Vol. 421 No. 5
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the dissatisfaction expressed by many citizens about the lack of information and the inadequacies of the Government-run campaign on the European Union Treaty Referendum, he has any plans to make funding available to all registered political parties to ensure an effective and full debate in the event of further referenda on European integration being held in this State; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
In my reply to a Question here yesterday, I pointed to the results of the referendum as bearing out my total rejection of criticism of the Government's campaign and of suggestions that we did not provide adequate information.
We went to considerable lengths to provide information to the electorate in usable form. The Treaty was made available for consultation in public libraries and main post offices and was on sale at the Government Publications Office. It would have cost over £6 million to circulate the Treaty to all households. Having regard to its complexity, its use of cross-references to the other Community Treaties and its availability in public libraries and main post offices, such an expensive distribution could not be justified.
Instead, we published a very comprehensive and clear White Paper and a Short Guide to the Treaty. A total of 1.2 million copies of the short guide was distributed to every household in the State. It was described in "The Economist” as being “one of the clearest produced”. A series of other information leaflets were produced. These included the following four leaflets: “Questions and Answers about Ireland and the Treaty on European Union”; “The Benefits of Our Place in Europe”; “Ireland and Agriculture in Europe”; and “Europe and the World”. One hundred and fifty thousand of each of these were made available.
A total of 15,000 of another leaflet, "Some Basic Questions Answered on European Union and Abortion", were made available, as were 75,000 copies of the joint statement made on 9 June by the leaders of the four main political parties. The party leaders' statement was also included in supplements circulated with 320,000 copies of the Sunday World on 14 June and 78,000 copies of the Star on 17 June.
We also mounted a substantial advertising campaign to give the necessary information on the reasons for and benefits of a "Yes" vote and on the adverse consequences of a "No" vote. The advertising campaign included: 48 sheet billboard posters in six designs on 153 sites nationwide; press advertising in all the national daily, evening and Sunday newspapers; advertising in a number of selected periodicals; advertising in every provincial newspaper; 24, 10-second adds on RTE 1 and Network 2 TV; and 441 radio spots on all national and local radio stations. The advertising on television and on radio was confined to reminding voters of the referendum and urging them to vote.
A freephone telephone information service operated over six days from 11-13 and 15-17 June from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. daily. About 4,000 calls were dealt with. The centre was staffed by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Finance and the Taoiseach.
On 16 June, in response to widespread demand, I made a special broadcast to the nation on television and radio to explain the issues simply and clearly to the people.
I hope that what I have said sufficiently illustrates the comprehensive nature of the Government campaign. It was, of course, in addition to the campaign mounted by the parties favouring a "Yes" vote, particularly the Government parties. Other organisations also made a lot of positive and helpful information available, including the orgaisations representing the social partners and, in particular, the Irish Council of European Movement, which produced their own lucid guide to the Treaty and an excellent booklet "Maastrict Explained".
The print and broadcasting media also deserve great credit for the amount of information and discussion they carried. All in all, an immense amount of information was conveyed to the people and the result was seen in the fact that the turnout was up 13 percentage points on that in the 1987 referendum on the Single European Act.
At the same time, I accept that there is a deficit of information among the general public, in Ireland and in other member states, about European developments and that this will have to be rectified if the Community, in its desire to make further progress, is to carry the people with it. The Dáil and Seanad have, of course, the opportunity, if they wish to use it, to debate the comprehensive reports on developments in the European Community which was published regularly by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I also said yesterday that the proposed Oireachtas Joint Committee on European and Foreign Affairs will no doubt play a useful role in spreading information and knowledge on Community affairs.
I would not favour making public funds available to registered political parties in future such campaigns. It would be by no means helpful that taxpayers' money should be used for purposes which the Government of the day, as the constitutional Executive authority, would regard as being detrimental to the public interest.
As I indicated yesterday, it may be that the proposed Oireachtas Committee could develop a role in regard to information that would be complementary to that of the Government. This would represent a development of the role that has been played, not perhaps as fully as it could have been, by the existing Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, which has been in existence for the past 20 years.
I listened to the first 99 percent of the reply with interest. I regret that in the ultimate paragraph and perhaps the penultimate paragraph the Taoiseach gave a view in response to the question. I do not wish to be argumentative, a Cheann Comhairle, but I can say to the Taoiseach that if the same enthusiasm and conviction is displayed during a general election campaign you will be here on your own, Sir, because TDs will not be returned having regard to the campaign conducted all around the country.
We are strong enough.
We are well able for the opposition.
Deputies are in no position to throw stones. Everybody knows that, so perhaps we should just leave it. Could I put it to the Taoiseach that it would be in the interest of the body politic and the people of this country if the political parties were in a position to carry out the debate and were funded? Granted, the Taoiseach said that the Government provided a certain amount of resources and money, but the political parties were not funded. The debate was inadequate and there was a lack of information. Certainly the view was conveyed to me by many people going to vote "Yes" or "No" to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty were voting without full information and knowledge. I ask the Taoiseach to reconsider the question for the future. There will be another major debate leading up to 1996. I ask that a campaign of information be conducted on time, because most of the informative material read out by the Taoiseach to the House was issued in the final two or three weeks before the referendum, which was completely inadequate.
The debate on the Maastricht Treaty started a long time before the final few weeks. The debate went on for a considerable time. The Deputy and the House should be aware that a survey carried out by a European newspaper on the best informed members of the public in any Community country showed the Irish as rating second.
That was after the referendum.
We have just finished the campaign. Is the Deputy seriously suggesting that the Irish people were not well informed after the campaign of information that I read out to the House? They were. What happened was that many parties stood back and did not go and talk to the people. People were very interested whenever representatives went to talk to them.
Your own party — especially your own party.
The Deputy's party were missing everywhere. Let us not get into an argument. Except for a little help here and there, the Government carried the campaign—and that is it. I do not regard it as a proper use of taxpayers' money to use it in a manner detrimental to the public interest. The Government, as the Executive authority, are charged with the responsibility of doing what is best in the national interest and the public interest.
Why did the Taoiseach decide to quote opinion surveys in his reply in view of the fact that a survey of people's belief about the adequacy of the Government's campaign on this issue showed that a majority felt the campaign was inadequate?
As the Deputy knows, there was an acceleration of the campaign in the last week to ten days and the opinion polls to which he referred were taken prior to that.
I am interested in the position which the Taoiseach has adopted with regard to funding on the basis of not using taxpayers' money for purposes which they consider are not in the national interest. Will he, therefore, end the subvention to parties in this House who obviously oppose the Government on a whole range of issues apart from Maastricht? There is obviously a difference of opinion between the parties here regarding the national interest and we have debates on these issues every day of the week. Does it also mean that the current discussions behind closed doors — I only hear rumours of these things — with regard to possibly providing further funding for political parties are just a charade? How will we decide what the national interest is? Will it be only in relation to referenda that this principle applies? Will he accept that the question of the information to the public should start now, not in 1996? We need a system in the Houses of the Oireachtas whereby Deputies and Senators can contribute to and, indeed, monitor the activities of the Government at EC level. We should argue, as Jacques Delors has argued, for a greater—
The question is too long.
——transference——
The Deputy is making a statement.
Perhaps the Taoiseach might reply on this occasion. He did not do so before.
Please, Deputy De Rossa, let us have finality in regard to this question.
Jacques Delors argued for a greater transference of the decision making process of the European Community which obviously implies an informed public and electorate.
There are many opportunities in the House to debate these matters. There will be even greater opportunities when the committees are set up to debate different aspects of activity in the Community and reports are produced regularly by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I was asked a question in relation to providing funding for a national campaign. It is up to each party to use their own resources in regard to these matters. I do not know to what Deputy De Rossa referred when he mentioned talks going on behind closed doors in regard to funding. Nobody told me anything about that and as Deputy John Bruton is shaking his head I take it that he did not know anything about it either. It is the typical rumour machine from Deputy De Rossa and his party.
A final, brief and relevant question from Deputy McCormack.
The question has been partly dealt with but it is time for a full debate on the funding of political parties. Perhaps it is a separate question but it was referred to by the Taoiseach in his reply. Instead of parties depending on funds from other sources——
The Deputy is raising a separate matter. I am proceeding to Question No. 3.
It is not a separate matter, it is about the funding of political parties.
The Chair decides these matters.
Deputy Cotter rose.
I am sorry, Deputy, I will not permit a debate on this matter. I am calling Deputy Garland.
In his very detailed reply the Taoiseach did not say how many copies of the White Paper were issued. It appears that he does not intend to amend the Referendum Act to allow funding for the Opposition in any future referendum. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether that will apply to a referendum introduced by the Government, perhaps to abolish or change our system of PR? Will he also agree that it would not be appropriate to allocate funding to the "no" side in such a referendum?
I do not have any plans to change the Referendum Act. I do not know whether the Deputy was referring to the overall cost of the campaign but he can rest assured that the printing, publication and distribution of the White Paper and the short guide to Maastricht, including advertising costs, were within the budget of £600,000.
Deputy Cotter rose.
I am sorry, Question No. 3 has been called.
