This is the full text of the letter from the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, to the leader of the Labour Party, Mr Ruairi Quinn:
9 March, 2001
Mr Ruairi Quinn T.D. Leader The Labour Party
Dear Ruairi,
I write in relation to your letter concerning proposals to amend electoral expenditure limits.
I think it is important that we be clear about the background to these proposals. You have been consistent in attacking us on what you hope to be an electorally rewarding issue for you and while this is to be expected as part of the cut and thrust of adversarial politics, I must completely reject your attempt to distort our position.
Our position is completely consistent with the one which was before the public when we won the last General Election, treats all parties and all candidates equitably, confers an advantage on no one and proposes only to raise limits which your own party has consistently demonstrated are too rigid.
Fianna Fail took a very clear position on this issue during the debate on the Electoral Bill in 1997, which is that we support expenditure limits but believe that the existing ones are set at a level which can constrain parties and candidates from undertaking reasonable and often basic election activity. Noel Dempsey, the then Fianna Fail spokesman on the Environment, expressed this view that while there was no difficulty with the principle of expenditure limits, the figures of £14,000, £17,000 and £20,000, which were provided for in the Bill, were wholly unrealistic. When his amendments, which proposed limits of £20,000, £22,500 and £25,000 were defeated, he specifically indicated that the issue would be revisited on Fianna Fail's return to Government.
Experience under the legislation has confirmed the basic point which we made in 1997. This has most aptly been demonstrated by your own party's consistent overspending of limits during by-elections. We do not believe that your overspending has been as the result of lavish electioneering and we believe that this should be recognised via an amendment to the legislation. This would also avoid a repeat of the situation where the Public Offices Commission has had to consider references to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to this overspending.
The position we are now advocating is fully in line with what we said in 1997. We believe in abiding by the law and reforming it where it has been shown to be deficient.
You might find it enlightening to consider what the value of the 1997 Fianna Fail proposals would be if they were to be updated to reflect changes in the CPI since January 1998 and the expected changes to Summer 2002 [when the next election will be held]. Taking cumulative inflation over that period to be 15.75 per cent , the updated value would be £23,150, £26,044 and £28,938. As you will note, the £20,000 and £25,000 limits now being proposed for three- and four-seat constituencies are less than the CPI-updated figures and the £30,000 limit for five-seat constituencies is only marginally higher.
You have laid great stress on the fact that the increased limits would allow Fianna Fail to spend what you estimate as an additional £1 million. I would point out that the additional amount relates purely to the number of candidates which any party chooses to run.
In that my party receives significantly higher support than any other party and wins significantly more seats, of course we will be able to increase our spending, though this would be less than you estimate by around £100,000. At the same time your party will also be able to increase its spending - in proportion to the number of candidates you choose to run. There is complete and absolute equity between parties and candidates of all types. No disproportionate benefit will accrue to any party or candidate.
You have stated many times that you wish to use this as a campaigning issue to increase support for your party. As such, the approach of seeking to caricature and misrepresent our position is to be expected, along with a repeated refusal to face up to your own party's record in breaching existing limits. However, I take exception to your ongoing attempt to characterise Noel Dempsey as having "a potentially serious conflict of interest". His position on this issue has been clear and publicly articulated for a number of years.
As you well know, it is the Oireachtas, rather than Noel Dempsey or any other person individually, that decides on election spending limits following a full and open debate on the matter in both Houses. The issue is therefore one which intimately affects each and every member of the Dail. To take your position to its logical conclusion would mean that every member of the Dail should withdraw from considering matters which impact on their party or electoral efforts generally. Such a position is simply unsustainable and represents nothing less than a sacrificing of the important principles involved for the purposes of seeking to gain short-term political advantage.
Of course, if the approach you are suggesting was to be applied consistently, then your role as Minister for Finance in promoting the legislation in relation to the Leader's Allowance in 1996, at a time when you were also Deputy Leader of your Party, would clearly be open to question. As you will be aware, the Labour Party benefits disproportionately from the Leader's Allowance. While Fianna Fail receives just over £8,700 per Deputy, the corresponding figure for the Labour Party is just over £21,500. While the Fianna Fail figure is depressed because of the one-third reduction made by virtue of it being in Government, stripping this out would given an average per Fianna Fail Deputy of just over £13,000 which is still considerably lower than the Labour Party figure. Even if Labour was in Government and its Leader's Allowance was reduced by one-third in the same way as Fianna Fail's allowance is currently reduced, the Labour Party figure would be just over £14,300 per Deputy, still exceeding the average per Deputy for Fianna Fail (whether in Opposition or in Government).
I and my party are not interested in accusing you of having had a conflict of interest in proposing a measure which gives disproportionate funding to your party. We equally believe that your attempt to crudely misrepresent Noel Dempsey's position will be seen through.
I and my party are committed to continuing to fully abide by the principles of transparency and control of electoral expenditure. The change which we are proposing will benefit all parties and candidates, allowing them to undertake moderate campaigns during elections without risking breaches of the law. This is a reasonable, balanced and fully equitable approach which is consistent with the position which we have advocated for some time.
We regard electoral spending limits and disclosure of donations as very important issues. We believe that the best way forward is for all the Parties to come together to discuss the issues involved in an open manner without pre-conditions. Accordingly, I would once again call on the Labour Party to participate in such a process which, with the active involvement of all concerned, could be concluded quite quickly.
Yours sincerely,
Bertie Ahern TD, Taoiseach