I fully accept I was wrong about the Minister's views on the McKenna judgment. I compliment him on using both sides of the paper in his script. To my knowledge, he is the first Minister to do so. His Department is setting a very good example and other people in the public sector should adopt a similar practice.
Referendum Bill, 1998: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I am intrigued by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Is he a member of any other State body? It seems unusual that, given his role under the Constitution, he would have membership of the commission.
The membership of this body is the same as that of the Public Offices Commission, although I accept the Senator's point about the C & AG's constitutional position. Offices such as those of the Ombudsman, Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad and so on are regarded as being independent public offices which are, in some cases, constitutional. The C & AG is a member of the Public Offices Commission on which the membership of this body is based. The intention was that bodies dealing with electoral matters would have the same membership. This question was raised previously and the legal advice received was that this was acceptable from a constitutional point of view.
I concur with Senator Dardis's comments that the name of the Clerk of the Seanad is turning up in more and more places. Something must be done to ensure that the Clerk of the Seanad's resources are extended if he or she — I am referring here to the office — is to fulfil all the onerous obligations placed on him or her.
I do not want to repeat the point I made on Second Stage but I would point out that, under section 2 (13), the Minister for Finance has the power to make facilities and services available to the commission. I hope the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will bring that subsection to his colleague's attention.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Section 3 deals with the functions of the commission. I have no difficulty with the commission and I am thankful to the people who have come forward and offered their services as members of it. I do, however, have some difficulty with the commission's functions. The Supreme Court has decreed that the State cannot spend public money arguing one side of a referendum over another. I do not believe the solution to that problem has been addressed in this legislation. The Government, in this Bill, proposes to set up a commission which will have the role of arguing both sides of a debate. I believe that, in doing this, the Government is setting up a process which could lead to a sterile and artificial referendum. That is what the Fine Gael Party is concerned about.
I am not suggesting any kind of ulterior motive lies behind this section. The injunction on the commission to be fair to all concerned is similar to RTÉ's legal obligations. Those of us who have been on the wrong side of successive referenda would not be under any illusion that RTÉ was fair in these matters. Its distribution, for example, of party political broadcasts has always been based on party political representation and not on equivalence in terms of portraying both sides of an argument and the way in which a topic is presented in news bulletins always represents party political structures.
If we are to be fair we must ensure that all sides of an argument are seriously debated. The Maastricht Treaty represented a desecration of debate as the only two issues discussed during the referendum were abortion and neutrality when the real nub of the Treaty was Economic and Monetary Union. I sent a script to the national media every two days for four weeks which dealt exclusively with the economic issues of the referendum. Irrespective of whether my views were right or wrong, the economic issue was the major one involved. I watched vast quantities of waste paper accumulate which only added to the Minister's waste problems.
The commission will find it difficult to be fair. If it succeeds in working out a way of being fair, perhaps it could pass on the message to our broadcasters. We cannot tell the print media what to do but RTÉ and other broadcast media do have an obligation to be fair. I do not want anybody to receive special privileges but, in the interests of a good debate, all sides of an argument must be well articulated. A one sided debate results in people losing interest.
As Senator Ryan said, the obligation to be fair to all is based largely on the Broadcasting Acts. We could be philosophical and ask what is fairness. One man's fairness is someone else's unfairness. If 99 per cent of people advocate an issue and we must have a referendum, is it fair that funding and air time should be divided 50-50? That is why the term "fair to all" is used rather than equal. I do not want to refer to any particular case as there is an ongoing court case in relation to party political broadcasts.
I dealt with the issue of a sterile debate on Second Stage. A lack of imagination in how the Referendum Commission approaches it and a lack of participation by political parties will make this debate sterile. If the debate is sterile it will be as much the fault of Members of this House as anyone else.
The section of the Bill which deals with RTÉ is a necessary provision. There is a danger that people will decide the discussion of this matter on the basis of whether it is good television. They will forget it is a public service to have a debate, even if it happens to be as dry as dust and bad television. The Referendum Commission can instruct on the televising of a debate and it is up to the participants whether it is lively. None of us can be sure, but I think it will be a lively debate and we have given the commission every means to ensure that.
If the commission must make an input, it should be interesting enough to catch the public imagination. In a recent programme on the Birmingham Six on Channel Four there was a representation of a court where trained barristers argued for both sides and a judge summed up. That caught the public imagination because people are intrigued by court cases on television. This idea might generate the interest of the public in this referendum.
One might have to allocate 12 hours to a debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Government been advised whether the use of ministerial broadcasts under the Broadcasting Act would be a breach of the McKenna judgment? Two days before the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, the Taoiseach monopolised RTÉ for about 15 minutes before the 9 o'clock news to address the nation without reply. In typical RTÉ fashion, his speech was reproduced on the news, in case we missed it the first time.
I am not aware that the Government has been so advised. The broadcast referred to by the Senator lasted ten minutes.
The Minister should excuse my colourful language.
RTÉ subsequently broadcast the alternative view in a special edition of "Prime Time" immediately following the news. If I recall correctly, there may nearly have been a court case as a result. I cannot give the Senator a definitive reply. The matter is dealt with under the Broadcasting Act and RTÉ makes the decision. It is important that the Referendum Commission will have the right to broadcasting time.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
If a group called Fianna Fáil against the Amsterdam Treaty was established — there was a group called Fianna Fáil against Extradition — would the reference to a political party mean the body could not be recognised? Parties could take different views in future referenda.
That is also a matter on which the commission, as an independent body, will decide. The Bill refers to where the name of a body is the same as any party on the Register of Political Parties. In that unlikely event, the commission would probably rule against it.
It would be nice if some of these bodies had to fulfil the obligations of the Ethics in Public Office Act by reporting how much money they are given to fund their campaigns.
Is Senator Dardis referring to money from Moscow?
I do not want to be specific.
That is because he cannot be.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to deal with this Bill. Although I acted as devil's advocate, I hope it will not be a sterile and artificial debate. I agree with the Minister that political parties at national and local level must play their part in this important referendum.
I thank the Senators who participated in the debate for facilitating the Bill's speedy passage through the House, which I appreciate. The Bill represents an advance in the provision of information to the electorate about proposals in all future referenda.
I will not go into the matter in great detail as I have already mentioned it on Second Stage. However, I freely admit, as I did in the Dáil, that we are in a learning curve in relation to this matter. I do not know how effective it will be, although I think it will work well and an imaginative approach by the Referendum Commission should be helpful. I do not have a closed mind with regard to information for referenda. Should the All Party Committee on the Constitution make further recommendations, I will be pleased to look at them and will try to take them on board. Equally, if the Referendum Commission comes forward with other ideas after its experience with the Amsterdam Treaty referendum, I will take them on board. The £2.5 million being made available to the commission will not restrict the information it can give out. Obviously, it does not have to spend it all.
I regard this legislation as important and I thank Members for their assistance in passing the Bill as speedily as they have done. I also wish to thank my officials and the officials of the Seanad for their co-operation.