David Norris (Independent)

He stated that in his view it was completely impossible for any Independent candidate to get elected because of the restrictions on nomination. The nomination process itself is not the only disincentive. For example, no one below a certain level of income or without the capacity to borrow massively is in a position to stand for this office and this debars all but a tiny minority of our citizens from seeking the democratic right to stand for President. The current system of funding presidential campaigns requires all candidates or their parties to underwrite their own election expenses. One would have thought, given the extraordinary difficulties in securing a nomination, that it would be a legitimate expectation to have at least a reasonable proportion of election expenses covered by the State. The current quota necessary to trigger State support is clearly set on the basis that only party candidates would contest and that there would be only two or three candidates in the race. In a situation such as the last presidential election where there were seven candidates, it is mathematically obvious that the majority of those legitimately contesting the election will fail to secure any State assistance. This creates at the very least an unsustainable financial risk aimed at deterring the inclusion of ordinary citizens into what is seen as the private realm of the parties.

All parties have been demonstrated to play politics with the Presidency and indeed during the last election it was widely stated by senior figures in Fine Gael that since they never had the Presidency it was now their turn. This is essentially undemocratic. The Presidency belongs to no party; it belongs always to the people. It is never the turn of any party; it is always the turn of the people. However, it is clear that the political establishment does not trust the people, at least in the matter of nomination, and believes this office should be kept the preserve of the political elite. For the purposes of this debate I am deliberately leaving to one side certain other factors that deterred Independent candidates, in particular, the attitude of the media. The discrimination against an Independent candidate is highlighted when one considers the existing two-tiered system of funding which allows political parties to accept a maximum donation of €6,348.69 per annum from an individual while an Independent candidate can only accept €2,539.48. In addition, services provided at an election by an employee of a political party are deemed not to be donations or benefits in kind, nor are election expenses incurred by a political party on behalf of a candidate at a presidential election so considered. This means, in effect, that once a party candidate has achieved a nomination, finance is automatically in place. Poster sites can be booked, material printed, etc., while the Independent candidate has merely a window of 30 days in which to achieve this impossible task.

For an Independent, prior to receiving a nomination it is almost impossible to fund raise. Funders want to know that their candidate will be in the race. This means that for an Independent there is effectively only one month in which to fund raise. The length of time required for an Independent candidate to acquire a nomination means that all services and materials are more expensive as financial commitments cannot be negotiated until certainty exists. It is clear that all the parties have acknowledged the undemocratic and unfair nature of the nomination to the position of President. Nevertheless, they have all shown an unwillingness to alter this system and they also have been party to the imposition of financial constraints to inhibit citizens of Ireland from participating in one of the most serious constitutional exercises provided by the State.

I believe this is a matter that must be rectified and the motion before the House does so in a decent and dignified manner. The motion suggests two alternatives which I think are very reasonable. One is for the Minister to bring a proposal to Government to implement the recommendations contained in the 1998 all-party report or to refer the recommendations to the constitutional convention. The constitutional convention has already been asked to consider the minor matter of the reduction of the term of office of the President and it would seem a quite extraordinary situation if the substantial issue which is that of the nomination process and of the right and capacity of individual citizens to take part in this process, were avoided in the work of the convention. This, in my opinion, seriously weakens the credibility of the constitutional convention in the same manner as the exclusion from consideration of the reform of Seanad Éireann.