Vol. 419 No. 9
2 Mr. Garland asked the Taoiseach if, in connection with the forthcoming Maastricht referendum, he will give details of the funds, if any, the Government are going to make available to bona fide groups opposed to such a treaty.
It would be completely unacceptable for the Government, who are responsible to the Dáil, to seek approval to allocate taxpayers' money for the advocacy of a position which the Government consider could be disastrous for the country and against which all the main parties in the Dáil voted so decisively no later than last week.
It is clear from the recent debate that the referendum campaigns of the Government and of these parties will be directed to securing a resounding "yes" vote on 18 June. This will, in their view, be in the best interests of Irish industry, agriculture, investment, employment and domestic and international interests generally; and will emphasise our overwhelming concern with strengthening the position of the Community — whose founding members were themselves once divided by bloody conflicts — as a core of stability in Europe and a force for peace in the world.
Ireland is, indeed, one of the countries in the Community which could least afford a "no" vote. The Government have a duty and an obligation to promote their policy, so overwhelmingly endorsed by both the Dáil and Seanad, on such a fundamental question.
The use of public funds on this occasion is in line with the practice followed in previous EC referenda in 1972 and 1987, and with the use of such funds to publicise and promote other Government policies.
I am extremely disappointed with the Taoiseach's response. He is clearly endeavouring to muzzle the people on the "no" side.
A question, please.
In view of the Taoiseach's reply and the fact that the "no" side will clearly be unable to mount the same kind of campaign as the Government, would he agree that the only fair way for the Government to deal with the matter now, as they are not making any funds available to the "no" side, is to provide that when they publish advertisements or posters they will be informational only and will contain the other side of the argument as well? Is the Taoiseach saying that he will be advocating a "yes" vote in the publicity?
The Deputy can be assured that I will be advocating a "yes" vote in the publicity. The two most recent opinion polls reveal very interesting statistics. The Landsdowne Market Research poll indicates that 61 per cent of Green supporters are in favour and only 13 per cent against. In the more recent IMS opinion poll 52 per cent of the Green Party supporters were in favour and only 13 per cent were against the Treaty. I wonder what Deputy Garland is really concerned about or is he saying, in effect, that he is out of touch with what the party's grass root supporters are saying?
I can assure the Taoiseach it is nothing of the kind.
There will be no artificial fertiliser used.
Have the Government decided what amount of money will be spent in promoting a "yes" vote in the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty?
The Government will spend the appropriate amount of money to ensure we mount a successful campaign for the "yes" vote.
What upper limit will the Government place on the expenditure for a "yes" vote? Will it be equivalent to or greater than the amount of money spent on the campaign for the ratification of the Single European Act? In view of the Taoiseach's statement, which I accept fully, that it is the Government's responsibility to campaign for a "yes" vote, does he not accept that in the public's interest of making a value judgement on the question before them they should have an adequate opportunity to hear the viewpoint of the other side? Will he not reconsider making funding available to those of us who seek to present the other viewpoint?
I do not propose to reconsider the position. It is up to all of us, as politicians to ensure the public get a balanced view so that they can make their own decision. The amount of money appropriate to running a successful campaign will be provided and I will have no hesitation in making that figure available to the House after the campaign.
Surely the House should be told before the campaign gets underway.
This should be done before the campaign.
What will happen to our referendum campaign if the Danish people vote "no" in their referendum?
The campaign will continue as we run our own show.
This is a widening of the subject matter.
Is it not the case that the Maastricht Treaty will no longer exist if the Danes reject it because of the requirement in an Article of the Treaty that any treaty must be by common consent and therefore if it is rejected by the Danes in early June we will be voting on something that will have ceased to have existence?
If the Danes vote "no" the position will be that the other eleven member states would sit down and agree to go ahead with the same Treaty having agreed that the Treaty as agreed by the Twelve will no longer exist for the Twelve but the same Treaty will continue to exist for the eleven should they so decide.
Is it not the case, however, and this is an important point——
It may be, but it is not relevant to the question before us.
It is, because it deals with public expenditure on a campaign that will be null and void.
This question concerns the funds that will be required for holding a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.
On a point of order, Sir, would the Chair accept that any expenditure of funds on a referendum which of itself would be null and void would be misplaced expenditure and that therefore I am entitled and in order when I ask the question that follows.
It is broadening matters very much to say that what another country may do in the matter is relevant here.
But in this instance, is it not the case that if the other eleven countries were to agree that the eleven would go ahead with the Treaty, that would require a further intergovernmental conference and that it is highly unlikely this could take place and the relevant legislation could be enacted by this House between the date of the Danish referendum, which I think is on 2 June and 18 June, the date of the Irish referendum?
I thought this question dealt with what the Irish may do in the matter.
This is about the Irish situation.
The Irish situation is as I outlined.
The Taoiseach has not answered the question.
In what other area of Government business could the Government decide to set the limit on expenditure after they had completed their expenditure? Surely it is the Government's responsibility to indicate how much they intend to spend on the campaign?
That question has been asked.
The question was asked last week but the Taoiseach failed to answer it.
On a point of order, is the Taoiseach unaware of what would happen if the Danes reject the referendum?
No, I am not.
That is not a point of order.
Is he seriously unaware of the situation? Can he not see the relevance of being able to answer questions on this nature in the House?
He cannot answer as he did not ask the handlers what to say.
Will the Taoiseach explain his conduct, and that of the Government, in the way that the informational aspects of the referendum are being disseminated which contrasts very much with the situation in Denmark where the Danish Government are giving 50 per cent funding to the "no" campaign and are providing that copies of the Treaty be available free of charge whereas here only a small propaganda tract has been made available by the Government?
Will funds be made available to Deputy Michael D. Higgins?
What the Danish Government do is a matter for them and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it.
At least they are democratic.
We now come to deal with questions nominated for priority for which 15 minutes only is provided for in Standing Orders.
