Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1983

Vol. 340 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Current Affairs Broadcasting: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Leyden on Tuesday, 1 March 1983:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to ensure that, in accordance with the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976 the broadcast treatment of current affairs by Radio Telefís Éireann, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that under the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, as amended by the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976

(i) it is the duty of the R.T.E. Authority to ensure that the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the Authority's own views and

(ii) subject to certain procedures being complied with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission may investigate and decide on complaints,inter alia, that in broadcasting a programme the Authority did not comply with one or more of the statutory requirements referred to.”

—(Minister for Posts and Telegraphs).

Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Nealon)

As I was saying last night, the wording of this motion calls on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in very specific and absolute terms to intervene in the programme making process of RTE. There can be no other interpretation because however you analyse, dissect or parse the wording of Deputy Leyden's motion that is what it means. Yet Deputy Leyden in the Dáil last night devoted practically all his speech to criticising my appointment because I might intervene. Here we have the Dáil debating a motion calling for intervention and we have the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Leyden, boasting to the Dáil that once or twice since his appointment to the Front Bench he has intervened. Then he goes on to criticise my appointment because I might intervene. He uses as the basis of his argument my professional association in the past with RTE and my knowledge of that general area.

I am surprised to find that knowledge of any subject is described by Deputy Leyden as a reason why one should not be appointed in that area. This is a time of great chance in broadcasting and wireless telegraphy, the responsibilities which I have. It is the most exciting and the time of greatest change in the last 21 years since our television station came on the air. We have the necessary legislation to set up local radio and we must, simultaneously, end the pirate stations. We have direct satellite broadcasting which has enormous and exciting potential for information-based industries here. We also have massive new developments in cable television. These are the reasons which motivated the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Mitchell, to seek the assistance of a Minister of State. He cannot do it himself but he has the authority of the Taoiseach to do so. To say that a person with certain specific qualifications should be ruled out is ridiculous. One might as well say that an architect should not have any responsibility for the planning of a housing estate because he knew something about it, or to suggest that Deputy Andrews could not be a Minister or a Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs because he has excellent specific knowledge of the area of broadcasting.

With regard to interference, I believe that whatever knowledge I have acquired in this area, through my service in RTE, is a very good reason why I would be the last Deputy, with the possible exception of Deputy Niall Andrews, who also served in RTE, to attempt to interfere with programme making. There are Deputies on all sides of the House who get a sudden rush of blood to the head about RTE programmes. They believe there are presenters and producers there who spend their time plotting how they can help one party and demolish another party. This judgment is often made after seeing one programme or even a bit of a programme. The fact remains that anyone who has worked in RTE knows that the preoccupation of the presenters and producers is trying to devise the best possible television and radio programmes with constant and total unremitting regard to their obligations of objectivity and impartiality. They have done a very good job.

Deputy Leyden, as the basis for this motion, or perhaps as the excuse for it, has mentioned two programmes recently where there was no appearance by Fianna Fáil. It is not a total bonus to appear on your own. Perhaps it is if your material is good and if you have good presentation but it can also be an unmitigated disaster where your votes can evaporate through the microphone.

I do not know why RTE did not have a Fianna Fáil representative on those programmes and I am not going to inquire because that is not my duty. Nor would I inquire either if Deputy Leyden started popping up all over the place making as many appearances as Charles Mitchel. I would not inquire because I have the utmost confidence in RTE to carry out their obligations in an objective and impartial manner. I have confidence because of the constitution of the Authority and the excellent, distinguished people who are there but, mostly, because of the track record of RTE. We have, as the Deputy knows, an official Broadcasting Complaints Commission set up in March 1977 and in all that time only 14 complaints were brought to this commission set up specifically and staffed for that purpose. This is an excellent commission. I have the honour of knowing one member, a very good friend of mine and a very distinguished public relations officer, Mr. Eoin Patton, and I know the value of the commission. In 12 of the 14 cases the commission found that the complaints were not justified. In only two cases did the commission find against RTE. One referred to the inclusion in the "Gay Byrne Hour" of grocery prices in supermarket chains and the other dealt with television coverage of a record produced by a commercial recording company on the Papal visit. In five years, the commission found against RTE in only two instances. That is not bad considering that the five years were probably the most volatile in politics in the recent history of the State.

Mr. Leyden

Could the Minister mention the year to which he referred?

Mr. Nealon

It was 31 March 1977. Deputy Leyden spoke about the danger of interference from me. I would remind him that it was not this Government or any of the Coalition predecessors who interfered to the extent of sacking the entire Authority, which was a very distinguished one.

Deputy Leyden, in the course of his speech last night, referred to me as the Goebbels of the Coalition. Fair enough. I have to hand it to Deputy Leyden that it was a very catchy line. If it was fair enough for him to so refer to me then it is equally fair for me to say——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Minister is thinking of making a counter-attack by using another name I ask him not to do so. I also wish to avail of this opportunity, now that the matter has been raised, to ask Deputy Leyden to withdraw that word and thus clear the record of an unfortunate parliamentary intervention.

Mr. Leyden

If the Minister has no objection to that reference then I do not. It is an appropriate one in the circumstances. Perhaps Brendan Bracken should be coupled with that but certainly Deputy Nealon was an expert——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not a question of whether the Minister of State, or any Member, approves or disapproves but of what the Chair thinks. The Chair thinks it was an unfortunate and, perhaps, a heated intervention that sullies the record of the House especially having regard to the history of the gentleman who bears the name referred to. As it happened yesterday I will not demand that it be withdrawn but I would appeal to Deputy Leyden, out of good taste and respect for the House, to rid the record of that and not leave it there.

Mr. N. Andrews

On a point of information——

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no such point as a point of information.

Mr. N. Andrews

I should like to refer to the conversation that has taken place. I believe Deputy Leyden's intention in referring to Deputy Nealon as Goebbels was to refer——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair appeals to Deputy Andrews to leave this matter to the Chair. The Chair does not intend to put it any further than it has been put.

Mr. Leyden

What I stated was that we could kindly refer to the Minister of State as the Goebbels of the Coalition Government. That was a descriptive phrase and, going on precedent, the phrase also referred to Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, a former Member and Minister. In my view it is a colourful phrase.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will leave the matter at that and let history judge.

Mr. Leyden

So be it.

Mr. Nealon

I do not have any intention of getting involved in name slinging across the floor of the House but I was anxious to say that if I were a Goebbels, whatever interpretation the Deputy wishes to take of a Goebbels, then on the grounds that birds of a feather flock together I would long ago be perched on the Opposition benches as my natural habitat.

It is in the vital interest of us all that the impartiality of RTE should be maintained at all times. The statutory custodian of its objectivity and impartiality is the RTE Authority. That Authority has done an excellent job under extremely difficult circumstances. That job is made much more difficult by a fact that was not adverted to previously in the debate, the fact that it is in a monopoly situation. One can imagine the situation we would have here if there was only one newspaper. We can imagine the difficulties that would create. Competition is perhaps the greatest of all guarantors of fair play all round. That has been proved in Britain with the introduction of the second, third and fourth channels. RTE have to contend with the monopoly situation as well, and that was an added burden as far as impartiality was concerned or the criticism of its impartiality. RTE have done well with the result that only 14 complaints were made to the complaints commission since 1977.

The greatest threat to RTE is its own self-censorship, over reaction to criticism, perhaps of the type that may be expressed in the House. RTE may try to balance everything to such an extent that we may get a totally mathematically balanced programme but an utterly boring one which would result in a switch-off situation where nobody could take offence because they would not be watching. RTE have an obligation to impartiality but Members on all sides have an obligation to ensure we do not in any way dampen the courage of the station to push out the frontiers, the parameters of programmes to make good programmes and good viewing. In any respect, as a Member of the House or in any other way, they have my total backing in that.

Last night Deputy Leyden sought to prove by his usual method of repetition rather than by fact or argument that somehow broadcasting had been moved to the Taoiseach's Department. That is something that the Taoiseach deliberately ensured would not be the case. The same goes for myself. As a general principle it would not be a desirable thing that the person answerable at Cabinet level for what is of its very nature a very sensitive issue should be the Taoiseach. There is no problem with the Taoiseach and I am sure that there would not be any problem with the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party but, as a general principle, I am sure Deputies opposite will agree with my view on this.

I am answerable in this capacity to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, remains in charge.

Mr. N. Andrews

What is the function of the Minister of State?

Mr. Nealon

I have outlined it. This will be the busiest period in broadcasting, in wireless telegraphy, in the last 21 years with the inaugurating of the legislation for local radio and the setting up of the independent local radio authority. That may be worrying Deputy Andrews. We must deal with satellite broadcasting also. The Minister does not have any function in regard to the content of programmes. That is totally the statutory obligation of the RTE Authority. I cannot interfere and I have no right to interfere. If there are any complaints they can be sent to the complaints commission. I do not have any function in that area but perhaps Deputies opposite instigated a line in the past.

I am clear as to what my approach should be and will be. It is to exercise the functions of a Minister under the Broadcasting Authority Acts, as delegated to me, and to allow the RTE Authority to exercise its functions and fulfil its duties in accordance with the Acts. The Minister has already spelt out those functions and duties in his speech and indicated the manner in which they should be handled. The statutory position on objectivity and impartiality and on fairness and balance can be stated quite simply: the RTE Authority, and it alone, is responsible for these matters.

I have no reason to believe that the Minister's approach, which will also be mine, is any different from that of any of his predecessors. I believe that the specific terms of the Act allow very little room for confusion or fudging of responsibilities. It is only the illogical contortions of Deputies opposite which enable them to display such confusion in their contributions to the debate and in their contradictory demands for involvement without interference in RTE's activities. During my days in broadcasting I was paid what I regarded as a pretty good compliment by a very fine lady who was partisan as far as party politics are concerned. That lady told me that she liked me because I was equally offensive to all sides. I hope that with the passing of years and my maturing I have lost that offensiveness, but I have certainly not lost my impartiality. I can guarantee Deputy Leyden, his party and the House of my total commitment as far as noninterference with the programme-making of RTE is concerned. I am buttressed in that by my own experience there and the knowledge that if there is any stray, if by any chance a programme appears that is not balanced, it is not done deliberately. It is the kind of thing that happens in any human endeavour. The statutory obligation as far as impartiality and objectivity is concerned is totally in the hands of the RTE Authority. I am delighted to say that it is my belief that overall RTE have an excellent record and are doing a fine job.

Mr. Leyden

Could the Minister outline the delegation of authority? He stated that he was delegating authority.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister's time is up.

Mr. N. Andrews

I find the Minister's reply completely unsatisfactory. It is quite incredible that he should come into the House and reply in the fashion he did. He, like I, worked in RTE and he and I were colleagues in different areas of RTE, nonetheless with special interest in that area. I worked in the field of journalism at one stage and for a brief period we worked together. He was very successful as a journalist and broadcaster. The explanation he has now given does not befit his qualifications as a broadcaster and communicator. I do not think he really believes that we on this side of the House would accept what he has said at its face value. Perhaps in time we will be able to prove the point we are making now.

In view of this appointment we might rename Radio Telefis Éireann "Radio Telefís Neylon". That seems a more appropriate title for them now as the Coalition Government take total control of this very important element of the media. Probably one of the most dangerous decisions made by this Government to date is the appointment of Minister Neylon to the portfolio which he in a convoluted way has gone around telling us has to do with satellites, cable television and all the other developments. In this delicate area at the best of times we need a man who is a professional in the area, who has experience of that area and to that extent Minister Neylon has those qualifications. I am not in any way surprised that the Taoiseach should see fit to take responsibility from the great albatross he has around his neck, Minister Mitchell, who has not distinguished himself in previous portfolios. Deputy Mitchell has shown himself to be insensitive and in some ways bloody-minded in his approach, particularly to people in the public service, a thing that I deeply resent. To that extent I have no objection to the transfer of these powers to Deputy Neylon. I have no doubt that the transfer simply indicates a lack of confidence on the part of the Taoiseach in his Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Mitchell.

There is no doubt in my mind that while Fine Gael were in Opposition they concentrated much of their time, energy and money in propagating and developing a very good media-orientated machine in 51 Upper Mount Street, the Fine Gael headquarters. There they had a propaganda unit of astonishing proportions and it was costly at that. I admit freely that they brought into that unit some of the best PR and journalistic brains in the country, some of the best administrative people here, and they have used them to excellent effect. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it was set up deliberately and these people were brought in and are now transferred at public expense to the Taoiseach's office.

Let me explain. Since the Government resumed office Deputy Nealon, the professional journalist and broadcaster, one of the finest in his day in that field, was initially given responsibility for the arts. The former general secretary was appointed Government information secretary. To top it all, Minister Fennell was appointed Minister for Women's Affairs, and we all know what happened to her last week. The icing on the cake was the ultimate appointment of Minister Nealon to take control of radio and television. Let us finish out what has happened with Fine Gael once out of office and now into office, with all these splendid, highly professional PR people. It was not enough to have a former Government press and information officer and a close friend of the Minister publicly announcing in the press that he is interested in the vacant office of controller of programmes in RTE television. I believe his intention is to use this office as a stepping-stone to his ultimate ambition to be Director General of RTE. There you have the total connection in the media. I have outlined it from the very beginning of the Taoiseach's interest in that area to his advisors who were previously in Fine Gael headquarters having now transferred to Government Buildings as a total propaganda unit.

A Cheann Comhairle, let me come to the explanation you asked for and the withdrawal you sought of a remark by Deputy Leyden. I do not want to enter into that controversy or into any name-calling across the floor at a former much-respected colleague of mine, Minister Nealon, but I believe that Deputy Leyden was talking about the magnificence of the machine that Dr. Goebbels had for propagating his party's information.

Mr. Manning

That is not what he said.

Mr. N. Andrews

It succeeded in deceiving the German people and my fear is that the system now being developed in the GIS will ultimately have the same effect. This is why I said at the beginning that the decision now taken by the Taoiseach to form this nucleus of a propaganda outfit calling itself Minister for Arts, Minister for Women's Affairs, Government Information Services and the RTE connection as I said earlier——

Mr. Manning

Does the Deputy want me to give——

Mr. N. Andrews

This is very satisfactory to those who defended General Eoin O'Duffy in the thirties and have written books praising them. Deputy Manning knows all about that.

Mr. Manning

What about Deputy Andrews himself?

Mr. N. Andrews

Deputy Manning has no problem in reconciling these with his own political ideological viewpoint. I know that and so does the House. Those matters are on record. This arrangement suits Deputy Manning.

Thus you have absolute control of every future appointment that would be made to RTE directly approved by the Taoiseach's office itself. Not since the President of France brought radio and television under his personal control in the Elyseé Palace has there been such a naked grab of control of such an important area of the media and ultimately an attack of major significance on the independence of broadcasting in Ireland. In France the President has the last say and even the lowliest employee must have his approval before taking up an appointment.

Now apparently we here are about to neutralise independent broadcasting in Ireland. That is extremely dangerous. I want once again to make it absolutely clear that I cast no aspersions on the professionalism of Minister Nealon, who has proved himself in every field of journalism he has ever undertaken to be a success. That very professionalism and success are bound to cause fears on his appointment to the office of the Taoiseach in his capacity with responsibility for radio and television. Deputy Leyden, quite rightly, pointed out these fears last night.

There was some controversy in the House when the appointment was announced. It smacked of someone pulling the wool over our eyes but discussion on the announcement was precluded by Standing Orders, as the Ceann Comhairle quite rightly indicated. I welcome the initiative taken by Deputy Leyden in tabling this motion. This appointment will alert politicians and the public generally to the dangers of totalitarianism and unfair influences in broadcasting.

The Minister of State referred to the occasion when a Fianna Fáil Minister thought it necessary to ask for the resignations of members of the RTE authority. There is nothing to prevent the Minister of State doing the same thing and appointing a separate authority. The initiatives taken by the Taoiseach and the Minister of State are extremely dangerous and the public and Members of this House would do well to monitor them carefully in the future. We have been alerted and we must ensure that we inform ourselves of the facts about broadcasting.

During the term of the infamous Coalition Government between 1973 and 1977 the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, concentrated all his time and effort in trying to control broadcasting and extended his efforts to attempts to censor newspapers and letters from readers. The editor of The Irish Press deserves great credit for his exposure of those attempts. Dr. O'Brien now spends his time in The Observer and The Irish Times devoting his column almost exclusively to a rather ill-judged analysis of the Fianna Fáil Party, its members and its Leader. Dr. Cruise-O'Brien is like the upas tree. Everything that falls in its shadow collapses and dies and nothing can grow there.

We find ourselves in an untenable position, being asked to approve the new capacity being given to Deputy Nealon. We have been given no reasonable explanation for this change. I find myself in the position of having to explain to the House what has happened at Fine Gael headquarters and how they have transferred at taxpayers' expense to the GIS. Newspaper commentators, reporters and editors have a special responsibility to expose the abuses that may occur in the future as a result of this appointment and viewers and listeners have an equal responsibility to ensure that the broadcasting service is impartial. I have no doubt that the vast majority of producers and broadcasters will not allow indiscretions or diktats from the Taoiseach's office to go without note and protest.

I wish to pay tribute to the very high level of professionalism shown by RTE over the years. We as politicians are prone to be over-sensitive and overcritical of the contents of programmes which may not reflect our views. This is only natural but it is of the utmost importance that politicians be informed rather than running off with the wrong impression. We must become more aware of the crucial need for the independence of broadcasting. This discussion will make us more aware of the need for that independence. A review of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act is also long overdue.

RTE are continuing to provide a first-class service of which we as a nation may rightly be proud. They are doing so with the minimum financial support from the community. The Minister of State might consider taking out of the hands of politicians decisions regarding requests by RTE for licence increases. Perhaps that is just another form of control he and the people in the Taoiseach's Office would welcome. I put the suggestion to him in any case. RTE are in some financial difficulty but in spite of financial constraints they have provided in their drama department some of the most popular television programmes. I instance "The Year of the French" and "The Irish R.M." They are now in a position where they cannot afford to produce more programmes of this kind and this is regrettable at a time of deep recession. The arts are the only means by which we can relieve the bad news which seems to come daily from the Government benches. I do not blame the Government for all the bad things or the tough decisions they have to take but we should support to a greater extent than ever the arts, the theatre, television, radio and entertainment for our people. Dublin Corporation intend to have a summer festival in the inner city and I congratulate them on their initiative. I attended one such festival some time ago and it was a tremendous success.

I warn this House of the dangers of putting RTE under the control of the Taoiseach's Department. I regret this move and recoil in horror at its implications for the future independence of public broadcasting. The Taoiseach would have been better advised to insist on legislation to deal with illegal broadcasting. Assuming this House will approve this amended motion, with the extraordinary turnabout by the Labour Party, I can only say that it is infinitely preferable that Deputy Nealon be given this responsibility rather than the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Mitchell. I should be glad if the Minister would indicate exactly what his responsibilities are. During the time of this Dáil we will have to find out exactly how many advisers have been brought into the Taoiseach's Office. I do not believe they are known to the public.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please keep to the terms of the motion, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of the current public debt?

Mr. N. Andrews

I accept that, but surely it is appropriate that I should request information from the Minister on what his functions are?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please continue on the motion?

Mr. N. Andrews

I do not believe what is happening in the House is desirable. It is a retrograde step. It is the first step to stifling independent broadcasting. I know the difficulties of independent broadcasting and I know that politicians from time to time have been angered at different things. I remember the RTE programme on money-lending and the inquiry we had into it subsequently. I do not know if the Minister of State was a participant in the "7 Days" programme at that time but I believe that inquiry should not have taken place. It did and we know the results. Broadcasting has never been the same since then. I hope that in due course the Government will reconsider the advisability of this. I also hope that the alarm bells have sounded to the public about what is happening to public broadcasting and the independence of broadcasting generally. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to bring in legislation quickly to deal with illegal broadcasting in this country and to improve relations between this House and RTE generally.

Mr. Manning

It is very hard to understand why valuable parliamentary time is being taken up with the motion, which can only be described as mean, petty and paranoid. It is a motion which has behind it a certain measure of cunning and foresight. It is a motion which was presented yesterday evening in terms which can only be described as offensive.

I will take the last point first and get it out of the way. Yesterday evening a Deputy whom I regard as a friend of mine more than once referred to the Minister of State as the Goebbels of the new regime. Does the Deputy know the first thing about the history and personality of the Third Reich? Does he know the first thing about Goebbels, a man whose name is synonomous with evil, mass murder, gross perversion of truth and brainwashing on a grotesque and unprecedented scale? No matter what the Deputy feels, no matter what precedent he quotes, it was an appallingly and utterly untruthful parallel. It does not do the Deputy any credit whatsoever in his efforts to fill the vacuum so recently created in the political life of his native county. I know the Deputy, being the gentleman he is, will have the grace to withdraw that charge before the debate is over.

What exactly is the basis of this frivolous and totally irrelevant motion? What are we wasting the taxpayers' money on this evening? As far as I can see, two weeks after the Minister of State took this job on the basis of three totally threadbare and totally incredible isolated incidents we have this enormous indictment so eloquently made by Deputy Niall Andrews of the beginning of the deprivation of all the rights of freedom of speech, the subversion of the independence of RTE and so forth. It is all a load of ridiculous nonsense.

Mr. Leyden

Was Herr Goebbels not also a director of propaganda and broadcasting?

Mr. Manning

There are three threadbare allegations. First of all, that the Minister of State is ensconced in Government Buildings directly under the control of the Taoiseach to supervise the day-to-day operations of RTE. He is there to ensure that a pro-Government slant is given to every news bulletin and every news item. This is the first part of the strong indictment which has been laid from the far side. The second is on the basis of a "Today Tonight" programme dealing with school transport and the third is on the basis of a "Today Tonight" programme dealing with the youth employment agency. Those are the three legs on which this indictment is laid.

Mr. Leyden

In one week.

Mr. Manning

It is an extraordinarily threadbare series of allegations. Let us look at them in detail. First of all, there is the allegation that big brother has taken over RTE — this is ludicrous — that the Taoiseach has taken over the running of the national broadcasting service. Deputy Leyden spoke in sinister terms of the empty office in the GPO where there was only a token presence. He saw this as sinister and significant. How does Deputy Leyden know the office in the GPO is empty? Has he a spy in there or has he some other means of surveillance? It would not be the first time this sort of thing happened. How does he know the office is empty? Perhaps he will give us the source for saying that the office is empty. Has he a 24-hour cover on the Minister of State to see where he works? This is all ludicrous.

When the Taoiseach was Leader of the Opposition and he named his shadow cabinet nine months ago he clearly signalled what his intentions were. He clearly said then that broadcasting was a major matter, that it had been neglected and that there were major questions of broadcasting policy coming up for discussion. At that stage he nominated as his spokesperson on arts, culture and broadcasting Deputy Gemma Hussey. He made it very clear that broadcasting would be associated with arts and culture when he came back into Government. That was not seen at that stage as sinister. There were people from the far side who saw it as the normal place for broadcasting away from the obsession with detail in an already overloaded Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If, at that stage, those who were then in Government saw that as sinister why did they not speak out and voice their reservations?

There was no comment whatsoever from the Government at that time. It was not seen as sinister. In fact, Deputy FitzGerald was then enhancing the status of broadcasting. He was telling the House and the nation that broadcasting was sufficiently important to warrant a senior Minister with much more direct responsibility for the overall direction of broadcasting policy, of giving it really serious treatment rather than having it as an appendage to an already overburdened Department. Somebody on the far side may say this was wrong in terms of political judgment or a wrong sense of priorities. The most that can be said about the transfer of the Department is that it represents an error of political judgment. That is the view of the people opposite. Our view is that it is sufficiently important to be given a special place with a highly competent senior Minister of State to direct the overall control of broadcasting policy. The exercise of political judgment is what Governments are there to do and are paid to do. As far as this side of the House is concerned the future of broadcasting is sufficiently important to be taken seriously, to be treated in a serious way, no more or no less.

Let us look at some of the other programmes that were mentioned. There was an attack on the programme on the Youth Employment Agency. It was said that there was no spokesman for Fianna Fáil. I also saw that programme.

Mr. N. Andrews

On a point of order, you corrected me some time ago and asked me to keep to the substance of the motion. We are on the Youth Employment Agency now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is referring to a programme on RTE dealing with youth employment. If the Deputy was listening perhaps he would have heard it.

Mr. Manning

The second prong was the Youth Employment Agency programme. I saw that programme and it was a very severe and very critical look at the Youth Employment Agency. There were economists on the programme who were highly critical. The general thrust of the programme was critical and they did not need other politicians on it. It most certainly was not a Government programme. There was no Government stance whatsoever and I know those most involved were most unhappy with the severity of their treatment. There was no way in which that programme could be seen as being slanted or pro-Government.

With regard to the programme on educational cuts and the fact that there was no Fianna Fáil spokesman on it, surely Deputy Leyden knows enough about his own post and about broadcasting to know that the whole question of balance in broadcasting can be achieved over a time, that you do not have to have a spokesman from every party on every programme. With the same criteria as the Deputy outlined last night, we could have expected to have had a spokesman commenting on that matter of great national importance which obsessed the media and the airwaves in the past couple of months. I refer to the troubles in Fianna Fáil. Although Fianna Fáil were dominating the airwaves we did not seek to have someone appearing to put our point of view on the issue. Deputy Leyden knows that the question of balance is one that can be achieved over a number of programmes by, for instance, one party having spokesman on the air a week or two after the other party had had a spokesman giving his views. The question of balance is best left to the professional integrity and judgment of the broadcasters.

Mr. Leyden

If the people opposite were to try to remove the Taoiseach they would get all the publicity they want.

Mr. Manning

Deputy Leyden must know that a Minister or any other spokesman faced with interviewers of the calibre of Brian Farrell, John Bowman or Gerry Barry, for instance, will not be given an easy journey through his interview. The Deputy must know that any such interviewee would be grilled by broadcasters of such calibre and grilled even more so perhaps than if an Opposition spokesman were present. The attack on the two programmes mentioned was damaging to the integrity of the broadcasters involved. By any standard, both programmes were objective and to suggest otherwise is both untrue and unjust. There was no evidence in these instances of any kind of political interference.

Last evening Deputy Leyden spoke, presumably with conviction and sincerity, of the professionalism of the broadcasting staff in RTE. Deputy Andrews who had an extremely honoured career in RTE spoke also of the high standards and the professionalism of the station's broadcasters. I agree that for a country of this size RTE has one of the best current affairs broadcasting teams in the world. In terms of integrity, competence and ability people such as John Bowman, Kevin Healy, Gerry Barry, Mike Burns or Brian Farrell could walk into any broadcasting outlet in the world and take top jobs. We are lucky as a country to have such people but despite this Deputy Leyden insinuates that the two programmes concerned were open to political pressure. He as much as said that the programmes were influenced directly by pressure from the Minister for State. Everything Deputy Leyden said last evening flies in the face of what he said about the professionalism of the RTE staff. Do Deputies Leyden and Andrews not think that a telephone call to RTE from the Minister of State or that any attempt by him to implant a stooge in any of these programmes would result in a situation in which within five minutes the phones would be hopping in every newsroom in Dublin and buzzing with the news of what was being tried? Such interference would not be tolerated. One thing that both the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and RTE have in common is that they leak like sieves and within minutes the news would be out that an attempt was being made to implant someone for a programme.

Mr. N. Andrews

The old cracks are showing up in the Coalition.

Mr. Manning

Even in the event of an innocent telephone call, the newsrooms of Dublin would be hopping with stories of the alleged interference. I almost said the “ad lib” column but that would not be fair because it would mean the news would be accurate. I am sure, too, that if an Opposition spokesman phoned RTE in an attempt to interfere in any programme, the news of that interference would be around Dublin within seconds and that within days questions would be asked in the House about the matter. The Minister of State may have some faults but he is not so native as to think that he could interfere directly in the day-to-day operations of programmes.

Mr. N. Andrews

Perhaps not directly but indirectly.

Mr. Manning

Let us ask what is the purpose of this motion. Why are we wasting parliamentary time in this way? I see the exercise as being cynical and long term. It is a blatant attempt to instil doubts about the impartiality of RTE. It is an attempt to find a bogeyman in this administration and to nail him from the beginning. This is on the basis that regardless of whether something is true, if it is repeated often enough and loud enough at least some of the mud will stick.

Mr. Leyden

Is that how the people opposite have been for the past few months? Is this an example of their tactics?

Mr. Manning

The motion is reminiscent of the tactics of that deceased German gentleman who was mentioned by the Deputy opposite last evening but whom I shall not name this evening. In other words, you implant the big lie, tell lies about the man in charge, and in that way hope to create public unease and suspicion so that gradually people might begin to believe that RTE were not carrying out their statutory duty.

Mr. Leyden

This is a very good analysis of the Fine Gael parliamentary machine.

Mr. Manning

What we are witnessing by way of this motion is the beginning of a concerted anti-media campaign by Fianna Fáil arising out of the experience of that party during the past number of years.

To return to the question posed by Deputy Leyden: why should there be a Minister with special responsibility for broadcasting? The answer must be very clear. In the first place, this Government are extremely lucky in having one who has such wide experience and expertise in the area of the workings of broadcasting, both in a technical sense and in terms of the philosophy of broadcasting. For that reason that person is placed in a position in which he can do most for the common good and in the interest of better broadcasting. Much more important though than the qualifications of the Minister of State who is in charge of broadcasting is the fact that the range of problems facing the Irish broadcasting service in the next number of years is greater than at any time since the station's inception. Deputy Andrews has referred to some of these problems. For example, there are the questions of pirate radio stations and of the sorting out of community radio. There is the equally important question of the future financing of Irish broadcasting, of how we are to ensure that RTE do not continue to be a financial albatross. We are faced with the problem of how the finances of RTE which were so shamefully neglected by the last administration can be straightened out so that the authority can be given back some measure of financial self respect. In addition there is the very big problem of the future of cable television, a concept that has enormous implications for broadcasting here. These are three areas that will keep the Minister busy full-time apart altogether from his additional responsibility for arts and culture and these are the reasons for our having a highly qualified, highly competent and experienced Minister in charge of this range of responsibility.

Both Deputies Andrews and Leyden shed some crocodile tears about the impartiality of RTE but the facts are that there are statutory controls to ensure the impartiality of the authority regardless of what Government are in power. These statutory controls have worked extremely well in the past.

Any infringements on RTE, such as under section 31, have been voted in by the elected representatives in this House, otherwise there are no infringements on RTE. The controls to ensure impartiality are working well. There are adequate means of redress for the public who feel that public taste has been outraged or that an injury has been done to them.

Everybody could feel much more sure of redress and of having the truth broadcast by RTE, if something erroneous was said about him or her, than if it happened in certain newspapers — not all newspapers by a long shot, but certain newspapers. Anyone feeling that he or she has been wronged by RTE will get a fair hearing and if wrong has been done, redress will be made, and made quickly. We all know that.

Secondly, there are all sorts of internal control in RTE to ensure balance and fairness. A point made by Deputy Leyden last evening was that there was a sense of professionalism. There is no greater guarantee of impartiality and balance than the innate professionalism of the real broadcaster and real journalist in RTE. They would be outraged at the thought of being used wilfully to propagate a party point of view, or put across the point of view of a Minister in Government.

Secondly, those who work in RTE know that if they breach the regulations or push a particular party line, they may do it once, or perhaps twice, but certainly not three times. The sheer pressure, firstly of the statutory controls and secondly of their peer group, those who work with them, will ensure that this will not continue and they know that very well.

There may be groups, from time to time, who are said to have undue influence within RTE. From time to time it is said that The Workers' Party have been over-represented.

Mr. Mac Giolla

That is a joke, anyway.

Mr. Manning

I have not seen that proved. I do not believe in witch hunts of that kind. By and large, the sheer sense of professionalism of those involved will ensure a balanced, honest picture.

Mr. M. Ahern

What about the parttimers?

Mr. Manning

I am certain that any flash-in-the-pan appearance of political influence will very quickly be eradicated by the natural forces at work in RTE.

We come to the question of proper supervision. I feel a certain sympathy for the point of view that perhaps RTE are not sufficiently accessible to those who feel that they have a grievance and that standards of public taste or decency may have been breached. I would like a more public and more accessible appeals and complaints procedure. That could be worked out very easily. I would like a far greater degree of competition between radio stations. As a purely personal view, I would like to see RTE 1 and RTE 2 in real competition, rather than complementing each other. That would sharpen up the quality of service. It would not, in any sense, ensure any greater degree of accuracy or objectivity because they could not be improved upon at present.

I genuinely deeply regret that this motion was brought in here last evening. It can only cast doubts over a service which has struggled well to do its very best to provide the highest possible standards at times of great financial difficulty. When we look at our broadcasting service, we can say certain very clear things about it. We can say that it is credible. If something is broadcast on RTE, it is believed. That is the first and most important criterion of any broadcasting service. Deputy Andrews referred correctly to the encroachments made upon French broadcasting. French radio and television very often could not be believed, but that could never be said about our broadcasting service.

Mr. N. Andrews

That is why I am putting up the red flag. The warning signals are out today.

Mr. Manning

Nobody could say that RTE have not a sense of balance. Nobody complained during the elections that there was not absolute balance as far as the parties were concerned and nobody has complained since then. I defy any of the Deputies opposite to prove even one instance of imbalance over the last few months. Maybe they will not be all Fianna Fáil in one programme and all Fine Gael in the next, but, by and large, balance is there. Balance is seen to be there, which is what counts as far as broadcasting is concerned.

Thirdly, the statutory controls work and have been seen to work. If there are doubts or worries about statutory controls over RTE, it is up to the Opposition to point them out, and the Minister, if he feels changes are necessary, can make these changes. However, we do that here in this House, not by party sniping or trying to undermine the personal integrity and record of the man who is charged with the future of our broadcasting service.

This motion is mischievous and in many ways has not been truthful. There has been talk of the Minister having control over individual appointments. No such situation exists, or ever will. I can guarantee that this Minister will never once lift a telephone to call RTE, or make an internal appointment with RTE.

Mr. Leyden

Can the Deputy guarantee that? He cannot guarantee that.

Mr. Manning

He knows that this is wrong and would be counterproductive.

Mr. Leyden

The Deputy cannot guarantee that.

Mr. Manning

The Deputy knows that very well, and Ministers who may have tried it in the past simply came unstuck.

Mr. Carey

The Minister could not trust the telephones, anyway.

Mr. Manning

The present motion is mischievous and irrelevant to any of the major problems facing Irish broadcasting today. It has far more to do with the present internal politics of Fianna Fáil than with broadcasting or public policy. It has resulted in the time of this House being frittered away on issues which do not exist and on charges which are frivolous and imaginary. It is difficult to see the purpose of this inept motion.

I regret that a Minister of State who was successful in charge of the telephone service, who is so impartial, fair and helpful to people on all sides of the House, should begin his new role facing a motion like this, which will only cast doubts on the professionalism and integrity of Irish broadcasting. It will initiate mud-throwing at a competent and honest Minister of State who is better qualified than was any predecessor coming to this job to help Irish broadcasting at its most difficult time. If this is an indication of the destructive attitude we are going to see from the Opposition over the coming months and years, I can only regret it. I hope that Deputy Leyden will recover from this aberration of judgment and that in future we will see him as he really is.

Mr. N. Andrews

If he were vindictive, he might be biased.

Mr. Mac Giolla

First of all, I want to thank Deputy Leyden for the courtesy of allowing me time to speak on this motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address his thanks to the Chair, not to Deputy Leyden.

Mr. Leyden

We are trying to get a balance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could the Deputy please continue?

Mr. Mac Giolla

I thank the Chair. I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment. It is a good thing that somebody is taking charge of what is a great democratic art form of this century — television and radio. In Ireland, television and radio have a very crucial role to play in the formation of a pluralist and tolerant society. The different traditions in the island have a right to be cherished in art as well as in life. Television and radio have a very important role to play in binding these traditions together. In saying that I want to make the point that there is much more to balanced programming than political balance. Although Deputy Manning believes that there is some sinister influence of The Workers' party inside RTE, if they are there I wish they would give us some time on RTE——

Mr. Manning

I said that I did not believe it.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I accept that from Deputy Manning, but the inference was there which seemed to enter Deputy Manning's head in any case.

Mr. N. Andrews

A Freudian slip.

Mr. Mac Giolla

If that is true I wish they would come to the surface and give us a bit of help in there. The staff of RTE do a top-class job in very difficult circumstances. It is essential that the new Minister ensure that there is neither direct political interference nor interference from the political appointees on the RTE Authority. He should ensure also that the Chairman of the RTE Authority, who is a political appointee, does not interfere in programming, or in the day-to-day running of RTE. It would be most unprecedented for the Chairman of the RTE Authority to influence directly any programming over the heads of the staff of RTE. It must be remembered that if they go outside a certain code there is available a complaints procedure to ensure that they step in line. Therefore, they should not be interfered with and censorship, either of the section 31 type or of the type at present being used by the RTE Authority, should not be tolerated. That is one major issue to which the Minister will have to devote attention, ensuring that those who have a high level of professionalism should be allowed to utilise that professionalism in the best interests of programmes and the general policy put before them.

I should like to make two points in regard to the balancing of programmes which the Minister might also examine. I believe that the programmes on RTE are unbalanced. There are two major types of bias in RTE programming, that is a class bias and a cultural bias. The class bias is evident from the inordinate amount of time given to, say, farming, in programmes over the years. Wherever we live we all know about green £s, MCAs, marts, the white scar and so on in regard to farming. It has become almost a tradition, an acceptance that the farmers point of view must be put forward to the detriment of any other. Generally speaking, there is a middle-class bias, a bias towards the self-employed and a business bias in RTE. Is it not about time that time was given to trade unions to put the point of view of workers on RTE? How about the environment in which they live and work? Who knows about that? It is never presented on RTE. For example, what do farmers know about the lifestyle and the working conditions of the ordinary worker? What do they know about the dangers confronting them in their daily work, about accidents at work, about those who are killed at work, indeed about the conditions under which they work? The farmer does not know and this creates a bias and counter-arguments in regard to urban and rural society, in regard to farmers and workers. There is no opportunity afforded workers to put forward their point of view on RTE, their problems encountered at work or in their environment.

The other bias I see on RTE is the cultural bias. It has been a major matter of concern for a number of years that the number of programmes in Irish is declining. There is only one all-Irish programme on television, that is "Feach". There are other programmes like "Trom agus Eadrom", "SBB ina Shuí" and so on, but they are not all in Irish. There is no all-Irish programme for children on RTE. I do not particularly blame RTE for this at present because this reflects the attitude of Government, the attitude of Government to all-Irish schools: they do not want them, they do not want to assist them in any way. This is shown in every attempt to set up all-Irish schools. If that is reflected in RTE by there not being any all-Irish programmes then it constitutes a major defect in the RTE policy and in the whole policy of the State and of our Constitution which dictate that Irish programmes should get full treatment on RTE. I would ask the Minister to examine the attitude of RTE programmers and of the RTE Authority towards the Irish language.

Mr. F. Fahey

I just want to ask the Minister where this appointment leaves my friend and constituency colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Donnellan. Will he be reduced to the spectacle of performing the official opening of telephone kiosks and so on? In my view this area of broadcasting was the most important function he fulfilled in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs——

Mr. Nealon

He is the same as was Deputy Leyden the last time.

Mr. F. Fahey

I wonder who will have responsibility for the very controversial question of rebroadcasting British television signals to the west. Who will have responsibility for satellite broadcasting? As the Minister may or may not be aware there is the ridiculous situation in which this new Department allows the rebroadcasting of British signals in the west despite the fact that the Minister informs us it is illegal to do so. In fact there is the most ridiculous situation in which the Minister of State, Deputy Donnellan, receives BBC and UTV in his own home despite the fact that his Department say it is illegal to do so. I have been following this question since coming into this House. I have put down a series of questions to which I have received a series of most unusual replies. For that reason I am now quite satisfied that the Department have not attached the importance they should have to this crucial question, that research is not being undertaken in the Department and that Department are way behind modern technology now available in the areas of rebroadcasting and satellite broadcasting. I asked on numerous occasions in the House why this rebroadcasting was not being allowed. I have been informed that it would be in contravention of copyright laws as laid down in international broadcasting, in particular that the BBC would have an objection. However, in my most recent question, put down on 8 February, I asked when did the last discussion take place in order to sort out this problem. The reply was: "My Department has had no discussions with the British broadcasting authorities on this matter in recent years."

To me, that sums up the quandary the Department are in in relation to this matter. They say there have not been any discussions with the BBC in recent years, according to the reply of 8 February, yet I and many Deputies from the west of Ireland are being told that the system now in widespread use in the west cannot be given a proper licence. I had a question on the Order Paper today asking the Minister if he is aware of discussions taking place between broadcasting authorities in regard to copyright procedures as a result of the development of satellite broadcasting. I was informed by the Ceann Comhairle that this is a matter for RTE, that the Minister has no official responsibility in relation to it. Perhaps it was the Ceann Comhairle who made the mistake but it is about time somebody sorted it out and that we were told who exactly has responsibility for negotiating on this question of copyright — is it the Minister and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or is it RTE? I had a question on satellite broadcasting yesterday. I asked what consideration the Department are giving to the possibility of proceeding with satellite broadcasting and when he is likely to make a decision on the matter. The first line of the reply reads as follows:

Broadcasting is only one of the services for which satellites can be used.

It is an insult to my intelligence. He went on to inform me that a committee will be set up to look into the matter. The fact is that four countries in the EEC have already decided to proceed with satellite broadcasting. Due to the efforts of Deputy Reynolds when he was Minister, Ireland made important progress in this regard when, at a Geneva conference some years ago, Ireland was given what was termed "a footprint" for satellite broadcasting covering Ireland and taking in parts of Britian and France. Yet the Department have not been able to proceed as quickly as we would like them to do in relation to this very important service. I want a clear indication as to whether rebroadcasting in the west of Ireland will be the responsibility of the Minister of State or if it is to be left to Deputy Mitchell or Deputy Donnellan.

Mr. Leyden

Contrary to what Deputy Manning has said about this debate I regard it as having been somewhat useful though it has not provided the replies I had sought. This debate will be carried further in the days and months ahead because I have not been given satisfactory replies by either the Minister or the Minister of State in relation to the exact delegation of authority. I have not been informed about the kind of authority that has been delegated to Deputy Nealon.

I will refer briefly to the statements of Deputy Mac Giolla in relation to the alleged bias towards the farming community. It is a coincidence that we have constituents of mine in the Visitors' Gallery from the Castleplunkett area of Ballintubber who were involved in a recent programme on RTE dealing with the serious situation regarding brucellosis and bovine TB.

Mr. Nealon

A very good programme.

Mr. Leyden

They were not satisfied with it. As a Deputy from the west neither should the Minister have been satisfied with it, with the slant that was given and the aspersions cast on our farmers. Deputy Mac Giolla, representing a Dublin constituency, should try to appreciate the major contribution our farmers are making to the country. If it were not for the farmers our situation would be far worse than it is. Unfortunately they are not getting the fair slice of the cake they deserve. I support fully any benefits given to farmers. I support fully the right of RTE to give farmers and farming the place they are entitled to in the national broadcasting service.

Mr. Nealon

I did farming programmes——

Mr. Leyden

I should like to see the Minister going back to them but not in his role as Minister of State. The Minister, Deputy Mitchell, came in here last night to comment on my contribution. He said my remarks were disgraceful. The Chair did not protect me but maybe the Chair did not hear the word "disgraceful". That remark did not come well from the whiter than white, lily pink Deputy Mitchell. When he spoke about interference in RTE he had a very short memory because he was one of the first Ministers to call the civil servants in his Department to his office and interfered directly in the day-to-day management of the Garda Síochána. We cannot have great faith in his impartiality in the matter of RTE. Before he begins to cast aspersions on any Member of the House he should look into his own heart from the point of view of his past performances, which he fully admitted. I am warning him that as Fianna Fáil spokesman on Posts and Telegraphs I will not tolerate his interference in the management of RTE.

I will come to Deputy Nealon. Here the mystery deepens all the time. He has informed the House that he has been delegated responsibility and that he is in charge of RTE and broadcasting generally. On 18 February when the Taoiseach announced to the Dáil that he had appointed Deputy Nealon he told us he would have special responsibility for radio and television. We all know we have but one broadcasting organisation, Radio Telefis Éireann. Can we take it that until other responsibilities come under his wing, Deputy Nealon will have that responsibility? When it comes to wondering about these situations we in the west of Ireland are not innocents. Deputy Nealon has very little work to do in regard to Arts and Culture because they are not well founded. Therefore he will have full time to devote to RTE. Deputy Manning gave assurances to the House tonight on Deputy Nealon's behalf — I wonder how Deputy Manning can be so categoric; he is a very brave Deputy to give such assurances. I do not know if Deputy Nealon has been out to RTE since his appointment, or whether he has dined with the RTE Authority, or the producers, or the Director-General. There are many ways to influence events in RTE. He is an expert propagandist.

In fairness to Deputy Nealon he did not take the offence others took to my passing good humoured reference to a certain notorious gentleman, broadcaster, propagandist. Deputy Nealon has become used to cut and thrust of politics. He does not take offence at that kind of remark because he knows they were not made to cast personal aspersions on him. I would not compare Deputy Nealon to that gentleman except in so far as he has been a broadcaster and he has responsibility for propaganda. As an expert on Eoin O'Duffy and the Blueshirts I am sure Deputy Manning also knows about Dr. Goebbels. I know a bit about him as well. As a Minister of State from the west of Ireland Deputy Nealon knows well that I was not casting aspersions on him. Deputy Nealon takes it in the spirit in which I put it to him. Indeed I am sure he feels a bit complimented.

Deputy Nealon has come to this position in a most unfortunate way. The Taoiseach denied to our Leader, Deputy Haughey, that he had any intention of transferring responsibility for RTE to his own Department. Instead, he went the other way and sent Deputy Nealon over to the GPO and an office is being prepared there at the moment. The Taoiseach said it is a lovely office and it will be provided with lovely paintings. I wish the Minister and his paintings every success — he has got more than I got when I was over there. When the Minister of State gets his paintings over there in due course, I assume he will journey over and occupy the GPO as Minister of State in charge of broadcasting. He is still attached to the Taoiseach's office. If the Minister divests himself of that role we may take a different approach to the whole issue.

My basic reason for putting down this motion was to try to clarify the position. No clarification has been given to me and, in those circumstances, I have no option but to call for a vote. We demand total impartiality from RTE at all times. I have been impartial in relation to the participation by Deputy Mac Giolla in this debate. We want fair play. We have great confidence in the integrity of RTE but we have not the same confidence in the integrity of certain members of the Fine Gael Party who are experts in propaganda and who came up with the idea of putting one of the most brilliant broadcasters in Ireland in charge of this Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Leyden

We do not know how he will use that position. Only time will tell. I will be watching him very carefully indeed. He can be assured of that. I will be watching the programmes as they are broadcast. If I see any infringement of the Act as as result of his appointment, I will raise it in this House. We want fair play in broadcasting and we will be fair to RTE. I am supporting this motion on behalf of RTE. I am working for them tonight. I want to ensure that they will not be dictated to by the Taoiseach or the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon. We want integrity and honesty in broadcasting.

Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 66.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joe.
• Birmingham, George Martin.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Crowley, Frank.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McCartin, Joe.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinely, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Colley, George.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Daly, Brendan.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzsimons, Jim.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.