Aspects of this matter are before the High Court and I therefore ask the Deputy to exercise the utmost caution and restraint in dealing with it, particularly in regard to persons outside the House whom the Chair has an obligation to protect.
Adjournment Debate. - Advertising Contract for Divorce Campaign.
I will take note of your comments. I thank you for the opportunity to raise this matter. It is very important to put on the record that I do not criticise any agency appointed in the divorce campaign. There are, however, serious questions to be answered about the awarding of a public contract and the allocation of public moneys. I hope the Minister for Equality and Law Reform will give satisfactory answers to the questions I put to him tonight.
On 30 May and 4 July last year the Minister informed the Dáil that he had not appointed an advertising agency for the divorce campaign. In reply to questions put to him on 4 July he said "details would be announced shortly when the process of selection is completed". On 30 July a spokesperson for the Minister denied a Sunday Business Post report that the agency QMP had been awarded the contract. Mr. Joe Carroll of The Irish Times on 31 July reported that a spokesperson admitted that QMP were in the running for the contract which was worth about £400,000 and that Deputy Taylor could be expected to make a decision on his return from holidays the next day.
On 2 August 1995 Government sources informed The Irish Times that the Cabinet sub-committee on divorce was not expected to meet during August and a decision on whether QMP or McConnell's advertising agency should secure the contract would not be made until the Ministers next met. It is evident from a letter, recently published in the press, from Mr. Conor Quinn of QMP to Mr. Fergus Finlay, that the QMP agency had been told that it had secured the advertising contract——
I accept that certain aspects of this matter are in the public domain but remind the Deputy again that it is a convention of this House that naming persons outside the House should be avoided if at all possible as these persons are defenceless in the face of accusations made against them in this privileged assembly.
I am not making specific allegations.
I ask the Deputy to avoid naming persons outside the House.
A letter to the Government adviser stated that an agency had secured the advertising contract for the divorce campaign on behalf of the Government on or before 4 May 1995. Why was that appointment continuously denied by the Minister and Government sources? That question must be answered. When did the all-party Cabinet sub-committee agree to give the contract to the QMP agency? When were Fine Gael and Democratic Left made aware of the appointment? Why was it not until 13 September 1995 that an official Government announcement was made? How was the decision communicated to the agency? Why did the Minister's party leader, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, renege on his promise of last week to issue a statement on the matter? Why was an unelected official sent out to bat on this issue rather than a member of Government who should have accepted responsibility and answered the legitimate questions raised? Where is Government accountability in that? Why did the Minister deny to me and my party leader that polls had been conducted during the course of the campaign when it subsequently emerged that such polls were conducted? If the Minister knew the advertising contract had been awarded by 4 May 1995 why did he subsequently mislead the Dáil? If he did not know the agency had been awarded the contract, why did he not know? Perhaps the Minister will address those questions.
Yesterday I gave a comprehensive and detailed reply to written questions on the subject matter of the motion before the House. It is a condition precedent to the making of Government contracts that prior approval is given for them by the Government Contracts Committee. The date of that committee's approval of the award of the Government's advertising contract in relation to the divorce referendum was 11 September 1995. The public announcement and the announcement to QMP about the appointment was made on publication of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill two days later on 13 September 1995.
To enable me to evaluate submissions from six advertising agencies which had been invited by the Government Information Service to tender for the contract in December 1993, I appointed a special committee to make recommendations to me on the matter. The committee comprised the following: John Foley, GIS; Kate O'Toole, GIS; 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.
The procedures in relation to the award of the QMP contract involved 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. The Government Contracts Committee is a standing committee of civil servants from Departments concerned on an ongoing basis with Government contracts.
The letter of 16 May 1995 from Conor Quinn to Fergus Finlay was private and confidential. It 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 before the court as part of the discovery process in the case. 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. I was not, and other members of the Government were not, aware of any such letter until it was read out in court.
The letter suggested that the identities of the owners of QMP be buried in a press release. I wish to make clear that I or any other member of Government would not agree with any such suggestion. The public record shows that suggestion was not followed.
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.
All six companies which had been invited by the GIS to tender for the divorce referendum contract made submissions in reply to the invitation. On 4 May 1994 I was informed by the committee that the process of selection had been completed and the committee had agreed to recommend one agency. That agency was QMP. The decision of the committee was unanimous. However, 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. The possibility of holding the referendum began to grow stronger by mid-1995 and I briefed members of a Cabinet sub-committee on divorce on the advertising aspects. It was in that context that 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. The Minister for Finance was not present at those presentations or any discussions about them.
In his letter of 16 May 1995 to Fergus Finlay, Conor Quinn appears to assume his company had the contract. There was no basis for that assumption because the contract had yet to be awarded under the contract procedures in operation in my Department and the Government Information Service. When QMP made its further presentation to the Cabinet sub-committee in June 1995, it did so in the knowledge that it had not been awarded any contract, and no one had entered into any commitment to it. On the other hand, in the course of discussions with the special committee Conor Quinn would have clearly understood that his 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 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 the public interest. Fergus Finlay's discussions with Conor Quinn were based on Mr. Finlay's assumption, made in good faith, that QMP was likely to be awarded the contract in due course and his concern lest the known family connection be subject to misrepresentation.
I did not misinform the Dáil on 30 May and 4 July 1995 about the position in relation to the advertising contract. The information I gave was consistent with the facts because since the Government Contracts Committee had yet to approve the award of the advertising contract it was the clear position that no company had been engaged as of those dates. That approval of the Government Contracts Committee which was given on 11 September 1995 would have become known by my Cabinet sub-committee colleagues by the time of the public announcement of the appointment on 13 September 1995.
Having reviewed the circumstances surrounding the appointment of QMP, I am satisfied the tendering process leading to its appointment was properly conducted, and those involved in recommending the appointment acted entirely honestly and properly throughout.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25 January 1996.