I advise the committee that the Chairman will be temporarily detained. In the circumstances, I ask for nominations of a Member to serve as Acting Chairman.
Election of Temporary Chairman.
Clerk to the Committee
I propose Deputy Connor.
Clerk to the Committee
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Connor took the Chair.
Electoral Bill, 1994: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 108:
In page 17, line 42 to 50 and in page 18, lines 1 to 3 to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) (a) Not later than the 31st day of January in every year, each person who, in the preceding year, was a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative in the European Parliament shall furnish to the Public Offices Commission a written statement, in the form directed by the said Commission, in respect of the preceding year indicating whether during that year the member or representative, as the case may be, received a donation exceeding in value the relevant amount specified in subsection (4) and stating in respect of each such donation (if any)—
(i) the value of the donation, and
(ii) the name, description and postal address of the person by or on whose behalf the donation was made.
(b) Not later than the 28th day of February in every year, each political party shall furnish to the Public Offices Commission a written statement, in the form directed by the said Commission, in respect of the preceding year indicating whether during that year the party received a donation exceeding in value the relevant amount specified in subsection (4) and stating in respect of each such donation (if any)—
(i) the value of the donation, and
(ii) the name, description and postal address of the person by or on whose behalf the donation was made.".
—Deputy Howlin.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 108, 111 are 114 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
There is no great disagreement on these amendments except about the closing date for the returns in the detail required. I would be happy to agree these amendments and leave the matter until Report Stage if the Minister of State can assure me she will re-examine the closing dates. She is correct when she states that no Member should have difficulty in compiling his statement in January and having it tabled before the end of the month. That will assist the Public Offices Commission and the general secretary of each party. The deadline of 28 February is very tight. The Minister indicated that she would consider changing this to the end of March or the end of the financial year.
The compilation of information by party headquarters would be assisted if members of local authorities made declarations at the same time as Members of the Oireachtas. The Minister said that each party would have to inquire from each individual as to whether they received donations. Could local authority members be included in the legislation to ensure that they make declarations and assist party headquarters?
Deputy J. Mitchell took the Chair.
I support Deputy Dempsey's point about the last date for the submission of declarations concerning the receipt of funds. The Bill places the obligation on the parties. It will be very difficult for parties to meet that deadline. There are approximately 3,000 units in Fianna Fáil. Will the Minister accept Deputy Dempsey's proposal and extend the date to the end of the financial year?
I have undertaken to look at the date again. A reasonable case has been made for its extension. I must ensure that this will not create any anomalies.
Section 60 requires local authority members to make declarations in relation to local election expenses. This will be implemented by way of regulation. I will look at this again to see if we can accommodate Deputy Dempsey's proposal.
I would like them to make similar declarations to Members of the Oireachtas.
On the same date?
Yes, for the same dates. That would assist the book keeping at party headquarters. The Minister indicated that this does not constitute a change. I accept what she says in relation to the original Bill, however, the importance of this only occurred to me after the Minister's statement on the requirements.
I accept that it would be difficult to impose a legal obligation on each unit of a party. A certain amount of party discipline is required. However, it is reasonable that a responsibility should be placed on public representatives to complete these declarations. This may be covered in section 6.
The Minister refers to election expenses. I have a difficulty with this. If local authority members receive a donation when there is no election in the offing there is no obligation on them to make a declaration as there is in the case of a Member of the Oireachtas. I am not sure if this is addressed in this Bill.
Section 60 relates to local elections.
They were an infrequent occurrence in the last 20 years.
Chairman
Forty years.
Section 60 covers local authority members outside election periods. I will look at this section regarding regulations. Section 60 states: "The Minister may make regulations providing for the disclosure by members of a local authority and candidates at a local election of donations made to the members or candidates, as the case may be". . . I appreciate the Deputy's point. My aim is to be as helpful as possible.
Amendment agreed to.
Chairman
Amendments Nos. 109, 112, 147, 148, 178, 196 and 197 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 109:
In page 18, subsection (2)(a), line 4 to delete "seventieth" and substitute "fifty sixth".
Amendments Nos. 109 and 112 provide for a change in the deadline for unsuccessful candidates to furnish a donation statement from 70 to 56 days after polling day. Amendments Nos. 147 and 196 provide for a change in the latest date for making a change in relation to election expenses from 60 to 45 days after polling day. Amendments Nos. 148 and 197 provide for a change in the latest date for furnishing a statement of election expenses from 70 to 56 days after polling day. Amendment No. 178 provides for a change in the deadline for the furnishing of a donation statement by a Presidential election agent from 70 to 56 days after polling day.
The periods allowed for are of considerable length. What is required is that the correct balance be struck between giving agents a reasonable amount of time to settle accounts and prepare a statement of election expenses or donations and, on the other hand, having all statements furnished to the commission within a reasonable period of time after polling day.
Following the amendment of the Bill to allow candidates to apply for reimbursement of election expenses subject to furnishing a statement to the commission, it will be in the candidate's interests to have the statement furnished as quickly as possible to allow him or her to apply for reimbursement.
I have no difficulty with reducing the period from 70 to 56 days. However, in a multi-seat constituency, is a donation to the party considered a donation to all the candidates? I am not convinced that this is workable in multi-seat constituencies. How will individual candidates deal with us? What about funds which are received during an election or are raised by an individual candidate? Will all candidates benefit from those funds?
I would have thought it possible to differentiate between donations made to a candidate or a number of candidates. When the money is spent it should be clear who is benefiting from it. Political parties can contribute up to 50 per cent of the expenditure of a candidate so there will be a pool of party money from which candidates may benefit. A candidate should know whether a donation is made to him or her or whether it is being split between two candidates.
It might be possible to know if funding was received and was split between two candidates. My concern, particularly in light of the case involving Joe Hendron in Belfast in a single seat constituency who was nearly unseated because of a technical error, is that if a constituency colleague of mine had a function I might be considered the beneficiary even though I received no money. The issues concerning multi-seat constituencies where individual parties put forward more than one candidate needs to be addressed. The legislation will not be as simple to operate as in Britain, for example. We must ensure that none of us is in the position of having made honest returns only to find that we are subsequently credited with having benefited from a function held in the constituency.
Section 19 concerns the disclosure of donations. Subsection (2) (a)(vi) states:
in the case of a contribution made by a person in connection with an event organised for the purpose of raising funds for a political party, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament or a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European election, the proportion attributable to that contribution of the net profit, if any, deriving from the event;
The section then mentions items excluded and not deemed to be donations. Candidates can nominate an agent — they can be their own agent — to ensure that the information provided is correct. The Deputy is concerned that another candidate could raise money and say that he is benefiting from it.
Yes, or that somebody else might claim I benefited from it but did not declare it. In a multi-seat constituency there are issues to be addressed which do not arise in most countries which have similar legislation. I have no problem with the principle of the section but I am concerned about the problems which may be encountered by somebody who makes a bona fide effort to be accurate in making their returns. This may not stand up in a multi-seat constituency where there can be a number of candidates from the same party who may all be raising funds. When a donation is made to an individual it should be declared. It may be passed on to the party at local level or to the agent but the individual will take responsibility for it. However, there is a question over how money raised at a fund raising function run by an individual is to be apportioned. Does everybody benefit from it?
It is a matter for the local organisation. One solution might be to have one agent dealing with two or three candidates. That is a matter for the party. There is an amendment to section 34 dealing with a situation where doubt may arise and we can discuss this when we debate amendment No. 153.
When somebody makes a donation to an individual who then passes it to the party, who is responsible for making the declaration?
If the candidate passes it on to the party for its use, then the party must make the declaration because the candidate is not benefiting from it.
Perhaps issues such as this can be clarified in the explanatory booklet. On the amendments, 56 or 70 days is a reasonable amount of time. Reducing the time for claiming to 45 days will be unnecessary as everybody will make a claim before that. Some candidates have had the experience of fighting three elections within 18 months and found it very difficult to meet election expenses. Up to 1987 some candidates were still repaying debts and loans. Does the declaration impose an obligation on the person to have their debts discharged within the 56 or 70 days or can they declare the bill to be paid even if not already paid?
It would be totally unreasonable to expect people to pay within this time. Once the debt is clarified it is not necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Chairman
Amendments Nos. 110, 113, 150, 179 and 198 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 110:
In page 18, subsection (2) (a), line 8 to delete "Minister" and substitute "said Commission".
Under the Bill as drafted the donation statement and statement of election expenses to be furnished to the public offices commission must be in the form directed by the Minister. These amendments provide that the statements should be in the form directed by the commission. It is considered more appropriate that, since it is entrusted with the function of monitoring the statements furnished to it, the commission should be the authority which decides the form of statements. This is also in keeping with the provision of an earlier amendment which requires the commission to issue guidelines to persons to which provisions of the Bill apply. I ask the Select Committee to accept these amendments.
I agree with this amendment. It relates to what I said yesterday about the Minister for Finance appointing commissions and then doing the job himself.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 111:
In page 18, subsection (2)(a), line 12, after "at" to insert "subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 112:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), line 14 to delete "seventieth" and substitute "fifty sixth".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 113:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), line 18 to delete "Minister" and substitute "said Commission".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), line 22, after "at" to insert "subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 114a and 114b not moved.
I move amendment No. 115:
In page 18, lines 37 to 41, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:
"(6) The Public Offices Commission shall outline, in regulations, the steps to be taken by every person who is required by this section to furnish a donation statement and make a declaration and it shall be the duty of every such person to maintain such records and make such enquiries as are necessary to comply with these regulations.".
In the light of amendments Nos. 110 to 114, I ask the Minister to reconsider this amendment. I am seeking to ensure that the Public Offices Commission has the responsibility of outlining, in regulations, the steps to be taken by a person who is required, under this section, to furnish a donation. The amendment is in keeping with the Minister's amendments. We are giving the Public Offices Commission the responsibility for these areas and I do not see why it cannot take responsibility for outlining the regulations.
It will be the responsibility of the commission to issue guidelines.
That is not clear from lines 37 to 41 of section 21.
Section 3, relating to the Public Offices Commission, provides for that. It is quite specific and is already agreed by way of amendment.
Is amendment No. 115 in conflict with that one?
Chairman
What amendment is the Minister referring to?
Amendment No. 22 to section 3. What part of the Bill does the Deputy's amendment refer to?
Amendment No. 115 refers to page 18, lines 37 to 41 of section 21. My concern is that this section — perhaps the guidelines will clarify it — places an onus on people to make declarations and so on but it does not clearly outline the steps which must be taken by a person in making those declarations. I was under the mistaken impression that all party headquarters had to do was to account for the money received directly through their fund-raising committees. I am concerned that the guidelines should explain what must be done. Because of the nature of the responsibilities we will place on political parties, the steps which must be taken by them must be clearly outlined in regulations. I have visions of a party's general secretary doing his best to follow guidelines and being told afterwards that he neglected to contact "Joe Bloggs" down the road whose organisation is a subsidiary of Fianna Fáil, Labour or whatever. In order to protect the agents, we need regulations which must be very specific about what is required of them. I do not want to labour the point but it is an important one. A party's general secretary might write a letter to the secretary of every unit and then discover six months later that an officer was replaced and he or she may not have written to the new officer. In such a case is the secretary expected to get a reply or may he make assumptions when no reply is received? That is very important because one could make a declaration and somebody some months later, for political or other reasons, might say that a donation was made and was not declared. There should be a statutory procedure put in place which people would have to follow to ensure they cover themselves. The last thing anybody would want would be for the general secretary of a party to be fined £1,000 or whatever. That is the thinking behind the amendment but perhaps this is not the proper place for it. I thought we might be able, in the light of what we are doing here under this section, to delete lines 37 to 41 and substitute ". . . it shall be the duty of every person as required by this section to furnish a donation statement and make a declaration and . . . maintain such records and make such enquiries as are necessary . . ." for the purpose of furnishing the said statement and declaration. People should know what information they are supposed to provide and, more particularly, to what lengths they are to go to ascertain the information.
Chairman
We have already discussed this amendment.
I accept the point the Deputy is making. The regulations will be as comprehensive as possible but we must recognise that different parties organise themselves differently. The Green Party does not even have a leader. One cannot make the assumption that all parties are organised in the same way even though they may share common characteristics. I accept that it would be helpful to have standardised procedures as far as possible.
Chairman
I can imagine a stroppy branch chairman somewhere in Ireland saying "Do not tell those people anything". Some of them are not great at replying to letters.
They are not great at reading letters from headquarters anyway.
Where does it leave the general secretary if he follows the procedure but gets no response from branch secretaries? If he has done x, y and z and others refuse to co-operate, can he report the matter and will action be taken against the individual branch which has not furnished the information? Does the Minister understand my point?
I do, but there must be responsibility at the centre of a party. There would be dangers in offloading responsibility and feeling one was off the hook if one had not received a reply from a party branch. It is a difficult issue but parties must modernise themselves. We all appreciate that local branches are run on a voluntary and ad hoc basis. We will have to be more efficient and accountable in the future. Everybody agrees with that.
I accept that but it will be easier for some parties to do that than it will for others. We are dealing with a Bill which will be in place for the next election in a matter of six to eight weeks. I do not think any party, irrespective of its size, will be in a position to modernise that quickly. I can see enormous potential for the Fianna Fáil Party in doing this given the size of the organisation but I am concerned about the individual who will have to take on this responsibility. The same would arise with any of the other political parties. If the general secretary of a party writes to the secretary of a local cumann looking for information, does not receive a reply and is told he will not receive one, the general secretary can propose to the party at national level that the cumann be disbanded. Disbanding every cumann which receives a large donation could be a great way of getting people off the hook. This problem must be addressed because there is only so much an individual at national level can do to get this information. Apart from internal party discipline procedures, are there legal sanctions against people who refuse to co-operate?
Chairman
What is the position if the general secretary wants to respond and the chairman says he cannot until a meeting is called, but that does not happen?
There is one meeting per year.
Chairman
If one member of a cumann or branch, rather than the whole branch, gets a donation for use in an election and fails to make a declaration, it will cause many difficulties.
We should allow people to take such steps as are reasonable and then we should define "reasonable" in the regulations. There will always be a lack of communication in such cases. The regulations should define what are reasonable steps for a general secretary or an officer in charge to take. That might solve some of the problems. The regulations should be clear. If there is a lacuna, people will end up being brought before tribunals. I am sure it is possible to incorporate the word "reasonable" in the regulations.
I accept that point. The regulations will be as clear and comprehensive as possible.
We will only get guidelines. I presume the Minister is not accepting this amendment, although she should. The subsection is rather woolly.
Chairman
The Deputy wants regulations instead of guidelines?
Yes.
The guidelines will have statutory weight and they will be issued by the commission. The Minister will introduce regulations.
My amendment refers to the Public Offices Commission.
The Public Offices Commission cannot introduce regulations.
I will change the amendment to read: "The Minister shall outline, in regulations".
Would that not go against the Deputy's view that the commission has primary status?
The Minister will not accept the Public Offices Commission should introduce regulations. Somebody should introduce them.
I accept the commission should issue the guidelines which are included in the Bill.
The guidelines will have no statutory weight. The Public Offices Commission will be obliged to issue them, but it will not matter what is in them because they will have no legal status. However, regulations introduced by the Minister must be implemented by the Public Offices Commission. We received excellent guidelines from the Houses of the Oireachtas in relation to the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, but they have no effect in law. Regulations should be introduced so that a general secretary of a party will be able to tell a cumann member that he must give him the information required or he will report him and legal action will be taken.
I understand when this matter was brought to the Minister's attention he said he would consider it on Report Stage. Does the Deputy accept his bona fides?
Chairman
I suggest the Deputy should consider resubmitting that amendment or a slightly amended one.
I accept the advice of the Minister's officials. The Minister would probably have to introduce regulations because the Public Offices Commission would not have a legal right to do so.
That is right.
I will resubmit the amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 18, subsection (7)(b), lines 50 to 52, to delete "and each member of the Dáil to whom a supplementary allowance is payable under regulations made pursuant to section 15(5)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.