Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Nuair a bhí mé an-óg ar fad bhí a ainm i measc na hainmneacha a d'aithin mé, i dtús báire i toghcháin áitiúla agus ansin in olltoghcháin. Is cuimhin liom go raibh páirt beag agam i roinnt de na feachtais sin, ag cabhrú le colcheathar liom. Ag an am sin, ní raibh aon teorann leis an méid póstaeir nó ní raibh ard caighdeán ag baint leis na póstaeir sin. Ag deireadh na seachtóidí bhí an chuid is mó díobh dubh agus bán agus iad déanta as páipéar. Nuair a thiocfadh an bháisteach, ní bheadh mórán fágtha le feiscint. Tá póstaeir an lae inniu nua-fhaiseanta i gcomparáid leis na laethanta sin. N'fheadar conas ar éirigh linn ár córas polaitiúil a bheith againn gan na rialacha seo ar fad, ach d'éirigh linn. Mar sin féin, tacaím leis an prionsabal lastiar den Bhille seo agus leis na moltaí ann don chuid is mó.

I welcome the Minister. The core principle we should always have in mind when dealing with electoral legislation is the need to achieve a participative democracy. We live in a time when there is much scepticism towards institutions of various types. In fact, institutions have had to take their turn as, one by one, the media, perhaps the most unaccountable of all institutions, turned their attention to them. Often the scrutiny of these institutions, be it the church, banks, politicians or political parties, has been necessary and has brought matters to light which needed to be exposed. However, there is always a danger at a time of scrutiny, particularly when the scrutiny is active and occasionally harsh, that the necessary scepticism that people should sometimes have towards institutions can tip over into an unhealthy cynicism. That is certainly the case to a considerable degree with regard to politics and politicians at present. I believe that is a very bad thing.

It is, of course, legitimate for people to be critical of politicians and of the political process. My colleague, Senator Coffey, referred to the debate about the Seanad on the national airwaves in recent days. To a degree that debate has been healthy and positive. However, and because it is their profession those who are involved in politics are required to know a little more than the average person would, one often feels that many of the criticisms of politics and politicians miss the point. In the context of the Seanad, for example, there is a certain amount of pub talk creeping into the debate, where people call for its abolition and criticise the "mercs and perks", although the "mercs" do not apply in this House, when they should really have a more searching debate about where reform would be a good thing. That debate could be very dramatic but it needs to be led, and led well, by people in the media in particular to facilitate the public by identifying the hard questions, as distinct from the obvious, attacking questions. There is a difference between the two. The reason I say all that is because I wish to return to the point about the need to promote a civic culture and a participative democracy at a time when there is a danger that the many problems we face and the many disappointments that people have endured at the hands of bankers, people in finance, Government and politicians could cause them to descend into a kind of cynicism that would not be healthy for our democracy.

I was reminded of that in the debate about the Seanad. What we need is more parliamentary scrutiny, not less. We have seen how social partnership did not protect us from becoming very uncompetitive to the detriment of us all. More scrutiny at parliamentary level of social partnership and how it was operating would have been a good thing. By the same token we need more active local politics, especially at a time when people are concerned about social unrest as a consequence of the economic crisis, when they are talking about the fracturing bonds of community, and of people being more alienated from each other. All these issues point to the need for active local citizenship. There are many ways to be an active local citizen and the work of many voluntary organisations is to be commended.

Done for the right motives and in the proper way politics, local or otherwise, can be one of the most noble of activities. People need people to mediate for and assist them, not just in the achievement of their rights but in addressing their core needs. That is why everything we do politically should be aimed at strengthening our political system and increasing the number of people in our community who respect politics in principle and who give consideration to whether they are called to be in politics, either by putting themselves before the electorate or, just as importantly, being the right-hand people who assist politicians and who bring influence to bear in that way. That is the context in which the Bill is particularly important. Despite the criticism of politicians and the political process we need more active participation in politics. It is important we seek not just candidates but quality candidates.

I give a cautious welcome to the Bill. I would prefer an approach that tends towards freedom and non-regulation in this area, in so far as that is possible, for democratic reasons. People have a right to private property and they have a right to use their financial and other resources to advance their viewpoint within society. People consume in all kinds of ways using the resources at their disposal and there is an argument, which is not absolute and is subject to its limitations, that people should, in so far as is possible, be allowed to employ their means in the pursuit of their political objectives, whether that is in terms of their own election or in the advancement of causes or candidates who will promote the kind of ideas in which they believe. That is a self-evident truth.

A balance is needed in all that because we do not want a situation where people effectively buy elections. The balance is achieved in a number of ways, the first being by limiting the amount of money people can spend in elections. I welcome that essential point. However, that in turn must be balanced against not making that absolute in regard to time. It is fine and proper to have a period of 50 days or 60 days when there would be limits on expenses. I believe amendments were tabled in the Dáil by the Labour Party — but I am open to correction on that — that proposed an extension of the time in which people would be subject to limitations on their expenditure. If that is the case I would consider that unhelpful, not because I want to see the rich person thrive and survive at the expense of the rest but because of the principle, which is perhaps even a constitutional one in terms of the constitutional right to private property, that people would be allowed to engage their resources in advancing either their own cause or a cause in which they believe.

The Bill does not address certain anomalies. In first principles I welcome the idea that for the first time we will have limits on local election expenditure for a certain time period. One anomaly is the whole business about how and to what extent donations have to be declared. That is covered by the 1999 Act and, in so far as I can recall, provides in terms of local elections that people have 90 days to make a statement of their expenses and donations. One does not have to declare the identity of the donor for donations below the limit of €635. That leaves us with a rather unreal situation. I am speaking in general about political donations. I am sure it has been said in the House that people can collect any number of donations below a certain limit and not have to declare them as long as they come in under €635 but if they collect donations above that threshold they have to declare them all. It seems to me that this may be a recipe for potential corruption, albeit at a small level. For example, in the organisation of race nights people are invited to buy masses of tickets which would put their contributions far in excess of €635, but that is not declarable. I accept this is a system that is difficult to regulate but we should never ignore the anomalous situations that may arise once we try to regulate.

There is a need for transparency to be the key word. I do not mind how much money people spend on their election campaign as long as we get to know exactly what they spent and the source of their campaign war chest. In that regard it is worth noting that in legislation we should draw a distinction between campaigns and causes on the one hand and political and electoral campaigns on the other. It strikes me that a person who wants to donate to a particular political cause should not necessarily – I am open to debate on this – have their privacy unduly interfered with. To a certain degree, people should be entitled to donate anonymously, but such donations must come under much more scrutiny when it comes to local, national and European elections campaigns and referenda. I would warn against excessive intrusion into people's property rights and into their right to privacy in so far as donations to causes and campaigns are concerned. That said, I accept the principle that there must be necessary transparency for elections and referenda.

I wish to comment briefly on the role of the media. One of the reasons some people would be fearful of being too prescriptive on spending limits and limits on donations or that people would be very concerned about any system that would ban electoral donations completely is that invariably power goes somewhere else when one does that. Our media, which are very strong — a good thing in many ways — but also very unaccountable, can then be selective in terms of whose cause and what cause they seek to champion. One of the antidotes to that is that people have the right to employ their resources to some degree in the advancement of their political views, ideas and preferred candidates.

I wish to speak about postering and there are two brief issues I wish to mention. One relates to the date. The Bill proposes to provide that in the case of local elections there can be no postering for either 30 days before the election or the period of time between the election date being announced and the election day itself, whichever is the shorter. Is it wise or proper to limit the dates on which people may poster to that degree?

I am concerned about litter, but I am also concerned about generating public interest in the electoral process. We should allow a generous amount of time for people to put up posters in advance of an election and should not just see these posters as some kind of a nuisance with which we must live. In my travels to various countries I have found it a pleasure to visit a country in the middle of an election campaign and to see the different styles and approaches and how politicians in different countries present themselves to the electorate. Perhaps that is the political anorak speaking. I am concerned about excessive restrictions. Would it not be better to provide that posters should be allowed to be displayed for the maximum period, between the announcement of the election date and the election or 30 days, whichever is the longer?

I note the Bill does not seek to interfere with the seven-day limit for politicians to ensure posters are removed. I am a completely disinterested party in this regard, given that election posters are not and will not be part of my election campaign. However, is the seven-day limit excessively narrow? I am not casual about litter, but posters generate interest in the election process. In the case of electronic voting, for example, the drive for regulation and modernisation of the system completely overlooked the social and cultural value of having elections followed by long counts — sometimes painful and worrying counts — that generated interest in the process among the public. For the same reason, we should not be too restrictive about the dates allowed for people to put up posters. We should also be generous in giving them adequate time after the election, to use a phrase from another context, give them a sufficient reflection and recovery period, to allow them to retrieve their posters. Then, if they exceed that more generous limit, we should hit them with all the necessary penalties. Is the Minister open to some tweaking in those areas?