December 2007 - Presentation to Joint Oireachtas Committee on the role of the Standards Commission at elections

4. Dáil general election of 2007

In accordance with section 4(1) of the Act the Standards Commission furnished a report to the Ceann Comhairle on 13 December 2007 concerning Donation Statements and Election Expenses Statements received by it in relation to the Dáil general election of 2007.  In accordance with section 4(5) of the Act this report must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The report, which gives details of donations disclosed and election expenses incurred, also makes a number of recommendations as to how the Act might be improved.  After the 2002 Dáil general election, the Standards Commission was invited by the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Martin Cullen TD to furnish its views on its experience of supervising the Act.  These views were set out in a report, Standards in Public Office Commission Review of the Electoral Acts 1997 to 2002, which was sent to the Minister in December 2003.  That document set out a number of recommendations both general and specific as to how the legislation might be improved.  None of these recommendations were implemented.  The Standards Commission encountered many of the same difficulties with the legislation at the 2007 general election as it had at the 2002 general election.  Accordingly many of the recommendations contained in the review document of 2003 also feature as recommendations in its report on the 2007 election.

The report discloses reported election expenses of €11.08m.  300 candidates qualified for reimbursement of election expenses totalling €2.64m. Donations disclosed by unsuccessful candidates amounted to €0.53m.  Donation statements from successful candidates are due to be returned by 31 January 2008 and statements from political parties are due by 31 March next. If trends evident in recent years are maintained, then the total disclosed by these statements will amount to less than €0.3m. It is not apparent to the Standards Commission, or to the general public, therefore, how the parties and candidates finance their election campaigns.

Some of the main recommendations contained in the Standards Commission's report on the 2007 Dáil general election are as follows:

• The proposed establishment of an Electoral Commission, as set out in the current programme for government, affords an ideal opportunity for a complete review of the Act. Other reports from the Standards Commission have pointed out that there is a strong case to be made for a new approach to funding of political parties, for increased transparency in such funding and for greater scrutiny of party expenditure.
• As the body with responsibility for supervising the Act, the Standards Commission should have a statutory role to review the operation of the Act and report on its findings.
• During the election there was considerable evidence of and much comment about pre-election spending by parties and candidates.  This expenditure was not required to be accounted for if the materials were not used during the election period.  There are legitimate concerns that such "front-loading" of campaign expenditure undermines the effectiveness of the expenditure limits and may create the perception that accounting for expenditure at elections is little more than a paper exercise.  The Standards Commission recommends an election period of 2/3 months duration and considers that expenditure on goods, property or services used for electoral purposes during this period should be subject to the statutory expenditure limits and accounted for.
• The Standards Commission considers it imperative that an offence be provided for failure to open a political donations account when required to do so.
• The use of public funds for electoral purposes is a major issue which requires to be re-evaluated and clarified in consideration of future changes to the electoral law.  The provision of such clarity should be within the ambit of the electoral code.
• The term "election agent" as defined in the Act is causing confusion among candidates and should be amended.

Back to contents