Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Notwithstanding that we are taking all remaining Stages of the Bill today, will the Minister of State consider asking his officials to draft an amendment to try to streamline the Bill and make it more user-friendly? This is the reason I make the request and to remove any ambiguity. There is a reference in section 4 to a date not less than 50 days and not more than 60 days. Will the Minister of State facilitate a break between Committee and Report Stages to ask his officials to amend the section to give a specific date and clear timeframe to anyone reading the Bill? This would remove any ambiguity and allow the Bill to be streamlined and made more user-friendly. It would make it easier for the ordinary person to read and understand the legislation. The Minister of State should remember that there will be many candidates who will have to comply with the Bill, who will be busy with electioneering and campaigning, and who will wish to comply with the legislation which, it appears, will be in place after today. Will the Minister of State consider the proposal to set a specific timeframe of either 50 days or 60 days? Support would be forthcoming from this side of the House were he to do so.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 4, to delete "shall incur" and substitute "may apply to their election expenses".

The amendment has been tabled to remove any ambiguity with regard to the wording of the section, which states that where a political party authenticates the candidature of a candidate at a local election, the party shall incur ten per cent of the amount of the election expenses. We on this side of the House believe the term "shall incur" is a rather strict one to use. Will the Minister of State consider amending the wording to read "the party may apply to their election expenses ten per cent of the election expenses" to which that candidate is entitled? It allows a little flexibility and removes the strictness of the term. The wording seems somewhat strong so perhaps the Minister of State would consider the amendment for this reason.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the earlier point made by Senator Coffey, the Minister will make an order in respect of the number of days. We have provided in the Bill for between 50 and 60 days, as the Senator mentioned. The reason these parameters have been set is to ensure the policy is set in primary legislation. If no upper or lower parameters were set, the Minister of the day effectively would have an unfettered ability to set the spending limit period by order and, in theory, could act against the spirit of the legislation. I assure the Senator the Minister will make an order in respect of the number of days.

In responding to the amendment, it may be beneficial if I outline in greater detail the intention behind the provision contained in section 4, which deals with the allocation of a portion of a candidate's spending limit for the use of the national agent of a political party. As is the case with Dáil and other election codes, the spending limits for local elections will apply to individual candidates in the first instance. However, unlike the spending limits which operate for other electoral codes, candidates nominated by a political party will be deemed to automatically allocate 10% of their spending limits for use by the party's national agent at national level. For example, a party candidate with a limit of €7,500 will be deemed to automatically allocate €750 for use by his or her party. There is no provision to allow this figure to be varied upwards or downwards by written agreement between a candidate and the national agent of his or her political party.

The maximum the national agent of the party may spend will be the sum of the amounts allocated by the individual candidates. This can be spent nationally or within an electoral area and the national agent may also authorise a designated person locally to incur a portion of the expenditure that has been allocated to him or her.

Under the current arrangements for Dáil elections, when candidates allocate a portion of their limit for use by the national agent of their party this must be done in writing. Given the number of candidates involved in the local elections, this approach would create significant administrative difficulties and would be unwieldy to the point of being inoperable. A position will therefore apply whereby 10% of a candidate's limit will be deemed to be allocated for use by the national agent. This will allow sufficient latitude for political parties to fund their election campaigns at local elections. An option is also available to vary the amount, although this would have to be done in writing.

It is envisaged that written agreements would follow a similar form to those used at general elections where a candidate or his or her agent can apportion part of his or her spending limit to the national agent of his or her party. The wording of the Bill as it stands achieves the objective I have set out and has been approved by the Parliamentary Counsel. I do not propose, therefore, to accept the amendment.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his response. While I understand his position, clarity is required on this issue. For example, in the event of a candidate standing for election to both a town and a county council, how will the 10% figure be calculated? Will the candidate allocate to the national agent 10% of the total expenditure limit or 10% of the larger of the two limits?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In such circumstances, the candidate would allocate 10% of the combined figure to the party's national agent.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, are cognate and may be discussed together.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, line 3, to delete "7" and substitute "10".

The purpose of the amendment is to extend from seven to ten days the period within which candidates must remove election posters to avoid prosecution under the Litter Pollution Act. Polling usually takes place on a Friday or at the weekend and is immediately followed by the count. Many staff and supporters of election candidates are involved in these activities, which are fundamental elements of democracy. Those involved in election campaigns are also involved in the important function of attending post-election counts. Given that voting takes place at weekends and counts take time, it would be reasonable to facilitate candidates who have been through a tough campaign in the name of democracy by giving them ten days to remove posters.

Candidates who have worked to promote the interests of their local community and parties would not allow their posters to remain up beyond the date prescribed in legislation. If the seven-day requirement stands, they will certainly do their utmost to meet the requirement but it would be reasonable, at a practical level, to extend the period to ten days to take account of weekends and counts and to give candidates an opportunity to mobilise their election teams to remove posters.

Candidates, whether defeated or successful, who have campaigned hard, visited homes throughout their respective communities, dealt with many issues and been through the trauma of a count must drag themselves and their teams out after the election to remove posters. The proposal to extend from seven to ten days the period within which this must be done to take account of the weekend which normally follows an election and counting arrangements is a reasonable one. It would be fair to give candidates and party activists more time.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I address the amendment, I will address a point raised yesterday by a number of Senators, including Senators Buttimer and Hannigan. The issue of whether the cost of removing posters counts as an election expense will be addressed in guidelines which will shortly issue from the Department. However, the removal of posters after polling day will not be considered as an election expense for the purpose of making a declaration of expenses.

On the issues raised in the amendments, the current exemption from prosecution enjoyed by exhibitors of posters for elections or referenda for a period of up to seven days after the poll provides an adequate and reasonable time to allow for the removal of posters. It is not proposed, therefore, to accept the amendments.

I fully recognise the important role posters can play in informing the electorate and raising awareness of upcoming polls. The Litter Pollution Acts 1997 to 2003 clearly recognise that election posters are an essential part of the electoral process. Section 19(7) of the Litter Pollution Act provides an exemption from prosecution for exhibitors of posters for elections or referenda provided these posters do not remain in place for longer than seven days after the poll. This legislation has been in place since 1997. The proposed amendment to the Litter Pollution Act stipulates that it will only be a littering offence to exhibit election posters if they are in place outside the time limits specified in legislation. This is necessary to control postering to ensure the litter problem does not arise in the first instance.

In the autumn of 2008, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, held a public consultation in respect of the control of election postering. Of the 117 submissions received during this consultation period from politicians, local authorities, community groups and members of the public, only one included a recommendation to change the time limit allowed for candidates and parties to remove posters following a poll. Non-compliance with this requirement has been one of the main sources of complaints received by the Department in respect of the exhibition of election posters during recent elections and referenda.

It cannot be considered an onerous task for election candidates or parties to ensure they remove posters within one week of polling. The litter legislation places responsibilities on all parts of society to ensure they contribute to keeping Ireland litter free. The provision on election posters will ensure the activities of the polling process do not have a negative impact on the country in this regard.

It is clear from previous polls that posters can be erected quickly. Therefore, it is not clear to me why the removal of these same posters can be a much more time-consuming task. I do not consider that political parties or candidates are being asked to contribute more than that required from all citizens to ensure Ireland remains as free from litter as possible.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of clarification and before we finalise this part of the legislation, when I asked the Minister of State a question on Committee Stage regarding the 10% incurred by the party, he said it was a percentage of the combined total. Is that 10% of the total of the town council and the county council or all of the county council and one quarter of the town council? The Bill states: "Where a candidate contests an election for both a county council and a borough or town council, the election expenses which may be incurred by or on behalf of the candidate in connection with his or her candidature at the election shall be the limit appropriate to the electoral area in the county in which the candidate is nominated plus one quarter of the spending limit appropriate to the electoral area". I raise this query to clarify the Bill and allow for a better understanding because confusion can be caused.

The Minister of State must remember that when candidates are in the thick of elections and trying to comply with legislation, the legislation must be clear and there must be clarity in respect of these points. The last thing any candidate wants to do is to be on the wrong side of the law and we must be careful in the signals we send out in that regard. We already have an indication from the Minister of State that it is 10% of the total amount of the county and borough councils. I would like that clarified. Is it 10% of all of the county council and one quarter of the town council? That is what it appears to me but there is no clarity in that regard.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Coffey. My understanding is that it is 10% of the candidate's limit. If the limit is €15,000 plus one quarter of the €7,500, it is 10% of that limit.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for that clarification but it is a pity that it is not clearer in legislation. If it is 10% of the limit, why not state that in the legislation? I would have thought that would be a fairly simple thing to do and it would remove much of the lack of clarity about which we are talking. I thank the Minister of State for his clarification on it. I am aware the Minister is issuing guidelines to local authorities and I asked on Second Stage whether those have been published in anticipation of the signing of this Bill into law. If they have not, perhaps it is timely that the Minister would take the views of the Fine Gael Party into account to give a clear understanding to local authority officials who might be advising candidates and to give candidates a clear understanding of their obligations under law. As I said at the outset, they will have a lot on their plate. It concerns the fundamentals of democracy. They will need all the assistance they can get to try to comply with legislation because that is what they want to do but the Department and the local authorities must help them achieve that.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I again thank the Senator. The circular has gone out to local authorities but the guidelines will be sent out as soon as the Minister signs the order. That will clarify the position, especially for new candidates, in regard to the guidelines.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Even though this is a short Bill it is an important one. The amendments to the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999 made by the Bill will facilitate the introduction of a cap on spending limits for political parties and candidates at local elections. The capping of electoral expenditure is of a particular importance to aspiring first-time candidates and to candidates with limited means. A cap on spending limits will provide a level playing pitch for new candidates. The amendment to the Litter Pollution Act provides important clarification regarding the time limit prior to a public meeting, election or referendum from which posters can be erected. The importance of the Bill is reflected in the speed of its passage through both Houses in a tight legislative deadline so that it could be enacted for implementation at the forthcoming local elections. I thank the Senators for their constructive contributions, especially Senator Coffey and Senator Brady who are present in the House, to the debate on the Bill on its passage through the House. I acknowledge the work on the Bill of the officials of the Bills Office.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the fact that Fine Gael supports the Bill. We thank the Minister of State for bringing it before the House and the officials who assisted in drafting it. It is welcome that we now have election spending limits on local election candidates. As I said on Second Stage and on a number of occasions, I admire any candidate who puts their name forward for election, whether it be a local, national or European election, to represent the community from which they come. This Bill will provide a level playing pitch for anybody who wants to enter politics. Previously, candidates might have been intimidated by high expenditure from well-established or better-off candidates and might have felt they could not compete if they entered the political field. This Bill will go a long way towards addressing that.

I raised concerns in the debates regarding the expenditure limits for urban candidates versus rural candidates and asked the Minister of State to keep an open mind on this legislation and review how it affected candidates and our electoral system after the local elections which are ten weeks away. This is a Bill that will serve our democracy well. Candidates will welcome it. It is important that the Bill would be signed into law by an tÚachtarán and that the guidelines for local authorities regarding the effect of this legislation on local elections and candidates would forwarded as soon as possible because we are only ten weeks away from the local elections. Candidates will have a great deal on their minds. They will be trying to deal with issues daily and it is a difficult climate currently with the economy in its current state. The last thing they want to do is fall foul of legislation because they do not realise its full implications. Will the Minister of State ask his Department officials to engage fully with local authority officials? I ask local authorities also that they would designate a member of staff to deal with any queries from candidates because the last thing they need is to be passed from person to person in local authorities with no one knowing the guidelines or who is responsible for them.

I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing the Bill before the House. It is a step forward in our electoral process. It will help local government in general and democracy in particular.

Martin Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for the efficient manner in which he dealt with this Bill. I thank also his officials and Senator Coffey for his contribution. He always makes sensible suggestions and amendments to legislation. I agree with everything he has just said. Regarding a level playing pitch, perhaps in future we could examine the way Seanad elections are conducted with a view to putting expenditure limits on those too because it is difficult to compete in some cases. Perhaps we should ban free holidays and the like. There are many areas we could examine in this regard because that is not a level playing pitch. One could be slaughtered with one swipe on that, as it were. That is something we should examine.

I thank all concerned, particularly the officials who always come here and do their job with the greatest efficiency. This should be acknowledged in the House.