I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and his officials to the committee. We finished at section 82 yesterday, so will I commence there.
Electoral Reform Bill 2022: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 82
Question again proposed: “That section 82 stand part of the Bill.”
Question put and agreed to.
Section 83 agreed to.
Amendment No. 57 is out of order.
Amendment No. 57 not moved.
Sections 84 to 87, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 58 to 61, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 58 to 61, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 88 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 104
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 74, line 37, to delete “section 96” and substitute “section 96(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 74, line 40, to delete “section 10” and substitute “section 10(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 75, line 2, to delete “section 26” and substitute “section 26(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 104, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. 65 to 68, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 90, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 22 of Electoral Act 1997
105. Section 22 of the Electoral Act 1997 is amended, in subsection (2)(aa), by the substitution of the following for the definition of “political purposes”:
“ ‘political purposes’ means any of the following purposes, namely—
(i) (I) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative in the European Parliament,
(II) to present, directly or indirectly, the policies or a particular policy of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament,
(III) to present, directly or indirectly, the comments of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative in the European Parliament with regard to the policy or policies of another political party, political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, representative in the European Parliament or candidate at an election or referendum or otherwise, or
(IV) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome at a Dáil, Seanad, European or local election, or referendum, such campaign relating to an election for which the polling day has been set by Government or a referendum for which the Commission has published a referendum notice,
(ii) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European election or to solicit votes for or against a candidate or to present the policies or a particular policy of a candidate or the views of a candidate on any matter connected with the election or the comments of a candidate with regard to the policy or policies of a political party or a political group or of another candidate at the election or otherwise;
(iii) otherwise to influence the outcome of the election or a referendum or campaign referred to in paragraph (i)(IV);”.”.
The role of civil society organisations in a democracy is incredibly important.
When talking about the EU and other countries in the Dáil, we often discuss how it is completely unacceptable that there has been a clampdown in some EU member states on the independence of the media, NGOs and civil society organisations. We often discuss how it is extremely important in a functioning democracy to have those key components to allow for different views to be expressed and to allow for people to campaign and engage in the public policy process. For a number of years, there has been an issue with regard to the definition of "political purpose", and how it impacts on civil society organisations. They argue that it is too wide and that it interferes with and limits the legitimate work of NGOs and civil society groups. They argue that the basic freedom of individuals and organisations in Ireland to raise funds and campaign on issues that affect them is constrained by the Electoral Act 1997 in ways that violate their constitutional rights and EU law on freedom of assembly and association. Organisations such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, Amnesty International and others have stated that they are effectively banned from seeking funding for some of their work and can potentially be sanctioned for engaging in the public policy process. There are examples of organisations being taken to court for accepting funding, being threatened with prosecution for raising funds to engage with the public policy process and being forced to limit or end their operations in particular specific areas entirely. That is not healthy in a democracy. It is worth noting that the civil society organisations make the point that they are only seeking to have these restrictions removed regarding their day-to-day campaigning work. They are not seeking any changes with regard to the way they are governed with respect to elections or referendums. They fully support being governed on those in the same way as anyone else engaging in them. The amendment seeks to address those concerns. I am happy to hear what the Minister of State has to say on how he wants to see those concerns addressed.
We are taking amendments Nos. 65 to 68, inclusive, together. Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 are in the name of Deputy McAuliffe and amendment No. 68 is in the name of Deputy Nash.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 in some ways have been subvented the Government's amendments. Amendment No. 66 is perhaps a simplified way of trying to address the issue of cryptocurrencies. It is very difficult to define a cryptocurrency. The easiest way I could find to do it was to limit it to the two currencies that are operational on the island of Ireland. That being said, I think the Government amendments are far superior. I am happy to withdraw that particular amendment. Equally, amendment No. 67 seeks to increase the limit of the fine to a level of €50,000 for some of the breaches of the section 23 rules on donations. The idea that foreign donations will be included our system is an attempt to take a more serious approach. I am seeking to introduce a more severe penalty for breaches I think could have an inadvertent influence on our democracy, particularly in the case of corporate donations. We have very strong corporate donation limits. Compared to the British system, we are leagues ahead in terms of our ethical stance on this issue. We know that politics is not always about the simple transaction. It is also about building capacity. Sometimes, building capacity increases the ability to operate across the island. That is not about one political party. It is about any political party that operates in both jurisdictions. Both amendments are being subvented by the Government amendments. I am happy to withdraw both of them.
I wish to speak to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's amendment No. 65. I believe Senator Ruane has done some work in the area. I have met representatives of ICCL and have spoken in the Dáil in favour of addressing the issues. It is not as clear a line as is perhaps being put forward. In essence, there is no ban on civil society groups raising funds, but if they are using the funds for political purposes or purposes that may be seen to be political, there is a limit. It is the same limit that applies to any of us. I understand that the same limits that apply to corporate donors also apply to those civil society organisations. That can result in the drying up of a source of funds that would otherwise be available to such groups in other countries. I can absolutely see the perspective of the groups. It is very difficult. There are campaigns that I would very much like to see receiving that kind of funding. However, there are other campaigns, such as those from the far right in the US, in respect of which I would not like to see such funding drifting into our political system. In the same way that we talked about online political advertising, there is a differentiation between the electoral periods and the capacity-building that is often done in advance of a referendum or an election. There could be civil society groups operating in an overtly political way. It does not happen in Ireland but it could happen. Perhaps the Minister of State will accept Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment but I do not think he will. I ask the Minister of State to look seriously at this area to see how we can resolve some of these day-to-day issues for the civil society groups. However, if such groups use the funding to build capacity and use that capacity in a political way, they have to be subject to the same limits that apply to any other political activists or influencers during election periods. That is the point I wish to make. I am happy to withdraw my amendments. I ask the Minister of State to consider Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment with the note of caution that I have added.
Amendment No. 68 essentially seeks to achieve a similar aim as Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's amendment. It is, in essence, about how we deal with the question of donations and fundraising in relation to NGOs. It is a very live issue, as the Minister of State is aware. It has been openly talked about in the NGO sector and across society for quite a long time now. Amendment No. 68 seeks to make a distinction between a donation to an NGO or civil society group during an election period and outside an election. It seeks to do something broadly similar to what Deputy O'Callaghan is trying to achieve with his amendment. If the Minister of State is not in a position to accept the amendment today, perhaps he could come back to us with his thoughts on Report Stage, because this is an area that requires further clarification.
I will speak first to amendments Nos. 65 and 68. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for withdrawing his amendments. I am opposing amendments Nos. 65 and 68 on the grounds that, as stated on Second Stage of the Bill on 7 April last, the Government is committed to the electoral commission, when established, undertaking a comprehensive review of the Electoral Act 1997 with a view to making recommendations to address, among other matters, the concerns raised by civil society concerning the definition of "political purposes" and its impact on the fundraising activities of certain civil society organisations. It is my belief that the proposed review could be completed within a relatively short timeframe following the electoral commission’s establishment. Furthermore, given the complex issues provided for in the Electoral Act 1997, it is considered that the carrying out of such a comprehensive review of the Act would deliver an independent, objective, clear and efficient outcome for all affected parties with regard to the entirety of the interrelated provisions in that Act. Like other Deputies, I have met representatives of the ICCL on a number of occasions to discuss the issue, as well as those of the Coalition for Civil Society Freedom more recently. There is no doubt that there is a difference of opinion on the issue in terms of trying to achieve the same objective. That is what we want to do. There is a concern on the part of the coalition, in respect of the timeline of the establishment of the commission and the review of the 1997 Act, that the review may not be delivered within the lifetime of this Government. However, we have given a commitment that it will happen very quickly, once the commission is established. We have given that commitment. I give a political commitment that we want the issue to be resolved as soon as is practicable, once the commission is established. I accept the fact that the ICCL and the coalition were not happy with our response. However, we believe that it is the most objective and independent way that we can carry out the review.
I welcome that there is an independent process for resolving this. The points made by Deputy McAuliffe are very fair. This is an area that requires careful consideration. Any activity that impacts on the political system must be subject to boundaries and limits. We need to bear in mind that a lot of corporate money and resources, which are not necessarily subject to restrictions, go into influencing the political process. Having some counterbalance to that from civil society and NGOs can be healthy in a democracy. We should be aware that large sums and resources are employed by corporate interests all the time to influence political decisions. We need to be mindful of that. Where is the ability for others, who do not have those sorts of resources behind them, to put forward their case? I am happy to accept that there will be a process for that going forward.
During pre-legislative scrutiny, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, engaged with many of us on this and most of us probably had conversations with its representatives directly. I fully support the spirit and intention of Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment. We need to make sure that however this is resolved, it does not create opportunities for other interests to influence our electoral processes or referendums outside the election period. One of my fears, even with the wording the ICCL originally proposed, was that it did not guard sufficiently against that. That is the challenge now. It always gets my back up a little when the threat of unintended consequences is used as a reason for inaction. This is an issue that has to be resolved but it has to be resolved in a way that does not create other problems. For example, one could imagine a situation, as happens in other jurisdictions, where all the conditions of this amendment were adequately adhered to but money from economic or political interests, which many of us would strongly oppose, could still be used to finance campaigning activity outside an election period. That would not necessarily fall foul of any of the conditions in the amendment even though it would impact on the outcome of elections, referendums or even just the legislative process. Finding that balance is quite tricky. I support Deputy O'Callaghan on this issue. We would like the Minister of State to come back to the committee because there is a desire on our side of the House to find a way to resolve this matter that is fair and equitable, and to tackle that imbalance that Deputy O'Callaghan rightly noted. If the Minister of State was minded to do that, we might be able to get cross-party agreement on the fix for this. I encourage that approach because I am not sure that what is on the table at the moment achieves that fix. However, we do not have the advantage of the skills and draftspeople the Department has. If the Minister of State were to come back to us at some near stage, we might be able to progress it effectively.
I am more than happy to do that. This is a sector I have worked in and was involved in for many years. I value the impartiality of civil society organisations and their ability to play a critical role in our electoral system. It is important that they have the mechanism to do that. Likewise, the corporate influence Deputy O'Callaghan raised is something we can address in the review as well. It is important that we do that. In meeting with the coalition, I gave a firm commitment that we want to resolve this in a manner that allows civil society organisations to campaign, lobby and advocate in the way they currently do, and do very well. We want to do that in a robust way and we are of the view that this is the best way to do that. I am more than happy to come back to the committee on the mechanics of how we might achieve that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.
Section 105 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 90, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 22 of Electoral Act 1997
105. Section 22 of the Electoral Act 1997 is amended in subsection (2)(a) by substituting the following for paragraph (viii):
“(viii) a payment by the person on their own behalf, or on behalf of one or more than one other person, of a fee or subscription for membership or continued membership of a political party,
provided that a donation to a third party for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the interests of the third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority shall not be a donation to which this Part applies unless the donation was made during the period referred to in section 31(3);”.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 90, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 17 of Electoral Act 1997
105. Section 17 of the Act of 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4B) (inserted by section 42 of the Act of 2012):
“(4C) (a) The Commission shall, no later than one year following its establishment, prepare and publish a report, following consultation with the Irish speaking community, on the feasibility and options for establishing a conditional fund to support qualified parties in addition to the payments calculated in accordance with this Part which would be made available to assist in the delivery of full equal rights and opportunities for Irish speaking members of the public, members of the qualified party in question, and employees, to participate in their organisation and engage with their representatives, administration, public policy proposals and websites or online accounts in the Irish language without having to resort to use of the English language.
(b) The report shall be laid before the Minister, both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the Joint Oireachtas Committee for the Irish language, the Gaeltacht and the Irish speaking community on the day of publication.”.”.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 106 to 116, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 117
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 97, line 12, to delete “10,000” and substitute “100,000”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 97, line 26, to delete “section 96” and substitute “section 96(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 97, line 27, to delete “section 10” and substitute “section 10(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 97, line 28, to delete “section 26” and substitute “section 26(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 117, as amended, agreed to.
Section 118 agreed to.
SECTION 119
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 98, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“119. Online political advertising will be prohibited.”.
I promised yesterday during my contribution on amendment No. 32 that I would not repeat it at the same length today. I do not want to fall out with the Minister of State on this issue. Despite all the negotiations I have had with the Department, the contributions made here and during pre-legislative scrutiny and so on, there are a number of questions that have not been answered. First, there has been no satisfactory explanation as to why we are treating different media outlets differently. Radio and TV have a prohibition on political advertising and yet we have made a decision in this Bill to facilitate it for online platforms. There is no explanation or rationale for why we have done that and there should be. Second, we continue to limit the regulation to the period of the election and not outside it. Third, we have heard a lot of discussion from the platforms about how they do not want Ireland to have a different set of regulations from other countries, but despite European directives we still do not have scrutiny or sight of that European legislation.
The best way of protecting our democracy is by not permitting online political advertising, in the same way we do for broadcast media, until we have a comprehensive response. The Minister of State might say this amendment is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Twitter says it does not allow political advertising and the amount of revenue Facebook gets from political advertising is a tiny fraction of the advertising market here in Ireland. Banning political advertising online will not be a significant loss to those platforms but it would help to protect our market. There is much discussion about what happens in online political advertising, and some people think other parties are better at it than others, but the real problem is that we do not know what is going on with a lot of the algorithms and microtargeting. We need to have that level of trust in our democracy. For all those reasons, I ask the Minister of State to consider accepting this very blunt amendment, and to withdraw sections 120, 121 and 122 from the Bill, in order to prohibit the use of online political advertising until the Minister and the commission can bring forward proposals that would satisfactorily regulate the space.
I admire the Deputy's optimism. I have a few comments. First, we already have different rules on non-online advertising. For example, we know we cannot buy radio time or TV time but we can buy newspaper time and in many cases local newspapers would go out of business if it was not for the regular political adverts that are placed by Members of the Dáil, both inside and outside of election time. Therefore, if there is to be a standardised rule then theoretically it should apply to everybody. There would not be many Members of the Dáil who would argue that we should not be allowed to advertise in local newspapers. I am a firm believer that those adverts in local newspapers do not get you a single vote but they keep people in employment and keep newspapers up and running. Those newspapers have an important function and that is why many of us continue those advertisements.
I want to ask the Deputy proposing the amendment to consider the following issue: online advertising is cheap and the ability of people to boost Facebook posts, which could often be organic content rather than sophisticated ads, is something that gives small, non-party and small party candidates access to a way of promoting their work that they otherwise would not have. I am not in favour of an outright ban on online advertising. I fully agree with Deputy McAuliffe that the weakness of the regulation of online advertising and platforms is evident in this Bill. Interestingly, none of the advocates for greater transparency or accountability in social media who came to the committee called for an outright ban. They had a range of good and interesting policy recommendations on transparency and accountability etc. and the Government would do well to go back to those and reconsider them. We also have to deal with the issue of spending limits. While the spending limits do not change inside the election period, there are spending limits outside of it. It is the same with posters and you will see all sorts of posters going up all over the place three months before the election that are allegedly for political meetings. Those posters are not for political meetings at all; they are just election posters by another name.
I do not support the amendment but I support Deputy McAuliffe's concern that we could have a much more advanced set of regulations for online platforms. We do not need to wait for the European Union regulations; in fact we should move much further. There are certain activities like microtargeting that should be illegal inside and outside of the election period. They should not just be illegal for political campaigning but for any kind of advertising. It is acceptable when you open a newspaper and there is commercial content that is labelled as an advertisement. We know about that but nobody knows when they have been microtargeted, regardless of whether it is in the commercial or the political world. While I do not support the amendment, I support Deputy McAuliffe's call for the Department, the Minister and his colleagues to seriously look at this. The one message we got clearly from the advocacy experts, who made an important presentation, was that the technology is accelerating at such a speed that not only do we have to play catch-up but we do not even know where things are going. They made a strong case that the electoral commission should have the ability, in real time, to start to understand and make recommendations to the Government, which could then be acted on quickly by way of regulation to primary legislation. If we fail to grapple with this now, during elections at some point in the future there will be serious points of contention over our failure to regulate and who has or has not done what on online advertising. While I do not support the amendment, I support the intention and argument from the Government to come back on this at the earliest possible opportunity.
I want to support this amendment. We had quite a detailed discussion on this in the committee. The Government needs to show leadership when it comes to political advertising, which this Bill proposes to regulate for a short period of time, during the election cycle. That cycle can be only three weeks and as many contributors have spoken about, many elections are won and lost in the intervening periods. On political advertising in general, I would totally support this amendment and I would be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say.
This is an area that needs a lot more attention and I welcome that the amendment has been brought forward in that spirit. With online political activity, an audience is built up over time. A lot of that is done by the parties with resources and that includes anyone who is elected, such as a Deputy or another office holder. They have the resources to be able to build up followers and audiences between elections and that is probably the biggest advantage they have. There is a legitimate argument that people without those resources being able to do some online advertising can be a counterbalance and that needs to be considered.
When we were looking at this in the committee we got strong input from people with expertise saying they did not want a situation where after an election, such as the next election or another one, everyone in the country would be talking about what happened with online campaigning, how that influenced the outcome of the election, how we did not have safeguards in place and how the election was influenced by external forces or whatever. It would be damaging to confidence in the democratic system if that happened. I urge that this area gets sufficient attention and that should happen before the election. The point Deputy Ó Broin made is that they were arguing that the commission needs to be able to react in real time. If something is happening during an election campaign that most people would consider as out of order and having an undue influence on an election, it must have powers or the ability to take measures then. It is no good having a review after the election and learning some lessons at that point if people can see that there are things that need to be reacted to immediately.
I am not sure that this blunt measure is sufficient but I accept that in the absence of other measures, a blunt one like this has a certain attraction. What is needed would probably be a much more detailed way of regulating this rather than an outright ban. I tend to reach for outright bans on things from time to time but in most cases taking a more nuanced and regulated approach is the correct one. Failing that, if we have no other options then an outright ban might be the best thing to do but it will not capture a lot of it and it will not counterbalance the issue of the resources that people build up between elections, which puts them at an advantage over newer candidates.
As far as I am aware, the EU proposal was sent to this committee for consideration in December. Is that correct? There might be an opportunity for the committee to have a discussion on that at some point.
I take on board the points that all Deputies have made and there will be a review of Part 4 of the Bill after three years of it operating. I take the point that Deputies Cian O'Callaghan and Ó Broin have made about reaction in real time. I am not sure how the commission could play a role in that in the middle of an electoral event, which is the challenge. The ability of the commission to review electoral events afterwards and make recommendations is a strong and useful one. It is something that will help in the robustness of the political system and as Deputy Ó Broin has said, this whole space is shifting rapidly and we are consistently trying to catch up with it, which is something we have to be mindful of. On publication of the Bill, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, flagged a legislative proposal to protect the integrity of our electoral system and democratic process that has been developed by the Office of the Attorney General. That is something I was going to flag in my closing comments but it is an added element to consider.
I will specifically respond to amendment No. 74 before Deputy Ó Broin comes back in. Amendment No. 74 proposes to replace section 119, on public information requirements for online political advertisements under this Bill, with an alternative section, which would prohibit online political advertising. The amendment also proposes to oppose section 120 on obligations on online platforms regarding online political advertisements; section 121 on the identification and verification of buyers; and section 122 on the obligations on buyers regarding online political advertisements.
An interdepartmental group on the security of Ireland's electoral processes and disinformation was established in early 2018 to consider the substantive issues arising from experience in other democratic countries, having regard to the use of social media by external, anonymous or hidden third parties. Its principal focus was on the risks to the electoral processes, including those arising from disinformation spread via social media and other means. The interdepartmental group was chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach. Its membership included representatives from the franchise section of our Department and the then Departments of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Defence, Education and Skills, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Justice and Equality and Public Expenditure and Reform, as well as from the Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the national cybersecurity centre. The first report from the group was submitted to the Government in July 2018.
Overall, the assessment found that risks to the electoral process in Ireland are relatively low, taking into account the mitigating factors that are already in place. It was recognised that the spread of disinformation online and the risk of cyberattacks on the electoral system pose more substantial risks. That is in line with EU findings and recent international experience. The report's recommendations included a commitment to regulate for transparency in online political advertising. In this context, a public consultation was announced on 21 September 2018 and a discussion paper that outlined the issues and challenges involved in regulating online political advertising was published as part of the consultative process. A total of 15 submissions were received by the closing date of 19 October 2018. The public consultation was followed by an open policy form on the regulation of transparency in online political advertising, held in Dublin Castle in 2018. The forum was attended by a wide range of representatives from media and political spheres, online companies and the European Commission. A broad consensus emerged from the forum that there was a need to regulate online political advertisements during electoral periods.
The European Commission has published its Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transparency and targeting of political advertising on 25 November 2021. Similar to the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill, the Commission proposal does not propose to prohibit political advertising in any media for reasons that are similar to those I set out earlier. Indeed, the Commission proposal envisages the introduction of a transparency regime across all forms of advertising media that is broadly reflective of that being introduced under Part 4 in respect of online political advertising. Given the very detailed provisions that we are introducing under Part 4, we will not accept this amendment.
I presume, once it is set up, that the commission will have the capacity to employ outside experts to undertake some of this research if it chooses to. Some of these areas have high levels of specialism. I am conscious of the long list of things we have asked the commission to do. Is commissioning appropriate external research in its remit?
There may be a compelling case for it here. It is a matter for the commission to decide. I am expressing it here because the commission may well look back at these meetings. The commission might decide to take early action in this area and commission independent, external expert research to assist in that task.
Absolutely. It has the power to establish committees or to appoint consultants. I see this space as being well-suited to doing that.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying and what many members have said. In some ways, this blunt instrument is pulling the emergency brake, protecting our system and forcing the hand of the Government and Commission to implement regulations that would be more nuanced. This is once-in-a-generation legislation. One might be sceptical that the necessary protections will be implemented in the short term, when they are needed, for example, in advance of the next electoral cycle. I urge the Minister of State to liaise with the commission. I am happy to withdraw the amendment so that we can get the commission set up and it can deal with this.
Deputy Ó Broin talked about the small guy being able to spend a little bit. I did that too when I was starting off. When one looks at the advertising libraries, the medium-sized parties, as we call them now, spend vast amounts of money, which will only get bigger as activity increases online. Unlike any other sort of media, transparency is different. If I have an advertisement on the front page of The Irish Times stating that my priority is older people, that says something to older people, but it also says something to other groups who are not in that category. One cannot see that transparency online. Advertising can tell older people they are the priority, tell younger people they are the priority, and tell everybody else that they are the priority. Politics is about allocation of resources and where one's priorities lie. That is the difference between online advertising and other media. The spending is clearly being done by the medium-sized parties, not smaller ones.
My two amendments were ruled out of order. They dealt with mandatory take-down notices, which would allow the commission to act during an electoral event, and with a code of conduct. I ask the Minister of State to look at those amendments and perhaps table changes on Report Stage. I have pressed the Minister of State hard, but I am happy to withdraw the amendments.
I thank Deputy McAuliffe for making those points. We did not address the different treatment of different media outlets, such as radio. I know there are different guidelines. Local radio has its own mechanism by which it gives airtime to candidates. That is all down to the local stations. Everybody is appealing to different audiences online, in local newspapers and on local radio. I think what we are proposing here is innovative and is a good approach. We will take on board all Deputies' comments on this. There is an opportunity for the commission to appoint an expert group to look at this area, which, as has been said, shifts rapidly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 119 agreed to.
Sections 120 to 124, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 125
Amendment No. 75 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 75 not moved.
Section 125 agreed to.
Sections 126 to 136, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 137
Amendments Nos. 76 to 78, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I do not propose to press amendments Nos. 76 and 77 on the grounds that they are no longer required.
Amendment Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 123, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(2) Where a conviction under subsection (1) relates to a further offence under section 135(4), the person convicted shall be liable to a further penalty of €100 for each day or part of a day on which that further offence is committed.”.
This amendment provides for the insertion of a new section 137(2) into the offences provisions of the Bill, to provide for a daily fine of €100 for each day a person is late in complying with a request for written information required under written notice made by the electoral commission under section 135(1). Section 135 provides explicit powers to the electoral commission to obtain information from online platforms and buyers of online political advertisement relating to online political advertisements purchased for placement, display, promotion or dissemination during electoral periods.
Where a person does not comply with a requirement under section 135 and is found to be guilty of an offence under section 137(1), the provisions of section 137(2) shall apply in addition to any penalty applied under section 137(1). It should be noted that section 137(1)(b) provides that on conviction or indictment, the guilty person shall be liable to a fine, a prison term not exceeding five years or both. The current provision does not state the amount of the fine. That is a matter for the courts. What I am providing for in this amendment is an additional daily fine if the offence continues.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 137, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 138 and 139 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 124, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Review of Part 4
140. (1) The Commission shall commence a review of the operation of this Part not later than 3 years after the coming into operation of this section.
(2) The Commission shall, not later than 12 months after the commencement of a review under subsection (1), submit a report to the Minister of the findings of a review under subsection (1).
(3) A report under subsection (2) may include such recommendations as the Commission considers appropriate to maintain or enhance the operation of this Part.”.
Amendment No. 79 provides for a review of the provisions of Part 4 by the electoral commission not later than three years after the commencement of Part 4. The amendment requires that the review be completed within 12 months and a report submitted to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage with such recommendations as the commission may consider appropriate to maintain or enhance the operation of Part 4. Given that the provisions in Part 4 are new and innovative, it is appropriate that we would have an independent review of the operation of the provisions after a reasonable period of time. I ask members to support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 80 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 80 not moved.
SECTION 140
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 124, line 37, to delete “section 96” and substitute “section 96(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 140, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 141 to 145, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 have been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“Regulations
146. (1) The Minister may make regulations for the general purpose of this Act and may, by regulation, provide for any matter referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed.
(2) Every regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulation.
(3) Regulations under this Act may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the regulations.”.
This amendment was dealt with by the proposal the Minister of State brought forward with regard to same-day voting on the islands. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, which is based on Deputy Ó Cuív's Private Member's Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 85 has been ruled out of order.
Is there a reason amendment No. 85 was ruled out of order?
There is. Amendment No. 85 seeks to amend the Litter Pollution Act 1997 to enable local authorities to impose conditions and limits upon the display of election posters. The Bill does not address this issue or reference the 1997 Act. It is concerned only with online political advertising. Amendment No. 85 must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 87(1) as it is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
I accept the ruling of the Chair and the Bills Office on the matter, but I believe a comparison can be made between advertising online and advertising on a lamp post. They are not that dissimilar. There is cross-party agreement on this. The Minister of State would be one of the people principally in favour of limiting the number of election posters and devolving powers to local authorities to that end. If the Minister of State were to consider the matter, he would have great support from me and, I imagine, others on the committee.
I would have them gone if I had my way but I certainly think-----
We do not want that. That would be too blunt of an instrument. I was accused of proposing too blunt of an instrument earlier.
I ask the Minister of State to be brief because I do not want to set a precedent of speaking on amendments that are out of order.
As part of its work, the commission will be reviewing the use of election posters. I will give that commitment on the matter.
That is very positive.
Amendment No. 85 not moved.
Amendments 86 to 103, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Deputy Nash has proposed an amendment to amendment No. 90, which we will also take in this grouping.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“PART 6
AMENDMENT OF ELECTORAL ACT 1997 - POLITICAL DONATIONS AND ACCOUNTS
Definition
146. In this Part, “Principal Act” means the Electoral Act 1997.”.
The committee will be aware of the commitment in the programme for Government to:
Review our current electoral laws and the conduct of politics in Ireland, to ensure that donations and resources from non-citizens outside the State are not being utilised to influence our elections and political process. We will legislate to prevent this, if necessary.
In early 2021, I wrote to all 25 political parties on the register of political parties seeking their views on the regulation of electoral funding from outside the jurisdiction and on other related matters. The amendments being brought forward now are as a result of that consultation process.
The amendments will strengthen the definitions of “subsidiary organisation” and “donation” as set out in the Electoral Act 1997. They will impose a new obligation on the leaders of political parties to provide a written statement and an accompanying statutory declaration in respect of each year to the Standards in Public Office Commission stating that all donations from outside of the State, whether in cash or in kind, have been declared and that no other donations, either in cash or in kind, took place. The amendments insert new requirements into the Electoral Act 1997 in respect of adherence to financial reporting standard, FRS, 102 and the inclusion of all property in the ownership of the political party and its subsidiary organisations when the annual statements of accounts are being prepared. They also prohibit donations in any form of cryptocurrency and provide a wide range of investigatory and enforcement powers to the Standards in Public Office Commission, as the body currently responsible for regulatory oversight of the Act. These provisions are modelled on similar powers in the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015, which the Standards in Public Office Commission is already familiar with. The amendments provide for the inclusion of credit unions in the definition of “institution”. This will allow political donations accounts to be opened and maintained within credit unions by the recipients of political donations rather than such accounts being solely confined to banks and building societies. They also provide for the amounts specified in sections 23C and 48C of that Act to be varied by order, having regard to changes in the consumer price index. These amounts relate to the donation threshold in respect of which the obligations under the Act apply to third parties. All other donation thresholds under the Act can already be varied by order in line with changes in the consumer price index.
I believe the proposed amendments will clarify and strengthen the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 1997 against the malicious use of financial resources from outside the State to interfere with our political and democratic processes.
I would like the Minister of State to elaborate on his intentions with specific regard to amendment No. 90. There is obviously quite a number of amendments in this grouping but it would be good to get a clearer picture of what the Minister of State intends to achieve with amendment No. 90. I will then speak on my amendment to the amendment, if that is appropriate.
Amendment No. 90 seeks to amend the definition of “subsidiary organisation” in section 22(1) of the Electoral Act 1997 to specify, for the avoidance of doubt, that a subsidiary organisation of a political party includes "a body or association that has an office outside the State". This amendment also provides for an amendment to the definition of "donation" in section 22(2)(a) to confirm that a donation from a subsidiary organisation of a political party which keeps an office outside of the State falls within the meaning of "donation". Amendment No. 90 also provides for the insertion of a new definition of "cryptocurrency" in section 22(2)(aa) of the Act and for an update to the definition of "institution" in the same section to reflect changes in the banking sector since the Act was first commenced, that is, the dissolution of ACC Bank and changes in the European Union regulations governing the financial services sector.
This update will provide that credit unions are institutions within the meaning of the Act, and this will allow for political donation accounts to be opened in credit unions for the first time, which I am sure we will all welcome.
On amendment No. 90 and what my amendment to that amendment seeks to achieve, I think the Minister of State's position is that he is proposing that a party registered both North and South would have to declare its property and its income from that property on an all-island basis. Our amendment seeks to go a little further. Without it, such a party could still receive donations in the North that would be illegal here. Our amendment to the Government amendment seeks to put an end to SIPO's contention, which is in the public domain, relating in particular to the Hampton donation. I refer to that donation to Sinn Féin simply because it illustrated many anomalies between the systems North and South. Our amendment would put an end to the SIPO contention that Sinn Féin - I refer to Sinn Féin purely because that is the case in point - is in some sense separate to and apart from Sinn Féin as registered in the South. Has the Minister of State had the opportunity to consider the amendment we have proposed to his amendment and what is his perspective on that?
No, we have not had the opportunity to consider it. We can return to the issue on Report Stage to give it consideration.
It is an important perspective and the amendment seeks to address a significant issue of anomalies relating to parties registered and operating both North and South in cases where they are in some way taking advantage of British electoral law and what is allowed in that context compared with what is permitted here. The Hampton case illustrated that as a problem because of the lack of transparency.
If the Minister of State will consider this in more detail on Report Stage, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. We might even have a wider discussion between now and then because the issue requires considerable attention and I will be happy to work with the Department if he is happy to consider at least the principle of our amendment on the basis we can work together to try to get this right.
Yes, we can do that.
Sinn Féin fully supports the entire group of Government amendments, although I have some questions for the benefit of clarity with respect to amendment No. 90.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure full transparency and accountability, particularly with regard to money spent in the State for electoral purposes. We are in a unique position on this island because there are two jurisdictions with two different sets of electoral law and laws governing political donations, and a number of parties operate on an all-island basis, including that of the Minister of State, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit and the Socialist Party. This session, therefore, is a valuable opportunity to provide the maximum level of clarity in order that everyone will understand the implications of what we are agreeing to, and I reiterate I strongly support the Minister of State's amendments.
I am interested in the changes to section 22 of the Electoral Act 1997 given we will be adding subsidiary organisations operating outside the State to the scope of that section, which will have implications for donations made to subsidiaries operating outside the State, whether that is Sinn Féin or a branch of the Green Party in Belfast, or People Before Profit or the Socialist Party. Specifically with respect to the changes being made to section 22(2)(c)(i) of the 1997 Act, will the Minister of State be as explicit as possible with regard to the new status of requirements for political parties with respect to donations made to subsidiaries outside the State?
The separate question Deputy Nash raises is an important one and, again, full transparency is required. In consideration of any such changes, we also need to be clear we will not create additional anomalies. His amendment, if I understand it, seems to suggest that where a donation to a party organised on an all-island basis is accepted in the North, the rules of electoral donations that operate for that party in the South should apply both North and South. That would mean, however, that we would be extending the reach of the political donations legislation from the South to the North. I have no problem with that, given the sooner we have standard and harmonised rules North and South, the better for me, as the committee knows.
Nevertheless, it would create an anomaly in the North, if it were even legally possible, because all of a sudden, for political parties such as those I mentioned, the southern standards would have to be applied in the North, as opposed to the standards that would apply for the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP, and Fianna Fáil. All of a sudden, there would be a two-tiered system in the North whereby the southern rules would apply to parties that are all-Ireland in nature and the Westminster rules would apply to those parties operating only in the North. I am not sure whether southern law could be extended to the North in that way, but that is a separate issue.
In any event, would we want to create an anomaly whereby the SDLP could accept larger donations but Sinn Féin, the Green Party, People Before Profit and the Socialist Party would be in a different situation? I think that is an equally important part of the consideration. I am not averse to the conversation at all but we need to be clear about the ramifications. What could not be the case, and I know Deputy Nash would not accept this in the South, is that one group of parties could accept larger donations than others. That makes no sense, but his amendment would have that effect on the level of donations acceptable in the North.
I acknowledge this is quite technical but will the Minister of State talk us through the ramifications that changes to section 22, especially for parties such as his and ours that are all-Ireland in nature? He might also respond to my query in regard to Deputy Nash's amendment or, if he prefers, we can discuss that on Report Stage.
I welcome the amendments and think they are important for all the reasons Deputy Nash outlined. I had expected we could, perhaps, go further on some of them, which might have helped Deputy Ó Broin in understanding the specific application of the provision. I would like to see more detail and adjustment on Report Stage.
Deputy Ó Broin makes a very valid point regarding the all-Ireland nature of some parties despite there being two jurisdictions. Even so, as a basic premise, if a corporate donation is considered wrong, a party should not accept it regardless of what it is allowed to accept. In this State, we have come to a settled will whereby corporate donations are deemed not to be appropriate, and just because they are permitted does not mean a political party should avail of them, regardless of what is permitted North or South. I hear what Deputy Ó Broin is saying, but I would imagine many people who support all-Ireland parties believe there should not be illegal corporate donations and would be surprised to learn that some of those all-island parties receive donations that would be illegal in the South. Of course, it is a matter of regulation, but it is also about being honest with people and saying how we believe we should operate, and how we will operate, North and South.
There is more work to be done on this issue and I look forward to the Minister of State returning to it with further amendments. He is aware of the areas of concern I have raised.
Again, we will be happy to return to this issue on Report Stage. To be clear, the amendment relates to donations into this State and we are legislating for this jurisdiction only. Important questions have been raised by Deputy Nash's amendment to our amendment. The issue arose on foot of consultation we had with the political parties. If there is a need to flesh it out on Report Stage, we will be happy to do that.
In correspondence my party and I had with the Standards in Public Office Commission in 2019 when we first brought to its attention the William Hampton bequest of more than £2 million in cash and assets, it delayed its examination of it.
There was correspondence between the leader of Sinn Féin and her office and SIPO. SIPO essentially conceded to Deputy Mary Lou McDonald's argument and contention there are effectively two Sinn Féins. There is Sinn Féin in the North, which is organised and registered in the North and can take advantage of British laws where there is no limit applied to donations. Even though the bequest by Mr. Hampton was bequeathed to Sinn Féin in the Republic, Sinn Féin made a corporate decision to accept it in the North. SIPO accepted there is a legal difference between both jurisdictions, but that does not mean there is not a real problem. There is a real problem as articulated by Deputy McAuliffe.
Frankly, from where I am standing, it is unethical to accept donations of that scale that dwarf the €2,500 corporate limit on which we decided as a Parliament and as a society more generally because of the toxic and poisonous influence of money on politics. It is not right that is accepted. Either parties themselves must decide whether this is right and whether it fits in with their moral and ethical compass or we legislate. I understand the challenges involved in legislation given we must deal with two jurisdictions on this island. I am not blind to the arguments and points articulated by Deputy Ó Broin in terms of potential imbalances that might be introduced in the system in the North if we choose to go this way, but that should not act as a barrier to us dealing with this because it is a very real issue. We have seen the corrupting influence of big money on politics in this country and we have learned those lessons. I think we need to learn those lessons from a 32-county all-island perspective.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that in the last piece of correspondence we received from the Standards in Public Office Commission, it specifically suggested a new electoral commission, when formed, should prioritise and examine this issue. I hope we can do so, that we do not leave it to the electoral commission, and that we look at every possible tool and weapon in our armoury to address this problem, because it is a problem.
It is one of the great tragedies of partition that it creates all of these difficulties in many respects. To reiterate, Sinn Féin would much prefer there was one set of electoral laws for the island because it would make our job an awful lot easier.
To return to my question about the consequences of the Government's amendment No. 90 on section 22, I am trying to ascertain whether the reach of amendment No. 90 is solely with respect to any donation into this State from a subsidiary outside the State? Is that where the new responsibilities and obligations lie? That would mean there is no obligation on a subsidiary outside the State with respect to donations that are made and remain outside of the State. It is only at the point when donations are transferred from one jurisdiction to another. Is that the import of amendment No. 90 for section 22?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 2 of Principal Act
147. Section 2(1) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following definition for the definition of “property”:
“ ‘property’, other than in Part IX, means real and personal property;”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 3 of Principal Act
148. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended, in subsection (1)—
(a) by the insertion of “23C,” after “23B,”, and
(b) by the insertion of “48C,” after “48B,”.”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Principal Act
149. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 4A—
“Powers of Investigation
4B. (1) Notwithstanding subsections (4), (4A), (4B) and (4C) of section 4, where the Standards in Public Office Commission reasonably believes that a person may have committed or may be committing a contravention of Parts IV, V, VI or IX, the Standards in Public Office Commission may direct the carrying out of an investigation by an authorised officer under this section.
(2) The Standards in Public Office Commission may appoint such and so many persons as it may determine (each of whom is referred to in this section as an ‘authorised officer’) to carry out investigations under this section.
(3) The Standards in Public Office Commission shall furnish an authorised officer with an authorisation and, when carrying out an investigation under this section, an authorised officer shall, if requested to do so by any person affected by the investigation, produce to the person the authorisation or a copy of it together with a form of personal identification.
(4) An authorised officer may, for the purposes of carrying out an investigation under this section—
(a) require any person to provide any information or explanation which the authorised officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation,
(b) require any person to produce any document or other thing of which the person has control, or to which the person has access, and which the authorised officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation,
(c) require any person to attend before the authorised officer to answer questions, and to make a declaration of the truth of the answers to the questions, for the purposes of the investigation,
(d) subject to subsection (5), enter and search (if necessary accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána) any premises at, on or in which the authorised officer reasonably believes there may be any document or other thing which the authorised officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation,
(e) inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, any document or other thing produced in compliance with a requirement under paragraph (b) or found on a search under paragraph (d) or pursuant to a warrant under subsection (6),
(f) require a person to make available in a legible form any documents so produced or found otherwise than in a legible form, or
(g) require a person to give to the authorised officer such assistance as the authorised officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation and make available to the authorised officer such reasonable facilities as are necessary for the authorised officer to exercise his or her powers.
(5) An authorised officer shall not enter a dwelling when carrying out an investigation under this section otherwise than—
(a) with the consent of the occupier, or
(b) pursuant to a warrant under subsection (6).
(6) If a judge of the District Court is satisfied on the sworn information of an authorised officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is in, on or at any premises any document or other thing which the authorised officer may reasonably require for the purposes of an investigation under this section, the judge may issue a warrant authorising a named person at any time or times within one month from the date of issue of the warrant, on production (if so requested) of the warrant, to enter and search the premises using reasonable force where necessary, and exercise all or any of the powers conferred on an authorised officer.
(7) A warrant under subsection (6) may permit the person authorised by it to be accompanied by such members of the Garda Síochána or other persons as the person authorised by the warrant considers necessary.
(8) An authorised officer may, if authorised by the Standards in Public Office Commission to do so, make interim reports to the Commission while carrying out an investigation under this section.
(9) As soon as reasonably practicable after the conclusion of an investigation under this section the authorised officer by whom the investigation was carried out shall give to—
(a) the Standards in Public Office Commission, and
(b) the person under investigation,
a copy of a report stating the findings of the investigation and the authorised officer’s conclusions on the findings together with his or her reasons for making them.
(10) A statement or admission made by a person pursuant to a requirement under subsection (4) shall not be admissible in evidence in proceedings brought against that person for an offence (other than for an offence under sections 25(1), 25(1A), 25(1B), 25(1C), 25(1D), 25(1E), 43(1), 43(2), 43(3), 43(4), 61(1), 61(2), 61(2A), 61(2B), 61(3) and 61(4)).
(11) The production of a document or other thing in compliance with a requirement under subsection (4) does not prejudice a person’s lien on the document or other thing.
(12) Nothing in this section shall operate to require a person to provide to an authorised officer any information or explanation, or to produce to an authorised officer any documents or other things, that he or she would be entitled to refuse to provide or produce on the grounds of legal professional privilege.
(13) An authorised officer shall not disclose any information obtained under this section otherwise than in a report under this section.
(14) In this section ‘premises’ includes vessel, aircraft, vehicle and any other means of transport, as well as land and any other fixed or moveable structure.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 22 of Principal Act
150. Section 22 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “a body or association (including a body or association that has an office outside the State), which” for “a body or 23 association, which”,
(b) in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), by the substitution of “by any person (including a subsidiary organisation that has an office outside the State)” for “by any person”, and
(c) in paragraph (aa) of subsection (2)—
(i) by the insertion of the following definition:
“ ‘cryptocurrency’ means any form of digital currency that is not regulated, and in relation to which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of monies;”,
(ii) by the deletion of paragraph (d) of the definition of “institution”, and
(iii) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraphs (e) and (f) of the definition of “institution”:
“(e) An Post,
(f) a credit institution authorised in accordance with the European Union (Capital Requirements) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 158 of 2014) to carry on business in the State, or
(g) a credit union registered as such under the Credit Union Act 1997;”.”.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 90:
To insert the following after paragraph (c):
“(d) (i) by the substitution in subsection (2) (d) of “donation;” for “donation.”, and
(ii) by the insertion of the following after subsection (2)(d):
‘(e) where a gift or a bequest of money is made outside the State to a political party, it is deemed to be a donation to which this Part applies notwithstanding that—
(i) the party may also be registered as a political party under the law of the place in which the donation is made, or
(ii) the party engages in political or other promotional activities in that place.’.”.
The amendment to amendment No. 90 was discussed with amendment No. 86. Is it being pressed?
No. I am happy to withdraw my amendment on the basis of what the Minister of State has said, but I may re-enter it on Report Stage.
I thank the Deputy.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I wish to ask a technical question about amendment No. 90 so that I am completely clear about the legislation. Amendments to section 22 relate to, for example, donations into the State from subsidiary organisations to a political party registered in the State, so if a branch of the Green Party, Sinn Féin or whoever in the North, makes a donation, either in cash or in kind, that must be declared. For the sake of clarity, the income limits that would apply for non-declared donations currently in the South do not apply to donations that come from, for example, the North to the South because one must declare everything. We are introducing a rule where there are two different sets of regulations. For clarity, it is all donations no matter the amount that would, say, come into the jurisdiction by way of a subsidiary outside it, which is different from the current rules that operate in terms of political donations in the South, because it is all donations.
I know the point the Deputy is making. I will come back to him on it.
Is my question not clear?
It is clear.
For example, there are certain categories of donations in the South which, because they are below a certain financial threshold, do not have to be declared, yes?
Whereas what we are saying, and I have no difficulty with this because I fully support the amendment, but it is just so I am clear, is that while there is a certain category of donations that can be made in the South that do not need to be declared, that does not apply to, for example, donations into the State via subsidiaries from outside the State because it applies to all donations. That is a point on which Deputy Nash rightly sought clarification during our private briefing, if I remember correctly.
I would assume it is all donations, yes.
All donations from outside of the State need to be declared regardless of whether they come from a citizen or not.
Exactly, yes.
As the provision stands it says we can make a contribution or donation within the regulations. My understanding, which I mentioned in my remarks when we discussed the amendment, is that every donation, regardless of its size, needs to be declared now. Is that presented cumulatively or individually in terms of the statutory reporting requirement? An example would be if John Reilly in London makes a contribution of €50 to, let us say, a race night or table quiz organised by Deputy Ó Broin.
To add something-----
The Minister of State has indicated he will come back with a response to these queries.
Yes, but I wish to add one point of clarification. This is a good opportunity for people to be very clear about the implications. For example, if the Minister of State, Deputy Nash or I were to organise an election fundraising event in the run-up to the next general election and party colleagues or branches from outside of the State, such as the Green Party in south Belfast or Sinn Féin in north Belfast, were to sponsor a table or buy tickets or whatever, then irrespective of the price, even if they are €5 tickets, they all must be declared and they are all now covered under the scope of this legislation in a way that would not be the case if a subsidiary organisation from within the State were to participate in the same event and make the same contribution? This is important.
I think I understand the provision, but given the all-Ireland nature of a lot of our political activity, it is very important all political parties fully understand the implications so they can be fully compliant with the rules afterwards.
There are no thresholds being amended here and that element of it is within the party leader's statement. Obviously the party leader's statement will include all donations.
Yes. Therefore, for example, if Deputy Nash were to organise a fundraiser and a branch of the SDLP were to buy a table at the event, which it may well do because that party has a fraternal relationship and that is very healthy, that donation must be declared in its party leader's statement under this provision.
Yes, that is correct.
I seek clarification about subsidiary organisations. If, for example, there was an organisation like the Friends of the Green Party in the United States and it were to provide a benefit rather than a cash donation, let us say an office or truck or whatever during an election, that is equivalent to a donation. If the Friends of the Green Party was to fly the Minister, Deputy Ryan, over to the United States, that equally would be a donation and would be covered under these criteria. Is that correct?
I assume that would be deemed to be benefit-in-kind. I am not sure it would happen, but I think so.
It would not be permitted under the newest laws, though.
There are exceptionally strict regulations as to any money raised via a friends organisation-----
-----and what it can and cannot be spent on. It is very rigid in the legislation.
The legislation covers benefits-in-kind as well.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 23A of Principal Act
151. Section 23A of the Principal Act is amended, in subsection (1)-
(a) in paragraph (ii), by the substitution of “€2,500,” for “€2,500, or”, (b) in paragraph (iii), by the substitution of “€200, or” for “€200.”, and (c) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (iii):
“(iv) a donation of whatever value in the form of cryptocurrency.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of Principal Act - insertion of section 24B
152. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 24A:
“Party leader’s statement
24B. (1) Not later than 31 January in every year, the leader of each political party, which, in the preceding year, had members in either House of the Oireachtas or, as the case may be, in the European Parliament, shall furnish to the Standards in Public Office Commission a written statement, in the form directed by the Commission, in respect of the preceding year, confirming that all donations to the party from outside the State, including all contributions, whether in cash or in kind, have been included in the statement furnished to the Standards in Public Offices Commission by that political party under section 24(1)(b).
(2) A statement furnished pursuant to subsection (1) (to be referred to in this Act as a ‘party leader’s statement’) shall be accompanied by a statutory declaration made by the person by whom the statement is furnished that, to the best of the party leader’s knowledge and belief, the statement is correct in every material respect and that the party leader has taken all reasonable action in order to be satisfied as to the accuracy of the statement.
(3) It shall be the duty of every party leader who is required by this section to furnish a party leader’s statement and make a statutory declaration to make such enquiries and maintain such records as are necessary for the purpose of furnishing the said statement and making the declaration.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 25 of Principal Act
153. Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1E):
“(1F) A person who fails to furnish a statement under section 24B(1), or a statutory declaration under section 24B(2), or who knowingly furnishes a statement under section 24B(1) or statutory declaration under section 24B(2) which is false or misleading in any material respect, shall be guilty of an offence.”,
and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3):
“(4) Subject to subsection (3), summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought and prosecuted by the Standards in Public Office Commission.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 43 of Principal Act
154. Section 43 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (7):
“(8) Subject to subsection (7), summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought and prosecuted by the Standards in Public Office Commission.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 46 of Principal Act
155. Section 46 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of the following definition:
“ ‘cryptocurrency’ means any form of digital currency that is not regulated, and in relation to which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of monies;”,
and
(b) in paragraph (aa) of subsection (2)—
(i) by the deletion of paragraph (d) of the definition of “institution”, and
(ii) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraphs (e) and (f) of the definition of “institution”:
“(e) An Post,
(f) credit institution authorised in accordance with the European Union (Capital Requirements) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 158 of 2014) to carry on business in the State, or
(g) a credit union registered as such under the Credit Union Act1997;”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 48A of Principal Act
156. Section 48A of the Principal Act is amended, in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (ii), by the substitution of “€2,500,” for “€2,500, or”,
(b) in paragraph (iii), by the substitution of “€200, or” for “€200.”, and (c)
by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (iii):
“(iv) a donation of whatever value in the form of cryptocurrency.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 61 of Principal Act
157. Section 61 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (7):
“(8) Subject to subsection (7), summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought and prosecuted by the Standards in Public Office Commission.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 83 of Principal Act
158. Section 83 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) by the insertion of the following definitions:
" ‘FRS 102’ means the accounting standard entitled ‘The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland’, issued by the Financial Reporting Council Limited (being a body prescribed under the Companies Act 2014 (Accounting Standards) (Prescribed Body) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 84 of 2018));
‘property’, in relation to any political party, and its subsidiary organisations, means all land and buildings (whether situate within or outside the State), owned or controlled by the party or subsidiary organisation concerned—
(a) which supports the political and promotional activities of the political party, its elected members, party officials or party members either within or outside the State,
(b) which benefits, either directly or indirectly, the political party, its elected members, party officials or party members in promoting the policies, aims and objectives of the political party either within or outside the State,
(c) any income derived from which is used to promote, either directly or indirectly, the political party, its elected members or candidates standing for election on behalf of that party, or
(d) which is effectively controlled by the political party, its elected members, party officials or party members, for the benefit of the party;
‘subsidiary organisation’ in relation to any political party, means a body or association (including a body or association that has an office outside the State) which—
(a) forms part of such political party,
(b) is established by or under the constitution of the political party,
(c) is effectively controlled by the political party or the officers thereof, or
(d) has functions conferred on it by or under the constitution of the party.
(b) by the substitution of “section 89;” for “section 89.” in the definition of “guidelines”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 84 of Principal Act
159. Section 84 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of “and of each of its subsidiary organisations” after “concerned”,
(b) in subsection (2), by the insertion, in paragraph (a), of “, and of each of its subsidiary organisations,” after “party”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 85 of Principal Act
160. Section 85 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):
“(1) Subject to section 91(1), the appropriate officer shall prepare a statement of accounts for the political party concerned and its subsidiary organisations (in this Part referred to as the ‘annual statement of accounts’) in respect of each financial year.”, and
(b) in subsection (2), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (a):
“(a) (i) comply with such requirements as to its form and contents (including any requirements provided for under FRS 102) as may be provided for in guidelines, and
(ii) include all property within the ownership of the political party, and its subsidiary organisations, whether mortgaged, charged, alienated or otherwise encumbered,
and”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 86 of Principal Act
161. Section 86 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):
“(1) Subject to section 91(1) and (2), the annual statement of accounts of a political party, and of each of its subsidiary organisations, in respect of a financial year shall be audited by a statutory auditor.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of section 88 of Principal Act
162. Section 88 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) in subsection (3)—
(i) by the insertion, in paragraph (a), of “(including any requirements under FRS 102)” after “guidelines”, and
(ii) by the insertion, in paragraph (c), of “(including any requirements under FRS 102)” after “guidelines”, and
(b) in subsection (4), by the insertion of “(including any requirements under FRS 102)” after “guidelines”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of Principal Act – insertion of sections 91 and 92
162. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following sections after section 90:
“Subsidiary organisations
91. (1) Where a subsidiary organisation of a political party has—
(a) an income of €15,000 or less in a calendar year, or
(b) holds cash or similar assets, land or buildings of less than €40,000 in value at any time during a calendar year,
the appropriate officer of the political party shall not be required to submit an annual statement of accounts to the Standards in Public Office Commission in relation to that subsidiary organisation.
(2) Where a subsidiary organisation of a political party—
(a) (i) has an income greater than €15,000 but less than €40,000 in a calendar year, or
(ii) holds cash or similar assets, land or buildings valued at greater than €40,000 but less than €100,000 in value at any time during a calendar year, and
(b) has expenditure of €40,000 or less in that calendar year, section 86(1) shall not apply to the annual statement of accounts for the subsidiary organisation concerned.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, where a subsidiary organisation of a political party—
(a) has income greater than €40,000 in a calendar year,
(b) holds cash or similar assets, land or buildings greater than €100,000 in value, or
(c) has expenditure greater than €40,000 in that calendar year, section 86(1) shall apply to the annual statement of accounts for the subsidiary organisation concerned.
(4) For the purposes of calculating the amounts specified in subsections (1), (2) and (3), transfers, between a political party and a subsidiary organisation or between one subsidiary organisation and another subsidiary organisation of a political party, shall be excluded so as to avoid the double counting of such transfers.
Offences and penalties
92. (1) The appropriate officer shall be guilty of an offence if he or she—
(a) fails to keep, or cause to be kept, all proper and usual books of accounts under section 84,
(b) fails to prepare an annual statement of accounts in respect of each financial year under section 85,
(c) fails to furnish an annual statement of accounts and a copy of the auditor’s report no later than the end of the period provided for in section 87(1), or
(d) knowingly furnishes a statement of accounts to the Standards in Public Office Commission which is false or misleading in any material respect.
(2) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the person charged with the offence to show that he or she took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.
(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under this section—
(a) the person shall be liable on summary conviction to a class D fine,
(b) the person shall be liable, where the offence is an offence referred to in paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1), on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000 to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or to both, and
(c) where the conviction relates to a failure to furnish an annual statement of accounts and a copy of the auditor’s report referred to in section 87(1), the person shall be guilty of a further offence on every day on which the failure continues after such conviction and for each such offence the person shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €100.
(4) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(5) Subject to subsection (4), summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought and prosecuted by the Standards in Public Office Commission.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
POLLING ON ISLANDS
Amendment of Act of 1992
164. The Act of 1992 is amended—
(a) in section 86—
(i) by the deletion of “, other than a poll taken on a day specified under section 85,”, and
(ii) in paragraph (a), by the insertion of—
(I) “sudden onset of” before “stress of weather”, and
(II) “unforeseen” before “transport difficulties”,
(b) in section 96, by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b), where the Minister is of the opinion that due to local circumstances concerning an island, and taking account of advice from the returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated, it would be unnecessary or impracticable for the poll to continue on the island for the period fixed under subsection (1)(b), the Minister may by order, not later than the seventh day before polling day, shorten the period of the poll on the island.
(1B) A poll the subject of an order under subsection (1A) shall continue on the island for not less than 4 hours.
(1C) Where an order is made under subsection (1A), the returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated shall, as soon as may be after it is made, give public notice in the polling district in which the island is situated stating the day appointed under subsection (1)(a) on which, and the period shortened by the order under subsection (1A) during which, the poll shall be taken on the island.
(1D) In subsection (1A), ‘local circumstances’ includes:
(a) the number of Dáil electors on the island;
(b) the distance between a polling station on the island and the place appointed for the counting of votes under section 112;
(c) advance forecasts of stress of weather;
(d) foreseen transport difficulties.”,
(c) in section 108, by the deletion of “85,”, and
(d) in section 114, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):
“(2) (a) The ballot papers extracted by the returning officer from each ballot box shall be counted and their total number shall be compared with the number shown in the appropriate ballot paper account.
(b) Where ballot boxes from a polling station situated on an island have not reached the place appointed for the counting of votes under section 112 at or before the time specified in subsection (1) due to stress of weather or transport difficulties, the returning officer shall, in respect of the other ballot boxes, proceed in accordance with subsections (1) and (1A), and paragraph (a).
(c) When all the ballot boxes, including all those from polling stations situated on an island, have reached the place appointed for the counting of votes and been dealt with in accordance with subsections (1) and (1A), and paragraph (a), the returning officer shall prepare a statement showing the result of the comparison referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of all the ballot boxes and he or she shall, on request allow the agent of any candidate to copy the statement.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of Act of 1993
165. The Act of 1993 is amended—
(a) in section 3(3), by the deletion of paragraph (h),
(b) in section 7—
(i) by renumbering the existing section as subsection (1), and
(ii) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b), where the Minister is of the opinion that due to local circumstances concerning an island, and taking account of advice from the local returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated, it would be unnecessary or impracticable for the poll to continue on the island for the period referred to in subsection (1)(b), the Minister may by order, not later than the seventh day before polling day, shorten the period of the poll on the island.
(3) A poll the subject of an order under subsection (2) shall continue on the island for not less than 4 hours.
(4) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the local returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated shall, as soon as may be after it is made, give public notice in the polling district in which the island is situated stating the day appointed by the presidential election order on which, and the period shortened by the order under subsection (2) during which, the poll shall be taken on the island.
(5) An order made under subsection (2) shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.
(6) In subsection (2), ‘local circumstances’ includes:
(a) the number of presidential electors on the island;
(b) the distance between a polling station on the island and the place appointed for the counting of votes under section 112 of the Act of 1992;
(c) advance forecasts of stress of weather;
(d) foreseen transport difficulties.”, and
(c) in section 42, by the substitution of “section 86” for “sections 85 and 86”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of Act of 1994
166. The Act of 1994 is amended—
(a) in section 2(3), by the deletion of paragraph (l),
(b) in section 13—
(i) by renumbering the existing section as subsection (1), and
(ii) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b), where the Minister is of the opinion that due to local circumstances concerning an island, and taking account of advice from the local returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated, it would be unnecessary or impracticable for the poll to continue on the island for the period referred to in subsection (1)(b), the Minister may by order, not later than the seventh day before polling day, shorten the period of the poll on the island.
(3) A poll the subject of an order under subsection (2) shall continue on the island for not less than 4 hours.
(4) Where an order is made under subsection (2) the local returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated shall, as soon as may be after it is made, give public notice in the polling district in which the island is situated stating the day appointed under section 10 or 12 on which, and the period shortened by the order under subsection (2) during which, the poll shall be taken on the island.
(5) An order made under subsection (2) shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.
(6) In subsection (2), ‘local circumstances’ includes:
(a) the number of presidential electors on the island;
(b) the distance between a polling station on the island and the place appointed for the counting of votes under section 112 of the Act of 1992;
(c) advance forecasts of stress of weather;
(d) foreseen transport difficulties.”, and
(c) in section 30, by the substitution of “section 86” for “sections 85 and 86”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of Local Elections Regulations 1995
167. (1) Article 49 of the Local Elections Regulations 1995 is amended—
(a) by the deletion of sub-articles (1) and (2),
(b) in sub-article (3)—
(i) by the insertion of “at an election” after “Where a poll is to be taken”,
(ii) in paragraph (a), by the insertion of—
(I) “sudden onset of” before “stress of weather”, and
(II) “unforeseen” before “transport difficulties”, and
(c) by the deletion of sub-article (4).
(2) Article 50 of the Local Elections Regulations 1995 is amended—
(a) by renumbering the existing article as sub-article (1), and
(b) by the insertion of the following sub-article after sub-article (1):
“(2) Where an order is made under section 26(2A) of the LocalGovernment Act 2001, the returning officer for the election in the local electoral area in which the island is situated shall give public notice in the polling district in which the island is situated stating the day fixed under section 26(2) of that Act on which, and the period shortened by the order under section 26(2A) of that Act during which, the poll shall be taken on the island.”.
(3) Article 76 of the Local Elections Regulations 1995 is amended by the substitution of the following sub-article for sub-article (3):
“(3) (a) The ballot papers extracted by the returning officer from each ballot box shall be counted and their total number shall be compared with the number shown in the appropriate ballot paper account.
(b) Where ballot boxes from a polling station situated on an island have not reached the place appointed for the counting of votes under article 74(2) at or before the time specified in article 74(1), due to stress of weather or transport difficulties, the returning officer shall, in respect of the other ballot boxes, proceed in accordance with sub-articles (1), (1A), (2) and paragraph (a).
(c) When all the ballot boxes, including all those from polling stations situated on an island, have reached the place appointed for the counting of votes under article 74(2) and been dealt with in accordance with sub-articles (1), (1A), (2) and paragraph (a), the returning officer shall prepare a statement showing the result of the comparison referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of all the ballot boxes and shall include particulars of the ballot papers, if any, transmitted to the said officer pursuant to sub-article (2) and the returning officer shall, on request, allow the agent of any candidate to copy the statement.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 108:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of Act of 2001
168. Section 26 of the Act of 2001 is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (2):
“(2A) Notwithstanding subsection (2), where the Minister is of the opinion that due to local circumstances concerning an island, and taking account of advice from the returning officer (within the meaning of the Local Elections Regulations 1995) for the election in the local electoral area in which the island is situated, it would be unnecessary or impracticable for the poll to continue on the island for the period fixed by the Minister by order under subsection (2), the Minister may by order, not later than the seventh day before polling day, shorten the period of the poll on the island.
(2B) A poll the subject of an order under subsection (2A) shall continue on the island for not less than 4 hours.
(2C) In subsection (2A), ‘local circumstances’ includes:
(a) the number of local government electors on the island;
(b) the distance between a polling station on the island and the place appointed for the counting of votes under article 74(2) of the Local Elections Regulations 1995;
(c) advance forecasts of stress of weather;
(d) foreseen transport difficulties.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 109:
In page 129, after line 9, to insert the following:
“ Amendment of Act of 1997
169. The Act of 1997 is amended—
(a) in section 10, by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b), where the Minister is of the opinion that due to local circumstances concerning an island, and taking account of advice from the returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated, it would be unnecessary or impracticable for the poll to continue on the island for the period appointed by the Minister by order under subsection (1)(b), the Minister may by order, not later than the seventh day before polling day, shorten the period of the poll on the island.
(1B) A poll the subject of an order under subsection (1A) shall continue on the island for not less than 4 hours.
(1C) In subsection (1A), ‘local circumstances’ includes:
(a) the number of European electors on the island;
(b) the distance between a polling station on the island and the place appointed for the verification of ballot paper accounts under rule 73(2) of the Second Schedule;
(c) advance forecasts of stress of weather;
(d) foreseen transport difficulties.”,
and
(b) in the Second Schedule—
(i) in rule 48—
(I) by the deletion of paragraphs (1) and (2),
(II) in paragraph (3), by the insertion of “at a European election” after “Where a poll is to be taken”,
(III) in paragraph (3)(a), by the insertion of—
(A) “sudden onset of” before “stress of weather”, and
(B) “unforeseen” before “transport difficulties”,
and
(IV) by the deletion of paragraph (4),
(ii) in rule 49—
(I) by renumbering the existing rule as paragraph (1), and
(II) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (1):
“(2) Where an order is made under section 10(1A) the returning officer for the constituency in which the island is situated shall, as soon as may be after it is made, give public notice in the polling district in which the island is situated stating the day appointed under section 10(1)(a) on which, and the period shortened by the order under section 10(1A) during which, the poll shall be taken on the island.”,
and
(iii) in rule 75—
(I) in paragraph (1), by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (a):
“(aa) where ballot boxes from a polling station situated on an island have not reached the place appointed for the verification of ballot paper accounts under rule 73(2) before the time appointed under rule 73(1), due to stress of weather or transport difficulties, proceed in accordance with subparagraphs (a), (c) and (d) in respect of the other ballot boxes,”,
and
(II) in paragraph (1), by the substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (b):
“(b) when all the ballot boxes, including all the ballot boxes from polling stations situated on an island, have been dealt with in accordance with subparagraphs (a), (c) and (d), prepare a statement showing the result of the comparison under subparagraph (a) in respect of all the ballot papers for the county or county borough for which he or she is the local returning officer,”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
TITLE
I move amendment 110:
In page 9, line 32, to delete “pandemic or Covid-19;” and substitute the following:
“pandemic or Covid-19; to provide for polling on the islands; to amend the Electoral Act 1997 to enhance transparency in relation to certain donations to political parties andto provide, inter alia, for the preparation by political parties of consolidated annual statements of accounts;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Does the Minister of State wish to make some closing remarks? I thank him for the helpful and productive engagement with the members throughout this process. It was very constructive.
I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for what has been a constructive two meetings. We appreciate the positive engagement we have had on Committee Stage. During the discussion I flagged a number of issues to which we will give further consideration before Report Stage. I assure members I will follow up on those matters.
In addition, there are a number of other issues that I have identified on which I will also consider bringing forward amendments on Report Stage. These include: amendments to specify that in respect of the desirable skills and experience of electoral commission members set out in section 9, the expertise in financial matters be expanded to include membership of a recognised accountancy body; consequential amendments which may arise from the new Part 6 of the Bill, an amendment of the Electoral Act 1997 relating to political donations and accounts; amendments to clarify some of the provisions contained in section 104, which amends the Second Schedule to the 1992 Act in respect of the registration of electors - the amendments will clarify some of the new processes, in particular, the process regarding applications, identity and in respect of citizenship changes; and amendments to allow political parties to apply for a lottery licence in support of their fundraising activities.
Finally, the committee might also note that, as signalled by the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, on the publication of the Bill, legislative proposals to protect the integrity of our electoral and democratic processes, which have been developed by the Office of the Attorney General were recently approved by the Government for drafting. Arrangements are currently under way to publish these proposals and I intend to bring forward the proposed amendments as the Bill continues its progression through the Houses of the Oireachtas. My officials have conducted briefings in recent days in respect of the amendments we discussed on Committee Stage and further briefings can be arranged, if necessary. From my discussions with the members, I believe they found them useful. We are more than happy to do that. It has helped progress this Bill over the past two days as well.
I again thank my officials for the fantastic work they have been doing on this groundbreaking legislation. I thank you, Chairman, and the members of the committee for their deliberations over the last two days.
Regarding the briefings, the Minister of State can take it as read that we would like to have them. Perhaps the Minister of State can just schedule them without us having to request them. I am sure the Senators would feel likewise.
I am happy to engage with the Minister of State or his officials to organise those briefings. Finally, I thank the departmental officials and the secretariat of the committee for organising the meetings. We should always note the tremendous work the Bills Offices does in preparing all this for us to make it flow.
Bill reported with amendments.