Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jun 1999

Vol. 159 No. 19

Referendum Commission: Motion.

Mr. Quinn

I move:

That Seanad Éireann expresses its gratitude to the Referendum Commission for the work it has done under difficult circumstances, but believes that the system created to implement the Supreme Court decision on referendum information campaigns has not succeeded sufficiently in engaging the general public in referendum decisions and therefore calls on the Government to carry out urgently a review of the available options for a more effective system, which would take full advantage of the lessons learned from recent experience.

I welcome the fact that the Government has not tabled an amendment to this motion. It is not intended to be controversial or to do anything other than draw this problem to the attention of the nation.

We have a problem. There are 109,066 reasons this motion is before the House – that was the number of spoiled votes in the 11 June referendum on local government. These people were not against the referendum proposal itself; their votes seem to be a protest against a system which left them uninformed and confused about the issues before them. They did not know about the issues and did not understand why they were being asked to make this change in the country's basic law. That is why we ended up with 109,066 spoiled votes. Rather than vote, they seem to have taken a reasonable course of action – they deliberately spoiled their votes. Those spoiled votes were a cry for help to which I hope the House will respond. I hope this begins a process that leads to a better approach to referendums in the future. I will use "referendums" as I have been corrected in the past on this.

I did not table this motion to criticise anyone. Let us not blame the Referendum Commission, which has done precisely the job it is required to do. It is not at fault, neither is the work it has done; it is the system that we have created in response to the Supreme Court judgment. Some have suggested that the Referendum Commission did not have enough time to do a proper job on this occasion, but this is not the first referendum under the commission system: it is the third. Our experience this time bears out what we should have learned from the two other occasions – the system is wrong.

I will not waste time on the nuts and bolts of how the commission goes about its business, but it has been suggested that newspaper advertisements are not a good way to get across the information that needs to be communicated about referendums. However, as with other referendums, a variety of media were used with no great difference in the results. We must face the truth that the commission's solution is a purely legal response to a purely legal problem. Our experience shows that that will always be an inadequate response because it is the system that we must change.

I often feel when dealing with legislation that we have a mindset that the solution to every problem must be a legal one. I am not opposed to lawyers, though Senator Henry and I were discussing some of the legalistic language used in a debate here last week. We probably rely over much on legal minds to drive our policy making and in the way we seek to put policy into effect. That said, the Referendum Commission approach must have looked adequate when it was conceived. I remember that when we first heard about that body, we felt it was an adequate response to the problem as it was a legal problem which created the issue in the first place. For years people had wondered about the legality of the Government using public money to push one side in a referendum debate until someone had the guts to do something about it. That someone was Patricia McKenna. To her credit, she took the issue to court and the Supreme Court con firmed that taxpayers' money could not be spent by the Government in that way. The State was legally challenged and it sought a legal response to that challenge, which seems reasonable.

The State wanted a solution which would, above all, be copperfastened constitutionally and we got that. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Referendum Commission is an ideal solution. No Government will ever be taken to the Supreme Court while that solution is in place. It is legally perfect. Unfortunately, however, the solution has now proved to be satisfactory only in strictly legal terms. It is a disaster in terms of democracy and the people. It is a creeping threat.

I feel this matter is important because referendums are a crucial tool of democracy in our system because of what we use them for. Unlike the Swiss, we do not use referendums to put every major issue of policy before the people. We use them in a way that is even more important – to change our basic law, Bunreacht na hEireann, our Constitution. Our Constitution is entrenched to the extent that we cannot change it here in the Oireachtas. It can only be changed by the people, voting in a referendum. That exclusive right of ownership over our basic law is the most practical expression in our system of the sovereignty of the people. It has been a precious light since 1937 and is an absolute cornerstone of our democracy and our identity as a republic. It is part of the people's heritage we now risk undermining if we persist with this inappropriate response to the McKenna judgment.

It is also a matter of some urgency. Thanks to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, it is clear that a major overhaul of the Constitution is long overdue. There will inevitably be a long series of referendums, over perhaps five years, some of which will involve reasonably complex or technical issues. The first period of the new millennium will be spent dealing with referendums following the constitutional review. If, every time we hold a referendum, we chip away at the public respect for the process, we do posterity a major disservice. That is what persisting with the Referendum Commission approach will inevitably do. It is only too clear that this chipping away has begun already. For at least 109,066 citizens, the undermining is already a fact.

I hope this evening we can begin to discuss this important problem in a non-partisan way. There is no reason for partisan differences in this matter. We all respect the Constitution and realise its importance. We have an opportunity to begin a debate and I hope we take it.

The most important need is to ensure a forceful public debate between the two sides of a referendum issue. This is not fundamentally an information or communication problem. It is a confrontational problem. It may sound unusual to describe a non-partisan issue as a confrontational problem but if we ensure confrontation, information and communication will flow abundantly as a natural result.

I recognise that from time to time we may have need for purely technical adjustments to the Constitution and in those cases it does not really matter whether the public is fully engaged. For example, there is clearly a need to change all the references to the President in the Constitution as a male. It does not seem wrong simply to ask the people to rubber-stamp a change like that without whipping up too much fuss about it. However, in most cases it is important that the people consider the issue carefully before voting. The best way of ensuring they do that is to give them neither information nor propaganda but forceful debate – a confrontation over a significant period between opposing views. It would be ideal, from a democratic point of view, only to have referendums on issues on which the political parties are clearly divided. When that is the case, everybody concerned rushes to convince as many people as they can. Confrontation of ideas is almost guaranteed in those circumstances. Increasingly, however, referendums are not very controversial as far as the mainstream political parties are concerned.

An extreme example of this was the amendment on bail. I do not think a single person in the Oireachtas opposed that amendment. I certainly did not but I pointed out at the time an undesirable side effect of this unanimity that there was an almost total absence of debate. Outside the House, there was opposition to the amendment. There were reasonable arguments against the amendment which deserved to be heard but, because of the vacuum created by the political consensus, they were not adequately heard. The result was right but democracy was not served on that occasion.

Something similar happened with regard to the debate on divorce. No mainstream political party opposed the amendment yet 49.7 per cent of the electorate voted against it. Members of the Oireachtas do not always represent the views of the people.

Increasingly, the opposing side in referendums will come from groups that are on the fringe of politics or outside politics altogether. We must make it possible for them to have an effective say. That, I think, means giving them money, something about which I have not been enthusiastic in the past. That is not to say that we have to yield the field to them. It is the responsibility of political parties to put forward their referendum views in public debate but it is only realistic to admit that doing so takes resources and that at times parties may be unwilling or unable to invest resources in it.

The example of the referendum in 1987 on the Single European Act comes to mind. That was sprung on a new Government by a Supreme Court judgment and the referendum had to be held quickly in order to meet Europe's ratification schedule. All the political parties were broke after a hard fought election campaign and none had the stomach to go on the streets again, especially as everyone was in favour. In that case, the Government mounted a one-sided campaign, the amendment was passed and we ratified the Act. Of course, we cannot have the Government doing that any longer.

The mainstream political parties must be involved and the only way to ensure that happens may be to bankroll their campaigns. Similarly, we must find a way to bankroll other groups who want to campaign, particularly groups who want to argue against the mainstream. Creating a practical vehicle for doing this may not be easy and I do not have a neat blueprint for it. However, I believe it can and should be done. I look forward to hearing Members' views on this issue and especially on how we might move forward from the present unsatisfactory position.

Dr. Henry

Senator Quinn has done a great service in proposing this motion. He is right in saying that there was no proper debate on the recent referendum and that democracy is threatened when proper debate does not take place.

The Referendum Commission cannot be regarded as having been negligent in the recent referendum because there was no time to do any more than place advertisements in the newspapers. There was not sufficient time to post information to every household in the country, which was done in previous referenda – and unlike Senator Quinn, I prefer the form referenda.

The decision of more than 100,000 people not to vote in the recent referendum is extremely serious. Like many Senators, I was asked by members of the public what the referendum was all about. It was difficult to answer that question, particularly as five questions were being asked. I found it easier to concentrate on the fact that the amendment would oblige the Government to hold local elections at least every five years. Everyone seemed to be in favour of that. Sometimes quite complex questions are asked in referenda and we certainly saw a great lack of involvement in the last one.

The McKenna judgment has made a change in the way we are allowed to run referenda. The Government must spend equal amounts of money promoting both sides of the argument or none at all. As Senator Quinn has said, referenda are the only way to change the Constitution, our basic law. For that reason we must take this matter seriously.

Referenda are funded and held in different ways in different countries. In Switzerland, where a great deal of the law is changed by way of referendum, no money for campaigning is given by the public purse. I was surprised to learn that all spending is left to interest groups who must rely on their own resources. This, of course, does not mean that both sides of the argument will be financed equally or that there will be equity of exposure to the views of both sides. One can see that those who are outside the mainstream opinion may have difficulty in presenting their views. I wonder if this is why it has taken so long for women to win the right to vote in many parts of Switzerland. Women suffragists in Switzerland are likely to be less well-financed than those who wish to maintain the status quo.

The McKenna judgment has moved us closer to the Australian model where public money can be spent on both sides of the case but where the debate is usually more political. This may be because their political parties are more diverse than ours. With most of our political parties now crowded near the centre, in most recent referenda the political parties have taken much the same stance and there has not been a great deal of political debate. One cannot have a political debate if the political parties are in agreement. In Scandinavian countries where referenda are used to change legislation, public money is used.

Professor Michael Marsh, head of the department of political science in Trinity College in an article in The Irish Times wrote:

Responsibility for campaigning is largely subcontracted out to civic bodies. Interest groups, promotional groups and political parties are involved. In such a context voters know who is making the argument and the various groups can direct their campaigns to the aspects of the decision most salient to the people they target. Such a campaign has more life and is more likely to attract attention and provides better information. It also encourages political participation and the institutions of civic society in a direct way.

This is a good way of getting the various groups of civic society involved in the debate. One has to think about how favourably the taxpayer may look on the funding of some groups with their money. It is a way of encouraging debate.

I am a little worried about Senator Quinn's desire for confrontation in these referenda debates. Having been involved in the 1983 debate which led to the insertion into the Constitution of the 8th Amendment I have had more than enough confrontation to do me for the rest of my life. I hope we do not have another debate on that subject. I do not know how happy taxpayers would be about funding certain groups if they felt that what they were promoting was not for the common good. For example, if we had another debate on abortion – and I hope we do not – having a particular group promoting medical abortifacients saying they are being used more and more internationally, they would not cause a problem here, they are 95 per cent effective up to seven weeks of pregnancy and 75 per cent effective up to nine weeks of pregnancy would amount to propaganda for the pharmaceutical companies who promote such drugs. I have great difficulty believing that many taxpayers would be interested in promoting such an advertising campaign. In an effort to outline the other side of the argument, that is what would have to be done.

There has been a great deal of thoughtful interest in this motion. There can be very long-term implications of providing funding to small civic groups. One of the reasons we must try to involve the people in referenda again is that it is so hard on those to whom changes mean a great deal if the rest of the public take no notice. Those involved in local government must have been extremely depressed at the lack of concern displayed by the rest of the population in the changes taking place. Those involved in local government take their work very seriously and put a great deal of time and energy into it. They did so in the past for no remuneration. It must have been hard for them to accept the lack of concern among the people.

Friends of mine who adopted children were appalled at the low turnout in the polls during the referendum on adoption. It is important that we stir up people's interest in referenda again for the sake of those who have something at stake. Democracy will be diluted if we do not do something about how we run our future referenda. I have great pleasure in seconding this motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I thank Senator Quinn for tabling this motion. As we move towards the new millennium and in a period of rapid change where practices and procedures are under constant review, it is timely to consider how the electorate can become more involved and informed on important political issues. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government will not oppose the motion.

I would like to express my gratitude and that of the Government to the Referendum Commission for the work they undertook in relation to the recent referendum. The commission was established on 4 May 1999 and published extensive advertisements in local and national newspapers setting out the background and proposed terms of the referendum and briefly explaining them. On 6 June and running for the following week, the commission set out the main arguments for and against the proposed amendment in full page advertisements in the Sunday, national and local papers. Information leaflets were also issued to a wide range of public outlets and a series of radio and television broadcasts were carried as a backdrop to its newspaper advertisements.

In addition to the work of the Referendum Commission, there are a number of other statutory arrangements undertaken to promote public knowledge of a referendum. Copies of the Constitutional Amendment Bill may be inspected or obtained free of charge at any post office; a statement, prescribed by resolution of each House, is printed on polling cards and sent to every elector, and public notice must be given by the local returning officer for each constituency stating the date and hours of polling and indicating that cop ies of the Bill may be inspected or obtained at any post office. The referendum also received coverage in the print media and in television and radio programmes.

However, notwithstanding the work of the Referendum Commission and the statutory and non-statutory arrangements for making information available, there was undoubtedly a lack of engagement by the electorate in the referendum campaign. An element of this disinterest resulted from the subject matter which was essentially non-contentious. As an issue, it was never going to generate the type of intense political and public debate that, for example, the divorce or abortion referenda created in the past. The lack of concern for the recent referendum cannot be seen in isolation from the wider problem of voter turnout and indifference towards the political system.

Like most politicians, political commentators and members of the public, I was concerned at the low turnout in the three recent polls. The possibility of a low poll became evident during the election campaign and has been the subject of much comment since. Various theories have been put forward as to why almost half the electorate decided not to vote. Alienation from the political system, decline in party appeal and political fragmentation, policy convergence between the political parties, the pursuit of consensus politics, days and times of polls and the holding of a number of polls on the same day have all been suggested as possible explanations. Earlier this year, research by the Referendum Commission in the aftermath of the referenda on the Amsterdam Treaty and the Good Friday Agreement revealed a variety of reasons for not voting, including people being too busy, being away from home or simply not bothering.

Whatever the reasons for the low turnout in all three polls, including the referendum, the fact remains that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the State in which the people, as guardians, have a crucial role to play. The arrangements for referenda must in some way provide for the information needs of voters and encourage political participation and debate to the greatest extent possible. There have been changes in the conduct of referendum campaigns over the years, most noticeably in terms of the tendency for cross-party support for proposals and the upsurge in interest group participation although I would say again that the level of such participation is obviously influenced by the subject matter of the proposal. These developments have been accompanied by the Supreme Court judgments in the McKenna case and the outcome of the Coughlan case in relation to the provision of equal broadcasting time by RTE – currently on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Three ad hoc commissions on the divorce, bail and cabinet confidentiality referenda and three statutory Referendum Commissions on the Amsterdam Treaty, the Good Friday Agreement and local government recognition have now come and gone. The question that remains is whether these changes in the conduct of referenda have expressly altered the operation of referendum campaigns, especially in informing the electorate of the proposal and motivating them to express their view at the ballot box. The answer, or at least part of it, is that despite the endeavours of the commissions and the public money spent providing information, turnout and participation have been disappointing.

The referendum is the greatest instrument of direct democracy. The fact that any amendment to the Constitution requires a referendum offers the electorate the opportunity to express its opinion on political and constitutional issues. Since 1937, the Constitution has been amended following a referendum on 17 occasions. Five proposals have been rejected, which demonstrates that the people can be very discerning on proposals to amend the Constitution. In the final analysis, the quality of judgment expressed at a referendum is, among other things, a function of the quality of information available and of the political discourse.

Referendum practice elsewhere in Europe and the world varies. For example, arrangements made by the Danes for their referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty involved the Government setting up a funding scheme of £2.5 million administered by an independent committee. The fund was divided between grassroots groups, political parties and three national movements concerned with the EU. The Danish Government and Foreign Affairs Ministry also produced information material aimed at the general public. I understand that similar financing arrangements apply in Finland and Norway, while no public funding is provided in France, Italy or Switzerland.

Other countries adopt different methods of informing the electorate on a proposal in a referendum. For example, in Australia information is made available to electors through the media and by the Government. An official pamphlet is posted to every elector on the national electoral roll by the Australian Electoral Commission. There is a statutory control on the number of words in the pamphlet – 2,000 for and 2,000 against. Since 1984, the federal government has been prohibited from spending any money to present any arguments for or against the proposal, except on the pamphlet. The text is supplied by those who voted for and against the particular referendum's enabling legislation as it passed through the federal parliament.

For the 1992 electoral system referendum in New Zealand, the Minister of Justice set up a panel presided over by an Ombudsman to conduct a public education campaign which included a brochure sent to every household, a more detailed guide, three television programmes and a videotape. Partisan cases were advanced by the Electoral Reform Commission, which had been in existence for some years, and a campaign for better government formed to oppose the change.

In Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer has the obligation to implement public education and information programmes to make the referendum process better known to the public. He is also obliged to inform the public of the referendum question and the manner in which the referendum will be conducted. The officer cannot inform the public with respect to any argument in support of or opposed to the referendum question. Any person or group may advertise to support or oppose the referendum. However, the sponsor's identity must be indicated in any referendum advertisement. If, as an extension of their participation, a person or group intends to spend more than $5,000 directly to support or oppose the question, the person or group must apply to be registered with the chief electoral officer. A person or group can register at any time during the referendum period and, once registered, such a person or group is referred to as a registered referendum committee. All registered referendum committees have the right to obtain the voters' list, appoint agents and be eligible for free broadcasting time.

The methods employed by various countries generally include notices in the print media, on television, on the lnternet and the use of pamphlets. However, the effectiveness of these communication methods is open to debate. For example, the pamphlet, apart from being less costly, has the advantage that it reaches every household. It seeks to ensure that a balanced set of arguments is made available to the electorate. The placing of notices in the print media aims to achieve the same objective, but arguably does so less surely. Press notices clearly fail to reach those who rely on radio and television alone for their information. Of course, the reality of printed matter is that it does not communicate its message unless it is read.

Research carried out on behalf of the Referendum Commission after the Amsterdam Treaty and Northern Ireland Agreement referenda, suggested that while there was a consistent demand for more information, the percentage of people who actually read any of the publications was disappointing. For example, while over 56 per cent said they received a questions and answers booklet on the Amsterdam Treaty, only 56 per cent of these claimed to have read it, and of those only 12 per cent read it fully.

The question of whether funding should be given to groups campaigning for and against a proposal is also open to debate. How does one divide the funds? Should they be divided on a 50-50 basis? The Supreme Court judgment in the Coughlan case may be a useful guide in this matter. What conditions should be attached to such funding? How relevant must the material be to the referendum proposal? How are public funds to be accounted for without interfering with a group's advocacy strategy? I raise these questions not to be obstructive, but to illustrate that the matter needs detailed consideration. We might ask even more fundamental questions. Would the electorate be any wiser after being bombarded with material from a number of different interest groups? Would more material be a bigger turn-off for the electorate?

There is no evidence to suggest that more information would lead to a higher turnout. While the recent referendum was recommended by the Constitution Review Group report, the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and bodies representing local authorities, it failed to engage the electorate. Would more information have energised the electorate? I do not think so. There is a difference between information provision and voter turnout. Information may assist the electorate in coming to a decision, but there is no guarantee it will lead to an increase in turnout.

My Department will examine the various methods of providing information at referenda, including the role of the Referendum Commission, and will seek to develop proposals having regard to the experience and work undertaken in this area. Of particular relevance will be the work of the three ad hoc committees, the three referendum commissions, the McKenna judgment, the Supreme Court appeal on the Coughlan case and the reports and recommendations of the Constitution Review Group and the all-party Oireachtas committee.

The Department's proposals will also be informed by this debate and I look forward to the interesting and perhaps innovative proposals of the House in this matter.

Mr. Coogan

I commend Senator Quinn for bringing this motion before the House. He has done so in a non-confrontational manner, but the basis on which he has brought it forward is of great interest. He claims that over 109,000 people spoiled their votes in the recent referendum. That is a sad commentary on what has occurred and it finds fault with the Referendum Commission. While Senator Quinn has no intention of being confrontational, I may take a slightly different view.

I came across a prime example of the confusion over the referendum while standing near a ballot box on polling day. An old lady came into the polling station and asked the presiding officer what the referendum was about. He referred her to me, even though one would have thought a presiding officer would have a good knowledge of such matters. In the few minutes available I did not have an opportunity to explain the matter properly to the woman.

If a referendum, which is seen as non-contentious, is held at the same time as any other election – as happened in this case, with European and local elections on the same day – canvassers, while not avoiding the issue, will not seek to raise it because their focus is on getting their own candidates elected. The next referendum should be held separately from elections, thus avoiding confusion. People only focused on two of the three ballot papers which means, sadly, that no opportunity was made to explain the referendum.

The current referendum arrangements stem from the McKenna judgment in which the Supreme Court decided there was something wrong with the existing system because it was political. I recall looking at a newspaper and asking somebody what they made of the Referendum Commission's advertising. They said they thought it was a tender document for a local authority or a lengthy death notice, both of which are usually boxed in black ink. That person told me they do not bother reading such items. In other words, the presentation of the Referendum Commission's advertisements is wrong, as well as everything else.

The Minister examined a number of different arrangements to be found in various countries, and he found something to condemn in all of them.

In reality the Minister has not opposed this motion because he knows the commission has failed in its responsibility to ensure that the public were well aware of what was contained in the referendum. That is also why he is not opposing it today. The Minister referred to referenda held in Denmark and other countries and I ask him to examine the possibility of utilising them or a combination of them.

I recall the Dáil debate on 3 February 1998 when the Minister said he referred to the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which recommended that there ought not to be a constitutional barrier to the public funding of a referendum campaign provided that the manner of equitable allotment of such funding is entrusted to an independent body. He went on to say that he was not bothered and in too much of a hurry to take account of it at that time. That was his opportunity to take it into account. It is possible to review the idea of an independent body making decisions on the distribution of funds. There is another alternative. The bottom line is that the Minister will not oppose this motion because he realises that the commission has failed.

The Fine Gael Party opposed these recommendations in 1998 and we still oppose them. I ask the Minister to make another judgment on this issue. It has failed and will continue to fail. It is self-evident that it has failed three times so far and the evidence this time is clearer than in the past. The opportunity and timing may not have allowed the commission to contact every household but nevertheless it has failed.

Senator Quinn referred to the language used by the commission. The language used and the way it is presented is pure legalese. The general public will take one look at it and say they do not understand it and they do not want to understand it. I do not blame the commission for this. I mean no disrespect to the people involved, not the legal, academic or the Clerks of the Seanad and Dáil. They are all capable people. However, if I had to ask someone to set up a committee on the health sector I would not seek people who were not involved in the sector and ask them to make judgments on it.

Members are elected to make these decisions and we should enter the debate. Perhaps we do not enter into debate enough. This is a non-contentious issue and perhaps that is why we do not want to debate it. There must be some way to create contention. There must be some way debate can take place and the public can be well informed. The commission is not the best format that can be found.

I commend Senator Quinn for tabling this motion. His points were well made. He did not go into contentious mode. He did not need to because the 109,000 people who spoiled their votes made his point for him.

Mr. Walsh

I welcome the Minister to the House. I, too, commend Senators Quinn and Henry on this motion because I concur with the sentiments expressed.

There was, without doubt, an information deficit among the public at large with regard to the referendum campaign. That deficit may have exceeded the extent of the information deficit in the past because of the non-contentious nature of the constitutional amendment. When I was canvassing many people asked me, and I am sure many other candidates were also asked, what was the purpose of the constitutional amendment. In many instances when I mentioned there was a referendum people were oblivious to it. The message was not put across by whatever mechanism that was used. On 11 June I visited a polling station in a rural area. At the time a lady was voting and I sat with some of the personating agents. When she realised I was there she came over to me with her three ballot papers and asked me to explain the referendum to her. She is an intelligent lady and someone I would expect to be clued into the issues.

Since the McKenna judgment the nature of the debate surrounding various referenda amendments has not been nearly as informative as heretofore. I would not be as sanguine or as complimentary as Senator Quinn was to Patricia McKenna. She exercised her constitutional right to take a legal case but she did so because she had a particular agenda with regard to that amendment.

Mr. Ryan

The Senator should not cast aspersions on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Walsh

Senator Ryan will have his chance to speak.

It is always the smaller parties like the Labour Party and the Green Party who go to court with these issues in order to equalise the dominant support that larger parties possess. I am not sure that equalising the debate or the spend serves democracy well. In a democratic world the majority rules.

I listened to Patricia McKenna speak on radio, and it is was disingenuous of her, when she said that in disclaiming any responsibility for the position we are now in with regard to referenda, pol itical parties had the opportunity to spend their own funds on arguments they wished to promote. She failed to take account of the fact that all the political parties that I am aware of have serious financial difficulties and that the amount of resources they can avail of, even for elections, is constrained.

I agree that it is time we examined alternative options to enable us get over the difficulties that exist. That is the essence of the motion. We have to take account of the Supreme Court decision. There will be an ongoing role for the Referendum Commission but it should not be in the mode it has operated to date. Advertisements in newspapers or the circulation of pamphlets that articulate the case for and against a referendum result in many people being confused about an issue. People who are involved in politics and reasonably well informed about the issues put before the public often make the mistake of assuming that the electorate is as interested in them as ourselves. It is only when we go on a campaign that we discover the public has various levels of interest in many issues.

I would not attribute the low turnout to the number of elections or to the referendum on 11 June. I do not share the view that we should have held the referendum on its own. If we had the turnout would have been far lower. We tend to underestimate the intelligence of the electorate in these matters. Many people are discerning. We need to have a system that generates real debate on issues of constitutional change. As has been said, the Constitution is the primary document that underpins our democratic process and from which all legislation and everything else must flow and conform with. It is held in high regard by the general public. Therefore, it is important when we are making changes that the public are well informed as to the nature of the change and the reasons for and against it.

The McKenna judgment seems to have neutered successive Governments in propagating their viewpoint and their argument in respect of the constitutional change. Given that the amendments all originate in the Houses of the Oireachtas it seems incongruous that that situation would continue or pertain in the future. A new system must be found which will allow the Government and the political parties to articulate the case for, and the reasons behind, seeking the change in the Constitution. Perhaps the McKenna judgment can be respected by making the Referendum Commission either the vehicle to put forward the case against the change or the guardian of the expenditure that will take place both for and against. Funding could be made available for the commission and, similar to the Danish system, the opportunity could be given to other bodies, opposed to the change and of a sufficient standard and reputation, to put their case effectively. The idea of one body putting the case for and against has proven to be ineffective. Some changes are needed to ensure that voters do not find themselves in the polling booth wondering what the amendment to the Constitution is all about.

Ms O'Meara

I welcome this debate and congratulate Senator Feargal Quinn for placing this important motion before the House. It is also welcome that the Minister has stated the Government is not opposed to it. This is a timely debate in light of recent experience with the amendment to the Constitution on local government. The amendment itself was widely welcomed and supported and as a member of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution for a year and a half, it was felt that this amendment was very worthwhile. However, it was very disappointing that it came up a few weeks before the local and European elections because inevitably it was going to get lost in the heat of local politics and election campaigns. It was not contentious enough to generate proper debate on constitutional reform and that was reflected in the comments of people met by those of us who stood for election. When we reminded people in Nenagh, for instance, that there would be four ballot papers, the fourth being the constitutional referendum, people who would consider themselves extremely well informed were not aware of the referendum, even though there were full page ads in the newspapers and notices on the radio. Clearly the work being done by the Referendum Commission is not enough and the way in which it is working needs to be examined.

I was involved in the Government campaign on the divorce referendum when the McKenna judgment was handed down, the principle of which I agree with. No Government has the right to use public funds for one side only to the detriment of another side. However, how does one resolve the issue? How does any Government put a proposal to the people and not have a view on it? Clearly if the Government is putting a proposal to the people it has a view on it and believes it is a good proposal. The inability to simply say so is at the centre of the dilemma. The Referendum Commission has a role to play in this. The way in which the McKenna judgment has been interpreted has left us far short of where we need to be. The solution is set out to some extent in the Minister's own remarks and the experience of other countries.

I know from our debates in the All-Party Committee on the Constitution that getting information across to the electorate in a way which enhances and strengthens our democracy is a highly skilled process. It requires more than the establishment of a Referendum Commission a number of weeks before a referendum is held and the conducting of a purely legalistic exercise above the heads of the vast majority of the electorate, despite the engagement of public relations companies. I am an avid newspaper reader. As a former journalist and someone who is interested in current affairs and constitutional issues in particular, I found it very difficult to wade through those ads. The manner in which we engage with people requires skill. One does not want to popularise or sensationalise very important subjects but one has to take into account the level at which one communicates with people.

As a member of the all-party committee, and there are other members of the all-party committee here too, I believe the solution is a permanent information commission, not just one which is established in the short weeks before the referendum. It should conduct a constant public information exercise in a creative, imaginative way in schools and community groups such as the ICA, groups where the elderly meet, and where children and young people meet. We need to consider how we communicate with other people, not how we communicate with each other. The principle of the McKenna judgment is correct but it has thrown up what would appear to be irreconcilable differences. These are connected to the wider problem of cynicism in politics and how we are engaging with the public and letting them know that we are listening to them too. Constitutional reform is needed as the country and society changes. As constitutional reform is either highly contentious or utterly boring, there must be some middle ground. I suggest to the Government in the context of the McKenna judgment the establishment of a standing commission with funds and discretion in how to spend them. Groups could approach the commission for funding in ways similar to those in Canada and New Zealand.

Mr. Dardis

I join with Senator O'Meara and other Senators in commending Senator Quinn on the motion. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted it because I believe that it is the correct thing to do. It is timely that we discuss this matter in the light of the recent referendum and the large number of spoiled votes. There was a previous referendum, of a technical nature, in which there was a large number of spoiled votes. It coincided with one of the European elections which predated the McKenna judgment. I do not dispute the High Court decision or Ms McKenna's right to bring the action to the Supreme Court to have it adjudicated upon and the requirement to live by the adjudication. Nevertheless, it is central to a democracy that there should be argument and persuasion. It should be open to governments and others to put their cases as forcefully and as well as they can, and in circumstances where there is a large degree of consensus that should not diminish the right to advocacy.

There is an implicit anti-democratic dimension which could arise from the judgment. One could have a situation where every private body or every non-public body which wants to get involved in the advocacy and who might, in certain circumstances, has large funds at its disposal could do so and the Government's hands could be tied in counteracting that advocacy. We can think of at least one very contentious issue on which that might arise. It would be profoundly anti-democratic, perhaps to the point where it would require a referendum on the McKenna judgment itself. We would then get into the supreme tautology of what we might do in those circumstances.

I agree with the contention that the commission does not present its case in a user-friendly fashion. I would have been one of those at the all-party committee who would have recommended strongly that journalists, advertisers and others should be involved. It is to the detriment of the argument that arcane legal language and legalese surround the arguments put. I would also make this point in respect of the language used in legislation. Frequently, it is done to make it impenetrable to the layman – to create a legal mystique whereby only the gods of the legal profession have access to the ideas contained in the arcane language used. This can lead to a certain lack of engagement with topics.

I would have no difficulty whatsoever with Senator Quinn, for instance, being able to treat a referendum issue – not to be too flippant about it – like selling groceries.

Mr. Norris

This is a serious business.

Mr. Dardis

I do not see why very serious issues cannot be presented in a way which is easily accessible to the public. If that requires the best skills in advertising or journalism those skills should be available to the commission. It was unquestionably the case on polling day that there were many people who had not even realised there were advertisements in the Sunday newspapers over a two week period. If that is the case there is something seriously wrong with the skills being employed to engage the electorate. The supreme irony is that one gets a lecture from the most cynical elements in the press – people who believe they should be arbiters of taste and not that democracy should prevail – on the turnout and that people have been turned off.

The low turnout in the local elections and the referendum has been mentioned. I take a somewhat unorthodox view on this matter. It is a measure of the stability of our democracy and a measure of the confidence people have in that democracy that turnouts are low. I suspect if one were to hold an election in Kosovo in the morning, as has been the case in Palestine and in South Africa, where democracy is less well established and is not as stable, there would be a high turnout. That is one of the reasons turnout is low.

The question of consensus may also be a contributor but I would not be an advocate of compelling people to vote by law. That is anti-democratic. If people choose to stay away that is their right, although it is unfortunate. The vote is valuable. It was fought for and is something we treasure. However, I am not in favour of compelling anybody to vote. One could find oneself in the ludicrous situation of sending out £50 fines to a million people and wondering what to do in the event that none of them paid the fines.

Mr. Ryan

It is a bit like the bail referendum.

Mr. Dardis

What are the alternatives to the commission? There are certain possibilities that might be considered. As has been done in Canada, funding could be provided to various parties, not just political parties. If a European matter was involved the European Movement could be provided with funding along with other registered bodies. The difficulty here is that a verification system would be needed to ensure the money was used for the purpose for which it was assigned and not swallowed up in the party coffers and used to address issues other than the constitutional issue involved.

The effect of the McKenna judgment brings it into an area of constitutional theology, which is an area we should not have to be involved in. In deference to Senator Ryan I accept the Supreme Court judgment. It stands and we must live with it until such time as we either change the Constitution or find some system which allows us to—

Mr. Ryan

Does the Senator think it was correct?

Mr. Dardis

We need a system whereby people are engaged through the skills of advertising, journalism and PR but not through the skills of lawyers. With several other members of the all-party committee I recently visited the Italian Parliament. I would hate to have the arrangement in Italy whereby one is required to have more than 50 per cent of the total electorate assenting to a constitutional amendment before it can be carried – not 50 per cent of the turnout but over 50 per cent of the total electorate. That would make it virtually impossible to change a constitution as, I think, the Italians have found. They have also a parliamentary system by which the constitution can be changed. It should be open to a Government, if it is committed to a particular proposition or in the event of cross-party support, to advocate that proposition. The parties can campaign. The Government cannot campaign on its own.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Dardis

I agree with Senator Walsh that what I heard on radio was disingenuous. One view I heard, which was wrong, was that the issue was not required to go through the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is wrong. A Bill had to be enacted before the referendum could be held.

Mr. Norris

I congratulate my colleague, Senator Quinn, on producing this motion. It is an important subject in our democracy. He demonstrated his skill in wording the motion effectively so that it was not opposed by the Government and it has been able to take on board the proposals in a non-contentious fashion. I think that is a good and wise thing for both sides. I also compliment Patricia McKenna. She operated the constitutional machinery of this State and was vindicated. I do not think anybody should, in any sense, dispute or disparage her right so to do.

Senator Quinn's motion comes in the aftermath of a referendum where there was a spectacularly low turnout and in that low turnout there was a spectacularly high rate of spoiled votes, over 109,000. That is a very different matter to a low turnout. It is a very high proportion of people who are doing something perfectly deliberate. They are saying "we are fed up with the whole thing", "we are not interested", "we do not understand it" or "go away". That is where the focus of our interest should be. I must say, as an aside, that we should look at the subject of the referendum. It was pretty bland. Its purpose was to recognise the existence of county councils, which have been happily doing or not doing their business for the last 100 years or so. Recognition of them does not have a huge impact, although it has some small legal effect. However, it is minute; it only acknowledges the fact that reality persists in political life.

The referendum offered a salutary lesson to Members of the House who everlastingly gloat in and boast of their connection with the grassroots and how important it is to be a member of a council, etc. They got an answer from the electorate – it could not give a damn. When they produce something bland they will get a bland answer, although in this instance the bland answer was delivered in a determined way.

There are fit subjects for referendum and there are subjects that are not useful to explore through referenda. Discreet reference has been made to the abortion referenda. There is a small movement to hold another referendum. That would be misjudged. My view and the view of the religious denomination to which I am affiliated – I will eschew Senator Ryan's phrase about "my church" because I do not believe I possess it entirely—

Mr. Ryan

I gave them back.

Mr. Norris

Good. The religious denomination to which I am affiliated made it clear it did not think this was a proper subject for referendum or constitutional amendment and that it would be more properly addressed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in legislation. I also take that view.

We must be serious and clear in our minds about the important matter of amending the Constitution, which is the bedrock of our entire political life. I understand from a news broadcast I caught on my way into the Chamber that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has just announced he proposes to hold a referendum on the question of joining the single currency. That is mad. It is not the kind of subject on which the average citizen is likely to take an informed view. It is an intensely complicated economic measure. If we think we are bad, the state of political sophistication of the British voter renders it a total waste of time. They have been so dumbed down by Mr. Murdoch and his allies that they seem scarcely capable of any coherent political thought of any kind. Holding a referendum on the question of whether to join a sophisticated financial machine seems to be highly irresponsible.

Mr. Dardis

They would probably spoil their votes.

Mr. Norris

I would not be surprised. The result of the McKenna judgment was to require the Government to be even handed in the presentation of a case when put to the people in a referendum. On the face of it that is a reasonable and fair thing to do. I suppose it arose principally because previous Governments decided, according to their lights, to fight and win a couple of referendums as well as they could, regardless of the views of the faint hearted. That is fine as a matter of political reality but it then led to the McKenna judgment when the Government was told it had to present the arguments equally.

However, it is very difficult to present the arguments equally if one does not believe in them. What about the holding of a referendum on which every decent person on the island is agreed? A matter on which we could all agree would be objective morality. How would a Government deal with such a situation? How would it, in conscience, present an argument against? For example, if it was necessary to hold a referendum to include in the Constitution and in domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights, how could the Government, in conscience, mount an equally determined campaign against it? How could anybody? The result of this is that advertisements reach a level of blandness which members of the public discern. They know the machinery creaks these things out but the heart is not in it. That is why apparently nobody read these advertisements in this referendum.

It is very foolish for people not to vote. Those who spoil their votes have the right idea. A young woman from Mullingar – to my horror I heard she was a graduate in German and Political Science, the mixture must have gone to her head—

Mr. Ryan

Was she a graduate of Trinity College?

Mr. Norris

I am glad to say she was not.

Mr. Ryan

Was it DCU?

Mr. Norris

No, it was probably Senator Ryan's little place in Cork, I forget the name of it. She said her refusal to vote would teach them a lesson. I doubt if not voting would teach anybody a lesson except herself if she decides to reflect on it.

The Minister of State referred to the Canadian experiment where people or groups who intend to spend more than Can$5,000 directly to sponsor a side in a referendum must be registered with the chief electoral officer and they are then referred to as a registered referendum committee. This gives them rights of access to broadcasting. I disagree with the automatic right of access to broadcasting because it means one can buy the right for Can$5,000, which is an abuse.

However, it is very good that such groups should be registered because one never knows what sinister agencies are abroad nestling in the woodworm. It would be very useful to have this kind of list so that one can see who is spending money and on what it is being spent. That would be an extension for our democracy.

A referendum is an important instrument in this State. We should be careful in using it because there are fit subjects for referendum while there are other subjects where it is not appropriate. I commend the commission and it should review the matter again because we need to include as many people as possible in this important process.

Ms Cox

I also congratulate Senator Quinn on introducing this motion. On the Order of Business last week I raised the question of the Referendum Commission and the way money was spent because, if we were to measure what we were hoping to achieve against the result, it is clear we got bad value for money. That is accepted by Members and the Government.

The objective of the Referendum Commission was to inform people about the referendum. That did not happen. The commission may have gone through the motions in this regard, but people did not know what was going on.

If we are to address this issue we need to look at the questions raised in this debate. The Minister of State addressed them. How do we get the message across? How should the money be allocated and spent?

There was a low turnout in the local elections. A vote is only spoilt if there is writing on the ballot paper, if the vote is indiscernible or voters put more than one tick in a box. A huge number of ballot papers had no writing on them, which technically meant they did not amount to spoilt votes. However, it indicates that many people were dissatisfied with the way the information was disseminated and the knowledge they had. They probably felt they should blame somebody for this.

Many of the points I intended to make have been made already so I will not repeat them. The low turnout is a separate issue. Low turnouts could become dangerous. If our democracy moves to the stage where less than 50 per cent of voters attend the polls, those who vote will decide issues on behalf of all the electorate. If 50 per cent of the electorate votes and the result is split 50/50, it does not mean that 50 per cent of the population agrees with the issue on which it votes.

Senator Dardis referred to the low turnout as a measure of satisfaction with the Government. I do not say this in a political way but whether one gives the credit for the booming economy and people's general affluence to the Government or society in general, a high percentage of people are satisfied with its performance. Small issues annoy us, such as increasing child care costs, increased traffic congestion which leads to people sitting in their cars for three quarters of an hour on their way home and a lack of proper infrastructure. There is no single major issue to get people energised so that they get off their backsides on a Friday evening and go to the polling station to vote.

Everybody is busy, society is changing and as a result people's priorities are changing. The challenge for the Government is to make sure voting is important enough for people to make the effort to vote or else to make it easy enough for them to do so. To make it easy for them to vote, a notice is placed in newspapers prior to Christmas each year advertising the impending publication of the draft electoral register. People are informed that they should go to their local post offices to find out if they are on the register. People do not even know how to get on the register or how they can be knocked off the register. We must start from there.

People do not realise that it is not possible to transfer their vote from Dublin to Galway, for example, unless they do so when the notice is placed in the newspapers regarding the formulation of the draft electoral register. If they have moved without transferring their vote and an election is called, they will not be able to vote. Issues such as this, and the ease with which information can be obtained from the electoral register, create impediments to people voting.

The postal voting system has been improved for people who are out of the country through work or study when an election is called. It is very difficult to cast a postal vote. One must get the form signed at a Garda station and produce all the relevant documents. By the time that has been done, one would probably wish that one never applied to use such a vote. People who are ill, disabled or live in nursing homes are not able to travel to polling stations to cast their votes and special voters such as these find it difficult to get through the bureaucracy that exists. It is not easy for them to get on the electoral register.

Polling station opening hours are also an issue and they have been extended from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Fridays. Perhaps the hours could be changed so that people could vote between 2 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Friday and 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday as has been suggested. We must examine innovative ways of making it easier for people to cast their votes. The day that people would lie down and die in order to cast their vote is gone and if we do not realise that, nothing will be done to address this problem. Another suggestion was that the national lottery should put up a £2 million prize for which everyone who votes would get a ticket giving them a chance to win. Is that so awful for us to consider? If the turnout were 75 per cent, it might be the easiest way to win £2 million. The Minister of State might take that suggestion back to the Department for consideration.

The Minister of State informed us that the operation of the last referendum was analysed but the system must be continually reviewed in order that something effective and focused is done to ensure people understand the issues involved. The Constitution is vitally important and it is essential that local government should be recognised in it.

I would have preferred if more people had voted but they did not know what was going on and did not understand. It is the Government's responsibility, as a result of the McKenna judgment, to ensure that people understand the issues with which they are faced. Perhaps when there is no argument against an issue, we should look at spending money to promote the argument. It is a disgraceful waste to spend time promoting a negative argument and this should be examined in future. I thank Senator Quinn for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue.

Mr. Ryan

I welcome the Minister of State, who is the father of the new Lord Mayor of Cork. He was elected last Monday night and it is interesting that both father and son have held the office of Lord Mayor in Cork. This is a welcome debate and I am glad that the motion is phrased as it is because there has been a tendency to use the old maxim, "If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger" in order to criticise the Referendum Commission in light of the turnout for the last referendum. However, the turnout was not that bad, although it was not satisfactory. The turnout for each of the divorce, abortion and Maastricht Treaty referenda was between 50 per cent and 55 per cent. I am certain that the figure did not exceed 60 per cent in any case.

We ought to be more concerned about the low turnout for the European and local elections, which was also manifest in the referendum, rather than suggesting that the Referendum Commission failed in this regard. It may have failed in terms of explaining what the referendum was about but the overall turnout figures for referenda are not that high and have not been for quite a while, with the great exception of the referenda on the Good Friday Agreement and the Amsterdam Treaty when the figure exceeded 60 per cent. Both referenda were held on the same day and one was carried with an overwhelming majority of 94 per cent while the other was carried with a 58 per cent majority.

People complained that they did know enough about the Amsterdam Treaty and took the wise option. When one is not knowledgeable about an issue, it has not been explained and one thinks that it might be dangerous, one should vote "no" and it can be explained the second time, which is what the middle of the road voters did when they voted on the first divorce referendum. They felt that too many questions had not been explained and they voted "no".

A number of factors are involved in non-participation in elections and referenda generally. Two categories of people tend disproportionately not to vote. The first category are those who are disadvantaged and excluded. They tend to have broken off contact with the church, are not very involved with their children's schools and have no interest in voting. The Minister is particularly good at getting people in areas that are classified disadvantaged to vote but, by and large, they do not vote.

Their non-participation is understandable but that of another section of society, namely the young affluent, has been reported recently. They have developed an extraordinarily arrogant individualism as a result of which they seem to believe that their affluence and that which surrounds them is all their own doing and they do not need to be involved in this nasty political business because they have succeeded on their own. The fact that the State paid £25,000 to educate them, probably pays one quarter of the cost of their houses through interest subsidies, will pay for their children's education and maintains the roads on which they live is irrelevant. That is an extraordinarily different type of non-participation and one that is less understandable. It is, perhaps, explicable but is not reassuring and it deserves to be confronted because such educated ignorance is a particularly unpleasant manifestation.

I am interested in Senator Cox's remarks regarding the electoral register. If we were in earnest, the same resources would be spent putting together the register as on the census. It would not be left as a vague wish that people fill in the form. People would go from door to door and, with the same thoroughness as applies to the census, ensure that happens. I suspect a proportion of what is called non-participation involves people who are on the register but not at the addresses at which they are supposed to reside. This also includes people who would like to vote but cannot do so because they are not on the register. Each citizen should register himself or herself but I have a legal obligation to fill in my census form. The most effective aspect is that a persistent person contracted by the CSO will keep coming back until I do it. They will knock at the door morning, noon and night until they get somebody at home.

I also have a suspicion that many landlords who are not registered tend to disappear quickly with registration forms before the Revenue Commissioners can go through the electoral register and find out how many people are living in a house which is not registered with the local authority or elsewhere.

An example which illustrates the problems is that six weeks before the referendum, one of the great campaigners on these issues who, for reasons of propriety, I will not name was on a radio current affairs programme. Afterwards he asked the presenter and some of the participants about the referendum and the presenter, who is well known to Members of the House, and one of the participants, who is a senior member of the Fine Gael Party, did not know about it. If six weeks before it, such senior figures did not know there was a referendum, we cannot blame the electorate who were swamped with European, local and other election material in addition to ordinary material. We should remember that most citizens do not eat and drink politics as some of us do. The problem was that information on the referendum was late. There is a case for ensuring in the future that the interval between the passage of legislation by the Oireachtas and a referendum is considerably longer to give people time to adjust to the fact that it is taking place.

Everybody must accept the McKenna judgment but few members of any of the political parties are prepared to say that they believe it was a good idea. My view is that McKenna judgment was a wonderful decision, but I have a personal interest to declare. It should have been me taking the action rather than Ms Patricia McKenna but I chickened out. I have documents at home which were prepared by a solicitor before the Maastricht Treaty which I was supposed to deliver to the Taoiseach the following day to initiate the process of seeking a judicial review. However, my wise solicitor who has been involved in such cases advised me that I might lose and outlined the consequences for me, my family and my home if I lost and particularly if they decided to pursue costs with any vigour. I chickened out but Ms McKenna had a great advantage at the time because the only thing she owned was a bicycle. As she says freely, if she had lost, there was not much which could have been taken from her other than an antiquated bicycle.

It was a wonderful decision, which was not close in the Supreme Court. It was a four to one majority and ultimately it said that the Constitution belongs to the people and that we are elected under the Constitution, not over it. We are regulated by the Constitution and there would be something peculiar if we who are regulated by it could use money which we are allowed to assemble under it to subvert it.

There is nothing in the McKenna judgment to stop members of the Government advocating a particular view in a referendum. All they are forbidden from doing is using public money to promote one side. They must be fair. Up to now we have been uselessly unimaginative about considering devices which would be fair. One device which would be fair would be to give money to other organisations. This requires some control and structures but I have been involved in organisations during referenda where a 30 per cent or 40 per cent no vote was achieved, although the organisations had to run their anti campaigns on a shoestring.

For example, during the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, the entire resources of the State were concentrated on the other side. It was a very uneven battle which involved the then Taoiseach, of whom I am very fond, sequestering the national broadcasting organisation for 15 minutes two days before the referendum to broadcast to the nation. Having announced what he thought about it, the item was repeated on the nine o' clock news later as the major news story.

The position now is that if we want to persuade the people, we use our imaginations to fund campaigns on both sides. There is a subtext not in Senator Quinn's comments but in many of the comments from mainstream political parties that the McKenna judgment is a bloody nuisance which they wish had not happened. They want to know how they can minimise its impact on the political party system rather than referenda. I am concerned about the Minister of State's comments that the Supreme Court judgment in the Coughlan case may be a useful guide in this matter. This relates to whether funds should be divided on a 50:50 basis. I do not know what the Coughlan case has to do with the McKenna judgment other than the fact that it is confined to RTE. I suspect I see a hint of an attempt to get around the McKenna judgment, but I warn the Minister of State not to try to get around it because Ms McKenna will have the Government back in the Supreme Court so fast that it will be embarrassing, the Government will lose again and it will only have more trouble.

Mr. Mooney

After that wonderful dissertation from Senator Ryan, I feel humbled and humiliated because I must try to justify some other aspects. The Senator said the McKenna judgment was wonderful but I know many people who have a different spin on it.

Mr. Ryan

That is a surprise.

Mr. Mooney

I do not suggest anything was wrong with it, but its consequences have given rise to this debate. Senator Quinn should be complimented because he is reflecting a view within Government and the political establishment, particularly in light of what happened in the most recent referendum, that there is an urgent need to address the problem. It all started so well and that is why I agree with Senator Ryan that it was a good idea to approach the Supreme Court on this matter. I am sorry it is not the Senator who will go down in history but we have taken note of his efforts.

Other speakers referred to the remarkable result of the recent referendum. However, it was not remarkable because of the overwhelming percentage in favour of it. Those of us who watched the boxes at counts in various centres were astonished at the number of blank referendum ballot papers. It was appalling and I do not believe any of us ever experienced anything like it. Obviously, people did not, or did not want to, understand what the referendum was about or they felt inadequate in rising to the challenge of deciding whether to vote yes or no.

It was a simple case of voting yes or no. The proponents of the referendum, the Government, were not attempting something which required a person to analyse a university thesis. It was reasonably straightforward. The Bill contained five or six sections but, globally, the concept was to strengthen the role of local government. When we were asked about it on the doorstep, we said it was about strengthening the role of local government and it was a simple case of voting yes or no. It was like Christmas because it was a good thing. However, there was a huge number of spoiled ballot papers. Obviously, people went into polling booths and, because of the intensity of the local elections campaign, that was the first paper they marked. The second ballot paper relating to the European election was a type of addendum to the first paper. The campaign in some constituencies may have been more intense than in others but it appears people decided to vote in the European elections only because they were voting in the local elections.

Mr. Ryan

The Senator cannot prove that.

Mr. Mooney

I accept that. However, some people decided to vote in the European elections while they were there. When they looked at the third paper their eyes glazed over, so they simply put all three papers into the box and went home.

As Senator Cox said, what is amazing about this is that huge amounts of public money were spent in the weeks preceding the referendum in putting arguments for and against. Like most politicians, I read the advertisement containing the arguments and found it informative. The arguments against were particularly interesting, not least that there had not been sufficient debate on an important part of our political system, namely, an amendment to our Constitution. All of us would agree that a constitutional amendment should not be taken lightly.

Should the Government be indicted for this? It obviously meant well. There was widespread consensus on the question to be put before the people; there was no major dissent on it. Presumably the Government's thinking was that, to save money, the referendum could be held on the same day as the European elections. I am curious to know when this decision was taken; my perception is that it was late in the day, not as early as the decision on the date of the local elections. Consequently there was a lot of catching up to do and when the advertisements appeared in the national newspapers, many people probably looked at the headlines and did not bother reading the detail.

This begs the question as to what is or should be the role of the Referendum Commission. Is it to be an arbiter of pros and cons or is it to have a different role? As a political establishment, are we to wrestle with this important problem, and the dilemma facing us, as to how, on one hand, to inform the people of the arguments for and against and, on the other, to spend public money wisely? Are we now to consider seriously the possibility of handing public money to specific groups on both sides of the argument? In any future referendum there will always be people for and people against. I take the recent referendum as an example of one on which there was widespread consensus. I do not think there was anyone against it – if people were against anything it was the timing but not the question put before the people.

I add my voice to those asking the Government to consider giving the public money used up to now for advertising, etc. to registered lobby groups. There could be a way of sorting out who should and should not be funded. There will be all sorts of headbangers—

Mr. Ryan

Some of the headbangers are within the political parties.

Mr. Mooney

I accept that and I do not suggest that people do not have the right to oppose. I cannot help but think of my dear old friend, the late Lord Sutch, God be good to him. What a pity we did not have the Monster Raving Looney Party over here; it would have made for colourful electioneering.

When a referendum proposal is put before the Oireachtas and it becomes clear who is in favour and who is opposed, the Government should seriously consider funding those groups. That would be a more equitable, fair and efficient way of dealing with this. What would be better than giving money to passionate, committed groups of lobbyists on either side of an argument? All they have ever wanted are resources and access to the media and it would fulfil the requirement of the Supreme Court judgment.

Mr. Quinn

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate. Part of my objective has been achieved with the Minister's remark: "The Department's proposals will also, I hope, be informed by this debate". I think the debate has been informative. He also said:

My Department will examine the various methods of providing information at referenda, including the role of the Referendum Commission, and will seek to develop proposals having regard to the experience and work undertaken in this area.

I thank the Minister for that, it was the objective I hoped to achieve in bringing forward the motion. I also thank the Members who spoke because they have fed into the Department some thoughts, ideas and proposals. We do not have an easy answer. This is a challenge to us, we must meet it and the Minister has shown that he intends to do so.

I learned a great deal from the debate tonight. From Senator Henry I learned what is happening in Switzerland and Scandinavia. From the Minister I learned about the various ways this issue is faced in places as far apart as New Zealand and Canada. Senator Coogan queried whether we were wise to hold a referendum on the same day as an election; that was challenged by Senator Walsh who, in turn, queried whether it was wise to have one body giving the arguments for and against.

Senator O'Meara spoke as a member of the Oireachtas All-party Committee on the Constitution and made a point which should be emphasised about the manner and level of communication, and the standing of the voice who communicates. Senator Dardis spoke of the dangers of being anti-democratic and of compelling people to vote. Senator Norris mentioned topics which we should not put to referendum if we could avoid doing it, giving the example of the referendum in the UK on the euro.

Senator Cox's idea was novel. The Minister and I were both looking for innovative proposals, and that description would apply to a free lottery ticket for all voters in a referendum. Senator Ryan provided another good example of innovative thinking. He mentioned the number of people who are not registered to vote because of change of address or never having been registered, and compared the effort put into taking a census to the effort taken to compile the register.

Senator Mooney spoke of the huge sums spent and said we should seriously consider giving public money to bodies who would put forward opposing views because we need passionate groups who disagree. That was part of my proposals because I believe the way we are heard is through confrontation, people arguing for and against. We listen to a person who says he believes passionately in something rather than read a list of pros and cons or legal language.

I found the debate interesting. I learned that I have not won my battle to have the plural of referendum spelt "referendums", although I announced earlier that I would use that form. Last year I was corrected in my use of the word "disinterested", which was used a couple of times tonight. It does not mean uninterested or a lack of interest; a disinterested person is a dispassionate party like a referee, who is not on one side or the other. I am showing off now because I have been corrected before. It has been educational.

I hope we have sparked off a debate which will lead to something which protects our democracy. Our Constitution is 62 years old and I did not realise how many referendums we have had. We were sophisticated enough to reject five proposed constitutional amendments. In 1782 in Philadelphia, when people like Madison, Franklin and Jefferson, were drawing up the US Constitution, they decided not to provide for referendums. The British do not have a written constitution, it is not part of how they run their affairs, yet they have decided to hold a referendum on occasion. We have a Constitution of which I am proud. We want to strengthen it and ensure it is maintained in the years ahead. A total of 109,000 spoiled votes in a referendum weakens our democracy and our Constitution. We must find a solution to this problem.

I thank all who contributed to the debate tonight. I could not have asked for a better response than that given by the Minister of State and I thank him for it.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I thank Senator Quinn for putting down this motion which, as I said, the Government will not oppose. We were interested in the various points made by Senators tonight and my officials and I have taken notes.

When I campaigned in the local elections people asked me about the referendum. As far as I was concerned it was straightforward. It was to fix local elections for a period not longer than five years and to give recognition to the contribution of local government over the past 200 years. We did not get that message across in the wording of the referendum and that is the reason for the breakdown in communication.

A Senator made the point that people did not have a problem with two ballot papers but had no interest in the third. The point was also made that three ballot papers were not a problem but there was a problem with a fourth. However, the number of ballot papers is not necessarily the issue. We must examine the problem in a wider context because it is in our interests to ensure there is a higher turnout at elections.

This problem is not caused by one issue. The point was made that it may have something to do with our economic success. Senator Ryan said that, simply, people may not have been interested. It was not an issue that affected people in the way other referenda affected them. For instance, the invalid vote in one referendum was just over 1,500 while in another, the invalid vote was 134,000 – the figures in that regard vary from 80,000 to 4,000 or 5,000. There is no consistency in relation to the reason people did not vote in the referendum.

We have taken note of the valid points made in the House tonight. If people do not want to vote, we cannot make them do so. We must examine all aspects of the problem and I hope as a result of this debate we can learn something and influence people to exercise their democratic right, particularly in a constitutional referendum. Many referenda have been held on issues that affected people personally or in the wider sense and they came out to vote.

The debate was wide-ranging and we have noted the points. I compliment Senator Quinn for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue. I hope we can devise a system which will be more informative and encourage people to greater participation in the democratic process.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. O'Brien

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.