Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)

There is no harm in bringing forward reform in pieces, particularly when one considers that it is only summer and we have already done quite a lot. It is to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government's credit that we are putting the Bill, which is a mechanism of reform, through the House in order that by the time the next general election takes place, the legislative position will have been amended. It took courage to bring this legislation forward. The Government could have waited but it did not do so. It decided to act. That should stand as the hallmark of the current Administration. When Senators and Deputies canvassed during the recent election, the word "change" was on the lips of almost every member of the electorate. Change is easy to discuss but extremely difficult to introduce. Even the smallest of issues attract opposition. Not least among such issues is that which relates to reducing the number of Deputies.

I welcome the speed with which change is being introduced. We are all too acutely aware of how important change is to those who voted in the general election. Senator Paul Coghlan referred to the fact that people wanted change and were keen to see it occur. It is difficult to find ways to facilitate change. In such circumstances, the move to reduce spending on presidential elections is welcome. Let us be honest; it costs money to become involved in politics. A few moments ago there was a little girl in the Visitors Gallery who was wearing a T-shirt with a big red heart on the front of it. Perhaps she will run for the presidency one day. The truth is, however, that if she has a great deal of talent and no money, she will not be able to gain election. Money is one of the biggest barriers to becoming involved in politics. Any reform we can introduce in the context of reducing the amount of money that can be spent on elections is welcome. Reform is particularly welcome in the spirit in which the Minister intends it, namely, that the Government must show leadership at a time when there is little enough money available and that it should take all necessary steps to ensure that spending is reduced. I welcome what is being done in this Bill because money is a barrier to people moving into politics, particularly as it costs money to gain election.

I am not naive enough to suggest that candidates can gain election in the absence of funding. The latter is simply not possible. It costs money to travel throughout one's constituency or around the country. The electorate must decide whether, in the future, candidates should travel about in battle buses and use rosettes, balloons and confetti during their campaigns - as is the case in the US - or whether they should continue to adopt the more basic approach which has obtained up to now. We are slowly developing a process for the running of elections which is becoming more Americanised. Every time we do that we are acquiescing to the idea that running an election is extremely expensive. That is a cause for concern. I welcome the fact that this proposal will reduce the amount candidates can spend in an election and perhaps bring us back to a more basic form of campaigning. Having said that, candidates have a responsibility to ensure the electorate is well informed. People who present themselves for election to public office are obliged to inform the public of their intentions and what they stand for. We must bear in mind that meeting that obligation costs money.

Reform in this area has been introduced in a piecemeal fashion. The Standards in Public Office Commission sets the rules regarding the conduct of elections, but those rules are retrospective in that there is no policing of expenditure during the course of an election. That is a problem because although the limits are set, there are some who breach them and find ways around them. There is no way, for example, that a concerned member of the public can report such breaches at the time they are made. The Standards in Public Office Commission does not perform that role. Although it is probably not possible to make provision for such a role in this legislation, it is something we might consider at a later date.

I welcome the proposal to ensure by-elections are held within six months of a vacancy proposal. This sensible amendment to the existing legislation will prevent the type of political point-scoring that occurred last year and ensure Government parties cannot defer a by-election for the purpose of shoring up their own parliamentary strength. Such behaviour is an abuse of the Constitution.

The proposal to reduce the number of Deputies in the Lower House is welcome. Contrary to the generally held view, it may well be the case that in a European context, Irish voters are neither under nor over-represented. The data can be interpreted in many different ways, but we are certainly not as out of step with Europe as some would have us believe. When one includes Senators and councillors and the personal way in which politics is conducted in Ireland, it is clear that one is never far from a public representative. We need to reduce the number of public representatives in total. This legislation is the first step in a process which should also include reform of local government.

It is has been argued that a reduction in the number of Deputies will mean there is less likelihood of the Executive being held to account. That is true, but it is a far cry from suggesting that the reduction will give rise to insufficient numbers of Deputies to perform that role. While it is a very important task, the fact that there will be fewer Deputies does not mean it cannot be done. On that basis, it is a rogue argument.

The point has also been made that there will be fewer Deputies to perform important parliamentary work, particularly committee work. However, the reality is that less is usually more, with smaller groups often showing greater efficiencies than larger ones. People find ways of being more efficient when their numbers are reduced. That type of efficiency will ultimately lead to more work being done. Although it is always difficult to tell a certain group of people that their numbers will be reduced, as is happening often these days, we will achieve more efficiency, in this context, through a reduction. It will undoubtedly cause problems for sitting Deputies, but no Deputy owns his or her seat. If we genuinely want more efficient and cost effective governance, a reduction in the number of Deputies is an important step in achieving it. Greater efficiencies will be found and there might even be an increase in the output of work from the Oireachtas. However, it is important that the reduction is implemented fairly and that equitable representation is ensured across the country.

I thank the Minister for facilitating the speedy passage of these welcome proposals through the House.