The Electoral Act 1997 was designed to place limits on spending by politicians and political parties at election time and also established disclosure limits for political donations. The spirit of the Act was indicative of a culture at the time whereby people could spend endlessly. It introduced a monetary element into a campaign which was unfair and, in many quarters, unacceptable to reasonable people. That is the reason this legislation was introduced. Unfortunately, over two or three years ago the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, ably supported by his Progressive Democrats partners in government, increased the amount of money a candidate could spend by up to almost 50% in some cases in their electoral areas and raised the disclosure limits on corporate donations. This could suit only Fianna Fáil as a political organisation which at election time has a significant advantage over its opponents due to its ability to extract funding from the corporate sector. This highlights its ability to attract donations. In the light of this one does not have to wonder why there is a hospitality tent erected at the Galway races to pay financial homage to the largest political party. The marquee goes up, those who run it tout and then expect others to pour in. This is where much of the money is raised.

This type of spending, extravagance and exorbitance does not apply to all parties. It is exclusive to Fianna Fáil. The Taoiseach has played a consistent role on the issue, ducking, dodging, avoiding, stopping off for the quick photo call and the wink at the photographers but never staying around long enough to answer questions in detail about this very serious matter. The Government has seized the report by the SPOC in a sinister way to mandate it to change existing limits. The report does not allow or mandate the Government to reform spending limits. It more or less highlights the converse.

The Taoiseach's assertion last week that wealthy candidates and millionaires could have unlimited funds in advance of an election is bizarre, to say the least, given that when Deputy Noel Dempsey was Minister for the Environment and Local Government, he blocked attempts by the SPOC to include all pre-election expenditure and related activity under the Act. This was an issue that received a lot of attention at the time. The Government refused point blank to look at the situation as would have been required by the SPOC at that stage. We all know the consequences. Only the expenditure incurred following the dissolution of the Dáil was taken into account which allowed Fianna Fáil, and its leader in particular, to invest in selling a flawed message to the electorate.

In most large population centres, drapes on buildings showed us the adorable face of the Taoiseach and that now infamous phrase, "A lot done, more to do". This type of electioneering is expensive. The Government refused to include expenditure in the period up to the calling of the general election as it knew full well the advantages available to it as the Government whose prerogative it is to call an election. Only the Government and the Taoiseach knew the date and were thus able to exploit this advantage to the full with mass leaflet drops, advertising in the newspapers, on drapes, posters and billboards, and not one brown cent had to be accounted for. That is an interesting aspect of the last general election. Everybody, everywhere, knew that the Government took full advantage of that knowledge.

The SPOC knew that this did not make any sense and at an early stage stated there was a difficulty because it seemed that some Dáil candidates were distributing literature in advance of the general election being called and did not have to account for it. That was wrong. At that stage the then Attorney General, now Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, and the then Minister for Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, advised that there would be no change in the law. This demonstrates an arrogance that could come only from a Government which exploited its position to the full. It could come only from an organisation as large as Fianna Fáil which depends so heavily on the corporate sector to finance its electioneering.

The report tells us that in all 56 candidates exceeded the limit. By any standards, this was not a great surprise and did not raise many eyebrows because the Supreme Court judgment, which came as a result of an action taken by defeated general election candidate Mr. Des Kelly, arrived so late that campaigning proper had probably ceased as it was one or two days before polling day. Since publication of the report the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, has signalled his intention to overhaul election spending limits. He has said he wants a fully transparent and accountable system that would be clearer, more concise and easily understood by all. He also says there are complexities in the current system. One does not need to be an Einstein or a rocket scientist to know that the only complexities in the current system are that Fianna Fáil is excluded from spending over the prescribed limits. It has to operate within the same parameters as every other political party but that does not suit because it does not want to stop at the prescribed limits. It wants to spend, spend, spend.

Last year one of the disappointing elements of the campaign was the auction politics which the Taoiseach and the Government introduced creating a new low in Irish politics. One of the hallmarks of Fianna Fáil electioneering then is now inscribed in the annals: buy people's votes. That was a major part of the election strategy: spend money, taxpayer's money in many areas, as much as it could raise because it was the only party with the ability to raise it, and then insult the electorate by attempting to purchase votes. That is sinister and disingenuous because last year, as we all know now with the benefit of hindsight, the money was spent on a manifesto founded on a tissue of lies. The full extent of those lies is being felt on a daily basis as almost every week there is a mini-budget telling us where the next cuts will be, the next hospital that will have to close beds. The people in power originated this and put a price on democracy, something that cannot be measured.

That is what the Government did last year: it put a price on electioneering, thereby putting a value on democracy, which is priceless, to pursue a campaign based on the philosophy that the more that was spent, the more votes were bought and the more the people were fooled. One of the most bizarre comments on the SPOC report has to be the Taoiseach's remark that "the system at the moment is designed to make sure that in the years ahead the House will be full of millionaires and that is a bad system." Most know that is not the case. Last year's system ensured only parties supported by millionaires would do well and the party with a reputation for support from those millionaires is Fianna Fáil. This endorses what the Labour Party and other Oppostion parties have been saying, that Fianna Fáil is the only party with the ability to attract this type of funding.

Looking at the report of the SPOC one reaches the conclusion that an average of €33,380 was spent on each Fianna Fáil candidate, a large sum by any standards. It must be a great source of pain to the Taoiseach and his allies in government when there is talk about real transparency and accountability in how we spend money during elections but principally in the period leading up to the calling of an election because the Government has to be aware that it is making a mockery of the Act.

It must also be stated that the Electoral Act 1997 has been chipped and carved away at since the Government, in its previous incarnation, took office in that year. That is pathetic and also grossly unfair. The people who expect good politicians and accountable and transparent political institutions deserve better than this. I call on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Cullen, to retain the current limits and, furthermore, to introduce legislation to regulate expenditure in the period leading up to a general election. It is absolutely vital that this period be taken into consideration because, it is not, the current system would be allowed to prevail. That is not right because people are making a mockery of the Act. Faith and public confidence in the political system are vital and of paramount importance to the body politic. The Government should show a good example.

It was my great privilege to work with the former Minister of State, Eithne Fitzgerald, who introduced the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and later the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Electoral Act 1997 were the first parts of a framework of legislation designed to modernise our democracy and put a fundamental principle at its heart, namely, to protect it and to break a link – in the public mind and in reality – between business and politics.

Even before the tribunals had uncovered the full extent of the relationship between business and politics, it was evident that the link between the two would have to be broken because the relationship to which I refer was having a negative effect not only on the political system but also on public confidence in it and on the public perception of political decisions, particularly those made by the Government and its Ministers. There appeared to be widespread agreement at the time that there should be a clear separation between business and politics in order to sanitise decisions. In this way, the public could have clearly seen that – in terms of the transparency of decisions guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act 1997 – a decision had not been influenced by any interest that a Minister might have or any representation made to him or her.

We thought that being able to list the donations that a Minister or any other public representative were receiving and their details of their interests might be sufficient. However, my view on that matter has changed. It is not enough to know that a politician has certain interests or to be aware of the details regarding any donations he or she might receive. It is more important to ensure that, for example, political donations are not being made to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who has power to make decisions, wield influence and introduce legislation. In the past year, the Minister declared a very high level of donations – the highest, I believe, of any Cabinet member. He received donations from, for example, Sisks and other companies in the construction sector in the same year that he changed the social housing provisions of the Planning Act as a result of lobbying carried out by the building industry. I was concerned about that because, in the public mind, questions are bound to be raised about whether the Minister was influenced by the donations he received. Why would a business, a company or an individual make a donation of large amounts of money to a political party or to an individual politician?

The argument has been put forward that big business wants to protect and support our democracy, but it just does not stand up to scrutiny. It is clear that any big company making a donation to a Minister does so to gain access to or lobby them and obtain a favourable response. That is why the tent at the Galway races and the Taoiseach's annual fundraising dinners are so well attended. It is because he is the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil are in power. Business interests want to be close to those in power so that, when decisions affecting them are being made, they have the inside track because their donations place them in a favourable position. That is fundamentally wrong; it makes our democracy rotten and totally undermines the independence of decision-making. The Minister can come and swear black and blue that he is not influenced by whatever donations he might receive, but the public will simply not believe that. To use a common phrase, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

My second point concerns something the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government said last week in response to the report and the issues arising from it. He stated that the Labour Party wants the taxpayer to fund the political system. I have two things to say in regard to that matter. First, in case the Minister had not noticed, the taxpayer already funds the political system. Taxpayers fund our salaries, expenses, office allowances and so on, and that is a very fundamental part of our democracy. It is a good thing. Ultimately, the taxpayer is the voter and, in the interests of transparency and accountability, taxpayers should be able to see what we public representatives spend of their money. Under the Freedom of Information Act 1997, they are fully able to do so. I always welcome the publication of such information, because members of the public are entitled to know how their money is being spent.

The Minister seemed to be suggesting that the huge donation Fianna Fáil received and the huge amount that it spent on the most recent election would somehow be coming from the taxpayer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fianna Fáil splurged massive amounts of money in the run-up to the election from the donations that it had received. It would be far better and healthier to have a legislative framework where only the taxpayer paid for the election and the run-up to it, controlling everything in that context. There should be a ban on political donations. Unless such a ban is introduced, there will always be questions in the public mind about who is the piper, who is paying him and who is really calling the tune.

(iii) that the Minister intends to review the provisions of the Electoral Act 1997 with a view to maintaining a fully transparent and accountable system which will be clearer, more concise and more easily understood in the interests of the public, candidates at elections and political parties."

I join Senators McCarthy and O'Meara in commending the work of the Standards in Public Office Commission. I have been in contact with that office which has been very helpful to Members of both Houses, particularly those who were candidates in recent elections.

In recent days the commission released figures on expenditure by candidates during the 2002 general election. At first glance it appears that some candidates, including me, spent more on their campaigns than they were entitled to but there is a clear explanation for this which relates directly to the findings of the High Court on 16 May 2002, the day before the election. The High Court overturned the guidelines for what could be deemed an election expense but the judgment was delivered on the eve of the election, by which time campaigns were concluding.

The judgment related in the main to expenses arising from any service or facility provided for me by virtue of the fact that I was an elected representative. This is true of other Members also. Prior to the judgment, candidates from all parties and their election agents were entitled to assume that the rules on spending were as set out in the relevant legislation and reflected in the guidelines published by the commission. Any overspending in my case – I was €1,500 over the limit – was inadvertent. There was no wilful act on my part which could be interpreted as not being in compliance with the guidelines until the High Court judgment on the eve of the poll. On that basis, no overrun could have been foreseen by me or the commission, a position it accepts entirely

The 2002 general election was the first to be conducted with full financial disclosure by candidates. The confidence this provides for the electorate is an essential safeguard for our democracy and legislates for public affairs in Ireland being conducted in an open way. However, it is now clear that problems have arisen with the complexity of existing legislative provisions in this area. The commission report refers to a number of these complexities, with practical difficulties being experienced by candidates and political parties in attempting to comply conscientiously with the legislation's requirements. Against this background, I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has indicated his intention to review the present system in order to improve its transparency and simplicity. Broadly based consultation involving all political parties and colleagues on these matters is desirable. This is being initiated.

Public understanding of the electoral system is paramount. We need to provide a fully transparent and accountable system which will be clearer, more concise and easily understood for the benefit of the public, candidates and parties. The guidelines laid down by the commission were very clear to us as they stated that any payment, service or facility provided for a person out of public funds or moneys provided by an institution of the European Community or other intergovernmental organisation to which the State was a party, pursuant to specified legislation, by virtue of the person being a representative in the European Parliament, a Member of the Dáil or Seanad, the holder of a qualifying office or position, the holder of an elected or other public office or a member of, delegate to or representative in a body established by or under an agreement or arrangement to which the State is a party, was not an election expense. The guidelines also stated the free postal service was not deemed to be an election expense in the May 2002 general election.

The High Court judgment which overturned the guidelines on what could be deemed an election expense was delivered on 16 May 2002, on the eve of the general election, by which time candidates' campaigns were concluding. The commission clearly stated it would not be appropriate to refer a file to the Director of Public Prosecution where, specifically as a result of the judgment, it was found that an overspend had occurred during the general election. In arriving at this decision it had regard for the fact that the High Court decision was delivered on 16 May, the last day of the campaign. Prior to this, agents and candidates were entitled to assume that the rules on spending were as set out in the relevant legislation and reflected in the guidelines published by the commission.

In making its decision the commission was mindful of the fact that it was a defence against prosecution for overspending that a person could not reasonably have known that he or she had incurred election expenses above the statutory limit. It decided that if an overspend was incurred specifically as a result of the judgment, it would not be recommending to the Minister for Finance that the amount of the overspend should be deducted from the reimbursement of election expenses payable to the candidate or from the Exchequer funding payable to the political party.

Senator McCarthy referred to the guidelines laid down. The limits are €25,394.76 in a three seat constituency, €31,743.45 in a four seat constituency and €38,092.14 in a five seat constituency. I speak for many colleagues when I say have no problem with these limits. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would have more than one candidate in each constituency – it would be unusual for Fianna Fáil to have just one candidate like other parties such as the Labour Party. Although the limits are acceptable to me, this is still a difficult situation. A candidate can mention running mates on his or her poster and vice versa. As such, one is supposed to account for this in the financial returns for what it is worth. The work of an agent can also cause problems as generally in Fianna Fáil as there is one agent for three candidates. If a candidate spends money the agent does not know about, there may be problems in getting the figures on paper for the commission. We should look at this situation.

I am glad with the Minister's comments on transparency and openness and agree with Senators McCarthy and O'Meara that this should not just be an issue during a campaign. We should look at the whole period a Government is in office, one to four years, and examine spending during it. We should not confine spending limits to the three or four weeks of an election campaign.

Such transparency is self-perpetuating, but in the area of election spending, despite commendable and tireless work by the Standards in Public Office Commission, the complete picture in respect of the amount spent in what is known to have been the most expensive general election ever will never be revealed. That begs the question as to whether buying votes will ever be acceptable, the answer to which is negative. It leads us to the harsh reality of financial input into an election needing to be strictly regulated. Money is undoubtedly the key to election success, but, when it comes to the weight which tips the balance, it is time to address the situation as a matter of urgency. It comes as no surprise that the Government, in planning to overhaul electoral spending, proposes to increase the limits rather than place stronger controls and stricter limits on the amounts that may be spent before and during an election campaign.

With or without freedom of information – without is more probably the case – we know that the €9.24 million spent in the lead-up to last year's general election only refers to the three weeks prior to its being held. Even then, we are told that 56 candidates, including the Taoiseach, breached spending limits and broke the laws of the land. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen – I wish he was here this evening – who topped the list of political donations in 2002, said that, on one hand, he wants a fully transparent and accountable system, while, on the other, he is on record as wanting to scrap spending limits during election campaigns. What accountability would there be then?

The same Minister had a 12 page election document floated in his constituency six months before the general election.

With the possibility of parties with excessive amounts of money at their disposal bypassing legislation and spending vast sums of money before an election has even been declared, it is imperative that controls are tightened. It is also important to emphasise that there is no case for increasing the already more than generous amounts which candidates are permitted to spend. With Fianna Fáil purportedly spending at least as much in the three months before the Dáil was dissolved in April 2002 as it declared for the campaign itself, it appears that the party has no need for increased limits but that it rather needs to put its house and that of others in order. Otherwise, in the Taoiseach's words and as Senator McCarthy stated, the Dáil will be full of millionaires who, in my opinion, will have bought their way in on the back of ever-increasing financial donations.

Last year's general election was the second to have taken place since the introduction of the Electoral Act 1997. It was, however, the first election to which the full provisions of the Act were applied. These relate to disclosure and limitation of donations and the limitation, disclosure and reimbursement of election expenses.

Over a number of years, the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government has, one assumes in its own interest, continually attempted to erode the provisions of the Electoral Act 1997. The former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, increased the amount that could be spent by candidates by 45%, while raising the limits for corporate donations. He also prevented the Standards in Public Office Commission from including pre-election spending under the Act. Subsequently, only expenditure following the dissolution of the Dáil was considered and this led to a financial power-base influencing the election. In other words, there is big money out there which is buying elections.

When the going got tough and the Government began to feel the heat, it shamelessly railroaded through changes to the Freedom of Information Act. Is it now to be permitted to scrap the accountability of properly structured election spending limits under the guise of reform?

When will people have had enough? This Government's record of manipulation and duplicity is well known and documented, but it still continues to escaped retribution. Are we now to ignore the lack of need to increase the already generous spending limits and open the door further to candidates wishing to buy their way into power? We must obey the principles of the 1997 Act and ensure fair play for all who wish to become involved in politics. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, with their millionaire financial backers, were never happy with this Act and the amendment to the motion is further evidence that they are doing their utmost to undermine its future. I reject the amendment and support the motion.

If we ever get to the perfect world that Senators would like where everything is measured and everything is laid down, they will find that some of us operate in different ways. In canvassing and raising one's profile in the constituency it is not all about money. As a backbencher until last year I often felt aggrieved that other people seemed to get enormous publicity. It is impossible to turn on the television or radio without hearing or seeing certain candidates in the Senators' party, perhaps including their current leader.

A second area, which I suggest might be reviewed, concerns the requirements relating to political donation accounts. An amendment to the 1997 Act made in 2001 provided that a member of either House of the Oireachtas, an MEP, a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European elecion, a political party, a third party engaged in political activity or an accounting unit who or which receives, in any particular year, a monetary donation of €126.97 shall open and maintain a separate political donation account in a financial institution. We all know the procedures on that which have become rather cumbersome. It makes perfect sense when there are big contributions going in, but we now have to start recording, which creates a lot of paperwork. If someone gives you €20 it has to be recorded. That has become ridiculously complicated. It has got away from the original idea of what we were all trying to do. We should reconsider all this fuss of trying to get bank statements. The bank statement I put in this year was sent back because it was not made out by the bank in accordance with the law, etc. The date was not properly shown, or some fiddle faddle. These things were all well intended and are fine if one is lodging thousands of pounds, but when one is only getting something petty, that whole area needs to be reviewed.

A third area is the donation disclosure limits which have not been changed since 1997. The real value has decreased in the intervening years with the CPI increasing by over 20% in the period. Also, the maximum permitted donation limits may require review, especially when there is more than one national poll in a year. For instance, a second national election might be required soon after an inconclusive general election or a referendum in the same year as a general election.

There was no political consensus for the election expenses regime introduced in the 1997 Electoral Act. If there had been consensus, then the detailed legislative requirements and other provisions to ensure compliance might not have been necessary. The present regime is too technical and bureaucratic. A good example of this was the need for the commission to issue a 58 page book of guidelines at the 2002 general election. Then we found out the day before the election that the guidelines were wrong, according to the interpretation of the court. It was a good idea in principle to try to control what was spent and to see where it came from, but we really ought to talk sense and stop having this sort of nonsense, game playing and stupidity. We should address the problem and see what we can do about it. I am not surprised that people exceeded the limits. Maybe I should not make any admission but I do not know if anyone in the country ever fully read the 58 pages of guidelines. The whole thing is ridiculous.

There are three other areas which need review following last week's publication of the 2002 general election expenditure. The 1997 Act provided for all election expenses incurred at any time before the issue of the writ. Are we to measure what is spent in the three weeks of an election campaign or a longer period? In the UK they regard the period of expenditure control as lasting for 365 days. It is a case of how we do it. It would be wrong just to measure expenditure on leaflets and to ignore other people's exposure through airtime or whatever. There is a whole area to be looked at. The rule needs to be examined and the best way of doing that is in co-operation with all the political parties.

Expenditure limits will need to be reviewed for a number of reasons, including the consequences of the Kelly case, inflation since limits were set, a review of the definition of "election expenses" and the need for realistic limits in order that candidates or their agents do not need accountants to track every minor expenditure item to ensure the limits are not exceeded. Many believe the emphasis should be on transparency, not just nit-picking. I am not surprised by this. I heard Senator Kitt state he was one of the 56 who had exceeded the limit.

If there was a general election tomorrow or next month, I would probably exceed my limit before publishing one leaflet because my assessment would take into account rent, light and heating costs, probably not just in respect of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but also in respect of the other Department at which I am Minister of State. I would probably have to pay Dublin 4 rent in Mespil Road also. It would not matter how often I would see the place. It is nonsensical. What chance would anybody have in such circumstances? The rules need to be changed according to the principles of common sense.

When the legislation was introduced, I was concerned that we would need to reflect on third party expenditure, for which there was no limit. I am thankful that this has not yet become a serious issue. People spend money advertising themselves, their parties and policies but it sometimes happens in other countries that people on the other side engage in negative campaigning. It seems crazy that we are strictly measured in terms of what we spend promoting ourselves, yet other fronts or organisations can spend whatever they like trying to destroy us. I sincerely hope that, whatever about people promoting themselves to the best of their ability, considerable sums are never spent on negative campaigning. That would be a very sad day.

This issue is very topical and presents an opportunity for us to air our views and examine the complexities and the practical difficulties experienced by candidates of political parties in attempting, as best they can, to comply conscientiously with the requirements of the legislation. The Minister who is unwell and out of commission for a few days has written to the chairman of the commission seeking its views on the working of the Electoral Act 1997 which I look forward to hearing fairly soon. I would like to see a simple, concise regime that is easy to implement for all concerned.

I was a candidate in the last local elections which were run according to a system that has much to recommend it. One could spend what one liked provided one declared it. Candidates are probably the best policemen of the system because, if I saw somebody else declaring that he or she had spent €3,000 or €5,000, although I knew in my heart and soul that he or she had thrice the amount of literature I had, I could query it. I do not think anybody had any complaint. It is not necessary to have 58 pages of guidelines, detailed receipts and accounts for €20, etc. While we certainly need to have controls on the amount of money spent, more importantly, we need to see where it came from. One does not need total bureaucracy. Now that the issue is topical, I urge all Senators and parties to try to make sensible inputs into the review which is to take place in the Department.

I agree absolutely with the Minister of State that we should examine the issue of third party spending, in the light of the fact that there was a very vindictive campaign against me during the last election. This has always been the case to some extent and there is nothing one can do but accept it. Even on previous occasions, I had difficulties with pro-life groups, subject to no controls, campaigning actively against me and spending huge amounts of money.

The public loves to read in the newspapers the list of 56 who were over the electoral spending limit. However, it would be useful to get rid of the 58 pages of guidelines and begin by ascertaining who gave how much to whom and on what was it spent. Furthermore, I would ask how much is left over and request to see the audited accounts. This would involve asking Senator O'Toole where he got the money to run his campaign and making this information available on a list. Since I first stood for election in 1981, I have always kept an account of my spending – I am not saying I am cleaner or better than anyone else – to make available the figures concerning those who supported me. It always cost me more money than I ever liked admitting to but I always included this. Given that Senators on the university panels have 100,000 constituents worldwide, I could not have run my last campaign within the limits. Luckily, the rules that apply to Senators are different from those that apply to Members of the Lower House, although some past Members of that House are now Members of the Seanad. It should be noted that each of the 56 who exceeded the spending limits were in the Lower House. If somebody knows that Senator Ross receives support from some of the upper-class or moneyed classes and that Senator O'Toole gets support from the mere trade unions, that will be of great help to that person in judging the kind of support that can be given. It is a matter of making certain information available to the public.

I also agree with the point made, in proposing the motion, on when the period should begin. It is impossible to do this and I defy anyone to tell me otherwise. When asked about this during the campaign, I stated that, on the previous occasion, everybody knew there would be an election within a certain number of months. There is no way one could write the legislation at this time.

I am a Kerryman and learned at a young age to drive a coach and four through most legislation. It does not take an absolute genius to work out ways around any form of words. It is about openness and transparency, although I hate using those PC words because they make one a hostage to fortune. It is important to recognise that.

There is also the issue of hospitality, buying a round of drinks in the pub. If a person is canvassing and goes to the local pub, shakes hands, looks for votes and his supporters buy a round of drink for the house – it is not bought by the candidate or the campaign committee – there is no record of it, nor can there be. One cannot keep the mice out in this one. There are ways through every part of it. I would prefer an approach where there was a common objective to present a sense of clarity. For that reason I ask the Minister to consider it. An easy way would be to hand it back to the Houses and set up a joint committee to look at it, on condition that its recommendations would be decided on the basis of a qualified majority. That means it is not Government, Opposition or Independents but a considered, thoughtful process. If we cannot agree to that, which could happen, the Government would have to take over. At least it is an opportunity to approach the matter in a positive and creative way. In both Houses, whereas Members are in Government for a period and in Opposition for a period, there must be a common objective.

We had the result of the Kelly case on the last day of campaigning. This resulted in a fundamental change in how the Act was interpreted and in a huge burden being imposed not only on the commission but on the candidates and their agents. The commission admits it encountered difficulties with the procedure for contacting election agents. In some cases it was obvious to everyone that not all concerned were sure what an agent was or of his or her statutory duties and responsibilities. It had problems in getting clear information from the candidates and the returning officers in regard to the agents. The instruction literature, as the Minister of State said, was a 58 page document. I think that was the first volume; we received a couple of volumes during the election campaign. It is understandable that these things happened. While the instructions were not complicated, they were bulky and contained a large amount of information. It is easy to understand how somebody could unintentionally miss an important point or instruction through human error.

There were also problems where, for example, there was a change in agent in the course of the election. Where this occurred, under the Act, the onus is on the returning officer to notify the commission of the change but in some cases the returning officer was not notified and, therefore, could not provide the correct information. In its report, the commission states that some returning officers were not fully aware of their responsibilities. I am sure that was unintentional but it points out the anomalies.

Another point that struck me when reading the report was the restriction imposed on groups and individuals not supporting a candidate or party. In its report, the commission cites 15 cases where it considered that election expenses were incurred, totalling €50,665. These ranged across the spectrum from support for the homeless through a worthy and well-known support agency, to the students union encouraging its members to vote against Fianna Fáil. It did not do them any good but it made interesting reading. In his review I ask the Minister to look at this area and, perhaps, to firm up on it.

The 1997 Act was amended in 1998, 2001 and twice in 2002, giving us the No. 2 Act. Given that it has been in operation throughout all types of elections – local, general, presidential, European and referendums – the review is timely.

The commission's report was delayed for a number of reasons but mainly due to a lack of understanding. For example, it took until 11 February to obtain returns from the 463 candidates and one is still outstanding. That took at least three further contacts from the commission after the statutory deadline of 20 December. A large number of returns were of poor quality and required the commission to rework many of them. This work is still ongoing. I am convinced this is not done intentionally in the vast majority of cases. However, it is not right and something will have to be done about it.

For many years there has been concern about the lack of public understanding of the political system. If the candidates or their agents have problems in understanding this system, how can we expect the electorate to understand it? It only adds to people's cynicism about politics in general. This Minister's attempt to simplify and make the system fully accountable and transparent can only be welcomed.

When the legislation was introduced it was not envisaged that it would become more about the rules and regulations than the openness and transparency that we all recognise is required in this area. I agree with Senator O'Toole. I do not like clichés but, unfortunately, when it was introduced in 1997 openness and transparency were the qualities highlighted.

Politics as a profession is changing rapidly. In this age of technology and mass communication, we have to be in a position to provide a modern and efficient service to our constituents. I welcome the debate on how we do this. The Minister is correct to initiate this debate now. I have no doubt when all the views are gathered from all sides, as the Minister has said he will do, any changes made as a result will improve the Act and ensure that the electorate get a clear and honest system that everybody understands.

Unfortunately, some of the parties opposite still live in the past. Once the word review is mentioned, automatically the euro sign appears before their eyes. It is not all about the spending limits but the workings of the Act. Earlier another Senator mentioned the Galway races. There is an in and out door on the tent in Galway. Unfortunately for some union members they have no choice as to where their contributions go. On this side of the House we ensure people have a choice.

My key point is that all the Ministers were over the election spending limit in last week's figures because of their private offices. I have argued for a long time that the use by Ministers in their private offices of vast sums of public money for constituency and party political purposes is disgraceful. This practice has been built into the system of all parties, no matter who has been in Government, in recent years. Ministers have a substantial number of civil servants working directly to their constituency office and dealing directly with constituency issues. This is an unhealthy development which we need to stamp out quickly. Most Ministers would not have been over the limit last week were it not for the fact that they had to take into consideration the amounts of public money spent on their campaign during the three weeks of the election campaign.

There is a simple way to get around this. The House of Commons closes down on the day an election is announced and nobody can get into it for three or four weeks. That practice would sort out the problem for us. Equally, Cabinet Ministers' offices and Ministers of States' offices should be out of bounds to them for the three or four weeks. None of the Ministers' officials should deal with any constituency queries during that period. It is grossly unfair that public money is used to fund Ministers' campaigns. We have seen this happen in recent years on all party fronts, my own included. The way to stop this practice is to close Departments for use by politicians of those Departments for the three or four week period of the election. We should also close down this House for that period. This would resolve the problem.

There is huge pressure on politicians to raise money as we go into a general election. We all hate fund raising but ultimately we have to put our shoulders to the wheel in our constituencies to raise money for our parties. Keeping a limit on election expenditure ensures that politicians will spend less of their time raising money and more of their time dealing with constituents and the issues of the country.

The Government should not increase the election spending limits when it conducts its review. It must look at the idea of having a cap or of including in the assessment of election expenditure a greater period of time before an election is called. This must be considered.

The reason businessmen give money to political parties is that they expect something in return. There is no doubt about this. They would not do it otherwise. People in public companies have a duty to their shareholders and would be dishonouring their shareholders if they were not getting something in return. What they are doing is giving some sort of sophisticated incentives to people to do as they wish. Anybody who believes that AIB and Bank of Ireland and CRH, with their records, were giving money to political parties of all sorts because of their devotion to democracy is naive and innocent.

We must resolve the problem of people giving money to political parties. They will always do so if they think they will get something in return but will not give it if they do not. One of the problems of our present laws is that there is some sort of limit, €4,000 I think, beyond which a person must make a declaration. Why is the limit not zero? I cannot understand why all of us who stand for office should not have to disclose every cent we get, not because there is something wrong with receiving a donation, or because there is any prurient interest in it, but because it lets people know where we are coming from and admits the sort of pressures we feel.

I admit that I have received little money from anybody. However, I have received some small amounts from time to time. To be honest, I feel this as a pressure when that person – I do not believe I ever received money from a company – comes to me after an election and asks if I could do this or that etc. regarding a Bill or whatever. I feel a real pressure because I remember the person gave me €50 or €100. The problem is not that they will not contribute to me again but a person feels a human and emotional obligation. People do buy favours and political returns.

What we must do is decide how to regulate this area. The optimum system is that most of the money should come from public funds. We will never be able to impose total equality on this because people will fundraise and should be able to do so. People will bypass the system without breaking the law. Systems of funding political parties are virtually impossible to police. While the present controversy can be quantified in terms of Government Ministers having spent public money on their elections, other things cannot be quantified.

We can quantify what Government Ministers spent and it is deplorable, although all parties have probably done the same. It is easy to say that in Opposition and it is easy to say something is wrong even when one has actually done it oneself when in power. It would be better if conclusions were reached through all-party agreement. God willing, Labour and Fine Gael will return to power one day, although Fianna Fáil will remain in power for a long time.

At the same time, political parties are voluntary organisations and it is not right that all contributions should be banned. I would like to believe all Members from all sides of the House are people of integrity. Some 99.9% of the work we do is on behalf of people who have made no contribution to us whatsoever. Some of the hardest work we do is on behalf of people and organisations to which we have made a contribution like, for example, the theatre in Carrick-on-Suir. I do not accept that we work harder for those who have given us a small donation, or even bodies which have nominated us, than we do for others. It depends on the merits of each case.

There was a great deal of wasteful spending. In the 1989 general election Fianna Fáil poured millions of pounds into newspaper advertisements. However, I remind Senator McCarthy that in the last general election Fianna Fáil undertook practically no national newspaper advertising. That was a good thing.

I wish to move away from this idea of a benevolent business community supporting democracy. I am fascinated by the different portrayals of business. I understand business quite well since I teach people who work in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, perhaps one of the most successful groups of multinationals. I know a little about how international business works. They do not do benevolence, rather they do self-interest and do so very well. In many cases, this drive toward self-interest by many companies is also good for society, provided it is regulated. Competition can often generate innovations which often generate benefits for society. To pretend that industries driven by self-interest and companies driven by shareholder benefit and value contribute to political parties because they have a sudden attack of benevolent commitment to democracy is naive in the extreme.

Before it is said, I know that SIPTU contributes to my party and do not pretend it does so for the benefit of democracy. It does so because it believes a strong Labour Party in power is good for working people. However, other parties, particularly on the Government side, will pretend that when they get large donations from the building industry, it has nothing to do with the perceived interests of the industry and take grave exception when it is suggested otherwise. It is naive on the part of those members of Fianna Fáil who believe it, and profoundly disingenuous on the part of those who know better, when we are told that the decision to essentially fillet the provision for social and low cost housing in the Planning and Development Act was taken for purely benevolent reasons, not because the party was to a degree beholden to the building industry.

The truth is that business contributes to political parties because it believes it can get something in return. I will not elaborate on the list of benefits that can accrue but some are worthy of mention. They include the reluctance to do anything about the hoarding of building land; the reluctance and delay in doing something about the price of housing when people were being crucified by rip-off prices in order that certain people got rich; and the decision to reduce capital gains tax at a time when the property market was booming and the last thing it needed was the stimulus of a reduction in the tax.

In the view of many, these decisions are not entirely separated from the clear perception of most in the building industry that Fianna Fáil is the party which will look after it. That is not new. There has been a long-standing tradition that the industry sees Fianna Fáil as serving its best interest. It is nothing less than spectacularly naive or profoundly disingenuous to pretend that it does not see it in that light.

Perhaps advertising is one of the biggest industries in the world. It does not spend all that money to no purpose. Advertising and good marketing work, as does positioning in the marketplace. Money is needed to do this. Some of it can be done during elections but much can be done beforehand, through activities such as focus group work or soft focus marketing. It all costs money and it is not all spent in the three weeks of an election campaign. That is the reason we are entitled to be suspicious when the Minister says accountability and transparency are the issues, not the level of expenditure. Again, that is disingenuous or naive.

Between what was spent locally and what the party spent nationally, my expenditure during the last general election campaign totalled approximately €18,500 in a five seat constituency. It was enough. While I have no problem with honest attempts to simplify the process, I have difficulties with attempts to masquerade a process as simplification when it amounts to a filleting exercise. This happened with the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which filleted the Government's accountability under freedom of information. It left other bodies unaltered but created a new secretive regime for the Government.

While I have no problems with an intelligent look at the complications of this process, I have a profound difficulty with a decision to reverse the principle that we are spending enough on elections. Since the electoral law was changed and expenditure on by-elections severely restricted, Fianna Fáil's record in by-elections has been totally different from what it was.

I am not an apologist for Fianna Fáil, but I do not see anything wrong with having a tent at the Galway races. If people wish to enter the Fianna Fáil tent, in public view, at a Galway race meeting and let everyone know they are associated with the party, that is fine. If it is out in the open and becomes public knowledge, I do not see what is the difficulty.

In accordance with the motion before the House, I am totally opposed to raising the limits on election spending. The Government is eroding, in practically every area, the legislation that the Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left coalition introduced to bring about accountability, transparency and honesty. In that context, one need only look at the recent hatchet job the Government performed on the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The same is happening in respect of election expenses.

I agree with the motion before the House. No matter what attempt is made to pull the wool over the eyes of the people in respect of this issue, they will continue to be aware that they were deceived at the last election. They will not buy spin anymore.

The Independents do not get any grants from political parties and must rake up the money themselves. I do not mind doing this. In 1982-83 there were three elections and I did not get a seat. The only substantial donation I received was for the election in 1987, when I was elected. It was £500 and the person who gave it wrote to me in the last couple of years saying he would never vote for me again or contribute in any way because I supported former Justice Hugh O'Flaherty when he was in difficulty. I considered the judge a decent man. I read the Hamilton report and it seemed to go a long way in exonerating him. I said as much and the fellow who had given me the £500 said he would never do so again. I will have nothing to report, therefore, in future.

It would be a mistake to disadvantage people. It is most unusual for me to stick up for Ministers but occasionally I do so. There is constant talk about ministerial cars and offices. What do they want the Ministers to do? Do they want to shove the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance into a tent on Leinster Lawn, as somebody suggested, and not allow them to have a motor car?

Tá

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators McCarthy and O'Meara.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.