James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Clune.

I welcome the Minister to the House. This Bill addresses important issues relating to the amendment of the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999 and the Litter Pollution Act 1997, and it broadly succeeds as such. However, it fails for its lack of scope and depth, particularly the timescale proposed for limits on election spending and the failure to include a reference to the provision of an electoral commission, which is essential for the impartiality of all electoral matters. Nonetheless, I am delighted the Minister has acknowledged the work of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the electoral register, with which I will deal shortly.

The Electoral Act 1997 has been the principal instrument for regulating electoral spending. This Act introduced limits on election expenditure as part of a reform of broader issues, including public funding for political parties and a disclosure requirement on political donations over a certain threshold. These limits have operated in line with inflation only in respect of Dáil elections, general elections, by-elections, European elections and Presidential elections. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 added further restrictions, such as the capping of the size of political donations, the prohibition of foreign donations and requirements for a mandatory political donations account, with full disclosure to the Standards in Public Office Commission. However, local elections were outside the net and equity certainly played no part in election spending. The disparities from party to party and candidate to candidate made a mockery of democracy, leaving candidates from weaker parties or those of limited means at a decided disadvantage.

While I fully support the Minister's stance on election spending, I also agree with those who feel the damage has been done long before the new proposed 60 day time limits for spending on the local elections, which is double the current 30 days prior to a general election. This timescale will have to be examined. The actual spending limits for the local elections in my constituency of Longford and Westmeath sees Ballymahon, Drumlish and Granard in County Longford with a candidate spending limit of €9,750, while the Longford electoral area has a limit of €11,500 and Westmeath has an overall candidate spending limit of €11,500. This demonstrates the differing rates in practice and on the surface it may appear to make sense in terms of electoral area size. However, it fails to account for the greater distance travelled in rural areas. A rural constituency is sparsely populated and it costs more to canvass. One could travel two miles down a road simply to canvass one house, whereas in a town or city walking the length of one street may allow many houses to be covered in a short space of time. In terms of time and money, the rural canvass costs more.

Given the changing face of politics and the pressure brought to bear on individual candidates and political parties, electioneering starts the moment one election is over and runs right up to the next election. Spending could be said to be well past its peak in the eight weeks before polling day. While the proposed linking of the limits to the size of the electoral area is not without its problems, especially for rural constituencies, and will certainly go some way to providing fairness and equity to the electoral process, the timescale is worrying. Perhaps the Minister could give some thought to bringing in a limited spend to bear across the fixed time between local and European elections. I realise this would be a good deal more difficult to enforce for a general election, given the unpredictable nature of that process.

The announcement at the weekend that the self-seeking grasp of big business is to be cut from around politics is welcome. The Minister's reference to white collar criminals and their champagne and cavalier lifestyles——

See this speech in context