When the debate was adjourned I was talking about the need to ensure the integrity and security both of registration and the voting system. In the Bill provision is made for voters to opt not to have their names made available from the register without their knowledge. The register is edited to omit the names of those who do not want them included. It seems to be an expensive and cumbersome procedure. I am aware that the Government looked at the option of making it illegal to use the data on the register and I am surprised that it is not the option excercised.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It would have been cheaper.
I suspect so. The debate appears to have gone ahead without consideration or examination of the possibility of compulsory voting. Such compulsion is the case in a number of jurisdictions and appears to work well. Perhaps we have reached the stage when citizens should be told that they have a civic duty to vote and participate in our democracy. It is a great pastime to find fault with the system and the individuals trying to work it, while not participating in what is a relatively simple and inexpensive exercise for a great many. It is an option that needs to be examined.
I welcome the provision in the Bill for a large printed copy of the voting paper to be provided in polling stations. I suggest that rather than having it in a prominent position in the polling station, which I understand is provided for in the Bill, it would be better to have it attached to the screen adjacent to where the person is voting, or right beside them. Those who have difficulty seeing the ballot paper would have it close by. That would be more sensible.
The Bill provides for a substantial increase in spending limits. I have always argued, generally unsuccessfully, that we would fare better if we looked at the option of reducing expenditure rather than increasing limits. We have all received representations from the local radio sector because electoral advertising on local radio has been illegal up to now. It is unfair that a sector in competition with newspapers and others should be excluded from what is a lucrative form of advertising for the limited period of an election campaign. It would be better if newspaper advertising were prohibited. A large tranche of the cost for political parties at national level would then be removed. This feeling is increased by my belief that there is little benefit to candidates at local level from the advertising undertaken at national level by political parties.
There is also a serious question over postering and the consequent littering of the countryside for an extended period. In an era of electronic communication, it should not be necessary to have this level of postering at huge expense. An advantage of the expenditure reduction approach, as opposed to the limits approach, is that it is far easier to police. It is all very well to have expenditure limits but I am not convinced that they can be effectively policed.
Opposition Members say that we are to have the election in October. However, if that does not happen, there is a long period from November to Easter when it will be known that there has to be an election in May or June. My understanding is that people can spend what they want during that period, up to the day that the election is called. In an election year, where that election is clearly signalled, there will be enormous pressure on candidates and parties to spend a lot of money during the period outside the time covered by this Bill.
There are also issues which have not been properly dealt with concerning the level of support for Oireachtas Members who are Dáil candidates. These include Oireachtas envelopes, Dáil offices and telephones, secretarial assistance etc. There are two elements to this: whether this assistance will be allowed and, if so, whether it will constitute an election expense. Members should be allowed to use the facilities of the House and anything ancillary arising from their work as a Senator or Deputy. However, justice demands that this be counted as election expenditure.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Since it was published some months ago, the Labour Party has made a meal out of it. There have been times in the last two months when it seemed to have no policy other than to rant and rave about the Bill, and to try to link Fianna Fáil and other parties with big business.
That was close to the mark.
Not to me. That is the impression the Labour Party was trying to create.
What about other family members of the Deputy?
The 1997 Act was reasonable in many ways.
I thank the Deputy.
The limits on donations of £500 and £4,000 were reasonable. Those rules have not let us down, yet we seem to be panicking. Once disclosure was a necessary part of the process, the system has worked reasonably. Moving towards a politically correct postion, and changing the ground rules before they have been given an opportunity to prove themselves is premature.
Party spending in constituencies was set too low. I prefer the system that applied in the local elections when we could see what our running mates were spending. The best policing is that by individual candidates who can see what is being spent on the ground. I am not happy with the operation of this. The Public Offices Commission has been too fussy. From some stories I have heard about by-elections, the commission seems to be running around like a secret police organisation with its private investigators checking how many posters and leaflets a candidate has. It seems to be in conflict with the legislation. It interprets matters contrary to the spirit of the legislation and in a way that the Minister of the day did not interpret them when the Bill was passed. I am not happy with these developments.
Parties need resources and will have to get them, whether from the taxpayer or elsewhere. There are many other ways of acquiring funds. The Labour Party gets funding from trade unions. As an ex-trade union activist, I am aware that there are several different ways of funding candidates. Membership fees, capitation fees, individual grants, union affiliation fees, political funds – to which I always contributed my few pence – donations, special levies, strike fund surpluses and other funds can be included. As an active trade unionist, there were all sorts of funds available. Different money was paid out.
When details came to light after the 1997 election, it emerged that the largest donation given by the union with which I was involved was to an old colleague of mine and a party colleague of Deputy Howlin, Deputy Seán Ryan.
It was well invested.
Perhaps not in 1997. I believe Deputy Ryan received the largest donation from the union on three occasions – in the 1997 election campaign, in the Seanad election campaign and during the ensuing Dáil by-election campaign. The union must be almost broke and its political fund will remain low for an extended period.
Parties will have to be allowed to seek funding in other ways. In my opinion we are going too far too soon. With regard to corporate donations, there are a number of large companies which I will not name which include in their public accounts sums of £100,000 or £200,000 and these are divided between the parties on a pro rata basis. I see no difficulty with that and we would be foolish to refuse to accept such donations. If companies wish to make donations and include them in their public accounts or their annual accounts, that is harmless. No one is ever going to come looking for favours in such a scenario.
I wish to deal now with the establishment of special accounts into which the maximum donation to be lodged in a year will be £100. What will be the position for people who will be reliant on such accounts for funding? How long must the money be left in the account? Could they lodge it in the morning and withdraw it that evening or will they obliged to leave it in and produce their account book to the Public Offices Commission once a year? We are going from one extreme to the other.
I welcome the provision relating to the amounts of £20,000, £25,000 and £30,000 for local spending. The amounts for such spending were ridiculously low in 1997 and, in fact, they are still too low. I say this and acknowledge the fact that I am not the biggest spender around. The proportion by which they have been increased is out of sync. In my opinion, the largest increase should have been for three seater constituencies because the first brochure or poster a candidate produces is always the most expensive. I suppose the figures were rounded off to the nearest even amount which is understandable. However, a sum of £20,000 is no big deal. During each election campaign I have tried to compete with Labour, Independent Labour, the now defunct Democratic Left and Fine Gael, but if Members had seen my posters they would probably have given me money because they were miserable compared to those produced for several of my colleagues from other parties. It is rather amusing to hear representatives from these parties rant and rave about the amount of money we spend. That is a lot of nonsense and I do not know if they are fooling anyone.
I would not know corporate funding if I saw it and I do not want any corporate donations. All I want to do is spend my own money on promoting myself to my constituents for re-election. It is stated that party head offices will take 50% of the £20,000 allocation. Representatives in Dublin constituencies spend more than £10,000 on an election campaign and anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is only fooling themselves. However, I believe they are not fooling themselves because they are aware of the facts. In my opinion, we are going to revisit the referendum, the McKenna judgment, etc., in relation to this matter.
People promote themselves in different ways. I may do it in terms of distributing leaflets, brochures, newsletters and so on, while others may do so by appearing in a regular slot on "Five Seven Live" or "Morning Ireland". If I am going to be measured and controlled in relation to how I advertise myself, we will be obliged to introduce a further law which regulates access to the airwaves and to TV channels, not just during the three weeks of an election campaign but at all times. A member of a small party can appear on radio or television a couple of times each day or at least once a week and build up a national profile. However, a backbencher in one of the larger parties cannot and is not given the opportunity to operate in that way. If I am to be restricted and will only be allowed to spend a certain amount of money promoting myself, it would be only fair and just to impose restrictions on the representatives of smaller parties in my constituency or any other constituency. These representatives' access to the airwaves, their ability to table priority questions or whatever other methods they use to attract publicity ought to be measured. It is unfair that backbenchers from the larger parties are being held back and that the opportunities to garner publicity to which I refer are not open to them. We have gone hell for leather in one direction and that approach is not fair, it is not just and, in my opinion, it is a cod.
I welcome a number of provisions in the Bill. I am glad people will not be obliged to throw posters from previous elections on the fire. In addition, I welcome the U-turn made by the Public Offices Commission and also the clause relating to recycling. These measures will help to make the figures to which I referred earlier more realistic. I suppose we will just have to learn to operate within the limits imposed by the £20,000 cap.
Every law we pass must be enforced. We have all heard stories about inspectors running around during by-elections. If the State has spare money to spend on policing resources, it should be divided equally and spent on enforcing all our laws. The existing Act is not the most important law of the land and the level of resources spent on it is ridiculous.
I have one major concern about the future. Advertising campaigns will continue to be used by people in the future, but these will become increasingly negative in nature. Such campaigns will be carried out by people who will not register. There is evidence that this is already happening. For example, community groups, etc., are publishing newsletters and leaflets which are extremely political in tone. However, one will never be able to find the members of such groups and oblige them to register because they do not exist. Reference was made to the Ballymun Residents' Association. However, there could also be the Ballymun residents, the Ballymun project group, etc., and one would never find the members of such groups. Many of these groups are using State money, but that is beside the point. In the future these people, who will not register or include their names on brochures, will engage in huge advertising campaigns which will be negative in nature.
I welcome the fact that the amounts for spending are being increased slightly because this will help to restore a degree of balance to a system that was in danger of being completely screwed up. One will not be able to identify those responsible for the campaigns to which I refer. It must be recognised that even colleagues in this House – I refer to Members on all sides – are constantly finding new ways of circumventing the provisions in legislation.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this item of electoral legislation. I had the privilege to steer the last significant electoral law, the 1997 Act, through the Houses, which was an interesting experience. I will share some of my memories of that period with the House during the course of my contribution.
I did not expect to agree with very much, if anything, Deputy Noel Ahern had to say about an electoral law of this nature. However, I was pleasantly surprised that I found something with which I could agree. I refer in particular to the Deputy's closing comments about the way community groups and free sheets are evolving. I am concerned that there is a strong political involvement in some of the free sheets that are appearing across the country. Everyone knows that there is one political party here that is extremely well funded by sources from outside the State and it appears to have a number of new offices, full- time workers and publishing organs which are not named after the party but which are selling its message. If we are intent on reforming electoral law, we will be obliged to address that issue. To that extent, there is something to what Deputy Ahern said.
I wish to deal with a number of issues. Electoral law is critical to the conduct of our democracy. It is the base frame within which we operate our democratic systems. Democracy is a fragile beast. Everyone takes it for granted, but the reality is that it exists in a minority of states throughout the world and that it is relatively rare, in as much as it is not a long established system of government. In terms of the universal franchise, it is around 100 years old. It is not immune from attack so we must constantly nurture, protect and defend it.
It is important that a national assembly like ours periodically returns to electoral law. Many issues arise. Access to the right to vote is a big one. Those of us who knocked on doors in Tipperary South recently know that some people find it impossible to exercise the vote because they are away on holiday or, like one elderly woman to whom I spoke in Cashel, find it physically difficult to get into the polling station. She finds it difficult to get up the steps but does not want to apply for a postal vote as she wants to be there in person. We must be more innovative in the way we allow people to participate in our democracy. The electronic advances in allowing people to purchase over the Internet or by telephone points the way that we should follow. We must engage with people to make the discharge of the right, the privilege, to vote as easy and accessible as possible.
Allied to that is the responsibility to get the register of electors right. In the last referendum in my own constituency, the presiding officers had lists of people who were dead since the last election, or who had moved. There is no absolute imperative to get an accurate register. We draw conclusions from inaccurate registers after every election and referendum. It may be that 10% are dead, moved on, or absent and so conclusions about turn-out and participation rates are made from inaccurate figures. We do not put as much care in the drafting of the register as in other issues. In drafting a list to whom we will pay social welfare, we are very careful. I was going to say also benefits from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, but after recent revelations about sheep in County Louth I will not. By and large, where there are payments from public expenditure, one expects carefully drawn up lists. We are tardy about the most valuable thing we give people, the right to vote, to determine the membership of this House, to elect a Government and decide on the nature of politics. Disability rights is a big issue. As Minister, I accepted and enhanced a private member's Bill, introduced by the current Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which gave additional rights to people physically challenged but we have not gone far enough.
All those issues and the type of voting we have are of fundamental importance and require more than a periodic outing in this House. When there is a legislative proposal, Members throw out their own ideas, but there is no forum on democracy to discuss how we can make our decision making and voting processes as inclusive as possible. We must be more proactive in addressing our voting mechanisms, the drafting of the register, getting our messages across, etc. That is evolving as is the public attitude to the conduct of politics itself. The evolution of public opinion stems from the ongoing nightly revelations on television from tribunals. These have been the backdrop to political life for years.
An inescapable issue on foot of these revelations is the funding of politics, political parties and campaigns. I introduced the 1997 Act with many objectives. One was transparency in the funding of political parties so that any significant contribution to an individual or a party would be declarable. Another was to have thresholds on expenditure in public campaigns to equalise the battle so that big money would not roll over those with lesser resources. That was extremely important. Then there was not the same consensus on banning corporate donations. On foot of recent revelations from the tribunals, the unanswerable issue is that the unsavoury connection between business and power must be addressed. Labour's promise is simple. If we cannot convince this Administration to abolish this connection by banning corporate donations, then we will make breaking it a condition when we negotiate to form a Government. Funding of politics is at the core of the debate. The Government parties danced around it for years because they are unwilling to make the break.
I suspect that in the run up to the general election Fianna Fáil's coffers are lined, that the treasury is in place. They want to raise the expenditure limits to allow them to spend an extra £1 million on their campaign to buy the election. That is grossly unfair. This Bill had a tortuous trail. Fianna Fáil balanced the unanswerable public demand for an end to the interaction between business and politics with the party's demand for money. The balance favoured party over people. There is the prospect of that party's spending £3 million in the coming election, an increase of £1 million over what was allowed in the 1997 Bill that I steered through this House. Many stated in this debate that the 1997 Act was never tested in a general election. I could say why because it was a long process to get it through. It was tested in six by-elections during the course of this Dáil. It is proven to be fair and allowed people to fight on an even field. We are learning and refining as we go. Those limits were seen to be fair and reasonable and did away with much gimmickry. They were good in themselves as is proven by the conduct and results of the by-elections.
The attitude of the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil to my Bill was ironic. The current Attorney General was then the Progressive Democrats' spokesperson on the Environment. The Minister's officials can find chapter and verse on this in the Official Report. He fought it line by line, section by section. He claimed that the proposals were unconstitutional. Such is the legal advice of the current Attorney General. He believed that it was unconstitutional and so bad as to be unamendable. He fought it on that basis. In fairness, Deputy Dempsey, then the Opposition spokesperson, was less trenchant but they were both negative. Since I negotiated with both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in relation to these matters in two programmes for Government I can say that there was no great enthusiasm on the part of either in relation to the enactment of these measures. Both told us frankly that they had substantial debts to be met and needed time to recharge their exhausted treasuries. They were very slow to agree to the measures we wanted and agreement took a very long time.
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, says that the new limits apply to all and therefore, by definition, because they apply to all, are fair. That is a perversion of truth. The reality is that they will be fair and equal if everybody has equal access to money. Every individual contesting an election and every political party does not have equal access to money. If one has a supporter with deep pockets, then one has access to money and will spend up to the exorbitantly increased new limits. However, if one is dependent on the small contributions of poor people, then there is no way one can compete. That is what makes it fundamentally unfair. It breaches the spirit I thought surrounded the mature reflection of all parties in the House on the contents of the 1997 Act.
I thought we had actually converted Fianna Fáil. Some months ago when I switched onto the Fianna Fáil website I discovered that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform claimed the 1997 Electoral Act for Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. Not only does Fianna Fáil want the history of its opposition airbrushed from history but it actually wants to claim ownership of the measure itself.
Important measures contained in the 1997 Act were not only expenditure limits but transparency on what was spent and who donated it. After the tortuous trail I have described of waiting month after month for the Government's proposals as they crystallised, evolved, changed and were debated we finally got the Minister's amendments in the Seanad. They limit corporate donations to £5,000 for a party and £2,000 for an individual. I acknowledge that is movement for Fianna Fáil. It is movement from the bland assertion of the former Attorney General, who I now understand is closer to Fianna Fáil than he was to the old Progressive Democrats, that it was an outrage to try to delimit the amount any individual citizen or corporate entity would give to politics and that it was their absolute right to do as they wished with their money. Fianna Fáil has moved from that position, belatedly but significantly, to one where it believes in the principle of limits to corporate funding. The threshold figures of £5,000 and £2,000 are a start but I am sad that Fianna Fáil would not go the final step. That will happen, probably during the next Administration, and it will happen because the public demands it.
There are other issues that arise in this legislation that I wish to refer to briefly. One of the principles we should try to have in the drafting of any law is to make it simple. With that principle in mind I refer to section 9 of the Bill. Can anybody reading it actually understand what it is about? It purports to be about supplements to the postal and special voters lists where more than one poll is held on the same day. It reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) of section 15A or subsection (4) of section 15B, where an application by an elector to have his name entered in the supplement to the postal voters list or the supplement to the special voters list is received after the relevant date referred to in subsection (4) of section 15A or subsection (4) of section 15B in relation to an election or a referendum but before the relevant date referred to in either of the said subsections in relation to another election or referendum, the poll at which is to be held on the same day, the relevant date for the second or subsequent election or referendum shall apply to an application received under subsection (4) of section 15A or subsection (4) of section 15B in connection with the elections or referendums.
That sounds Greek. Let us try to write Bills in a way that is understandable. This is a measure that is supposed to allow access to vote. It is not impossible to write it in a way that is not as impenetrable as the Bill is.
The ballot paper is another issue dealt with in the legislation. There are a number of things we need to do. We need to make it as accessible as possible and there should be large print. The last referendum was a disaster with small print on a small page in two languages. The result was confusion. It is good that there will be photographs and party emblems on the ballot paper but there should be clarity. I look forward to seeing some of the photographs as I know from some colleagues that they will use their confirmation photographs. It will be interesting to see whether the public recognise the candidate at all.
I am not happy with the notion of going back to the placing of posters outside polling stations, although I realise that only one per candidate will be allowed. In Fianna Fáil with multiple candidates will individuals have one each and be jostling for position? The ban on posters prevented hassle to people entering polling stations and was a good idea. There should be however a much larger polling station sign outside stations. I do not know if there is a defined size but they vary considerably throughout the country.
I would like to have said something about electronic voting but will keep my powder dry in deference to the time factor. I promised Deputy Joe Higgins who had to leave earlier that I would raise a point that should be considered. Some of us contribute to our own election funding and carry our own debts with us. Deputy Higgins contributed something like £12,000 of his own money to his election campaign. If we are a party member, we will be debarred by this proposal from paying our own bills. If we make a donation of £5,000 to our party, that will be the limit. That is something at which we need to look.
There is much debate required on the whole way in which we conduct elections and fund and deal with politics. I hope we will have more time during this debate and on Committee Stage and that we will establish some sort of forum on democracy to bring more people into the system to ensure our voting record increases and that our systems are in tune with the needs of the people at this the start of the 21st century.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Callely.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Bill for a number of reasons. I would like to see us examine electoral legislation on a more regular basis rather than when difficulties arise or when the electorate shows a lack of interest in the voting process. Recently I visited a school in my constituency for a talk on the political process and was astounded at the lack of interest in a class of 40 students. Their lack of interest was due to the fact that politicians themselves showed little interest in students' lives and they felt politicians were removed from them. It is important that we try to address part of this in the Bill. While funding and donations is the dominant topic in this debate there are other relevant issues, and it is timely to deal with them.
I welcome the Bill because it deals with issues relevant to politicians and the public, especially the growing numbers not interested in voting. Although the occurrences of the past few months and years may have acted as deterrents to an interest in voting and politics by virtue of the quite proper coverage of tribunals, it is important that we, as practising politicians, attempt to reduce the difficulties encountered by voters. The political system must be made accessible and transparent and we must recognise the changing pattern of voting demographics.
The Minister, like everyone interested in politics, knows that interest in the electoral system is diminishing each year. At each election we see a further reduction in the turnout. It is alarming that we are arriving at a point where it is less than 50%. I recognise the importance of making voting easy for people, especially those who are less lit erate, by having photographs and names in larger print. It is simple to do that and it is relevant. Voting can be a concern for those who do not regularly read and write. We have spoken about addressing this matter for some time and, regrettably, it has taken until now to do something about it.
We should carry out regular checks of the operational procedures of registration and voting. Will the Minister or an Oireachtas committee review on a regular, perhaps two-yearly, basis the success of a particular Electoral Act to ensure that obstacles for the electorate are removed? We need to check frequently if there are new reasons for a low turnout. Unlike the past, family commitments can often be a deterrent to voting, particularly if both partners are working outside their constituency. I welcome the proposals that recognise this.
The registration process revises the condition for the registration of political parties and endeavours to improve the electoral process. That is fundamental to this Bill. I am happy that the Bill forms an important part of the Government's programme to reform the regulatory framework of public life. That is a significant ambition. It deals clearly with the acceptance and disclosure of public donations and the financing of political parties. There are a number of ways we can entice people to vote, some being quite simple. We must target groups to ascertain why they are not voting and then deal with the problem in so far as this is possible.
I would have preferred if the Bill were about compelling people to vote in the first instance. I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that so many people write to us in favour of Irish people abroad voting here and yet, as we grow more affluent, the interest in the political system declines. In the future, I hope we can ensure that people are mandated and that they are legally obliged to participate in the voting process, even if it is necessary to allow those who merely want to make comments on their ballot papers to do so. In some jurisdictions, there is a special column to allow for criticism of the process or those who represent it. This must be examined. Recently, I read that the Greek Government funds voting by way of encouraging emigrants to return home to vote, even going to the extent of paying for air fares. As generous as this Government is, I do not expect it to do that. However, it shows that there is a commitment abroad to increasing the turnout at elections but, unfortunately, it does not obtain here. It is ironic that pressure should be mounting on us to help people who are abroad to vote.
The system should be made more user-friendly and I welcome the provisions that begin this process. I welcome the change concerning the register of voters, specifically the edited register. I also recognise that representations have been made to various Ministers over the past number of years to ensure that voters are protected from receiving junk mail. I see the need for this, and it shows that the Minister and his colleagues have been listening to representations.
Section 4 is very important. It enables the creation of a national register of electors required for the future development of electronic, internet or telephone voting. This will facilitate on-line updating of the different registers of electors nationwide. The Bill is far-reaching in this regard. Section 6 makes two worthwhile changes. The first provides that people on the register of electors who move from one constituency or local electoral area to another can apply for entry onto the register at their new address provided they forfeit their right to vote at their previous one. This might not seem important but it has been an issue for years and is only now being addressed. Often people who change address find that they are not on the appropriate register as an election approaches.
I understand the frustration of Opposition speakers because the Government will not accept every proposal they make. Deputy Howlin mentioned 1997 but that was a different time. We are now part of a new regime that has recognised the huge demand of the public to ensure that the voting process is transparent. Unfortunately, the issue that clouds that transparency is money and the perception that politicians are in politics only for the salary. Although it may have taken time, the Government is aware that public disinterest is partly due to the possible tie between politics and money. In that regard, I welcome the Bill's limits on three, four and five-seater constituencies. It makes clear to the public that there are limits on expenditure. It has been suggested that Government and Opposition parties will be able to spend £100,000 or £200,000 in a five seat constituency like my own. It is fair that I point out that my party's expenditure will be about one fifth of that figure, despite the fact that Fianna Fáil will run four candidates in Laoighis-Offaly.
I wish to conclude, as I have agreed to share time with my colleague, Deputy Callely. I commend the Bill and welcome its provisions. It deals with so many issues that I have not had time to deal with some of them, including electronic voting, which I welcome as the public has demanded it. I am glad to note that electronic voting will only survive if it is supported on both sides of the House. Moves are being made to ensure such support for a measure which will ensure the electorate becomes more involved and that tallymen will have an easier time.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I concur with most of Deputy Moloney's comments regarding the use of incentives to encourage people to vote. I am not sure if I am prepared to go to the lengths suggested by him, but believe that the disappointing downward trend in polling in recent years can be reversed. An improvement will be seen if appropriate incentives are put in place. I am not sure paying people to vote would be the right approach, although it could be argued they would not be paid to vote in any direction, but merely to vote.
Whenever I come across people who express apathy or disenchantment and indicate that they do not intend to vote, I encourage them to go the polling station to make use of their democratic right. I point out to them that the ballot paper can be used to signal whatever strong views they may have or whatever message they may wish to convey. Appropriate incentives should be put in place and there are many we can consider, such as a tax allowance for those in the tax net. We could make it more difficult for those who have not voted over a period of time to be placed on the register of electors. We could put a structure in place in order that if the opportunity to vote has not been taken on three, four or five occasions, those involved will have to go through another procedure to get back on the register.
Equally, I strongly believe that more than incentives are required. As other speakers have done, I acknowledge that the revelations that have been heard at tribunals in recent months and years have been disappointing, and there are probably more to come. It is easy to tar everyone with the same brush, but only a handful of politicians have been before tribunals. There are 166 Members in this House, and if one considers the turnover at each election, only a handful of those who have passed through this House in the last 20 years are involved and will pay the price. They have given all politicians a bad name.
I am sometimes amused by what one sees, hears and reads about what happens in a multi-seat constituency. All Members of the House have witnessed the phenomenon to which I refer. As we approach a general election, it becomes more apparent that those from other parties in one's constituency are standing on soapboxes listing what they will implement if returned to power. If they attend a meeting about education, they will make promises about educational matters. If they are speaking to a health forum, they will talk about what they will do regarding health. Such behaviour is partly responsible for the disappointing downward trend in voter turnout and highlights the hypocrisy of those who spout the music appropriate to an audience's ears.
Voters are likely to tar all politicians with the same brush when they hear them say that they will implement a minor matter, but one that is crucial for an individual voter. Politicians who engage in this practice, if elected to power, often say that although the promise was in their party's manifesto, it cannot be delivered on in the programme for Government as their new Government partners do not agree. Such behaviour is very disappointing. The electorate has a role to play, too, as this problem is not just the fault of those trying to get elected who promise things impossible to deliver and say things appropriate to the wishes of the audience. If a party is elected, voters should be clear about what they have done and should vote for the party which will deliver what it promised in its manifesto.
I am sickened when I hear people saying what they think is appropriate to their audience. Most political parties have had the opportunity to deliver in government and for one reason or another have failed to do so. This phenomenon is not confined to members of political parties, as many Independent Members of this House have behaved in a similar manner over a prolonged number of years and we know the consequences. I ask the Minister of State and his Department to take on board my initial point, that we should look at giving fair incentives to the electorate to vote, without purchasing or buying votes, as it may be interpreted.
I disagree with comments that have been made regarding limits on corporate donations. It is wrong to limit corporate donations at the levels of £2,000 and £5,000 as suggested. I ask the Minister of State to outline the measures proposed for index-linking. Equally, I am concerned about the new limits on election expenditure of £20,000, £25,000 and £30,000, depending on one's constituency. I do not come from a political background and had to paddle my own canoe against high fliers when I joined my constituency's branch of my party. There are difficulties for those in multi-seat constituencies who enter as underdogs, as half their money goes to their political party. I regret I am out of time as I would like to comment further.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Timmins and Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny). I welcome many aspects of the legislation but there are also gaps in it that need to be filled. A good electoral Bill would result in more people voting and our aim should be to ensure more people participate in the democratic process. It is more than two years since the last nationwide election, the 1999 local elections, when approximately 50% of the electorate voted. The turnout was less than 40% in certain electoral areas. I raised the appalling turnout for those elections a week or two afterwards with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, as did a number of other Members, and he promised he would extensively examine the issue and bring forward a range of measures to encourage more people to vote. Unfortunately, as has been the case with many of the Minister's proposals, nothing happened.
I would like us to debate measures which would encourage people to participate in the democratic process but that is not what the legislation is about. This debate is similar to last week's debate on the Local Government Bill, 2000. The media and political debate on that Bill was taken up with one issue, namely the dual mandate, while the debate on this legislation has revolved around spending limits. There are also other aspects of it which need to be addressed. I am concerned we are doing very little to encourage and facilitate voter participation.
There is a by-election later this week in Tipperary South. Most Members have been canvassing there. The constituency is no different from any other and it is apparent that fewer people wish to participate in the democratic process. Some Members have made suggestions as to how this problem should be tackled. Deputy Callely said he had to paddle his own canoe in his constituency but I am sure some of his party colleagues discovered he was using a powerboat. He pointed out there should be incentives to encourage people to vote, with which I agree. However, we must seriously examine the system of compulsory voting which is provided for in a number of jurisdictions in Europe. It is regrettable that we may have to consider compulsory voting. While participation in the democratic process is a right it is also a responsibility and there must be some sanction on those who totally ignore the democratic process.
As a number of speakers said, an option could be given to voters to note their protest by providing space on the ballot paper for them to say they do not wish to support any of the candidates or parties. If other countries can successfully operate a system whereby 85% to 90% of the electorate votes, we should be able to do likewise. If we end up in a position similar to the US where less than 50% of the electorate votes regularly, it will be bad for democracy. This issue needs a forum, similar to that referred to by Deputy Howlin, to encourage widespread debate because our cherished democracy is at risk when less than 50% of the electorate participates in a national election.
The provision of expenditure limits in the legislation is a cynical exercise designed to buy rather than win votes. It will not be effective and I hope, on mature reflection, over the next 12 months every party in the House will recognise that what is proposed by the Fine Gael Party, namely the abolition of corporate funding of politics, is the only reasonable and fair way to move forward. If we want to clean up politics and make it attractive for both candidates and the electorate, we could make a good start by banning corporate donations rather than changing expenditure limits as provided for in the legislation.
Most Members do not have the expertise to debate much of the legislation introduced in the House but all of us have the necessary expertise to discuss this Bill. Deputy Callely mentioned that he wished to make other points while Deputy Bradford had to shorten his contribution and it is regrettable that we do not have more time to debate the Bill or that we did not have a period for discussion prior to its introduction. Reference has been made to the Committee Stage debate but we all know the Bill will be pushed through quickly. I regret the legislation is being rushed.
Deputy Callely's contribution was interesting and he made an important point. He said he had to paddle his own canoe while Deputy Bradford referred to him using a powerboat but I believe Deputy Callely is probably involved with a cruise liner. He said corporate donations are not index linked and that is one of the greatest anomalies in the legislation. Members can spend any amount between elections. I could spend £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 promoting myself throughout the summer on the assumption that the general election will be held next October or in March 2001. If I have money, I will have a head start on other candidates and that is not the way our democratic system should operate.
The Bill should have been widened to limit expenditure outside election campaigns. Fine Gael's proposal to ban corporate donations would address that issue because Members would not be able to generate enough money between elections to promote themselves to the extent that some do currently.
Sections 12 and 13 deal with the polling schemes prepared by local authorities. Section 13 states:
Section 29 of the Principal Act is amended by (a) the deletion of subsection (2) of "be subject to the confirmation by the Minister.".
Does this mean the polling scheme will be accepted by the Minister or will he or she issue directives to local authorities pointing out that they should not provide polling stations where there are only 100, 200 or 300 electors? Polling stations in my constituency were closed for the vote on the Nice treaty referendum and people had to travel long distances to vote on the day.
Section 21 provides for photographs on ballot papers. It states: "The ballot paper may include a photograph of each candidate". Is it necessary for a candidate to provide a photograph or is it optional? Through no fault of politicians some photographs used by newspapers and so on are so out of date one would not recognise the individuals involved. If photographs are to be provided, perhaps it should be required that they should be taken within the previous 12 months.
Section 23 provides that ballot boxes with 50 or fewer ballot papers will be opened in view of the public but the secrecy of the ballot will be respected. However, tallymen will be able to see the ballot papers. There should be no tallymen but assuming electronic voting will not be introduced overnight manual counting will continue. There are people who believe politicians know how they vote. The returning officers should open the ballot boxes, count the votes and make the figure available because I am worried about the intimidation of electors. Tallymen and party activists should not be allowed into the count centres and they should not be allowed to hammer on doors on the day of voting because they intimidate voters.
The expenditure limit of £30,000 for a candidate in a five seat constituency is too high. A circular was issued recently by radio stations which sought political advertising on local stations. I am a firm believer that we should ban newspaper advertising during an election campaign. We, as politicians, get a lot of flak from the newspapers about fund raising. However, the majority of the money is spent on newspaper advertising during election time. I look forward to the Minister introducing an innovative amendment in this regard. We are castigated for holding golf classics or getting corporate donations, yet the newspapers want to take the money from us. It will be interesting to see what amount of money is spent by political parties and individuals during an election campaign.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I welcome the idea of having photographs on the ballot paper. When I came into the House as a rookie – I am probably still a rookie – I argued for this, but I was given the greatest gobbledegook of all time, namely, that the printers could not guarantee they would have proper photographs. I offered to get three or four printers in my county to produce perfect photographs without any difficulty. This issue arose for me when a husband I canvassed refused to vote. He had asked me about putting photographs on the ballot paper because his wife and daughter were illiterate and he did not want to embarrass them. I did my best then. Like the gestation of an elephant, I welcome this prodigy which has been produced by the midwife in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It took a long time but I claim some credit for it.
I welcome the fact that the register is not a bible which does not allow one to step out of line without getting punished. People are left out by mistake or human error. I am glad that people can be added to it. I also welcome electronic voting. We live in a modern age and young people might be encouraged to vote to show off their skills on the computer system.
I object to allowing people to put posters within 50 metres rather than 100 metres of a polling station. The posters will be closer than that because people will not be able to take long steps. The blood sport of allowing people to stand outside polling stations is all right for the public, but not for democracy. As a candidate, I would like to think that people can walk in without being intimidated. Allowing posters within 50 metres is too dodgy.
I do not welcome the increased spending per candidate for an election, as Deputy Timmins said. I have argued for years that political parties are gullible. The increased rates for advertising will come into force for the elections. People who are not interested in politics will skip the advertisement in a newspaper. Only the die-hards in the main political parties will look at it and compare it with that for their own party and then say they did a better job. It is a waste of money to have a page or a half page of an advertisement in a newspaper unless it is a big photograph which someone might recognise. It is a total waste of money to advertise policy. Parties should save their money. Someone might see an advertise ment on television by mistake because they cannot turn it off, but they will not read the advertisement in the newspapers.
I cannot understand a Fianna Fáil Deputy talking about the historic day when contributions were stopped and corporate donations were abolished. Fine Gael has given the lead in banning corporate donations. If the public wants to stop corporate donations, it does not have an option but to allow politics to be funded by the State. This means people will not be under the thumb of others. A candidate is allowed a limit of £2,000 and a political party is allowed a limit of £5,000. If we want to make an effort to keep everything about board, surely £5,000 is too high for any party to get as a donation from the corporate sector. The argument that one cannot separate corporate donations from individual donations in a company does not stand up. If a company wants to give money, it should be seen to give it. I regret that I will not have my photograph on the ballot paper in the next election.
We will all regret that.
The photograph is optional. If the person does not want his or her photograph on the ballot paper, the space will remain blank.
I thank Deputies who contributed to the Second Stage debate on the Bill which, as would one expect, engaged the attention of Deputies more than most other Bills. Many interesting matters were raised and I will deal with as many as I can in the time available.
The new donation limits for political parties, elected members and third parties evoked a variety of responses. We had the arguments on the ban on corporate donations repeated, although those arguments do not stand up to any rigorous scrutiny. The position which pertained in the past and which may have led to the events being disclosed in Dublin Castle in connection with a few individuals no longer applies. The regulatory context in which we operate today is substantially different from a few years ago. The disclosure requirements now in operation would have highlighted or prevented some of the matters being investigated by the tribunals. Nobody condones such activity. We must learn from the past and the Government through this Bill and other Bills going through the Oireachtas at present will set in place a regime to provide an era of openness and accountability. The Public Offices Commission in its 1999 annual report stated that the "Commission is satisfied that present practice in Ireland compares well with that in other countries and, indeed, many countries are at present looking to the Irish model with interest." It is time for the Members of this House, who have had no involvement in the affairs being disclosed at Dublin Castle, to reclaim the high ground and, as Deputy Gilmore said, to stop talking down the political world. If we do not do it, how can we expect others to do it? We must start getting our message across that there are positive aspects to political life in this country.
The Government's proposals in the Bill on limiting donations for political purposes will provide an open and transparent system for all. I noticed last Friday that Deputies Olivia Mitchell, Burke and Gilmore reluctantly and indirectly acknowledged that the Government had moved towards their parties' positions in the matter. I am convinced the public will agree that the Government's proposals are the proper way to go forward. Arguments about whether a cheque is a personal cheque or a business cheque are not the real issue; openness and accountability are the key determinants in this matter. This is particularly relevant in so far as Fine Gael is concerned. In its discussion document on the funding of political parties in May 2000, Fine Gael stated that it "does not believe it is possible to distinguish between corporate and individual donations". The document also states that "we believe that the source and size of a donation – corporate or individual – is more important than the legal status of the immediate donor".
The party has not published, to my knowledge, the rationale for the total change in policy. What major developments have occurred in the past 12 months to cause such a fundamental change of direction? While respecting the Labour Party position, I am not aware that its policies are infallible and that it has absolute righteousness on its side. If so, why did the Labour Party not ban corporate donations in the now Electoral Act, 1997?
Could the Minister of State not notice the changes?
I have not heard an explanation why it did not include such a provision in that Act. The Government, in the absence of co-operation from the other parties, has produce a sensible and operative scheme of donation limits which are reasonable for all concerned. The Government had to consider what limits would be reasonable having regard to the rights of free speech found in the Constitution and in the European Charter of Human Rights.
The second matter which dominated contributions from the Opposition is the increase in election expenditure limits. The origin of the present disagreement goes back to 1997 when the Electoral Act, 1997, was debated in the Oireachtas. The Minister, who was then in Opposition, stated his opposition to the limits in the 1997 Act, especially when the then Minister refused to increase the limits set out in the Bill. The proposed new limits are in line with the amounts proposed by the Minister in 1997 and adjusted for inflation. I continue to be amazed at the position adopted by the Labour Party, namely, accept our proposals or else. It should be aware that there are other equally valid views than the ones it expresses. The expenditure limits in the 1997 Act are not immutable to change. Deputy Gilmore's colleague, Deputy Howlin, the then Minister, said during the Committee Stage debate on the 1997 Act that "the figures are not written in stone". Deputy Olivia Mitchell said a lot of thought was given to the limits in the 1997 Act. I wonder where such consideration was given, and whether she could point out where I might find it.
Deputy Gilmore continued his argument that the new limits will increase Fianna Fáil expenditure by about £800,000 at the next general election.
Somebody did a lot of research on this.
The limits are the same for every candidate. The only major determining factor is the overall number of candidates. There is nothing to stop any party nominating as many candidates as it wishes. I cannot understand the reason Fianna Fáil is being blamed for nominating a large number of candidates. Why does the Labour Party or Fine Gael not nominate as many candidates as Fianna Fáil? The choice of the number of candidates a party wishes to nominate is a fundamental right. Are the parties opposite suggesting that Fianna Fáil should nominate the same number of candidates as them in order that the expenditure will be the same? The arguments of the Opposition do not stand up.
Deputy Gilmore made a very disingenuous remark that the increase of nearly £2 million for funding the running of political parties was equivalent to the loss of donation income by Fianna Fáil. That is totally untrue. The £2 million will be distributed to all parties which obtain over 2% of first preference votes at the last and future general elections on the basis of the proportion of such first preferences votes obtained by the party's candidates to the overall number of first preference votes received by qualified political parties.
The Bill's provision for direct vote recording and electronic vote counting were also referred to in the debate. While accepting that some Deputies may have concerns about the introduction of a new system for voting and vote counting, I must dispel the notion suggested by some Deputies that the system could discourage the elderly from voting. On the contrary, experience in all countries shows that the elderly have no problem using the voting machine and favour it over the paper ballots. We found this was the case at the Dublin South Central by-election and I am sure that the demonstration of the voting machine at next Saturday's by-election in the Tipperary South constituency will get the same reaction. Deputies should withhold such comments until they see an actual demonstration of the scheme.
Deputy Gilmore suggested that the proposed system is not modern. The voting machine and the software are based on current technology and best practice. The system proposed is not intended as a fashion or style-based product. It is based on reliability, functionality and integrity. I do not know the basis of the Deputy's statement. Is it based on a possible system, as he suggested, such as a bank ATM, that one could vote from anywhere in the country or abroad? If so, the Deputy would need to do more research in the matter. His proposal to compare a voting system which may be used only once every few years with bank ATMs or the lottery machines is not realistic. The cost of such a system would be much higher than what is proposed and require extensive maintenance and logistical support. The system proposed is simple, requires minimum training for polling staff and the voter and relatively maintenance free. It is deliberately designed to use the existing ballot paper so as not to confuse voters. All the voter will have to do is to use finger pressure instead of a pencil for recording a preference.
In contrast, the system referred to by Deputy Gilmore would present problems for the elderly, something which he incorrectly attributed to the proposed system. The system talked about by the Deputy would be more difficult to use as it would have to hold personal information on each elector. Apart from data protection matters, this would present much greater security problems not present in the proposed system. The elector would have to input some personal information into the machine in order for it to verify his or her eligibility and respond to prompts by the machine. In contrast, the proposed system will use the same format on the existing ballot papers with the addition of photographs and party logos. I have mentioned these facts as I want to rebut any notion that the system proposed will present any problems to the electorate, especially the elderly or that the system is not modern. The Government has agreed in principle to the system, subject to satisfactory testing. Needless to say, it will not agree to use the system if it is not totally satisfied as to its suitability to Irish electoral conditions.
Deputies also referred to the register of electors and its inaccuracies. The Bill provides a provision, subject to both Houses approving a ministerial order, to have the register prepared, maintained and published by an agency other than registration authorities. Many of the deficiencies referred to by Deputies can be overcome by registration authorities in its compilation, greater involvement by the public in checking that their names are included in it and perhaps by politicians and their political parties engaging in reviewing the draft register. If a person's name is omitted from the register, he or she can apply at any time of the year for entry in the supplement. It is not necessary to wait until an election or referendum is about to be called.
The Bill provides for some changes and supplements to the register to facilitate registration. Many Deputies suggested that child allowance records should be used to invite young people reaching 18 years to apply for registration. The Department suggested this to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs but the latter indicated that it could not disclose such information under the Data Protection Act, as it was obtained for the purpose of administering social welfare services and other social supports.
Deputy Connaughton referred to the deletion of names of permanent residents from the register of electors. This should not be happening as the Minister issued a statutory instruction under section 18 of the Electoral Act, 1992, in 1997 to registration authorities that they should write to people on the register before they delete their names from the draft register for the following year. The Minister will remind registration authorities of this matter before next year's draft is prepared.
Deputy Belton raised the question of third level students. The current law provides that students can use their home addresses or their away address for registration. They can also apply for a postal vote and the Department has provided an information leaflet for students in co-operation with USIT.
Deputy Burke referred to the lack of a provision in the Bill to reduce the age limit for standing for the Dáil. The Bill could not contain such a provision as a constitutional amendment would be required to reduce the age from 21 years. The Deputy also referred to a possible prohibition on publishing the results of opinion polls close to polling day. This is a subject which has implications for the constitutional right of free expression and also such a prohibition, if considered, may be pointless with access to the Internet.
Some Deputies referred to voter turnout. Regrettably, turnout has been decreasing in recent years. Unlike a small number of countries in Europe, voting is not compulsory here. Our system entitles an elector to vote; it also gives the elector the right not to vote at a particular poll. Various theories have been put forward for low voter turnout – choice of polling day and hours of polling; complexity of the subject and a lack of information; perception that a particular result is a foregone conclusion; no real choice; apathy, etc. The reality is that nobody can say with any degree of certainty what is the cause of a low turnout. It may be due to a single factor or a combination of factors.
Research by the Referendum Commission following the referendums in 1998 suggested that lack of engagement in relation to the Amsterdam Treaty and a belief that the result of the Northern Ireland referendum was a foregone conclusion were among the reasons. Its research analysis of non-voters revealed a variety of reasons for not voting: 36% were too busy; 23% were away from home; 16% were not bothered; 8% were ill; and 14% did not have enough information, did not understand the issues or were unable to make up their minds.
Low turnout is a shared responsibility by elected Members, public authorities and the public. While there is some research ongoing concerning European elections, perhaps this matter might be appropriate for consideration by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government at a future date.
Deputy Currie referred to problems of personation at elections. Under electoral law, a presiding officer may of his or her own volition or, if so required by a personation agent, request any person applying for a ballot to satisfy himself or herself as to their identity by producing any one of a number of specified documents. Where a person fails to produce such a document, or the presiding officer is not satisfied that the person is the person to whom the document relates, a ballot paper is not issued. Presiding officers have powers to direct a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest a person where they have a reasonable cause to believe that personation is or has been committed. Electoral law also provides for the offence of personation and appropriate penalties. This matter is being reviewed by the Minister.
Deputy Currie also asked if a person who reaches 18 years between the date of polling and the last day for applying to get on the supplement to the register of electors will have their birthday noted on the register. This is not intended.
Question put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Gildea, Thomas.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.McCreevy, Charlie.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Moffatt, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Ned.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Belton, Louis J.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip. |
Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Neville, Dan.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
I understand that it is proposed to refer the Bill to the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government. Does the Minister wish to move the motion of referral now?