Vol. 483 No. 6
3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he intends to review the process in which advertisements for the purpose of Government information are compiled, in terms of their form and content, in view of continuing public criticism that these advertisements are neither readable nor user-friendly. [20242/97]
The Deputy's question appears to be prompted mainly by critical comments made about the advertisements regarding the recent referendum to amend the Constitution.
The difficulties presented on that occasion for large sections of the public were undoubtedly related to the complex issues involved, which did not lend themselves to easy, simple explanation in the form of an advertisement. Nevertheless, the lessons are being absorbed and I am determined there will not be a repeat of that experience in promoting debate on major public policy issues in future.
I am confident the issues raised by the Deputy can be addressed in the new quality customer service initiative for the Civil Service. As indicated in reply to questions on 18 November, I launched the customer service action plan for my Department on 12 November and the plans of the other participating Departments and offices will be published over the weeks up to the end of the year.
On the contrary, I looked to the future when I tabled this question. I had next year's Amsterdam Treaty in mind and how people might be informed and prepared for that referendum. Will the European Commission be involved in funding it and will this have any impact on the presentation of information?
Will someone be accountable for the readability of the information, as opposed to the content, given the importance of communicating as widely as possible the essence of the "for" and "against" positions?
The customer service action plan will deal with the readability and presentation of information. Last week I said there will be an examination of how the referendum on the Amsterdam summit will be presented to the public and whether it will be necessary to make legislative changes. Since then I reconstituted the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and discussed this matter with the chairman and deputy chairman, who will look at this matter in the next few weeks.
The matter is also being looked at in Government as this is an important referendum which is of great significance. Everyone in this House wants it passed. If Deputy Sargent is indicating he does not want it passed ——
I will have a separate question.
——I will have to exclude him from that generalisation. It is vital we have an opportunity to put the facts before the people so they can see the implications and ramifications of what is at issue.
In so far as the direct involvement of the EU is concerned, it is always involved in information and research. I do not know whether it has undertaken an initiative but the EU is actively involved in promoting the Amsterdam agreement on a European wide basis.
Does the Taoiseach agree the restrictions on the dissemination of information on referenda as a result of the McKenna judgment are such that a new method will have to be found other than the newspaper advertisements which have been used so far? Has he any ideas on how to put forward "yes" and "no" arguments, if not through newspaper advertisements? It is clear one needs 20/20 vision to read those advertisements and people I spoke to about the last advertisement turned the page as quickly as they could.
I agree with the Deputy. It is impossible to deal with intricate international, constitutional case work on the basis of a small ad hoc forum of two members of the Bar Council who, in a specified number of words, are allowed put the case for and against. We did our best, but that is not much good in the case of referenda. We need an alternative. It has been stated here on a number of occasions that the alternative will require legislation. All of these matters have to be looked at.
Is the Taoiseach aware the first response to the McKenna judgment was the publication of a booklet giving the case for and against, which was distributed to every household? That is a more user-friendly mechanism. At the time, Fianna Fáil produced a legislative measure to put the procedure on a statutory basis. Is it still the proposal of the Government to have a statutory mechanism for dealing with the dissemination of this type of information?
That is precisely what we are looking at in order to deal with this matter correctly and to deal with future referenda so that we can put the case clearly and comprehensively. Deputy Sargent said, with some merit, this case was not presented very clearly and we can learn lessons from that. I have already stated that I accept that argument. The matter has to be dealt with comprehensively. It is not even satisfactory for those members of the legal profession who are asked to make the case. They need to be able to put in a certain amount of data which is relevant to a case. Members know the Amsterdam Treaty, in particular, is extremely complex. The excellent Dorr report has been highly commended, not only here but elsewhere. However, one cannot present that as one side of the case in a few pages or in a small report. One must present it in a comprehensive way.
Will the Taoiseach accept that a booklet is a better way?
I would accept that but, as the Deputy knows, there is a limit to how a booklet can be presented under the rules of the ad hoc group. We have to find another way.
Does the Taoiseach agree there is a need to address this matter other than through the Constitutional Review Committee? I appreciate he said the committee intends to have it at the top of its list of issues, but it is a Constitutional Review Committee. Assuming the Government is proceeding with a March date for the referendum, what we need is a mechanism for the proper implementation of the Supreme Court judgment on the McKenna issue.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider the proposal I made some weeks ago for an informal all-party committee to see if we can agree on how a fair presentation of the complex issues in the Amsterdam Treaty can be presented?
Has the Taoiseach sought advice on the application of the McKenna judgment? Does it apply only to the period after this House agrees to a referendum, or is the Government precluded from providing information on the Amsterdam Treaty in advance — between now and the point at which this House will agree a referendum?
I must be cautious about the last point because it is not altogether clear. However, in the normal course it would apply during the process of a campaign. The Government would be allowed to publish proposals, but that is only one aspect of it. Trying to get those proposals passed is a separate aspect.
The McKenna judgment was a constitutional case. That is why I said it was a matter for the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. The other aspect I mentioned was that the Government is looking at this matter and if required to talk to party leaders after we come to some conclusions we will certainly do so.
I thought the All-Party Committee on the Constitution would look at it but I am not too sure. As soon as the Government has finished its work we could have a small committee under the Whips, if necessary, or the spokespersons. I do not have any great difficulty with that. I would rather put something to that effect.
On a point of clarification, is it intended to proceed with a March date for the Amsterdam referendum, as indicated in the House some weeks ago?
Yes.
No matter which Government is in power there is a difficulty with this matter. Will the Taoiseach agree the expense of hiring a barrister for and against, and advertising in newspapers, is a waste of money because nobody reads the advertisements? We are all trying to find ways to deal with the problem. Will the Taoiseach consider hiring journalists to write newspaper articles for and against referendum proposals?
They did that already.
Those articles could be described as advertising. They would be much more likely to be read those than full page arguments which Governments insert. Such articles for and against proposals could be carried as advertisements, separate from the normal news stories. It would probably not cost as much either.
More interesting proposals. I would not say advertisements are not well read. We are lucky that people read them.
Some advertisements last year were misleading.
The numbers of people who campaigned, as well as those who wrote about the advertisements not being comprehensive, suggest that a fair number of people read them.
There is no doubt it is useful to air issues concerning a referendum in a newspaper. However, the Deputy will be aware it can be hard to get the different sides of opinion going. The newspapers do their part, but it depends on the interest in that referendum. While some Members were excited about Cabinet confidentiality, public interest in it was almost zero. Even though all 166 Deputies tried to inject some heat into the debate, we failed.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach seems to assume the Amsterdam treaty will go through on the nod. I caution him that is not so. There will be a vigorous debate on this issue.
The Deputy should ask a question.
(Dublin West): I have a question, but the Taoiseach should be put right on this.
This is not the occasion. This is the time for questions.
(Dublin West): Because of implications for the economy and this country's possible involvement in military alliances, as well as the seriousness of this matter, does the Taoiseach agree the wrong gloss has been put on the McKenna judgment? It does not bar the Government from using public funds to look for a “yes” vote, but it requires that fair representation is given to both sides of the argument. Given that the March date is quite close, will the Taoiseach report to the House on how public funding for fair representation of both sides of the argument can be secured?
I was not taking it for granted this agreement will go through on the nod. I was trying to check the likely level of support for the Amsterdam agreement, and that has worked. I thank the Deputy for declaring his reservations.
Whether we deal with this matter legislatively, through the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, or through an ad hoc all-party group in the House as suggested by Deputy de Rossa, those proposals will have to be cleared in the House.
When?
As soon as we are ready. I do not agree that a gloss has been put on a link between the Amsterdam agreement and military alliances. In the negotiation of that document, the Irish position on neutrality has been well protected.
There seems to have been a debate on the Amsterdam treaty. Given that the Taoiseach has not specifically stated there will be a debate on the Amsterdam treaty, will he allow such a debate between now and March? There seems to be considerable interest in this matter. Will he set a target, for the benefit of everybody, the Government included, for the referendum, that they may work towards it even though he cannot say for definite when it might be?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs is to present the White Paper early in the New Year which the House shall debate when we resume at the end of January. We should know at that stage how we will present it. I set that as the timescale.
