Peadar Clohessy
Question:23 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the total expenditure in relation to the Divorce Referendum. [3055/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Divorce Referendum Expenditure.
The total expenditure in relation to the divorce referendum in so far as my Department is concerned was £485,072 in 1995. A provision of £30,000 has been made in my Department's Estimates for 1996 for the referendum. This is a contingency provision in the event that any outstanding expenditure on the referendum remains to be paid in 1996. The amount to be paid in 1996 is likely to be very small. The amount so far paid is £187.00.
Will the Minister give the House an assurance that after the Supreme Court ruling in the McKenna case, no funds were paid to any person or body in respect of the promotion, preparation, distribution or printing of material outlawed by the McKenna judgment?
I cannot give the House any such assurance. The matter of payments and the dates of payments are dealt with by the accounting office of the Department.
I suggest to the Minister there is reason to believe that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in the McKenna case, in the month of December very significant sums of money were spent on precisely the purposes which the Supreme Court had declared to be unlawful. Surely the Minister must know whether his accounting officer did or did not cease all payments in respect of such activities as and from the date of the Supreme Court decision.
I cannot give that assurance to the House. I believe payments were made after that decision by the accounting officer in accordance with the appropriate legal position.
I must press the Minister on this matter. As I understand it the Supreme Court handed down a decision in November that certain expenditure was unlawful. I am querying the Minister as to whether his Department, notwithstanding that decision, expended money on unlawful purposes after and fully conscious of the decision and in disregard of the Supreme Court's finding that such expenditure was unlawful.
Deputy McDowell is giving his own particular legal viewpoint.
I am asking a question.
If Deputy McDowell wants to know exactly what payments were made on exactly what date he can put down a question to that effect and the information will be given to him. He asked me for an assurance that no payments were made after that date and I told him I am not in a position to give that assurance.
I suggest the Minister is being evasive and economical with the truth. I suggest he knows full well that moneys were spent in the period between the Supreme Court decision in the McKenna case and the end of the 1995 financial year. I suggest also that the Minister expressly authorised his accounting officer to make those payments and I ask him now to indicate whether he was made aware of the payments in question, if he personally authorised that they should be made and whether he or his Department obtained advice to the effect that they could do that.
The Deputy is being somewhat repetitious.
I repeat again that payments were properly made after the date of the McKenna judgment in accordance with legal advice obtained. I cannot put the matter any further than that; it is clear enough. If Deputy McDowell does not agree with that viewpoint, he is entitled to his view.
Will the Minister confirm whether the payments made after the date of judgment were in respect of bills incurred before the date of the judgment, or was a deliberate decision taken after the date of the judgment to expend money in contravention of the terms of the judgment?
No commitments were made to incur expenditure after the date of the judgment.
May I ask the Minister what proportion of those funds were expended on public relations or advertising firms?
I have a detailed breakdown of that information here but it is rather lengthy and complex.
Perhaps the Minister might circulate the information later.
If the Deputy puts down a question for written reply——
Deputy Woods did not ask the right question.
——he will get the exact information he wants.
The question the Minister was asked concerned the total expenditure in relation to the divorce referendum.
It is quite normal for the file to contain some breakdown of information. However, if the Minister feels I should ask the special adviser, Mr. Fergus Finlay, instead, perhaps I should do that. I had a question down today which related to these facts but it was not allowed because it was previously raised on the Adjournment. It appears that neither the Minister, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs nor the Minister for Finance knew what was going on when a decision was being made on the contract in the first instance. This raises questions about who knew what was going on in the Department in regard to this expenditure and who was responsible for this matter.
The Deputy should stay within the bounds of the question.
I asked the Minister a question and I hoped he would give me an answer. In reply to a question from me on 30 May last I was told that "no public relations or advertising firms have been engaged to date". Yet it was established in court that one firm believed it had been engaged. I accept the Minister did not know about these meetings behind the scenes, what was happening or the letter. Nevertheless it raises questions about who answers questions and who does the business behind the scenes. It is very disturbing to say the least to think that the special adviser on Foreign Affairs makes the decisions on these matters.
Sarcastic remarks of that nature——
I asked fundamental questions.
——are not appropriate on a question which has been fully answered: I was asked the total expenditure and I gave the figure. If the Deputy requires further details he should table a question. This question was tabled by Deputy Clohessy. The information is available and can be furnished if the Deputy specifies what exactly he wants.
I call Question No. 26.
May I ask a question?
I will allow a very brief question. In deference to the other Deputies who have tabled questions I must move on.
Will the Minister confirm that £500,000 was originally earmarked by his Department for this proposal and that all but less than £15,000 of it was spent? Will he also confirm that the bulk of that money was handed over in December last year?
I do not have the dates of each payment on file.
Will the Minister send us information on the total expenditure, the amounts which predated and post-dated the Supreme Court judgment and a breakdown between PR and other expenditure?
The Deputy is going beyond the bounds of the question.
If the Deputy tables a question on that matter it will be dealt with in the usual way.
Will the Minister write to me so that the civil servants do not have to go to the bother of compiling the information?
I am moving on to Question No. 26.