Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State and am glad of the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation. I find myself agreeing with some of the comments of Senators O'Toole and Walsh. Like Senator O'Toole, I question the spending limits. While I welcome them, I do not think they are the be-all and end-all. The Senator put his finger on it when he asked how we could put a price on text messaging or communicating by e-mail or on Facebook, or all the other modern methods of promotion. There is no way a price can be put on these methods. There is no doubt that, as Senator O'Toole said, this is media driven.

The kernel of local democracy is the election of ordinary, local people. I agree with Senator Walsh that we must simplify this legislation. This is a golden opportunity to do so. The Bill is not simple; it is very complicated. We have seen much debate over recent weeks about the Seanad and what it does and does not do. There is a good opportunity for us, as the Seanad, to simplify this Bill.

Local elections are about the election of local people to represent their areas. That has been the case since the foundation of our State and our democracy. Many Bills have been passed over recent years which attempt to put local democracy on a sound footing. For example, legislation was passed a number of years ago to ensure elections are held every five years. We have dealt with those issues and now we are dealing with election spending, an issue which, as Senator O'Toole said, is media driven. I agree with the Senator that all spending should be accounted for. There should be no problem in seeing where a person is coming from if his or her spending is documented. That is the most transparent option and the best way forward. However, I agree we should have limits. As I have said, we have a golden opportunity to simplify the Bill in certain areas which I will outline. Senator Walsh alluded to a number of them.

Some of the issues I wish to raise can be dealt with on Committee Stage. One question I have for the Minister of State is how much a political party can spend at local elections and on what this is based. Is it based on the number of candidates put forward by the political party? It is stated in the Bill that 10% of a candidate's allocation can go to the national party. Does that mean, for instance, that if a party has 600 candidates it can spend six times the amount spent by a party with 100 candidates? Does it mean that a political party at national level can spend whatever it wishes? I do not think this is spelled out in the Bill. Senator Hannigan mentioned the removal of posters. I ask the Minister to clarify whether, if one pays a person to take down posters, this is included in the overall accounting. If one pays a person after the election, is this included in one's spending?

There are a number of areas in which changes are required to streamline the process for candidates. The major political parties have an advantage in the legislation as it is drafted because they can pay for legal advice and for someone to go through the relevant documents, Acts and so on, while an ordinary individual running as an independent candidate must do this him or herself, including consulting Acts that go back to 1994. This is a ferocious challenge for an independent candidate. There is no choice but to simplify the system. We should put an onus on local authorities to draft simple guidelines in conjunction with the legislation. For example, a local authority should notify candidates of the population in its area. Otherwise there will be confusion. One candidate will be able to say he or she thought the population was different from the actual figure and spent accordingly. An onus should be put on the local authority to tell candidates the population in its electoral town council area. The local authority should also spell out simply and in detail the spending limits in its area. As the Minister has outlined, various spending bands are provided for in the legislation. Local authorities should specify the spending limit for a particular electoral area. They should also specify when the accounting period starts and finishes.

I have a question for the Minister of State with regard to the accounting period for the upcoming local elections. I can see that for future elections the accounting period will be a certain number of days or will be from the date the Minister calls the election, but does the Minister now have to make a further announcement to say when the accounting period commences? The Bill states the accounting period is to begin not more than 60 days and not less than 50 days before polling day. Will the Minister announce a particular date within that period? The Bill should be simplified in this regard and state that the accounting period is either 50 days or 60 days. Why must there be ambiguity? Why must it be a question of 50 days or 60 days? Why can the Minister not put a specific period of either 50 days or 60 days into the legislation? He should also specify that there are 30 days for postering. If the legislation specified this it would be much simpler, but as it is currently drafted there is a certain amount of ambiguity. I suppose parliamentary draftspeople do this to ensure there are complications.

Local authorities should also state in simplified terms, when sending a leaflet or similar to candidates, the allowed composition of electoral spending. How can one quantify text messaging and so forth? As Senator O'Toole said, text messaging or e-mailing could be done from outside the country and even the candidate might not know about it.

I asked the Minister about spending by national parties and the removal of posters. All of this information should be sent to every candidate on one leaflet. We are talking about seven or eight main points. I agree with Senator Walsh that any ambiguity should be removed from the Bill. The number of days for postering and for the accounting period should be specified. I propose that more of an onus to spell out the detail is placed on the local authority because we are dealing with local candidates who in some cases will not have the resources or time to go through this legislation, particularly where there is ambiguity about population, accounting periods and spending limits.

I welcome this Bill because it provides a degree of accountability. It is unnecessary, however, for local authorities to provide an annual report. Why should spending for local elections be included in the council's annual report? Some parties have still to finalise their accounts from the last referendum. If that occurred, would a local authority have to delay its annual report because one or two candidates had not furnished their details? There is no need for this to be included in an annual report, all of the information must be made available under the Freedom of Information Act and all of it is held for three years. There is no need for this provision and it should be removed on Committee Stage.

I welcome the Bill but I hope the Minister will consider streamlining it to make it more user-friendly for candidates.