Vol. 482 No. 6
3 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he will bring forward for further amendments to the Constitution; if he will bring forward an additional amendment relating to Cabinet confidentiality in view of his recent comments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18906/97)
The Government will be considering proposals in relation to constitutional issues which arise from commitments in party manifestos, developments in relation to revisions to the European Treaty and recommendations from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. I have previously indicated a willingness to consider further the Cabinet confidentiality issue in the light of the work of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and the actual operation of the Moriarty and Flood tribunals. When decisions for constitutional change are taken on these issues, the Government's position will be announced and any necessary legislation brought forward.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the experience of the referendum on Cabinet confidentiality was an absolute shambles? Does he recognise there is a need to revisit that amendment to deal both with its deficiencies and the serious deficiencies in the way the Government presented it to the public? There was a shocking level of spoilt votes. The number of spoilt votes was greater than the margin between the yes and no votes.
The public was bewildered and confused by the lack of information provided and the information which was presented was unreadable. I have not yet met anyone who understood the purpose of the amendment from reading the newspaper advertisements. Does the Taoiseach accept that if he does not deal with this issue, revisit it and present another amendment to the people he is simply feeding the cynicism about politics which is building up? Does he not feel there is an onus on him to state publicly where he stands? It is not enough for the Taoiseach to say he is prepared to look at the issue at some time in the future in a particular context. This is a real issue. We have all seen that it is an experience which can go badly wrong.
I remind the Taoiseach that he was dependent on the support of the Opposition when his own colleagues in Government were very vocal against him and his position on this amendment. The Taoiseach has a duty to respond positively on this issue in the public interest.
I remind the Deputy that she was a Minister in the Government which brought forward and carried out all of the work on this issue. It is rather harsh for her to allege that all the work she and her colleagues did was a shambles.
I did not say that.
The Deputy did say that.
I will not be misquoted by the Taoiseach. I said that the experience people had in relation to the referendum when they actually went to the polls was a shambles.
Does the Deputy not accept the people's decision?
I find it extraordinary that the Taoiseach is attempting to twist my words and refuses to accept the reality of people's recent experience when they were asked to vote on a constitutional amendment which they did not understand. I supported the Taoiseach when he could not get his own people to support him.
When was that?
Legislation was prepared on the basis that two tribunals were up and running. It was felt that legislation had been well analysed and I decided to proceed with it. The Bill was presented to the Dáil and the debate on it was one of the most lively we have had on legislation in this House and in the Seanad where I also dealt with the Bill.
That debate lasted for approximately one hour.
A Supreme Court decision set down a process to be followed in relation to referenda. A commission was set up and members of the Bar Council were asked to prepare the cases for and against the amendment. Those cases were subsequently advertised in the national media and put to the people. That is precisely what happened. The Deputy asked whether I believe that people clearly understood this issue. Obviously a number of them did not. We have had far bigger issues in referenda than this one. I did not receive any letters from anyone who had lost any sleep over this.
Did the Taoiseach not receive a letter from Deputy O'Malley?
I do not think Deputy O'Malley lost too much sleep over this issue. He put his case in this House as did others. Far more people voted in the recent referendum than did in other referenda. There was only a 29 per cent turn out in the bail referendum and people understood that issue very well. Cases were put forward by a number of Deputies. Deputies Howlin and O'Keeffe, who were present during the entire debate, asked me to have these other issues looked at by the Constitution review group when it was set up, and I agreed to do so. There was agreement across the House at that stage to consider whether this change was too limited and, based on the conclusions of the tribunals, to look at the issue again. I repeat that I will be happy to do that.
As to the ability of Government, following the Supreme Court decision, to explain referenda more fully, that is a matter we should look at. There seems to be a case being made by the people that we should look at another way of putting forward cases at referenda so that they can be explained in a more thorough way. That being so, we in this House have an obligation to examine the means we used in this and a number of referenda recently. I will be glad to do that.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the implication of his last remark is that the Government will need to introduce legislation to govern the provision of information at referenda and have that legislation tested as to its constitutionality so that it will come into effect before we have the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty? Would the Taoiseach agree that there is a considerable risk that that referendum might not go the way all of us in this House would wish it to go, because of an information deficit? Would he further agree that there is a serious obligation on political parties in this House not just to publish articles in The Irish Times— and we are grateful to The Irish Times for allowing us to do so — in favour of or, as in one case, against the proposal, but to inform voters in their constituencies on a house to house basis about the implications of constitutional amendment proposals? That is part of our obligation as political parties in this House, part of the purpose for which we are given public funds.
I agree with the last part of what Deputy Bruton said. We are obliged to use our own resources and our own voluntary workers to do that. It is something we have to reflect on in future referenda. This one was more complicated than some of the others. We have just begun to examine how precisely we will deal with this issue. There is the difficulty that if one strongly believes in something and wants to get it passed one is prohibited from doing so. We have to analyse how that can be overcome. The ad hoc group which was set up following the Supreme Court ruling has laid down that the case for and against should be put, but we were not instructed as to what means we should use to do that. That was done in respect of this referendum but it is too limited a way to adequately sell a referendum with which practically everyone in this House agrees. Admittedly the amendment in question had its faults, and nobody was able to quantify them, but it achieved what we were trying to achieve. Many people who have only read a few articles on it seem to have become experts on the issue. However, the people who spent over two years examining the issue in detail believe they reached the only conclusion they could reach. It is not true to say it is a simple matter of revisiting it and finding a formula that is adequate for a constitutional amendment.
Is it the Taoiseach's view and that of his colleagues in Government that the constraints imposed by the McKenna judgment seriously inhibited this Administration with regard to the provision of information to the public on a measure in respect of a referendum that passed both Houses of the Oireachtas? If that is the case will he clarify his response to the question posed by Deputy Bruton to the effect that the Government is considering the introduction of legislation which would enable the Government of the day with perhaps a two-thirds majority in both Houses to vigorously sell a referendum to the public and that he would have the legal authority to do so which he currently does not? Will he outline a timetable because two very important referenda are on the way? The first deals with the Amsterdam Treaty; the treaty is not all that significant but the referendum is. The second will be a plebiscite-referendum on the successful outcome of talks in Stormont. Whatever about one's attitude to either issue, it is important that the public is better informed than for the previous referendum.
It is only ten days or so since that referendum and the Government has no memoranda on the issue. However it will examine it. If one believes passionately in an issue and there are extreme limits on what can be done to sell it, then there is a problem. The Government will discuss whether this can be done legislatively or in some other way. No conclusions have been reached but at least two and probably, in terms of the work of the all party committee on the Constitution in the immediate years ahead, several important referenda will be proposed. They must be sold by the political system otherwise we will not achieve what we are here to achieve. An examination will take place but no conclusions have been reached or any decision made on any line to be taken.
Will the Taoiseach accept the urgency to find an answer to this problem? Will he further accept that it was examined by the Whitaker committee and the all party committee on the Constitution proposed in its first report the establishment of an independent commission consisting of the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad and a judge which would have the power and responsibility to deal with the information deficit and to allocate funding on an equitable basis for a proper debate? Will the Taoiseach have these recommendations examined and put into effect as soon as possible because if they are not, the same problem will arise during the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty referendum and on other proposals to be put forward to modernise the Constitution?
Deputy O'Keeffe will recall from those discussions that my colleagues also introduced a Private Members' Bill on that issue. We will revisit it.
I know a number of TDs who do not share Deputy Bruton's endorsement of the Amsterdam Treaty as drafted. Does the Taoiseach have any plans to reform voting procedures for referenda in view of the many discrepancies that occurred on this occasion? Will he and the Cabinet give consideration to voting thresholds for future referenda in light of the poor endorsement of this proposal? In considering legislation will he look at the position in Switzerland where referenda are held frequently and different issues are put to the people on the same day? Irrespective of the McKenna judgment, there is no restriction on the Government informing the public of both sides of the issue.
Improvements in the electoral system to make it easier for postal voters and those who are ill to cast their vote are always under consideration. The Department of the Environment and Local Government is looking at a range of issues in this respect.
Will the Taoiseach agree it is vital that the Amsterdam Treaty be endorsed from the point of view of our standing in Europe and our position at the heart of European policymaking? Will he also agree that we can take no risks in this regard and that any measures the Government has in mind to allow more information to be provided to the public in regard to referenda must be in place before the treaty is put to the public? Will he further agree that Switzerland is a very good example of a country which has become paralysed by referenda? That country did not introduce votes for women until long after other countries precisely because of the tyranny of referenda. It is also not a member of the European Union precisely because of the tyranny of referenda.
Women were not given a vote in that country until 1948.
It also has an exceptionally low turnout in referenda.
At least it has referenda.
I agree with Deputy Bruton that it is important from an economic, social and development point of view for the referendum to be passed next year. Hopefully, the White Paper will be completed before the end of the year. We will make the necessary arrangements and introduce whatever changes are required so that the referendum can be held next spring.
