John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

The amendment attempts to extend the parameters within which the Minister makes the order setting the spending limit period. Bearing in mind the proximity of the forthcoming local elections, 60 days is the maximum period that can be realistically set for the 2009 elections. This period effectively will be more than double that currently for Dáil and European Parliament elections. It also will be more than double the period for which local election spending had to be declared under the current provisions in the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999.

Under the Electoral Act 1997, which provides for spending limits at European Parliament, presidential and Dáil elections, the commencement of the spending period is determined by reference, in the case of a Dáil general election, to the date of dissolution of the Dáil; in the case of a Dáil by-election, to the date of the issue of the writ; and in the case of a European Parliament or presidential election, the date of the order appointing polling day at the election. The end of the spending period in the case of all of the three categories of election is polling day at the relevant election.

The reason parameters are set for the Minister in the Bill in setting the spending limit period is to ensure policy is set in primary legislation. If no upper or lower parameter was set, the Minister of the day would effectively have an unfettered ability to set the spending limit period by order and could, in theory, act against the spirit of the legislation. The parameters, as they are set out in the Bill, allow for a spending limit period of between 50 and 60 days. This is a marked improvement on the current arrangements.

There is also a significant difficulty with the amendment, as presented. The effect of the amendment would be to retrospectively commence the spending limit period and declare that it commenced some time last year. Fairness in the treatment of election candidates demands that they be given notice of the rules and regulations with which they must comply at an election in advance of them coming into force. This is especially the case when the potential for prosecution and criminal sanction can result.

Deputy Shatter alluded to the possibility of challenges being made to the legislation before the courts. Acceptance of the amendment would result in the introduction of a retrospective rule and criminal sanction for breaching it. As the amendment is legally unsound, we must exercise care in this matter. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context