Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums he plans to initiate during the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24929/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums he proposes to hold before the end of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25735/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums that will be held during 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27137/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to answer Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.

When I last answered this question I indicated that two potential referendums are being considered for 2009, one about the Lisbon treaty and the other about children's rights. As regards the Lisbon treaty, at the European Council on 18-19 June, Ireland secured the guarantees that we required on tax, neutrality and ethical issues. These will become part of the treaties by means of a protocol. The Union reaffirmed the importance of workers' rights and public services. We reached agreement that each member state would retain a Commissioner.

Since the outcome of the last referendum, our over-riding objective has been to work with others in the Oireachtas to address the concerns expressed by the people. I believe that these concerns have been addressed now in the shape of the legal guarantees agreed by the 27 Heads of State and Government of the European Union. On this basis, I will recommend to the Government that we will return to the people to seek their approval for Ireland to ratify the treaty. That referendum will take place on 2 October.

The other potential referendum is in the area of children's rights. While there are increasing calls for a referendum on children's rights since the publication of the Ryan report, a decision on whether constitutional change is the right way forward must await the outcome of the deliberations of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. The joint committee is due to report in October. While there might be a referendum on children's rights, it is unlikely to be in 2009 in view of the timelines involved.

The second interim report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children on absolute or strict liability in respect of sexual offences against or in connection with children was published in May. On the central issue of a constitutional amendment to re-instate absolute liability in the wake of the CC case, the report states that "two distinct views emerge" and that "the Committee has not been able to reconcile these views and, accordingly, is unable to make an agreed recommendation on the issue". The different views emerging from the committee's report are now being examined and proposals are to be brought to Government in due course.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has announced the date of 2 October. We welcome the decision to set the date and let the debate begin in earnest. Sinn Féin looks forward to participating in the debate on the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty on which the Irish people have already given their views. When will the referendum commission be established? Today's newspapers have a report on the appointment of a chairperson. When will the make-up of the commission, to disseminate information on the referendum in an even-handed manner, be announced? Did the Government receive advice from the Attorney General on the suitability, under the terms of the McKenna judgment, of sending of 1 million or several million postcards by the Minister for Foreign Affairs consequent on the deal done at the Council of Ministers? This appears to be in contravention of the judgment because it appears to promote only one side of the argument. Can the Taoiseach clarify if advice was received from the Attorney General and what responses were received if the opinion was sought? What is the cost to the taxpayer in sending the Minister's postcards to the electorate?

The Monageer report, the Ryan report and the new HSE inquiry into the deaths of some 20 children in care over the past decade all highlight the need to strengthen the protection for children, particularly those ostensibly in the care of the State. The response of the Taoiseach to the Government's intention vis-À-vis enshrining children's rights in the Constitution is uncertain and unclear. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, I am conscious of the second report presented on absolute liability. Sinn Féin was of the view that it required a constitutional amendment to ensure the best possible protection for children. Opinion was divided and I respect the opinions in the committee. Can the Taoiseach indicate - the opinions reflected in the committee excepted - when the Government will make a final determination of its position on this important matter? With the committee's deliberations expected to continue into the autumn period, when will the Government makes its position clear vis-À-vis the broader issue of children's rights being enshrined in the Constitution? I note from the Taoiseach's response that he does not intend to consider a constitutional amendment for the remainder of this year in this regard. Is he giving due consideration to a constitutional referendum on children's rights in the broadest sense? What is the earliest anticipated address of that which the Taoiseach can share with the House?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government cannot make a decision until it receives the report in October of the committee established for that purpose. We have had interim reports from it and when we receive its full report in October the Government will have to consider the matter in light of the fact that thus far it has been impossible for the committee to come up with a consensus position which was the purpose of the establishment of the committee in the first place. In fairness, it was to report within four months of its establishment and many issues arose which the members wanted to discuss and speak about to various people. That time schedule has been dictated by the committee's deliberations. The Government should not anticipate the report until the work is completed.

With regard to the other matter, I am not aware of any constitutional issue regarding the Government bringing to the attention of the public by whatever means it wishes the factual outcome of an important meeting which took place with heads of States and Government; we ensure people are informed individually as to the outcome of that and of the implications of it.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach stated that he is not aware, but that is not a satisfactory reply. Has he taken the necessary steps to ensure that the initiative by the Minister on the part of the Government in what was unquestionably a naked promotion of the "Yes" position on the Lisbon treaty is not in contravention of the McKenna judgment? It is the McKenna judgment that I am asking the Taoiseach to address. To ensure we have an even-handed dissemination of information so that the electorate is informed in a balanced and fair way over the period leading up to 2 October regarding this very important issue, if he has not already done so, will the Taoiseach now ensure at all times with regard to this matter that the Government will not abuse its control over public finances and promote one view in the Lisbon treaty debate to the detriment of balanced information flow? Will the Taoiseach consult the Attorney General and ensure that a clear indication of the rights or wrongs of the Minister's actions are established, which will act as a guide on future conduct on his and the Government's part in the period ahead?

With regard to the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, certainly the deliberations took longer than any of the members would have anticipated at the outset and with more that 50 meetings, 170 submissions and 13 or 14 direct hearings over the period of time it has been a very busy Oireachtas committee. That said, it has published a second report on absolute liability and the age of consent. Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Government intends to indicate its intention on this matter given that the committee could not arrive at a consensus?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is precisely the point I am making; it will have to be examined by the Government in due course and, as I stated, a report is due in October and we will deal with all of this seriatim and in logical fashion. As Deputy Ó Caoláin stated, it was not possible for the committee to come to a common view on it and it is obvious that the complexity of the issue is not resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

With regard to the other matter I was simply making the point that there is no issue arising. The Minister for Foreign Affairs can answer any detailed question on the logistics. Bringing factual information to the attention of the public is a constitutional imperative.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am aware of the general issue that Deputy Gilmore raised and there is a need for all broadcasting companies, including public broadcasting companies, to exercise their remit with care and to ensure that the public airwaves are not used for the promulgation of false assertions or for abdicating from the process of informing the public as to what exactly it is about and not about. Unfortunately, what has emerged because of the interpretation of the McKenna judgment is that in certain respects one sees a premium on confusion rather than clarity emerging from debates and that does not serve a purpose.

If there are two sets of opinions or views, let them be put frankly and on the basis of what is in the treaty rather than have people stating as fact things that are not in the treaty at all. One of the great benefits of the exercise in which the Oireachtas and Government have been engaged in recent months has been to bring a greater degree of clarity to the concerns and the ability to accommodate those concerns in a way that in legal terms is of equal status to anything already in the treaty. Therefore, it appears to me to be a logical interpretation of the situation to say the issues that were raised as having been dealt with deficiently have now been dealt with by reason of the additional clarifications and confirmations given by way of a decision of the European Council, which has legal effect, and the political undertaking to transpose that into a protocol of a subsequent treaty.

The question of those clarifications having a status that is some way inferior to what is already in the treaty, which some people argued, does not arise. Therefore, it is important - I will bring this to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs as representative of the Government side - to work co-operatively with other party organisations to see in what way we can ensure that a coherent and cogent position is put. In terms of the public debate, it is an important factor in any referendum campaign that the campaign is conducted in way which adds light rather than heat to the issue.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the fact the date for the referendum has been fixed for 2 October. I hope that on this occasion the debate about the Lisbon treaty will be one where members of the public is properly and fully informed so that they will want to vote "Yes" in the knowledge that the treaty strengthens our country's position in Europe and guarantees a future for the people and the next generation. That is where the Fine Gael emphasis will be in assisting this matter. On the last occasion, the political process and the political parties failed to achieve that. I would not underestimate the strength of the feeling of confusion that exists and am not led by opinion polls that indicate the referendum is just an exercise to be gone through. There is a hard campaign to be fought in order to explain, inform and brief people fully so they are happy in the knowledge they can vote "Yes".

In respect of the referendum on statutory rape, Fine Gael took a minority view on the report of the committee. Does the Government have a view on that issue as distinct from a Fianna Fáil view? In previous discussions it seemed that some Members were hiding behind the fact that the Government was one entity with a view and the party was something else. It seemed the members of the party represented on the committee had a different view from that of the Government. Is there a Government view on a referendum concerning statutory rape? There appear to be two opinions on the issue and the report produced by the committee. I raised this issue previously with the Taoiseach's predecessor on a number of occasions.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I said in my reply, it will be a matter for the Government to examine all of the work that has been done at committee level. People work on committees regardless of their party's affiliation and views. The strength of a committee system is that people work to see if it is possible, in the context of the set-up of the committee, to bring forward an agreed proposal. There is liaison from time to time when it emerges that a decision may be about to reach a converging point. Unfortunately however, that has not arisen in this case and there are different views. The reason there are different views is there are serious issues at stake. This is understandable. The committee has made a concerted and diligent effort, which will make a contribution to the debate in any event. It is unfortunate it has not been possible to come to a consensus position, but those honest differences among committee members remain and must be respected. The Government must take all of this into account, but would not come to or anticipate a view until the committee has finished its deliberations.