The Bill could be more appropriately called the local authority (elimination of corruption) Bill. If the Government was serious about reforming local authorities it would have introduced a more complete Bill. This legislation is a smokescreen. It could easily have been introduced as a Bill to amend the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1997, or its provisions could have been incorporated in a genuine reforming Bill. I presume the Government was reluctant to introduce genuine local authority reforms because of the pending elections. Hard decisions would have had to be made if local government were to be reformed, as has been promised so often. Over the past year many Deputies asked when a local government reform Bill would be introduced and were told it could not happen until after the local election. We can deduce from this that the Government has reneged on its responsibility to introduce a Bill which would meaningfully reform local government. One hard decision would be whether local authority financing should be raised locally. That measure would not be popular in the run-up to an election, given the history.
Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
It already has been done.
The dual mandate also caused problems in the Minister's party this year. Many other matters arise.
Early this month we celebrated 100 years of local government and one wonders whether we would now have better services if local government still had responsibility for certain areas. Health, for instance, was once the responsibility of local authorities but was placed in the hands of health boards and we now have chaos in many areas – waiting lists, inadequate services etc. Local authorities are doing a good job and I compliment the many officials who have steered them through the years but we continue to take responsibilities from them. In the case of the National Roads Authority responsibility has been handed to a centralised organisation. It is doing its job but another tier of responsibility has been taken from local government.
One area where local authorities have retained responsibility is education. The vocational education committees have done a wonderful job in providing education in difficult circumstances, particularly for the disadvantaged. When no other institution or organisation was prepared to provide education the local authorities, through the vocational education committees, did so. Through adult education, many underprivileged people have received training under Youthreach and other programmes, again under the auspices of local government. Without this training many of these people would have been classified as drop outs and would have been maintained through life by the State, at considerable cost.
Local authorities have done a good job and it is regrettable that, because of the selfishness and greed of a few individuals, all local authority members have been brought under scrutiny. We are all being blamed for the deeds of the greedy sector, many of whom are now before various tribunals of inquiry. Two such people are former local authority members and some suggest they controlled their party members on their councils. It would be a terrible indictment of democracy on local authorities if this were to continue. This Bill does nothing to eliminate the corruption which is rampant, not only by a few local authority members but by some former members of the Executive.
Speaker after speaker on the Government side said it was impossible to cap expenses but if we want to act meaningfully we must do so. It will cost money to monitor it but Government speakers said it would be too expensive. If that is the case the Bill's provision to cap expenses is merely a smokescreen.
Many Deputies have a dual mandate in that they are also members of a local authority. They have generously given of their time and money. Before the dual mandate is abolished I hope the Minister gives serious consideration to our work as Deputies, most of which is effectively related to local authorities. We should be careful not to duplicate, eliminate or isolate.
There is room for amendments to this Bill and I look forward to them, especially amendments relating to the dual mandate and the capping of expenses.
This Bill comes before the House at a time when the democratic system is under scrutiny. Perhaps paradoxically, local government has a better image than it has enjoyed for a long time. It certainly has a better image than do the national institutions at present. The evidence concerning public representatives and public officials which has been adduced at tribunals has caused enormous damage and Deputy Burke was right to set the Bill in that context.
It is difficult to be confident that this Bill, which is part of a large mosaic of legislation, can be effective in restoring public confidence in the short or medium term. It is also difficult to see that anything could change the appalling public image of elected representatives, public officials, and other organs of the State which are fundamental to the democratic process. I have read in various newspapers that colleagues have expressed delight at the demise of judges and court officials but people who take that short-term view are extremely foolish. This is part of how the system has been undermined and we must consider it in terms of restoring confidence. In that context, the Minister and his officials have done as well as possible in the face of a massive uphill struggle.
In the week that Irish local government is 100 years old, it is sad that the tremendous contribution of so many people should have been badly sullied by the actions of so few. It is no harm to reflect on the enormous contribution made by many people who felt they could do something on behalf of their communities, whether urban or rural, and were prepared to give generously of their time to undertake that work. A large part of their efforts have been undermined and besmirched by the actions of a tiny minority. Would legislation have prevented that from happening? Will it prevent it happening in the future?
Even if one doubts the efficacy of the entire mosaic of legislation the Government and its predecessors have sought to put in place, it is apparent that this matter cannot be dealt with in any other way. We are obliged to follow our current route and do the best we can to address the problems with which we are presented.
The Bill is comprehensive and complicated because of the aims and requirements it is trying to meet and it sets out in considerable detail the roles of national and local party agents. Lengthy consideration is also given to the possible role of third parties. Some people minimised that issue when the Electoral Act was being debated in 1997 but it must be recognised and addressed. The Bill attempts, in so far as is possible, to address it.
Section 8 deals with the designated person in each local electoral area. On realising the onerous task they face, I suspect people who previously served, in a less formal way, as election agents and directors of elections for various parties or candidates will be reluctant to take on the position of designated person. In my opinion people will begin to refuse to serve in this new role when they realise the additional duties involved. If that is the case, it will again be a further diminution of public involvement in the State's system of democracy. I would lament the arrival of such an eventuality.
Relatively little reference has been made to the provisions in sections 10, 11 and 12 which relate to the making of contracts and claims. I presume these sections are included because of the past experience of the major parties which have been presented with bills, about which they had no prior knowledge, from various constituencies following previous elections. The sections in question require that contracts must be made in respect of election expenses. However, I do not know whether there is a requirement that this must be declared in some form after the election. Consideration should be given to requiring that perhaps all contracts, particularly those involving sums in excess of £500, should be registered. In the context of openness and the protection of the major parties provided for in these three sections, the details of contracts should be made public.
I am not clear about how the details of income and expenditure will be set out, particularly in view of the fact that only donations amounting to £500 and over will be declarable. I presume the matter will be clarified when registration forms become available, but perhaps the Minister of State will refer to it in his reply.
There are two levels of disclosure for political parties and, in light of the system that is already in operation, that is the only way this could be done in practice. However, it would be worth considering that declarations at national level should be made to the Public Offices Commission. As it stands, the Bill provides that such declarations should be made to one of the Dublin local authorities. In view of the expertise gathered by the Public Offices Commission and its dealings with parties, and given the fact that local authorities lack such expertise, the commission is better placed to receive national declarations.
I strongly urge that formal arrangements be made to inform candidates of the requirements placed on them when they hand in their nominations before the operative date. Not being aware of these requirements would not be a defence in the event that the matter needed to be investigated subsequently. Nevertheless, in the interests of openness and clarity, it would be desirable that every person who puts forward his or her name for election ought to be given a document which sets out in considerable detail what is required of them.
With regard to section 72 of the Electoral Act, in respect of which most Members have spoken, the Minister of State had little option than to reach the conclusion he did. I welcome that the manner in which the procedure will be arranged will be much more accessible at local level. I am not a candidate in the local elections but, having read the Bill, I am somewhat confused about the requirement on Oireachtas Members to furnish statements locally. The Bill appears to indicate that if they have already furnished an element of the expenditure in a statement to the Public Offices Commission, they are not required to furnish it to the local authority concerned during the election campaign. Under the legislation it is impossible to synchronise the dates involved and I expect it will be impossible to provide a single form which would enable people to furnish statements in a far clearer way. Local authority members who are not Oireachtas Members will be of the opinion that the latter will have the opportunity to refrain from disclosing part of their expenditure to local authorities and declare it as part of their annual statement to the Public Offices Commission. I am not sure whether this will create difficulties but people will raise that point.
The Bill does not appear to indicate that, in the event that a person is a candidate for election as a county councillor, an urban district councillor or a town commissioner, one person to whom a statement can be furnished, will be designated. Under the terms of the Bill, it would be possible in some instances that a candidate seeking election to one or all of these positions would be obliged to furnish more than one statement. In that event, they might be required to provide details of the way they expended their funding in respect of the campaign to gain election to each position. That would be a complicated and cumbersome procedure.
The Minister of State indicated that many of the matters to which Members have referred will be included in and are more appropriate to the debate on the local government Bill which is due to come before the House in the near future. I accept his point. When the Bill is introduced – as a member of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government I have already had an opportunity to contribute to its development – it will be necessary to broaden the definition relating to people who we consider to be members of or involved with local authorities.
Members of county enterprise boards, non-councillor members of SPCs, members of Leader groups and many others have been given a substantial role in disbursing funds, setting agendas and deciding on policy and their actions have a bearing on how the economic lives of areas and individuals will develop. When debating the new all-encompassing legislation we will have to give careful consideration to the role of these people and ensure that they are dealt with in the same way as elected representatives who, regardless of the system's shortcomings, are at least answerable to the people. Local authority members cannot gain access to those fora by using short-term, narrow focus issues as a platform. The fora to which I refer ensure that a huge additional workload is placed on local authority members and they also dissipate the influence of directly elected representatives while increasing the influence of others.
A number of Members referred to the need for a statutory right to time off for those elected to local authorities. Provision for this ought to be included in the new Bill.
Under the Planning Act, 1976, local authority members and officials are required to register their interests. The Bill before us represents an opportunity to extend and build upon that. The Minister of State referred to the need for a code of conduct and other requirements and consideration should be given to this.
Section 6 deals with the definition of election expenses. It is based closely on section 31 of the 1997 Electoral Act. It runs to four and a half pages. That section more than any other illustrates the difficulty in regulating this area. The more one reads it, the more one realises the difficulty in presenting legislation to address problems that have given rise to tribunals and various other scandals.
That section includes almost two pages of exceptions. Some are sensible, such as expenses incurred by local authorities or by the Oireachtas on behalf of people, but many candidates in local elections might find others, such as those in sub section 1 (b) that sets out other day to day expenses, the most expensive ones. I agree with the inclusion of these exceptions, but they create greater difficulty for candidates in making their declarations. Declarations of expenses are by their nature subjective and subject to personal interpretation. The inclusion of these exceptions will mean that such declarations could be open to scrutiny by someone who has a different interpretation and approach to examining this type of expenditure.
I am delighted section 18 provides for guidelines to be issued and that the Minister gave an undertaking in his speech to ensure they are provided as soon as possible. One of the difficulties is that some of the matters that will be declarable or some of the costs which will be declarable will have been incurred by candidates. Even though the declaration period will commence on 11 May or whatever will be the final date for candidates to sign on, anything they use subsequently that they have acquired and paid for will become declarable. That must be made clear to candidates. When one considers the options, it is obvious that must be the case, but the guidelines will be important in this regard.
The other area which caused some difficulty is whether there ought to be an expenditure limit. That principle has been accepted for Oireachtas elections. The background against which it was accepted initially is understandable, but we must face up to the fact that we are enacting legislation, which together with the 1997 legislation, is extremely difficult to police. It is very difficult to interpret what constitutes expenditure, what the expenditure limit should be and what minor expenses, such as a telephone call to meet a person outside a school at 4 p.m. to go canvassing, should be included. These considerations are a great imposition on candidates who have bravely put forward their names and are working under pressure trying to do their best to ensure they succeed. Having dealt with these matters, perhaps we should examine in a much more meaningful way what ought to be the role of local authorities and their members. We should also examine why local authorities ought not to be the agencies applying directly for and spending European money, and making their case for what the elected members in the local community see as the requirements of the people they represent.
A number of speakers said it would be relatively easy to provide photographs of candidates. I agree with the point made by Deputy Browne yesterday. People who suffer from dyslexia or are semi-literate, who have as much a right to vote as anybody else, would be greatly facilitated by such a measure. People with a sight difficulty would be more likely to recognise candidates from their photographs. It would also help where three or four candidates have the same surname on the ballot paper. The inclusion of candidates' photographs on the ballot paper would be a major advantage in helping the electorate to discern who is who. It would not be difficult to include their photographs. It would also show an interest in and a commitment to extending to everybody the meaning of the franchise and involvement in the democratic system. The issue of co-options which arise so frequently and cause such difficulty was referred to. That ought to be addressed in the new Bill.
A major departure is provided for in section 25. It deals with the electronic counting of votes and the examination of the feasibility of operating that system. A great advantage of this system is it would rule out the randomness in the existing transfer of votes. While the existing system is fairly accurate, there is room for a substantial distortion in the figures where there are a number of candidates, particularly in regard to the transfer of subsequent surpluses. In cases where the margins are relatively small, there could be an incorrect result, but that could not happen under the new proposed system.
A speaker yesterday indicated that he understood there would be a requirement to vote for all the candidates on the ballot paper, which has not been the tradition for many people. That could take some getting used to. It is also unclear whether voters ought to be required to vote a preference for each candidate on the ballot paper. Electors who voted a preference of 14 or 15 in a field of 14 or 15 candidates effectively would not have a vote as they would not be reached.
I welcome the Bill and areas approached in it. Given the timeframe available, it is understandable that the vast range of other issues relating to the business of local authorities that has not been addressed could not have been addressed.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring.
Mr. Foley (Acting Chairman)
That is agreed.
I am delighted to take part in this discussion. I have no difficulty with the Bill. I am mystified as to all the ballyhoo about the disclosure of expenses, donations or costs. It is more the myth about what is to be made out of public life than what is the real position that has caused all the interest from a public point of view. A journal was published covering everyone's salary – not only public representatives' salaries – in this country. No one sector should be singled out. It included salaries earned by the Judiciary, the Church, the professionals, civil servants, etc. If people want to read that, so be it. That may be their interest. I have served 25 years in public life and have not seen any gravy train or gold mine in it, but there is great satisfaction in serving the people. That is why I entered public life in 1974. I met numerous people who have since retired who have served a lifetime in public life. They were out of pocket and their businesses would have done a good deal better if they had spent more time on them. They had an ambition and an interest to serve the public at local or national level, but there was no reward in that.
I wish to raise a point I raised on the Order of Business this morning and yesterday about a small number of honourable decent public representatives who have served on county councils for 30 to 40 years but missed out on the retirement scheme that has been introduced. In one case a candidate, having completed 40 years of service, failed to get elected in the 1991 local election. As he did not serve during the last term he is not entitled to participate in the retirement scheme. That is unfair.
This group of honourable people includes Fianna Fáil supporters. One man told me I could mention his name and I am proud to do so. We served on Cavan County Council and Cavan County Committee of Agriculture for 20 years and we could debate to and fro but we always remained good friends. I refer to the former councillor, Paddy Conaty, from Cavan town. He gave a lifetime to public service but he missed out on the retirement scheme. He did what the scheme proposes. He stepped aside to let a younger man, his son, Paddy junior, a marvellous young man, take over. He did what the scheme proposes, but he has been penalised for that. That is not fair. It makes the case for that man and for another elderly man in Mayo and I am sure there are many others.
I know they are only a small group, but they should not be penalised. They should be rewarded. Some gesture should be made to them. After a certain period of time, councillors should receive a lump sum payment on retirement. That happens in all other aspects of life. There should be some reward because these people are out of pocket. The Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, knows that. Like me, he has served on a county council. I know the cost that is involved. That is never taken on board even though one renders a public service. The idea of public representatives receiving large financial donations is nonsense. From my experience and that of others, one can buy publicity but not votes. Some people are foolish enough to go down that road, printing publicity leaflets and using advertising hoardings. One gentleman even went American style, importing stuff and throwing it around the towns and villages, as well as filling cars with petrol. People will not, however, be fooled for long.
As public representatives we should have no difficulty about making full disclosure of donations and expenditure. If there is a reluctance to do so, people believe something is being hidden. As in every walk of life, a small number of people try to make a killing and abuse their positions. They represent a very small number, however, and politics is no better or worse than any other profession. I believe we are much better because we are in the public view. Many people behind the scenes may not have given the best service to their companies and may have made off with company funds. Such cases are coming to light almost daily in the newspapers with people being dismissed. Public representatives should not be singled out for different treatment. Let us get the matter out in the open, kill it off and get it out of the way. We can then get on with the job of work that has to be done.
The country has never enjoyed better times. That could not have come about without the work of people in public life. When times were bad in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, people had to work hard to achieve something locally. Gradually, they built stone upon stone until we have reached the current position. No one party or individual can claim credit for that. It was achieved by a group of people who were committed, nationally and at local level, to a belief in building their country. We are now reaping the rewards. Let us not throw it all away with the myth that people are running off with the pot of gold. The sooner we get that idea out of the way the better. In that way, people will have confidence in those who serve them and in the country as a whole.
Young people can become very disillusioned and they believe what they read. I do not see any journalists in the press gallery. I will not criticise them for that, but they would be very quick to criticise us if they saw only two Deputies in the Chamber. I have no doubt the journalists are diligently working behind the scenes, but some of them try to dig deeper to see if they can expose something that is not there.
Apparently, we are going to remove the dual mandate from public representatives who serve on local authorities. I am glad to note that a senior member of the Fianna Fáil party is shaking his head. I am opposed to that because one can stay close to the people only by being a member of a local authority. That is where the real nuts and bolts of ordinary everyday problems are brought to light and discussed. Every time I attend a local authority meeting, it is an education to listen to the issues raised and the representations made there. I have a dual mandate for both county and urban district councils. Urban problems are not the same as rural ones. I can also raise such problems in the House through parliamentary questions to the relevant Minister or in a debate. I am well briefed by representations made by people I meet. Public representatives have a large circle of people to whom they listen. We should think twice about doing away with the dual mandate. It would be a retrograde step. We should back away from the idea. It is not a case of double jobbing. It is a case of people stretching themselves to provide better representation to those who elect them.
This year local authorities are celebrating their centenary. It is ironic, therefore, that this discussion has arisen now. However, it is important that it has arisen after 100 years of local democracy. The decision to abolish local committees of agriculture was a retrograde step. Never would it have been more important to have such bodies in place than in the past year. They could have played an important role in highlighting the prob lems farmers are facing and arranged to have more done about them.
Local authority members sit on vocational education committees which are doing a constructive job in education. Health boards are also doing a constructive job. Deputy Killeen made the very relevant point that local authority members on such committees are publicly accountable. There is an attitude that people who are not public representatives should be nominated to partnership boards, but that is wrong. We should not go down that road. There must be public accountability and one will have it if local authority members serve on such boards. I am not saying they should have all the places, but they should have the majority of them because they are accountable. We should not belittle our position in public life and hand it over to people who would be reluctant to put their hats in the ring to have their neighbours and friends pass judgment on them in the privacy of the ballot box every five years.
It is important to clean up the image of public life and get away from the notion of the gravy train. People in public life are more often out of pocket than they are rewarded for their work. The honour of serving on a local authority or in the Dáil is a great privilege. Some 99 per cent of those I have met in the House, from the large and small parties, are honourable, hard-working and decent people. A small number can give us a bad image, but we should not be judged by that.
Last week, Mayo County Council – like every other county council in the State – celebrated 100 years of democracy. We are very proud of Mayo County Council and our three urban councils. Politics and politicians tend to have a bad name. At times the media find it easy to target and criticise us. When something critical is written, it is difficult to correct it. It is like the issue of Dáil expenses. They can publish the expenses one receives, but they can never justify what is spent in terms of one's secretary and office. There must be fair play on both sides. I have been a member of Mayo County Council and of Westport Urban District Council for more than 20 years.
I thank those who served before me, who got no expenses or anything else from the system. They served their communities, counties, towns and villages. They deserve thanks for the public service they rendered. Public life is not easy. Whether one is an urban district councillor, a county councillor or a Dáil Deputy, there are times when one has to make decisions that one considers to be correct.
Most of Ireland, including the west, does not have the problem of rezoning that is particular to Dublin. Because certain things have happened and are happening in Dublin, and because certain politicians have given the political system a bad name, it is wrong to tarnish all public representatives with the same brush. In Mayo, we would be delighted if we could get people who wanted to rezone land. Our problem is that we have plenty of land but no people. There is never a question of getting land rezoned. We would love to have that problem, with developers coming into the county to develop it. The State has done little to assist Knock airport. We hoped it would be the lifeline to help our county and that people would invest there. That did not happen, however, because we did not get the necessary infrastructure from central Government.
My party will table a motion under Private Members' Business next week to debate the gridlock in Dublin. As a rural Deputy, I am delighted to see that gridlock. For the past 20 years, politicians have brought people into Dublin. Now they have gridlock and it will cost millions of pounds to resolve the problem. Poor rural Ireland will be left out again. European funds will have to be used to solve the problems caused by all Governments in the last 20 years.
There will be no restriction on funding in the forthcoming local elections, though there were restrictions in place for the 1997 election. In future election candidates and parties will only be allowed to spend a certain amount; that is welcome. It may stop the "brown paper bags" if people do not have the excuse of accepting donations for elections. I fought many wealthy people in elections, but money does not buy votes, thank God. Money will not get a person into the county council or the Dáil because people choose wisely. A person who buys drink, advertises in the local newspaper and sends out newsletters will find that that does not buy votes. People look at the quality of candidate who stands for election.
There may not have been as many people voting in the last few years as we would like, but that is because of the bad press politics and politicians attract. The media are right to highlight deficiencies in the system and to show up those who are corrupt. I compliment them on doing that, but they should also show the positive side of local authorities. If there is a row at a county council meeting that gets the headlines in the local newspapers. The hours of good work and sanctioning of roads, housing, sewerage and water schemes are ignored. That never gets a headline; negativity gets headlines. There should be some balance. The negative aspects should be shown but the positive elements of council meetings should also be shown.
People have served on local authorities for little or no reward. They have done so to serve others. When I entered politics 20 years ago I thought I would be able to change the system. I thought I would be able to teach the officials how things should be done. However, the sad fact is that officials control Members. I do not know if the Minister and the Minister of State have the courage to deal with the problem of managerial orders. I do not know if Fianna Fáil has the courage to do so; my party did not. The managers have too many powers. Who gives them these powers? The officials in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Does anyone think one official is going to let another down? They will make sure they keep those powers. I hope the local government Bill will make sure that these powers go back to the people and the members. The ridiculous powers given to managers must be taken from them.
It outrages me when I table questions to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that are answered by an official with the words "not the responsibility of the Minister". That gets the manager to answer the question directly. This is the Parliament; it is where things should happen but that is not the case. If people knew what was really going on they would be outraged to know that, instead of Members controlling officials, the officials control Members.
I spoke against the Freedom of Information Bill, as did Fianna Fáil Deputies. However, we did not have the courage to vote against it. It is the most outrageous and ridiculous Bill that was ever brought before the House. All it did was ensure that the media got a chance to crucify Deputies. Why could that Bill not ensure we found out how much expenses county managers or top civil servants get? We cannot put questions down on how much they earn.
Which Government will have the courage to take on officialdom? A previous speaker referred to the planning system, but we will have a revolution in the county council system if the dog continues to lead the man instead of the man leading the dog. Public representatives are being led by officials and we have no powers. They sit in council meetings like lapdogs. If I am returned to the next Dáil and see legislation planned that is similar to previous Bills dealing with this issue I will be voting with the Opposition. It is time backbenchers from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour got together to protect Members' interests.
There was a lot of truth in Deputy Ring's contribution, even if I disagree with one or two points. However, I do not disagree with him on the role of the public representative and on the almost anti-democratic stance we have taken by giving more and more power to non-elected persons. Deputy Boylan also made a very decent and honest contribution that was full of common sense, and in many ways it was the epitome of what local government is all about. Local government is about people putting themselves forward to serve their communities. Last week Wicklow County Council published its centenary volume, entitled "For the Betterment of the People". The title was chosen from a council member's contribution in a debate, and that is what local government is about: it is about the betterment of the people, not the enrichment of the few. Sadly, people have lost sight of that reality. The vast majority of men and women who have served on local authorities at all levels in the last 100 years have been decent, honourable and respectable public representatives. It strikes me as very sad that, due to recent legislation, we are further limiting the role of local representatives in the centenary year of local government.
There were two fundamental principles that informed the basis of local government when it was set up 100 years ago. The first was the administrative principle, and the second was the political principle. The administrative principle – subsequently retitled the concept of subsidiarity – suggested that those activities, actions and administrative functions which could be handled by a junior or subsidiary authority should be so handled, and only those which could not be handled by a lower level authority should percolate upwards to the central State. However, over the past 75 years in Ireland we have produced the most centralised democracy in Europe. The Lord Mayor of Dublin has less power than the mayor of the most minor commune in France. That is extraordinary, yet public administration students have always referred to French public administration as being highly centralised. It is in the halfpenny place in comparison to Ireland.
The last two contributions were radically different, but they touched on various aspects of this. I look forward to the Minister producing his major opus on local government reform. Like Deputies Ring, Boylan, Killeen and others, I will be looking for a reversal of the trend. I was a civil servant for more years than I have been a public representative, but I have always been critical of the centralist mentality which has been absolutely ingrained in the Civil Service since 1922. When President de Gaulle said: "L'État, c'est moi” he was reflecting a viewpoint that is absolutely endemic in central administration, the Sir Humphreys rule and let us never forget it. The most inspired piece of television script writing ever was “Yes Minister.” When I crossed the divide from administration to politics, my ex-Minister asked me if I had written the script for that series. I could easily have done so.
No area of public life engenders more hypocrisy regarding political contributions than local government reform. Local government reform is rarely a high priority for Government parties but it is a major driving force for the Opposition. We should put these attitudes behind us and try to produce a response to the issues which are killing local government. We must deal with the issues of structure. We must define the appropriate roles for local government, as recommended by the White Paper of 1971, and devise a proper funding system for local government, as recommended by the 1972 White Paper on Finance. We must then establish where the balance of power lies between the Minister and the Department on one hand and the local authority on the other.
This was the second principle informing the Local Government Act, 1898. At the core of that Act was the principle that local services should not merely be administered locally but also determined locally, that local public representatives should decide the services to be provided, how they should be funded and what the priorities in those services should be, and those local rep resentatives should be directly answerable to the electorate. This Bill is concerned with how local representatives relate to the electorate.
I do not support all the Minister's proposals for local government but I welcome this Bill. The Minister is aware of my views on some of his proposals and I will return to this question later. This Bill is necessary because of the unprincipled and selfish behaviour of the small minority who have besmirched public life. To listen to some of the absent media, one would think membership of my party was a hanging offence. It has become very easy to tie labels onto groups of people. Last weekend the Sunday newspapers behaved in an extraordinary manner, declaring people guilty by association without specifying the offence of which they were guilty. Guilt by association and sneering comments about brown paper bags affect everyone in public life. For all its failings, democracy is a better system than any of the alternatives. All political parties are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade good people who could make a contribution to political life to stand for election. This is because of the manner in which everyone in local government has been tarred with the brush of corruption.
I have been a member of two local authorities in County Wicklow since the mid-1980s. I am quite an acute observer of human behaviour and I have seen no evidence of corruption on any scale. I and my colleagues, from my own party, other parties and none, are dedicated to serving the people and to the concept of the betterment of the people. It is sad and reprehensible that people who do not have the courage to put their names before the public should sit in judgment on those who do. Only the electorate can make a judgment on an elected representative. If people elect rogues and knaves they will get local government that is destroyed by roguery and knavery. If they elect honest people they will get honest local government. On 11 June next, the people will exercise their choice and they will select the men and women who will represent them. I have no doubt that, as on every occasion since 1899, the public will elect people who are decent and honest and not corrupt and motivated by the highest ideals. We should not be ashamed to say that.
I was so struck by Deputy Boylan's contribution that I have departed from what I intended to say. He reminded us of the honesty, decency and integrity which marks public life in Ireland. Like Deputy Ring, he observed that some of those who have a prurient curiosity about the expenses of Deputies, Senators, councillors and town commissioners are excessively secretive about their own finances. I smiled recently when I heard on RTE – our well-subsidised moral guardian – broadcasters berating public representatives for their lack of openness regarding their expenses. The same people go into paroxysms of fear when Oireachtas committees ask about the salaries of Gaybo, Pat or the other performers at the RTE microphones.
The Minister has prudently decided to deal with the question of expenses. The Bill would be strengthened if there was a way to limit electoral expenses. I agree with the Minister of State when he said that an across-the-board limit on expenses would be extremely difficult to implement but what has been referred to as a lacuna in the Bill is not informed by a reluctance on the Minister's part to deal with the matter of election expenses.
I would suggest that the Minister examine the use of election funds. This is not a revolutionary suggestion. Last week the Green Party, a party which often talks about integrity, spent taxpayers' money on huge full-page newspaper advertisements in my local newspapers. I agree with previous speakers that advertising does not win votes but it puts a very large hole in electoral budgets. Why can local radio or television stations not carry individually sponsored political advertisements while the print media can? Why does the same rule not apply to all the media? Why not ban political advertising in all the media? Such a ruling would save millions. At the last general election, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left between them spent £2.5 million on advertising. I doubt if it produced a single vote. The print media can place a gun to candidates' heads and oblige them to buy advertisements. During the forthcoming local election campaign, special editions of free sheets will be produced and an inference will be made that candidates will receive editorial cover only if they buy advertising space. A Fine Gael Deputy told me that in his part of the country, local election candidates agreed to limit their advertising. Unfortunately, such common sense is not found in other constituencies. I accept that to impose a cap on expenditure on every candidate in every local authority area would be extremely difficult but the Minister should examine the possibility of banning major billboard advertising and putting a cap on newspaper advertising. Such a measure would produce results.
Corruption creeps in when the system becomes difficult to fund and politics is not a cheap activity. We no longer paint slogans on the road with a brush and a bucket of whitewash or tar. We are rightly prevented from doing so. The personal canvass and a newsletter setting out one's achievements over the previous five years are the most effective forms of electioneering. It should be possible to carry out meaningful electoral activity without spending huge amounts of money.