We have 30 minutes starting from now to consider all stages.
Referendum Bill, 2001: Committee and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I have my name down as opposing the Bill.
We were trying to get in.
The Deputy will get in. Deputy Sargent has opposed the section. He is entitled to be called first.
We have all opposed the section.
My name was down as opposing the section.
Deputy Sargent's name is down as opposing the section.
Our names were down too.
On section 1, Deputy Sargent.
To take up on what was said on Second Stage, section 1 is to remove the option of presenting the arguments in a balanced way. It has been argued by Deputy Brian Lenihan that it is not good to have arguments recycled, as he put it. It is not simply that I am in favour of recycling that I disagree with him. The commission exists to ensure that there should be no bogus arguments and in that regard I certainly concur with the Deputy. However, if there was no referendum commission ensuring that arguments for and against could be stood over, then there would be a danger not just of Government parties, but of groups from a wide section of society, arguing over their views of the matter without necessarily having them corroborated by an independent body such as the referendum commission. It is important we avoid that.
I realise there were bogus arguments on both sides in recent referenda and the commission is there to provide a means of validating arguments. It should be helped and supported in doing so. We had arguments put out by those supporting the Nice Treaty which stated there would be no enlargement without that treaty, which had to be in place to allow enlargement to happen. We now realise that the situation is far more complex. Under the Amsterdam Treaty there was provision for further enlargement. There were other arguments that at the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference, when the new countries have become members, they can be part of the decision-making which would influence their futures within the EU.
We need the opportunity to put the arguments for and against which the commission could validate. That role should be protected and accordingly I must oppose the section. The Maastricht Treaty was about the Single Market and introducing the euro, which is now around the corner, but there were arguments that a "No" vote on Maastricht would be a vote against women. How can anybody stand over arguments if there is no referendum commission to validate both sides and to make sure those arguments are articulated?
Deputy Lenihan said people would resent their money being spent in a way that gives credence to a minority view. As I said, if the case is strong enough it should withstand whatever derisory argument is made against it. It should not be banned from being made by the commission simply because it is a minority view.
I thank the Minister of State for his admiration of Patricia McKenna, which I share. I am sure she will be delighted to hear that.
I agree there is a need for real debate. The commission was anxious to organise a live debate from which footage could have been added to the political debate in a way that is validated. The Minister of State would not like to dismiss that as recycling arguments. It would be the proper way for the commission to help motivate people to make decisions and vote in the referendum.
The question of what money political parties are able to spend must be answered. If we pass this Bill, though I hope we do not, we will depend more on parties to spend their own money. Due to suspicion of corporate funding, much of that funding comes from State coffers. We need clear demarcation regarding groups which are non-Government organisations and umbrella groups outside the political parties not being disadvantaged in that case. However, I suspect there is an underlying expectation that there will be more money available to, for example, the "Yes" side in the Nice Treaty debate as a result of the Bill. That goes against the spirit of the McKenna judgment, whatever about the letter of the law and the constitutionality of the judgment. We are in a very suspicious area which has to be clarified if we are not to alienate the public further from the Government, which is likely.
There are six Members offering and we are due to conclude at 3.17 p.m. so if the House is agreeable, we will divide the remaining time between those speakers. They will get four and a half to five minutes each. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am sure the Minister of State can understand the basis of the criticisms all speakers have levelled at the method of introduction of this Bill. There is less than two hours debate on the last day of the session, when many Members have already returned to their constituencies without knowing the Bill is going through the House. We are primarily opposed to the content of the Bill, however. The Minister of State criticised us for saying that we understood the difficulties surrounding the pro and anti arguments and wondered why we would not vote for the Bill, as it had been agreed at the all-party committee. The reality is that the Minister and the Government cherry-picked from the recommendations of the committee. They have moved to reduce the level of public information available in the context of a referendum and I suspect it is only in the context of one referendum in particular that this is being pushed through so rapidly.
Section 2 removes the requirement to put both sides of an argument, which will cause all sorts of problems. That method, warts and all, was one way of communicating concerns of the public. Section 1 goes further and removes the right of approved bodies to make submissions to the commission. It seems that the Minister is arguing that one should follow the other. The reality is that there is no reason why removing the requirement to put both arguments should be accompanied by the removal of the power of approved bodies to make submissions. At least these submissions would provide the public with information about concerns on one side or the other. This is a diminution of democracy as it provides less information, not more. It may also provide very limited information, so we are giving a conundrum to the commission and asking them, in one or more statements, to give the subject matter of the proposal and the text thereof. It defies imagination to begin to think how they are to do so in the context of the abortion referendum, which will probably be the next referendum. It will do nothing to add to the sum of knowledge regarding what is involved in this referendum when there is not even agreement in the House about the interpretation of the amendment.
Does the Minister of State not agree that in trying to facilitate the easy passage of the abortion referendum, he is imperilling it and it is almost certainly going to be subject to a constitutional challenge? That challenge will probably come in the middle of the campaign. It is totally counterproductive to push the Bill through in this way and to cherry-pick from the recommendations, picking one and not replacing the power to give information which existed, however problematic, with any other method of giving information to the public.
Of necessity, the Committee Stage debate is like that on Second Stage because the Bill has only one section of substance and we are re-arguing the points already discussed on Second Stage.
When I was a child, the literature of the Roman Catholic tradition contained an item called the Nihil Obstat, which confirmed that the material in a book, while not necessarily true, was free from error.
That, essentially, is what the Referendum Commission purports to do. It is an unelected body responsible to nobody, and although it is formally independent, it is hard to know if one can be independent on questions where political passions are evident. Arguments are given authenticity in the minds of people if they are recited by a public body. I welcome the fact that a number of speakers on the Opposition benches accepted that an authority with such a function should not exist, which is something I believe as a liberal and a democrat.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell claimed that the Government is cherry-picking from the recommendations of the all-party committee, but two recommendations are to be implemented. As well as the recommendation we have been discussing, the Government has agreed to charge the Referendum Commission with promoting public awareness of referenda and encouraging people to vote, which is an important function and one which the commission can usefully perform. The commission will not be judging what people's opinions should be when voting.
I am interested in Deputy Sargent's point about how we should fund future referenda, which is an important issue. The all-party committee acknowledged that there is a case for examining whether funds should be distributed equally to the proponents and opponents of a proposal, in accordance with the McKenna judgment. Had such a provision been in place in 1998, however, I do not believe taxpayers would have welcomed the distribution of money to the DUP and the associates of the Real IRA for the purposes of campaigning against the Good Friday Agreement. I would not like to anticipate the arguments that will be made if a referendum is held as a result of the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, which was recently passed. There have been enormous controversies in the United States in relation to abortion and the provision of taxpayers' money and similar arguments will arise here if the Referendum Commission decides to distribute money to those arguing in favour of abortion.
I agree with Deputy Sargent that a clear distinction will have to be made between the distribution of public moneys to political parties for administration and research and distribution for the purposes of campaigning. There is an onus on political parties to raise funds for campaigns from interested parties who believe passionately in particular causes. The Deputy referred to the arguments during the referendum on the Treaty of Nice about whether the treaty was essential for enlargement. The best evidence available to us suggests that ten countries will seek admission next year, so we will have to ratify the treaty to facilitate this.
I disagree with Deputy Sargent's argument that there should be a body to validate arguments in advance of a referendum. To charge an official body with deciding whether or not a certain argument should be accepted would bring the idea of "big brother" to its ultimate extreme. I believe in freedom of speech, a principle which should apply to the conduct of referenda. We need to address how we resource the promotion of views on propositions being put to the people, so that all sides have an equal opportunity to put arguments forward. We would be going down the road of censorship if we were to create a body to decide whether a certain argument was valid or correct. Such official supervision of the conduct of political debate is unwise.
Although the all-party committee's examination of how referenda should be conducted was thorough, the Government has not accepted it. If the recommendation that Dáil debates on referenda propositions should not be guillotined had been accepted, we would not have had to endure the curtailment of the debate on the abortion referendum Bill. The Government has accepted a recommendation by the all-party committee out of its context in order to conduct the abortion referendum in a particular manner.
The purpose of Committee Stage is to examine in detail the text of a Bill, so I want to draw attention to a function of the Referendum Commission which is to be withdrawn. Section 3(1)(c) of the Referendum Act, 1998, says that the Referendum Commission's mandate shall be “to foster and promote and, where appropriate, to facilitate debate or discussion in a manner that is fair to all interests concerned in relation to the proposal aforesaid”. The Referendum Bill, 2001, removes the arrangement whereby submissions in favour of and against a proposal are received from various bodies and individuals and circulated in advertisements. The commission's remaining function will be to make a general statement on the proposition. This change could have been done by repealing section 3(1)(a) of the 1998 Act, but all of section 3(1) is being replaced instead. The commission's current function, to foster, promote and facilitate fair debate, is to be removed and its only function will be to issue a general statement, which cannot be free from opinion or value.
I wish to discuss section 1, which amends the 1998 Act. I agree with Deputy Gilmore's comments on the proposal that the commission should "prepare one or more statements containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal and of the text thereof". The Minister has not responded to my challenge on Second Stage to explain how he envisages the commission will be able to perform the task in the context of the abortion referendum, which has obviously acted as the catalyst for the introduction of this legislation and the bludgeoning of it through the House today. How will the commission be able to give a general explanation of the text? Will it receive advice from the Bar library or, in the case of the abortion referendum, from the Medical Council? Will philosophers and the leaders of the churches be consulted? How many explanations will be given? Will a statement be issued, saying that a certain number of people believe the proposal means one thing and other people think it means something else?
It is not good enough for the Minister to say the Bill replicates the provisions of the 1998 Act, which taken as a whole created the artificial situation whereby equal weight is given to arguments of little validity. I have already expressed my views on that. There is an attempt to introduce via the back door a situation where the commission will have to make statements which the Government will hope will correspond with its interpretation of the relevant measure and no opportunity will be given for the expression of another view. If I understand the proposal correctly, that the Government has seconded to a commission a power the Supreme Court has said it cannot exercise, I envisage another legal challenge similar to that which led to the McKenna judgment. Given that the members of the Referendum Commission are independent of Government and are of great integrity, they are unlikely to do so. How is the statement to be put together in the case of a complex proposal? Should we have a rerun of the Treaty of Nice, what sort of statement would be put together explaining the text? Will it comprise many pages written in arcane, complex, technical language just to ensure that nothing in it is accurate? People will be expected to read such material, but only insomniacs will have the capacity to do so. It could be a cure for insomnia.
The Minister of State said it is unfair for us to refer to the abortion Bill in the context of this provision. However, this Bill is designed to deal with the forthcoming referendum on abortion. Will the Minister of State put on the record of the House the form of wording which he anticipates the commission may use? If he tells us he does not know, then why is he bringing a provision before the House, the application of which he does not understand?
The complexities of constitutional provisions in this area, the proliferation of court cases, the likelihood that the Bill will be the subject of a constitutional challenge during a referendum and the general uncertainty surrounding the way in which it will work in practice requires, in the public interest, the President to refer the measure to the Supreme Court for adjudication under Article 26. It is important she does so to bring a degree of certainty to bear on a fundamental aspect of our law, namely, the rules applicable to the conduct of referenda. I hope this will occur. If such a course of action delays the date of the referendum planned by the Government, then so be it. In the meantime it may give the Progressive Democrats time to work out, in the odd manner in which they are trying to do, whether there is some ethereal consensus which they can detect or whether people are just being unwise and blundering into a referendum which, with more thought and less political expediency, would not be taking place in the first place.
I oppose this legislation. I strongly object to the manner in which it is being brought before the House on the last day of the session with less than two hours debate. We only saw the Bill three days ago and the Taoiseach was not able to state whether there was going to be any change. This Bill is fundamentally undemocratic and its effect is to deny the electorate full information regarding future referenda. Does the Minister of State agree the Bill would never have seen the light of day if the electorate had not given the political parties and the establishment a bloody nose by voting against the Treaty of Nice?
This Bill prevents public moneys being used to give citizens fair and easy access to both sides of the argument in future referenda. It is an attack on the right to information. It is further evidence of the Government's contempt for the people and the fact it did not respect the people's view as expressed in the referendum on the Treaty of Nice. I oppose the Bill.
Deputy Sargent asked what funds can be spent by political parties in promoting their points of view in future referenda. Political parties will not be able to use funds allocated to them out of the public purse, such as the parliamentary leaders' allowance. Under existing legislation there is no limit on expenditure by bodies or individuals in a referendum campaign. The McKenna judgment held that while the Government may advocate a result in a referendum, it could not use public funds to do so to the detriment of the opposing side.
The Referendum Commission may incur expenditure of such moneys advanced to it as determined by the Minister who initiates the relevant Bill containing the proposal. The point made in the McKenna judgment was not that either or both sides were spending too much on the campaign, but that the use by the Government of public funds to finance a campaign to influence voters in favour of a "Yes" vote to the detriment of those opposed to the constitutional amendment was not permissible. The Bill does not propose to allocate public funds to groups campaigning on either side.
There are legal implications to limiting expenditure at a referendum which could result in a limitation on the debate in which interest groups are an integral part and there could be constitutional issues concerning freedom of speech. It could also run the risk of a petition being taken against the result of a referendum on the grounds that it was an interference with the conduct of the referendum.
In its judgment on the appeal against the decision of the High Court on the Hanafin petition, the Supreme Court held that interference, as defined in the Referendum Act relating to the conduct of a referendum, has a broader meaning than interference with mechanical arrangements by local returning officers.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell raised the issue of the removal of the ability of groups to make submissions to the commission. This is not the case. Section 1(b) repeals section 6 of the Referendum Act, 1998, which provides that a person may make submissions in writing or by electronic mail to the commission regarding the proposed subject of a referendum. This section is directly linked to the function of preparing a statement or arguments for and against the referendum proposal in the existing section 3(1)(b) and it will not be required. It is open to anyone to communicate with the Referendum Commission. Therefore, it is not necessary to stipulate this matter in legislation.
It is not for the commission to communicate with the public.
The Minister of State's time has concluded. As it is 3.18 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 13 December: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
Deputies
Votáil.
Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?
Deputies Gormley, Healy, Ó Caoláin and Sargent rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
Question declared carried.