Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, 6, 7, 12, 15 to 19, inclusive, 22, 26, 29 to 31, inclusive, and 33 are related, amendments Nos. 8 and 28 are consequential on amendment No. 6, amendment No. 32 is consequential on amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 7, 12, 13 and 23 to 25, inclusive, are cognate. All may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Referendum Bill, 1998: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following definition:
" 'the Act of 1992' means the Electoral Act, 1992;".
I am grateful to the Minister for enabling a debate to take place on these amendments because technically speaking the bulk of them are out of order. To allow them to be debated, the Minister facilitated me by moving a formal resolution on the Order of Business instructing the committee to consider them, notwithstanding that they broaden the scope of the Bill and go beyond the terms of the short title. In my recollection this is the first time this has been done to facilitate a Member of the Opposition; this device is normally used by Ministers to broaden the scope of their own Bills. This is a positive step by the Minister in recognising the role of the select committees.
I indicated on Second Stage that I was broadly in agreement with the thrust of the Bill. In essence it puts on a statutory basis arrangements which had been made on an ad hoc basis consequent to the McKenna judgment. It is difficult to find a mechanism which will meet the needs of all those who wish to be advocates in a referendum. A number of points of view were put on Second Stage. I disagreed with the idea that public money should be made available to lobby groups because there is a plethora of such groups and it would be difficult to decide who to fund. The Minister’s proposals for allowing arguments for and against a referendum to be put on the public record are good and I have no difficulty with the broad thrust of the proposal to establish a mechanism to allow the case for and against any proposal put to the people by way of referendum to be fully aired.
However, we have a growing corpus of law in the electoral area and there is a tendency to establish a new commission to deal with each new challenge we face. Many of the people we will place on this variety of commissions and boards are the same people, constituted under different statutes, to do different functions. The Minister was not present for my Second Stage speech but he has had an opportunity to reflect on it. I argued that because there is no urgency about this enactment, we should take the chance to consolidate the various commissions into a single electoral commission to do all the jobs assigned to various boards and commissions, and also to assign it the work remaining to be done in the Department of the Environment and Local Government because that is administered by a politician, whoever is in power. It is incongruous and not right that the conduct of an election should be determined by someone who is, by definition, partisan in an electoral contest. It also puts the office holder in an invidious position.
The amendments I have tabled redraft the Bill to enable the establishment of a single commission to undertake the work done by this variety of commissions - the registration of political parties appeals board established by the 1992 Act; the constituency commission established by the Electoral Act and the public offices commission established by the Ethics in Public Office Act and mentioned in the Electoral Act, 1997.
I do not know the Minister's thinking about having one consolidated commission to do this work and about expanding the work currently done by the commissions and appeals board but I feel he may not be badly disposed to the suggestion. We have time to do it now. Supportive though I am of the work to be done under the legislation, we should consolidate rather than establish a new commission.
It was argued that the Minister was anxious to have a mechanism in place to deal with the Amsterdam Treaty referendum. However, the press release announcing the Bill and his Second Stage speech indicated that it was not envisaged this Bill would be fully enacted by then. In any event, the mechanism proposed in this Bill would be on an ad hoc basis for that referendum. I have no difficulty with that - let the ad hoc arrangements be put in place for the Amsterdam Treaty referendum and let this committee take time to consolidate the various boards into a single electoral commission, give it a full-time staff and establish it on a permanent basis.
A number of the measures require an instrument of the Minister to bring a commission or board into being and this is not in tune with democracy. There should be a permanent, independent electoral commission dealing with all matters of electoral law. Any disgruntled citizen should have rights of access to the commission in respect of places of voting, distribution of ballots, special difficulty orders in respect of, for instance, a storm which prevents people voting, etc., and all these matters should be decided in an independent, non-political way. Ultimately we will have this and there is no reason we should not do it now.
I have made what sounds more like a Second Stage than a Committee Stage contribution but rather than go through the technicalities of the amendments I have explained what they are designed to achieve. The amendments reshape the Bill to establish a single electoral commission, take from the Minister the residual powers as regards electoral law, take from the existing commissions and laws the powers assigned to them under a variety of Acts, and rationalise and modernise the system. I hope the Minister will be well disposed to accepting this series of suggestions.
It can be taken from our Second Stage contributions that Fine Gael has fundamental disagreements with the nature and scope of the Bill, which we will raise as we go through the sections. However, we support Deputy Howlin's amendment No. 6 to section 2. The provision currently reads:
Whenever a referendum falls to be held, or, in the case of a constitutional referendum, may fall to be held, the Minister may, if he or she considers it appropriate, by order establish a commission which shall be known as the Referendum Commission. . . . .
In what circumstances would it be inappropriate to establish this commission? We will have an opportunity to discuss the make up as we go through Committee Stage. The purport of Deputy Howlin's amendment is that this legislation should automatically be used when a referendum is held. We are concerned that the present wording may provide the Minister with an opt out clause and I would be grateful for an explanation.
We agree with the thrust of the Deputy's amendments which bring together a number of new commissions and bodies established in recent times. There is a degree to which the usual suspects have again been rounded up to be part of this commission and there is much duplication of the tasks being done by these new bodies. We support the establishment of one body, as has been proposed by the all party committee on the Constitution and we look forward to the Minister's comments.
I thank Deputy Howlin for his comments on facilitating these amendments. My reason for so doing was to hear his comments because I do not disagree with the general thrust of what he is saying.
A number of commissions have been set up, the members of which overlap. There is a great deal of merit in the suggestion we should have an electoral body to look after all these matters and the increasing amount of electoral law.
While I will not be accepting the amendments, it is important to hear Members' views. I encourage the committee to look at this as a separate item and bring forward recommendations and proposals. As I said, I have some sympathy with the idea of having one commission which would embrace the Public Offices Commission, the Constituency Commission and the referendum commission and which might go even further to look at the area of ethics in public office, which is currently being looked at by the Minister for Finance.
I want to disabuse people of the notion that this commission will not be operating on a legislative footing in time for the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty. We are trying to put the legislation through the Houses so that the commission will be operating when we have the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty, which is why there is a degree of urgency in relation to this Bill.
The case was made on Second Stage, and now on Committee Stage, that there is no real urgency and that we should broaden the scope of the Bill and discuss the very worthy amendments which have been tabled. The Bill is urgent, however, because it puts the referendum commission on a statutory basis and gives it broader powers, particularly the power it will be given by the amendment of the broadcasting legislation which will allow it as a last resort, following consultation, to direct the Independent Radio and Television Commission and RTE to carry political advertisements and to promote information on the referendum. That is one of the most important aspects of this Bill which needs to be put on a statutory footing and is one of the reasons we are endeavouring to have the Bill passed before the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty.
In addition, as Deputy Howlin is aware, the result of the Sherwin judgment on the divorce legislation requires us to put in place some changes in relation to the appointment of agents, which is included in this Bill. It is important to get that out of the way. When Deputy Howlin was Minister he was of the view, with which I agree, that a Minister should not have the final say in relation to the appointment of agents.
The Bill is urgent for those reasons and it is important to have it passed. I think the Deputy would agree that the acceptance of his amendments would fundamentally change the Bill, broaden its scope and require much more detailed consideration. There should be a separate Bill to pull all these matters together. I will not be accepting the amendments for the reasons I have stated but I would like the committee to know I am sympathetic to the concept of an electoral commission independent of the political system. It would be involved with matters which are intensely political but should never be party political.
As Deputy Hayes said, the principle of amendment No. 6 is that the commission must be established by order of the Minister at a referendum. There is, obviously, discretion as to whether such a commission will be established. It will depend on the circumstances at a particular referendum. I cannot think of a circumstance where it might not be established. The thrust and spirit of the Bill is that a commission would be established by the Minister in practically all cases.
If, hypothetically speaking, a proposal were being put to the people on which everyone agreed, it would seem unnecessary to spend huge sums of money informing people about something of which they were already in favour. However, in the normal course of events it is expected and intended a commission would be established. There is always a danger that hypothetical examples will be quoted out of context but if, for example, the Constitution required a very technical amendment which might not necessitate a huge amount of information——
Like Cabinet confidentiality.
That was highly technical but I am not sure it would fall into the "full agreement" category. My difficulty in finding a hypothetical example should illustrate to the Deputy that it is intended a commission would be established in most cases.
We had a referendum to legalise the situation relating to adoption. There was absolute consensus that adoptions which had been lawfully made should not be put in jeopardy. I think the vote was 99 per cent in favour.
The referendum on the voting age was also simple and straightforward in that one was either in favour or against.
Does Deputy Howlin have anything further to add?
I am disappointed the Minister will not avail of the opportunity to make the consolidation I sought, but I accept and understand the reason behind the argument. The problem is that once we deal with an issue in the Oireachtas the chances are we will not return to it again and we will have another commission in addition to those which already exist. We will continue until we discuss the matter again when it will be expedient to establish another commission and we will eventually get around to consolidation. I hope we find a mechanism to achieve this. Since the Minister is well disposed to it, maybe it is incumbent on us not as a Select, but as a Joint Committee, to address this issue.
In the last Dáil I sent a list of specific electoral proposals to the former committee dealing with environmental matters. Because that committee had other responsibilities, it did not get around to doing this. I would like the opportunity to look at a range of electoral matters, such as the proper date of voting or whether there should be photographs on ballot papers to help those with poor sight or who have difficulty reading. All those matters have been on the agenda for a long time. We are the experts on this range of issues so I hope we can deal with them. I can do no more than accept the Minister's good faith and not press the amendment.
I would have preferred if amendment No. 6 had been accepted so the arguments for and against would be made. Some of the amendments I tabled are purely technical and I do not want to sound pedantic but amendment No. 4, for example, concerns section 17(2). Because of that section, definitions in the 1994 Act are automatically carried over and that definition is not necessary. I will not, however, take issue with the Minister over a few technical matters.
The Minister said the Bill is relatively urgent because the Amsterdam Treaty referendum is due to take place shortly. I would like to raise an issue in relation to amendment No. 32 having regard to the specific reference to the revision of local electoral areas. I would have thought that was particularly urgent given that some candidates are out canvassing next year's local elections. At what stage are we in relation to the revision of local electoral areas? How is it being done? When will the new local electoral areas be announced? I might have a vested interest in this issue which arises in the context of this discussion.
In our view, this legislation is not urgent. I accept what the Minister said about the appointment of agents and the broadcasting legislation. The ad hoc arrangements put in place for the Cabinet confidentiality and the bail referenda are simply being put into legislation. We are not seeing a substantive change. It is our view that there is no urgency to this legislation, bar the amending provisions in relation to agents and broadcasting legislation which could easily pass through the House on a nod. It is not correct for the Minister to suggest the legislation is urgent because it will, in some way, radically transform the way information is disseminated.
On amendment No. 6, I said it is the intention to set up an ad hoc commission for practically every referendum, although circumstances may arise in which one is not required. However, if I accepted the amendment we would have to pass legislation to say we are not setting up a referendum commission. The discretionary power in relation to the establishment of a commission is provided to enable leeway where everybody agrees a commission is not warranted because of the nature of the proposal. If the amendments tabled were accepted, we would need to pass legislation to ensure the commission did not operate. We would cause unnecessary work for ourselves in this area.
Two commissions are about to be appointed to revise local electoral areas. Members have been approached and have been given the responsibility to draw up a report on local electoral areas and to report back to me by the summer. Following that, we will make the necessary decisions and Members with and without vested interests will be made aware of the situation by September or October at the latest. As an aside, the proposal before us gives this electoral commission to which Deputy Howlin referred the power to do this work in addition to the constituency one.
I fundamentally disagree with Deputy Hayes on the urgency of the Bill and that the legislation does nothing other than set the ad hoc commission on a statutory basis. The legislation does much more than that; this is a fundamental change, particularly section 5 which amends the Broadcasting Acts. It is not something which could be done on a nod and wink across the floor of the House. It was necessary to include this provision in legislation to ensure that the commission would have the power to direct RTE or the Independent Radio and Television Commission, if necessary, to give adequate and full coverage to the referendum and the issues relating to it.
On the proposed changes to the appointment of agents, there is one political party in opposition to this proposal. This proposal will be some help in terms of the appointment of agents and it is necessary to include it in legislation and to have somebody other than the Minister make a decision. For those reasons, it is important to get the Bill through the Oireachtas as quickly as possible.
On the Minister' statement on local election boundaries and the report he expects to receive in the summer, does he intend to publish the report? Presumably he will need some time to reflect on it. I anticipate there will be a period between the time the Minister receives the report and when decisions will be made and it would be useful if it were released into the public domain.
On the urgency of this legislation, or what part of it is urgent, the definition of "referendum" in section 1 refers to two types of referenda - a constitutional referendum and an ordinary referendum.
If I am wrong I can be corrected, but I understand that the McKenna judgment related to a constitutional referendum. It was taken on the basis that there was an amendment to the referendum amending the Constitution. As I understand the judgment, the basis of the case was that the Government did not have the right to present one side of the argument to change the Constitution, which belongs to the people. Is it the case that what is being put here is that the functions and work of the commission will relate to referenda, including referenda which were not contemplated by the McKenna judgment? What does the Minister have in mind with regard to referenda other than constitutional referenda? For the most part referenda have been on amendments to the Constitution. There may well be a referendum on non-constitutional matters, for example, with regard to the talks on Northern Ireland. How would the commission present two sides of such a referendum? Is it necessary to go beyond the provisions of the McKenna judgment in such instances?
The report on the local election boundaries will, by law, be published. Local authorities will be asked for their views before the report is drawn up and that process will be put in place under the terms of the 1994 Act.
There are two kinds of referenda - a constitutional referendum and an ordinary referendum - the Bill is designed to cover both. While we do not know what format the referendum on a Northern Ireland agreement will take, I presume it will ask for a "yes" or "no" vote in favour or against the agreement. That would fall into the category of an ordinary referendum. So far, we have had nothing but constitutional referendums. The ordinary referendum is provided for under section 27 of the Constitution, which provides for the reference of a Bill other than a Constitution amendment Bill to the people.
We spoke about it recently.
That is correct. The Bill will cover both types of referendum. It may not be possible to put two sides in some instances, which is why I referred to the amendment proposed to section 6. If there are two sides, both sides must be put, but if there is only one side we may not need a referendum commission.
With regard to the Minster's responses to the amendments tabled by Deputy Howlin and his indication that he would be rejecting them, does that response also apply to the amendments tabled by Deputy Dukes?
It is only the first group.
I understand that these will be addressed subsequently. With regard to the local electoral boundaries——
I am glad it is in the Schedule.
——in the past, local electoral boundary commissions engaged in exercises in arithmetic and took no heed of the integrity of communities, urban and rural. Rather than trying to create an equalisation in areas, can the Minister indicate the broad remit of the commission? Will greater care be taken when applying the scalpel?
The schedule of the order I made with regard to the boundary commissions provides that, in undertaking the review of the counties and county boroughs, the committee shall have as an objective the drawing up of electoral areas which alone or in combination would, as far as practicable, have an urban or neighbourhood focal point, be of such size as would facilitate decentralisation of local authority and other services and that the numbers and members of the council to be assigned to each such electoral area should be drawn up in a way to ensure a reasonable relationship between the 1996 population and representation within the local authority. With regard to the specific point of recommending changes to local electoral areas, the committee should take due account, first, of the desirability of preserving natural communities or the hinterland of population centres and, second, of the desirability, where it may be possible to do so, of aligning county electoral boundaries with Dáil constituency boundaries. The Deputy's point should be addressed here.
Would it be possible to have a copy of these provisions forwarded to my office?
They must be lodged first. Prior to that they are signed and must then go through specific procedures. I note the Deputy's request.
I am pleased that I inserted the words "local government" in the Schedule. With regard to the schedule of functions which I envisage the electoral commission would have, while I am aware of the statutory requirements of the new local election boundaries commissions and the terms of the statutory instrument, there is a constitutional requirement regarding Dáil elections and Dáil constituencies that there should be a level of proportionality not only within but between constituencies. There is no such requirement under local government law. My county has a population of 110,000 and 21 elected county councillors while the neighbouring County Carlow has half that population but the same number of councillors. There is no requirement to have the electorate per councillor on anything like a proportionate basis across the country. I hope this issue will be addressed in time for the next local elections and, if not, as soon as possible thereafter.
There are a number of functions I would envisage the electoral commission having that go beyond the mechanical issues which are currently being addressed by various commissions and boards. We have already discussed them.
The Department of the Environment and Local Government is very large. As its name implies, it concentrates, in the main, on environmental protection and awareness and local government matters. The franchise section in the Department, with due respect to the officials present, cannot demand huge attention from the Minister. The development of electoral law has been neglected. I do not know how that can be rectified; perhaps we should consider giving a Minister of State specific responsibility for that area.
A number of the functions I suggested should be given to the new electoral commission included promoting public awareness in relation to electoral matters. All Members have anecdotal stories about canvassing. During the last general election, I passed a building site and a young man working there spoke to me. He said he wanted to vote but he did not know how to do so. Many people do not know how to vote. They are put off by the mechanism and not enough is done to deal with this problem. This aspect should not be left entirely to schools. I gave the young man very good instructions on how to vote.
Another function that should be given to the commission is the training and guidance of returning officers and electoral staff. There can be great disparity between polling booths and officers on the conduct of elections. There is also anecdotal evidence in this regard. Outrageous things have happened in the past and there should be a mechanism to train and educate people, even those who have done this work for many years and consider themselves experts. Some of our most ardent supporters who have been involved in elections for a long time are ignorant of the law and of what they can and cannot do.
Another aspect that should be considered is the development of computer programmes to assist the electoral process and the possibility of electronic voting. My party leader has a notion that the national lottery machines should be used in this regard. All Members know elections are a lottery, but there is a national network and results could be available by the end of the day. This might take all the good out of the process but it should be considered.
I envisage that another part of the commission's work would be the commissioning of electoral research. This area is much neglected and left entirely to the academic community. In other areas, such as agriculture and health, State funding is provided for research and development. What is ultimately more important than the preservation of democracy? The level of participation in elections and referenda is diminishing and we have a responsibility to address these matters.
A large corpus of important work is already available for the electoral commission and I hope it will be done. My proposals cannot be implemented under this legislation because the Minister, as he explained, will not support them today. However, I hope they will be enacted soon. I am interested in the Minister's view on giving a greater profile to the franchise section of the Department and the Government in general.
I am not a member of the committee and under Standing Order 84 I am precluded from tabling amendments or voting. However, I understand from the Clerk of the Dáil that I can indicate my intention to move amendments on Report Stage. With the permission of the committee, I wish to do so.
I welcome the Bill. It is a step in the right direction and I voted for it on Second Stage. My amendments are borrowed almost exclusively from Canadian legislation and relate to the capping of spending. This would bring the position even more in line with the McKenna judgment. The commission is a great idea but individuals and groupings with huge amounts of money will emerge and the playing field will no longer be level. I will move amendments on Report Stage.
I support Deputy Howlin's point about the local government boundaries. Following his appointment I understood the Minister indicated that the review would encompass the revision of electoral boundaries within counties and also address the disparity between counties. In reply to a parliamentary question last week, the Minister gave a list of counties and the proportion of representation in terms of population and number of councillors. It varies from approximately one councillor to 1,500 people in some counties to a ratio of one councillor to 8,000 people at the high end of the scale. This must be urgently addressed given that the need for local government is as strong in one area as it is in another and that councillors who are elected under the disproportionate system constitute part of the electorate of the Seanad.
Apart from the sense of grievance of people in areas with high ratios of population to councillors, a constitutional issue might arise if it is not addressed in the review the Minister is undertaking. There is a great sense of grievance in areas of high population concentration, where there is also a high tax paying concentration, that the degree of local government and the level and proportionality of representation available to them are very much out of line with the rest of the country. This should be addressed and Deputy Howlin is correct to raise it.
There is a huge difference in terms of the proportionality of representation of people in rural and urban areas and I agree this aspect must be addressed. It answers the question why it is difficult for people from Dublin to be elected to the Seanad. It is now obvious why that is the case. If one considers the population, there is greater representation in rural areas.
I agree with Deputy Howlin about the training of polling officers and electoral staff. There is a great lack of knowledge on electoral law in many polling stations and the Deputy's point is good. Many Members have observed elections in Africa and elsewhere where one is given a list of questions. I have often wondered if I went to many polling stations in Ireland and asked the same questions whether I would get many of the answers one is supposed to receive. The idea is that if one does not get them, something is wrong. Perhaps the committee could consider research and development in this area. There is an increasing lack of knowledge in this area because many of the people who did the job for many years are no longer doing it and others have passed away. People who now take the job tend to be inexperienced and sometimes they cannot answer basic questions.
I thought the committee was discussing the first group of amendments but since everybody has taken the opportunity to voice their thoughts on this matter, I will not be shy about doing so. With regard to the new local boundaries commission for local government, when new census results are released the commission does not automatically start working on them. Will the Minister ensure that, as is the case in Dáil and European Parliament elections, when the results of a census are published the work of the new boundaries commission on local authority areas will start? Is it part of his proposed reforms in this area to establish a local authority electoral commission?
I agree there is a need to examine the issue of raising awareness and educating electoral staff about electoral law. There is also a need for research. My officials would welcome an increase in their numbers and status as they are extremely dedicated to their work.
The issues mentioned by members of the committee would have to be included in the remit of an electoral commission. Deputies could probably give good example with regard to electronic voting if it were permitted in the Houses of the Oireachtas. As Chief Whip I spent a considerable time encouraging Deputies to accept the concept. However, they opposed it for various reasons. Governments change and those who were in Government tend to oppose such proposals when they are in Opposition. The system of voting in the Houses is ludicrous in this day and age. It should be changed, and changed quickly. If we did that we might be able to discuss electronic voting in elections.
With regard to local electoral areas and equality of representation, there is no constitutional requirement to have equality in the context of local electoral areas; there is such a constitutional imperative in the case of Dáil elections. I have no plans to put in place absolute equality among local electoral areas in this review. It would be a mammoth job. If I were to try to introduce a scheme which would ensure absolute equality among local authorities, the number of councillors would have to be increased from about 800 to 3,500.
We could decrease them accordingly.
Yes. In South Dublin County Council, there is a ratio of one councillor for every 9,000 people. If I used that criterion, Leitrim would probably end up with only three county councillors.
Leitrim has more Senators.
It cannot be done on the basis of numbers alone because geographic circumstances must be taken into account. It is not my intention in the current review to attempt to address the differences that exist at present. With approximately 800 councillors it is not the quantity but the quality that counts. Hopefully, that quality will continue to exist following the local elections next year.
Deputy Gormley proposed that expenditure in local elections be capped and he spoke about level playing pitches. I have a fundamental difficulty with the concept that one can attempt to achieve total equality in everything one does by reducing or capping expenditure during referenda or elections. If that concept is pushed to its limit there would probably be serious constitutional issues. If an individual or group has a strong view about a referendum issue and wishes to advocate that view strongly and if one attempts to limit that individual or group with regard to how strongly they are entitled to convey that view, one would be sailing dangerously close to constitutional issues. I do not believe it is the correct route, particularly when the State is constrained in how it spends taxpayers' money. Are we now saying that private individuals or parties or political groupings or non-political groupings cannot spend their money? Where will we end up if we take that route?
With regard to the boundaries commission, will there be a provision to ensure the electorate is informed of boundary changes within a reasonable timeframe rather than informing the electorate by post a few weeks before an election? It is unfair for constituents that when boundaries are changed they are not officially informed and that it is up to the local Deputy or councillor to inform them. Proper information should be disseminated to the electorate to inform its members in good time about where they will have to vote in the next election.
I will examine that suggestion. However, Deputies are quick to let people know about such changes.
Unfortunately, the capping of expenditure during elections makes it difficult for a Deputy to do that.
I am in favour of capping election expenditure and I am glad it is now law. Even those who were concerned about the electoral legislation have acknowledged that the concept of a candidate being able to spend vast amounts on a glossy campaign is fundamentally undemocratic. The capping of such expenditure is good for democracy.
With regard to amendments Nos. 20 and 21, they do not fall readily into the general provisions I am proposing for an electoral commission although they are improvements on the Minister's proposals. As they are being discussed with this large group of amendments, I will be unable to discuss them individually. Amendment No. 20 closes a loophole in the Bill by providing a clear mechanism for the service of notices and I do not know if the Minister is willing to accept it. Amendment No. 21 provides the commission with a requirement to publish in Iris Oifigiúil its decisions in regard to bodies that are deemed to be bodies for the purposes of the referendum Act rather than simply communicating to the bodies concerned so that there is public knowledge first about those who applied under the Act and, second about the decision of the commission. It should not be a secret affair.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, will be moved by Deputy Hayes on behalf of Deputy Dukes.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, subsection (6), lines 30 to 38, to delete paragraphs (a) to (d) and substitute the following:
"(a) a former Cabinet Minister who is not a member of either House of the Oireachtas,
(b) a Professor of European Studies or of a similar discipline in a University located in the State,
(c) a person who is the Editor of a weekly or monthly news magazine published in the State,
(d) a former Member of the Commission of the European Communities who is not a member of any Parliament or Parliamentary Assembly and who is not a national of the State.".
This group of amendments seeks to fundamentally alter the composition of the Bill. Following a statement by my party supported by Democratic Left and other colleagues, there is no necessity for the specific functions prescribed in the legislation for the new commission and for those who will be part of it. The heart of this goes to a fundamental misunderstanding of the McKenna judgment by the Government. It is clear that the judgment is not opposed to the spending of public money by a Government to advocate a position. However, it is opposed to an unequal amount of money going to an opposing side. It is understandable that the judgment was getting at the unequal treatment meted out to those who were opposed to certain referenda.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad are people of the highest calibre who do the State a great service but they should not be on this commission. Its functions - and we hope to amend them - would simply ensure the commission would stand in order to make a decision on all complaints about Government use of funding and advocacy which would come before it.
Section 7 deals with approved bodies and states the commission must decide which body has a relevance to the referendum and section 3(c) states the commission must foster and promote the debate and discussion on the referendum. These could be interpreted as highly political tasks for independent officeholders of the State. Deciding which body is entitled to be heard and fostering and promoting a debate, an intricate subject, are political tasks and prescribing it to such officeholders is not the way to go.
The intention of the amendments is to ensure the commission will be established to judge various complaints the public have about the Government's advocacy during campaigns. We have proposed a number of new people to sit on the commission who are involved in ensuring the public is informed, such as the editor of a weekly or monthly news magazine who would have an in-depth knowledge of the issues pertaining to, for example, Europe; a professor of European studies or a similar discipline or a former Cabinet Minister who would have tremendous experience of the political process.
That is our argument and we understand that it will dramatically and ultimately change the functions of the new commission but it is consistent with the position we took on Second Stage. We are looking for the Minister to concede.
I fundamentally disagree with Deputy Hayes and the Fine Gael Party as he enunciates their belief in the McKenna judgment. It is clear from the judgment that the Supreme Court ruled against the Government using taxpayers' money to advocate one side in a campaign. If we were to adopt the Deputy's position, the Government would start an argument with itself in regard to the Amsterdam Treaty and argue both sides. The referendum commission would then be set up to decide whether the Government was being fair to both sides.
I find it difficult to get my mind around that concept. The Government is totally committed to a "yes" vote in the campaign on the Amsterdam Treaty and will put forward that point of view. It would be ludicrous to expect, during the course of a referendum, that Ministers would put forward the other side of the debate and then have an independent body judging whether they were doing that fairly. The Government will advocate a yes vote. Putting the Government in a position where it would have to take two different sides would not make sense.
Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 propose to substitute a former Cabinet Minister, a professor of European studies, the editor of a weekly or monthly magazine or a former member of the Commission of the European Community on the body and mentions assigning political tasks to the people who are actually there.
All those appointed to this particular commission are constitutional officers and independent of the political system. They have a responsibility under this legislation to ensure that whatever is published is fair to all sides. I do not think anyone could question the independence of people like the Ombudsman who frequently takes Departments and Ministers to task. The Comptroller and Auditor General does likewise.
No one has questioned their independence.
The Deputy is saying they should not be assigned political tasks. Their independence is not being questioned and it is such people who are needed on this commission. Say, for instance, I were to nominate a former Fianna Fáil Minister, that commission would immediately be seen to be "tainted". It would not be tenable to talk about putting a former Minister on the commission because this legislation does not apply to just this referendum, it applies to future referenda. What relevance would a professor of European studies have in the area of divorce or abortion? Many editors of weekly or monthly magazines would hold specific political views and frequently express those views. How would it be possible to pick an editor whose newspaper would not be seen to advocate one view or the other during a referendum?
Those who are being assigned to this body must be seen to be independent and must see the job is done properly. Their biggest responsibility is to ensure that the views of the commission are objective and fair. That is the adjudication they must make. The Bill is very prescriptive in this area and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments. I ask the Deputy to withdraw them.
The difficulty that arises in relation to the composition of the commission relates to what it is supposed to do. Putting it at its very simplest, the Supreme Court has ordained that the State cannot spend money arguing one side of a constitutional referendum. The solution to that problem is not necessarily the solution the Government has proposed; in fact, I would argue that case strongly. In this Bill the Government is proposing to set up a commission which will effectively argue both sides of the case or, at least, approve the text of whatever material is issued in relation to both sides. I accept the principle of an independent commission which would oversee the disbursement of a certain amount of funds to the protagonists on both sides of the argument but what the Government is proposing is effectively setting up an artificial referendum campaign. I have no difficulty with the Government's proposed composition for the commission. They are all highly respected and eminent people. However, the difficulty is that the skills and approach required to argue a case in public in relation to a referendum would be best left to those who hold opinions on the matter. For example, in the case of the divorce referendum, going back over a number of years there were two strongly held points of view and it took several decades for that issue to be resolved. One cannot substitute for trenchant arguments, for the passion with which those arguments are put forward, for the many different kinds of arguments put forward, or for the unexpected nature of some of the cases and arguments made, some kind of sanitised independent commission which receives arguments and then channels them through a commission process and throws them back out again. The McKenna judgment was essentially about the rights and wrongs of the State spending money arguing one side of the case. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that money should be provided for the other side to be argued.
I find myself in the same sort of difficulty as Deputy Gormley earlier in that I am not a member of the committee. Consequently, I am precluded from tabling amendments but I would like to give notice of my intention to table a number of amendments on Report Stage. They will reflect the considered view of the all party committee on the Constitution on the functions of the proposed commission, and will allow it to disburse money to the protagonists on both sides of a referendum campaign, regardless of whether they are political parties or people outside political parties.
I would like to see a restriction placed on spending from outside the State. While we are putting limitations on what the Government can spend on a constitutional referendum, there is no limit on what interests from outside the State - for example, a Government of another State, an inter-government agency, the European Commission or even a private interest - can spend to influence the people on what should be in our Constitution. A lift should be put on the restrictions imposed on approved bodies appointed under this Bill. We need to provide funding for the real referendum debate and not set up side by side an artificial institution because when a referendum gets under way this will lead to two points of view being argued.
Now we are superimposing a separate official referendum campaign organised by this commission. The commission receives the views from anybody wishing to comment, who, in turn, appoints advertising agents who produce arguments in favour or against these views. They advise RTE and the broadcasting agencies who may or may not appear on radio or television to argue the case. For example, a body with fewer than 500 members will not be considered an approved body. The late Raymond Crotty, who made a huge impact on referendum campaigns, was never a member of an organisation which had 500 members. This is a totally artificial situation where will be an official referendum campaign with a great big dollop of State money available to award lucrative contracts to favoured advertising agencies to place ads in newspapers. Side by side with that others will be arguing their case as best they can with little financial back-up. A method should be found to fund the campaigns on an equitable basis and to disburse funds to non-political parties and other bodies conducting information campaigns on the referendum.
I cannot see the merits of the individuals mentioned in the amendment being in any way superior to the individuals being nominated formally by the Minister to form part of the referendum commission. There is more than a twang of Deputy Dukes' interest, through his Euro-phile nature, in that, of the four people, one is a former professor of European studies and the other a former member of the Commission of the European Communities. If there are to be four individuals, two of them from such distinguished European backgrounds and focus, it would hardly suit the case for every referendum. Unfortunately a lot of the debate on Second Stage focused on the Amsterdam Treaty as if that was the only referendum that will ever be held. Our focus should be on a mechanism to have a fair conduct of referenda. I do not see the merits of the proposal put forward by Fine Gael achieving that.
A much more fundamental case was put forward by Deputy Gilmore and supported by Fine Gael on Second Stage, that the principal should be somewhat different. I would disagree with this. We would be in very difficult territory if the State decided to fund anybody who decided to take a position on a referendum. It would lead to anybody who had a legitimate position and could fulfil the criteria laid down regarding numbers, receiving State funding. There are people in this society who would fulfil those criteria and have very strong views. I would not like to see State funding available to people who would advocate violence; some are outright fascists. There is a school of thought that all opinions should be properly aired and validated but should racist or fascist opinions be funded by the State? I have the most profound difficulties going down that route. It would be a fundamental mistake. It might seem attractive on the surface but there are some views that must be confronted and brought into the bosom of acceptability. We cannot envisage what might arise but in the future I can envisage a referendum on, say, the Refugee Act or on the Schengen Agreement where the most racist of positions could be State funded. That is my point of view.
Having a mechanism for a balanced debate should not extend to State funding for those unacceptable positions that strike fundamentally at human rights and democratic institutions in the State. Some issues are very clear but there can be an amalgam of groups who would have the same opinion against a particular proposal from absolutely opposing perspectives. How do you divide up the money? It would be a very difficult to arrive at a methodology of doing that. Over two referenda I was charged with putting in place ad hoc arrangements and they were discussed by my Cabinet colleagues at the time - they included representatives of Fine Gael and the Democratic Left - and they agreed that was the proper way to deal with the issues at the time. The Minister is now proposing largely to enact on a statutory basis the ad hoc arrangements that were put in place then. I am not suggesting for one minute that thought is sterile and locked in time but I would be very much wedded to the school of hastening slowly. The Minister’s proposal is immeasurably safer in the democratic traditions of this country than the arguments put forward by Deputy Gilmore and earlier by the Fine Gael Party.
Before calling Deputy Kelleher, may I remind Deputies that this is not a Second Stage debate and that contributions should be relevant.
Would it be in order to include amendment No. 14 as part of this group? If one changes the nature and the scope of the commission it will have an impact in terms of the people on the commission.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
For example amendment No. 9 paragraph (c) states: "a person who is the Editor of a weekly or monthly news magazine published in the State,". Should such a person resign as editor on joining the commission given that his publication could take a view on the issue while the commission, of which he is a member, decides on funding for the various bodies?
I would be opposed to the possibility of the commission funding groups who may be opposed to the Constitution and the make up of the State. Extreme right wing fascist groups have been cited. They may, for example, have difficulties with the issue of refugees and aliens. This proposal could open a Pandora's box regarding funding for groups who are attempting to destabilise the State and who may express views which are alien to those held by the vast majority of people.
The right of those on the opposing side to public funding is enshrined in the Supreme Court ruling.
It is not.
The original injunction required the defendants - in this case the Government - to make available an equal proportion of public funds to fund campaigns, including advertising and the selection and distribution of information which seek a referendum result contrary to that advocated by the Government. However difficult it may be to comprehend in terms of the various people who may get their hands on such funding, that principle is enshrined in the judgment.
My party takes the view that the Government is fundamentally misunderstanding the impact of the McKenna judgment. The import of the judgment dealt with equality of treatment to both sides in terms of receipt of public funding. If this is accepted as the starting point it should be possible to also accept the changes that will be required in this legislation.
Our amendments reflect our disagreement with the Bill. That is why I am pleased the Chairman agreed that amendment No. 14 could be considered. While I am eager to hear the views of the Minister, we will be pressing our amendments.
My views coincide with those of Deputy Howlin and Deputy Kelleher. It will not be the job of the commission to argue both sides of the case. Its main function will be to provide impartial information to the electorate to allow it make up its mind. While it does not necessarily have to argue both sides of the case it must ensure that the arguments on both sides are heard and that it provides objective information to enable us form a view on the merits or otherwise of the case.
Deputy Gilmore also referred to the skills required on putting across a case. He made the valid point that there is no substitute for trenchant, strongly held views being aired on both sides. That is what people can do. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent parties from trenchantly arguing their case in support of or opposition to the Amsterdam Treaty.
What about the Government?
The Government is one of the groups who will trenchantly argue in favour of the treaty. On Second Stage Deputy Dukes appeared to be of the view that, because of the McKenna judgment, the Government would be forced to say nothing for the duration of the referendum campaign. That is not the case. In the course of their work as politicians, Ministers will make their views on the treaty known, individually and collectively. We will not expend taxpayers' money. It is not the Government's intention that people do nothing because an independent commission will provide information. If people feel strongly on either side they can express their views trenchantly, but by putting information rather than propaganda into the public domain, the commission will allow for a more informed debate.
I have fundamental problems with the idea that the taxpayer should fund campaigns of misinformation, propaganda and such like. While people are entitled to hold and express views in favour of or against the Amsterdam Treaty, or any other matter, the taxpayer should not be expected to pay for what could be propaganda. Deputy Howlin cited the possibility of providing funds for fascist and anti-immigrant groups. Allocating taxpayers' money to such groups lends them credibility to propound their hate and propaganda. I would not rest comfortably if that were to happen.
The commission will be independent. It can decide on the most effective ways of disseminating the information that needs to be given to the electorate. In this regard, it can undertake a range of activities which I do not wish to outline lest somebody thinks that I am seeking to influence it. We decided not to be too prescriptive in most sections of the Bill to allow the maximum freedom to the commission in deciding how it will provide information that is fair to all. For example, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the commission from hiring the services of a Raymond Crotty figure on the one hand and an Alan Dukes figure on the other to debate both sides of the case at meetings around the country.
The commission can use its imagination in putting both sides of the argument. Some people think we will simply have eminent counsel draw up arguments for and against and have an advertisement summarising their arguments placed in newspapers. This is not what is envisaged. If Deputy Gilmore accepts the independence of the members of this commission he must accept that they will act in an independent way and select the best people for the job under the normal rules of public procurement. I would not like his remarks concerning favoured advertising agencies to remain on the record unchallenged.
I have addressed, in general terms, the points that have been made. I cannot accept amendment No. 14. If the proposal were accepted the commission would have to investigate all complaints made to it and, in the course of their investigations, would have to invite the Minister to explain his statements in order to make a judgment. This process would be lengthy and could not be completed in the time allotted for the holding of a referendum. There might also be High Court challenges.
I accept that the commission would act fairly and independently in the selection of advertising agencies. There will, nonetheless, be lucrative and sought after advertising contracts and the news media will seek the revenue from these advertisements. This fact may not influence the content of the coverage of a referendum campaign but it may influence the quantity of coverage from a news and features point of view. If newspapers get well paid advertisements through the commission it is unlikely that staff journalists will be dispatched to do the sort of research which they might normally do on a referendum proposal and a campaign would be influenced in that way.
I agree with Deputy Howlin that views advocating violence, hatred, racism and so on should not have expression. Some thought should be given to the restriction of the right to express views of that kind. I particularly do not wish to see the advocacy of such views subsidised by the State. A problem is presented by the Supreme Court judgment. In the case, for example, of a referendum on the extension of the Schengen Agreement one would expect to hear racist opinion of one kind or another being expressed. Under the Government's proposal, such opinion will be submitted to the commission and will have to be publicised as a point of view on the referendum. The advertising agency chosen to put the "no" position will have to put it in good quality advertisements. It is bad enough to have organisations about which the public has already formed its own view advocating racist opinions but it is quite a different matter to have these opinions given a veneer of respectability by being promoted, as one side of an argument, by the commission. None of us likes this but it is the position in which we find ourselves as a result of the Supreme Court judgment.
Let us envisage a situation, a couple of referenda into this process, when the official State funded referendum campaign is orchestrated through the commission. Side by side with this develops perhaps a more colourful campaign expressing points of view which many of us might have difficulty accepting. There would be a danger of the unofficial campaign gaining greater credibility with the public than that which is perceived to be run by some kind of autocephaly. We must anticipate such a development. There has been a tendency, in referendum campaigns, for people to opt for the non-conformist option.
The Minister is wrong in thinking that he will be free to advocate a yes vote in a referendum campaign. Once the commission is in place any money spent by Government in advocating a position - whether it is hosting a press conference in Government Buildings, travelling to the RTE studios in an official car or making a telephone call - involves spending taxpayers' money and that could be challenged in the courts. That would amount to advocating the Government's position through the commission while also spending money to advocate a yes vote by virtue of a Minister's office. This point was covered by the McKenna judgment. It is extremely difficult to legislate for the McKenna judgment. I believe the formula the Government is advocating will result in all kinds of difficulties.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 6, to delete lines 17 to 45, and substitute the following:
"(a) to monitor the statements made by the Government, or by any member of the Government, in favour of any proposed amendment to the Constitution,
(b) to receive complaints from any person or groups of persons relating to the accuracy or fairness of statements in any proposed amendment to the Constitution made by the Government or by any member of the Government,
(c) to adjudicate on any such complaints,
(d) in the event that the Commission finds that the complaint should be upheld, to inform the Government and the complainant of its findings and of the reasons therefor,
(e) in the event that the Commission finds that the complaint should not be upheld, to inform the Government and the complainant of its findings and of the reasons therefor, and
(f) to publish its findings in relation to each complaint brought before it.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome the range of measures available to the commission to impart information. I appreciate it was very difficult for previous Governments and Ministers to deal with the McKenna judgment. The referendum on Cabinet confidentiality caused widespread confusion and the method employed where senior counsel placed very official notices in the national newspapers failed to ignite public imagination. The vast majority of people neither had the time nor the inclination to read those notices. Many people do not buy newspapers and they should not be seen as the only way of imparting official information. The powers given to the commission under this Bill will permit them to disseminate information in an imaginative way.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 19, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7
Amendment No. 20 has already been discussed.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 8, before line 1, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) An application under subsection (1) shall specify an address in the State at which any notice may be served on the body, and any notice served by ordinary prepaid post to that address shall be deemed effectually served for the purposes of this Act on the day on which such notice ought, in the ordinary course of post, to have been received.".
I am interested in hearing the Minister's acceptance of this amendment.
I am sorry to disappoint the Deputy.
We are agreeing so much today.
The provision proposed by the Deputy is not necessary. Section 7(2) provides that an application for a declaration must be in writing in a form specified by the commission. It is open to the commission to require any matter, including the details of an address in the State to which correspondence may be addressed, to be included on the form. Section 7(9)(a) requires a body, which applies for a declaration or a branch thereof to be established in the State as a criterion for qualifying for such a declaration. It is expected that the commission would request a body to furnish details of its address in the State to enable it to establish whether the body satisfies that criterion. It is not necessary to provide that a notice which issues by ordinary post should be deemed to have been delivered by post at the relevant address on the day on which it ought to have been delivered by such post. The correspondence likely to issue to applicant bodies is not such as to warrant making that provision. Accordingly I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendments.
With respect to the Minister, that sounds like a very good civil servant answer for not accepting a logical amendment. In other words, it is hoped that the commission will do it because of reference to it in other areas. Acceptance of my amendments would eliminate doubt and provide clarity to the Bill. I do not see why they should not be accepted. The Minister is suggesting it will be done anyway so why not simply explicitly state so in the Bill and accept the amendments?
Section 7(9)(a) refers to "a body" which means a body corporate or unincorporated body or branch established in the State. I have no great hang-up on this issue but take, for instance, what will hopefully be a successful conclusion to the Northern Ireland talks which will mean amendment to Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution. If the provision "is established in the State" remains, would it mean that a group of over 500 Nationalists from Derry or Belfast could not give its views on the proposed changes to Articles 2 and 3? Given that they are Irish citizens and have passports, could they give their views to the commission even though their "body" - concerned group - has been established outside the State?
The provision relates to the appointment of agents on the day of a referendum. It has nothing to do with putting forward points of views.
I apologise.
On Deputy Howlin's point, where something is not necessary in legislation I would prefer it not be included. I agree with the Deputy that it does not make a huge amount of difference one way or the other. I think the Bill is tidier as is.
The amendment provides a clear mechanism for the service of notice. If included it would provide more clarity. Although the Minister gave a very valid, if not convoluted, argument for not accepting the amendment, I think it would be better to accept the amendment and have the service of notice deemed to be done properly as I have suggested. I think it is necessary. The Minister says it will be done because it is expected the commission will do so.
I will simplify it. It would appear those involved in the commission would have sufficient intelligence when drafting an application form to include the address of the body. I do not want to argue for the sake of argument but if the Deputy wishes to withdraw his amendment I will consider it for Report Stage.
I am not arguing for the sake of argument. There will be argument about effective notice if it is not clearly specified that ordinary prepaid post to that address shall be deemed effectively served for the purposes of the Act.
I will consider it for Report Stage.
On that basis I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 8, subsection (5), line 18, after "writing" to insert "(which notice shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil in addition to being served on the body)”.
This amendment ensures that if anyone seeks to be recognised for the purposes of the Act it will be made public. It will probably be public under the Freedom of Information Act but why not publish it in Iris Oifigiúil?
I am trying to ensure we do not overburden the commission. If the Deputy withdraws his amendment I will consider it for Report Stage.
I withdraw my amendment with leave to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister suggested the parameters within which the commission will work will be very broad and that it will have very significant funding, £2.5 million. I also raised this point on Second Stage and perhaps the Minister might explain his thinking on it. He is giving this money to the commission to spend on advertising. It can buy television and radio time, sponsor debates, etc. The Minister is also suggesting the commission must spend all the money or any portion of it. This is an open facility. Is there no control on whether it is to be in the print media?
To take up Deputy Gilmore's point, some agencies will see this as a nice way of earning money. We are all aware when there is a general election notice is given that rates for placing advertisements in the local media are being increased for the duration of the election campaign. This annoys me. Is this a way for the media to gobble up a disproportionate amount of the money? We could generate a lot of heat and very little light if this is to be done.
I do not want to put words in the Deputy's mouth but is he advocating that when the independent commission is set up the Government would have a role in directing it as to what it might do with the money? I would be the first to admit this is an attempt to try to put the idea of the referendum commission on a statutory basis. I would be surprised if at the end of a few campaigns we do not know how it has worked and how it can be changed. I am not so naive as to think we will get everything right but from talking to colleagues in Government it was felt we should, in so far as we can, give the maximum amount of freedom to the referendum commission to try to put together an information campaign which would inform the public. If sufficient money is not provided we could end up in a situation where, following the referendum and no matter what the result, accusations would be levelled that there was insufficient money and the commission was constrained. This could be true if insufficient money is not provided. We accept that £2.5 million is a very substantial sum of money. We are not compelling the referendum commission to spend every penny of it by any means but we are trying to ensure that it informs the public. We have left it to the commission as regards how it will inform the public. To do other than that would leave the Government open to the accusation that the commission was only being set up as a facade to get around the McKenna judgment rather than to comply with the spirit of it. There is no compulsion on the commission to spend the £2.5 million but if it is required the money will be there to be spent in the way that the commission deems to be the most effective. This would probably include local radio and newspapers rather than just national media but that is for the commission to decide.
On the point raised by Deputy Gilmore that if somebody has a harebrained argument against the Amsterdam Treaty and so on the commission will have to dress it up and include it. That is not true. It will have to have regard to all submissions and be fair to all. Therefore, if somebody states he or she supports the Amsterdam Treaty, is a pro-abortionist or a NATO lover, it is not obliged to dress that up and include it. It can be ignored and the commission can just acknowledge it. It is a long way of saying the Government, in this complicated campaign, did not want it to feel constricted due to financial or other reasons. We do not expect the commission to spend the £2.5 million if it can spend less and do so effectively.
In regard to accountability, how the commission spends the money will be included in the Department of Foreign Affairs Estimates. It will have to be accounted for at the Committee of Public Accounts and all of the usual accountability provisions are in place for it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".
To return to my point on bodies outside the State giving information to the commission when they have made a declaration under section 7, is the Minister saying in the scenario I painted earlier of a group of Northern Nationalists who have a particular view of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, that they can under section 7, seek a declaration to be a recognised body for the purposes of the referendum and that once that declaration is given they will be as entitled as any other group to submit documentation supporting their position on the referendum? There could be a difficulty if groups outside the State who have a legitimate interest in the referendum are not allowed to at least submit their views to this commission.
We are confusing two separate issues - the declaration that the body is an approved body for the purposes of a referendum relates to the appointment of agents. There are criteria for this in section 7. The body has to be established in the State and it has to have a bona fides interest in the proposal which is the subject of the referendum. Its name cannot be identical to that of a political party.
Does it have the right to submit evidence or views to the commission?
Anyone can do that.
What about bodies outside the State? Could a group of people interested in European integration submit a view?
Anyone from anywhere in the world can do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendments Nos. 26 to 28, inclusive, not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, not moved.
Section 17 agreed to.
NEW SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
TITLE.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Title agreed to.