Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I listened with interest to the Minister's response. I believed I understood what he was saying but I am sorry to say I became increasingly confused. Perhaps he will clarify his comments further. I understand from the section that it is assumed in respect of local elections that 10% of the spend of an individual candidate will be spent by one's political party. However, as the section seems to state in the alternative, if one's political party is not to be taken as spending 10% on one, there could be a written agreement whereby it would spend nothing on one, or more than 10%. This is what I understood the Minister to have said initially but, as he continued, I gathered that, irrespective of whether the party spends 10% on one, it is to be taken as having done such. I am somewhat confused about what the Minister is saying.

I want to broaden the discussion on this provision and its interaction with the section. I have a major concern about this legislation, particularly about this section and what the Minister is doing in respect thereof. My concern is that it has become politically correct to take the view that it is invidious for people to spend money at election time on putting across their or their party's policies to the electorate, and that expenditure in this regard should be curtailed substantially. It is politically correct to be of the view that it should be curtailed as much as possible.

This Bill is presented as a reforming measure. I fully accept the need, as outlined in the Bill, for transparency with regard to donations and I do not want to be misunderstood on that point. I have a very simple personal political view, which reflects the view of Fine Gael, that there should be transparency with regard to donations. I would not mind if this applied to every €5 received as a donation but this would become ridiculous and the bureaucracy and administration involved would make it untenable. I presume the figures that are fixed in this context tend to allow people to privately contribute small sums to political parties or individuals and seek to ensure that, where one tries to contribute a larger sum, transparency will apply and that no one can contribute more than a particular sum.

My concern is not about the freedom people should have to contribute to political parties. It is absolutely reasonable that there be a limit on how much businesses or individuals can contribute. However, too many politicians across the board in this House and the Government are falling into the trap of confusing the maximum any individual should be allowed to contribute by way of a political donation with the maximum that could or should be spent on an individual candidate. This section addresses this issue and lays down maximums. The amendment concerns a fraction of the maximum spend that is to be attributed to the local party.

Why is this a problem? It is because we live in what purports to be a parliamentary democracy. We have a constitutional provision that allows people the rights of freedom of expression and freedom to associate. The very essence of elections is that individuals have the capacity to communicate directly with the electorate, unfiltered by the media, to put across their policies and personal positions, thereby allowing themselves to be identified as candidates in the eyes of the electorate. Thus, the electorate can understand the individuals' associations with their political parties and, if the candidates are independent, the electorate can be made aware of this. Ultimately, it is a question of the electorate getting to know about the person it might vote for and the policies he or she supports. That is the very essence of a constitutional democracy, regardless of whether one is an independent candidate in a local election or a general election or whether one is a member of a large party or, as is the case with the Minister, a small party.

We are doing damage to our parliamentary democracy for the sake of political correctness. It is a form of political correctness that is, to some extent, being supported by certain journalists within the media who never stand for election and who have an opinion on everything but are not accountable for anything.

The limits and the legislative measures prescribed in this section uniquely serve the parties in Government on the occasion of an election, and particularly serve the parties in Government during local elections. It is blindingly obvious why I am saying this. It is a question of limiting the spend of an individual candidate on trying to get his message across when standing for democratic election. What will happen during the course of the forthcoming local elections? Will the Government stop issuing press releases? Will the myriad of consultants, advisers and personal attendants associated with the offices of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and all the other Ministers stop issuing press statements and documents about Government policy? Will they be limited on their spend? Will the public relations spin doctors, on whom the Government, including the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, has spent millions, take a vow of silence in the 60-day or 90-day period before the local elections? Will they stop spinning the benefit of so-called Government policy initiatives? Will they stop giving Ministers advice on how to get across to the public——

See this speech in context