Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999

Vol. 503 No. 1

Electoral Act, 1997, Order 1999, and the European Parliament Election (Reimbursement of Expenses) Regulations, 1999: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the Electoral Act, 1997 (Section 33) Order, 1999, and the European Parliament Election (Reimbursement of Expenses) Regulations, 1999, copies of which, in draft, were laid before Dáil Éireann on 24th February, 1999.

I thank the House for agreeing to take both motions together. The draft regulations and draft order are directly related.

The draft order and draft regulations are laid before the House in accordance with section 33 (3) of the Electoral Act, 1997, in the case of the draft order and section 21, (3) of the same Act in the case of the draft regulations. The Act pro vides that, where an order or regulations are proposed to be made, a draft of each shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order or regulations shall not be made until resolutions approving the drafts have been passed by each House.

In relation to the limitation of European election expenses, section 33 of the Electoral Act, 1997, as amended by the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1998, provides that the aggregate of election expenses which may be incurred by or on behalf of a candidate in connection with his or her candidature at a European election shall not exceed the relevant amount specified for the constituency by the Minister by order. Section 33 of the 1997 Act commenced on 1 January 1998 but it requires the draft order under discussion to be agreed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before it is operative.

Before deciding on the amount to be specified, a number of possible scenarios for determining an expenditure limit were examined. Regard was had to the amounts included in the Electoral Bill, 1994, when it was published. These provisions were subsequently omitted on Committee Stage at the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs in March and April of 1997. The amounts then specified would have provided the following expenditure limits per candidate if the political party expenditure was divided equally among its candidates in a constituency: in a three seater, £210,000 for one candidate; £135,000 per candidate if there were two candidates and £100,000 per candidate if there were three candidates; and in a four seater, £230,000 for one candidate; £155,000 per candidate if there were two candidates and £130,000 per candidate if there were three candidates.

Two other methods were examined before a decision on the amount to be specified was taken. In the first, the population ratio between Dáil and European constituencies was applied to the expenditure limits set for Dáil elections in the Electoral Act, 1997. The results, based on a mathematical correlation, were £142,660 in a three seater and £191,420 in a four seater.

An alternative calculation based on the number of Dáil constituencies in each European Parliament constituency resulted in expenditure limits per candidate of £139,000 for a three seater and £188,000 for a four seater.

In summary, the foregoing analysis suggested the following range of possible expenditure limits for three and four seat constituencies for one candidate: three seater – £139,000 to £210,000; and four seater – £188,000 to £230,000.

The draft order before the House proposes that the limit for election expenditure by candidates in the European elections in 1999 should be £140,000 per candidate in each constituency. It is not proposed to set different amounts for the three seat and four seat constituencies. As Deputies are aware the Munster and the Leinster and Dublin constituencies have four members each, while Connacht-Ulster has three members. The £150,000 is inclusive of a candidate's political party expenditure.

Under the Electoral Act, 1997, a political party which authenticates a candidate must appoint a national agent and each candidate must appoint an election agent. The national agent and the election agent will be responsible for furnishing an election expenses statement after the election to the Public Offices Commission. It will be a matter for these officials to ensure any expenditure relating to the European election which is incurred in connection with the local election being held on the same day is accounted for by them. Any other party official, branch or candidate at a local election will have to inform the national agent and-or the election agent at the European election of their intention to incur expenditure in connection with the European election and obtain the agent's authority. It is an offence under the Electoral Act, 1997, for any person to incur election expenses or make a payment, advance or deposit in respect of such expenses at a European election on behalf of a political party or candidate without the authorisation of either the national agent or election agent.

There is no reason there should be problems in accounting for expenditure at the European or local election, but there will no doubt be extra administrative work in keeping records, etc. The following persons in particular will have responsibilities at the elections: the national agent for a political party at the European election, the election agent for a candidate at the European election, the national agent of a political party at the local election, the designated person of a political party at the local election and the candidate at the local election.

It will be the responsibility of these persons to keep records, to furnish election expenses statements, including statutory declaration, that the statements are to the best of the person's knowledge and belief correct in every material respect and that he or she has taken all reasonable action to be satisfied as to the accuracy of the statements.

In relation to election expenditure, the definition of election expenses at the European election will be the same as at a Dáil election. The period for the purpose of disclosing expenditure will be the period between the date of the Minister's polling day order, which I expect will be made not later than 7 May, and polling day. In addition, any election expenditure incurred before the polling day order for use during the election period must be disclosed in the election expenses statement to the Public Offices Commission. I understand the commission will shortly issue guidelines for political parties and candidates.

Turning to reimbursement of expenses, section 21 of the Electoral Act, 1997, as amended by the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1998, provides that the Minister may make regulations providing for the reimbursement of election expenses of candi dates at a European election and may make provisions corresponding to the provisions relating to the reimbursement of election expenses of candidates at a Dáil election, subject to any modification appearing to the Minister to be appropriate.

The 1997 Act provides for the reimbursement of a candidate's actual election expenses for a Dáil election up to a maximum of £5,000, if a candidate's votes exceed one quarter of the quota. In deciding on the maximum amount to be reimbursed, regard was had to the ratio of recoupment to expenditure limits set for a Dáil election. These ratios are 36 per cent, 29 per cent and 25 per cent for a three, four or five seat constituency. The draft regulations propose that the maximum amount to be reimbursed at the European election is £30,000 or 20 per cent of the expenditure limit. The cost, based on the number of candidates who exceeded one quarter of the quota at the 1994 European elections, will be approximately £1 million. I commend the draft order and the draft regulations to the House.

Given the body of legislation which exists in this and similar areas, the draft order and regulations were inevitable. However, although legislation puts limits on the expenditure of candidates and parties in general elections and the draft order and regulations contain proposals regarding limits on expenditure in European elections, the substantial legislation dealing with expenditure on local elections does not set any limits. People are required to account for their expenditure and candidates in local elections are required to account for donations they receive but, as the law stands, one could spend £1 million on seeking a local authority seat if one wished. Few people would be that stupid but there is no limit on the amount of expenditure in which a candidate may engage for a local election. This is difficult to understand if limits can be imposed in general and European elections. I listened to the debate on the other measure closely, but I have not yet found a convincing reason for not acting in the same way for local elections.

The arbitrary nature of this matter needs to be pointed out. It is an arbitrary system. The Minister said a number of comparisons were made to the provisions in general elections and that this produced a range of figures which could be used as limits for the expenditure per candidate in European elections. However, the original basis on which the comparison was made is arbitrary. While the process of examining the range which it would produce for European elections and fixing a figure within it appears reasonable, it is arbitrary.

I do not know whether any research has been done on what candidates spend during European elections. I suspect that none has been done and since the obligations to make declarations did not exist up to now, nobody knows how much it would be reasonable for a candidate to spend during a European election. I was a candidate in the first direct election to the European Parliament 20 years ago and I have no idea how much money I spent. I have even less of an idea, if that is possible, how much money the party spent in the constituency in which I stood at the time.

We must accept that any limits fixed are entirely arbitrary. We have no grounds for claiming that there is wisdom behind fixing the figure of £150,000. My party will run two candidates in each of the four European constituencies. This means the party will run eight candidates and with a limit of £150,000 per candidate, the party would be limited to spending £1.2 million on the European election. I suspect the party's expenditure will be less than that. In practical terms I am not sure whether the measures will achieve any real function in the context of levelling the playing field or ensuring that people do not go wild on election expenditure by bombarding constituents and potential voters with material which they might otherwise prefer not to receive.

The order and regulations are what the French classically call un coup d'épée dans l'eau– one goes out and beats the sea with one's sword – in that they will make no difference to what happens. Given all that is happening now, I cannot conceive parties spending money on a scale greater than is provided for in the measures even if there were no regulations. Although it is politically incorrect to state, I suspect we are engaging in an exercise which is entirely cosmetic. It is being done in the name of a concern which is valid but which carries a certain type of political prurience to an absurd level.

All the parties and candidates will face the problem of deciding where the division between expenditure by a candidate and expenditure by the party arises. In the original legislation, the breakdown was set at 50-50 between the candidate and the party.

That was the maximum.

It was a maximum of 50 per cent by the candidate. This has been removed and it will now be up to each candidate and party to work out their salvation between them. This will cause problems. One of the most onerous duties a party can now ask one of its members or supporters to perform is to act as the accounting agent for a local, general or European election. I asked a good friend of mine who does not reside in my constituency to be our accounting agent for general elections. He good humouredly took up the job, but there are times when I feel extremely guilty for asking him to undertake such an onerous task.

There will be difficulties within parties in accounting for items in the manner provided for in the draft order and regulations. The Minister said that any other party official, branch or candidate at a local election will have to inform the national agent and-or the election agent at the European election of their intention to incur expenditure in connection with the European election and obtain the agent's authority. That is carrying the search for perfection to an absurd length. If candidates in a local election produce canvassing cards or election literature which mentions the names of the European candidates, as will be demanded, are they supposed to allocate a proportion of their expenditure on that to the European election, knowing that it does not make a whit of difference once they decide to produce the literature to add a small amount of text? This is absurd. The order and regulation rest on the absurd proposition that this distinction can be made and that it means something.

The Minister said that among the people who will have particular responsibilities at the European election are the candidates in the local election. How will that be enforced? It is entirely unfair on candidates at local elections who have their own concerns. The Public Offices Commission will be required to look at election expenditure incurred before the polling day order for use during the election period. The draft order and regulations will be passed, but what do the members of the Public Offices Commission know about the process of running elections? I cannot imagine that they know anything about what it is like to run an election at any level or to be a candidate, an activist or an accounting officer for these elections.

It is proposed in the draft regulations that the maximum amount to be reimbursed at the European election is £30,000 per candidate under the conditions set out. That is 20 per cent of the maximum expenditure. In Dáil elections the ratios are 36 per cent, 29 per cent and 25 per cent for three, four and five seat constituencies. Why is it less than any of those in the European election? Why should it not be the same or more? No reason has been given for this.

A figure of 20 per cent looks reasonable but, although I will not oppose either Bill, both are part of the extreme expression of a culture which has been carried to absurd lengths. They are entirely arbitrary and will cause great inconvenience to many people in the electoral process. They will not make the slightest difference to the way in which the election is run.

The decision taken in the Electoral Act, 1997, introduced by Deputy Howlin, to impose limits on the amounts candidates may spend in seeking election to the European Parliament and the Dáil was a welcome development which was generally acknowledged as a move towards a fairer and more democratic electoral system. It was clearly intended to level the playing field and to prevent a situation where some candidates would effectively buy their way into the Dáil or the European Parliament. It was also an acknowledgment that the intense competition for seats was encouraging a situation where some of the expenditure in elections had become wasteful and unnecessary.

The decision to impose spending limits and provide for the payment out of public funds of some of the expenditure incurred by candidates was also an acknowledgement that it is far more preferable to have election campaigns partly funded by the Exchequer than by secret donations from contributors who may expect a favour in return. If anyone had any doubt about the wisdom of the provisions of the Electoral Act providing for disclosure of donations, limits on expenditure and refund of certain expenses, they must surely have been dispelled by the disclosures emanating from the Flood and Moriarty tribunals.

The expenditure limit of £150,000 imposed in this order for European candidates is unduly large. Many candidates will not be in a position to raise that amount of money, let alone spend it. In Dublin it is the equivalent of £12,500 per Dáil constituency.

The provision for a refund of expenditure of up to £30,000 is reasonable, despite the fact that it is a lower proportion of the expenditure limit than for Dáil elections. It will have the effect of constraining expenditure, particularly for those candidates who are inclined to go beyond their means. It is important to stress that this money will not simply be handed over to candidates. Details of the expenditure incurred will have to be given and certified by the Public Offices Commission before a refund is paid.

It is unfortunate that, if the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, has his way, this will be the last occasion on which the Dáil will be asked to approve orders limiting expenditure for European or Dáil elections. The statement made by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in the Seanad earlier this month that he intends to avail of the next electoral Bill to abolish spending limits for all elections is an astonishing development which indicates that Fianna Fáil has learned nothing from the events being examined by the two tribunals of inquiry. This is a retrograde and dangerous step which will increase public cynicism about the political process and will increase the influence of the corporate sector in the political process.

The Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Bill, which was published last month, provides no limit on the amount a candidate may spend at a local election. That seems extraordinary. The Minister suggested at the time that the reason for this was that to impose such a limit would be costly and bureaucratic. However, based on the Minister's comments in the Seanad during the debate on this Bill, it now appears it is just part of a wider strategy which has as its objective the abolition of spending limits for all elections, including Dáil and European contests.

The Minister made his intentions clear during the debate on the local elections Bill in the Seanad. My colleague, Senator Gallagher, put it to him that if the basis for not putting a cap on spending for local elections was that it would be costly and bureaucratic, this would also apply to Oireachtas and European elections. He asked "Why does the Minister not get rid of it altogether?". The Minister responded "I will in the next electoral Bill." This raises questions about the seriousness of repeated pledges by the Taoiseach to introduce new procedures to guarantee political integrity.

Abolishing the existing limits for Dáil and European elections will lead to an increase in the level of spending, much of which will be wasteful. Ultimately it will be of benefit to the parties which can raise most money and inevitably it will lead to greater interdependence between politics and the corporate sector. Is this what Fianna Fáil wants? Indeed, is this what the Progressive Democrats Party wants?

There is no provision for the Minister to reply to this motion.

There is no conceivable reply.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn