Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael P. Kitt, to the House. This is a reasonably important Bill. Democracy is a tender enough flower. Other speakers, including Senator Buttimer, may have adverted to the fact that democracy is under a good deal of attack. It is unfortunate that we are probably experiencing a tsunami of negativity, cynicism and populism, all of which in their own way erode confidence and corrode politics. That is not to say that politics should not be constantly under scrutiny. It is imperative that there is a free press in a democracy. However, as with all freedoms, a free press brings certain responsibilities which are not always exercised as they should be. It is important to recognise that democracy should be accessible to all sections of society and to every citizen, regardless of means. I welcome the Bill, which is an attempt at levelling the playing pitch in that regard. It is important that it does so, but it is equally important that the limits set are sufficient to enable candidates to convey their message and promote their candidacy. This assists the electorate in coming to its decision on who it wishes to have as its representatives. It is an honour to be elected and to represent the public, whether in a county council, the Seanad, the Dáil or the European Parliament. That honour brings responsibilities and it should also bring accountability, which it does through the ballot box on a regular basis.

I have some reservations concerning the structure of the Bill. I advocate keeping it simple, but the Bill before the House is not as simple as it could be. We should recognise that councillors are not resourced in the main. They do not have secretarial backup or office administration available, unless they have sufficient means to provide it from their own resources. We should recognise this, which is another argument for keeping it simple.

Some councillors have asked me if they must keep track of every envelope sent out or every stamp bought in the two month period and the answer is "Yes", which is ludicrous. It puts an onus on people to maintain a level of administration which is unnecessary if the objective is to keep a level playing pitch, to keep things simple and allow people to promote themselves. I do not see why expenditure could not be limited to areas of literature which promotes the candidate and to advertising on posters.

I ran in many local elections as the Cathaoirleach, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael P. Kitt, and the Senators on the opposite side of the House have done. There are areas in which the expenses incurred can skew the process. I have seen people with very high profiles who incurred expenses by using vehicles and advertising lorries. People can execute a widespread high quality postering campaign. Such campaigning can skew the process and, therefore, it should be examined. Whether someone sends 1,000 envelopes with 1,000 stamps is immaterial. We have gone too far in this regard. I see no need to have a stepped expense regime. This may follow from the system for Dáil elections under which different expenditure levels are set for three seat, four seat and five seat constituencies. It is not necessary to gear expenditure limits to population in local elections. City wards and county council electoral areas tend to be broadly similar in size. It is the competition in the ward or electoral area that necessitates an injection of funding to promote the candidates. While I do not have a difficulty with the amounts, whether €15,000 or €7,500 in the case of town and borough corporation areas, I cannot find a good reason to tier expenditure limits, as proposed in the Bill.

As Senator Buttimer correctly noted, knocking on doors on the campaign trail and convincing those one meets that one is the candidate to represent them frequently yields the best results. Nevertheless, literature also be an important and influential factor in election campaigns, particularly now that is has become more difficult to reach people at home. In the period of full employment it was very difficult to reach people unless one confined the canvass to tea time or shortly afterwards to ensure one captured people at home. This difficulty may have eased.

On the amounts proposed as expenditure limits, a proportion of the set amount is allowed as a deduction if one belongs to a political party. This needs to be factored into the system. It is appropriate that information technology, including websites and so forth, are excluded from the expenditure amounts. Obviously, candidates will work on their websites and gear them up for election prior to the date on which the expenditure limit period commences. Those who are skilled in information technology will have their websites available to them while serving as councillors and the expense will not be incurred in the 60-day period. It is correct, therefore, that new candidates, as opposed to councillors, should not have the cost of establishing a website counted as expenditure.

The legislation has the hallmarks of being drafted by people who have never run for election and does not appear to have had an input from elected members. I agree with Senator Buttimer's point that it is meaningless to apply a 60-day period. While it may catch people in the forthcoming election because they will not have expected limits to apply — they will commence in early April on this occasion — as is done in the case of general elections, the bulk of election expenditure in future local elections will be done in the months prior to the date on which the 60-day period commences. For this reason, I suggest applying a longer period of perhaps 120 days. I also suggest simplifying the overall expenditure limit by introducing a figure of €15,000.

If a limit of 120 days were to be imposed, an acute anomaly would arise. The €30,000 or €35,000 expenditure limit for a five-seat constituency in a general election is restricted to the date from which the election is called, which is 21 days prior to the general election. In recent times, as Parliaments have run their full five-year term, sensible politicians have spent the bulk of this sum in the period six months prior to the election. The procedures for expenditure should be as simple as possible and should be easily understood by candidates running for election, particularly new candidates who are not au fait with many aspects of elections.

There is also an inherent risk that someone will inadvertently breach the legislation and find himself or herself hauled over the coals. In the event that he or she has been elected, his or her electoral success may be jeopardised by virtue of having, perhaps technically, breached the terms of the legislation. Such persons will find themselves in a sticky and awkward position. The provisions on election expenditure should, therefore, be made simple.

I seek clarity on one or two technical points on which I am not certain from reading the legislation. Under section 4, in the new Part IIIA, section 12A(1)(c)(ii) states: "The election expenses which a political party may incur under subparagraph (i) may relate to expenditure in the electoral area concerned, or otherwise". I am not sure what is meant by the words "or otherwise" in this connection. I assume they mean that if a political party spends money on a national advertising campaign which does not relate specifically to an electoral area, some proportion of this expenditure will be attributed to each electoral area. I ask the Minister of State to clarify this matter. How would this amount be determined in the context of different constituency sizes, expenditure limits and so forth? While I can understand the reason a deduction would be made in such circumstances, what would be the position on expenditure limits in the event that a general election and local election were to coincide? Would the general election and local election limits be combined? In that case, given the much higher expenditure limits applied in general election campaigns, to what extent would such a measure inhibit the ability of local election candidates to spend on their campaigns, particularly when the parties at national level may try to take a much larger proportion from the candidates involved?

A proper balance must be struck in the legislation. We need to promote democracy and ensure the pitch is level for everybody. Politics should be accessible to everyone, regardless of means, but we should also ensure expenditure limits are set in a clear and easily understood manner and are pitched at a level which enables candidates to get across to members of the public their message, policies, viewpoints and the reasons they deserve support. For this reason, the terms of the Bill should be refined.