Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. As outlined by her, the Bill is narrow legislation. As such, it does not, unfortunately, provide the political reform promised prior to the last general election. There are many facets of Irish political life that need to be reformed. This Bill provides for only a small element of that reform and is a missed opportunity, particularly in light of the economic recession we have come through, the EU-IMF programme, the recommendations made in that regard and the need for political reform not only in this House but across the political institutions of this State. While Fianna Fáil does not propose to oppose this legislation, it is, as I said, narrow in the extreme and we will be bringing forth a number of amendments to it on Committee Stage.

This legislation does not modernise the system of politics in Ireland, even from the point of view of the area under scrutiny therein. I welcome that this Bill provides for a new nominating body for the Seanad Administrative Panel, the panel my colleague, Senator Wilson, represents. This means there will be an increase in the number of nominating bodies in respect of that particular panel from 14 to 15. In regard to the data in regard to the cost of doing politics not only for Dáil elections but for Seanad elections, the cost of sending out material in the context of the last Seanad election under the free post system was €1.565 million, which is a high cost. We need always to be mindful of the need for efficiencies. Very often in the public sector value for money in terms of efficiency means cutting costs rather than doing things better or doing more for less. The practice is to always seeks cuts to teacher and nurse numbers and cuts to public sector pay rather than focus on performance and effectiveness in that regard.

This legislation illustrates that there are ways of doing things better. I am sure that my colleagues from the university sector will know a great deal more about that. According to the data, the electorate on the NUI panel increased from 8,000 in 1938 to 102,000 in 2002 but this figure has fallen back since then. According to the information available to me in 2011, there were 97,000 individuals registered in the Trinity College electorate. I understand the cost of the free post system in the context of the last general election was approximately €11 million. In regard to the review of the electoral commission by the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, my colleague, Deputy Sean Fleming, who is a member of that committee has made a number of suggestions on how costs in this area could be reduced while retaining the effectiveness of the system. He proposed that rather than posting electoral literature on each candidate to each household, a booklet containing information on all of the candidates in an election be produced and delivered to each household. Much of the electoral literature delivered to households, irrespective of how important it is, is delivered along with regular post. The Department should perhaps undertake research on whether people find such literature useful given the volume of it. As I said, delivery of one booklet with the details of every candidate, irrespective of whether it is a general election or another election, would be much more effective and would save the taxpayer money. This would cut the bill for all elections. However, there has been no consideration of this proposal. What is provided for in this legislation is narrow. This legislation is incremental in terms of policy revision and it is not radical, which is what we need in this area.

The cost for delivery of election literature in respect of the last general election was €11.6 million; in respect of the last Presidential election, it was €11.2 million; and in respect of the last local and European elections, it was €11.5 million. I do not have the cost for delivery of election literature in respect of the referendum in 2013. There is a cost attached to democracy but we need to find better ways of interacting with people. The Internet provides us with a new medium through which we can engage with people, particularly in the context of the university panel. Senator Crown spoke about the inaccuracy of the database for the university sector, upkeep of which is managed by the universities. There is perhaps a need to update that system to allow that electorate to upload their email addresses and so on. We need to think outside the box instead of providing for only little changes which provide no value for money for the taxpayer. This is poor legislation in that it does not reflect the thinking of the electoral commission. There is a great deal more I could say but I will wait until Committee Stage to expand further on those points.