Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

The research commissioned by the select committee, which was passed on to the Minister, gave an interesting opinion on the system we have employed to date. It stated that our current system of electoral spending was like inviting two people to participate in a race, with one participant turning up on a bicycle and the other in a sports car. I hope this legislation will change this and move us toward a level playing field where democracy is achieved as a result of merit rather than on income. Through this Bill, we hope to achieve a situation where self-regulation — the process we have had until now, but which has not worked — is abandoned and we move to the option of legislating for how much money can be spent on elections.

Up to now, we have had a system in place where general elections were conducted within spending limits. The legislation in that regard has been with us for some time. There is, therefore, no excuse for the delay in bringing this legislation before the House. All we are doing this afternoon is putting in place spending limits for local elections. As we have already got reporting mechanisms in place, since 1999 local election candidates have been required to maintain accounts and records on spending and to furnish those accounts to the local authority after elections.

There is, therefore, no justifiable excuse for not having limits, despite what the current and the previous Minister have said about complexities and difficulties. There have been no difficulties or complexities found with regard to recording spending. What we need, therefore, is a cap and a system for measuring spending.

The Electoral Act 1997, introduced by the Labour Party Minister for the Environment at the time, Deputy Brendan Howlin, empowered the Minister to make regulations providing for the limitation of election expenses which might be incurred by or on behalf of candidates and political parties at local elections. This power was subsequently scrapped by the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, in 1999. His justification for scrapping that was questionable. He said that due to the smaller size of constituencies and the local nature of elections, extensive expenditure would not be necessary and expenditure by each candidate would be lower than that in a Dáil election. This was his rationale for not introducing limits.

We have an example from 2004 of a current Member of the Seanad who spent in excess of €40,000 in a local election, a higher sum than the cap for a general election. This is the type of madness that was evident in this period. The appropriate structure was in place until 1997 when the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, skewed the legislation by introducing a new Bill. This afternoon we are recognising the flaws and shortcomings of the decision made deliberately, or otherwise, in 1999. We are playing catch-up ten years later.

I welcome the publication of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2009, which, at last, gives effect to spending limits. The delay in producing the legislation means we are now rushing it through the House. A key aspect of the operation of democracy in Ireland will now be subject to only six hours of discussion. The Bill will be debated in the Chamber until 7 p.m. and, tomorrow morning, for a very short while, amendments tabled by the Government and Opposition will be dealt with in a less than satisfactory manner. Is this how the Government values democracy? Fewer than a dozen hours will be spent debating the Bill. Given the lack of sufficient time for debate, anomalies will arise. After the local elections, we will be back in this House talking about these anomalies.

I stated electoral spending is significantly related to electoral success and that the introduction of spending limits will be an important factor in fighting corruption and safeguarding the electoral process. Any measure to level the playing pitch is to be welcomed but the structure the Minister has put in place to restrict spending is, at best, of limited impact.

The 60 day lead-in time applying to the limits is far too short. General elections occur when a Government collapses or when a Taoiseach, at the end of a Government's term in office, calls an election. Local elections occur every five years and we know the date of the next based on date of the last. The idea that a 60 day period will apply is a nonsense and a very significant shortcoming in the Bill. The delay in introducing the legislation is such that some sort of window is required, but I hope this provision will be amended afterwards to facilitate the operation of future elections. There are no restrictions in place for the period before the 60 day period and this needs to be rectified.

Research done for the Minister by the research department in the Houses of the Oireachtas examines the 60 day period. It states that, in practice, it is quite clear that some candidates — quite legally until now — spent large amounts of money in the 12 month to 24 month period before an election which dwarfed the amount that they could and did spend during the formal election period. It states electoral expenditure outside this period is not subject to the limits imposed by the legislation, thus benefiting larger parties, which typically have greater financial resources, and wealthier candidates who can afford to spend extra moneys before an election is called or the election period commences. Unfortunately, an obvious flaw pointed out to the Minister continues to feature.

Let me make a common sense comment on posters. If posters are still up one week after an election, candidates will be fined. Will the Minister direct local authorities to start the clock only after making contact with a candidate if he or she does not get around to taking down a poster or two? In reality, political parties are voluntary organisations and volunteers tend to put up posters. After an election, the volunteers taking down posters may not be the ones who put them up in the first instance. Thus, a poster may be missed, particularly in rural areas where there may be crossroads a little off the beaten track.

See this speech in context