Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I thank the Taoiseach for informing the House that the date of the Lisbon referendum will be October 2. It is important that we have clarity on this as soon as possible. In many ways, one referendum this year is as much as can be handled. Do I understand correctly from what the Taoiseach stated that a referendum on children's rights will not take place until 2010 at the earliest?

I listened to the Taoiseach's responses to Deputy Ó Caoláin on the issue of the 50-50 treatment of arguments on a referendum and the consequences of the McKenna judgment. A report was published last April on how it applies to broadcasting organisations which suggested that perhaps broadcasting organisations are taking an overly literal interpretation of the McKenna judgment and have interpreted it as meaning that they must provide 50% of coverage to each side of the argument without having regard to the context in which the argument is being made and to other factors. It suggested that broadcasting organisations under our broadcasting Acts would be entitled to take into account matters such as how representative are the people being interviewed and to ensure that in respect of particularly discrete elements of the argument that both sides are put. For example, in the context of the last referendum campaign a situation arose where assertions were made about the consequences of the Lisbon treaty for the rights of workers. Neither the Labour Party nor the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was in a position to refute some of those false assertions because of the way in which broadcasting organisations interpreted their role.

I know the question is generally about referenda but there is a wider consequence for this, which is that the literal interpretation of the 50-50 rule means somebody with a great deal of money could be in a position to disproportionately influence the outcome of a referendum on a constitutional matter, not because he or she represents anything or anybody but simply because he or she has enough money and can take a particular position irrespective of the general point of view of people in the country. While understandably the McKenna judgment was about providing balance in referendum debates, the way in which it is now being interpreted can have the unintended consequence that the real issues are not debated. Has the Government given any consideration to that special report on the referendum process which was published in April?

See this speech in context