asked the Taoiseach if representations were made by him, directly or indirectly, to the Director General of RTE concerning the format of the radio news programme of Sunday, 20th June, 1971; and, if so, the content of such representations.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - RTE News Programme.
4.
I was informed by the Minister for Justice on last Friday afternoon that members of an illegal organisation had been invited to take part on Sunday, the 20th June, in RTE's Radio news programme which would deal with the activities of that organisation and that an invitation was extended also to a member of the Government to take part. RTE were told that a member of the Government would not take part and, because it was my view that it was not in the public interest that members of an illegal organisation should be permitted to use such a programme for publicising their activities, I requested the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to convey this view to the RTE authorities,
Question No. 5.
The Taoiseach's reply was inaudible. Could we hear it again?
Evidently Deputy Desmond heard it because he is about to put a supplementary question.
We have not heard the reply to Question No. 4.
The Deputy might help if he controlled his colleagues behind him.
What about the collection behind the Taoiseach?
Deputy Cluskey.
When the Chair can control the House I will continue with my point of order. The Taoiseach saw fit to criticise members of this party for interrupting but he is prepared to condone and encourage his own backbenchers to drown out the truth uttered by Opposition Deputies. Would the Chair be a little more impartial as to whom he chastises?
That is not a point of order.
The Chair is not impartial.
I will repeat the answer to Question No. 4.
I was informed by the Minister for Justice on last Friday afternoon that members of an illegal organisation had been invited to take part on Sunday 20th June, in RTE's radio news programme which would deal with the activities of that organisation and that an invitation was extended also to a member of the Government to take part. RTE were told that a member of the Government would not take part and, because it was my view that it was not in the public interest that members of an illegal organisation should be permitted to use such a programme for publicising their activities, I requested the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to convey this view to the RTE authorities.
Does the Taoiseach not accept that the programme in question—which was commendedly prepared by Mr. Hourigan and the RTE news staff in Belfast — was a serious and significant contribution towards a fuller understanding of the need to repudiate unequivocably violent measures, and the use of violence, in order to achieve unity in this country? It was a matter of profound regret that members of the Government did not see fit to make the views of the Government known in no uncertain manner on such a programme.
I adhere to the view that members of an illegal organisation should not be invited to propound illegal activities on a service paid for by the taxpayers — activities that are against the public interest.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that granted the fact that members of illegal organisations are allowed to parade in uniform and, by their glamour, to attract young people, it would be just as well for these people to present such arguments as they can and be answered rather than simply to allow them to attract people by parades that are condoned? In short, if the Government condone the parades, surely they must condone discussion of the subject.
We do not condone illegal activities or the propounding of such activities.
Why does the Taoiseach not stop them, then?
How can the Taoiseach reconcile his statement that parades are not condoned with the fact that every newspaper reader could see pictures of such parades in the last few days?
Whom does the Taoiseach think he is fooling?
I am not trying to fool anybody. I think that a State-sponsored body which provides a service paid for by the taxpayers should not expose these people for their own purposes on radio.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that his policy is to gag RTE in their coverage of such proceedings, while permitting such proceedings to continue?
Having conveyed my views I was told that the programme was to be introduced by certain responsible people, that it would be interrupted by an interview, and followed by another group of responsible people — politicians of different affiliations and private persons. I considered, having regard to the talent at their disposal, that RTE had plenty of opportunity for telling the people what the proper approach should be to the present situation in the Six Counties, to the present violence and the best method of ending it.
Surely the Taoiseach would accept that with the substantial overtones of violence and the use of violent measures — which are not necessarily confined to Northern Ireland or to any one political party — it ill becomes the Taoiseach or members of the Government to adopt a "holier than thou" attitude? It ill becomes them to refuse to appear on a serious programme where valuable contributions were made by John Hume and Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, who rejected unequivocally the use of violent measures as advocated and condoned by those who call themselves the "Provisionals". It would have been proper and fitting that rather than putting a self-imposed censorship on RTE, that authority should have been allowed to bring this to the public notice and have the matter resolved in this way. This has been a questionable form of backdoor censorship.
We do not adopt a "holier than thou" attitude in this matter. We believe that our television and radio media should not be used for this purpose and we will not, therefore, help in the exposition of these illegal organisations by our appearance with them on such programmes.