It is regrettable for the sake of RTE that this debate has to take place because it will do a lot of damage to that organisation which is the bulwark of democracy in the area of public broadcasting. It is the balancing factor between the printed news media, which is in the hands of the private commercial sector. It is important that the public get a balanced and impartial view of news. Unfortunately, the Government, and the Minister, sought to interfere in this at a late stage. It was not hysteria generated by Fianna Fáil that brought this public debate about but the actions of the Minister were in complete and utter disregard for the independence of the RTE Authority as enshrined in the Broadcasting Act, 1960.
I will not attempt to reply to what Minister Quinn said because he did not say very much. However, there are some interesting and dangerous comments in the Taoiseach's speech. I should like to deal with them briefly. Unfortunately, the debate is not long enough because the issues involved are serious and important. It is no wonder that the general public look on with serious concern because of the actions of the Government. I have some sympathy with the Minister. We are all aware of his views on independent broadcasting — they were outlined by Deputy Leyden this morning — over many years. I have sympathy with him in finding himself in a position that was not of his own choosing. He was pushed into it by others.
The Taoiseach said:
No Government of which I am leader will take any step that will weaken the independence of RTE.
The very steps the Government are taking at the last minute by issuing an instruction to the RTE Authority not to proceed with the appointment of a Director-General is a direct intrusion on the independence of RTE as enshrined in the 1960 Act. Does the Taoiseach understand what the Act means? The approach by the Taoiseach and the Minister displays a degree of arrogance that, if taken to its logical conclusion, can be dangerous for the independence of public broadcasting here in the future.
I should like to refer to a number of other interesting items the Taoiseach spoke about. He said:
It means also that we shall expect that Authority — and I here and now make this clear — to approach the appointment of the next Director General in the manner best calculated to ensure that the person appointed is the best qualified for the job.
I fully subscribe to the view that the best qualified person should always get the job, but that does not mean that he cannot vote for the political party he wishes to vote for. If he is the best, he should get the job.
What is interesting in this case is that the Taoiseach in his speech is casting a reflection on the person nominated by the Authority to get the job, that he is not the best qualified for the job. I should like to ask the Government on what value judgment they made their decision and on what value judgment does the Taoiseach's statement follow? Has the Taoiseach outlined his own judgment, or is it the judgment of outsiders? Is it, as Deputy Wilson said, the judgment of an elite group? Is it the judgment of the national handlers? We want to know how the Taoiseach makes out that the best man was not the man nominated by the Authority?
The Taoiseach went on to say:
In this connection I want to express the hope that the procedures that the new Authority will adopt for the selection of the new Director-General will, as I understand was the case on occasions previous to this.
What is different about the method of selection by the Authority? As I understand from the chairman of the Authority last night on television, he had discussions with the Minister about the post becoming vacant at the end of March. Everybody knew about the vacancy. The Minister told the chairman that there would be no interference from him and the job was advertised nationally and internationally. The Authority nominated the interview board, as is their right, although the Taoiseach does not seem to accept that those procedures are correct. The procedures are enshrined in legislation. The interview board proceeded with interviews and called in independent outside management consultants to assist them. At the end of the day they nominated a person. What was wrong with those procedures? The Taoiseach and the Minister must tell us what was wrong with them and tell us his statutory basis for saying anything different.
I shall now deal with the intervention. The Minister went on record very often to say that he would not interfere, that the appointment would take its course and that he would follow the examples of his predecessors. In the last 25 years of RTE no Minister of any Government ever turned down the nominee of the Authority. The most recent parallel was the name produced by a Coalition-appointed Authority in 1978 to a Fianna Fáil Government. That name was accepted by the Minister of the day, Deputy Faulkner, without question and that is the way it should continue to be. Why are the smokescreens and red herrings being put forward for changing the system at this stage? Last December, January or February there was not any talk about the new developments in RTE. We have known about them for years. RTE have known about them and have been preparing for them. Are the Taoiseach and the Minister saying that they do not know what the developments are and are not in a position to take advantage of them? I ask the Minister to note that the frequencies on satellites were approved as far back as 1977 at the Geneva Convention. The Taoiseach and the Minister have a duty to tell the House if the Authority did not follow impeccably the selection process for a candidate as Director-General.
The Minister may state that he is going to rely on section 13 to withhold his consent, but I suggest that he think long and hard about the legal implications of that. There is a lot of case law on it. That section is subservient to the earlier section. If an unsuitable person is appointed the Government have every right to act, but the onus is on the Minister to show in what way the Authority did not act properly and impeccably and in what way they did not carry out their legal responsibilities.
The Taoiseach and the Minister are trying to get us all to believe that the first intervention by the Minister, contrary to what he said to the chairman and in public, was when he sent them a letter asking them to hold back for three or four weeks. That letter was sent on 1 February. In the course of the letter he pointed out that an important statement would be issued and he asked the Authoity to suspend all action in the filling of the post in the meantime. The Authority complied with his views and yet in the intervening three or four weeks the Authority were subjected to villification in the media about their dilly-dallying and indecision in not appointing a new Director-General, about not bringing that matter forward. The Authority acted impeccably. At any stage they could have said that they were not responsible, that the Minister was. They did not do that because they are a responsible Authority and I would not expect anything less from them. They took the stick on the chin. However, on 1 March the truth became known and now the public really know what happened, that the Minister, on 1 March when the final selection was made of a nominee, sent the letter which Deputy Leyden has already read into the record. It stated as follows:
I confirm that no further action regarding the selection of any name for the post of Director-General should be taken by the Authority.
That is not advice. That is not a request. That is a direct instruction, direction or any other word one would like to put on it. It is in complete contravention of section 11 of the Broadcasting Act. The Taoiseach said that he would never take action to interfere with the independence of the RTE Authority. What is really at stake is the propriety of the actions of the members of that Authority, the manner in which thety have approached their task and carried out their legal responsibilities. They have done so impeccably. It is regrettable that the Taoiseach and the Minister should try to cast any reflection on the way they have done so.
It is also very regrettable that the reputation of each member of that Authority should be drawn into open debate here. Those are people chosen to do a job for a very minimal fee, entrusted with ensuring the independence of RTE in the way they carry out their duties. It is totally regrettable for anybody to try to impute blame to them. They have stood back and taken criticisms when, if they had been as politically motivated as some have tried to imply here, they would have attacked the Minister long ago. The independence of public broadcasting is on the line here, undoubtedly.
With regard to the appointment of a new Authority, the Taoiseach is telling RTE that the procedures will have to change. I ask the Minister to confirm in this House if he is going to change the legal responsibility which he has placed on this Authority or any future Authority under the 1960 Broadcasting Act. If he is not, there is no way that he can change the procedures under statute. The future selection will be the same as it has always been in the past, as laid down by statute. If the Minister is talking about independent assessors, independent assessors were employed in this case. He has admitted this in the House. The Authority's nominating interview board and the independent assessors both came to the same conclusion, yet the Taoiseach says that procedure was not correct. He should tell us where it was not correct.
There are many other things I should like to say. There is no way in which the stance of the Minister and the Government in this matter is credible. There is not a school-child of six years of age who would believe their case. Everybody knows that for a long time we have been facing into satellite television. The Minister talks about cable television, but I gave out licences for this as far back as 1980. He then talks about the need to bring in consultants. Already the semi-State bodies have consultants appointed who have been given two pages of terms of reference, employed at the taxpayer's expense. Is the Minister saying that they are not capable of doing the job?
I call on the Minister to forget about bringing in the red herring or putting up the smokescreen that this intervention is absolutely necessary. If he and the Taoiseach want to show bona fides for their case, they should extend the term of this Authority for one year. By your actions shall you be judged. If this study is so vital and so necessary — which nobody believes or accepts except themselves — the terms should be extended for one year, so that the country will be able to judge.
The Government took this action only at the last minute. They did not take it before any move was made to appoint a Director-General. It can only be concluded that the action was politically motivated to get a person in there who would be subservient to the political views of certain sections of the Minister's party. The Minister was not responsible. He did his job honourably until he was pressurised by others. If he wants us to believe in him, he should extend the terms of the Authority. By what has happened up to now, nobody can believe that it was anything but political motivation and blatant political intervention which has caused the problem which is damaging our national broadcasting service, the independence of which is vital to the maintenance of our democracy. The public, naturally, are very worried and concerned about the Government's action and intervention.
