessary. The general secretary would be a more appropriate official to name. The committee may have a view on this matter. The two remaining major changes relate to abolishing registration for part of the State and the specifying of criteria for registration.
In relation to the former, Deputy Dempsey stated at the last meeting that he would not press this matter. Specifying strict criteria for qualifying for registration is a serious matter as it would be more difficult for a small party to be registered. For instance, the amendment proposes that a party should have no fewer than 300 certified members. Is this a reasonable number? The submission of the registrar does not deal with why he chose that figure. Deputy Dempsey, who put down amendment No. 73, may be able to expand on how that figure was arrived at.
Other criteria would be the adoption of a constitution before an application is made, providing for an annual conference or other periodic meeting, and conduct of the business of the party of an executive committee or similar body. The Supreme Court stated in the Loftus case in relation to the bona fides of a party that " the words "organised to contest a Dáil or local election" refer not to the degree of perfection of the organisation but to the fact of being organised for that object and purpose. A party may be a genuine political party before it has succeeded in acquiring either a sizeable public image or a visible organisation." The fact that a party may be obscure or ineffectual or have little impact on the public consciousness will be irrelevant if on an application of the tests already set out it may be said to be a genuine political party. The Oireachtas needs to consider carefully any proposal to limit the registration of a political party just because it does not have a high profile or many members or its organisation are not perfect, etc. Small parties play important roles in our democratic system and we should be slow to introduce preconditions which could affect their registration in the register of political parties. What minimum conditions would the committee see as appropriate for the registration of political parties?
What is the 14 day proposal?
An application for registration could be submitted up until 14 days before the moving of a writ.
If the Taoiseach went to the country tomorrow, parties would have be registered 14 days prior to that.
Yes, because the registrar has to circulate a copy of the register. Procedural matters must be dealt with.
I do not have any objections to that. One of the major difficulties at present with the registrar is that when an election is called, he publishes a list of registered parties and other groups have no chance to register as a political party following publication.
The Deputy's view is shared by the committee.
The other questions relate to the restrictions on what constitutes a political party. I quoted from a Supreme Court decision which indicated that because a party does not have a publicly recognised image or perfect organisation does not mean it is not a genuine political party. We need to ensure the political process allows for small parties that do not necessarily carry the traditional hallmarks of a political party.
The Supreme Court decision dealt with the law as is stands. It was introduced to allow political parties to put their names on ballot papers after the names of their candidates. We are talking about using registration as a means by which parties can obtain funding from the taxpayer. We should have tighter regulations for recognising a political party. I accept the points made by the Supreme Court in terms of previous cases. We have entered a new era where candidates will be paid £5,000 for contesting elections if they receive a certain amount of votes and parties will receive taxpayers' money provided they win 2 per cent of the vote nationally. I do not believe that every Tom, Dick or Harry who decides to form a political party should be automatically entitled to funding as outlined in the Bill.
A figure of 300 members for any political party is minimalist. It is not even 10 members per constituency. If local issues, such as dumping or MMDS sites, are prominent in three or four constituencies and people decide to run as candidates, they will not have great difficulty enlisting 300 members. A local meeting on any issue will draw 300 people. Against my better judgment, I would settle for that figure, but it is a token in some respects.
Any party worth its salt should be easily able to enlist 300 members, have a national conference and an executive running it.
They must have a clear political purpose also. I can imagine the false teeth party being set up to advise students to make a laugh of this legislation and receive the cash. Three hundred is a small number. It should be at least 500 and there should be a requirement that the party be organised in a given number of constituencies, for example, 25 per cent. Otherwise, there is a danger that loony groups without political objectives could take advantage of this legislation. This happens in the UK with the Monster Raving Loony Party fielding a candidate in every by-election and general election and receiving 2 per cent of vote.
There is no reference to purpose. I suggest Deputy Dempsey withdraw his amendment and I will withdraw mine so that I can give further consideration to the nine amendments proposed before Report Stage. One must recognise that 2 per cent of the overall vote is the determining factor at the end of the day. The Chairman and Deputy Dempsey are members of large parties. I am a member of a small party and organisation is not always easy. We have to acknowledge a role for small parties.
I am worried about that percentage because it might lead to splintering but, on the other hand, smaller parties exist which might fall below that threshold. That is why we must give consideration to other realistic and fair criteria, such as the number of members in the organisation, the number of constituencies in which it has a presence, its constitution, rules and its purpose. I can imagine students organising a lollipop party or, as they did in Cork, a false teeth party during Rag Week for no proper political purpose but simply to make a laughing stock of the legislation. It is only appropriate to take realistic precautions against that. Is the amendment withdrawn?
I will withdraw it but the Minister said she would deal with the question of the authorised officer. She suggested the general secretary would be more appropriate. I have no major difficulty with that but would it be possible to have either the general secretary or the leader? To take the opposite point to that I made earlier, there may be a split in the party with the leader going in one direction and the general secretary in the other. The later amendment to give the registrar the right to cancel the registration of a political party would overcome difficulties where a split occurred. Has the Minister a reason for choosing the general secretary other than that the office exists in each party?
The general secretary is felt to be the more appropriate person to keep track of this information. We are trying to keep the mechanism as simple as possible. Every party will have a general secretary.
I have no difficulty with that. The Minister made a number of other points which I did not catch.
Those related to the three amendments which must be considered by the Attorney General. They deal with cancellation, limiting the matters which can be considered by the appeal board, and the circumstances in which an appeal can be made and by whom. The existing provisions in section 25 may be adequate to cover two of these matters but the statutory limitation on what the appeal board can consider requires further consideration, so we will examine that.
Amendments Nos. 74 to 77, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 33 to delete "in each year".
Under section 15(2) as drafted the total funds available each year for payment to political parties shall not exceed £1 for every person on the register of electors. On the basis of the existing electorate this would amount to approximately £2.6 million. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 provide that the maximum amount payable to political parties under this section in any 12 month period will be £1 million. Existing payments to party leaders under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Acts should be subsumed and replaced under the Bill as drafted. However, in light of the decision to retain the party leader's allowances the total payable under this Bill is being adjusted by this amendment. It will increase automatically in line with the general increases in Civil Service pay. This mechanism has applied for many years to allowances payable to party leaders under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Acts. Amendment No. 74 is a drafting amendment consequential on amendment No. 75. Amendment No. 77 proposes to delete paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection 2, which make provision for the notification of the Minister for Finance by registration authorities each year of the number of electors on the register. Under the revised proposal such details would no longer be required. I ask the committee to accept these amendments.
We spoke about this on another section the last day. The original Bill would have made £2.4 million available but it is now proposed to reduce that to £1 million. Taking into account the revised party leader's allowance under the other Act, what are the comparative amounts which would have been available to each party if one Bill had been passed and the other had not?
Does the Deputy want the figures for Fianna Fáil or for all the parties?
All of them.
The annual payments to party leaders in October 1996 was £301,000 to Fianna Fáil, £106,000 to Fine Gael, £46,000 to Labour and £150,000 to the Progressive Democrats. The other parties in the Dáil received nothing. The total payments were £603,000. The payments under the proposed scheme to party leaders and non-party Deputies, effective from January 1996, would be £765,000 to Fianna Fáil, £397,000 to Fine Gael, £297,000 to Labour, £185,000 to the Progressive Democrats, £97,000 to Democratic Left, £25,000 to the Green Party and £30,000 to the Independents. The annual payments to parties, based on support at the last general election, would be £430,000 to Fianna Fáil, £270,000 to Fine Gael, £220,000 to Labour, £50,000 to the Progressive Democrats and £30,000 to Democratic Left. There would also be additional once-off payments to candidates after a general election. The total annual payments to party leaders from January 1996 would be £1,796,000. The £1 million alluded to in the section and the once-off payments to candidates should total £1.46 million, based on the 1992 general election. To be absolutely clear, the figures for party leaders will be marginally increased in 1997 because of the link with Civil Service pay. Does the Deputy want the revised figures for comparison?
I will deal with the Fianna Fáil figures. The other parties are receiving a proportionate amount. Before these amendments and the Act passed before Christmas, the Fianna Fáil Leader's allowance would have been £301,000 and if this Bill had been passed in its original format, we would have received an additional £1.1 million, making a total of about £1.4 million. I am not sure what percentage the chairman's party got in the last election.
It was 25 per cent.
Therefore, it would have received £106,000 plus 25 per cent of £2.6 million.
Which would have been £756,000.
My point is that we are getting less from this than we would have got under the regime proposed prior to the McKenna judgment. I asked the Minister to reconsider the figure of £1 million.
The Minister gave an assurance that he would again look at it in the context of——
I wonder if he instructed the——
Does the Minister of State have any response to that?
The Minister is looking at it. Before the McKenna judgment, the Deputy's party would have received £1,205,962, which would have included any leader's allowance. How much will the party lose? Is the figure that far off?
It is less.
It is slightly less.
Can the Minister give me a breakdown of the figure of £1,205,962 because I think it might be a little more than that?
It is £765,000 plus £430,000 which is £1,195,000.
Is that based on our share of the vote in the last election?
Yes.
The figure I have here is £1,205,962 for Fianna Fáil and £684,788 for Fine Gael.
That is £22,000 less in our case. Is the Minister still considering the points raised the last time?
Yes.
Does the Minister of State wish to make any other points?
I do not think so.
According to my figures, the Minister's proposal would give us considerably less than we would have got under the 1994 proposal.
What are the figures?
We would have got about £2.4 million in total.
The entire amount was £2.6 million.
I am including leaders' allowances and everything else.
The party would not have got the leader's allowance because it would have been subsumed into the payments. I wonder if there is slight confusion here.
Would it have been £2.4 million in one year?
Yes.
That was the total amount — leaders' allowances would have been subsumed into that payment. Perhaps the Deputy is double counting.
I will again check my figures.
I will provide the Deputy with the information.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 12, subsection (2) (a), line 36 to delete "year" and substitute "twelve monthly period".
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 12, subsection (2) (a), lines 37 to 39, to delete "pound in respect of each person on the register of Dáil electors in force on the first day of January in that year" and substitute "million pounds".
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 13, subsection (2), lines 1 to 11, to delete paragraphs (c) and (d).
Amendment No. 116 is consequential on amendment No. 78 and both may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 13, lines 12 to 54, and in page 14, lines 1 to 17, to delete subsections (3) to (6) and substitute the following:
"(3) The amount payable to qualified political parties under subsection (2) shall be allocated to each qualified party in the same proportion as the total number of first preference votes obtained by every candidate of each such qualified party at the preceding general election bears to the total number of first preference votes obtained by candidates of all qualified parties at that election.
(4) As soon as may be after the declaration of the result of a general election is completed in each constituency, the Minister shall furnish to the Public Offices Commission and the Minister for Finance, in writing:
(a) particulars of the total percentage of first preference votes obtained at the election by candidates of each party referred to in section 14 calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) of the said section,
(b) the name of each candidate elected, and
(c) the name of each candidate who was not elected to whom the greatest number of votes credited at any stage of the counting of votes at the election exceeds one quarter of the quota, as ascertained from the copy of the notice furnished to the Minister under section 127 (2) of the Act of 1992.
(5) Every payment made under this Part to a qualified party shall be exempt from income tax and shall not be reckoned in computing the income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts of such party.".
Amendment No. 78 provides for the substitution of new subsections for subsections (3) to (6), inclusive, which provide, inter alia, for formula for calculating payments to parties. Under this amendment, subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) are being deleted and replaced by a new subsection (3) to provide for a new formula for allocating funds between parties.
The new subsection provides for the allocation of the funds to qualified parties in proportion to the performance of the parties at the previous general election, using the percentage of first preference votes obtained by each qualified party's candidates as the determining factor. To ensure the payments made to the parties which qualify for payment add up to the total fund available, the total first preference votes of each party is expressed as a percentage of the total first preference votes of all qualified parties. The votes of non-qualifying parties and non-party members are disregarded in calculating the payments.
The proposed new subsection (4) requires the Minister for the Environment to notify the Minister for Finance and the Public Offices Commission of details of the percentage of first preference votes obtained by the candidates of each qualified party, the name of each candidate elected and of each candidate who saves his or her deposit at the election, as soon as may be after all results of a general election have been declared.
This information is necessary to enable the Minister for Finance and the Public Offices Commission to ascertain which parties qualify for payments and which candidates qualify for the reimbursement of expenses under the proposed new section 18, as provided for in a later amendment. It will also be required to enable the Minister for Finance to calculate the amounts of payments to be made to each qualified party. Payments to parties will be related to the performance by each party at the general election. Subsection (5) is an amended form of the existing subsection (6).
Amendment No. 116 is consequential on the deletion of section 15(5), which deals with the power to make regulations for the payment of a supplementary allowance to non party Members of the Dáil. I ask the committee to accept these amendments.
The Minister of State said that the amount payable is the proportion of the first preference votes obtained by the candidates of all qualified parties. Subsection (4) of amendment No. 78 states "As soon as may be after the declaration of the result of a general election is completed in each constituency, the Minister shall furnish to the Public Offices Commission and the Minister for Finance, in writing. . . ". That provision occurs several times in the Bill. If the Public Offices Commission will handle all aspects of this Bill, should it not compile the information and forward it to the Minister for Finance rather than both having to be told at the same time? Is there a danger of delays? I know the Minister for Finance has to get the information eventually, but would it not be better for the Public Offices Commission to certify it and pass it on?
Our Department is responsible for getting and providing the information. It is appropriate for the responsible Minister to be also sent the information. It is felt it is a good idea for the information to be sent to the Public Offices Commission and the Minister for Finance. The information is compiled anyway by the Department and it can be sent to both without any difficulty.
Therefore, it is not a legal imperative. If the Public Offices Commission does not get it, for example, that will not delay payments to political parties. That is my only fear — I have no problem with the procedure. It should be sent to every Minister.
That will not be a problem. It is public information, anyway.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 14, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
16.—(1) (a) A qualified party which receives payments under this Part shall, subject to guidelines issued by the Public Offices Commission pursuant to section 3, apply such payments to any or all of the following purposes, namely—
(i) the general administration of the party,
(ii) research, education and training,
(iii) policy formulation, and
(iv) the co-ordination of the activities of the branches and members of the party.
(b) Payments made to a qualified party under this Part shall be deemed to include provision in respect of expenditure by the party in relation to the promotion of participation by women and young persons in political activity.
(2) A payment made to a qualified party under section 16 shall not be applied to, or to recoup, election expenses incurred at an election within the meaning of the Electoral Acts, 1992 to 1997, the Presidential Acts, 1993 to 1997, the European Parliament Elections Acts, 1992 to 1997, the Seanad (Electoral) (University Members) Acts, 1937 to 1973, the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts, 1947 to 1972, the Local Elections Acts, 1974 to 1997 or the Údarás na Gaeltachta Act, 1979, or on furthering any particular outcome of a referendum within the meaning of the Referendum Acts, 1992 and 1994.".
This amendment provides for the insertion of an extra section in the Bill, specifying the matters on which payments received by a party under the Bill may be used. The section is necessary to take account of the McKenna judgment, the effect of which is that public funds should not be used to further a specific election or referendum result. It is specified in subsection (1) that funds may be used for the general administration of a party, research, education and training, policy formulation and the co-ordination of the activities of the branches and members. In summary, it is envisaged that payments made under the Bill to a party will be used for political purposes other than activities relating to an election or referendum.
Subsection (1)(b) restates section 15(4) as drafted. That provision specifies that payments made to a party should be deemed to include provision for expenditure by a party on the promotion of participation by women and young people in political activity. Subsection (2) specifically provides that funds may not be used for any expenses incurred at an election or referendum. All categories of elections are specified -presidential, Dáil, Seanad, European and local or elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta as well as referenda. I ask that the amendment be accepted.
This amendment brings me back to my point regarding the registration of political parties. The amendment provides that allocated funding must be spent in specific ways. I have no difficulty with this. It excludes elections, referenda, etc. If any group is allowed to establish a party, which will be the case unless we change the registration procedures, how is it proposed to monitor the ways in which they spend the funding? For example, the MMDS candidates may establish themselves as a party for the purposes of getting themselves elected and to put pressure on the other political parties. Although it would be a single issue party, its activities would be political, designed to influence the electorate and it would use its funding accordingly. Does this not illustrate that if there are no criteria regarding the registration of political parties, the McKenna judgment will be turned on its head by groups who may not be responsible political parties?
I argue against the amendment because it is reasonable that funding provided by the State should be used for the administration of parties, research, etc. How effectively will it be policed? Parties with one aim, whether it be in connection with MMDS, water or partition, will spend all their funding on furthering that aim. How do we propose to get them to comply with the McKenna judgment?
Will the Comptroller and Auditor General be able to audit the expenditure?
The Bill provides that the statement must be audited.
Will the Comptroller and Auditor General review it?
It goes to the public offices commission.
Presumably the Committee of Public Accounts will have a remit to examine this area of public expenditure, like all other areas, and the Comptroller and Auditor General will have a role.
Would the commission not be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General?
This matter needs clarification.
The moneys will be allocated from a central fund, the finance accounts bill. They will not be voted moneys so they will not come under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Regarding Deputy Dempsey's point, we must trust the judgment of the electorate. If 2 per cent of the electorate vote for, say, the "Dustin the Turkey Party" it means that thousands of people support candidates from that party to represent them.
Nothing can be as effective as a determining criterion than the 2 per cent provision. It is not as easy to achieve 2 per cent of the vote, as has been suggested. It requires a sizeable number of votes. Members have taken various routes to this House, but they are here because people voted for them. The provision ensures that those who receive 2 per cent or more of the votes on an organised basis have as much a right to funding as Members elected to this House.
Any party, no matter how small, must be organised, have a headquarters, a general secretary and administration, etc. This is done on the basis of membership. The costs for larger parties are proportionately higher. I have no difficulty with those who are seriously involved. For example, The Green Party is serious. It has an administration and a head office.
The threshold for funding is to receive 37,000 votes throughout the country. Given that idiots are capable of getting 200 or 300 votes in general elections it is relatively easy to obtain 37,000 votes over 41 constituencies. For example, students could become a well organised body. There are regional technical colleges and universities in many constituencies and, under the 2 per cent rule, they could make a mockery of the electoral system if they wished.
I am not against genuine people establishing political parties. There are two or three more such parties today than at the last general election. They have organisations, political philosophies and are serious about their business. I am not concerned with those who are serious, but about those who wish to make a joke of the system.
While the rules here are reasonable, if they are to be applied to the spending of funding, similar rules must be applied to the registration of those entitled to obtain it. The section mentions the co-ordination of the activities of the branches and members of the party. It is assumed that exists or will exist in a political party. That is correct but there is a need to revisit the registration area and to tie it up with this section.
I accept there is a connection but the issue is how it should be balanced. People have a right to organise as political parties but they also have a right not to be discriminated against. The figure of 2 per cent is a safeguard and this section adds further safeguards. We are not that far apart.
