Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if she has attended a meeting with officials and or others at which the initial Supreme Court judgement from 8 November was discussed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52238/12]

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This question was transferred from the Department of the Taoiseach. I met Government colleagues and senior officials on 8 November to discuss the ruling delivered by the Supreme Court in the McCrystal case on that day. Subsequently, discussion of the Supreme Court ruling featured in various meetings with Department officials and colleagues in the intervening period.

Further to the meeting of 8 November, I issued a statement encouraging people voting in the referendum on 10 November to focus on the substance of the amendment and the historic importance of the proposal to amend the Constitution. I also drew attention to the reference made by the Supreme Court in its ruling that the substance of the referendum proposal "is a matter for the people alone".

Later that afternoon I contributed to a debate in Seanad Éireann on the Supreme Court decision. Deputy Troy mentioned that earlier. One must remember that when I spoke in the Seanad, while the full Supreme Court judgments were awaited, there were no other court proceedings underway at that stage, whereas right now there are. In the Seanad I set out at length the background to the Government's provision of public information. On 19 November, leave was sought from the High Court to challenge the referendum result. These proceedings make specific reference to the Government's provision of public information and the ruling of the Supreme Court in the McCrystal case. In the circumstances, as I stated already, I am severely constrained in going into the details of these matters outside the High Court process until these proceedings are concluded.

As I said in my statement of 8 November, in providing public information the Government at all times acted in good faith and with the best of intentions in informing people about the substance of the amendment. In the Supreme Court judgment of 11 December, the Court found that the Government at all times acted in a bona fide manner.

The Government considered that, in its provision of information to the public, it was paying appropriate regard to the McKenna principles. The approach taken followed that of previous information initiatives by Governments to bring the issues for decision by referendum to the people. It reflected the Government's understanding at the time of the legal requirements in this complex area of law. Up until the Supreme Court decision of 8 November, the Government acted in line with the decision handed down by the President of the High Court on 1 November. As Deputy Troy will be aware, the High Court accepted the case the Government was making. Following the Supreme Court decision, my Department took immediate steps to withdraw from public information activities to ensure compliance with this decision.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must interrupt the Minister.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will conclude by saying that, as I have stated already and made clear, the Government will now take on board the full judgment of the Supreme Court of 11 December.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the Seanad debate on 8 November, the Minister stated, "A detailed protocol underpinned the drafting of content for the booklet and website and the Office of the Attorney General was consulted for legal advice throughout the process", and yet I note Mr. Justice Fennelly, in his judgment, stated:

It is notable that this account, at no point, alleges that the website or the booklet was actually reviewed and approved by the Office of the Attorney General. The advice of that office, as very briefly summarised in the form of two brief sentences, seems correct and in accordance with the McKenna judgment. The first sentence refers to the right of the Government to give information, to clarify situations or to give explanations. The second emphasises that the Government is not entitled to expend public monies for the purpose of promoting a particular outcome.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I stated, the Government will now take on board the full judgment of the Supreme Court of 11 December. The failures to which Deputy Troy refers on the part of the Government identified by the Supreme Court are fully acknowledged and deeply regretted. The Government is carefully studying the judgments of the court and we are committed to acting in full accordance with elaborated guidance which the judgment provides as regards the application of the McKenna principles in all future referendums.

I refer the Deputy to my Seanad speech on that date, from which he quoted. That Seanad speech is accurate. In light of the High Court hearing in January, as a respondent in those proceedings I am constrained as regards further comment at this stage while proceedings are ongoing and it is prudent for me to restrict my comments. As I have already said to Deputy Troy, I would very much like to engage with him on the points he raises but I am advised that, in view of the High Court proceedings in January to which I am a party, it is not appropriate for me to do so, and I ask that he respect that.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As regards the Supreme Court judgment, does the Minister accept that the handling of the website issue was a complete cock-up by the Government? I agree with the Minister on the substance of the issue and voted "Yes" myself. However, I was annoyed during the last few days of that campaign because I thought the Government could have blown the whole issue. Does the Minister agree that the Government should apologise to the people for mishandling this issue? The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, was on television that week and refused to apologise.

Is it not the reality that many members of the Government, and people in the major political parties, do not really accept the McKenna judgment? Privately, they barely tolerate the decision. In future, the Government should be very careful to present the referendum, let it run in a fair and balanced way, and let the people decide.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on Deputy Troy to contribute briefly because we are out of time.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raised this matter as a Topical Issue on numerous occasions prior to the referendum result being challenged. I accept what the Minister is saying but will she give a clear commitment to appear before the House and make herself available pending the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing in January? We should have a full and frank debate to allow all Deputies to bring forward ideas and suggestions to ensure this never happens again.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Finian McGrath was not here when I spoke earlier, but I would like to make the following point to him now. As Mrs. Justice Denham said, "In all the circumstances of this case, as have appeared before the court, I am satisfied that the respondents acted in a bona fide manner." Mr. Justice Fennelly said: "I have no doubt that this was all done bona fide and with a consciousness that the decision in McKenna had to be respected." That is quite contrary to what Deputy Finian McGrath was saying. I just wanted to quote to him what the judges of the Supreme Court said in relation to the approach that I and my Department took to this matter. Justice O'Donnell stated: "It should be said that the plaintiff made it clear that he [the plaintiff] was prepared to accept the Department had acted in good faith in preparing the campaign and did not challenge it on that ground."

As regards the Deputy's broader point on future referenda, I accept that we need to examine what has happened in previous referenda. As the Government statement said, we are carefully studying the Supreme Court judgment which now clarifies, for the first time since 1995, how the Government can make information available to the electorate during a referendum.

As regards Deputy Troy's point, I have no doubt that we will be having discussions in the House on that matter. Many Deputies will want to express a point of view in light of recent events. In looking back at how other referenda were conducted, there will be a discussion in the House on future referenda.