Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for a comprehensive outline of the provisions of the Bill. It was almost longer than the Bill itself but it spells out clearly the intention of the Bill.

Fine Gael supports the general thrust to introduce spending limits for candidates in local elections. The Bill comes late to the House, however, because it has not yet passed into law and we are only ten weeks from the local elections, a cause of concern to local authorities. Candidates, parties and local authority staff must be informed of their obligations under this Bill. The Minister of State mentioned the sanctions that can be imposed on candidates who do not comply and they are serious so it is important everyone involved in the process is given time to find out their obligations under this Bill. The Department and the local authorities must send the information out as soon as possible.

Fine Gael agrees with spending limits. I have been involved in local elections in the past and some people spent huge amounts. I could not understand why people went to such trouble, elections are about knocking on doors and meeting as many people as possible, not the amount of money spent. Statistics around the world show that the more money a candidate spends, the better the result so perhaps there is a contradiction there. It is all about communicating the party's message to the electorate, that is fundamental in any democracy and we must strike the right balance.

That is the challenge the Minister faced when he introduced this Bill. We should not restrict democracy in any way, or the number of candidates that might want to put their name forward for election. That would be unhealthy in any election, be it local, general or European. The fact that people are interested in putting their names forward for election should be welcomed and they should be facilitated in every way.

For areas with a population in excess of 32,500, there is an expenditure limit of €15,000. That is appropriate but I have heard concerns expressed about large rural areas. I live in a new electoral area in Waterford which has six seats, the Comeragh electoral area, and it covers half of the county, divided by mountain ranges, with vast rural areas to be covered by the candidates. There are also two large towns and a number of small villages. It is a wide area to cover but going by population the candidates in that electoral area will have a maximum spend of €9,750. There are many miles to cover and many roads to be postered. The Minister has attempted to strike a balance when setting these limits, we will see how it goes in these elections, but he should have an open mind to see if adequate coverage by candidates is reached in rural areas. It is a concern.

The larger areas need more resources and higher limits because there are more people to reach, but they are more condensed spaces. In larger towns much of the coverage can be achieved using shoe leather. Rural areas have been neglected in many policy areas and I do not want to see them being further marginalised because people do not have the resources to communicate their message to the people there.

There is a table of expenditure limits that will apply according to population. We will wait to see how things pan out in the coming local election. There should be a report to the Minister or the committee after the election to see how the expenditure limits operated. That would be no harm because we need to inform ourselves continuously.

I wish to comment on some other points that are contained in the Bill, including how parties can incur 10% of the spending limit or an alternative amount that is agreed in writing. That is a fairly open statement which leaves many avenues open. I know the total expenditure accrued by candidates is restricted, but I understand this provision allows parties to extract a percentage from each candidate for national campaigning. The Minister of State might clarify that point. Candidates in general elections have allocated a percentage of their expenditure to the national party for national campaigning. That facility is required and must be provided for, so I acknowledge the inclusion of such a provision in the Bill.

On a wider issue, we must not put barriers in the way of candidates who want to run for election. One of the biggest barriers in the past was what might be termed intimidation by expenditure because a new person entering the political field saw the vast campaign resources available to existing councillors, TDs or Ministers. Prior to general election campaigns, before the period of expenditure is accounted for, I have seen Government Ministers produce glossy brochures and booklets on all they have achieved. These ten or 20-page brochures went to nearly every house in the constituency but this over-expenditure is very unfair. It is not counted because it falls prior to the date from which permitted electoral expenditure is assessed.

I have also seen large billboard signs being erected and campaign lorries for Ministers going around their constituencies. Independent or Opposition party candidates tried to compete with that in the past, but it was not a level playing field. It meant people with potential who could have genuinely offered representation locally or nationally were intimidated by that amount of expenditure.

It will be interesting to see how many glossy brochures are produced at the next general election. Many of them may be fired back in a Minister's face because of the Government's lack of achievement and the waste involved in producing such brochures. It is important to discuss such matters because that is what turns people against politics. The Bill makes a genuine effort to have a more level playing field whereby people of modest means can put their names forward and stand for election. They have every right to do so and should be facilitated.

I acknowledge the Minister's consultation with the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, of which I and Senator Glynn are members. The Minister sought the committee's views on expenditure limits, which were diverse but at least he listened and was willing to acknowledge them. In addition, it was important to seek the views of elected members through the local authority representative associations. I acknowledge that the Minister consulted them in preparing the Bill.

In recent weeks we have seen how democracy can function in time of strife when our economy is under pressure. Many people — some for genuine reasons because they are under serious financial pressure and others with more cynical motives — may try to undermine our democracy in various ways. Recently we saw how this House has been seriously undermined by journalists and other media commentators — people who in my view probably know very little of what goes on here. I saw some Senators on national television at the weekend rightly trying to defend much of the good work that is undertaken in this House. On the other hand, I saw journalists getting national TV coverage for five minutes on a soap-box. These are guys who, I recall, wanted to legalise cannabis among other things. I wonder where the genuine motive is in a lot of this. I believe in democracy with elected Members representing the people and various sectors of society.

While Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann constitute the National Parliament, local elections are every bit as important. I would hate to see the day when politicians of whatever party or hue were vilified in the media or society generally. These people represent society, including families, workers and communities. It is a sorry day when one sees the media attacking democracy. It should not happen. The media should grant democracy more respect. Potential candidates who may have been considering running for election prior to the last few weeks might now ask themselves why they should canvass on the doorsteps when politicians are being vilified like this. I know the general public are more reasonable, however, and will debate with candidates on the doorsteps. The views of all candidates who put their names forward for election should be respected. The people will have their say on polling day and will decide who represents us locally or nationally.

In the past, election postering has been quite controversial and can be a reason for hitting politicians over the head. Posters may be erected before the prescribed time and at local level candidates and parties try to beat each other by introducing all kinds of strategies. There is a role for posters because candidate recognition is important, especially for new candidates. It is all very well for established candidates who are well known in the media, including newspapers, radio and television. If new candidates are to enter the field, however, which is what democracy is about, they will require an element of recognition. Posters play an important role in that respect, including leaflets and any other canvassing mechanisms that get the message across either for candidates or parties. It is important to have such facilities.

I acknowledge that the Bill permits spending levels high enough to allow an adequate level of postering in various constituencies. It gives new candidates a fair chance. Many posters are now made from plastic corrugated board, whereas in the past they fell off poles as they were made of cardboard. They were a nuisance then as they caused litter. Posters are now of a better standard, but if party workers or candidates do not remove them promptly they can be there for a long time. In that respect, I welcome the fact that people can be prosecuted if their posters are not removed within the specified time limit. Posters are an essential item in elections and while parties and candidates make a genuine effort to remove them, they often operate with limited resources.

By chance, I found a use for my old posters when I met a delegation of boy scouts who were planning a jamboree. They asked me what I was doing with my old posters and I said they were stored away. They then asked me if they could use them for camping, walkways and placing under tents. I agreed on the understanding they would not dump them illegally afterwards. In fairness, they did not do so and have used the old posters continuously. That is one way of recycling posters, but the Government should examine other ways of utilising them.