Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2002: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Cullen)

This Bill arises from the judgment in the case entitled Kelly v. the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Ireland and the Attorney General, concerning certain exemptions to election expenditure set out in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Electoral Act, 1997. It is a short Bill to provide for an extension of the period for furnishing statements of election expenses to the Standards in Public Office Commission by candidates at the recent general election. The period is being extended for the recent general election only pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court, following the High Court case to do with the constitutionality of certain exemptions from election expenditure of the services and facilities provided by the Houses of the Oireachtas to outgoing Members.

The High Court judgment delivered on 16 May 2002 found that part of paragraph 2(a) and paragraph 2(c) of the Schedule to the Electoral Act, 1997, which exempt publicly-funded facilities such as postage, telephone, fax, photocopying, etc, for outgoing Members of Dáil Éireann who are candidates at the Dáil election, for the purposes of election expenditure controls, are invalid, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution. While election expenditure limits do not apply at Seanad elections, the High Court judgment has implications for Members of the Seanad who stood for election to Dáil Éireann, whether successfully or unsuccessfully.

The matters referred to in part of paragraph 2 (a) are payments, services or facilities provided to a Member of the Oireachtas, a Member of the European Parliament, the holder of an elective or other public office, a political party or political group and a member of, or delegate to, an international organisation. This exemption was included in the Act as enacted in 1997.

Paragraph 2(c) was inserted by the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001, and provided that “any expenses in respect of any property, services or facilities so far as those expenses fall to be met out of public funding” would not be regarded as election expenditure.

The provision of these services was also considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the last Dáil, following correspondence with the Standards in Public Office Commission. I understand that the Standards in Public Office Commission was also in contact with the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges concerning services and facilities provided to Members of the Seanad.

These exemptions were intended to cover the cost to outgoing Members of the Oireachtas for their duties as public representatives which do not stop on the dissolution of the Dáil. Indeed, there is a duty on Members to finalise any outstanding business.

The problem arises from the difficulty in distinguishing parliamentary duties from electioneering at election time. The view was expressed that such matters were so interrelated and intermingled that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to rigidly separate them. The arguments were made in the High Court and the judgment must be respected. The State has lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court and in such circumstances I do not wish to restate the arguments or other matters which could arise on appeal.

It was hoped that an appeal hearing would be held at an early date so that the extension to 90 days of the period for furnishing election expenses statements to the Standards in Public Office Commission would have sufficed but the appeal will not be heard until October. The Bill was amended in the Dáil to extend the 56 day period to 167 days – 31 October next – or 21 days following the pronouncement by the Supreme Court of its decision on the appeal, whichever is the longer period. We hope the appeal will be determined early in October.

The question of election expenditure limits was discussed extensively on a number of occasions both in the last Dáil and the Seanad when the Electoral Act, 1997, was debated. It is not necessary to repeat the debate again except to say that in a democracy political parties and candidates should have an opportunity to present their policies and programmes to the electorate. An appropriate level of expenditure is required to provide against extravagant spending as in the intensive competitive atmosphere of an election parties and candidates can be drawn into a spiral of competitive spending which can serve no real purpose. It is in everyone's interest that expenditure limits be clear and set at sensible limits which permit the launching of an effective campaign but at the same time will not push the expenditure norms out of reach of small parties and independent candidates.

The administrative requirements for implementing the Electoral Act, 1997, have become very cumbersome for candidates, political parties and the commission. I intend to review the operation of the Act later in the year with a view to simplifying the procedures and requirements imposed on candidates and political parties. I would welcome any views and suggestions from Senators in this matter. Senator Mackin is general secretary of my party. I would welcome his views, in particular, as well as those of the secretaries general of all political parties, who will have important contributions to make when I undertake the review. This has become almost unworkable for almost everyone, including the commission.

Section 1 of the Bill provides for the extension of the period for furnishing election expenses statements to the commission by substituting 167 days for 56 days or 21 days after the Supreme Court pronounces on the appeal, whichever is the longest, in subsections (1) and (6) of section 36. Section 2 is a standard provision providing for the Short Title of the Bill, its construction and collective citation.

The purpose of the Bill is simple and straightforward. It extends the time for furnishing election expenses statements to the Standards in Public Office Commission for the recent general election only. The Bill is considered necessary as overspending of the specified expenditure limits could lead to prosecution. Up to the time of the High Court judgment candidates would have been acting in accordance with the legislation as it stood. Section 43(6) of the Electoral Act, 1997, provides that it is a defence to a prosecution to show that a person did not know or could not reasonably have known that he or she incurred election expenses above the specified limit. The agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions must be obtained to proceed with a prosecution.

The Government considers that in these circumstances the period for furnishing election expenses statements to the commission should be extended in order that candidates, their election agents, national agents of political parties and the commission will have the relevant matters clarified following the determination of the appeal. No change has been made in the 56 day period for furnishing donation statements by unsuccessful candidates at Dáil or Seanad elections to the commission. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. J. Doyle

I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill, which arises from an action taken by Mr. Desmond Kelly, a candidate for Fianna Fáil in the constituency of Dublin Mid-West in the last general election. He claimed that existing legislation discriminated in favour of candidates who were already Oireachtas Members or MEPs and his case was heard in the High Court. It is important to remember that judgment was delivered on 16 May on the eve of the general election. The High Court found that paragraphs 2(a) and 2(c) of the Schedule to the Electoral Act, 1997, which exempt publicly funded facilities such as postage, telephone and office accommodation for outgoing Members of the Dáil for the purposes of election expenditure controls, are invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution. The judge went on to state no such cap existed on electoral expenses and that such facilities enjoyed by outgoing Members were unfair and discriminatory regarding candidates standing for the first time. This fine judgment of Mr. Justice Liam McKenchie shows the layman the extent to which judges go before making a judgment – the issues they deal with and the matters they look into.

I do not wish to comment on the judgment as it is the Government's intention to appeal it to the Supreme Court, but refer to an affidavit submitted on behalf of the applicant by a senior political scientist who argued that incumbents enjoy a built-in advantage over non-incumbents when it comes to competing for votes. He based his argument on a module produced by a colleague of his which studied the results of general elections since 1980 and which concluded that incumbents had a benefit of approximately 1,400 votes over a candidate standing for the first time.

Mr. O'Toole

I hope he is right.

Mr. J. Doyle

When the matter goes before the Supreme Court the results of the last general election should be taken into account because many incumbents, particularly from my party, were displaced by people standing for the first time. The incumbents did not seem to have any great advantage.

The value of postage and telephone facilities as well as office accommodation and so on has been overstated. If an incumbent has an advantage over a candidate standing for the first time, that is due to the work and service the Member has done for his constituents since the previous election.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Doyle

No court of law can take that advantage away. We all had to stand for the first time. In the first general election I contested I stood with the leader of my party and a former Minister for Finance. I did not feel discriminated against in any way. Their advantage was well earned and I took my chance, getting elected in due course.

Mr. Cullen

The Senator had their goodwill. There was some patronage.

Mr. J. Doyle

The High Court found it impossible to differentiate between electioneering and one's obligations as a Member. This should be addressed by the review the Minister mentioned, which I welcome. The dissolution of the Dáil usually takes place three weeks before the general election, for which period Members are obliged to serve their constituents. This should be taken into account in any future legislation dealing with this area.

Mr. Mackin

It is an honour for me, as a party official for over ten years – an unelected party official, as I was reminded many times by Members of both Houses – to be here today. I hope my new colleagues are not uneasy about a Mount Street staffer being present in the Upper House. Some party headquarters are among the most unloved institutions in politics, but I hope Members appreciate what a great honour it is for me and my family to participate in the business of the Seanad.

Wearing my other hat as general secretary of my party, discussing the Electoral Act is opportune because in 65-66 Lower Mount Street, as in other party headquarters, we have spent much time dealing with this legislation from its inception to its application in the recent general election. There was co-operation between the various party headquarters as we collectively tried to unlock some of the mysteries of the Act. While annual returns are already in place and we had dry runs through various by-elections, the recent national campaign was our first chance to see the Act in its full application. Bearing that in mind, I heartily welcome the Minister's commitment today to undertake a full review of the Act's provisions, which is very timely.

The recent general election saw the first full application of the Act at a national level for which we prepared over a lengthy period of time. It was often a tortuous process as we tried to communicate not just to our candidates and election agents, but also the 3,000 units in our organisation that there had been a very substantial change in the political culture and in the way we campaign. For a large national political party, those difficulties are greater. In that regard I thank the Standards in Public Office Commission for the assistance provided, for attending our seminars and on more than one occasion putting the fear of God into everybody, not least our election agents.

I thank our election agents and the election agents of all the political parties because they had to carry the burden of implementation of the Act in each of the 42 constituencies. That was no easy task when dealing with organisations and candidates who were not familiar with the Act. Senators will be aware of the stresses, strains and pressures of the campaign. Election agents were at the epicentre of this process and had to work through difficult times to ensure the Act was implemented. In many ways, the election agents of the various parties are the unsung heroes of this process.

The Minister indicated that the purpose of the legislation before us is to allow for an extension of the returns to the Standards in Public Office Commission to allow for, in turn, the appeal to the Supreme Court to take place. The High Court made its judgment on 16 May, the day before polling day. At that point many candidates, successful and unsuccessful, had factored into their budgets that they did not have to take account of the services or provisions allowed for by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Many are now confused as to what will happen from this point onwards. While it is important to make some effort, we must await the Supreme Court judgment and then look at the Minister's review for clarification for election agents, candidates, the parties and those who do not go to the people under a party banner. The current situation only serves to add a layer of confusion to what is already extremely complex legislation. Anyone who believes we know the full impact of the Electoral Act is foolish given the way it impacts on so many of our basic rights as citizens in a democracy. It was almost inevitable that there would be a court challenge to the Electoral Act and there may be others.

Fianna Fáil supports the inherent principles behind the Electoral Act, those of transparency in expenditure and limitations on expenditure. On the transparency issue, I do not want to go into the details of all the events. We have gone through a cathartic phase in politics recently. I do not wish to go over that ground except to say there probably remains a need to restore public trust in politics and the value of public life and to take on collectively across the political spectrum the corrosive and unfair cynicism about politics and public life.

Capping expenditure is an important matter. In terms of the competitive and fruitless expenditure in which candidates and parties get caught, the spiral of expenditure does not lead to benefits for any side. However, in supporting spending limits, those spending limits have to be realistic. Having listened to some commentators on the issue of election expenditure it is clear they do not know the price of a corruboard poster. Some may not even know the price of a pint of milk. Clearly there is much ignorance about the cost of running a campaign. Regardless of whether we like it, we are living in a time of almost perpetual campaigning. The old Lemass dictum that the campaign starts the day after the count has never been more true.

One of the frustrations my colleagues and I had, and I suspect other parties had, was the occasional wilfully absurd interpretations people tried to put on the Act. At one stage it seemed child care was going to be considered an election expense which was crazy. Nobody could agree that that would be legitimate in any sense of the word. Without going into the minutia of it, one difficulty parties would have had was in the area of cross-canvassing where a candidate produces a canvass card and, as is right and proper, includes the names of his or her running mates.

Mr. O'Toole

In small letters.

Mr. Mackin

That has to be accounted for in the returns of the other candidates. One is literally reaching a situation where one could end up measuring with a ruler the size of a font on a leaflet when digging up budgets and expenditures. Despite the inherent importance and good intentions behind the Electoral Act, if it serves to generate a quagmire of bureaucracy for candidates and parties, it will devalue itself in time and obscure the real purpose behind it.

Given that we are post the general election – many others are still at the height of an election campaign – and in the process of the appeal to the Supreme Court it is an appropriate time to stand back and take stock of the application of the Act in practice. The Minister's review is welcome. I hope a forum can be found within this House to allow for an open minded debate on the Electoral Act and its implications and its application. My experience of it and that of my colleagues is that it is tending to generate a Kafkaesque style bureaucracy where people may end up measuring the thickness of a corruboard poster or what it costs to laminate a piece of card. I do not think that was the original intention of the Act. The Act is important and represents a significant innovation in terms of how public life is carried out here. There is ample scope for review. Any legislation that underpins how public life is carried out has to be appropriate and proper, but it also has to be practical and sensible in its application.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

Thank you, Senator Mackin. In welcoming you to the House I also congratulate you on a splendid maiden speech. We are fortunate that the Bill is before the House tonight and that we had a person who had so much information and experience in the area to speak on it.

Mr. O'Toole

In welcoming Senator Mackin's contribution, it is poignant that he should speak after Senator Joe Doyle who was making his last contribution to the House. There is a great measure of empathy there. I share very much Senator Mackin's first comment about the sense of privilege of being involved in the legislative assembly. Some 16 years later, every time I walk in the door, I still feel that sense of privilege. I will stay here only for as long as the electorate want me.

Mr. Mackin

I am an NUI voter.

Mr. O'Toole

Every time we discuss this issue I express reservations. I congratulate the Minister on his elevation and appointment and I know he will do a good job. I look forward to engaging with him during the course of his Ministry. What we have here is a cowardly run before the media mob, the begrudgers and the politically correct. That is what gave us that legislation. People in both Houses were running over each other to welcome it. The few of us who expressed reservations did so for the reasons we are looking at now.

I support the Bill and understand the reasons for it. I believe we got this legislation all wrong. We tried to cover every angle and to ensure nobody could question anything. Senator Mackin spoke about the trust of the general membership in the head office of any organisation and having spent ten years running a head office, I know what he is talking about.

I agree with the points made by previous speakers, including the Minister, on the Standards in Public Office Commission. Its attempts to interpret the Bill were faultless and it understood it from every point of view. It faced an impossible task but it has done its job in a superb manner.

In one of the electoral Bills there is an entitlement to have the support of an office; Senator Quinn and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions and I am sure he will make reference to it also. What is an office? An office is not actually defined in the Bill. Is there a difference between an office and a room, or an office and a space? When can a space be called an office? These are common sense questions but in speaking to the Standards in Public Office Commission, it is not a matter of being right. For those of us who are in the position of being open to challenge, we are dead in the water the day after the challenge and nobody will wait around to find out whether "office" was intended to mean something else.

I agree with Senator Mackin's sentiments about child care but it could easily be argued that child care is a cost which should be included because that is the way the Bill is written. I agree it is nonsensical but that is another reason I welcome what the Minister is saying.

There are people in different parts of the country canvassing for me tonight and there is a cost involved in that. I realise the Standards in Public Office Commission has interpreted this in a very broad way but there are other aspects such as the silly limit on the amount of spending one can do. That is impossible to implement also. There is no limit in regard to Seanad electoral expenses. That came about because of an examination of the panels but our panel, which is very expensive to run, was not examined.

I have long held the view that the simpler the legislation, the more effective and transparent it will be. When this legislation first came before the House, I listened closely to what my colleagues in the Labour Party in particular said about the importance of a spending limit. I understand the arguments in its favour, but proper audited accounts are more important than a limit. People should be able to indicate how every penny was spent and it should be properly aud ited. That is more important than a limit. People could then see that Senator Joe O'Toole got money from the trade union movement or Senator Shane Ross got money from IBEC, although there is no chance of that happening, and they could make distinctions as to where they were coming from. There is nothing wrong with that. It is open and transparent and people learn a lot from it. The argument in favour of limits would overwhelm my arguments against it. I accept that limits are probably necessary but in some ways they do not work.

There is a significant difference in regard to the question of incumbency which I know the Minister is aware of but which he did not allude to in his contribution. There is an obligation on outgoing Members to ensure that all their work is brought to closure, even after an election has been called, but those of us in this House continue in full operation until the day of the next general election. We are making a huge judgment on this election. This is the first election of which we had notice. That will never happen again. Those of us who are incumbents can ensure we do our business in such a way that it will not be open to challenge and that raises again the nonsense of this legislation.

A member of my election campaign team, Austin Corcoran, goes to bed every night with the Standards in Public Office Commission's outline of the requirements for Seanad candidates. His only brief is to ensure compliance at all levels and that expenses are properly audited and presented. That is important. We can all comply with the requirements but in my discussions with Members in the Independent seats, we were more concerned about challenge than non-compliance. We were more concerned about somebody taking us to the High Court on an issue about which we knew we were compliant but on which a strong argument against our position could be made and we might suddenly look like damaged goods. That is what I am most concerned about.

It would make sense to set up a committee of Members of both Houses to examine the way we do our business because everybody has a clear interest in getting this right. It is not a case of people bouncing off each other. Why not set up a committee made up of five or six Members of the Dáil and three or four Members of the Seanad which could examine the Bill, perhaps with the Minister's officials, and come back with a clear brief? That has to be done by people who have been through it because we must get it right. We will not be told what to do by the media or people who are interested in politically correct language. We want to get this right so that we can say to our constituents and to the voters that this is how we do our business, this is the way we fund it and comply with the law and these are the requirements and regulations under which we work. I would like to see that done as simply and clearly as possible and there should be sensible limits.

There is a clear understanding by everybody that certain things are impossible to measure. It is a bit like goodwill. Goodwill might appear to be immeasurable until somebody puts a price on it. In the same way somebody could put a price on levels of commitment but it would be madness to try to put a price on a group of people who meet two nights a week or who have given up a half day's work. We need to get away from a situation where we would be open to the question of child care costs or the cost of buying a round of drinks for people who spent three hours knocking on doors.

I have seen the Minister deal with issues in his last brief and defend the correct decisions in terms of buying the gaff in Phoenix Park, the importance of doing things right and taking a stand on that position. We should ask the people in both Houses what they think and then see if Government can live with the result. The Government will live with whatever comes from professional politicians because of their experience and it could be tested outside these Houses. If we are to win back trust and confidence in the noble profession of public representation and political life, we are the ones to do that.

I have long opposed the idea of having an outsider coming in and running the roost in terms of how we do our business, as happened in Westminster, but that will happen if we are not seen to do our business properly. We need to have a proper enforcement procedure in the Houses to take strong action against Members of both Houses who step out of line and we must be seen to do that in a non-party way and in a way that people outside these Houses understand.

I support the Bill and welcome the Minister's commitment to have a review of it. I ask that he would do that in the context of the Committees on Procedure and Privileges of both Houses which might put together a joint committee to examine it thoroughly to see if different arrangements are needed for the Dáil and the Seanad.

Mr. Walsh

I concur with much of what Senator Mackin and Senator O'Toole said. When the primary legislation was debated in the House, I said somebody would innocently get into difficulty under its provisions. Unfortunately, I still believe that will be the case. It is important that the democratic system is vigorously competitive, accessible and open to those to promote themselves as suitable candidates for election. It is difficult to argue with the High Court decision regarding a level playing pitch for non-sitting candidates and sitting Members. Those of us who have contested elections during the years will agree that incumbency confers an advantage, for example, through name recognition. Therefore, it is important that people can promote themselves.

I do not agree with Senator O'Toole that there is a necessity for expenditure limits. That issue should be examined in a review of the legislation. The amount spent on election campaigns by candidates during the years has not been excessive because money has not been available. However, during the recent campaign candidates called to houses to collect canvass cards to make sure they would not exceed the expenditure limits. That is not good for democracy. Candidates running within the party system must allocate a proportion of their election allowance to the party. I question the wisdom of this provision. I am not convinced about the argument in favour of expenditure limits, but if they are implemented, they should be of a magnitude that does not cause difficulties for candidates genuinely trying to promote themselves through printing extra posters or canvass cards.

In the current environment more and more people are becoming detached from the electoral system and the democratic process, which is a danger to democracy. Local authority members in Britain say the maximum turnout percentage they expect in elections is in the low 20s. That is unrepresentative of society. We should examine this significant problem in our electoral system in order that people can be encouraged to vote and turnout will increase. The razzmatazz associated with elections, which is generated through expenditure of funds under the Act, generates interest and promotes the importance of democracy. Expenditure limits should facilitate such promotion rather than doing the contrary.

A strong distinction must be made between expenditure limits, on the one hand, and the disclosure of donations, on the other. It is absolutely imperative that donations should be publicised and transparent because this ensures people are accountable in our democratic system. Where the sources of funding have not been revealed, flaws have appeared in the system.

I refer to the provision in the Bill to file returns 21 days after a decision on an appeal by the Supreme Court. Is that sufficient time? An individual can prepare his or her accounts and so on, but he or she could be away on holidays. Given that it is not predictable when the decision will be made by the court, this issue should be examined. These provisions are so technical that individuals could innocently contravene them, which is not the intention of the Houses. Perhaps the Minister will examine this provision and extend the time limit to ensure nobody gets caught out because they are away when the Supreme Court announces its decision. I concur with the support for the legislation, which is essential for our democratic system.

Mr. Coogan

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on his elevation. I wish him well for the future. I also welcome Senator Mackin, whose maiden contribution was well researched and presented and knowledgeable. I have no doubt he will make a great contribution to the House. I also wish him well.

Senator O'Toole referred to the possibility of a review of the legislation in the future given the experiences during the general election campaign and the potential problems during the upcoming Seanad election. There are so many holes in the primary legislation that things will get through and no matter how many are plugged, more will appear.

For example, Senator Mackin refers to the expenditure incurred by a candidate who uses a child minder while he or she is campaigning and asks whether that must be declared as expenditure. If a candidate wanted to change his name to Joe Abba in order that his name would be at the top of the ballot paper, should that be included as expenditure given that it would provide him with an electoral advantage? However, the incumbents are the net beneficiaries of the legislation and are at an advantage at the beginning of an election campaign. My colleague, Senator Doyle, pointed out that research had been conducted which indicated that incumbents received approximately 1,400 votes by virtue of being the sitting candidate.

Under our system, an incumbent has five years to promote himself or herself. However, a candidate's work over the years determines whether he or she is elected, not his or her expenditure on posters and so on. Many candidates decide not to promote themselves but instead spend a number of years knocking on doors to make themselves known to the public. A number of new Members in the Lower House were elected as a result of such hard work. That is how one can be elected or re-elected.

I refer to the application of the legislation to this House. I was nominated by the General Council of County Councils. My duty and responsibility, therefore, are to the members of that body. I must continually write to the members to keep them up to date with developments. If the legislation was applied to Senators, it is possible that I would have to cease writing letters and fail in my duty and responsibility to update councillors. I do not canvass for votes in these letters, but because my name is on every letter, it may be perceived that I am at an advantage in comparison to other candidates.

Previous speakers referred to potential flaws in the legislation. It is impossible to draft a watertight Bill. I ask the Minister to consult Members of both Houses through a joint committee, as Senator O'Toole proposed, in order that a Bill is drafted that cannot be contravened by candidates by chance or through ignorance, which is totally unfair. The legislation could be less technical. I know of a number of people who were more confused having read it. It should provide for a simpler system in order that candidates do not find themselves before the courts because of a simple error. We do not object to the Bill which we commend to the House.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister to the House. He proved to us during the previous Administration when he wore a different hat that he was prepared to meet challenges. I am sure he will do the same in his new brief. It was a joy to listen to Senator Mackin's maiden speech as he exhibited great determination and knowledge about this topic. The legislation reveals a fundamental flaw in our parliamentary system and, even worse, in us, as legislators. We should have foreseen this problem. This legislation passed through both Houses and none of us noticed this potential difficulty. If we had asked the relevant question, we would have seen the problem.

Senator Doyle is not correct. One is at a fundamental advantage if one has a seat and is able to use the benefits that entails. It was likely that the legislation would be challenged in court on this issue and we did not notice. Shame on us. We all have to say, "Mea culpa”. We did not succeed with it.

Now that we have a chance to re-examine this, I accept entirely Senator O'Toole's suggestion to the Minister that he convene a small group from both Houses and says to it: "Let us have open ears, let us hear what you have to say and let us come up with a solution to this."

I have some difficulty with some of the suggestions which have been made during this debate. On the question of spending limits, I listened carefully to the comments of Senator Walsh, but I also remember what happened in the case of Ross Perot, one of the wealthiest men in America. I cannot remember the figures but he spent huge sums to run a big campaign. A second example is Mayor Bloomberg of New York, but I cannot remember the figures in his case. They did not have to accept any donations as they were wealthy enough to use their own funds.

The balance of the Bill was reasonably well thought out as to the objectives. If there is no limit, a very wealthy person, in American history, can buy votes with large sums of money. Disclosure does not solve this because someone who is wealthy does not have to disclose the amount of money he or she has spent. It is worthwhile considering that point.

I wish to move on to the other topic which focuses upon a more fundamental crisis we face – the outrageously low turnout, not just in recent elections, but going back 18, 20 or 30 years. There has been a significant drop in the number of people voting in general elections. One only has to examine the excuses offered and the statements made after the Nice referendum vote. It was suggested that this was not a fair comparison because only a third of the electorate voted in the referendum. What would happen if only a third of the electorate voted in general elections? How could any Government stand up and claim a mandate to hold its authority? This issue threatens the survival of our parliamentary system so we have to do something to ensure that people vote.

I would suggest one action in this regard which I know the Minister would wish to grab. We have gone to great pains to ensure that personation does not take place and, consequently, we have made it difficult to register for elections. Is there is a possibility that those we have deterred from voting outnumber those who might have person ated had we not done so? If people want to register to vote they have to go to a Garda station, provide photographs, identification and so on. This seems to inhibit a large number of people who might otherwise have voted. Maybe we are making it too difficult in some cases for people to register.

I wish to place this issue in the context of the Seanad, and, in particular, the election for the university seats. One might have views on what they should be and what we should do about them. However, there is a significant difficulty in that a large number of people who should be entitled to vote are not registered because we do not have a supplementary register for that election. One does not vote if one is not registered before February of the year in which the election takes place. Those of us who are candidates in that election know of a large number of people who say: "I graduated ten, 20 or 30 years ago. How do I go about registering?" In reply we state: "Sorry, too late, you cannot do it." Therefore, we have also disenfranchised such people. We have to, and can, do something about this issue.

As regards the Dáil election there is, at least, a supplementary register which can be added to. We do not have that facility regarding the Seanad election and, therefore, there is a serious danger that we are weakening our opportunities to do what we can to ensure that the Oireachtas is better recognised and appreciated. We have only ourselves to blame for low turnouts, whether in elections to the Dáil or Seanad, because we have not made it attractive enough for people to vote.

Some colleagues take the trouble to hand out application forms for registration when people receive a degree in our particular case. I am not sure if that happens in Trinity, but I gather that one can register as one walks down with one's cap and gown. It does not happen in NUI. To the best of my knowledge one is sent something in the post and one is not registered if one does not return it. There are many things we can do.

Let us talk about the university seats in this Seanad election. We passed an amendment to the Constitution in, I think, 1979 enfranchising those who are in DCU and the University of Limerick, but we have still not passed the legislation to give effect to that amendment. We have also examined the constitutional changes that can take place, regarding which a great deal of work has been done. I urge the Minister to do something about this issue.

Before the general election, we discussed in this House the seventh report of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution. That report made radical suggestions as to how a future Seanad might be elected. I am on record as an enthusiastic supporter of those proposals which were a breath of fresh air. I hope that during the lifetime of this new Dáil, the Minister will grab hold of this issue and ensure that these proposals are put into effect. Whatever about that, there is no excuse for doing nothing to clear up the current system. We have a Minister who has come in like a breath of fresh air to do something in this particular case. This debate gives us the chance to initiate this process and to see if something can be done. I urge the Minister to accept Senator O'Toole's recommendation that we move on this issue, that we get the views of Members of both Houses and see if we can come up with a better system as regards this interesting debate.

Acting Chairman

I hope the Minister's Department goes on the way it has started. During debate on the previous Bill I suggested that ministerial speeches should be printed on both sides of the page. On this Bill, half an hour later, this has been done. That is incredible efficiency.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Cullen)

One should never put it past the Department of the Environment and Local Government to deliver on time. I welcome the contributions of Senators during this debate which has been refreshing and good. The knowledge, quality and different perspectives that have been brought to bear on the debate have certainly shed light on the issue of the Act and how it has been "operating."

I join Senators in congratulating Senator Mackin and applaud his appointment to this Chamber. I agree with his comments because one's first day as a Member of either House is a special occasion. The point was well made by the Senator.

With regard to the Bill, I think everybody has accepted it and the technical necessity for it, so I will leave it to one side. I specifically wished to prompt a debate by my Second Stage speech and signalled clearly to Members of this House, as I did in the Dáil last night, that there is no doubt that we need a full and major review of the Electoral Acts. That goes without saying. For those who were not here when I spoke, I also mentioned Senator Mackin's role as secretary general of the Fianna Fáil Party. I went beyond that and said I hoped to talk to the secretary general of each political party. The perspectives of Members are important, as are those of people who fought the elections to the Dáil or Seanad. Equally, however, I am sure that those who had to try to administer the structure of the Electoral Act from within the party or independent structures, their supporters and election agents have much to contribute to this debate.

While I take on board Senator O'Toole's comments with regard to committees of both Houses and, perhaps, using the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as a method of doing that, I do not wish to commit to anything specific at this stage. However, Members can be assured that it is my intention to directly involve, in whatever methodology I can find, the Members of both Houses. However, there is a wider view that I wish to take into account also, which I have outlined.

One of the things that struck me about the difficulties all outgoing Members faced with regard to the particular judgment – and I do not wish to get into making arguments, it is not my role on this occasion as the matter is before the Supreme Court – but, as an aside, when one looks at outgoing Members who fought in the election, one would think that anyone who fought the election who was not a Member of either House must have been living in a field for the three weeks and had no access to phones, offices or technology of any sort. I am sure that, in many cases, those facilities were provided by their companies or whatever.

A range of issues has emerged regarding the specifics of the electoral legislation. My instinct, and it seems to be that of the Senators, is that the simplest way is often the best. We do not need a tome of discussion, debate or intricate analysis. I could nearly write the new electoral Bill on the back of a match box because there are only a few, simple key points which will cover what everyone does. There must be transparency and accountability and the public must understand what goes on. We can achieve that without the morass of complication that has arisen. The original legislation was passed in good faith in 1997, but it was reactive and there was no dissenting voice in either House. I was a Member of the Dáil at that time and was party to it. It proves the point that reactive legislation is often poor.

Interesting points were made about limits really meaning accountability in terms of providing accounts and the way in which one conducts the business. There were interesting ideas on the way forward and what we are trying to achieve. I would wrest back something from the moral arbiters of today's society for the politicians, to which many speakers also referred. Politicians must do a lot on trust and are expected to act in good faith and all do so today. It is like playing golf alone when no one else is there to see that one obeys the rules; a person is on his or her honour. No matter what parameters of behaviour are set, there must be an element of trust, which can be judged transparently by the public or anyone else who wants to examine an election campaign or any aspect of public life. There is no need to set complicated parameters in which neither participants nor guardians can operate. I referred to the Standards in Public Office Commission, which was given an impossible task interpreting the legislation, but manfully tried to do so. This evening all Deputies, and I presume Senators also, were issued with a letter from the Oireachtas requesting a breakdown on a unit cost basis of office space, secretaries and possibly even square footage so as to put a monetary value on these facilities. That was never the intention of those who formulated the legislation.

Senator Walsh referred to the 21 days. It is open to anyone to submit their returns at anytime once the election is over. I am not suggesting that people do nothing until the 21 days after the Supreme Court finding is up. People should collect all the details now that the commission needs. Then a decision can be made based on the Supreme Court judgment so that people can adjust their accounts accordingly. It is 167 days at least, which is more than enough time to get the accounts sorted out.

I thank the Chair and all the Senators for their contributions. It will be an interesting debate and I am determined to involve all the Members of both Houses through the appropriate mechanism. My message is that the simplest way is the best. We do not need to complicate matters through months of analysis. We need to establish the parameters so that the commission is not an external police force but that trust is placed in the individual to make the returns. We will all be winners, including the public, if it is clear and simple.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 26 Jun 2002