Micheál Martin
Ceist:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet committee at which communications and media mergers are discussed; and when it last met. [17973/18]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Media Mergers
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet committee at which media mergers and communications are discussed. [18734/18]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:3. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet committee at which communications and media mergers are discussed; and when it last met. [18889/18]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:4. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet committee at which communications and media mergers are discussed; and when it last met. [18942/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The object of Cabinet Committee D, infrastructure, is to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the development and implementation of policy on housing infrastructure investment and delivery, climate action and the delivery of Project Ireland 2040.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach's reply does not pertain to Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive.
The date is correct on the folder but not on the replies.
The questions relate to communications and media mergers.
I apologise.
Media mergers are regulatory issues to be dealt with by the appropriate regulatory authority which, in the first instance, is the Consumer and Competition Protection Commission, CCPC. Should the commission clear the transaction to proceed, it is then referred to the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment to conduct an initial assessment of the likely impact of the transaction on plurality in the media in the State. Following that assessment, the Minister has the option of allowing the transaction to proceed, allowing it to proceed with conditions or referring it to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, for a phase 2 or full merger examination. In the cases referred for a phase 2 examination, the BAI must make a recommendation on whether the merger should be allowed to proceed, proceed with conditions or not to be allowed to proceed. The Minister must then make a final decision on whether the merger should be allowed to proceed, proceed with conditions or not to be allowed to proceed.
The purpose of the media mergers regime is to safeguard the diversity and pluralism of media in the State and foster regulatory environments that will enable media companies to flourish, as well as to ensure a range of diverse views are heard. These policy matters are for the Minister and questions should be directed to him in the first instance. Any issue arising that would require a Government decision would be dealt with by the Government as a whole rather than a Cabinet committee.
After many days of controversy, the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, finally got around to admitting he should not have spoken to a lobbyist for a media company, Independent News & Media, INM, about a media merger it was promoting. He still claims that he did nothing wrong but admits that he should not have done it and said he would not do it again. The Taoiseach has agreed with the analysis that a Minister outlining how he intends to handle a referral to a lobbyist breaks no rules, even where the company concerned views the information as significant and commercially sensitive. Is he happy that this is supposedly within the rules? Will he tell us if he intends to change the rules in order that in any future case there would be a clear sanction to prevent behaviour such as this? Has the Government approached the Stock Exchange, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Competition Authority or any other official body to ask if they agree that the information provided by the Minister was not commercially sensitive?
This entire affair highlights the fact that there is effectively no national policy on media diversity or media viability, which is just as important. Many organisations representing people working in the sector, as well as the companies, have spent much of recent years calling for a strategy to ensure a professional Irish media sector can survive in the era of the low-cost aggregators and unedited sites. Are we likely to see a response soon to any of these demands? I put it to the Taoiseach that a strategic Cabinet approach to media diversity and viability is called for. Given the most recent revelations, it is something the Government will have to consider very seriously.
It is important to return to the conduct of the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, with reference to the proposed takeover of Celtic Media by Independent News & Media. The Minister has yet to give a credible answer or explanation for his conduct in providing what could be fairly regarded as confidential information for a lobbyist acting on behalf of INM, an interested party in a media merger. The Taoiseach might like to take the opportunity to offer an explanation for that conduct.
During his statement on the matter in the Dáil on 18 April the Minister confirmed that in November 2016 he had spoken to Mr. Eoghan Ó Neachtain who, as we know, was acting on behalf of INM. More importantly, the Minister knew this at the time. He stated that in the conversation with Mr. Ó Neachtain he had expressed a purely personal view that the likely course of action would be a referral for a phase 2 assessment in accordance with the guidelines on diversity and media plurality. The statement directly contradicts what the Minister told the Dáil on 6 December 2016 in response to a question from my colleague, Teachta Brian Stanley. It is now clear that the Minister misled the Dáil on his likely action on the proposed takeover.
The Minister was not merely a well informed observer in this process. He was not in a position to provide a purely personal view. He was the Minister with statutory responsibility for the process and it is clear he provided confidential information for one party in that process. Has the Taoiseach raised the matter with the Minister subsequent to the events of the week before last? Has he urged the Minister to provide a clarifying statement and an apology for the Dáil? There should be a correction of the Official Report of the Dáil.
There are many issues arising from the recent controversy surrounding INM, including the lobbying of the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, and the data breach involving journalists' and barristers' emails. Another issue which to my mind is the most important is the lack of media plurality in this country.
The hallmark of any meaningful democracy is genuine freedom of the press and media and that it is not dominated by one or a small number of individuals. In this country, however, Mr. Denis O'Brien - one of the richest men in this country - dominates or outright owns the Irish Independent, the Sunday Independent, the Sunday World, the Evening Herald, 50% of the Daily Star, a host of local newspapers, Today FM, Newstalk, Dublin's 98FM, Spin 103, Spin Southwest and we can carry on through the list.
This is outrageous. It is particularly so in the light of the allegations made. I was reading back over emails from Mr. Gavin O'Reilly back in 2010 where he was rebutting requests from Mr. Leslie Buckley, Mr. Denis O'Brien's representative on the board. He was asking that Mr. Sam Smyth be moved off his coverage of the Tribunal of Inquiry into certain Payments to Politicians and Related Matters. That was direct interference in the freedom of journalists to write. Mr. Smyth subsequently lost his job. To add to that, Mr. O'Brien is a tax refugee. Then the Taoiseach has private meetings with this guy in Davos. It is extraordinary. Is the Taoiseach concerned about the monopoly of one individual over the Irish media and does he have any desire to do, or intention of doing, anything about that? The Taoiseach says it is the BAI and it is this, that and the other. In the end, as he said, it is the Government, the Cabinet or the Minister. It is a political decision. Are we going to do something about this? If we are not, we cannot talk in a meaningful way about press freedom, plurality and diversity in this country.
Deputy Boyd Barrett makes a strong point. We need to face up to the requirement for plurality in the media so that there is more than one control mechanism for the media people access in this country. Over the weekend, I read speculation that the Taoiseach was talking about legislation in this area. Is the Government concerned at the increased concentration of media ownership in Ireland? Should an independent commission be established to pull together all the strands of views on that and to address that in a very open way to ensure there are not the type of constraints referenced on any journalist. I refer to them acting freely, fairly and openly in our society. It is an important bulwark in any society.
On the issues surrounding the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, I am not going to revisit them except to say that I can half understand a Minister getting a phone call and not instantly realising he should not be taking the call and stopping it but not recognising that was wrong.
That is the point.
That is a point not only for the Minister, Deputy Naughten, but for the Taoiseach. If the Minister had said he was caught off guard, he was thinking of other things, he should never have taken the call, the caller got through directly, he should never have imparted any information. It should never happen again and that acknowledgment would be really important. I invite the Taoiseach to make that acknowledgement today.
In my own time in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, when we were dealing with public private partnerships, PPPs, I established a protocol that was published on the departmental website - it is still there - that said if a person has an interest in a PPP then he or she could not contact the Minister or any of his or her political staff directly. There is a published conduit for a person to put in a submission, query anything or provide data to the Department. It is completely wrong that it would be done in a covert way. It was not in the public domain and it was information that was subsequently withheld from the Dáil. Will the Taoiseach acknowledge this was something that should not have happened? Are there protocols to deal with this matter in future?
In respect of the Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, I do not want to go over old ground. The Minister, Deputy Naughten, has made his position clear on a number of occasions. I have said I am satisfied with the explanations he has given. He has apologised already and that is on the record of the Dáil. He has also said that he would not take such calls in the future. He has acknowledged that. It is important to point out that he did not do any favours for anyone. I appreciate that nobody in this House has alleged that he has done any favours for anyone but sometimes even without an allegation that impression can be created. We should all be clear in our comments that no favours were done for anyone. In fact, the Minister, Deputy Naughten, did the opposite of what I image INM would have wanted. He referred the proposed merger to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and, therefore, delayed it. It is important that we are clear in our commentary about that. He followed the advice of his officials and followed the law at all times. That is what any Minister would do and should do. He indicated in the phone call to the lobbyist that was what he would do. He would follow the advice of his officials and follow the law.
That was wrong.
That should not be a revelation to anyone. I have not approached the Stock Exchange or the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE, about it. The ODCE acts independently. If there is a concern, I am sure if the director deems it appropriate to investigate, he will do so.
Turning to media diversity, in any business competition is a good thing, whether that is a service, goods or anything else. It gives consumers more choice and reduces prices. Competition is especially important in the media. It is not a normal business. It is part of our democracy and we need to have a diversity of voices in our media. I do not think it is the role of politicians to decide what is the appropriate percentage that a media company should hold. We have the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC. The appropriate role is for it to assess any proposals for mergers and to see whether that would give any player in the market a position that is too large. I would not like to see Ministers adjudicating as to whether 27% is okay but 28% is not or to be in that space. These things should be independent of politics and politicians. They should be determined by a body such as the CCPC when it comes to a merger such as this, with the BAI having a role too. I think that system is the right one and the policy is correct as we have it.
I read the Reporters Without Borders media freedom index report recently. It is interesting reading. Deputy Brendan Howlin referred to it as well. It gives us a relatively high rating in respect of media freedom. We are in the first tier but down slightly on previous years. I think we are around 13th or 14th in the world out of nearly 200 countries. However, a few things were pointed out. It pointed to what it believes is RTÉ being too large in the broadcasting space, INM being too large in the print space and our defamation laws being too much on the side of the person who was defamed. I imagine those defamed would have one view and defamers would have a different view. The issue of the protection of sources was also raised. We discussed that yesterday. I am not sure if Deputies have proposals as to how we could reduce RTÉ's position in broadcast media or INM's position in print. However, given that Reporters Without Borders put those two together, as two of the four issues it believes need to be dealt with, when we talk about this we need to talk about both issues as well. That is the analysis it put forward.
I am not sure if there has been some false reporting, but for clarity I did not have a private meeting with Mr. Denis O'Brien in Davos. No meeting was scheduled. We did not sit down together across a table or sit down together at all. He was in Davos. I was in Davos. I ran into him in a corridor. It was very public. We exchanged pleasantries and that was it.
Brexit Negotiations
Micheál Martin
Ceist:5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, since his speech on 18 April 2018 to the European Parliament on Brexit regarding the forthcoming assessment on the talks on transition in June 2018. [17972/18]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:6. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagements with Mr. Donald Tusk on Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom since his speech on 18 April 2018 to the European Parliament on Brexit regarding the forthcoming assessment on the talks on transition in June 2018. [18781/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:7. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken with the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, since his address on 18 April 2018 to the European Parliament on Brexit matters. [18948/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.
I have not spoken to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, since his statement to the European Parliament on 18 April. As Deputies are aware, I last met formally with President Tusk in Dublin on 8 March, when we discussed a range of issues across the EU agenda, including Brexit. I thanked President Tusk for his ongoing strong support in relation to the Irish-specific issues arising from the UK's decision to leave the EU. He reiterated his commitment to ensuring that these are addressed, and that the principles and commitments agreed between the EU and the UK in the December joint report are translated into legal text in the withdrawal agreement.
We also met at the EU Council in Brussels in March. The EU Council will discuss developments in the negotiations on Brexit again at its meeting in June and we will consider progress on all the outstanding withdrawal issues, including the Irish Border.
As I have said previously in this House, the Government is of the strong view that we need sufficient and substantial progress by that time if the deadline of a final legal text of the withdrawal agreement before October's EU Council is to be met. The Tánaiste and I reiterated that message when we met with the European Union negotiator, Michel Barnier, in Dundalk on Monday. As was evident from Mr. Barnier's remarks, we remain resolutely united in our approach to the negotiations and we look forward to seeing the United Kingdom tabling concrete proposals on how its commitments can be delivered. This is now urgent if progress is to be made and we need to see progress made. I note an important UK Cabinet meeting is taking place today in London. I again took the opportunity to thank Mr. Barnier and his team for the great understanding, support and solidarity shown to Ireland in the negotiations and to thank him for participating in the all-island civic dialogue, visiting both parts of the island to hear at first hand the views and concerns of stakeholders.
President Tusk has been a consistent and strong friend of Ireland since his time as Prime Minister of Poland. He has been an excellent President of the EU Council and I believe he has handled Brexit extremely well. As the final deals will be settled at summits, he will be central to what is finally agreed. In this context we need some clarity about the timing and nature of any final deal on the withdrawal text concerning Ireland.
Yesterday, the Taoiseach said that a nameless someone was confused about whether the target was October or June. The one-and-only person who has caused confusion is the Taoiseach himself. At the 22 March summit the Taoiseach stated unprompted at a brief media stop that the issue could slide to October and that he would be easy about that. The Tánaiste has refused repeated requests to confirm what the Taoiseach said and he has not repeated it. Indeed, the Tánaiste has said the opposite on several occasions. It was news here at the time and throughout Europe and it has been cited by the UK Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, repeatedly as a justification for not showing urgency about a June deal. The Taoiseach's refusal to acknowledge his personal role and his attempt to use attack as his primary defence is noteworthy. In order to be clear, will the Taoiseach tell us exactly what he means by the need for "substantial progress" on the text by June? I asked the question again yesterday. Does this mean a mostly agreed text? Does it mean another letter from the UK Prime Minister, Mrs. May? Does it mean a political declaration reaffirming what has already been affirmed? What is the minimum acceptable progress required in June to avoid the need for accelerated emergency planning for a no-deal scenario?
We need clarity on this issue. I have tried on several occasions to nail this down in a crystal clear way, as have others. I made some comments at the Dundalk all-island dialogue, which was a really useful forum. The opportunity for open dialogue with Michel Barnier at lunch was a helpful initiative. It is a pity that unionists were not formally there. I met unionists there but they had to be there almost without declaring themselves and that is unfortunate. I realise the Taoiseach can do nothing about that.
I will explain the net point I want to make. There is genuine fear now. We have all indulged in giving space to constructive ambiguity. We have certainly learned this from the Northern peace talks. Sometimes it is important to find a form of words everyone can live with sufficient unto the day as long as everyone understands where the landing point is. My fear now is that there is a degree of duplicity. We will see what comes out of the UK Cabinet meeting in London today. I do not believe there is capacity within the May Government to actually bring her Cabinet to a position that squares the fudged circle of last December. I am referring to a position where we could have a situation of no border, or no mechanisms of a border or any sign of a border on the island of Ireland and yet Ireland and Northern Ireland would be in two different customs unions and Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom would be in a single customs union. There are no legal mechanisms that I can see to do that. Asking Britain to come up with them seems a fatuous expectation now because we have had more than a year and the first effort at it by those responsible has been slapped down by the European negotiators as completely unworkable.
It is important for the sake of clarity that the Taoiseach is open with the House about what he expects the point of arrival to be in July. What are the minimum terms that would be acceptable to the Taoiseach to allow discussions to go on to October? Certainly, there is no question of the Irish Border situation being folded into the post-October post-divorce discussions or into the long-term settlement discussions. This is something Michel Barnier underscored as well.
This morning the hard Brexiteer wing of the Tory party told Theresa May that any proposed British customs partnership with the European Union was a non-runner. The arch-Brexiteer that is Jacob Rees-Mogg has said that any such proposal is deeply unsatisfactory and that it would not get Britain out of the EU, which is what people voted for. I agree with him on the first point. A so-called customs partnership will not resolve the issues relating to the island of Ireland. It is unworkable and unachievable and I think that is accepted by Brussels and by the Taoiseach. My view on his second point is that the people in the North of Ireland who had the opportunity to vote actually voted to remain and so they have not consented to Brexit.
That was the clear and reinforced message Michel Barnier received on his visit to the North. To protect the economic and social interests of our island all of us, North and South, need to remain inside the customs union and the Single Market. As the Taoiseach knows, that is the best way to protect the Good Friday Agreement and citizens' rights in the North as well as to safeguard cross-Border trade. The British Government and the DUP simply have to come to terms with that reality. It is regrettable that Theresa May's Government has still not come to terms with the reality of what it agreed to in December. We should remember that. The backstop agreement, which is the bare minimum required and is of itself imperfect, was signed up to by the UK Government. I have said before that we really need clarity by June and I know others have sounded similar concerns. I have deep concern that running down the clock to October will be the strategy of the British system and Government. I believe that will leave us in a very difficult and potentially vulnerable position. Therefore, I too wish to know, come the end of June, what the Taoiseach believes must be achieved. What sufficiency does the Taoiseach envisage at that point?
I asked the Taoiseach yesterday whether he and the European Union should condemn the shooting of what is now a total of 44 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza in recent weeks by the Israeli forces. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach condemned it, but really what I want to ask in the context of Europe, Donald Tusk and our role in Europe generally is whether we can move beyond the Taoiseach individually or this Parliament condemning what is going on to something actually being done about it by Europe. Europe is not some external observer to what is going on in Gaza. We give Israel favoured trade status. Israel is effectively an associate member of the European Union.
A great deal of European money goes into the West Bank and Gaza and, in many cases, the products of that funding get blown to pieces or demolished by the Israelis and then we have Israel flagrantly breaking international law, killing unarmed civilians at present and they will continue to do so for the next two weeks and Europe will do nothing. Could the Taoiseach speak up about this? When he meets Donald Tusk and is engaging at the European Council could he appeal to Europe to do something about this, to put some pressure on Israel to stop killing innocent people, to stop breaking international law week in, week out and to demand that some sanctions be imposed? In any other circumstances sanctions would be imposed on people when a state kills innocent people, breaks international law or illegally occupies a territory. We would say something should be done about that but, for some reason with Israel, Europe does nothing. It just stands by and allows it to happen. Could we be a bit more forceful in demanding that Europe shows some ethical principle in terms of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians?
I will start with the withdrawal agreement. The deadline to conclude it is October. It always has been and that is not news. The intention is to have the text of the withdrawal agreement concluded and agreed in October after which there will be a ratification process. It will have to be ratified by the European Parliament and also by the parliament in the United Kingdom in order that it can come into legal effect before the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in March 2019, with the transition period being used to negotiate the new relationship that will exist between the UK and the EU. That will probably constitute two treaties, one treaty around security and defence and a separate treaty around the future economic and trading partnership. In October we also intend to agree a political declaration as to what we envisage the form of those two treaties should be. Those are the two things that need to be done by the Council meeting in October.
The EU guidelines about June are very clear. They say that we will review the situation at the European Council meeting in June.
We will do what?
Review.
We as the EU 27 are united on this. Ireland's position is the position of 27 member states. We negotiate as 27 from a position of strength. Our position, which is in the guidelines, is that we will review progress at the meeting in Brussels in June. We want to see real and meaningful progress by June if we are going to meet that December deadline, or rather the October deadline. There is a real risk that we will not meet the October deadline if we do not see real and meaningful progress in June. It is still early May. It is only the first week in May. There are many moving parts. There are shifting sands. An important UK cabinet meeting is under way today and parliamentary votes of significance are happening across the water now. We need to treat this as an evolving situation, and it is one. We are very far from making a decision point as to what the maximum amount of progress is that can be achieved in June. Obviously, we will make that decision at the time.
Let there be no doubt that we are insisting that there has to be a backstop in the withdrawal agreement. The UK now acknowledges that there has to be a backstop in the withdrawal agreement. People call it different things. It is officially called the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. I believe I started using the term "backstop", which the EU has adopted as the term. Prime Minister May calls it the last resort. The Secretary of State, David Davis, calls it a reserve parachute. What we all agree, no matter what one calls it, is that the withdrawal agreement must have that. It must be in the withdrawal agreement and, if it is not, then there cannot be a withdrawal agreement.
It is worth acknowledging some of the progress that has been made in these negotiations, step by step, during the past year or two. There was the joint report in December in which the UK commits to ensuring that there is no hard border, including physical infrastructure and associated checks. There was the commitment to retain the common travel area, which is very important for reasons that everyone in this House will know. There was the Kenny text, which allows Northern Ireland, should it decide to do so, to join the European Union through Irish unity, if that is something that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to happen in the future. We also have the transition period, which is really important, giving business, public services and individuals until the end of 2020 to prepare for any permanent changes that may take place. I know there has been some suggestions from some parties in this House that we should have rejected those terms, that we should not have agreed to those terms of the transition agreement. I strongly refute that suggestion. Irish business, farmers and workers need that transition period to prepare for the future, to protect their businesses, farming and jobs.
We all agree with that.
I certainly disagree with anyone who believes that we should not have accepted those terms. Let us not forget that the UK-----
The only person doing the sabre rattling is the Taoiseach.
Let us not forget that the UK accepted the EU's terms, which are exactly what the EU said they would be, namely, the deadline, the fact that the UK would have to sign up fully to the customs union, the Single Market and the European Court of Justice during the transition period and pay into the budget as well.
That was always going to happen.
They totally accepted our position in that regard. I see a contradiction in, on the one hand, suggesting the Irish Government should be closer to the British Government and, on the other hand, saying that we should have rejected the terms of the transition agreement. That makes no sense-----
Who suggested that?
-----and is an entirely contradictory position. We have also had the financial settlement and the agreement on INTERREG and PEACE
Who said that?
Who advocated rejecting it?
That is my reading of an interview that Deputy Martin did in The Irish Times some weeks ago but he may wish to use another opportunity to clarify what he meant by that.
I never used the word "reject". The Taoiseach just makes things up to suit his straw men all over the place.
On Israel and Palestine, the Deputies will be aware of the issues around the EU common foreign policy. We only have a foreign policy when we agree and that is done by consent and so by unanimity. For example, on the issue of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the EU is able to take a fully united position, namely, that we did not agree with the decision of the United States to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and that EU states would not be doing so. On other matters it has not been possible to find that consensus and different member states have different attitudes to issues.
I have asked the Taoiseach on a number of occasions what he means by the term "meaningful progress". Could he give us some sense of what "meaningful progress" means? It is the Tánaiste who said more strongly than anybody here that if there was no progress by June - "substantial" is the word he used - then it would be questionable whether we would have any deal at all in October. He said that during a BBC interview about two months ago. He raised the hare. It is the Taoiseach and his colleagues who came out and said they were not agreeing to anything in June until we get some progress, some deal. The Taoiseach created all of that language and momentum, so he cannot be blaming everybody else. I would like to know what "meaningful progress" means.
We have been around in circles on this a few times now.
Unless the Taoiseach wants to respond, we will move on to the next group.
How many minutes remain?
Ten minutes remain for the next question.
There is only one Taoiseach's question remaining.
I wish to raise a brief point of order on this question.
There is no point of order to be raised.
There is.
Tell me briefly what you think it is.
I submitted the exact same question, word for word, as Deputy Martin, which appeared on the Question Paper, and it was refused by the Taoiseach's Department. I contacted the Ceann Comhairle's office which told me it was the Taoiseach's Department that would not allow exactly the same question with exactly the same wording on the paper, and there was back and forth communication on that. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is unacceptable that you would allow one question but not allow the same question from another group in the Parliament.
I support Deputy Boyd Barrett on that.
That is absolutely unacceptable. The rules are the rules, and they apply to one and all.
Okay, Deputy. I would just say-----
I support the Deputy too.
Hold on, Taoiseach.
If the question was the same, then the decision should be the same.
I remind the House that during Question Time, Members may not seek to raise the transfer of questions by a Member. Let me clarify, other Deputies tabled similar questions after this appeared on the Question Paper last week. These new questions were transferred to the Minister for Health and the reason was provided to those Deputies who raised them. Deputy Boyd Barrett will appreciate that any time I am in the Chair, even though Deputies have not submitted a question, I always give them an opportunity to contribute.
I appreciate that.
Why would the identical question be appropriate for the Minister for Health and this one is not? I am just asking.
It is bizarre.
Sometimes the Brexit questions get thrown-----
A written reply has been provided today, and rather than lose any more time, anyone who wants to ask a question, I will give them the opportunity to do so.
I was given the opportunity-----
I believe the Member has to get a written reply. That is the short answer.
I am just saying it is bizarre.
Referendum Campaigns
Micheál Martin
Ceist:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the referendum campaign on the eighth amendment of the Constitution. [17977/18]
The reply may make the issue somewhat moot.
The question relates to my role as Taoiseach in the referendum campaign on the eight amendment of the Constitution. I have no function in the matter. My Department has no role in any campaign related to the referendum and no involvement beyond its normal role of supporting and providing a secretariat for the Government.
The Taoiseach misunderstood the nature of the question. I will take the opportunity to make a few points in the context of it.
While in international terms Ireland has highly independent and regulated elections, we are only beginning to get our act together in referendums. International experience shows that overseas attempts to interfere in votes are increasing rapidly. The work of and communication from the Referendum Commission to all citizens will be crucial as they will inform all homes objectively of what is being proposed.
In this House we all accept that the issue of the eighth amendment is deeply personal and complex. Given recent polls, there is still a large number of people who are undecided and who will make up their minds in the next three weeks. I have been on doorsteps in different contexts and it is interesting that the issue is beginning to go live with people voicing more about it. Clearly, they are asking questions. The point is they are now engaging at the door, which is welcome.
The debate so far has been respectful on all sides. However, in today's press it has been revealed that billboards with graphic and upsetting images have been placed outside maternity hospitals by a group which appears to be non-Irish and outside all regulatory oversight. The campaign is so extreme that it has even been attacked by a spokesperson for the part of the "No" campaign led by some of the main personalities in Youth Defence, an organisation not known for respecting boundaries in promoting its views.
There is, of course, what appears to be a tidal wave of online advertising, some of which does not link with a regulated Irish organisation. Given the roles of the Referendum Commission and the Standards in Public Office Commission, will the Taoiseach consider asking them at this point to track activity which they believe might raise concerns about the origins of the funding or other efforts to avoid Irish electoral law?
I reiterate those concerns which have been raised with me by people on the campaign trail who are regular Facebookers and say they cannot log-on without being bombarded with what are clearly expensive advertisements advancing the "No" position. Let me say clearly that those citizens who are campaigning for a "No" vote and hold that view are absolutely entitled to hold that view and participate in the debate and campaign, but we need to have a level playing pitch. I fear, particularly in social media advertising, that rules are being broken and lines crossed. Given that the campaign is live, I wonder what we can do at this stage and what Facebook - if I can name it - can do to adequately police and ensure that level of fairness.
On the graphic imagery that has appeared, particularly outside a number of maternity hospitals, I note the contrast with the removal of a mural which, for sure, was political but which in no way could have been deemed offensive, even by those who take a different political position. I am concerned that it seems no action has been taken to remove these images which - let it be said - for many women attending maternity hospitals who may have all manner of concerns and experiences have proved to be really traumatic.
This is an important point. Our base law, the Constitution, is important. We have spent a great deal of time making sure that when we have a debate on changing the Constitution, it is conducted on a fair basis. We had the McKenna judgment and others that sought properly to limit the capacity of the State to influence a vote in order that there would be a level playing field to enable people to hear objectively everybody's point of view in a transparent way above everything else. There are real concerns, not only about the volume but also the unattributed nature of so much of the advertising that is bombarding social media at an incredible cost. It is targeted and often not clear. For example, there is a website, undecided8.org, which one could confuse for being an official information website of the Referendum Commission. These are improper developments. It is clearly not in the purview of the Referendum Commission, as structured, but there is now an undeniable case for the immediate establishment of a standing electoral commission. It would be too late for this referendum, but there will be other referenda. When one sees the international debate on outside influences interfering in elections, we would be foolish to think we will not be influenced by somebody, either in elections or referenda, in the future.
My final comment on the disturbing imagery outside at least one maternity hospital is that yesterday I spoke to an "expectant father", if that is the proper phrase to use, who was bringing his wife into the hospital. The child is beyond the due date and when there was a little concern yesterday, they found it really disturbing to be confronted with that imagery when they were looking after the health of their child. We need to have standards in the debates we have. By and large, this debate has been conducted in a calm and civilised manner and I hope it will continue in that way, but this is over the line.
I have been canvassing for the past four or five weeks and one learns much about what people are saying and thinking on both sides in the course of canvassing. Whatever side people are on, they are overwhelmingly shocked by how vile the imagery is. They are really upset by and very angry about it. I take some consolation from the fact that many who were considering voting "No" will now vote "Yes" because they are appalled by this stuff. Nonetheless, the vile, offensive and traumatising nature of some of the imagery is below any standard of decency, both for women who have been through abortions and people in general, and particularly for children who are sensitive about such matters. Children are asking their parents, "What is that?" It is disgusting and some measures must be taken to deal with it.
A point I do not know whether the Taoiseach is prohibited from making given his original answer but which I want to make to those campaigning for a "Yes" vote that arises from my experience of canvassing was borne out in the findings of a poll that came out at the weekend. The findings of the IPSOS poll were much publicised. They indicated that 47% of people would vote "Yes" but strangely what was less publicised was the answer to another question about the percentage of people who believed the law should be changed to allow women to choose to have an abortion, if they wished to do so. The Taoiseach may be aware the figure was 62%, which is strange. A total of 47% said they would vote "Yes", while 62% believed women should have the right to choose. That suggests we need to up our game in explaining what is at stake because when one calls to a door, people ask, "Yes to what? Repeal what?" People are not clued in to political debates. When one explains the position, many say that personally they are not sure about abortion but that they think people should be allowed make their own decisions. We need to get that simple, factual explanation of what those campaigning for a "Yes" vote are campaigning for to many of the "don't knows" who are a little confused.
As the 45 minutes have expired, I ask the Taoiseach for a brief response.
I will be as brief as I can.
I absolutely agree with the Deputies and leaders on the really graphic and vile billboards and posters that we have seen pop up throughout the State. They should be removed as they are upsetting to pregnant women and their partners.
I know from my own experience that a lot of children who see them have questions to ask. They do not know what they are. They do not understand them. They ask their parents about it and put their parents in a very difficult position in trying to explain what it is all about. They are counterproductive, which is the only thing I can say about them that is any way positive. I hope they will be counterproductive and that people will revolt against them and the attitudes of the kind of people who think that sort of advertising is in any way appropriate or convincing. I am very wary of overseas involvement and overseas money being part of the campaign on either side. I have full confidence in the Referendum Commission and the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, to discharge their statutory functions.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.