I would again urge the Minister to accept this amendment. It is in a sense a compromise between the strength of the old section, to which the Minister objects, and the relative weakness, I suggest, of the new section 2. We have been over the ground before but I would again emphasise that the Minister must be in a position to exercise responsibility in a somewhat more direct way than the Minister proposes. The section as it stands is too weak. It is of considerable importance that the executive authority of the Government should be kept in a more direct way and I would ask the Minister to consider the implications of the weakening of the Government's authority.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1a:
In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and not otherwise the members of the Authority or any member thereof may be suspended or removed from office, if, and only if, an order under this section is made by the Minister for stated reasons contained therein.
(2) The Minister may by order suspend for stated reasons every and any member of the Authority named therein provided that upon the expiration of thirty days from the date thereof the said order shall lapse and have no further force or effect and the suspension thereby made shall be annulled and deemed never to have been made unless before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order resolutions approving and confirming the same shall have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(3) Upon the passing of resolutions by both Houses of the Oireachtas approving and confirming an order made under subsection (2) of this section the members of member named therein shall be deemed to have been removed from office with effect from the date of the order and shall be so removed unless otherwise provided in the said resolutions.
(4) Where the Minister by order under subsection (1) of section 31 of the Principal Act as amended by section 17 of this Act, directs the Authority as therein provided and the Authority fails or refuses to comply with the order the Minister may by order under this subsection remove every and any member of the Authority from office and every order so made by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and the provisions of subsection (1B) of the Principal Act as provided by section 17 of this Act shall apply to the order under this subsection.
(5) Where in consequence of suspensions made by order under subsection (2) of this section the members of the Authority competent and willing to act are less than seven in number the Director-General together with the members competent and willing to act, if any, shall discharge the functions of the Authority for the period of thirty days from the date of the order but no longer unless resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas within that period otherwise determine."
—(Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick,Dublin Central.)
Deputy Collins, who was in possession when the debate adjourned said certain things on the last occasion to which it is necessary I should reply. I am glad, therefore, that Deputy Collins has resumed his place in the Chamber.
The Minister need never worry about my presence in the House.
I am worried neither about the Deputy's presence nor his absence, but I am glad that, since I am going to talk about things he has said, he is here.
Hitherto we have been discussing here at some length both section 2 and the amendment, as you, Sir, or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, directed that we should consider them together. As far as the amendment is concerned, I think I have said what I have to say. On the whole we have covered the ground pretty well. But I would now like to say something more about section 2, which of course is there to replace section 6 of the old Act of 1960, which section is deleted by section 22 (a), or will be deleted by section 22 (a) of the Bill before the House. In my earlier remarks, which were mainly concentrated on the amendment, I avoided on the whole the past history of this matter. I did so because the Fianna Fáil amendment, by the very fact that it was an amendment of the old section, seemed to imply that the old section had shown itself capable of misapplication, if not of abuse, and if that recognition was there I did not wish to trouble the House with that matter any more. However, from Deputy Collins's intervention it became clear there is not such a recognition and therefore I think it necessary to discuss in a little more detail just why it is necessary to replace the old section 6, in the Government's view, with the new section 2.
Deputy Collins said, and I quote from Volume 288, No. 1, of the Official Report for Tuesday, 17th February, 1976, column 122, which reads:
The Minister is not wise in refusing to accept this amendment. We fully appreciate that in 1960 the Oireachtas in its wisdom saw at that time that it was necessary for the Government to have power to remove the Authority.
Then he goes on:
Many people are of the belief that the Provisional IRA would never have been as popular or would not have been given the footing they have but for the way they were glamorised in Telefís Éireann in the early days.
I think it is implied here that the previous Government were right to remove the then Authority in the way they did and that they were right because the Authority had, if not itself glamorised it, at least condoned the glamorisation of the Provisional IRA. I do not accept this. I do not think that RTE, or individual broadcasters of RTE, have a record beyond question in this matter, or that any section of the media have, but I think that as a whole over the years, including the years in which Deputy Collins and his colleagues held responsibility, RTE made an effort at impartiality and that they cannot be accused of having consistently glamorised or sought to glamorise, the Provisional IRA at any period. Some sections of the media are far more guilty in this respect and none more so than the Fianna Fáil organ, The Irish Press, which continues to this day to glamorise this section. I do not accept——
Could I ask what is the basis on which the Minister describes a commercial newspaper as the Fianna Fáil organ.
If The Irish Press is not the Fianna Fáil organ or a Fianna Fáil organ, I would withdraw the expression. It is certainly owned by a family with a very distinguished Fianna Fáil history and its present managing director is an ornament of the benches opposite me, but if the Deputies disallow its Fianna Fáilness, I must accept that from them.
The Minister should substantiate what he is saying. I say to him, as a member of the Fianna Fáil political party, that I should know better than he that The Irish Press is not the organ of the Fianna Fáil Party.
(Interruptions.)
I am very much impressed and indeed edified by the eagerness of some of the gentlemen opposite to disassociate themselves from The Irish Press and what The Irish Press says and does.
(Interruptions.)
What I am concerned about is the Minister's attempt to associate me and members of the Fianna Fáil Party with subversion, and that is what he is doing.
By subversion, do you mean The Irish Press?
No.
I have touched a sore point. The Irish Press is an organ which is associated in the public mind with the party opposite, and everybody knows it however much the Deputies may shout and rail.
Deputies may answer these arguments in their time.
I do not consider that the real reason why the former Authority was removed—not by Deputy Collins, but by the Government to which he belonged—had much to do with glamorising the Provisional IRA. As regards glamorising the Provisional IRA, the answer to that was given, curiously enough, by none other than Deputy Collins himself in a reply on the 17th July, 1970, to a letter from his then colleague, the then Minister for Justice and present colleague, who made precisely this charge. I quote from Deputy Collins's reply.
Is it in order for the Minister to quote from a letter from one Minister to another Minister? Is there a precedent for that, Sir?
It is in order.
Then I quote, when I can understand the anxiety to prevent the quote being on the record of this House:
When the Department of Justice decides to enforce the law in regard to the IRA and its satellites——
wrote Deputy Collins to his then colleague
——I shall be happy to deal further with the problem in so far as RTE is concerned.
The Minister has read for the second time part of a letter which I sent to the Minister for Justice. The first time the Minister read out a quotation from this letter he promised he would make available to the House and the Press Gallery the letter which I think mine answered. Would the Minister now for the record like to read the letter of the Minister for Justice at the time?
With pleasure. I will read both the letter from the Minister for Justice——
The Minister has already read one twice. He might as well——
I do not think I have read the whole of the Deputy's letter. They are all interesting. At the Deputy's request I will read the whole thing. The letter from the then Minister for Justice, dated 13th July, 1970, reads as follows:
Dear Minister,
I am writing to protest very strongly against the irresponsible behaviour of RTE in glamorising persons who are well known to have engaged in subversive or criminal activities and while I begin by asking you to read the text of a letter which was sent last October to your predecessor by mine, I want to emphasise that in writing to you now I do so entirely on my own initiative and not by way of formal follow-up to what Mr. Ó Móráin wrote—in fact I did not know of his letter until I asked to have a note of various incidents prepared for me.
The Left-wing bias in RTE is so notorious that I will not take up your time by illustrating its many manifestations. It is clear that an altogether disproportionate number of RTE staff at key points are biased to varying degrees to "the Left" and, when subjects of current interest come up, they not only put their own slant on them but they are in a position to pick most of the "guests" from amongst people of like mind. I will not labour this further. My immediate concern is with the mis-use of the National Television Service, not just to push a particular political view-point, but to glamorise known subversives; RTE cannot plead ignorance of what they are doing. Last January ("Late Late Show", 3/1/70), one of the panel was Miss Maureen Burke, Secretary of Sinn Féin, Secretary of the Dublin Housing Action Committee and a member of a number of pseudo-protest bodies. In the course of the programme, she said quite categorically that she was not interested in reform that what she wanted was revolution.
Despite this clear-cut statement of her unlawful purposes, Miss Burke continues to be given the benefit of publicity by RTE. So do her associates.
On 13th January, the "7 Days" programme carried a series of interviews with IRA members, in relation to the Sinn Féin Árd-Fheis. I want to emphasise that these men were openly identified as members of the IRA, an organisation which has been formally proclaimed as unlawful. Amongst those appearing and openly identified as IRA members were: Joe Nolan; Seamus Costello [see reference to him in Mr. Ó Móráin's letter] Rory Brady: Tom Mitchell (who has a long history in the North); Eamon Thomas ("...we are the continuity of the lawful republican stand... we are the alternative of the two Parliaments North and South"); Jim Sullivan, Belfast (who openly referred to "the last campaign", i.e. the campaign of violence 1956-62); Seán Keenan, Derry ("I believe that the people who advocate attendance at and recognition of Leinster House...have betrayed the people who have struggled..."); Tomás Mac Giolla (Tom Gill), President of Sinn Féin ("I have upheld the abstentionist policy for a long time ...because I believed it was important that we maintain a nonconformist and revolutionary role").
On 12th January, Cathal Goulding, openly known to be the Chief of Staff of the IRA, was interviewed by Eddie Barrett after the 1.30 p.m. news in Radio Eireann. The interview explicitly questioned him about the future of the IRA.
You will see, therefore, that RTE have had ample notice of the sort of people they are publicising. Yet in recent weeks we have once again seen them have on their programmes Gill, Goulding, Mitchell, apart from the usual quota of unrepresentative propagators of Left-wing and even crypto-communist propaganda.
When is this going to stop? Is the RTE Authority going to sit back and allow the Television and Radio stations to be used by this minority to brainwash the public? If the answer to that is "yes", then I am faced with the unfortunate necessity to raise the question of enforcement of the law. If they will not maintain some reasonable effort at fair play, they must at least observe the law of the land and, if nothing else can be done, I propose to raise immediately the question of prosecuting them the next time that they publish seditious matter. While I am on the subject, I will add a few other items.
Towards the end of last year, the "7 Days" programme brought on a person just out of Mountjoy Jail, one Martin Sherlock. He was presented as a pathetic victim of official indifference to his plight and he was photographed being reunited with his wife who had some hours earlier given birth to a baby. Even people who did not know the facts saw something seriously wrong with asking a woman in that condition such a question as: "Do you intend to have any more children?", but to those in the prison service who did know the facts, the interview was a scandalous libel on the Prison Service. I will mention just two facts: (I) The Welfare Officer of the Prison had got this man a job. He walked out of the job in less than a day, making it clear that he felt society owed it to him to keep him in idleness (II) the Welfare Officer, with the assistance of the Legion of Mary, had his flat completely redecorated: in no time it was like a pig-sty. But, what really matters is this. Within weeks, word was filtering back from the gardaí that the man was heading for serious trouble as a direct result of this television interview: it had gone to his head and he was lording it over his acquaintances. The next development was that a man was stabbed to death. Martin Sherlock has been convicted of his murder.
There was a "Wednesday Report" programme on legal adoption. It was based primarily on the evidence of a woman who made statement after statement that were provably false. Either the woman is a plain liar or (more likely) she is slightly unbalanced. The most outrageously false and damaging comments were made by the commentator and all this was done at a time of serious controversy involving certain aspects of legal adoption. It was only the fact that the Moneylending Tribunal was on at the time that prevented this programme being discussed in the Dáil.
I am not aware of the response that was made to my predecessor's letter. I should be glad to know from you whether anything is going to be done now.
I note that in this letter there are matters concerning things coming within the Minister's ambit and having apparently nothing to do with illegal organisations; part of it is about illegal organisations, part is not. To that which I have quoted in full the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs replied on 17th July. I shall also quote what he said:
Dear Minister,
Thank you for your letter of 13th July about RTE. I am in general agreement with much of what you say. You can rest assured that so far as my powers enable me to do so, I shall see to it that a proper balance is maintained in programme presentation.
Your letter raises two main issues which are really separate, (i) the IRA and (ii) Left-wing bias in RTE.
As regards the IRA and its various splinter groups, I agree entirely there must be no glamorisation of them or of figures identified in the public mind with these illegal movements. Mistakes have undoubtedly been made by RTE in this matter in the past; I shall do my best to see that they don't recur. I note that almost all the events you complain of occurred a considerable time ago.
On this subject however I feel bound to point out that in the past year or two the newspapers appear to have been tacitly released from the obligation not to refer to the IRA by name and there have been innumerable instances of their giving generous and favourable publicity to the IRA. Less than two weeks ago (on 7th July) the Irish Times published an extensive report—far longer and more comprehensive than RTE would have given—of a statement by the “IRA council in Dublin” with a photograph of Mr. Cathal Goulding “chief of staff of the IRA speaking at a Press conference held in Dublin yesterday by the Army Council of the IRA”. Any foreigner reading this article would assume that the IRA was a legitimate recognised army in the State and many of our fellow citizens must be feeling that it has Government blessing as well as toleration.
There have been pictures of an IRA group marching with arms. There have even been statements from the Saor Éire Group in connection with the murder of Garda Fallon.
I don't know what the Department of Justice has done about all these matters, but until the situation which has been allowed to develop is changed, RTE cannot reasonably be forbidden to publish news items about the IRA which the newspapers—their competitors—freely publish. These matters are news and it would be absurd of RTE to draw a veil over them while the newspapers flaunt them.
So, what RTE will be required to do—and I am sure the Authority will be very willing to do it—is to report facts on the subject in a "played-down" way and to avoid so far as possible making the illegal organisations sound attractive or appealing to the impressionable.
When the Department of Justice decides to enforce the law in regard to the IRA and its satellites, I shall be happy to deal further with the problem so far as RTE is concerned.
So far as Left-wing bias is concerned it is necessary to move with some care. I am in no doubt that the Left-wing and even some pretty extreme elements of it have a good footing in RTE but it would be very easy in attempting to deal with that situation to do a lot more harm than good. It is perfectly natural that a new exciting service such as RTE would attract very many young people to its staff and without considering the possibility of deliberate infiltration by hard line communists, the probability in present day circumstances is that a great number of these young people will be of Left-wing sympathies. There can be no question of eliminating these influences in RTE but what we can and will do is ensure to the utmost extent possible that they will not be able by their influence to bring about the presentation of programmes biased in favour of their views. The Radio Éireann Authority has a statutory obligation to ensure that matters of public controversy are presented objectively and impartially. There can be little doubt that breaches of this requirement will occur from time to time but I intend to leave the Authority in no doubt of the absolute need to enforce the rule as fully and efficiently as is possible. If prejudiced and unbalanced presentation does occur I shall certainly take it up with the Authority very firmly.
You will appreciate that I don't have much time available for watching television programmes and I can of course deal only with what I see or receive authoritative reports about. Accordingly, if any programmes come to your notice which you feel are condoning illegality, I shall be glad if you will bring them to my notice. I will give any such complaints, made promptly, my immediate attention.
Yours sincerely,
Gerard Collins.
They are the full texts of the two letters. It is quite clear there was a long history of pressure by the then Government on RTE on subjects other than the IRA. There was the "7 Days" moneylending controversy and the tribunal set up by the Minister's predecessor, Micheál Ó Móráin in 1969. There was pressure on the authority by the then Minister, Deputy Collins, in December, 1971, in connection with a programme on which a then member of the Opposition was featured rather prominently, and there was pressure on the Authority by the same Minister in May, 1972, in a controversy directly involving his own Department on the question of a post office at Lettermore, all this before December, 1972.
At that time the Minister, having given a general directive, which was in its nature ambiguous, to RTE and having refused to give the clarification requested of it, took action. I believe the Fianna Fáil Government killed two birds with the one stone in December, 1972. They punished the RTE Authority for failing to be adequately subservient and they made RTE the scapegoat for their own failures and collusions—I am referring to the 1969 period—in relation to the IRA.
Deputy Lynch described that as an exercise in democracy. We on this side of the House regard it as the kind of exercise which should be avoided for the future because we regard it not as an exercise in democracy but as an exercise in the use of power, to a large extent arbitrary, to a large extent affected by party interests, by the Government of the day, and this new section replacing section 6 is intended to make that kind of exercise in democracy more difficult and to make future exercises in democracy in the area of broadcasting more sophisticated, more sensitive, more respectful of legitimate autonomies and therefore more compatible with the long-term interest of democracy as distinct from the immediate interests of the Government of the day, and that is why we have put forward this section in its present form in replacement of section 6.
A lot of people in the House, probably on both sides, as they look back on that period would agree there has been some need to correct this, to bring these processes more under the attention of the House, and therefore have recognised that the old section 6 no longer serves. To that extent I welcome the intention behind the amendment but I cannot agree it goes far enough in the direction in which it has been demonstrated to be necessary that we should move.
Having listened to the Minister and having expected that I would hear something new, something worth while, something that might eventually give us some legislation, I am disappointed. We did not. The Minister deliberately tried to create a situation whereby once again he would be in the headlines, where the minds of the people, if he could get his way, might be diverted from the economic chaos that exists. The Minister is good at this. Indeed he could be regarded as a professional in this line.
I made a case the last day when dealing with the amendment—it was on 17th February. It was a good and valid case. I rightly said that the impression in the past had been that RTE and those working in it did glamorise the IRA. I said that, and I stand over it, and that view was held not only by me but by many others. That view was held by the Taoiseach and was expressed by the Taoiseach on the famous night in November-December, 1972, when the bombs went off in Dublin. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may not be aware of what was said that night. Perhaps he was not too interested in Deputy Cosgrave's chances as a potential Taoiseach. Few were: it looked as if he would never realise his ambition to be Taoiseach at that time. It is on the records of the House. I never said, as the Minister would like me to say, that RTE consistently glamorised those people. I do not believe I ever said that.
May I remind the Deputy of what he said?
I am well aware of what I said. May I say in regard to the correpondence which has been read out that it is a new approach by a Minister to read what were confidential letters between one Minister and another in Government? This is an approach that must be examined to see whether it is right or wrong. To my mind it is wrong. I am glad both letters were read out. In the past we had just a part of one: now we have the two and I will let the public decide for themselves what is in these letters. It is very easy for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to pick a paragraph, or a sentence, out of context, as he has often done in the past and has had to be taken up on, and deliberately give a wrong impression. It is easy for him to do this for political purposes. I am satisfied that since late 1972 or early 1973 there was no glamorisation of the IRA by RTE. I said this in the House during the course of the debate on the first Estimate presented by the Minister in May or June, 1973. I gave my reasons on that occasion and the reasons I gave then are still valid.
I am satisfied that RTE make a reasonable effort to be impartial. RTE are not on trial here and never were. During the course of the debate on this amendment we were questioning whether the Minister was right in adopting the course he had adopted with regard to the removal of an Authority. The Minister will recollect that I prefaced my remarks by saying that I hoped the occasion would never arise when an Authority would have to be removed by any Minister, any Government or the Oireachtas. I said that in the event of such a thing having to happen the Minister, and the Government, should have the power to so remove the Authority after giving consideration to what was involved. I pointed out that if such an occasion arose during a Summer Recess and it was necessary to remove or suspend an Authority the Minister or the Government would not be able to do anything about the suspension or the removal because the Houses of the Oireachtas would not be in session. The Members of this House might be absent on holidays and it might not be easy to get them back. I went on to say that the Government, with a majority—a doubtful one at times—might not be in a position to reconvene the Dáil to fulfil their duties if they were satisfied all their Members would not be present.
I am not going to chase other hares raised by the Minister; this is neither the time nor the place to do so. We are discussing an amendment to the Bill. The situation is one which could in practical terms arise. If the Minister is satisfied that the amendment is not acceptable, that is his right; but let him not deliberately twist and try to misrepresent and misquote people on what they said in this House or on what they put in letters to their ministerial colleagues. If I have had to in the past write letters to my colleagues in Government I would prefer to communicate with them during the time and in the course of a letter and certainly not afterwards in the course of a book.
(Dublin Central): We have already delayed three-quarters of an hour discussing communications between Deputy Collins and a former Minister for Justice. It is regrettable that such confidential documents were used. It is a move in the wrong direction.
It was at the request of the Deputy.
It was an effort to set the record straight. It was an effort on my part to prevent the Minister from deliberately misrepresenting the facts of the situation. The Minister deliberately tried to misrepresent the situation and we had to put the record right.
(Dublin Central): Sometime previously the Minister revealed some of the contents of one of the letters and Deputy Collins was correct in asking him to read the other letter.
When one starts one must finish.
(Dublin Central): Minister should be assured that confidential correspondence which passes between themselves should not be revealed by some future Administration. We have heard of the strong criticism of the Crossman Diaries and I believe those who criticised them were justified in doing so. That confidentiality, which is important for democracy, should be upheld. Confidential matters should be kept confidential by succeeding governments.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 deal with the suspension of the Authority and section 4 deals with the removal of the Authority. Section 2 provides that a member of the Authority may be removed by the Government from office for stated reasons, if, and only if, resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for his removal. The more I look at this section the more I am convinced that our amendment is correct. The Minister appoints the Authority, with the approval of the Government. But what would be the situation if there was a breach of section 17? Such a breach could occur when the House is in recess and the Minister would have to endeavour to convene the Dáil and move a resolution for the removal of the Authority. Once the Minister makes up his mind to remove the Authority it is obvious that the Authority will be removed. The Authority will then know that it is only a matter of time before they are removed but during that time they can exercise their rights as regards broadcasting. An extraordinary situation will arise then from the Minister's point of view and from the point of view of the Authority.
The Authority could be in breach of section 17, which states:
Where the Minister is of the opinion that the broadcasting of a particular matter or a matter of a particular class would be likely to promote or incite to crime or would tend to undermine the authority of the State,
The Authority could proceed along the lines prohibited under section 17 while the resolution for their removal is being debated. That would be a dangerous situation for a Minister to find himself in. In this section the Minister should be entitled to remove. However, subsections (1) and (2) of the new section we propose give a right of suspension, and I am concerned with these more than with any other part of the amendment. I believe the Minister would be very foolish not to retain for himself the right of suspension. In my view, this right of suspension for the Minister would be as welcome to the Authority and to the whole broadcasting operation as to anybody else.
There could be one or two members on the board who are impeding the activities of the Authority. Any Minister would be very careful to take into consideration the competence and ability of the people he elects as members of the Authority, but as has happened in many other organisations, a particular member of the Authority, perhaps through excessive drinking, is unable to function satisfactorily as a member. Other members might come to the Minister and say: "We would like this member removed." The Minister should have the right to suspend that person there and then. This is normal practice in any organisation.
If one did not look behind the section, one might think it was more democratic to bring a resolution before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Whether it was a Fianna Fáil Government or a Coalition Government, the resolution would be passed by a majority. The result therefore is a foregone conclusion when the decision to remove the member is taken by the Cabinet. There is no difference in the end product: the Authority would be removed by our amendment; the Authority would be removed by the Minister's section. The Minister's section is cumbersome, unworkable and is bad legislation. Our amendment is concise and decisive. Certainly it places no greater burden on the Authority than the section in the Bill does.
People outside have criticised section 6 of the old Act, but one must look at the reasons for which it was used. The Minister is one of those people who is fond of expounding the virtues of law and order, but in this section the Minister is going contrary to his beliefs.
(Dublin Central): He is, as anyone who studies the matter in depth can see. He is going completely contrary to his beliefs because he wants to gain popularity. Whatever way we try to gain popularity we should not do it through bad legislation. The Minister, in effect, is saying to the Authority, although they may have violated section 17: “You may remain on with your full rights and authority. I have no power to remove you. I must bring a resolution before both Houses of the Oireachtas for approval.” The reason we are proposing this amendment is to uphold law and order, to ensure that if section 17 is breached the Minister of the day will have the right of suspension. We have already pointed out the problems the Minister will have if the House is in recess.
On a point of order, every argument we have heard here in the past ten minutes is a repeat of an argument already used in this debate. The Deputy is being extremely repetitive.
We would not like to be novel in the way the Minister was.
None of us has ever spoken for five hours on the definition of one word.
I do not believe in repeating myself.
It is a pity the Minister could not listen to himself.
Deputy Fitzpatrick should be allowed to speak on his amendment.
The Minister cannot tolerate anyone talking except himself.
(Dublin Central): I do not know whether the Minister lacks courage, but when a person accepts office as a Minister it usually carries with it the duty to take unpopular decisions. Our amendment is reasonable. There are certain restrictions in it. A member may not be suspended except for stated reasons. Our proposal would leave the Authority functioning without being impeded by the person whom it is proposed to remove. That is a logical way of approaching the matter. It has always been our policy to give as much autonomy as possible to the RTE Authority in the day-to-day administration of broadcasting. I believe too much Government interference would be bad for the Authority. There must be a certain amount of restriction and the Minister must have a certain amount of authority with regard to certain matters. He is perfectly right in retaining these rights under section 17, but we maintain that section 2 does not give him the right to operate the full effect of section 17. That is the reason we are putting forward those amendments.
The Deputy should keep to the amendment. We have not yet come to section 17.
(Dublin Central): Section 2 will have a big bearing on section 17 because it cannot be put into operation according to the way section 2 is worded. There is no use in writing in section 17 into the Bill unless section 2 is effective.
The Deputy cannot discuss section 17 now.
(Dublin Central): I am not discussing it. I am discussing the mechanics of how section 17 can be effective. We believe that those amendments would be beneficial to the Broadcasting Authority. It is not our desire to interfere with the day-to-day operations of Telefís Éireann. We would like the Authority to have full autonomy. Those amendments would contribute substantially to good broadcasting generally.
There is very little further I desire to add except to say that I am relating the Minister's attitude today with that when we last discussed this measure. If there was any better proof required of the weakness of the Minister's case it was reflected earlier on in his behaviour and in the efforts he made to substantiate his case. As everybody knows the Minister now finds himself trying to ride two horses, the erstwhile liberal Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien and now the present holder of this office as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. We got proof today of his reaction to what happened under a previous Authority when a Minister had the courage to exercise the power given to him in the legislation. The present holder of the office wants to pretend that he is democratising the whole situation and in future nothing will happen unless that matter has been brought before the House.
The Minister should ponder for a moment on what happens when matters are brought before the House, whether we might anticipate any change and look at the happenings of a couple of weeks ago when a Member of the Minister's party tabled an amendment in this House and when ultimately the time came for him to exercise his rights the Minister and other Members of the party saw to it that he toed the line. The same thing will happen here. The Minister will make the decision in his position as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He will report it to the Government and subsequently it will be brought to the House. The Minister, as well as everybody else, knows that the moment he moves on it the result is a foregone conclusion.
The last day I said how impractical this would be. I said that what is envisaged in this legislation refers to emergency times. I refer to the possibility of the Minister being anxious to perform the duties envisaged here in circumstances where the Dáil no longer exists. We all know that the Taoiseach of the day can decide that he will have a general election in three weeks and during that period there is no Dáil. I refer to this as an emergency situation but one which can occur. How will the Minister implement the legislation? How will he honour section 17 if he clings to section 2? He knows it cannot be done. Earlier on I referred to his misbehaviour here and how regrettable it is that a Minister, carrying the responsibility which he is presumed to carry, should descend to the type of political thinking which he has given us here today.
This is not relevant to the section or the amendment.
It is very pertinent to it because it typifies the thinking of the Minister.
Section 2, amendment No. 1a.
The Minister gave us an example of political thinking which certainly does not reflect well on any Member of the House. If, in the discharge of his duties as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, he has nothing better to do than to look through files and find out what A said about B then it is time he was removed from that office.
The Minister and his duties do not come into this amendment.
Are you saying that on this amendment the duties of the Minister do not arise?
The Deputy is referring to the conduct of the Minister. All that concerns us is the section and the amendment to it.
I am referring to the opportunity you gave the Minister to put before the House his interpretation of how he should spend his time as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and I submit to you that he gave as an example of that the amount of research and examination he has carried out on the files which he has before him. I suggest that it would be far better if he attended to the business I have raised here, such as the provision of a post office in Finglas South.
The Chair is concerned with section 2 and amendment No. 1a. The Chair is only concerned with this piece of legislation.
If the Chair saw relevance to this legislation in the matter which the Minister put before the House I submit that equally relevant is the matter which I refer to.
Statements were made and these were replied to. The Chair is concerned with Deputies keeping to the amendment. All I am concerned with at the moment is the section and the amendment.
I do not intend to pursue the matter further except to say that what we have here is a further example of the attitude of the Minister, a further example of the warped thinking of the Minister and an example of the former Deputy who sat on these benches and who went as near as anybody could go in this House to preaching subversion.
That is not true.
I saw the then Deputy Cruise-O'Brien stretch out his hands towards the ladies and gentlemen of the Press in an effort to portray himself as the saviour of the NUJ and to warn them of what Fianna Fáil intended. This same man comes here today in his new found responsibility and makes charges against the journalists of The Irish Press and against other persons. Either the Minister must accept the responsibility attaching to his office or, alternatively, ask the Taoiseach to have him replaced by somebody else who will be prepared to accept the responsibility of office.
Has the Minister any intention of commenting further on the amendment?
He has no more files at which to look.
In view of the last remarks of Deputy Tunney in which he insinuated that what I had said in Opposition differed radically from what I am saying on this question, I should like to refer to column 2484 of the Official Report for 23rd November, 1972, during a debate on the dismissal of the Authority.
It was the Forcible Entry Act that I was referring to. If it is from the debate on that Act that he intends quoting, he will be replying to my charge, but if he is quoting from something else, I am not interested.
I am not interested as to whether the Deputy is interested. Unless I am ruled out of order it is highly relevant to put on record, because of what the Deputy has just said, what I said on this very subject before the House.
I referred to the Forcible Entry Act.
This is the question of the dismissal of the Authority. It is what arises here. May I put it on the record?
The Minister.
I quote:
Neither are we saying that the handling of this subject has always been perfect. Of course, it could not always be perfect because the handling of the day's news, particularly in relation to the subject of violence, is an extraordinarily difficult matter and it is not best got at by using a hammer to break the works apart to see what is wrong. Not only in RTE, but in the Press and in the community at large, there are people who have some degree of sympathy with illegal organisations. I do not think that RTE has been the main offender here. I think that the newspapers controlled by the Minister's colleague, Deputy de Valera, have produced more matter than have RTE calculated to promote the aims or activities of an organisation which engages in, promotes, encourages or defends the gaining of any particular objective by violent means.
That is very much what I am saying now.
I am opposed strongly to the section and I consider our amendment to be a big improvement on it.
The difficulty about any debate here involving the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is that the atmosphere becomes very heated and that almost invariably when the Minister rises to expound on some subject or to lecture us or tell us off he has the effect of riling us.
Thank you.
Here we have a situation where a Minister who projects himself and is projected in certain areas as being the most perfect man since the Lord Himself brings a Bill to the House which is intended to take from him responsibility which is his.
This is remarkable. The former Government and their Minister for Posts and Telegraphs took the responsibility of removing the Authority. That step had repercussions. Undoubtedly the present Minister could quote at length from the attack he made on the then Minister for the manner in which he used his power. But ministerial position carries with it both power and responsibility.
The manner in which the former Minister may have used his power in relation to RTE may be interpreted as one of the many reasons why this party are in opposition now. But even the correspondence quoted by the Minister this afternoon establishes beyond doubt the genuineness, in the national interest, of the two people who were involved in correspondence on that occasion. The reading of that correspondence is the sort of thing that we have come to expect from this Government and, in particular, from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
In the event of a change of Government and of my finding myself in my former position I assure the Minister that one of my first tasks would be to order the destruction of any records of what he may have written. I say this because I would regard any such material as being of little or no benefit.
The Deputy would have no right to destroy official records.
How glib the Minister can be.
It is a fair point.
My interpretation of the Minister's writings would be different from what I would consider to be official records. Deputy Tunney suspects that one of the reasons for the Department being in such a state of chaos is that the Minister spends so much time on research. However, I shall deal with the amendment before the House.
The Minister has such an opinion of himself that he considers it right that those he nominates for appointment to the Broadcasting Authority be exalted to a position similar only to that held in this State by the High Court and the more senior judges and that they cannot be removed from office except by a decision of the Dáil and Seanad.
While I should like to safeguard members of the Authority in the discharge of their duties, I want positively to question the wisdom or prudence of giving judicial tenure to members of the Authority. Anyone can be appointed a member of the Authority without any requirement as to professional qualifications and experience. I know the Minister's view of professional qualifications might be very different from mine. Up to the change of Government, 50 per cent of the mischief-makers who paraded in Kildare Street, Molesworth Street or around Stephen's Green endeavouring to upset authority were generally accompanied by someone who is now a Minister. I would not like to set out the percentage——
Would the Deputy like to refer to the question of funding the IRA through moneys voted in this House——
The Minister should listen to the contribution of Deputy Lalor.
It is just a little reminder.
The Minister is the last man in this House who should do that. In one of his speeches he made a contribution about Reds in RTE when he was in Opposition. He conceded that proportionately there were far more Reds in RTE than in any other establishment in the country—and who knew better. I do not know if the Minister is aware that one of the reasons they are lulled into a feeling of semi-security is because we have not these parades through Dublin, we have not those massive sponsored parades that had a fair share of subversive money. He can take his ideas about where these subversive moneys came from but if he studies the colour of shirt he will know. The Minister was associated quite positively with undermining the security of the State, with the groups he associated with in public protests when the last Government were in power.
The Deputy is moving from the amendment.
The Minister steered me away with his intervention. Anyone can be appointed as a member of the Authority and, unfortunately, the man or woman the Minister will be tempted to appoint will be someone who paraded with him during those colourful days when he was serving his apprenticeship to disloyalty to authority. People can be appointed without any requirement as to professional qualifications or experience, such as apply to judges. There is no question of any inquiry as to their character or financial probity before their appointment. I suggest it would be possible to appoint persons whom it would be difficult to remove if section 2 is passed. I go so far as to say that one junta could get a grip on RTE.
I find it difficult to understand the thinking of the Minister except in so far as the former Government operated under an Act and took a specific action where the then Minister removed the Authority from power. The present Minister so attacked that action at the time that he is now afraid to hold on to that power. I do not see why any member of a State-sponsored body should be in such a privileged position that it would take a majority of the Members of the Oireachtas to remove him from office. This is a most injudicious section.
On the Order Paper there is a motion referring to the setting up of a joint committee to consider the administration of certain semi-State bodies. However, in this Bill it is being suggested that members of the Broadcasting Authority, of all the State boards, should be put into a specific category of their own and protected in this way because the present Minister has not the guts to accept the responsibilities his predecessor accepted in this regard. To put on the sham of trying to create the impression that the same kind of dictatorial process followed by Deputy Collins when he was Minister will not be followed by the present Minister and his colleagues is completely unnecessary.
Under the terms of section 2 a member of the Authority or the whole Authority—I am not clear on that— may be removed on the passing of resolutions by both Houses. There is no doubt that if that procedure had been necessary when the Authority were removed by Fianna Fáil, that Authority would have been removed just the same.
I do not know if the Minister considers he may be embarrassed by the record. Deputies on this side of the House may have to go through each volume of the debate to find out what the Minister had to say when he was in Opposition and when he had responsibility for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I think this is all a charade simply and solely because the Minister wants to satisfy his ego: "I said it would be changed" or, "I said that the former system was wrong and now I must change it for the sake of change". I do not know whether the Minister would admit that he has heard colleagues of his own standing up and making the same sort of defence for not doing things that we used to make when we were on that side of the House and Deputies on this side now query the change of mind of the present incumbents as compared with what they used to profess when they were on this side of the House. I have heard the Minister for Local Government who, like George Washington, is never found wanting and never told a lie, say that "Surely the Deputies are aware, because they were long enough on this side of the House, that this, that or the other cannot be done".
I suggest now to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that he must be aware and must realise as the man responsible for appointing, with the permission of the Government, the members of the Authority that in order to follow his responsibility to its logical conclusion he must have the right to dismiss those members if they are found wanting and it should be unnecessary for him to come in here in order to dismiss them. He must realise that he would need to say a great deal more when he comes in here beyond the fact that he did not like the colour of their eyes or there was something a lady or a gentleman said with which he did not agree. He must be able to come in here in a solid way and really castigate the member quite seriously. He will be using the privilege of the Dáil to show in what way he found the individual concerned wanting and not fit for office. In doing that the unfortunate member of the Authority will become quite notorious.
It is wrong in this small State that it should be necessary for the Minister to come in here and subsequently in the Seanad seeking positive authority for the removal of a member of the Authority. He will, of course, get the message across to his colleagues in Government. Telling the members of the Opposition the reason why somebody is being removed will be a different matter. It will be very embarrassing for the individual concerned. I presume the individual will know why he or she is being removed, which is the position under the present system, and the community in general can only guess. Perhaps we have a habit of dressing up our suspicions but giving a removal all the publicity the Minister would seek under this section of the Bill would make one wonder if it would be wise to accept appointment to the Authority. Our amendment would certainly soften the blow. It talks in terms of the Minister making an order to be laid before both Houses. It would not necessarily mean publicising the reasons for the removal of the individual.
The Minister really should have second thoughts on this. I know that what I say will not make the Minister in any way amenable to falling in with my point of view but I have some little knowledge of these things. If I were Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and I wanted to remove a member of the Authority, I might not necessarily want to be too easy on that member but I do not think I would seek to publicise the removal in the way the Minister proposes here. The Minister may say that in the event of publicity proving as embarrassing as all that to the member then the member would have his or her own way out. He or she could send a letter of resignation to the Minister.
The Ceann Comhairle is in charge of recruitment to the civil service and we all know that no member of the civil service can be dismissed without a decision by the Government. Nobody has more experience of that than the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Minister should really re-think this section. Removal by Government decision, or the decision of the responsible Minister, is the proper way. As the Minister and the Government make the appointment it should be the Minister and the Government who relieve it.
The Judiciary are appointed by the President. We have built into section 2 of this Bill the same protection for the members appointed to the Broadcasting Authority. Quite frankly, I do not know who the present members of the Broadcasting Authority are. I do not think it is any reflection on them to say that it is a reflection on the Judiciary to think that a group of this nature can be protected against removal from office, or should need to be protected against removal from office, in the same way as the Judiciary. There are high responsibilities in connection with the Judiciary. We should not set up another group of this nature and exalt them to the position of being comparable with the standards set for our Judiciary. That is why I am completely opposed to the changes envisaged in this section of the Bill.
When I was speaking previously of Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment, the Minister said he had power under section 10 to suspend the licence under which the station operated during any emergency. In fact the section reads:
During any emergency declared under section 10 of the Act of 1926 the Minister may suspend any licence under this subsection and while any such suspension continues the Minister may operate any service which was provided by the Authority under the suspended licence.
I argued that in order to suspend the licence it would require almost a state of emergency in this country. I should like to repeat what I said on that occasion: that the only difference between what the Minister was proposing and what Deputy Fitzpatrick proposed was that Deputy Fitzpatrick proposed that the Minister would have the right to suspend the Authority and then come before the House and get sanction for that move, rather than the Minister having to come before the House to seek authority. It has been pointed out to him that if it was during a recess or anything of that sort, there might be difficulty in getting sufficient Members into the House even for the Government side to carry this through. One of the trade marks of Fianna Fáil in Government is that we have always accepted full responsibility. We do not believe in passing the buck. If the Minister feels that he has to perform an act which he himself is against, then he can always resign his portfolio if he so desires.
This would be done only on my recommendation.
That may be, or possibly on instructions from the Cabinet to the Minister, where the Cabinet might feel that the Minister was failing in his duty. In that event, the Minister would only have one obligation: either to carry out the instructions of the Cabinet or to resign from his post.
There are more ways than that.
The Minister did say that it could be done only on his instructions but this is not so. The collective responsibility which the Minister is so fond of throwing across the House applies very much in his own case. I can see no earthly reason why this very reasonable amendment of Deputy Fitzpatrick's cannot be accepted by the Minister. He has had time to study it. If he had an open mind on this—and I do not think he has an open mind—he would agree to this amendment. The Minister has caught himself in the trap that he set for himself on the occasion when after many warnings we had to take the unpopular decision to fire the Authority. The Minister is well aware of this. It states here that the Minister may give a number of warnings to the Authority if he feels they are not complying with the terms of the Act as laid down by this Parliament acting on behalf of the people from whom it gets its authority. The people elect a Government to act on their behalf, be it right or be it wrong. They then face the electorate in due course and the electorate will make its own decision. If the Minister feels that the removal of the Authority resulted in our loss of Government, I would remind him that we got more votes in the last election. We did not lose public support for our section in this regard.
I still believe it is incumbent upon the Minister to be decisive, to make a decision and then come before the House for ratification. If he has made the wrong decision, the House will vote against it and it can be reversed. But once the Authority is removed there is a situation where you have virtually a state of anarchy, because the Authority are under notice to quit and therefore they have no power over the servants of the Authority over whom they were put in the first place. Once authority runs away from a body, once the leadership has gone, then anarchy will surely follow, and this is the reason the Minister must act instantly. If the Minister finds there is someone within his Department who is behaving in a manner which is detrimental to the service or to his Department, or if he finds that he is in some way misappropriating funds, he does not give the man 30 days' notice and keep him employed during that time.
He is not supposed to have autonomy. It is a different case.
I do not think there is any difference. The person is suspended and is ultimately out of the way of disclosing information. There is no difference between what the Minister has in section 2 and what he proposes as an amendment, only that we are saying that he should retain the authority to dismiss them and then come before the House rather than the reverse procedure. That can lead to a very serious situation where he may be forced to enact that more serious section which he quoted at me in section 10.
(Dublin Central): I have very little to add. We have put our case. We think it was a reasonable amendment which would certainly be beneficial to the whole operation of the Authority. There is nothing dictatorial about this. One part deals with suspension and the other with the movement. If the day should arrive when a Minister comes into this House to remove the Authority I hope he does not give us 24 hours to revoke the Authority, or in any way impede the debate that may continue for a fortnight or three weeks, or that he will say: “This is a matter of urgency, because this Authority is still functioning. I need this Bill urgently. I need this draft urgently and for that reason if I do not have it in two days I will apply the guillotine.” If that Bill is drafted under section 2, whether in the Minister's time or after many of us have left this House, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, that is going to be the position at some future date and it will entail a long debate. That can be very emotive. As the Minister has not taken the responsibility on himself of removing the Authority, but has moved it over to the Members of the House, such a debate will be protracted.
We have put forward a reasonable amendment which is a working solution to this problem. The Minister has failed to accept it. I am disappointed that he did not refer to any particular section of it, especially the suspension section which is one of the most reasonable imports of that amendment, a thing that is accepted in every walk of life, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not look at it favourably. I have the highest respect for the members of the Authority. The only bodies in this country that are more exalted are the Judiciary and the Auditor General. The Minister may at some future date regret this decision as impracticable, and I am talking about practicalities.
I am more concerned about the working of the section than any other emotive section of the Bill. For that reason I believe that section 2 as it stands will present many difficulties in future for the Authority themselves. It will place the Director General and the whole staff of RTE in a most embarrassing position if a situation should arise where the Minister is trying to remove the Authority here or putting forward a resolution to remove the Authority and at the same time the Director General and other people operating within RTE do not know from whom to take directions. That is a situation which we must anticipate and consider what the consequences of this section would be.
On this section it is important that——
We are not dealing with the section as yet; we are dealing with the amendment.
It is on the amendment to section 2 that I wish to speak. Various speakers have made the point that the Minister wants to be in control and he does not want to be in control. He is running away from his responsibilities. A Minister should be a man of decision, but apparently the Minister no longer wants responsibility. We have seen that recently in relation to another decision that he could have made in regard to BBC 1. On this occasion he is shirking his responsibility. It is typical of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to be pushing from the back. It is easy to fight from the rear. But Ministers must lead from the front.
This is not the only occasion on which the Minister has run away from his responsibilities. He is passing the buck, buck-passing on previous occasions on his circus tour, and now on this occasion. We must have men of decision. What would happen if a crisis arose at a weekend, a holiday period or in the middle of the Summer Recess? Would the Minister be able to control the situation? How would he get the Dáil, the Seanad and the President together during the period he wants to have amending legislation brought in? This is where decision is necessary. I am appalled to see the Minister once again pushing from the rear. By the time this discussion ends I hope he will have changed his attitude to the amendment put down by Deputy Fitzpatrick.
The Minister was very active in his early days but now he is delegating his responsibility, shirking, and soon we will not need a Minister at all. His decisions can be made elsewhere by somebody else. On questions of major importance the Minister hides behind a barrage of words and tries to silence individuals.
This amendment is one of substance, one calling for a man of decision to make a decision when the time comes and to stand over that decision. This is not one of 14 or 15 points that can be put forward; it is a positive area of decision. If the Minister is going to shirk he may as well get out. Maybe he is tired. Maybe the last three years have been laborious for him and he feels he can no longer shoulder the great burden placed upon him, and the complications he has brought into his Department. If he shortens his lines of communication or his stay in the Department then he will need additional legislation as every issue goes through the House so that he will be able to buckpass in the future. Blame-placing or buck-passing is no solution to a problem. We want a man of decision. Apparently we have not got that in the Minister. He is as usual pushing from behind. A Minister should not push; he should lead from the front. I would ask the Minister to consider accepting Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment and so ensure that once again he is prepared to be as energetic as he appeared in the past.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister say if under this section a member or members of the Authority can only be removed if appropriate resolutions are passed by both Houses calling for their removal? Would the Minister say what his thinking is as to whether the Authority should be appointed by the Oireachtas?
I have already stated in the Seanad, and I think here, that my view is that as in the case of judges appointment should be by the Government but removal by the Oireachtas only. That is the principle. I can understand the objections Deputies opposite have to that but, in answer to the Deputy's inquiry, that is what is intended.
I am at a loss why the Minister feels he should put members of the Authority on the same level as the Judiciary. I should like to know the Minister's reasoning on it. If under this section the Minister wants to give the Oireachtas authority to remove a member or members of the Authority, what has he against giving the Oireachtas the authority to appoint members.
I will try to answer the Deputy's general question. Why has it been deemed necessary to give the Authority a degree of irremovability comparable to that of judges—not, incidentally identical to that of judges since members of the Authority are appointed for a restricted period at the end of which their term may lapse or be renewed. The answer must refer again to what happened in December, 1972, the point being that in most democratic countries in western Europe and particularly in north-western Europe, great importance is attached to the concept of autonomy of the controlling authority responsible for broadcasting. Just as great importance is attached to the role of the State in relation to this.
If we take a nearby country, Britain, there the Government possess and have long possessed powers equivalent to those possessed by the Government under section 6 of the Act which we are now engaged in amending, but all commentators recognise that the use of those powers are so hedged round by convention, by unwritten laws, that it would be virtually unthinkable for a British Government or a Norwegian or Danish Government to take the sweeping action that was taken here in December, 1972. So, to provide the kind of effective autonomy which prevails in other democratic countries in conditions where it is apparent that such drastic action can be taken because it has been taken, the Government deemed it desirable to give the Authority this degree of autonomy and this kind of guarantee so that if it is a question of their being removed, the Government would have to come here and to the Seanad to say why. We think that is necessary to protect the degree of autonomy which a Broadcasting Authority should have which in our opinion, is a high degree of autonomy.
I was interested to hear in the debate the somewhat slighting manner in which several Members opposite referred to the Authority as if it were utterly ridiculous that they should be given a degree of autonomy or irremovability even comparable with that of judges, as if they should be considered as being on exactly the same footing as civil servants and therefore automatically removable by the Government. In our view it is unhealthy in connection with an Authority in control of an area so politically sensitive as that of public broadcasting not to safeguard autonomy, not to respect the Authority's function, a function which under contemporary circumstances is a very high function indeed.
Ar dheis láimh Dé go raibh a anam. As I have said, not only were the Authority in the days of the last Government pressed from various angles, as well as the angle of public security which is the angle protected, as it must be, by section 17, but also the Minister constituted himself judge of objectivity. For example in relation to his own Department in a dispute between that Department and RTE, the Minister set himself up as the arbiter. I believe all that to be unhealthy. In those days the Authority were made to a considerable extent a political football and finally kicked out of the ground altogether in a most unceremonious way.
I do not very much care, as Deputies opposite have speculated, if that action damaged the party responsible, but I think it did damage the prestige and standing of broadcasting in this country and the morale of the broadcasting profession. It was an ill-judged action, and to guard against the recurrence of such action, the Government have provided these safeguards against the arbitrary removal of the Authority and have provided for reference to Parliament. We do not think, however, that the Authority should be set up on a different basis from that on which judges have been appointed, and for that reason our position is that members of the Authority should be appointed by the Government for a stipulated period and that during that period they cannot be removed except by resolution of both Houses.
Deputies opposite have expressed their objection to these provisions at considerable length. I do not find their objections convincing and particularly I do not find them convincing from the party whose actions give rise, in our view, to the necessity for this provision which would not have been necessary if the action concerned had not been taken, in our view without due cause.
The Minister has not replied to my question. Instead, he ignored my question and refused to give me an answer to it. I asked the Minister the reason why this Parliament, if they have been given responsibility for the termination of the term of office of an authority, are not being given responsibility for the setting up or establishing of the Authority.
The Minister tried to bring us away on a tack dealing with the autonomy of the Authority. For fear that the Minister thinks, because of the Ministry he holds, that there is only one semi-State body I should like to remind him that there are authorities dealing with Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte. We have many other authorities which fulfil a very important function in our economic and social life. I should like to assure the House, and the public, that every member of my party believes in the autonomy of all semi-State body boards. Down through the years Members of the Minister's political grouping in this House tried to upset such an approach but their efforts were thwarted at all times by Fianna Fáil Governments.
The Minister said public broadcasting is a politically sensitive area and if he holds the view that there seems to be a slighting of the present Authority in this politically sensitive area it may be that the actions of the present Minister contributed a lot to that feeling. The chief propagandist of the Government up to recently had been put second in control of public broadcasting here. It may be that because in this politically sensitive area——
I trust the Deputy will not deviate too far from the section.
The Deputy is attacking identifiable persons in the House.
I shall try not to deviate from the section but the Chair must understand that the Minister was telling us that public broadcasting was a politically sensitive area. I believe it is and that is why I believe that if there was a slighting of the Authority from this side it had to do with what I have just said.
The Deputy agrees that there was a slighting?
If the Minister tries to put words into my mouth we will get involved in an old hassle that will not do this House any good. When I want to say something I will be well able to do so without any help or hindrance from the Minister. If a certain amount of scepticism was introduced into this debate or developed since the debate started the Minister is largely responsible for it. When the Minister started he felt free to channel the debate in a way which he thought would benefit him most politically, not caring too much what would happen the Bill. Perhaps, when times are bad economically this sort of tactic is necessary. In the past the Romans fed the populace bread and brought them to a circus in an effort to take their minds off their worries, and we had the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs giving us a circus during the summer when he tried to sell us BBC 2 and maybe now we might get the bread.
When the Minister said he rejected the idea that RTE glamorised subversives in my view he was saying it with his tongue in his cheek. Many contributions were made in this House by members of the political grouping that forms the Government, which the Minister might not agree with, and they represented charges. It is ironic that I am standing in a position in the House which was normally occupied by Deputy L'Estrange, a Member who made accusations of partiality against employees of RTE in the way that members of subversives were being glamorised.
The Minister, as is his usual form, would like to have it both ways but we are not going to allow that. When the Government are in a position that they have to decide that an Authority must be removed it appears that the Minister and the Government will not have the freedom they should have if they are to act as they should. Perhaps, at that stage the Minister might feel free to go on another circus run around the country to see whether the people of Limerick, Kerry or Mayo should or should not tell him what to do. When the time comes—I hope it never comes for the sake of the country—that the security of the State is at risk and the Minister needs to be guided, God help the country. We have asked what will happen if the Dáil is in recess but we have not received an answer. What happens in the case of a general election being called? The campaign will last three to four weeks and will be followed by a further two weeks before the Dáil assembles. Are we to be powerless during that time if an emergency situation which threatens the security of the State arises? Under this section this can happen.
The autonomy of a broadcasting authority is a very valuable thing. Unfortunately, as Deputy Brugha pointed out, the trouble does not start in the Authority and the Minister knows that better than I. A situation could develop where contracts would be made, decisions arrived at, before an Authority would be aware of it. Again, perhaps the Minister would know far more about this than I.
I am not going to chase some of the hares the Minister raised except to say that the Government have responsibilities. Sometimes it is not easy for them to live up to their responsibilities. Sometimes it is easier for a Government, particularly a Government of the type we have at present, in refusing to face up to their responsibilities to have a resolution passed in this House, as the Minister would hope, if—and I hope it never has to happen—an authority have to be removed. I think it is wrong, that it is poor leadership. A Government should not lead from behind. If the Oireachtas is to be asked to terminate the term of office of an authority, then let the Oireachtas have power to create the authority.
We must all contribute to this debate in relation to our own experience, and my experience teaches me that section 2, as it has been spelt out here, is not satisfactory. It places the Authority and the Executive in a similar position to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General or a judge, and I think the Minister conceded that that was what he had in mind. As Deputy Collins has said, the Minister appoints the Authority, and therefore the Minister should deal with the Authority as it is necessary to deal with it. If the Minister is to be an effective executive he should not have to make a kind of court case out of any unsatisfactory situation that might develop, as he would have to do under section 2 by having a resolution passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas. In doing so he is weakening or downgrading his responsibility to the Oireachtas, vis-à-vis the Broadcasting Authority. As has been said, situations could arise: Dáil Éireann could be in recess or there could be a general election and the Minister might not be able to exercise his authority.
We will be coming shortly to section 3, which deals with impartiality, but under section 2 the Government are, in effect, responsible for the impartiality of the Authority and their servants. They are now weakening their authority and therefore their ability to play their executive role in regard to the Authority's fulfilment of their duties under the Act. Under section 2 the Authority would be in a position to tell the Minister where to go. The Authority and their officials are not responsible to the Minister or the Government or to Dáil Éireann. That is not a satisfactory position to create.
In a crucial area such as broadcasting, the Minister should be seeking agreement in the Dáil, and I do not think he is. I am sorry to have to say that, but the Minister earlier on gave me the impression that he was basing his objection to the amendment that has been lost on Deputy Collins's approach to that amendment.
I had already opposed the amendment before Deputy Collins spoke.
I understood the Minister to say that what Deputy Collins had said was strengthening his opposition to the amendment.
What I said was that it obliged me to refer to the need for section 2 and the deletion of the former section 6.
I accept that. There is a fundamental principle here, which is the responsibility and the right of the Executive to act on behalf of the Dáil and the people. Section 2 sets that responsibility at one remove, the remove being that the Minister must have resolutions passed through the Dáil and the Seanad before he can fulfil what I would regard as his responsibility as a member of the Executive.
I would like to pursue the question posed by Deputy Collins, which I think is a valid question if it is being contended that the Houses of the Oireachtas, and they only, should have the power to dismiss the Authority or member of it, why not give to the Oireachtas the right of their appointment?
The Minister, in presuming to answer, embarked on his usual strategy of the citation of irrelevant matter. He did not answer the question. He said that what was happening here was identical with what happens in respect of members of the Judiciary. That is acceptable if you accept ab initio that the nature of the work carried out by the Judiciary is identical with that carried out by the Authority. It is acceptable if you are simultaneously showing that the period of office of members of the Authority will be identical with that of members of the Judiciary. It is acceptable if, in the matter of apprenticeship and training to the profession, it can be shown that members of the Authority can be equated with members of the Judiciary. I do not think— even with the Minister's record in the matter of appointments—we can accept that.
It is quite possible that membership of this Authority will go to a person whose only qualification may be his proximity politically to a Minister. I do not see how, in those circumstances, you can equate that position with that of the Judiciary. As I said, it is a tactic in the Minister's strategy to move away from questions that are put to him. If the Minister expects that we should accept the sincerity of the case he is making he would want to give us more cogent reasons because he has not done so up to now. Does one not make the same argument for the Houses of the Oireachtas in relation to their appointment as one does for being the Authority for dismissing a member of the Authority?
The Minister is over-sensitive and motivated excessively in relation to what happened in 1972. Is it wise and prudent to generalise in relation to a particular case? Is the sole basis for his case the fact that the holder of the office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in 1972 acted in a certain fashion. Does the purpose of this legislation emanate from what happened in 1972? I am inclined to the view at times that where other people use a speech as best they can to reveal what is in their minds the Minister acts differently and uses it to distort or conceal. I would like the Minister to tell me if the whole basis of his attitude here springs from a decision made by his predecessor in 1972.
Do I understand the Minister to mean, in relation to section 2, that if a resolution is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for the removal of a member of the Authority the person will be removed? Is that what the Minister is conveying to the House?
The Deputy can read the section for himself. It is very clear.
The section states:
A member of the Authority may be removed by the Government from office for stated reasons, if, and only if, resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for his removal.
If both Houses of the Oireachtas support the stated reasons for the person's removal does the Minister, as he has indicated, mean that the man will be removed? Is that right?
The Deputy can read the section for himself.
I want the Minister to interpret the section for me.
Either the section is clear or it is not. It is clear to everybody except the Deputy.
It is not clear to me. I may be a very dull person but nevertheless I want the Minister to explain if a member of the Authority may be removed by the Government from office for stated reasons and only if resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for his removal? Does that mean that if the Government, for stated reasons, come to both Houses of the Oireachtas and they decide in favour of the resolution that the man will be removed?
The commonsense answer is yes.
Is "Yes" the answer to the question?
The interpretation of Acts of Parliament is by the Judiciary and not by a Minister.
Could the Minister interpret the matter for me? If both Houses of the Oireachtas, for stated reasons, decide in favour of the resolution presented by the Government does that mean the man will be removed?
Yes.
That is not what the section says.
It says "may" but if the Deputy imagines a Government would come in to the House of the Oireachtas, put the case, get the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas and then do something else he can think that.
I submit to the Minister that even though both Houses of the Oireachtas pass the resolution for the removal of the man from office he may not be removed. "May" means "ability", "competency" or "possibility". That is what the Chambers Dictionary says. It does not say he must be removed or he shall be removed. In fact, he may not be removed by the Government.
I will put the Deputy's point to the Parliamentary draftsman.
This is a very serious matter. This is in relation to what the Minister has indicated to the Seanad, the Dáil and to the nation, that having a resolution passed the Government are then in a position to say "Yes" or say "No". Section 2 means that even though both Houses of the Oireachtas have, for the stated reasons of the Government, passed the resolution the Government need not remove that person. The section does not say that the person shall be removed or he must be removed. It says that he may be removed. The Minister will have to explain this. This means to me that the Government still have power to retain the person if they so desire, notwithstanding the fact that both Houses of the Oireachtas have decided in favour of the stated reasons submitted to them in the resolution.
The Deputy is a great man for the dictionary.
I learned that from the Minister.
I am proud of the Deputy.
The Government need not remove the person from office even though both Houses of the Oireachtas have passed the necessary resolution. I listened to the Minister one day speaking for about five hours on the word "encourage". The word "may" in this Bill is just as important. The section does not mean that the man must or shall be removed from office. What does the parliamentary draftsman say? The Minister said he would consult him.
I will reply when the Deputy sits down.
I will sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say. I can speak again later.
I would like to reply to a few points raised. First of all, Deputy Collins accused me, on behalf of the Government, of using this debate to distract attention from other topics of greater importance to the nation. Although I believe this Bill is of significance and importance, undoubtedly there are more important topics. However, I have not been protracting debate on this. Anyone who looks at the record will see that my contributions have been relatively few and short whereas the contributions of Deputies opposite have been long and repetitive. They have kept this debate going on for so long. If anybody is to be accused of seeking to distract attention from other subjects it is those who have artificially protracted a debate, which has gone on so far for two days on section 1 and 2. I cannot accept responsibility for that.
On the question of the appointment of judges as compared with the Authority, may I refer Deputies to what I said on this subject in the Seanad where this matter was debated thoroughly also? On 13th May, 1975, at column 1372 of the Official Report of that House I said:
Some Senators suggested that if the Oireachtas is to be responsible for removing members of the Authority from office, the Oireachtas should also have power to appoint them. This does not follow. Within a period of appointment, which is an important limitation, the security of members of the Authority, if this legislation is passed, will be very like that of judges, who cannot be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour and then only by approval of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. But, of course, under Article 35 (1) of the Constitution, judges are appointed by the President on the advice of the Government, not by the Oireachtas, and their appointments do not require the approval of the Dáil and Seanad.
There are good reasons for that. I am not sure whether the idea of appointment of members of the Authority by the Oireachtas was really mooted as a serious proposition in itself, or whether it was not simply intended to discredit or disparage the idea of requiring dismissals to be submitted to the Oireachtas. It is clear in any case that there is an important distinction between the two concepts.
The Government are appointed by the Oireachtas and the qualifications of their members can be subjected to debate there, often very sharp debate. Politicians accept that—that is what they are for. Neither judges nor private citizens, such as those who accept appointment to State bodies like the RTE Authority, have chosen to submit themselves to such ordeals, which might be actually harmful to their future discharge of their tasks. The case of a dismissal, which would be expected to be a rare event, is different in kind and in this case it might be expected that the person or persons concerned would welcome an opportunity for the vindication of his, her or their position. For these reasons the Government consider that, while the final decision to remove members of the Authority from office should be in the hands of the Oireachtas, the appointment of the Authority should continue to be on the same basis as appointment to all other public boards, that is, a matter for Government or ministerial decision, and so it will be under this legislation if it is passed.
Another point was raised to which I have replied already in part, but since Deputies seem to consider that my reply did not cover the matter fully, let me try to explain it again. Some Deputies seem to be concerned that a situation might arise in which urgent action to prevent the Authority as a whole or some members of the Authority from exercising their function would be necessary. They consider that the procedure for dismissal by resolution to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas as provided for in section 2 might be too protracted, for example, the Dáil was in recess and that in the meantime a recalcitrant Authority might continue to flout ministerial direction. There is general consensus that such an eventuality is extremely remote and, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention in the debate on the section, my view is that legislation should be based on the assumption that an Authority appointed by the Government to run the national broadcasting service will act responsibly. A difference of opinion could be envisaged between a Minister and an Authority about whether the Authority had failed to exercise sufficient control to ensure compliance with ministerial direction or, indeed, about whether the Authority were complying with ministerial direction.
If the situation was such that the Government of the day decided that dismissal was warranted and thought there would be undue delay in having a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the order for mandamus could be sought from the courts requiring the Authority to comply with ministerial direction. I am advised that an application for such an order would be treated by the courts as a priority matter and that a decision could be given within a matter of days, assuming the issue was clearcut. It is inconceivable that an Authority would flout a court order. Therefore, public interest would be safeguarded adequately by recourse to the courts pending a decision by the Oireachtas —all fairly unlikely developments.
As for the case of an individual member of the Authority going off the rails as suggested or refusing to accept a ministerial direction, I would point out that under section 10 (4) of the 1960 Act every question at a meeting of the Authority should be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question and that in the case of an equal division, the chairman of the meeting should have a second or casting vote. I would expect a situation in which one member of the Authority became a disruptive force, if it happened at all, to develop during a period and timely action should give adequate opportunity to apply the procedure for dismissal provided for in section 2 of the Bill.
Deputy Tunney made the point that, supposing the entire Authority had not been dismissed in the way they were dismissed, would I have judged necessary this legislation. I do not know whether I would have thought it necessary to repeal section 6 if section 6 had never been used. It was the use of that section and particularly the circumstances in which it was used that suggested the question as to whether section 6 should not be changed. By tabling an amendment which would replace that section, Deputies opposite seemed to recognise that there was a need after all to change the section, as I believe there was.
Deputy Dowling raised the ingenious point, and I must give him full credit for it, that a member of the Authority may be removed from office by the Government for stated reasons but he pointed out—this is like the kind of point that the late A.P. Herbert used sometimes make—that it was possible to conceive under this wording that a Government would come into the House, call for the removal for stated reasons of certain members of the Authority, pass the resolution through both Houses and then refrain from taking action. That would be a rather remarkable political exercise——
Not so far as the present Government are concerned.
——for any Government to engage in. However, I am prepared to have the parliamentary draftsman look at the section to see whether this odd ambiguity can be removed without creating some new and more probable ambiguity because it is highly improbable, I would say virtually impossible, that any Government should act in the manner which Deputy Dowling has ingeniously devised.
First, let me reject completely the charges made by the Minister that this party are prolonging deliberately the debate on this Bill.
The Deputies could have fooled me.
If the Minister wishes to contribute these smartalecky remarks I would ask you to request him to contain himself, Sir. The Minister said that his contributions were few and short but that ours were long, artificially protracted and repetitive. Last week I reported progress on this discussion. This party were ready to have the matter dealt with there and then but the Minister, thinking that he was to be the last speaker on it, could not resist the temptation to introduce something controversial. He deliberately misrepresented certain facts in relation to a letter written by one Minister to another.
The Minister tried to give a false impression. If he was hoping for a reasonably mature debate on an important broadcasting Bill he completely misjudged the Members of the House by acting in the way he did. It is not the first time the Minister read this letter, or part of it, in this House. On 20th June, 1973, the Minister used that same letter when he was replying to the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. He was the last speaker and, knowing that, he felt free to use it in the knowledge that no one could come back on it. That is changed now. We are dealing with the Committee Stage of the Bill and we can talk about it now. If he was serious in getting this Bill dealt with in a mature way he was wrong to act as he did. If he thinks he can play political football with the Bill in the way he did, in the one-sided fashion he hoped he would be allowed to operate, he was wrong there also.
I accused the Minister of trying to distract the attention of the public from the economic chaos at the moment. This is true but the fact that I made that accusation does not take away from the importance of the Bill. If the Minister was as serious about this matter as he should have been he would not have acted in the way he has done this afternoon. He has said he was prompted to introduce this section because section 6 in the old Bill was used. If there is a section in the Bill it is there for a good reason——
Used in the circumstances in which it was used.
The Minister would love to comment on the remarks made by everyone so that he can have it recorded in his own Machiavellian way. I wrote down a phrase the Minister used when he spoke just now— if the Official Report proves me wrong I shall apologise unreservedly to the Minister—and my clear recollection is that he said the use of section 6 prompted him. At that time the then Government decided that section 6 was going to be used. Members now sitting on the Government benches, prior to the use of section 6, strongly and severely criticised the state of affairs that existed at that time. I have here a speech made by a Member of this House which the Minister should read. He is no longer just a Labour Deputy but is a member of a Government supported by Fine Gael and Labour backbenchers. On 13th June, 1972, in an Adjournment Debate, Deputy L'Estrange had some very strong observations to make in relation to the way subversives were being glamorised by individuals within RTE. At col. 1474 of the Official Report of that date he stated:
I wish to point out to him—— that was to me, as Minister.
——that for the past two years I believe, with the vast majority of the Irish people, that the orders issued by the Government to RTE have been flouted by slick operators in that organisation.
These are the people who are keeping the Minister in government now. Deputy L'Estrange continued:
Certain men in that organisation have built up and glorified men of violence.
These were the words of a front bench Fine Gael Deputy and the same sentiments were expressed by other Members. The Deputy went on to say:
They have downgraded and vilified men and women of this country both North and South who stand for a peaceful end to the unfortunate tragedies which are taking place in our midst today.
These were very profound statements by a leading member of the Fine Gael front bench and similar statements were made by members of the two major parties. We are not here to discuss whether the decision of the Government to remove the Authority under section 6 was right or wrong and it is a pity the Minister deliberately tried to get us to discuss the justification or otherwise of using the section. I am quite satisfied that what was done was right and I justified my case in the House at that time. I will not repeat it but, if necessary, I can read it line by line for the Minister.
My main point now is to reject completely the most recent statement by the Minister that we are protracting the debate. We are not but we are determined to rebuff at all times the untrue insinuations and allegations of the Minister. If this Minister thinks he can label anyone on these benches with the tag of subversive, let him understand clearly that it will be rebuffed. If his conscience is pricking him, I suggest he should look at some of the actions of members of the Labour Party. It was not a member of my party who tried to kick down the door of the Mater Hospital when certain people were being held in there and treated as prisoners.
The Minister has indicated that the section is rather doubtful and he agrees that it must be looked at. In the course of the discussion he indicated it was ridiculous to think any Government would introduce a Bill, get it through the Houses of the Oireachtas and then not act on it. I do not think that is too extraordinary an idea when we consider the equal pay legislation and other measures that were brought before the House where the Government changed their mind. In this instance possibly the Minister sees the outlet the Minister for Labour did not see when he was presenting the equal pay measure——
That is quite irrelevant to this debate.
It is a safety valve for the Minister. It is clear to me, as it is to the Minister, that the Government need not dismiss a member of the Authority even though both Houses of the Oireachtas agree to the removal of that person for stated reasons. The Minister has undertaken to have a word with the parliamentary draftsman to see if there can be some substitute for the word "may". There must be a way of framing the Bill to meet what the Minister requires. Legislation must be positive. There must be no ambiguity. This is a most important section in the Bill and there must be nothing doubtful about it and any doubt that exists at the moment must be removed. The Minister knows he can by weight of numbers force this Bill through in any particular form he desires. He has admitted there is a doubt and he must remove this immediately.
Is this deliberately designed to provide a way out for the Minister and the Government? It is not a question that the Government may do something. It is a question that the Government must do something. Ministers say different things in different places. That is a fairly common practice with the present Government. The Minister is satisfied there is an area of doubt in this section and the Minister must remove this area of doubt. If the Minister wants to consult with the parliamentary draftsman we will give him that opportunity.
There is still the Report Stage.
Perhaps the Minister will consult with the parliamentary draftsman to see if he can put sense into this section. Does he want it passed in its present form? If he does he must have some reason for that.
(Dublin Central): He wants to have it both ways.
Is the Minister prepared to change the phraseology? We will give him the opportunity of doing so if he wishes to take it. Surely he would not ask us to pass a defective section. Surely no section in any legislation should be open to abuse. The Minister has admitted there is ambiguity. Is he prepared to remove this ambiguity? If he insists on the section as it stands then he is behaving unreasonably and irresponsibly.
I was very interested to hear the Minister explain that the intention was to remove a member of the Authority when a resolution to that effect had been passed by both Houses. As I see it, the section provides the Government with an option. Earlier the Minister talked about what he loosely described as an exercise in democracy.
Those were the words of Deputy Jack Lynch.
And the Minister had a "go" at Deputy Jack Lynch for using those words. The Minister comes in here and tries to establish beyond yea or nay that he is the champion of democracy because he is taking the decision out of his own hands and handing it over to the Oireachtas to enable the Members of the Dáil and Seanad to decide whether somebody should be removed from the Authority. I do not believe this word "may" is here by accident. I honestly believe that that has been deliberately inserted by the Minister following consultations with the parliamentary draftsman, because under the terms of section 2 a motion can be moved in this House by any Member. It does not say that the resolution has to be moved by the Government. It simply says that, if a resolution is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for the removal of a member of the Authority, the Government may remove him.
This is where I question the ministerial thinking behind the suggested democratic purpose of section 2. We have at present in this House one Deputy from the Government side who has deliberately avoided voting on one Bill in this House which is under discussion at present. Down through the years we have heard a lot about dissidents. Peculiarly enough, all dissidents were members or former members of, or were associated with Fianna Fáil. There are no dissidents on the Coalition side. I suggest that there are, even though the media has not cottoned on to it yet, deliberately or otherwise. A number of people on the Government side made their entry into this House through the medium of television and a notable exponent of that is the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. One can visualise a situation where a motion can be moved in this House, sponsored by the Opposition, calling for the removal of some member of the Authority. In the normal course, any motion moved by the Opposition is doomed to failure from the word go. Under this Bill it is quite possible that we can have a resolution moved from this side of the House which might find favour on the Government side and might be supported by three or four members of the Government.
There is a Private Member's motion at 7 o'clock this evening, and if there is any semblance of reliability or honesty left in the Labour Party they should support it. In the same way it is possible under this Bill to have a resolution moved in this House, sponsored by the Opposition, for which we could expect a certain amount of Government backbench support. I am suggesting that if such a resolution moved by the Opposition were passed in this House with the support of two or three dissident backbench supporters of the Government, it is possible in that event that section 2 enables the Government not to apply the democratic process. It is an escape clause built in by the Minister on the advice of his colleagues following consultation with the parliamentary draftsman. Apart from the promise given by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to Deputy Dowling a few moments ago, I believe that when he has his consultation and when we get to the Report Stage there will be no change in this section.
Here we have a whitewashing job. There is going to be no more interference with members of the Television Authority by the Government. Built into section 2 we have a situation where, even if the majority of the elected representatives pass a resolution for the removal of a member of the Authority, the Government, we are told by the Minister, because of the use of the word "may", will not abide by the decision of this House in that regard.
I should like to refer to a few points. As it stands the section merely sets out the conditions which have to be complied with if the Government decide to dismiss the Authority. The section defines how an Authority may be dismissed. It does not purport to provide for the circumstances in which any Authority shall be dismissed and I do not consider it desirable that it should be so. I have said that the wording can be looked at again to see if it can be improved between this and the Report Stage, as often happens. But I am not going to change it at this Stage and I am not promising that it will be changed at any later Stage. Nor is it envisaged in the section, nor was it ever envisaged by me in connection with this Bill, in regard to the removal of an Authority that the Government should do so. I have said that. What this section proposes to do is to limit in a certain specific way the power of the Government in that matter, that is to say, that the Government cannot do this unless resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is what it means and that is all it means.
Does it mean that a resolution cannot be moved by the Opposition?
It says what it says.
The Minister is not too sure what it says.
(Dublin Central): It is a pity that the Minister did not give more thought to this section. It is quite obvious that he looked at section 6 and disliked it for his own personal reasons. It is quite obvious that the Minister did not give enough thought to the drafting of section 2. Certainly it does not look to the future. Indeed, I can see an unfortunate situation so far as the Director General is concerned, because we know he is appointed by the Authority. The Director General is going to find himself in a difficult situation. The removal of the Authority by the Minister is going to take a considerable amount of time in this House. It is quite obvious that the Minister has no confidence in the Authority he is removing at this particular time, but at the same time the Director General will have to take instructions from the Authority during this period. This is undesirable and I doubt whether it would be tolerated in any other type of organisation. The Minister should have made some provisions, if only to protect the Director General and other staff within RTE in regard to their positions during the removal of the Authority from office. Some time ago the Minister stated that he could not see a situation where the Authority would flout the directives of a Minister. None of us knows what is going to happen from day to day, and we are placing the staff and the Director General in a position that we, as legislators, should not place them in. I am concerned about the practicalities of it and that is what legislation is all about. The Minister is, in effect, saying here in section 2: “I am going to remove the Authority by moving a motion in this House which can then be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.” At the same time, the Minister is not giving any directive as to whom the Director General should take instructions from.
That was one of the reasons that I was concerned about the suspension clause and the position which RTE and the Director General would find themselves in during this period. Evidently the Minister, if he took them and these consequences into consideration at all, looked at section 6 of the 1960 Bill and said "I will replace that completely" and went in the opposite direction. If he had looked at our amendment he would have found, especially in the suspension clause, the solution and the section that should be in the Bill. I have no doubt that if you ask any member of the Authority in regard to our amendment "Is that a practical amendment?", the answer must be "Yes". Regarding employees of RTE, and particularly the Director General, the question arises: from whom are they to take directions? This is the type of ambiguity that will arise in the Bill.
We have debated this section at length and it is regrettable that the Minister did not see our point of view on our amendment. He would be introducing practical legislation that would be respected by the Authority and by the staff of RTE and which would give the Minister the tain times. If one is head of an organisation or a Department one must authority which he must have at cer-have authority. Somebody must make the decisions. It is not nice to have to make unpopular decisions, but the man at the top must take that responsibility. Once a person accepts a position as Minister he is taking on the responsibility. During his course of office it will fall upon him to take important decisions. The Minister here is afraid to take unpopular decisions and he is asking us in the House to do it instead.
This is a cumbersome section. It looks tidy as we see it in this Bill, but it is a most cumbersome section to put into operation. We have opposed the Bill. We have put in an amendment which took a considerable length of time to work out. If the Minister had objected to section 6 as it stood the amendment which we proposed would have filled the bill and would have lead to much better legislation.
I was amazed at the dogmatic manner in which the Minister answered the question in relation to this doubtful area. Deputy Lalor covered the field fairly well and projected new light on this area of deception, because that is what it is. The Minister states that he will not do it on the Committee Stage and he may not do it on the Report Stage. We want to guarantee that this section will be rectified to meet the requirements that the Minister has indicated. Deputy Lalor posed the question whether the Opposition could formulate a motion or present a Bill for stated reasons. If I understood the Minister, he stated that it was not his intention that a motion could be formulated by the Opposition. If that is so the Bill does not indicate that. This is an area of deception. I did regard it as an area of doubt. The Minister has been very dogmatic about this and has dug his heels in. He wants this House to pass the most important section of this Bill, that he agrees is ambiguous, that could be used in a variety of ways, but does not mean what it states and does not mean what has been conveyed to the Houses, the Seanad and the Dáil, as being the intention of the Government. Surely the Minister does not believe that this House has lost its sanity and is prepared to pass any type of legislation. If that is so, and if he insists that the bootboys be pushed into the lobbies, we have moved from a democratic system to a dictatorial one.
I hoped that the Minister would have given a clear indication to the House when this aspect was uncovered, that it would be rectified. At an early stage the Minister stated that he would consult with the parliamentary draftsmen to see if a solution to this problem could be found. However, speakers uncovered further areas of misrepresentation. I ask the Minister to give a clear undertaking that he will change this area or the area of doubtful quantity by the removal of this word and the substitution of another word, or indeed of another sentence.
I would ask the Minister, when he does get his parliamentary draftsmen to study section 2 again, if he would also get them to examine the situation from the point of view of the word "resolution" or "resolutions". The section reads:
A member of the Authority may be removed by the Government from office for stated reasons, if, and only if, resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for his removal.
Arising from my contribution of a few moments ago I have been checking out Standing Orders in regard to the function of resolutions. Under Standing Order 87 (2) I find:
That matters that may be dealt with by resolution shall include Standing Orders, adjournments of the Dáil, appointment or removal of the Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, expressions, of condolence, censure, thanks and opinion and any other matter which, by law, the Dáil may decide by simple Resolution
It does not say whether the members of the Broadcasting Authority are members. It goes on to say:
(3) The matters that may be dealt with by Order shall include the suspension of members, the appointment of committees——
It does not say the dissolution of committees
——the printing of Bills and documents and questions of procedure generally.
I think, therefore, that the use of the word "resolution" in this section could be the inappropriate word in this section. I have some knowledge and experience of the dedication of the drafters of Bills in this regard and I am sure that the word "resolution" or "resolutions" covering both Houses was something that was investigated by the parliamentary draftsmen.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.