WHERE’S THE DEBATE ON THE REFERENDUMS?

Saturday’s Irish Times gave me pause for thought.  In a front page article headlined “Coalition on track to secure victory in two referendums” political editor Stephen Collins concluded “Some politicians and lawyers have expressed reservations about the powers being given to committees.  But there has been no substantive public debate on the issue to date.”

Why not? The vote is less than three weeks away. We have been bombarded by a presidential election campaign that has been going on in one form or another for months.  So I headed for the editorial section inside (via a two page spread on the various presidential campaigns) expecting to find some contribution to this debate.  However, apart from a leader piece commenting that “Two referendums… show no sign of creating difficulties for the Government….The proposal on judges’ pay is likely to remain uncontroversial, although opposition to the second referendum proposal could gain momentum between now and polling day.”

How?  In the absence of attention from the mainstream media how are the issues the subject of that second referendum, the referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas going to become the subject of substantive public debate that might lead to opposition.  Now in fairness to the Irish Times, I generally only get a chance to sit down to read the print edition of the paper at the weekend.  So I may be doing them a major disservice, but it struck me that editorial comments like those described above might usefully have been accompanied by some detail on the underlying subject matter.

This prompted me to have a Google around and I didn’t turn up much. But I did manage to unearth the Referendum Commission website.  It states rather enigmatically that “The Referendum Commission has begun its work and will launch an information campaign for both referendums in the near future.” http://www.refcom.ie/en/  Considering that polling day is Thursday fortnight this campaign could probably do with having been launched some time in the past.  The Commission has set up a website on the referendums which provides the proposed wording which at least is something. The wording of referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas is here: http://www.referendum2011.ie/your-decision/referendum-on-inquiries-by-the-oireachtas

So what’s the issue?  The referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas arises out of a High Court decision striking down a previous attempt by the Oirachtas to set up an inquiry in relation to the shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylarra in Longford.  I couldn’t hope to outline the background to and importance of that decision any better than Dr Colum Kenny in an article written in the Irish Independent in 2001 after the original High Court decision which is here: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/abbeylara-decision-is-a-vital-safeguard-511750.html

Eoin Daly writing on the Human Rights in Ireland blog identifies a problem with one aspect of the wording of sub-section 4 of the referendum.  His post is here: http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/09/12/reversing-abbeylara-a-commentary-on-the-thirtieth-amendment-of-the-constitution-bill/

The essence of the restriction on parliamentary committees carrying out inquiries has to do with the question of making findings of fact about the conduct of individuals.  Every individual has the right to expect that their good name will not be impugned and any finding made against them without fair procedures.  Politicians thrive on publicity and depend on popular opinion for re-election.  One has to wonder whether in conducting an enquiry a politician might be more concerned with being seen to be acting tough with perceived baddies on live TV than getting bogged down in fair procedures.  The Abbeylarra decision did not restrict the Oireachtas members in carrying out an inquiry into the conduct of Ivor Callely and look how well they handled that one.

The outcome of the referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas is likely to have much more serious and longer term implications for Irish public life than the question of who will occupy the former Viceregal Lodge for the next seven years.  It’s a pity we’re not having a public debate on the issue.