Three Private Notice Questions have been allowed to the Minister for Communications. Might I inquire whether it is proposed to give one or more than one reply?
Private Notice Question. - Appointment of RTE Director-General.
With your permission, I will take them all together.
Deputy Charles J. Haughey has been given permission to put a question to the Minister for Communications.
Before reading the question may I point out that I addressed my question to the Taoiseach because it refers specifically to something he said and I cannot understand why he is not prepared to answer it. However, Sir, I fully understand that that is not within your jurisdiction but I wanted to make the point that the Taoiseach seems to be dodging a reply to this question.
Please read your question.
Secondly, I object to the Minister for Communications taking the three questions together.
The Chair cannot allow this.
I have no right to protest?
You have the right to ask your Private Notice Question.
You know very well I have the right to protest that three questions dealing with three separate matters are being lumped together by the Minister. There is a great deal of covering up on that side of the House today.
asked the Minister for Communications if the Taoiseach's statement in Sligo on 3 March that it was the Government's intention that there should be less rather than more political interference in RTE represents Government policy and if he will explain how the attempted interference by him in the appointment by the independent RTE Authority of a director-general conforms with such a policy.
Deputy Reynolds and Deputy Wilson have been given permission to put a Private Notice Question to the same Minister.
andMr. Wilson asked the Minister for Communications if he will immediately withdraw his instruction to the RTE Authority not to proceed with the nomination of a new director-general in view of the serious legal implications of his action.
Deputy Molloy and Deputy Séamus Brennan have also been given permission to put a Private Notice Question to the same Minister.
andMr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Communications if he will immediately withdraw his proposal to have the affairs of RTE investigated by a group of outside consultants in view of the fact that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies have already appointed such a group to carry out such an investigation, who have already commenced work.
At the outset I wish to deal with the suggestion that the announcement I made last Friday in relation to broadcasting matters was politically inspired. I want to categorically assure the House that in so far as there was any political consideration it was to diminish not to increase political interference in RTE. Moreover, all my actions in relation to appointments to semi-State bodies under my area of responsibility since I first became Minister have been directed at acquiring the highest degree of competence. Any neutral observer will see that political affiliation has not been a factor in the appointments I have made to boards of semi-State companies.
Frank Flannery.
What about Paul Cavanagh, fund raiser for Fianna Fáil. Did I appoint him?
(Interruptions.)
The House can be assured that in appointments to RTE the same rule will be firmly upheld. I have been criticised for undertaking a major consultancy study of RTE at this time.
About time too.
Is the Taoiseach going to reply after all?
(Interruptions.)
I can understand why the Opposition do not want to hear this reply.
Talk about living dangerously in glasshouses.
The Chair has allowed three Private Notice Questions and we should have order for the reply.
(Interruptions.)
I appeal to the House for order.
I have been criticised for undertaking a major consultancy of RTE at this time. I would like to repeat and to elaborate on my reasons for commissioning this study and for doing so now. I want to say at the outset that never before has there been such a confluence of events in the history of broadcasting, every single one of which is likely to impact on RTE in a major way.
Three critical developments have occured in the past few months: first, only in December last had agreement been reached at the International Telecommunications Union to greatly expand the frequency spectrum available to this country. Second, the consideration of the proposals for an Irish satellite network is now moving into its final phase and decisions can be expected within the immediate future. Third, the Report of the Cable Systems Committee was received recently and published a few days ago. All three of these very recent developments indicate that we are now moving towards a completely new era in broadcasting on which I wish now to elaborate.
The Government have been trying for many years to secure additional broadcasting frequencies and so enable more local and national radio services to be provided. These efforts have been rewarded recently when at an international conference last December under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union the VHF frequency band allocated to broadcasting was replanned. As a result, this country has secured extra frequencies which, over the next six years, will allow of five national VHF sound broadcasting services, including the existing two VHF networks and the third network currently under construction; in addition, during this period low power frequencies will become available progressively for hundreds of local and community broadcasting stations. That obviously is going to change the structure of sound radio broadcasting in this country. These extra frequencies now put into a completely new context the development of national, local and community radio. The implications for radio development for RTE and for the Local Radio Commission — the membership of which will be announced this week under the chairmanship of Professor Colm o hEocha — arising from this new development are enormous indeed.
Deputy Wilson when Minister for Posts and Telegraphs established a committee to examine how this country could benefit from developments in satellites. The committee which reported to me in 1983, recommended that proposals should be invited for the concession to provide a hybrid broadcasting and telecommunications satellite in this country's orbital slot. The proposals received in response to the Government's invitation for proposals have now been examined and it is expected a decision on the awarding of the concession will be reached in the immediate future. Direct broadcasting by satellite clearly will open up areas of great opportunity and challenge for this country.
The opportunity, if we are in a position to seize it, will be for Irish television and Irish programme makers — given the necessary creativity and leadership — to capture audiences far beyond our shores. As things are developing in the overall satellite world, not alone could the vastly bigger market of our sister island be within our reach but clearly further east into continental Europe and further west into east coast USA become real possibilities for the future. Let no one underestimate the new situation that this creates for Irish television.
Likewise, those developments pose an enormous challenge at home. For if the opportunity for us exists to look beyond our shores likewise our shores will be open to television programmes from overseas. A greatly increased competitive situation for our domestic television services is about to dawn.
In regard to cable systems, concurrently with the invitation of proposals for a direct broadcasting satellite system I established a committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Margaret Downes a little over a year ago to examine and report on how cable systems here should be developed. That report has now been received and was published last Friday. It raises many issues in relation to the future development of cable systems in this country leading to a greater choice of TV programmes as well as interactive services. I am now allowing three months for comments on the recommendations in the Downes report. Thereafter I will be making my decisions on the future of cable systems in this country.
All these developments which are now coming to a head are bound to affect RTE in a fundamental way whether or not RTE are directly involved in the provision of some of them. But that is only part of the picture. RTE were established some 25 years ago to provide one sound broadcasting and one TV service. Since then the service has expanded to a point where staffing has more than doubled; the organisation is providing two TV services and three national radio services, as well as being the major shareholder in Dublin Cablesystems, the organisation that has the concession for cable TV services in Dublin and, through its subsidiary. Waterford Cablesystems Ltd., the concession of cable services in Waterford. A fourth national radio service — this time on long-wave — is at present under consideration. These developments pose enormous organisational and financial questions for RTE. They come at a time when the terms of office of both the existing Authority and the Director-General are due to expire.
For all these reasons — major developments in prospect and changes that have taken place in RTE over the last 25 years — I concluded that the time was not alone opportune but compelling to have an in-depth study carried out for the Government by independent consultants. It can hardly be claimed that I have acted in a precipitate way in arranging for this study for the first time in 25 years. I want to make it clear that this study implies no criticism of RTE's performance in the past. Indeed, given their resources and the regime within which they hitherto operated, they stand comparison with broadcasting services round the world.
I have been criticised in some quarters for the decision to carry out this study and in others that it took over two years to decide on this study. I have no apology to make to any of my critics on this issue. I believe the events I have outlined justify both the study itself and the timing of it. Indeed, if more studies of this kind had been undertaken in many of our semi-State bodies perhaps some of them might have escaped the harsh experiences of recent years.
I am aware that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored bodies have appointed consultants for the purposes of their examination of RTE. I am satisfied that the scope of the consultancy being commissioned by the joint committee will not meet my requirements or those of the Government in relation to determining the suitability and adequacy of the existing structures, organisation and financing of RTE for the future. The cost of the committee's study is, I understand, about £5,000. But even if the committee were to spend their entire consultancy budget on this study — £70,000 to £80,000 — it would not cover the cost of the in-depth study I have in mind. I might, incidentally, point out that this is not the first time that the Oireachtas Joint Committee and a Government Department commissioned independent consultants at the same time. When the last major study of CIE was undertaken in 1979, the Oireachtas Joint Committee had also commissioned a consultancy assignment at that time. It was recognised then, as it is now, that both requirements differed. I believe the Oireachtas Joint Committee do an important job but my needs and theirs are different.
I will be greatly surprised if the outcome of the consultants' examination will not result in changing both the requirements of the post of Director-General in the years ahead and the qualifications for the post. It is conceivable that the consultants may make recommendations which, if implemented, would fundamentally alter the existing structure of RTE. Against this background I would be failing in my duty if I did not ask the Authority to suspend action on the selection of a candidate to fill the post of Director-General. Otherwise, the profound changes in the nature and requirements of the job, arising from the various developments I have outlined, would not be taken into account in the selection of the person to lead RTE in the coming critical years.
I advised the chairman of RTE five weeks ago that I would be making a major and comprehensive statement on broadcasting and related matters in a matter of weeks and that in those circumstances it would be inadvisable to proceed with the selection of a director-general for now and that I proposed to meet the Authority as soon as possible after the statement was made. I informed the Authority of my intention to commission a consultancy examination prior to my announcement last Friday, and again reiterated my intention to discuss the consultancy examination and other related matters with the Authority. I explained to the Authority that in the light of the consultancy examination it would, in my view, be inadvisable to make an appointment at this stage since the requirements of the post and the qualifications needed to fill it could be changed. I tentatively suggested that we might meet at the next monthly meeting of the Authority. In response to the Authority's request for an earlier meeting I agreed yesterday to a meeting on Friday next, 8 March. Contrary to some media reports. I was not invited to meet the Authority yesterday. I was informed last night by the RTE Authority that they were unable to accede to my request that they should suspend action on the selection of a candidate to fill the vacancy for a Director-General occurring next month. I greatly regret that the Authority should not have agreed to this.
In conclusion, I want to stress again that far from wishing to intervene politically in the appointment of the Director-General, I am greatly concerned that not only this sensitive appointment but major appointments of State-sponsored bodies generally should be distanced from the political arena. I have been concerned to do this from the time I took up my appointment as Minister for Communications and I stand on my record of having made appointments to the boards of those bodies strictly on the basis of merit and not by reference to political affiliations. In this connection, it is very disturbing that there should be media speculation on the alleged political preferences of some of the candidates for the post of Director-General in RTE. The task of Director-General, which is never an easy one, would be impossible to perform if there was any suggestion that the occupant of the post had a political profile. Clearly the arrangements for selecting a Director-General in such a politically sensitive area as RTE should be, and be seen to be, above politics.
Given the media attention which these developments have received, the appointment when it comes to be finalised will be subjected — and quite rightly so — to the full glare of public scrutiny. The House can rest assured that the end result will be, as intended, to diminish not to increase political interference in RTE.
As the Minister went through that long and largely irrelevant piece of waffle, looking at his colleagues and his backbenchers I was reminded of a piece of literature——
We are still in Question Time, this is not a debate.
——which I misinterpret — even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to sneer.
(Interruptions.)
May I ask the Minister——
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Is the Minister aware of the terms of section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1960 which specifically states that:
The Authority shall from time to time appoint a person to be the chief executive officer of the Authority, and such person shall be known, and is in this Act referred to, as the Director-General.
I would direct the Minister's attention to the word "shall". Section 11 of the 1960 Act specifically makes it mandatory on the Authority to appoint a Director General. Is the Minister not in breach of the specific provisions of that Act by directing that the Authority should not appoint a Director-General?
The Leader of the Opposition is aware of the full text of the Broadcasting Act, 1960. Section 11 of that Act is conditioned by section 13 (4) which gives me a role in the appointment of a Director-General of RTE. I have also a wider responsibility to ensure that the State companies under my aegis are run in the best possible way and given the major developments of broadcasting that I have outlined, the House or any neutral observer will accept that what we have done is appropriate at this time.
I still direct the Minister's attention to the very clear and specific terms of the Broadcasting Act, 1960 which places an obligation, a solemn legislative obligation on the authority to appoint a Director-General. To that extent the Minister, I trust, will admit that his direction is certainly ultra vires and outside the scope of the legislation which he has been entrusted by this House to administer. Will the Minister comment on the implication in what the Taoiseach said — and by the way, we all noticed the alacrity with which the Taoiseach rushed in to involve himself in this situation——
A question, Deputy.
Would the Minister care to comment on the implication in what the Taoiseach said in Sligo and which has been reiterated here in reference to there being less rather than more political interference in RTE? Does the Minister infer from that that the present RTE Authority have not been impartial and is he prepared to make such an allegation about such members of the Authority as Mr. Con Murphy, a past President of the GAA, an honoured and respected member of the business community in Cork, the newspaper proprieter Mr. Crosbie, and the President of the ITGWU? Are the Taoiseach and the Minister inferring that the RTE Authority have been politically motivated in the way they endeavoured to appoint a Director-General?
The Leader of the Opposition will be on his own if he wants to cast any aspersions on anybody in RTE. All I am doing is confirming that there will be less rather than more political interference in RTE.
It is precisely to this that I have been addressing my questions. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister have inferred that either the Authority or the outgoing Director-General have had political motives in their mandate. Is he prepared to make that case here? If he is not, both he and the Taoiseach should withdraw their allegation. Secondly, may I ask the Minister if he is satisfied that in following out their obligations under section 11 of the 1960 Act both the Authority and the sub-committee have been impeccable in the way they have handled the appointment of a new Director-General?
If Deputy Haughey wishes to cast aspersions on anybody in RTE he will not attract support from this side. I am not in a position to comment in any detail on the way the sub-committee conducted this matter. All I am concerned with is that the RTE Authority have chosen to ignore my request, and I must consider that seriously.
As the Minister refuses to answer in any kind of substantive way the questions I have put to him, I take it he is standing over the remarks made by the Taoiseach, to his discredit and shame. Is the Minister asking the House to accept that he does not know step by step what has taken place in regard to the Authority and the sub-committee since the latter sat impartially to select the new Director-General? Is he asking the House to believe that he does not know every move made and will he not confirm to the House that the members of the sub-committee behaved in an impeccable manner which will stand up to any examination? Will he be man enough to admit that?
I refuse to be dragged down to the level of the comments being made. I will not be the first to cast aspersions on anyone. The authority have met and have given a decision according to their views. I have now to make my decision.
I wish to ask one more question. The Minister said that he is not prepared to come clean with the House, that he is not prepared to answer for the action he has taken, which is clearly in breach of the legislation with which he is entrusted by this House to administer impartially. In view of the fact that section 11 places this clear statutory obligation on the Authority to appoint the most suitable person as Director-General, there is now widespread public belief that by taking this action the Minister is doing nothing more or less than seeking to get his own man appointed and that this is but a further step by the Government to assert complete control over the RTE Authority.
If the Deputies opposite had the same opportunity they would do the same thing.
I categorically deny the implication in Deputy Haughey's statement. The Government are acting in a totally regular way. When the appointment has been made ultimately I will rest my case on that appointment.
The Minister has been trying to defend the indefensible. He stands guilty in the eyes of everybody and I am not surprised to see him shaking in his legs and knees and elsewhere. Now that he accepts that he has no statutory basis for the instructions he gave to the Authority, will he tell the House the manner in which he communicated those instructions, the nature of the instructions——
It will be a long time before I shake in this House before Deputy Reynolds. At any time I will put on record my performance in this Department in comparison with the Deputy's. The communications with the Chairman on both occasions were verbal, confirmed immediately in writing. I can let the Deputy have copies of those letters if he wishes.
My straight question was: will he make those letters public, place them on the Table of this House, read out the communications he conveyed to the Authority so that we can all judge whether he gave advice, made a request or gave an instruction? If he gave an instruction there is no doubt in my mind that he has no statutory basis for so doing and will he now accept that?
Deputy Reynolds is asking for the publication of the letters——
The Minister said he would make them available to me.
This would not be usual. I have already offered to make them available to Deputy Reynolds to do what he likes with them. I do not think Deputy Reynolds would be very keen that I should allow other letters to become available dating back to his time as Minister.
Deputies
Why not?
Publish the lot as far as I am concerned.
Now that the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Reynolds have raised the question of the legal position, the fact of the matter is that there is a precedent for not appointing a Director-General for a very prolonged period during at least part of the time when Fianna Fáil were in office.
I am grateful to the Minister for making the letters available to me and to the general public. I will now put another question to the Minister. While his lovely fairy tale here read very well and in depth I might ask him what changed his mind between 4 November 1984 when he gave an interview to The Sunday Tribune, when he said, and I quote——
Quotations are not in order at Question Time.
At that time the Minister said it would be absolutely wrong for him to interfere with the selection, that he would go along with his predecessors and what had been done before him in accepting the nomination of the RTE Authority. That was on 4 November 1984. All of what the Minister said today was well known to him — he has been in office since 14 December 1982 — and all the changes that were going to take place were well known to him.
Therefore, why did he wait until the eleventh hour to issue his instruction for which there is no statutory basis? Why will the Minister not now accept what he said on 4 November 1984, do the decent thing and not be destroying that station out there and all it stands for?
Deputy Reynolds talked about an eleventh hour intervention. He spoke in similar terms on the radio this morning. As I told the House, and as the chairman of the Authority has himself announced publicly, I spoke to him several weeks ago and asked for a deferment of any appointment. I have already said in my statement that in December last the International Telecommunications Conference was concluded, when we knew we were getting all these extra frequencies. That was the first change. Second, the cable systems committee report has become available since then. Third, we are now at a much more advanced stage in relation to satellite television. These are major developments. We are now at a confluence of events which has never occurred before in broadcasting.
Confluence of events — where did the Minister get that word?
A final supplementary——
A Cheann Comhairle, a short one——
I have called Deputy Reynolds.
A final supplementary in two parts. First, will the Minister accept that at the end of all his investigations, call them what he will, the office of Director-General will be there either in that name or in that of chief executive and that, for the reasons he endeavoured to give to the contrary here today, a Director-General is needed in these difficult times in RTE, and that that office will remain? Surely the choice of the Authority to put forward a name to the Minister, if the Authority are good enough today, will be equally good in six or nine months time when the Minister has had his opportunity of appointing his politicised RTE Authority in an endeavour to get the Minister's own man in?
Gestapo tactics.
In my view it is much better to wait a few months until we see the nature of the requirements of the post then proposed by the consultants rather than jump in now making a precipitate appointment.
In view of the appointment of consultants by the Minister would it be his intention not to proceed with the local broadcasting Bill until such time as those consultants had reported?
Deputy Cluskey has raised a question of local radio. The fact is that the Government have not yet finalised their consideration of local radio. The local radio proposals are in final drafting and it will be a matter then for the Government to decide the timing of proceedings with those proposals.
(Interruptions.)
Let Deputy Cluskey finish.
The Chair will decide.
That is what worries me.
May I put three questions to the Minister? First, does he really expect Dáil Éireann to believe that only in the past fortnight or so did he become aware that frequency spectrums, satellites and cable systems would be major events of the future when everybody else seems to have been aware for a long time that they were major events of the future? I am surprised the Minister discovered only in the last few days that these were major events and suddenly needed examination when every amateur in the country knows that they have been major future events for a long time. My second question is, does the Minister expect the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies now to withdraw their consultants in view of the fact that the Minister is putting in his consultants on top of ours? May I ask the Minister quite bluntly, in view of our experiences with him and his Department with regard to Irish Shipping Limited, and the way in which the committee were treated at that time, are Deputies and Senators wasting their time week after week working on these committees when every time we endeavour to do some work — and our time is valuable, as is the Minister's — when we endeavour to spend some State funds in a sensible way we are completely ignored? If that is the situation we might as well give up these committees altogether. I put those three questions to the Minister: first, was it only recently that the Minister became aware of these three things, second, are we expected to withdraw our consultants and, third, has the Minister any faith in these committees, and if so, would he perhaps give us some more money to carry out our work?
The problem with Deputy Brennan is that he is assigned to the Opposition back benches but thinks he is a Minister in the Government.
(Interruptions.)
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is that the frequency spectrum allocations were agreed only in December and this created a completely new situation——
The Minister can protect the Government, I will protect the committee.
Nobody could have known before that agreement was reached what frequencies would be available to us. Second, in relation to consultants, the Deputy's Government, back in 1979 — when his committee had consultants in CIE who were about to complete their studies — ordered a much deeper study of CIE. There is nothing different in this except that we are doing it at the same time. It is a matter for the committee to decide whether they should go ahead with their consultancy. I do attach great importance to the work of the committee but we must realise that their work, as a parliamentary committee, is quite different from that of mine as a Minister of a Department.
In view of the Minister's well known personal views on what should be done with regard to the appointment of a Director-General, would the Minister tell the House who made a pack-horse out of him, who loaded this onto him against his will? Was it the Taoiseach, the Fine Gael members of the Government or was it the Government as a whole?
(Interruptions.)
I am not sure that Deputy Wilson's question is one deserving a reply.
As a Member of this House——
If we are going to have second supplementaries we shall have to decide when we are going to finish this.
As a Member of this House who put his name to the question, I asked a question, you chose to ignore me, a Cheann Comhairle, when I was making my point——
No, I heard the Deputy.
I am asking you, as Ceann Comhairle, to give an opportunity to the Minister to answer my question.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
And I repeat it: in view of the Minister's well known personal view on this matter would he tell the House who put the pack on him with regard to this? Was it the Taoiseach, the Fine Gael members of the Government, or was it the Government as a whole?
(Interruptions.)
That is the team over there running the country, the Taoiseach and Ministers.
A Cheann Comhairle, I do not think it is your particular office to protect the Minister from my reply——
Deputy Wilson——
And I think that is what in fact you are doing.
Deputy Wilson will resume his seat, please.
I am an orderly Member of this House and I am just standing on my rights. You know that well, a Cheann Comhairle, and there is no point in sticking with it either.
Order please. On reflection I think Deputy Wilson will withdraw the imputation about the Chair.
I will withdraw that remark but I want you, a Cheann Comhairle, to provide an opportunity for the Minister to answer my supplementary question.
The Chair has no control over a Minister as to whether he answers or he does not——
I accept that.
Very well.
But, if the Chair is directing his attention elsewhere ——
(Interruptions.)
——while the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, is snorting at me over there——
(Interruptions.)
There is the Chair.
The Chair has no control over the Minister as to whether he answers questions.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Wilson should resume his seat. The Chair wants to make his position perfectly clear. The Chair has no objection to the Minister answering a question and he considers that he gave the Minister a reasonable opportunity to answer. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, the Chair will now give the Minister another opportunity to answer.
I do not think anything in Deputy Wilson's question is worth answering.
(Interruptions.)
That is in keeping with the general tone of the Minister's replies.
In view of the various remarks made by different Members, would the Minister please indicate the position in regard to a candidate for the position of Director-General in RTE who backs his application with a canvassing campaign? Is the Minister aware of such canvassing and what is his attitude?
(Interruptions.)
Referring to my last supplementary question and the Minister's reply, am I to understand that in the Minister's view the very wide terms of reference which were published regarding the appointment of the consultants does not have any relevance to local and community broadcasting? If they have relevance, would the Minister deem it wise not to proceed with the Local Broadcasting Bill until the findings of the consultants have been made known?
As I said in my statement, I believe that developments in broadcasting have very wide implications for national, local and community radio services. Legislation on local radio services has yet to come before the House. When the two Bills dealing with this matter are introduced, the House will have an adequate opportunity to discuss them in the context of the statements made over the last few days.
It is now half an hour since the Minister concluded his reply and we should bring this matter to a conclusion.
It is a very important matter.
When the Minister decided to appoint these consultants, was he aware that his colleagues, the Minister for the Public Service and the Minister for Finance, had already approved of the appointment of consultants to investigate the affairs of RTE and report to the Joint Committee on Commercial State Sponsored Bodies? Is he further aware that those consultants had been appointed with the approval of members of the Government? Can he not see that the role of the joint committee is seriously undermined by this action as well as his previous action in regard to Irish Shipping when he pre-empted the role of the committee, particularly in view of the fact that the committee represents this House?
I was so aware. Deputies opposite are carrying on as if the role of the Committee on Commercial State-sponsored bodies was the same as that of a Department of State. In relation to CIE, the same committee had commissioned a report which was almost completed when the then Government in 1979 decided to appoint McKinsey Consultants to carry out a more detailed survey than that of the committee. Therefore, there is ample precedent for my actions. There is a different role for the Department and the Government to play compared with the joint committee, although I consider that that committee do very important work.
That is a smokescreen. At that time there was no question of consultants being appointed as a device to block the board of CIE from appointing a chairman or chief executive to that body as is the case at present. Is the Minister satisfied with procedures adopted so far by the RTE Authority in processing the various applications for the post of Director-General?
I am satisfied that the RTE Authority have discharged their legal responsibilities and, as I said, I now intend to discharge mine.
Will the Minister confirm the reports in today's newspapers that the RTE Authority employed independent, outside consultants, MSL, to advise them on the best person to fill the vacant post of Director-General? In seeking the help of outside, independent consultants, surely the Minister cannot continue with his allegations of political interference?
I understand that consultants were engaged towards the end of the process in relation to the short list. That is all the information I have in that regard.
A final question from the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Haughey.
Will the Minister acknowledge that there is something very odd about a situation where we now have three separate sets of consultants involved with RTE? In view of the efforts of the Minister for Finance to restrain public expenditure and to effect cutbacks in vital services, does it not seem slightly lavish to have three sets of consultants involved in the affairs of one semi-State body? Would he confirm, as Deputy Molloy pointed out, that the RTE Authority proceeded in an impeccable, above board way to make this appointment in pursuance of their statutory obligation to do so, a mandatory obligation placed on them by section 11 of the 1960 Act? Would he confirm that every procedure they followed was correct, down to bringing in this consultancy firm to help them in their choice lest there be any suggestion of personal preference or anything else involved?
That is a very long question.
I will break off here and have another if you wish. There are three sets of consultants involved, every step taken by the Authority was in accordance with statute and the best principles and practice of semi-State body behaviour. They brought these consultants in to help them in with their selection in case there was any question of undue personal prejudice or preference.
In relation to the first part of Deputy Haughey's question, he is indulging in his well known habit of exaggeration and distortion. I have already replied to the rest of his questions.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is treating the House and the public with contempt on this matter. I am asking perfectly straightforward legitimate questions. I am asking the Minister to confirm a simple thing, which everyone concerned is entitled to know, and that is to confirm that the RTE Authority in all aspects of this matter behaved impeccably and that they followed the proper procedures in pursuance of their statutory duty? I ask the Minister to confirm that they called in management selection consultants to help them in their choice. Apparently this morning many people in RTE were oblivious of that fact, whether deliberately or not I do not know. If the Minister refuses to answer these questions in the way a responsible Minister should, will he admit to the House that in this matter what is really at stage is simply this. The Minister and others in the Government — I do not say all the members of the Government because I know some Members are slightly ashamed of this whole business——
Has the Deputy a question?
Will the Minister admit that he and some members of the Government came to the conclusion that their man was not going to get the job through the normal procedures?
That is it.
Will he admit he has interfered politically and in a partisan manner to ensure his protege gets this job and that he, and through him the Government, can exercise total and complete control over the public media of the nation to the detriment of the general public?
(Interruptions.)
As I have already said, by our deeds we shall be known.
The Government are already known by their deeds.
I utterly reject once again the implications of what the Leader of the Opposition just said. I reiterate that it is my and the Government's intention to ensure that there will be less and not more political interference in RTE.
(Interruptions.)
No one believes the Minister only himself. He is a danger to democracy.
That is the best comic performance of the year.