Vol. 373 No. 8
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the total cost of booklets, leaflets and other printed material produced by the Government Information Service arising from the referendum on the Single European Act; the firm or firms to whom the contract for printing and material was given; if tenders were sought for the production of the material, and if not, the reason; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
11.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the total cost of advertisements taken by the Government Information Service in the national and provincial newspapers and other media urging a yes vote in the referendum on the Single European Act.
40.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the respective amounts spent by the Government Information Service on advertisements and literature concerning the Single European Act during the referendum campaign; the types and quantities of literature ordered; the companies with whom orders were placed; the respective costs of these orders; and the tendering procedures used in placing these orders.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 11 and 40 together.
The Government published the following material on the Single European Act with a view to providing the information necessary for the national debate preparatory to the referendum:
—a detailed information booklet in which the full text of the Single European Act was included. Twenty thousand copies of this booklet were ordered;
—a brief guide which summarised the provisions of the Single European Act of which 50,000 copies were printed;
—a series of eight explanatory leaflets in which key questions about various aspects of the Single European Act were addressed. The total quantity of leaflets printed was 9,600,000.
Is it nine million?
Yes. This relates to the various leaflets, not to the basic document. These were very small leaflets about various aspects. Through this approach, the Government sought to anticipate and respond to the various concerns and information requirements of the electorate.
The total net cost of producing the foregoing material is estimated at £1,000,730 of which £1,000,719 is in respect of the brief guide and the explanatory leaflets and £6,500 is in respect of the information booklet. The total net cost of media advertising taken by the Government in connection with the referendum was £164,263.96.
The criterion which governed the award of the contracts to print these publications was the need to ensure that they were made available to the public within the shortest period possible. On this basis, the contract for printing the brief guide and the explanatory leaflets and other material was awarded to Irish Printers Limited. In the case of the information booklet, which was a revised and updated booklet similar in nature and scope to the explanatory guide to the Single European Act issued in November 1986, it was decided, also with a view to minimising the delay in production, to award the contract to the firm that printed the explanatory guide, namely, Cahill Printers Limited. For this reason, tenders were not sought.
In making this information available, the Government naturally considered that it was in the public interest that the people should be aware of the Government's conviction that it was in Ireland's interest that we should ratify the Single European Act. The Government felt that, given their role as the executive organ of the State in connection with its external relations, they had an important contribution to make to informed public debate on the Single European Act. They considered that they would be failing in their duty if they were to neglect to use all the means at their disposal including press advertising to draw to the attention of the people the implications of the decision they were called on to make. The Government were, accordingly, concerned to explain the reasons they considered that the Single European Act was in Ireland's best interests and why they were asking the electorate to approve the amendment to the constitution which would permit Ireland to ratify the Single European Act.
I congratulate the Minister on acquiring responsibility for the Government Information Service in respect of which this question was asked. Does the Minister accept that much of the material produced by the GIS presented only one side of the case, that of the yes vote and that for that reason it was more a propaganda exercise than an information exercise? Is it normal to give out printing work to the value of £1.7 million without offering it to tender? How much of the material produced is still in the hands of the GIS? How many of the 9 million leaflets were distributed? How many of the 50,000 guides and how many of the 20,000 leaflets were distributed?
They were made available to all political parties who were interested in ensuring that the referendum was successful. They were then made available to all the interested voluntary bodies throughout the country, all of the great silent majority who contributed to the substantial 70 per cent vote in favour.
You are doing great.
All of this secured a distribution of this literature and none of it is left at base. These were the small leaflets on specific issues within the overall guide. I am sure the Deputy saw them. They were not costly, they were two page leaflets. They were distributed on an information basis. If the Deputy puts down another question I can give the figures for the accession of Ireland in 1972, when a similar rate of expenditure was organised by the Department of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the community, on behalf of the silent majority in the community and distributed to all of the political parties interested in securing our membership of the Community at that time. There is no difference between then and now in relation to the literature published. Any impartial reader of this literature will see how impartial are the terms of the advice being given to the people having regard to the fact that we were asking the people to vote yes for the most rational reasons possible.
The silent majority were not so silent last December.
In view of the large expenditure involved and in view of the Minister's Department's ability to recognise the silent majority, was it not extraordinary that no literature could be published in the Irish language? Is it not curious that the booklet did not quote clause 3 in relation to European political co-operation, but an abridged and entirely tendentious version of EPC?
We published in the Irish language.
We did as well, as a political party. I am separating what Fine Gael did, what the Progressive Democrats did and what the Labour Party did as political parties, from what was done officially. What was done officially stands above reproach with regard to its independence of declaration in regard to the position. We set out the official position as fairly as possible on the basis that the official position was that in Ireland's interests we should vote yes. The arguments are set out in a rational, fair and equitable form. We did similarly in regard to the Treaty of Accession.
You did not print it in Irish.
A number of Deputies are offering. I do not propose to remain unduly long on this question. I will hear Deputy Stagg, Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Geraldine Kennedy, if they will be brief and relevant.
In view of the widespread concern about the serious abuse of public funds in this matter, in the production of one sided, biased newspaper advertising, would the Minister not agree that it was the duty of the Government to give balanced views on this, so that the people could judge the issue fairly?
I answered that quite clearly. It was the view of the Government, as distinct from political parties, that on the balance of the argument we should vote yes and that people should ratify the Single European Act. We had the same view at the time of the Treaty of Accession. It was our duty to give the Government's view and to put out rational reasons that the people should vote yes and ratify the Single European Act. We would have been failing in our duty as a Government if we did not do that and it was quite open to everybody who advocated otherwise to use the airwaves and the media, which they did, to advocate the other case. The Government would have been guilty of the gravest dereliction of duty if they allowed the complete case against ratification of the Single European Act to be presented to the public without the Government making their view known. The Government made their view known and as I said, distributed their publications to the various people, parties and groups in our society who were interested in supporting the Government's case. That was not a partisan Fianna Fáil attitude, it was strictly a Government doing their duty.
A partisan Government.
What proportion of the material printed was distributed? Is it normal to hand out a contract worth £1.73 million to any company without that contract going to tender? Is that normal Government practice?
All the literature was distributed. I made that point quite clear. It was distributed pro rata to all the political parties here in this House who were interested in taking it and pro rata to a number of groups, societies and bodies throughout the country.
To the tiphead in Finglas.
Let us have less of that nonsense.
Deputy De Rossa has asked a question. He should now be courteous enough to hear the reply from the Minister.
I ask people like Deputy De Rossa to remember that they are in a working democracy and that the democrats have spoken to the extent of 70 per cent of the people. The majority have rights.
They do not have rights in some of the countries that we hear about from Deputy De Rossa and other speakers over there.
Stick to the point.
I hope the Minister is nor referring to me. We will be in South Korea in a moment——
I am afraid we will not get to South Korea, Deputy M. Higgins — at the rate of progress we are making.
If the silent majority want to get information they will get it while I am in Government. If immediate tenders are required to provide that information that will be done. The information will be provided because it is needed to deal with people who would bring down democracy in this country. In a working democracy we provide information that can defeat the minority who want to break democracy.
I want to raise the issue of the cost of a working democracy. Given that the average cost of a referendum is normally assessed at £1 million, and the Minister has stated that it cost £9,000,600 for literature for the referendum——
No, that was the number of leaflets. Do not get me wrong.
What does the Minister estimate as the cost of the referendum?
I gave that in my reply.
I misread that.
The Deputy did and that was a very important aspect. I was referring there to the number of leaflets of a very small kind that were published. These were separate from the main leaflets. The total cost of producing the various material referred to was £1,700,000.
Given that the average cost of a referendum is normally £1 million I take it that it cost almost £3 million for the Crotty judgment.
The Crotty judgment is another day's work. We are into the area of the courts now and I do not want to be drawn on that area.
