Colm M. Hilliard
Question:202 Mr. Hilliard asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the reason for the £100,000 allocation under Subhead K of Vote 33; and the way in which this money will be spent in 1996. [19348/96]
Written Answers. - Divorce Referendum Advertising Campaign.
Michael Woods
Question:209 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if he has satisfied himself that public money spent on advertising in the divorce referendum represented good value for money in view of the precipitous decline in public support during the campaign for the passage of the referendum; and the plans, if any, he has to recoup the money in view of the Supreme Court judgment on the legality of partisan advertising. [1324/96]
Michael Woods
Question:210 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform whether he considers it proper that the identity of the owners of the firm to be awarded the advertising contract in the divorce referendum and its family connection to the Minister for Finance should be buried in a press release. [1325/96]
Michael Woods
Question:211 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the committees and personnel involved on the Government side in running the divorce referendum campaign. [1326/96]
Michael Woods
Question:212 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the reason the company that did not win the advertising contract in the divorce referendum campaign was not so informed. [1327/96]
Michael Woods
Question:213 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if he or any member of the sub-Committee were made aware at the time of a letter (details supplied) that was read out in court; and his views on the implications of the letter. [1328/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 202, 209, 210, 211, 212 and 213 together.
I can tell the House that, having reviewed the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Quinn McDonnell Pattison, I am satisfied that the tendering process leading to QMP's appointment was properly conducted, and that those involved in recommending the appointment acted entirely honestly and properly throughout.
The letter referred to in Question No. 213 is a private and confidential letter of 16 May, 1995 from Conor Quinn, Joint Managing Director of QMP, to Fergus Finlay, special adviser to the Tánaiste, which first came to public notice in proceedings before the High Court on 11 January 1996 concerning the challenge to the outcome of the divorce referendum. The letter forms part of a huge number of documents which are before the court as part of the discovery process in the case. I can confirm that I was not, and other members of the Cabinet sub-committees on divorce were not, aware of any such letter until the letter was read out in court. It was supplied to my Department by QMP as part of the High Court order for discovery of documents and supplied by my Department to the court.
As to the question of whether or not I, or for that matter, any other member of Government, would consider it proper that the identities of the owners of a firm to be awarded the advertising contract in the divorce referendum should be buried in a press release the answer, clearly, must be no. The public record shows that that advice was not followed.
The appointment of QMP for the purposes of the Government's information campaign on the divorce referendum was announced by me on 13 September, 1995 on publication of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The Government Contracts Committee which is a committee of civil servants drawn from Departments concerned on an on-going basis with contracts had given its approval for the QMP contract on 11 September, 1995 — two days earlier. It was always my intention to state publicly the identity of those who got the divorce referendum advertising contract. Newspapers prominently reported on 14 September, 1995 my announcement that the contract was awarded to QMP — and also that Conor Quinn was a brother of the Minister for Finance. The formal contract detailing heads of expenditure, as approved by the Department of Finance, was made with QMP on 20 October, 1995.
It will have occurred to many Members of the House, as I am sure it has occurred to discerning members of the public, that the identity of directors of a company such as QMP is, under the law, a matter of public record in the Companies Registration Office. I should also add that Government policy as regards disclosure of interests by people holding public office or employment is enshrined in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 which became law on 22 July, 1995.
It may assist the House further if I were to point out that the family connection which is, apparently, being touted by some as having influenced the appointment of QMP was not a connection with any member of the special committee which I established at the end of 1993 to advise me on the appointment of an advertising agency for the Government's advertising programme. I also do not have any such connection with QMP. All proper procedures were followed in relation to the appointment. The committee, which I established, comprised the following: John Foley (Government Information Service); Kate O'Toole (Government Information Service); Fergus Finlay (then Programme Manager, Department of Foreign Affairs); Paul Mulhern (then Programme Manager, Department of Equality and Law Reform); and Tom Lynch (Principal Officer, Department of Equality and Law Reform). My purpose in appointing that special committee was to have recommendations made to me as to the merit of the different presentations to enable me to seek the approval of the Government Contracts Committee in relation to the award of the divorce referendum contract.
The procedures in relation to the award of the QMP contract involved, therefore, the establishment of that special committee; the making by the committee of recommendations; the submission, under my approval, of that recommendation to the Government Contracts Committee; the approval of the contracts committee; and sanction by the Department of Finance for the expenditure involved in the contract.
For the benefit of the House, I propose now to set out the events which followed on the appointment of the special committee and which have become the subject of some debate.
In accordance with Government contracts procedures, invitations were sent by the Government Information Service to a select number of advertising companies, six in number, to tender for the divorce referendum contract. All six companies made submissions to the Government Information Service. The number of proposals was reduced to three, namely, those presented by QMP, McConnells, and Arks; and subsequently to the first-named two. While the committee considered the QMP proposal to be the strongest, McConnells had strengths which the committee thought might also be availed of and the committee asked the two companies to explore the possibility of working together on the project. That proposal did not, however, find agreement between the two companies. On 4 May, 1994 I was informed by the committee that the process of selection had been completed and that the committee had agreed to recommend one agency. That agency was QMP. The decision of the committee was unanimous.
Of the five companies which were not being recommended for the contract three were told of this on 12 April, 1994 by the Government Information Service. The Information now available to me is that the other companies were not so informed at any time and I regret that oversight. I extend my apologies to the two companies concerned.
A very long period ensued between May, 1994 and July, 1995 during which there was a challenge in the High Court and the Supreme Court to the constitutionality of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. It had the effect of seriously delaying the holding of the divorce referendum. Because the referendum was delayed, action on the advertising contract was also delayed. No contract was drawn up, and none was offered to QMP. Details of the advertising project, of course, were dependent on finalisation of the Government's proposals in relation to the constitutional amendment on divorce and associated legislation. In late 1994 there was a change of Government. In April, 1995 I had announced that the Government was aiming at a divorce referendum date of 30 November, 1995 while at the same time indicating that much depended on a decision being made by the Supreme Court in the case before it on the 1989 Act. The Government in 1994 and the succeeding Government in 1995 were not involved in any decision-making process on who should be awarded the advertising contract. However, the possibility of holding the referendum began to grow stronger by mid-1995 and I briefed Cabinet sub-committee colleagues in the new Government on the advertising aspects. It was in that context that the two companies, QMP and McConnells, were asked to make presentations in June, 1995. My colleagues in the Cabinet sub-committee were satisfied with the recommendations of the special committee. I should like to point out that the Minister for Finance was not present at those presentations or at any discussions about them.
In his letter of 16 May, 1995 to Fergus Finlay, Conor Quinn appears to assume that his company had the contract. There was no basis in fact for that assumption because the contract had yet to be awarded under procedures which were in operation in my Department and the Government Information Service. When QMP made its further presentation to the Cabinet sub-committee in June 1995, they did so in the knowledge that they had not been awarded any contract, and no-one had entered into any commitment to them. On the other hand, in the course of discussions with the special committee on the possibility of both QMP and McConnells working together Conor Quinn would have been clearly of the understanding that this company was perceived by the committee to have made the strongest presentation. He was aware of the sensitivity about any such appointment, given that he was a brother of the Minister for Finance. Considerable interest in the whole matter of the referendum was current in the media about that time, among members of the public, interest groups and political parties. My understanding is that Fergus Finlay, anticipating possible criticism of any appointment of QMP, discussed the matter with Conor Quinn on 2 May, 1995 so that the issue could be addressed fairly in his company's interest and in the public interest. I would not be human if I too did not have concern at the family connection in question. I had queried that aspect in May, 1994 when it was made clear to me that QMP was the outstanding candidate for the contract. I was informed by the special committee, unanimously and without equivocation, that if the proposal to award the contract to QMP were to be rejected by me on the basis that one member of QMP had a family connection with a Government Minister it would, because QMP had made the best presentation, be a complete injustice to that member of QMP and other members of his company. That was a considerable assurance to me in the matter. It satisfied me that merit on the day would indeed win out and that, inevitably, if questions were raised about the appointment they could be answered frankly and honestly. The passage of time between May, 1994 and the announcement in September, 1995 of the appointment of QMP was exceptional. Had it been possible to proceed with the referendum in 1994 it would have avoided a situation in which QMP was left, for a period of over one year knowing they had made the best presentation but had to accept that no proper contract was possible until close to finalisation or publication of the Government's divorce proposals. Fergus Finlay's discussions with Conor Quinn on 2 May, 1995 were based on Mr. Finlay's assumption, made in good faith, that QMP were likely to be awarded the contract in due course and his concern lest the known family connection be subject to misrepresentation. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House who experienced the long wait for the referendum to be held will have some appreciation of the difficulties it presented for a company which had committed itself for so long to the advertising project associated with the referendum.
There were a number of Government committees involved in the divorce referendum. The proposals which led to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill and details of the draft Family Law (Divorce) Bill were considered by the following Cabinet sub-committee for submission to the Government: Minister for Finance (Deputy Quinn); Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Taylor, Chairman); Minister for Health (Deputy NoonanLimerick East); Minister for the Environment (Deputy Howlin); Minister for Justice (Deputy Owen); Minister for Social Welfare (Deputy Proinsias De Rossa); Chief Whip/Minister for the Defence and the Marine (Deputy Barrett); Attorney General (Mr. Gleeson, SC).
There was also a divorce campaign co-ordinating committee established as follows; Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Taylor); Minister for Health (Deputy Noonan,Limerick East); Minister for Education (Deputy Bhreathnach); Minister for Justice (Deputy Owen); Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Deputy Gilmore); Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Deputy McManus).
A committee as follows was also established to liaise with the campaign co-ordinating committee: Deputy Hogan, TD; Senator Magner; Cllr. Catherine Murphy; Fergus Finlay (Special Adviser to the Tánaiste); Shane Kenny (Government Press Secretary); Ann Kinsella (Programme Manager, Department of Equality and Law Reform); Richard Humphreys (Special Adviser to Minister for Equality and Law Reform); Kathleen O'Meara (Special Adviser to Minister of State for Labour Affairs); Michael O'Reilly (Fine Gael); Jim Miley (Fine Gael); Fiachra O'Ceallachoir (Democratic Left); John Foley (Government Information Service); Tony Heffernan (Government Information Service); Kate O'Toole (Government Information Service).
As designed in early 1994 and as reshaped in some respects in 1995 the information programme which was finally engaged in the run-up to the referendum was informational while at the same time it asked for support of the Government's proposals. In bringing forward that programme for the referendum the Government considered it had a duty and a responsibility to ensure, as best as possible, that the public, when it came to vote on 24 November, 1995 had basic information about the legal provisions, the social welfare provisions, and the support services (counselling, mediation and legal aid) which would apply in the event of divorce being introduced. The purpose of the advertising information programme was to assist voters in the making of an informed decision on the matter. The Government is satisfied that public money spent on that information programme as it was conceived at the time was value for money. It, of course, accepts the decision of the Supreme Court that expenditure on advertising which asked for a yes vote was wrongful. There are no proposals to recoup moneys spent on the advertising programme.
A provision of £30,000 has been made in my Department's Estimates for 1996 for the divorce referendum. This is a contingency provision in the event that any outstanding expenditure on the referendum remains to be paid in 1996. The total amount paid in 1995 was £485,072. The amount to be paid in 1996 is likely to be very small.