Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

The principle behind section 4 is setting a timeline for election spending. After listening to the previous speaker, I am at a loss as to the direction in which this debate is proceeding. My colleagues in the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government agreed that election spending should be measured and limited. Various suggestions were made regarding methodologies for apportioning spending because it is recognised that the population bases of local election areas can differ in terms of population size. Rather than a debate on methodologies, however, I have heard a principled argument against the concept of spending limits.

It is not political correctness to impose such limits because the argument for doing so is supported by research. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service has provided Members with a report on this issue which states: "Most commentators are broadly positive of the notion of spending limits during elections". It quotes the following from a 2003 report from the Standards in Public Office Commission: "It is recognised internationally that having election spending limits in place is an important factor in fighting corruption and safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process". Benoit and March state, "spending is positively and significantly related to electoral success". This is not anecdotal comment; it is reputable research which demonstrates the relationship between spending and outcome. Our job is to put a framework on these findings.

Walecki states:

Money provides access to the basic tools of a modern democracy — for example, advertising, running political parties, selecting candidates, mobilizing voters and polling — and for this reason, political finance affects almost every aspect of democratic politics in both developing and consolidated democracies.

It is, therefore, nonsensical to claim in this House that spending levels are not related to successful election outcomes. What is the motive behind this change of position? Is it because funding tends to shift alongside changes in the polls? The Minister paraphrased St. Augustine in wanting to introduce spending limits but not yet. When a poll pulls one in a different direction, like St. Paul one falls off the horse and is converted.

While I welcome the Bill for the most part, I am disappointed that amendments Deputy Tuffy and I tabled were not accepted. Sadly, our amendment providing voting rights for the homeless has been ruled to fall outside the scope of the Bill. I urge the Minister to address this issue, whether through the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 or some other means. The disenfranchisement of homeless people is a relic of the era when only property owners had the right to vote. We have long since progressed towards a democratic republic in which every citizen is cherished and valued equally. The right to own property should not be exclusively equated to the right to vote. All people have the right to democratic participation and to register their franchise regardless of whether they rent or own property, or even if they live in sheltered accommodation. If we based registration on PPSNs, this deficit in our democratic structures could be overcome.

I cannot stress strongly enough that the issue of voting rights for the homeless is relevant to this House, even if it has been ruled outside of the scope of this Bill. It is incumbent on us to address it. We are here because people have exercised their right to chose their representatives in this House. It is not acceptable that a significant part of our society is denied that right because of a property and address related issue. I urge the Minister to find some mechanism to address this issue.

See this speech in context