Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT (Select Sub-Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government) debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 2011

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee Stage

This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011 and Committee Stage of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011. The sub-committee will consider Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011 from now until 1 p.m. or until its conclusion. The meeting will then suspend for one hour, following which the sub-committee will consider Committee Stage of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011 from 2 p.m. or whenever the sub-committee recommences until 6 p.m. If the proceedings of both Bills have not concluded by 6 p.m. their consideration will be adjourned until a later date. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hogan and his officials, Mr. Eddie Kiernan, private secretary, Ms Riona Ní Fhlanghaile, principal officer, Mr. Barry Ryan, assistant principal, Mr. Eamonn Waters, assistant principal, and Mr. Enda Falvey, assistant principal, franchise section. We will commence with an opening statement from the Minister.

I thank the sub-committee for arranging to take today Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011 which is a short but important Bill containing three electoral reforms. The Bill amends at section 62(a) of the Electoral Act 1997 the terms of reference of the constituency commission by providing for a reduction in the number of Members of the Dáil subject to the relevant provisions of the Constitution. It provides for amendment to section 39(2) of the Electoral Act 1992 to provide that where, after a period of six months from the date of the vacancy arising, the Dáil has failed to direct the chairman to instruct the Clerk of the Dáil to issue the writ for a by-election then the chairman so shall instruct the clerk and for changes in the presidential spending limits and amount of reimbursement that may be made to candidates.

The three measures are separate and distinct but are important features of the Government's commitment to push ahead with this reform.

Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

Amendments Nos. 1, 18 and 19 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—In this Act "Act of 2002" means the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002.".

Sinn Féin's believes it necessary that this small amendment be made to the Bill.

Does the Deputy wish to speak now on amendments Nos. 18 and 19?

Amendment No. 18, which is a lengthy amendment, deals with the supplement of the register of electors. People on this register should be required to produce photographic identification. During the previous two elections, in particular the local elections, a number of people from the same household showed up to vote. In some cases, there were up to nine or ten people from the same address. Sinn Féin believes the production of photographic identification would be useful in this area.

Amendment No. 19 relates to a person who is unable to go to the polling station for various reasons, including by virtue of employment. I know that provision in this regard is made for members of the Defence Forces and security forces. However, there are other reasons people may not be able to attend, such as employment, planned medical treatments, holidays and travel. People who book holidays well in advance following which an election is called are frustrated at not being able to vote despite their being committed voters. As I understand it, other jurisdictions make provisions to cater for such situations. Sinn Féin has put forward these amendments for good reason and hopes they will be taken on board.

The purpose of this short Bill is to deal with three distinct aspects of electoral law. It was never intended that it would be a wide ranging review of matters relating to the electoral commission and electoral procedures, such as outlined in Deputy Stanley's amendments. Even if I agreed with the amendments, I would prefer to deal with them in the context of reforming the electoral law and procedures under the proposed electoral commission to be established next year, as provided for in the programme for Government. The issues that arise in regard to the register of electors are important and are fundamental to our democracy. I have sympathy with some of the issues raised by the Deputy. However, I do not want him to misunderstand my refusal to accept them today as an indication that I will not address the issues involved between now and the next local, European or general election.

While many issues have arisen in the context of compilation of the register, the programme for Government contains a commitment to establish an electoral commission to subsume the functions of existing bodies and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. This commission will be an important element in a reformed and revitalised electoral system. I am giving consideration to how the necessary measures to establish such a commission can be advanced, including its structures and functions. That would be the appropriate legislation under which the Deputy could deal with the electoral register issues raised in the Sinn Féin amendments.

On the specific amendment that electors on the supplement to the electoral register should not have their declarations signed by a garda and that they be required to produce photographic evidence to the presiding officer on polling day, I do not propose to accept the amendment for the general reasons outlined in my opening remarks. We are all agreed that the scope for electoral fraud should be minimal. The electoral code already includes a number of detailed provisions to that end. For example, the legislation already provides for a more onerous procedure in respect of applications for inclusion in the supplement to the register than it does in relation to applications for inclusion on the main register. The electoral law provides that each application for entry under the supplemental register must be signed in the presence of a garda from the applicant's local Garda station, who must first be satisfied of the person's identity before signing, dating and stamping the form. The garda may request photographic or other identification, but where the applicant is unable to comply with this requirement and sets out the reason in writing, the form can be signed in the presence of an official of the registration authority. Again, photographic or other identification may be required. If neither option is viable owing to physical illness or disability, the application form must be accompanied by a medical certificate.

On the specific proposal to extend postal voting to include circumstances relating to planned medical treatments, holidays, travel requirements or studying in Northern Ireland, I do not propose to accept the amendment for the reasons I have set out, but I will take the matter into account in the context of reviewing the electoral Acts and the registration of voters by the electoral commission. I agree that we need to keep an open mind on the circumstances which might merit the option of postal voting. This option was originally confined to the Defence Forces, gardaí and diplomats and their spouses, but these categories have been expanded over the years by the Oireachtas. New circumstances emerge from time to time, and I will consider the arguments that are made for extending the postal voting facility.

I do not propose to accept the amendment providing for the use of PPS numbers as the basis for inclusion on the electoral register for the reasons I have set out. The use of PPS numbers is often seen as a silver bullet for solving the problems associated with compiling the register, but it is not that simple. It is unlikely that the existing PPS database could populate the electoral register with PPS numbers because of the lack of matching identifiers between the two databases. More than 7.4 million PPS numbers exist compared with approximately 3 million names on the register. A proportion of the population, such as pensioners who have retired for a number of years, still do not have PPS numbers. A specific national canvass would probably be required, which gives rise to resource implications because it would be a massive undertaking. People may also be reluctant to provide their PPS numbers for electoral registration purposes and the PPS system does not necessarily capture the details of residence or citizenship, both of which are essential for the purposes of electoral registration under the Constitution and legislative provisions. A national electronic electoral register that interfaces with the PPS system would need to put in place if the PPS number was to be used as a security check. We know from experience how long such major information technology projects can take.

I support the principle of allowing postal votes to people who are on holiday, although I accept this is probably not the appropriate Bill to deal with the issue. It is a matter of urgency given that it arises at every election. People are committed to the electoral system but they are annoyed if they have booked holidays during an election period. We need to investigate mechanisms that would allow people who are ill or on holiday to cast postal votes. I acknowledge the Minister's reservations, however, and look forward to the matter being further considered.

I ask the Minister to restate the respective figures for PPS numbers and voters.

There are 7.2 million PPS numbers and 3 million names on the electoral register.

A lot of people have two PPS numbers.

Every person who takes up residence in the State is issued with a PPS number regardless of whether he or she is a registered voter. Furthermore, the PPS numbers of deceased people may not have been removed from the database.

Under 18s are also entitled to PPS numbers.

Children are issued with PPS numbers when they are born.

I find that people cannot believe there is no provision for those who go on holidays. What timeline would be required for introducing legislation on these issues? I presume they will be addressed within the lifetime of this Government but it would be nice to think new arrangements could be in place for the next local elections. Clearly it will not be possible to introduce the necessary legislation in time for the presidential election, however.

The figure of 7.2 million stands out because, even if one makes allowance for those who come into the country, our population is only 4.5 million. It is clear that the database needs to be cleaned out. If we are to introduce a single point for means assessment across several Departments, I presume the PPS system will be a major component. Surely there is dialogue between the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Social Protection in this regard. Data protection issues also arise. I am concerned that database appears to be unwieldy and is in need of a clean-out.

Further to Deputy Catherine Murphy's comments, 7.2 million PPS numbers is a staggering figure for a population of 4 million. Apart from the electoral implications and the difficulty of setting up a database, the question of social welfare fraud arises. Where are the other 3 million PPS numbers and is there a potential that they are being used to defraud the State?

Some of our colleagues in urban constituencies have come across examples of voter personation whereby polling cards were taken from apartment blocks and used fraudulently. The polling clerk and presiding officer do not necessarily recognise the electors, particularly where they have non-Irish names. There is a temptation for people to engage in electoral fraud. I recognise there are difficulties in regard to setting up databases, particularly given our experience of PPARS and other projects, but a national identity card system using PPS numbers for social welfare, driver licensing and voter registration purposes should be considered. PPS numbers should follow us from the cradle to the grave. Over the lifetime of the Government, an interdepartmental plan should be put in place because there is duplication between housing services, voter registers, HSE entitlements and social welfare. The entire system should be streamlined into a PPS number.

I understand we are dealing with amendments Nos. 1 to 18.

We are taking amendments Nos. 1, 18 and 19 together.

A significant proportion of the PPS numbers could be in the graveyard because the figure outlined by the Minister is massive. I am trying to work out in my own head how one might match up the databases but there must be some way of doing so. We could investigate electoral systems in other countries. We have to do something to address the issue because, despite huge efforts by local authorities, the electoral register is at best 70% accurate in some areas. Some people are listed as many as four times whereas others only discover their names were removed in error when they go to the polling station. All of us have dealt with committed voters who found their names were not on the list when they tried to cast their votes. I ask that something be done about the matter at a later date.

Far be it from me to give the Deputy direction but the previous Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government produced a substantive report on registration and PPS numbers. I advise members to examine the report.

I remind Deputy Stanley that a person can only vote once even if he or she is on the register four times, but a person cannot vote if he or she is not listed. During the Celtic tiger era, a lot of people came and went. They are still registered and have PPS numbers. Deputy Catherine Murphy made a strong indication about data implications, and it is not as simple as it looks when we talk of dealing with the electoral register through the PPS system. I believed it was much easier but there are many legal and data implications.

The establishment of an electoral commission is in the programme for Government and it is intended to have it for the next general election. If I can have it for the next European and local elections, I will do so.

Does Deputy Stanley wish to proceed with the amendment?

No, I will withdraw it if I can raise the matter on Report Stage.

The Deputy may do so if he wishes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 2

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"(2B) The provisions of subsection (2A) shall not apply where an election is due either—

(a) within nine months of Local and European elections, or

(b) within nine months of the date upon which Dáil Éireann must be dissolved pursuant to the provisions of section 33 of the Electoral Act 1992,

provided that, in respect of paragraph (a) of this subsection, the Chairman of the Dáil (or, where he or she is unable through illness, absence or other cause to fulfil his or her duties or where there is a vacancy in the Office of Chairman, the Deputy of the Dáil) shall, as soon as practicable, direct the Clerk of the Dáil to issue a writ to the Returning Officer for the constituency in which the vacancy occurred directing the Returning Officer to cause an election to be held on the same day as the Local and European elections to fill the said vacancy.”.”.

We agree with the idea that a by-election should be held within six months of a vacancy being created. For efficiency and value for money we are looking to strike a balance between filling a vacancy and giving the area where the vacancy occurs representation. We are also taking the efficiency of holding elections into account. Where we are running into a local or European election or the expiry of a Dáil term within nine months of the vacancy occurring, the by-election should be held over until that time.

I understand that when one picks a time, there will always be agreement or disagreement on it. I appreciate the principle of having a finite time in which a vacancy must be filled, and we want to carry that out. I had a Private Members' Bill voted down by my predecessors that stipulated a six-month period and I am running this issue with consistency. Six months is reasonable, notwithstanding the practical issues mentioned by Deputy Collins with regard to local, European or other elections. That issue will always exist and by-election vacancies might never be filled, as can be the case now. We must pick a reasonable period, and six months is reasonable with regard to providing full representation for a constituency. Accordingly, I am sticking to six months.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Section 6 (amended by section 9 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009) of the Act of 1997 is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (1):

"(1A) Prior to the publication of the report referred to in subsection (1) the Constituency Commission shall produce an interim report that shall be published for public consultation for a period that does not exceed three months.".".

We all know and recognise there is a public consultation period with regard to the work of the Constituency Commission. We also know of the concerns of people, particularly as they relate to the breaching of county boundaries, where people seem to get most exercised, and possibly rightly so. There are many examples throughout the country and it happened in my own former constituency. It happens in Leitrim, east Carlow and south Offaly, where there is even a breach of a provincial boundary. This affords people the opportunity for a second period of consultation on the basis of the interim report as produced. When the report is produced, it is accepted in its entirety and people feel discommoded if they are disenfranchised from one constituency to another. This amendment will give more people a second opportunity to make a submission that would take in the findings of an interim report.

I understand where Deputy Collins is coming from. All Governments before 1977 were charged with being guilty of gerrymandering constituencies when it was not subject to an independent commission. With the establishment of an independent commission people now have the chance to make submissions on where representation should lie and what boundaries should exist, or even to take a view on existing boundaries. I encourage people to do this when the new commission is established.

I would be left open to the charge of interference with the independent commission and the outcome of the report if another process were to be included. Generally, people will be happy but there will always be cases where constituents are unhappy about the recommendations, particularly as we are looking to reduce the number of Members in the next Dáil. I have heard this debate before in the House about taking in another stage in the process to tweak the outcome. Tweaking the outcome of an independent commission could lead to allegations of interfering with the final report of the constituency commission, which creates political difficulties.

I have put in the terms of reference the obligation of the new commission to adhere, as far as is practicable, to county boundaries and contiguous urban areas. There should be some logic to the boundaries with regard to county boundaries and urban areas but the Constitution cannot be breached by the commission. There will always be some small areas - I hope they are small - that would be breached to garner the numbers relative to the constitutional provisions. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

We are prepared to withdraw the amendment based on what has been said. Will the Minister take on board the suggestion that when we have the public consultation phase, an Internet facility should be available for people to make an online submission? People would not have to type out their concerns and post them off if this could happen.

I would be happy to have the widest possible opportunity for people to be able to make a submission.

A dedicated website could have a portal to make an online submission.

The commission would decide matters-----

-----of communication of submissions. I am sure it will use the widest possible available opportunity to receive submissions along the lines suggested.

Deputies should indicate if they wish to contribute before I return to the Deputy who moves an amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 3

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 28, to delete "152" and substitute "153".

This amendment proposes that the minimum number of Members of Dáil Éireann to be recommended by a constituency commission, in accordance with section 2A of the Electoral Act 1997, would be not less than 153. The census results, published on 30 June 2011, mean the lower figure of 152 in the Bill for the number of Members is not feasible, having regard to constitutional limits and the fact we must legislate on that basis.

The effect of amendments proposed by Deputies Murphy, Collins and Stanley would be to retain the current range between 164 and 168, to which a constituency commission must have regard in preparing its report. I indicated on Second Stage that I was highlighting the Government's intention to reduce the size and cost of government, and the change to the Constituency Commission's terms of reference that I am proposing in the Bill will achieve this objective.

The change proposed by the Government will allow a constituency commission to recommend constituencies based on a reduced number of Deputies and meet the requirements set out in the Constitution. On Second Stage Deputy Nash suggested we should go down the road of amending the Constitution to provide for the possibility of an even greater reduction in numbers. He may have a valid point but that debate is for another time, and I am not in a position to do it with this legislation.

This links to the previous amendment. We have a growing population and the Constitution is very prescriptive about constituencies. There was a constitutional case in this regard in 2007 over the preliminary figures of the census. Equality is very difficult to achieve but the Constitution must change if the population continues to grow, although that will not happen before the next general election because we know when the next census will take place.

There will be larger rural constituencies as the country urbanises. That will bring its own conflicts because large areas will have to be covered. It is not as much of a problem in tighter urban constituencies where it is easier to commute between one area and the next. I hope people understand that is exactly what it means.

Sinn Féin opposes amendment No. 4 because it is concerned that the increase in population to 4.6 million - it is projected that it will increase by a further 300,000 or 400,000 - means that the ratio will be unconstitutional by the time of the next election. Our second concern relates to this country's structures of local, regional and national government. We agree with the Minister and the Government parties that the cost of all governmental activities should be reduced. We need to achieve better outcomes from the money we are spending on trying to run the administrative system. We have to take issue with the absence of strong local government and the almost total absence of anything that can be described as regional government in this State. I know the Minister has promised some reforms of local government, but they are some way off. I look forward to them. The nearest thing to regional government we have is the Assembly in the North. Teachtaí Dála, who have busy lives, are called on to do a great deal of local work. If we interfere with the current arrangements, significant areas of the country will be disadvantaged. We oppose this amendment on that basis.

I addressed this matter on Second Stage. We are concerned that democracy is being diluted. The Minister acknowledged that his approach is a piecemeal one. We should consider this question in the context of the totality of the workings of the Oireachtas. We need to think about the future of the Seanad and the committee system and the reform of local government. I am at a loss to know why the Government has chosen to provide for between 152 or 153 and 160 Deputies. If it was going to reduce the number at all, why did it not decide to reduce it by more?

We were constrained by the Constitution.

The Constitution could be amended. What is the rationale for the figure that has been chosen?

The Constitution was the rationale for deciding there should be between 152 and 160 Deputies. I thought the lower figure of 152 would be sufficient. I did not expect the population to have increased by 380,000. That was a surprise to everybody. We could not reduce the number to less than 152 while remaining within the provisions of the Constitution.

I understand the constitutional constraints the Minister was dealing with. He could decide to have a referendum on the matter if he wished. Why is the Minister diluting democracy without looking at the totality of the package?

We set out our political reform package in the programme for Government. We said we would reduce the number of Members of the Dáil within the constitutional parameters. That is what we are doing here. We said we would put the question of the future of the Seanad to a referendum of the Irish people next year. We said we would reform local government. I will make a statement on local government between now and the end of the year. It is a total package. As a result of the decision in a case brought by Deputies Catherine Murphy and Finian McGrath, I am legally obliged to establish a constituency boundary commission on the basis of the preliminary results of the census. I would prefer to do it all together. I have acknowledged that it is being done in a piecemeal manner. We are obliged to proceed in that way because of the High Court decision. I will not wait around with regard to what we are trying to do in the area of local government. Deputy Collins is aware that I took action in his own county of Limerick as quickly as I could, after consulting my Government colleagues. I will take similar action in other areas in the near future. I appreciate what he is saying. I have to revert to the lowest possible number of seats, which is 153 rather than 152, while keeping within the provisions of the Constitution.

I do not accept this is a dilution of democracy. When I knocked on doors during the general election, people made it quite clear that there are far too many politicians in Ireland and that the number of politicians should be reduced significantly. It was clear to me that they want national parliamentarians to do national parliamentary work and proper local government structures to be put in place. I am glad that a package of measures is being introduced. Perhaps the UK system for dealing with population growth could be considered as part of any review of the Constitution. In the UK, a disproportionately larger number of seats is given to more sparsely populated areas. The highlands and islands of Scotland are represented by MPs who cover massive areas with populations smaller than most suburbs of London. That might be a way of accommodating Deputy Catherine Murphy's concerns about our large rural constituencies, one of which I represent.

I do not think she said she is concerned about them.

There is a huge body of case law on this matter. The case Deputy Finian McGrath and I took is not the only one. The case law, which goes right back to the 1960s, clearly provides that there should be equality of representation and that voting strengths should be as equal as possible. I do not think we can compare Ireland to Britain or anywhere else. We have a defined Constitution which has stood the test of time, in many ways. It will not be easy to change this aspect of the Constitution.

If we want to move away from equality of representation, Chairman, we will have to revisit to the Constitution.

There are times when the Chair wishes he was sitting with the other members of the committee.

I have some strong views on the matter.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—Section 6 (amended by section 9 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009) of the Act of 1997 is amended in subsection (2) by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph (b):

"(b) each constituency shall return four, five or six members.”.”.

This amendment advocates the creation of larger constituencies. The Minister is most familiar with the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency.

I am familiar with all of them.

I know that. I am using Carlow-Kilkenny as an example. The Minister knows every inch of it. If the population of a constituency like that, or Laois-Offaly, were to increase significantly, the option of increasing the number of representatives of the constituency should be available so that boundaries do not have to be amended with the effect of moving part of one county into a different constituency. At present, part of County Carlow is in the Wicklow constituency. Six-seat constituencies could be used without increasing the overall number of Deputies to more than 166. I understand such constituencies were used in the earlier days of the State. Students of political history or people who are more au fait with these matters will correct me if I am wrong in that regard. We all want to try to make sure the outcome of elections - the number of Deputies elected for each party - reflects the percentage of the vote received by each party as much as possible. It has been known for a party with 3% of the vote to win eight seats in the Dáil. By contrast, parties have won a higher share of the vote but have taken fewer seats. Should I speak about amendment No. 6, which relates to county boundaries?

No. I ask the Deputy to confine his remarks to amendment No. 5 for the moment.

I have explained what we are trying to achieve in amendment No. 5. We want to ensure the outcome of each election is as reflective as possible of how the votes were cast. The number of seats a party has in the Dáil should, as far as possible, reflect the percentage of the vote it achieved in the election.

Section 6 of the Electoral Act 1997 sets out the functions of a constituency commission. Section 6(2)(b) provides that “each constituency shall return three, four or five members”. The effect of Deputy Stanley’s amendment would be that each constituency would return “four, five or six members”.

In Ireland constituency size has been restricted to three, four and five seats since 1947. This strikes a reasonable balance between the competing considerations involved. There are arguments in favour of the maximum degree of proportionality in the ratio of seats to votes and I understand these arguments. On the other hand, there are issues surrounding the practicality of having constituencies larger than those provided for. All of us are concerned about the alienation of citizens from politics and agree that there is a need for a greater connection between the people and the parliamentary and government systems. I am not sure that having constituencies with a population of 280,000, as would, for example, occur in the case of a six-seat constituency, is the way to proceed. One of the successes of the electoral system has been the retention of close links between a Deputy and the people in his or her locality. Any move to a six or seven-seat constituency would give rise to difficulties in sustaining these links. In addition, the amendment would not allow a constituency commission to consider having three-seat constituencies. I am against the amendment for these reasons.

We are advocating having four, five or six-seat constituencies, not seven-seat constituencies. Within the terms of the Constitution, this would involve constituencies with a population not of 280,000 but of 240,000.

The other point is that if there were six persons elected in a large constituency, we all are aware that the part of the constituency or county in which they live would tend to be the area in which they would be most prominent. My party argues that it would connect Deputies better with the electorate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—Section 6 (amended by section 9 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009) of the Act of 1997 is amended in subsection (2) by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph (c):

"(c) the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided except for exceptional circumstances which extensive reasoning must be provided for.”.”.

My party has tabled this amendment to address in the Bill the issue of county boundaries, about which we are particularly concerned. My constituency includes a small part of County Tipperary. I understand a few other constituencies also contain a small part of another county. Sometimes this cannot be avoided in trying to meet the criteria set out in the Constitution. Specifically, we are concerned about County Leitrim which is literally being sawn in two. It is a small, marginalised county and we are not arguing in favour of it being a constituency on its own because it only has enough electors to elect one Deputy. We would like to see the amendment being taken on board to facilitate County Leitrim being connected with either County Roscommon or County Sligo. Having it in two halves makes it difficult. One could finish up in a position where there would be no Deputy in the county. The argument brought forward by the Minister on amendment No. 5 concerned voter alienation. There would be no greater voter alienation than having an entire county without a Deputy.

People have an opportunity in elections to vote for candidates in County Leitrim and choose to do so or not as the case may be. They have an opportunity to do this in democratic elections. If they feel strongly enough about the candidates put up for election, I am sure they will elect them.

There is not much between the wording of Deputy Stanley's amendment and mine. I advocate that as far as practicable there should be no breach of county boundaries. The Deputy is saying there should be a breach of county boundaries only in exceptional circumstances. There is, therefore, not much between us. We are trying not to breach county boundaries as far as practicable, but, unfortunately, we must remain within the constitutional parameters. In the 1961 judgment of Mr. Justice Budd in the O'Donovan case in the High Court it was stated:

Although a system in the main based on counties has in fact been adopted, there is nothing in the Constitution about constituencies being based on counties. The Constitution does not say that in forming the constituencies according to the required ratio, that shall be done so far as is practicable having regard to county boundaries.

There is no absolute prohibition on the breaching of county boundaries. The experience has been, difficult as it might be, we have tried as far as practicable to remain within county boundaries. There will always be hard cases, but, as the old saying goes, they do not always make good law.

In the last general election the people of County Leitrim elected a Sinn Féin TD.

They had their chance to do so on previous occasions also and did not do so.

They did not do so on previous occasions.

I will return to the Deputy. Other members have indicated that they wish to contribute.

One would think counties were uniquely Irish constructions. In fact, they were products of the Crown which wanted to take control of the country and they were created between the 12th and 17th centuries. It is ironic that Sinn Féin, in particular, is advocating such a point on the basis of identity. There is no doubt people have a sense of identity when it comes to colours, football, hurling and all the rest, but I am not entirely sure that would be an appropriate division in terms of electoral law. The issue of identity arises at a much lower level, at community level, the level at which local government could play a major role. I am a fan of the district council model and take every opportunity to say so because there is an opportunity to make progress at that level because there is a real connection and a sense of trust. There were 71,000 living in Kildare in 1971; there are 209,000 living there today. As there are far more people who are non-indigenous to the population, I acknowledge identity is less of an issue in the area as a consequence.

I want to offer my opinion on the constituency I represent, Sligo-North Leitrim. During the years there has been movement between counties Roscommon and Sligo. Part of County Donegal was included at some stage in the 1960s. On a previous occasion Leitrim village and surrounding areas were included in the constituency of Roscommon constituency, but on this occasion they were included in the constituency of Sligo. There is considerable confusion among the electorate as to who their representatives are and what constituency they are in. I have spoken to the Minister about this issue.

The Deputy put them right when he was canvassing.

I did my best. Half a Leitrim man has been elected in Sligo-North Leitrim, while a Sligo man has been elected in Leitrim. We have done well on this occasion. It has been an issue for many years that people in County Leitrim feel they have lost their identity. Under the constituency commission, I do not know whether there are recommendations in that regard. There are other constituencies with a similar experience. I am anxious that it be Sligo-Leitrim, as it was for many years. Perhaps there might be an extra seat in the constituency, and everybody would then be happy.

I agree with the spirit of what Deputy Stanley and the Minister said. While I concur with Deputy Catherine Murphy's remarks about size of population, the overriding concern, the position in Limerick is totally different from that in Deputy McLoughlin's. The population of County Kerry can sustain five seats, but in order to have six, a big scalp was taken out of County Limerick, which was victimised. Rather than have five seats in County Kerry, the boundary commission, for whatever reason, removed a population of 17,000 - enough for one seat - from County Limerick in order to sustain six seats in County Kerry. As far as I recall, the first principle of the boundary commission's terms of reference was that, where practicable or as far as reasonable, county boundaries should be respected. The boundary of County Limerick was not respected. In fact, we have a population, between the old constituencies of Limerick East and Limerick West, to sustain eight seats comfortably in the Dáil. Now, we have seven and there is a quota in north Kerry. I have no difficulty with the independence or otherwise of the commission.

We are not referring to it now.

The principle of Deputy Stanley's amendment is at issue. Most people do not realise what constituency they are in until these changes are made and they are affected by them at election time. This relates to a previous amendment referred to by Deputy Collins. These things should be communicated better in advance of the election.

I call on Deputy Stanley to conclude on the amendment and to indicate if he wishes to press it.

I will conclude on some of the points raised about the county boundaries and where they came from. Of course they came under the colonial system but we are where we are.

(Interruptions).

People identify with county boundaries but the system of local government is relevant as well. Deputies from North Tipperary, for example, Deputy Coonan, may have to attend Offaly County Council in respect of certain matters in his constituency. It can make life awkward for Deputies when county boundaries are breached. This is where it is at and people identify with that. There is a psychological, emotional and local attachment to county boundaries but there are also practical implications for local government and to try to make local government fit with the national Government. There is a practical angle to it.

There is also a psychological identification, mainly through Cumann Luthchleas Gael and the good work it has done throughout the years. People hold a loyalty to and an identification with a county. It is not a tribal thing; people are not robots. We should not deal with people as if they are pieces of paper. People have local loyalties and a local sense of community within a county and we must try to recognise that and deal with people as human beings and not as robots.

Following the Minister's response, do you wish to proceed with the amendment or to withdraw it?

I will withdraw it.

I wish to respond.

You cannot. That section is closed. You must come in before the Deputy makes his concluding comments.

I was in before he concluded.

No, you were not. You must indicate before he commences speaking and you did not do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—The Electoral Act 1997 is amended by substituting the following for section 17(2)(b)(i):

"(b) (i) Whenever, on or after the passing of this Act, there is a general increase or decrease of remuneration in the civil service with effect from a particular date, pursuant to agreements or arrangements having effect on a general basis in the civil service (whether or not they also apply in relation to persons employed other than in the civil service), the aggregate of the payments which may be made under this section shall be increased or decreased correspondingly with effect from that date.”.”.

This is to provide for an increase as well as a decrease. Essentially, that is the point of it.

The current arrangement for the payment of State funding to political parties under Part 3 of the Electoral Act provides for the amount available to be linked to a general increase in remuneration. In recent times there have been no increases in Civil Service pay rates and the amount disbursed has remained static since 2008. That there have been no changes in recent years reflects the times we are in.

I am not in a position to accept the amendment but I will undertake to give it further consideration in consultation with my Government colleagues. Consideration will be given to the way in which the amendment is prepared and presented rather than the spirit of what the Deputy is attempting to do. While the amendment appears simple on the face of it, we must check and test it. I am not ruling out a change along the lines of Deputy Murphy's proposal but I will consider the opportunity to do so under the political funding legislation which will be before the House later this year.

Is the Minister likely to consider it in that context?

Yes. We will examine it in the context of that legislation.

If the Minister is prepared to do that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.—The Act of 1997 is amended by inserting the following section after Part VI:

63.—Not later than the 31st day of January in every year, each political party who, in the preceding year, was a political party according to the definition set out in section 2(b) of this Act, shall furnish to the Standards in Public Offices Commission a written statement, in the form directed by the said Commission, in respect of the preceding year indicating the political party’s financial accounts, including a full set of income and expenditure statements, and listings of the political party’s debts and assets.”.”.

We propose greater openness in terms of the accounts of political parties and that parties should produce balance sheets not later than 31 January. This is to try to improve the practise and image of politics and the integrity of the whole political process. The proposed amendment is simple in this regard.

I have intentions along the lines proposed in this amendment but they will be included in a different Bill, the electoral (amendment) (political funding) Bill, which will come before the House in the autumn. I have no difficulty with the spirit of the amendment but it would be more appropriate in the electoral (amendment) (political funding) Bill 2011.

I am prepared to withdraw it on that basis. If it will be catered for in a separate Bill, we are satisfied with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 5

If the question on amendment No. 9 is agreed, amendments Nos. 10 and 11 cannot be moved. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and alternate and will be discussed together. The debate will be on amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive. Amendment No. 9 is in the name of Deputy Stanley, amendment No. 10 is in the name of Deputy Collins and amendment No. 11 is in the name of Deputy Murphy. I will take them in that order.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, to delete lines 14 to 17 and substitute the following:

"(b) The amount of election expenses which may be reimbursed to a candidate under this section shall be the actual expenses incurred by the candidate or €150,000 whichever is the less.”.

This is a straightforward amendment to reduce the amount a candidate can be reimbursed. We believe that €150,000 is a substantial amount of money and one could run a substantial campaign with that amount. Given the times we are in, we believe that the reimbursement of €150,000 of taxpayers money to a candidate is sufficient. We realise that candidates should be reimbursed with at least part of the money they have spent because otherwise people simply could not run for election. However, we take the view that €150,000 is adequate as opposed to the €250,000 proposed in the Bill.

Our amendment is to reduce the reimbursement on the basis of the pro rata reduction in the spending limit we propose by way of amendment to section 6. We propose to reduce the limit from €750,000 to €500,000 on the spend and to reduce the refund to the candidate or the party by the same amount pro rata.

I make it clear that I belong to a technical group and amendments are coming through my name that are being advanced by other people. I make it clear that this was tabled by Deputy Clare Daly who has proposed the €100,000 limit. I believe €100,000 is too low although it seems strange to argue against an amendment in my name. However, there is an issue with how these campaigns are funded. If there is no element of public funding then where the funding comes from is an issue. This amendment is in the case of a presidential election but the issue of corporate donations has caused so many problems in the case of general elections and other elections. A reasonable amount of money should be reimbursed to run a campaign. I would have preferred if Deputy Clare Daly were here to make the case for the amendment.

Will the Minister refer to each of the amendments?

Yes. I will refer to the three amendments. They are the same in principle except with varying figures. I refer to Deputy Murphy's comments about political donations. This is precisely the reason we are abolishing corporate donations or restricting them and leaving the figure at €200,000. We cannot allow a situation where a candidate who seeks to stand as President of Ireland is restricted because of money and is unable to do so on that account. If one reduces it too much, people will take the view that they cannot afford to run. One cannot raise money in the same way as in the past. The financial climate is not conducive to it. Effectively, one would send the message to people that unless one has money, one cannot run. This is why I believe the figure of €100,000 is too low. A figure of €150,000 is a reasonable amount but one could pick a figure and argue it well one way or the other. I did not go as low as €150,000 in the Bill because I took the view that €200,000 was needed to mount a campaign. One must get 25% of one's quota in a presidential election. That is a vast amount of ground to cover throughout the country. I did not wish to limit the field for money reasons. That is the reason I picked the €200,000 limit and I am opposing the other figures, notwithstanding my agreement with the principle of reducing the reimbursement figure, as I have indicated in the Bill, from €260,000 to €200,000.

In the last general election my party, Sinn Féin, ran candidates in all constituencies bar four on far less than the aforementioned figure of €200,000.

The €200,000 limit pertains to Presidential elections.

Absolutely, but contesting Presidential elections is not as expensive as fielding 40 or 41 candidates.

They are very expensive.

When do you expect to have the cheque in the post? When can the secretary of the party expect to receive it?

The Deputy should address his comments through the Chair, please.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, have been grouped together for discussion purposes.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 4, line 20, to delete "shall be made by the Minister for Finance" and substitute the following:

"shall be made by the Minister for Finance, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,".

Amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, essentially are technical amendments that arise from the transfer of functions from the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 4, line 29, to delete "Minister for Finance" and substitute "Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 4, line 42, to delete "Minister for Finance" and substitute "Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6

I note that if the question on amendment No. 15 is agreed to, amendments Nos. 16 and 17 cannot be moved. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and alternatives and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, to delete lines 23 to 26 and substitute the following:

" "53.—The aggregate of election expenses which may be incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at a presidential election in connection with his or her candidature at a presidential election shall not exceed €350,000.".".

This amendment proposes a reduction in the overall figure one can spend at a Presidential election. This is another attempt to give those who do not have much money the opportunity to run in an election. In the current climate €350,000 constitutes a substantial amount of money. In other countries, the worst example being the United States of America, one is obliged to raise millions and billions to run for election. This inevitably skews the outcome because the backers of the leading and successful candidates dictate the line taken by these candidates, as well as the policy issues and the manner in which they are addressed on those politicians assuming power. On three quarters of this small island of ours, that is, the Twenty-six Counties, one can run a substantial campaign with €350,000. The sum of €750,000 included in the Bill is, therefore, excessive.

I am unsure how a point I wish to raise with the Minister can be resolved, although I presume he has given it some thought. I refer to the period during which a candidate can spend money in the run-in to an election. For example, I note some people started campaigning months ago for the forthcoming Presidential election, as is their right. I acknowledge the Bill is probably not the place in which to do it, but at some point in the future there should be an examination of how greater clarity can be introduced with regard to the amounts spent. If the limits pertain to the amount a candidate can spend in the last month of a campaign, all members are aware that it is possible to ramp up expenditure beforehand. Consequently, one can spend a considerable amount of money before entering the period in which expenditure is actually calculated.

All members probably agree that contesting elections in Ireland is too expensive and requires significant investment. This has been substantiated-----

That is unanimous.

-----by a study carried out in the department of politics in UCC by a Professor Collins I believe, unless I am mistaken. He is not a relation of mine. The finding was there was a direct correlation between how a candidate fared in an election and how much money he or she spent, in that the more one spent, the better one did. There is a direct link, which is not good for democracy. Fianna Fáil obviously seeks to reduce the limit. In reference to previous amendments discussed by members on reducing refunds to candidates, the Minister stated he did not wish to limit the amount for financial reasons. However, it works both ways as retaining a high expenditure ceiling also limits candidates in that candidates from big organisations or political parties obviously have an inherent advantage over those from smaller organisations or independent backgrounds.

One also must bear in mind that during Presidential elections the amount of free publicity enjoyed by the candidates is huge because of the limited number of candidates. Candidates enjoy much exposure on all of the major television programmes such as "Prime Time", "The Late Late Show" and so on. As the candidates enjoy much more free publicity from that perspective, Fianna Fáil considers that the spending limit could be reduced. Therefore, the amendment I have tabled proposes a reduction to €500,000.

I consider the sum of €750,000 to be far too much. I was entitled to spend €35,000 in my constituency during the last general election campaign and was able to contest the election comfortably with about half that amount. Moreover, it was not my first time to run a modest campaign that was successful. Others, however, would spend up to the expenditure limit because they have the money to spend. However, that is not necessary and is wasteful. One criticism in the holding of a Presidential election concerns the cost and when that becomes a feature, it discredits the role of the Presidency. I probably could give lessons on how one could run a campaign on a shoestring, having generated funds by way of tin box campaigns and so on during the years, but €750,000 is far too much. Even if my proposed limit of €300,000 is considered to be too low, the Minister should give consideration to reducing the limit from €750,000.

All members are in agreement on the principle of reducing the limit and the Bill reduces it by 45%. I thought in so doing we were making some progress in the direction of what people desired in the current straitened financial circumstances. However, one is not obliged to spend €750,000.

That is not the point.

It is a target, but one is not obliged to spend it.

There was confusion in respect of this and previous amendments pertaining to expenditure limits. I am trying to help people to participate in the democratic process under the provisions included in section 5 by providing for a potential refund of €200,000, subject to their receiving 25% of the quota. I wish to restrict the amount of wasteful spending during an election by reducing the figure from €1.3 million - an outrageous figure - to €750,000. While I do not believe any candidate will spend €750,000 in the forthcoming election, one is not obliged to spend it as it simply is a target figure. I remind Deputy Catherine Murphy that there is a national expenditure figure as well as a local expenditure figure and that she is not equating like with like in a political party sense. A Presidential election campaign is a completely different ball game. Perhaps she might not always appreciate this as an Independent Deputy, but a huge amount of money is spent. Moreover, an independent candidate understands a huge amount of money must be spent to present himself or herself in a national campaign. It is an expensive business to opt to participate in such an election. Candidates can spend less if they so wish and I believe the change I am making in this legislation sends a strong signal that the Government wishes to reduce substantially the amounts of money wasted in contesting elections. I wish to impose a ceiling of €750,000. Consequently, a figure between zero and €750,000 will be available to candidates.

I accept a reduction of 40% is welcome and constitutes a move in the right direction. I refer to the point made by Deputy Niall Collins about free publicity. Some of the people running for election may already be superstars in the Irish context and there are significant media opportunities. My point about general elections is that we all have to run individual campaigns in our constituencies. It is a far tougher job than a presidential election. A candidate with €750,000 to spend gains a significant advantage over a person who can only raise €100,000 or €120,000.

On a point of clarification, is the spend of €350,000 the equivalent of ten five-seat constituencies?

The spend for a five-seat Dáil constituency is €45,200, a four-seat constituency is €37,650 and a three-seat Dáil constituency is €30,150. These aggregate to €1.575 million across all constituencies. The proposal in the Bill is for 50% less.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 5, line 26, to delete "€750,000" and substitute "€300,000".

If there is a maximum expenditure figure, large national organisations will use that maximum figure. From my perspective, an independent candidate will not have an organisation or the wherewithal to raise the kind of funds that will make the difference. The point about funding having a bearing on the outcome is important from that point of view.

I will consider the issues raised by the Deputies in the context of political funding and particularly during the lead-in time to all elections, when the calculator starts to move. This can be discussed when we deal with the political funding Bill later this year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.—(1) The Department of Social Protection shall furnish to the local franchise registration authorities information on, and access to, PPS numbers of all those

eligible to vote.

(2) Local franchise registration authorities shall use PPS numbers to determine the electoral register rather than a person's address.

(3) Local franchise registration authorities shall automatically enter a person on the electoral register on their eighteenth birthday.

(4) Local franchise registration authorities shall automatically remove a person from the electoral register on the issuance of a death certificate for that person.".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Top
Share