The following are to speak on this motion: from 7 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. Deputy Leyden; from 7.20 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. Deputy Séamus Brennan and from 8.10 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Deputy Aylward. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Private Members' Business. - RTE Director-General: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to respect the independence of the RTE Authority in the exercise of its statutory obligation to appoint a Director-General of RTE.
We in Fianna Fáil reject the Minister's amendment which is totally inaccurate as the Minister and the Government have by their action over the past 11 days seriously undermined the impartiality and integrity of the RTE Authority and organisation. I call on Deputies on all sides to support our motion which will restore the credibility and impartiality of RTE if passed by this House. It is my view that the illegal directive of the Minister for Communications, of 1 March 1985, on the instructions of the Taoiseach, was blatant political interference with the RTE Authority.
I wish to remind this House of the events leading up to this major crisis in broadcasting since the formation of the RTE Authority in 1961 under the 1960 Act. In autumn 1984, advertisements were placed in the national and international newspapers regarding the forthcoming vacancy for the position of Director-General of RTE on the retirement of Mr. George Waters, after distinguished service, at the end of March 1985. According to Mr. Philp Molloy of The Irish Press, Friday, 8 March 1985, the Minister had a meeting with Mr. Fred O'Donovan, Chairman of RTE, on 7 January 1985 and told him to go ahead with the appointment of RTE's sixth Director-General. That was ten days before the first set of interviews began on 17 January 1985. I understand final interviews took place with the assistance of outside management consultants, MSL, on 1 February 1985. At 9.30 a.m. on that day, one hour before the final interviews, the Minister called in Mr. Fred O'Donovan to request the postponement of the interviews as he proposed to make a major statement in three weeks time. This was clear, raw political interference into the running of RTE and a clear breach of the 1960 Broadcasting Act and was not in accordance with the Minister's interview given to Gerald Barry of The Sunday Tribune, on 4 November 1984, which stated:
Jim Mitchell insists it would be "absolutely wrong to interfere with the authority's right to make the appointment".
The article dealt with the forthcoming vacancy in RTE and the Minister was clearly asked to state his position in this regard. He stated:
"Maybe this will show that there is no political involvement in who gets the job", the Minister adds.
Once the authority has decided on its choice it will forward it to the Minister who formally makes the appointment. Only one name is submitted and no Minister has ever exercised a veto. Mr. Mitchell says he will not be the exception unless they put forward "some outrageous name".
On 1 March 1985 the Authority were scheduled to finalise the selection of a person under section 11 of the 1960 Broadcasting Act as Director-General of RTE. They were prevented from carrying out their statutory duty when the Minister delivered the following letter by courier, a directive to the Authority in illegal breach of the 1960 Act. I want to place on record the letter of 1 March 1985 from the Office of the Minister for Communications, Dublin 2, because it has a major bearing on this very serious issue which is affecting our national broadcasting organisation. It was addressed to Mr. Fred O'Donovan, Chairman, RTE Authority and read:
Dear Chairman,
I refer to my letter of the 1st February and our telephone conversation last night.
I have decided to appoint consultants to undertake a fundamental review of RTE's organisation, structures, and finances. I enclose a copy of the detailed terms of reference. The consultants will be appointed in the immediate future.
This review is timely because of several major developments in broadcasting arising at this time. The considerations prompting the decision to carry out this review are set out in the attached note.
I confirm that no further action, regarding the selection of any name for the post of Director-General should be taken by the Authority. It will be necessary to await the outcome of the review to see how this affects the requirements of the post.
As I told you on the telephone I propose to meet the Authority in the next few weeks to discuss this review and other related matters. Perhaps you will let me know when the next monthly meeting of the Authority is due to be held as I will make every endeavour to be available on that day.
The letter was signed: Jim Mitchell, T.D., Minister for Communications.
This action was properly dismissed by the Authority when, on 4 March 1985, they formally met in Montrose and agreed to recommend Mr. John Sorohan as Director-General of RTE. The Minister has rejected this recommendation without any grounds, only political interference with the affairs of RTE.
On Tuesday last in reply to a Private Notice Question the Minister stated, and I quote from column 1277, volume 356 of the Official Report:
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.
I wish to remind the Minister that in the appointments since he became Minister he has shown clear, blatant political involvement. I do not wish to drag up issues relating to the affairs of Sheriff Street when Deputy Mitchell was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in 1983, but I am prepared to do so to demonstrate the Minister's direct involvement in matters for which he has no direct responsibility. On 28 February 1983 the Minister said in an internal memorandum in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs:
The Minister has directed that the results of the interviews for Cleaners which are being conducted by your Branch at present should be submitted to him for approval before any appointments are made. He has also directed that this procedure is to be adhered to in relation to future Cleaner competitions, until further notice.
Please forward your proposals for the filling of the vacancies to An Rúnaí, E.B. Local Appointments Section at an early date.
That clearly demonstrates that his concern not only applies to the position of Director-General of RTE but applied to the cleaning staff in Sheriff Street. The Minister was proved to be directly involved in those appointments, and the old dog has not learned any new tricks since then. He is now clearly involved in the appointment of the Director-General of RTE. By your deeds we shall judge you, not by your statements which have no real meaning. I am disappointed that the Minister is not here tonight to listen to the debate.
The Minister appointed Mr. Frank Flannery, one of the national handlers as a member of the RTE Authority. Mr. Flannery is a permanent member of the Fine Gael party and one of the gurus who organised the last general election campaign. I understand that he has already been promised the chairmanship of the new national handlers RTE Authority. We will see in time if this will come to fruition or if the controversy has prevented further politicisation of RTE by the Government. The new Authority will be appointed in June and I have no doubt that Mr. Frank Flannery will be involved in the new Authority. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with responsibility for Communications and with special responsibility for RTE was kept fully informed as regards the internal affairs of RTE. The Minister was also aware that a prominent Fine Gael man, the former head of Government propaganda was not emerging as a successful candidate for appointment as Director-General of RTE and that action would have to be taken to prevent the appointment of a selected person by fair means or by foul.
The Taoiseach Deputy Garret FitzGerald intervened in this matter and directed the Minister for Communications to use section 13 of the Act to prevent the legal and impartial appointment of a successful candidate for position of Director-General. An excuse had to be found by the Minister to justify this decision due to the fact that he had already given a public commitment on 4 November 1984 in The Sunday Tribune when he stated “Jim Mitchell insists it would be absolutely wrong to interfere with the Authority's right to make the appointment. Maybe this will show that there is no political involvement in who gets the job,” the Minister added. The outcome of this affair clearly implicates the Minister and the Government in political activities of the lowest possible form into the management of RTE our national broadcasting service.
It is on the record that no previous Fianna Fáil Minister for Posts and Telegraphs intervened in the selection process of the appointment of a Director-General of RTE. The same cannot be said for previous Coalition Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs. The Minister should come clean. There should be a detailed public examination of this affair from the start. The fact that a person legitimately selected and recommended by the Authority is now being rejected due to the fact that the Minister wishes to have a totally politicised Director-General of RTE is a public scandal. No Fianna Fáil Minister for Posts and Telegraphs intervened in the selection process in the appointment of a Director-General of RTE. The same cannot be said for previous Coalitions.
On the RTE 1 TV programme "Sunday Review," on 10 March 1985 the former chairman of the RTE Authority Mr. Donal Ó Moráin stated that Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs intervened in the appointment of a Director-General for RTE to prevent appointment of Oliver Maloney, the successful candidate. I challenge Dr. O'Brien to confirm or refute this very serious allegation.
On last Thursday, 7 March 1985, in the course of a debate regarding the appointment of a Director-General to RTE Deputy Garret FitzGerald made a most extraordinary statement. I quote: "That this Government seeks, has any intention, or would tolerate, a politicisation of RTE: I believe that it is of vital importance that RTE be free from political control, influence or bias, that it be as independent as we can make it. It is not, and should never be, an arm of Government policy."
That is exactly what this Government are prepared to do with RTE and the end result of this alleged study is to take over control of RTE by appointment of a Fine Gael Authority and a national handlers Director-General; under these circumstances a short contract would be recommended. The Government over the last 2¼ years has made political appointments to all State boards.
The Taoiseach and the Government have consistently appointed Fine Gael and Labour supporters to semi-State organisations. Only recently Mr. Joey Murrin the unsuccessful Fine Gael candidate for Connacht-Ulster in the European elections was appointed paid chairman of BIM. Mr. Vincent Ferguson, Fine Gael Financial adviser, was appointed as a director of the Central Bank and of the Arts Council. Mr. Martin McCullough was appointed a director and chairman of the Arts Council. Mr. Niall Fennelly, Senior Counsel, was appointed to head the Legal Aid Board. Mr. Neil Holman was appointed head of the National Board of Science and Technology and Mr. Frank Flannery was appointed to both the RTE Authority and the National Rehabilitation Board and possibly as the head of the new lottery company which the Government propose.
Of course, family members of this Government are not excluded from appointments to semi-State organisations. We have clear evidence of the appointment of Mrs. Eithne Fitzgerald, daughter-in-law of the Taoiseach, to the Commission on Social Welfare. Mrs. Brid Dukes, sister-in-law of the Minister for Finance, was appointed to the Arts Council. Dr. John G. Cooney, the brother of Mr. Patrick Cooney, Minister for Defence was appointed to the head of the Health Education Board. There are other examples of political patronage of a very blatant and sinister type. The Taoiseach cannot come into this House and project his image of the clean, cool hero of Irish politics. The Taoiseach has by his actions shown that he is prepared to appoint only Fine Gael national handlers, and Labour Party supporters to the semi-State organisations. Yet, the Taoiseach comes before the House and before the people and states that he will not appoint people because of their political affiliations. The truth is evident and I challenge the Government to refute the names I stated in the House and to come clean on all political appointments since he became Taoiseach.
Without the appointment of a Director-General for the next six months, or more than likely twelve months, RTE will be in a limbo state without leadership, a ship without a captain in very troubled waters. With outside consultants roaming the complex examining the books and affairs of RTE the morale of the management and staff will be undermined. Who will make major decisions for the development of new programmes for the years ahead?
I wish to remind the Minister for Communications that in 1971 a broadcasting review committee was set up to review the progress of radio and television since 1960 and to make recommendations for future development. I understand that RTE submitted 108 memoranda to this commission. Again in 1981 the Oireachtas Committee on State-sponsored bodies carried out an inquiry into RTE. The committee's report was generally supportive of RTE. The present Oireachtas Committee have already appointed outside consultants to carry out a position audit and report findings to the joint committee.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has two minutes left.
This appointment was approved by Government — an example of duplication — and exposes the fraud in the Minister's argument that he was making an appointment of outside consultants. In summary, the Minister for Communications has politically intervened in RTE. He has undermined the impartiality and integrity of the RTE Authority and he has inflicted serious damage on the future of our national broadcasting organisation.
I appeal to the Minister for Communications and to the Government to carry out their statutory duty and approve the appointment of a new Director-General of RTE in accordance with the 1960 Act. Anything less will be seen by the public as clear political involvement in RTE. The Government have involved themselves in very sinister operations in relation to this whole matter. This will be seen in future as having a most serious and damaging effect on our national broadcasting organisation and on the independence, impartiality and integrity of RTE. I appeal to the Government and the Minister to let RTE carry out their statutory responsibility in regard to the Director-General. Our effort has been good in relation to RTE. In my time associated with the Department I never interfered or intervened and I ask the Minister now present and Deputy Mitchell not to interfere further with the impartiality and integrity of the RTE Authority.
This debate has become a major blow to Irish broadcasting and to the integrity of this House. I act as vice-chairman of the all-party committee appointed by the House. During 1983 the committee placed an advertisement asking those interested in RTE to contact the committee. The Government were notified of that and could not have been unaware of it. The committee formally wrote to the Authority in July 1984 and asked them to meet us on 25 July. They replied that their accounts were not ready and asked us, please, to wait until they had the accounts. We waited until October 1984 when we reactivated our inquiry. We agreed on terms of reference for consultants who at the time became available. Early in 1985 we sought the approval of the Department of the Public Service to that appointment. Again, we contacted RTE and on 18 February we got a letter formally welcoming the reactivating of our consultants and promising them full co-operation. The consultants were continuing their work when the Minister intervened.
I challenge the reply the Minister gave when he said that the committee were only going to spend £5,000 on an audit for a desk job. He said that his consultants were bigger and better and more experienced and that the committee's consultants should stand aside and let the experts at it. Our terms of reference to our consultants were to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the station, the quality of profit, the capital structure, the cash flow position. They were asked to give an assessment of the current and potential problems, to examine technological development, obsolescence, renewal, and to make comments on the way capital expenditure is agreed. They were asked to look at borrowing and other liabilities, at details of major contracts and the way such contracts would be handled. They were to look at the subsidiary operations of RTE and their ancillary companies. The consultants were asked to examine the industrial relations structure.
Those terms of reference were nearly as all-embracing as they could be but the Minister said that that was only a desk job. That is the way the committee have always worked. First, the consultants probe in a shallow way and if it was decided that a major probe became necessary we would send in the army of consultants to tear the place apart. I refute the Minister's suggestion that our consultants were like mice crawling about the place. He could have available to him the job that our consultants had done, sanctioned by a Department, and then he could have decided whether further probing was necessary. He decided to ignore the committee as he did in regard to Irish Shipping. We know the Minister's terms of reference for his consultants and I cannot understand how they differ from ours.
This has made for unnecessary and wasteful duplication of effort. I would remind the Minister that we are a body of full time professional politicians who examined these matters for months and in the process spent public money. But we were ignored. If the Government want committees to work they should not treat them as simple advisory bodies but as committees who have a place in the central parliamentary process. I agree RTE need to be reviewed, particularly if we examine the annual report for 1983, from which I will read:
The level of financing of the broadcasting services is not adequate, in the opinion of the Authority, to provide the level and quality of services required to compete more effectively with those receivable from overseas by over 50% of the potential television audience. The Authority would wish to increase the proportion and variety of its home originated programming on television but this is not possible with current levels of financing. In its previous report the Authority drew attention to the critical state of its finances. This situation has not altered appreciably and the Authority is seriously concerned that it is unable to finance its capital expenditure requirements from the existing level of resources available to it. This is inhibiting the renewal of production equipment now urgently required to meet the Authority's programming needs and to provide the service expected by the public. This problem can only be redressed by the generation of adequate surpluses each year and this requires a more regular increase of the television licence fee than has applied heretofore.
That is the most recent comment from RTE. In 1979 RTE lost £500,000, in 1980 they made a profit of £50,000, in 1981 they lost £2.5 million, in 1982 the loss was £6 million and the following year they made a profit of £89,584. That was bad enough — not fatal but it is worrying and I share the views expressed in the RTE report.
I want to criticise very strongly not just RTE to whom this debate applies, but all of the semi-State companies who had the cheek to produce 1983 annual accounts to this House on 2 January 1985. You would not run a sweet shop like that. These accounts cover from October 1982 to September 1983 and we got them here in this House published in January 1985. If we are to make any real attempt to run this station then these accounts must be got out within two or three months of the year end and they must be brought out not every year but every six months.
Why do we not start with the ordinary commercial requirement of getting our accounts out on time? It is scandalous that we had to wait until January 1985 for accounts covering October 1982 to September 1983. You cannot run a station without that kind of information and it is no wonder that they need consultants. If they had those accounts on time they would have had their consultants sooner and they would not have had this mess with the Director-General. Two thousand people are employed out there in RTE and they deserve better than the shabby treatment meted out to them. Whoever is responsible for delaying those accounts should be interviewed very shortly, whether it is RTE, the Department, the Auditor General's office or whoever it is. Whoever is responsible for that delay has a great deal to answer for because it is a major factor in the difficulties in which we find ourselves now.
I know that RTE face threats from all sorts of sources. Nearly 60 per cent of homes in the Republic will have multichannel viewing within the next couple of years. They are under pressure from advertising sources to make decisions about satellite, cable and so on. Why does the Minister feel that he must take account of these trends? Why are we appointing boards to these companies and then asking Ministers to make decisions about the long term strategic future of the companies? If we appoint a board of any semi-State company then that board should look at the long term developments of the company and take into account developments down the road. Why appoint a board and then have to bark? Is that not the central question that we must address in this House about semi-State companies generally? Here it has popped up again. Perhaps in that regard the Broadcasting Authority Act of 1960 — 15 years ago — should now be amended or rewritten. I would like to see the Joint Committee on Legislation or the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies look at that Act and see whether it can be updated.
Enough has been said about political interference and I do not want to add greatly to it, but I must say that the Minister in dealing with this matter under the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, as I read that Act should have waited to get the name of the appointee and he was then entitled under the Act to turn down that name if he wished. Did the Minister do that? He did not. Instead he interfered in the process that was going on in the station and sought to prevent a name coming to him. I have yet to be convinced that the Minister for Communications did not break the law in this regard. I believe that the Minister's office has been in violation of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, by not waiting for the name to come to him and then, if he wished, exercising his legal duties.
I read the Broadcasting Act, 1960, to say that the Minister can turn down a name, veto it, but I do not read it to say that he can prevent a name coming to him or seek to do so. Anybody reading that Act objectively would have to come to the conclusion that the Minister's interference was a violation of the 1960 Act. If it was not, I would like to know whether the Minister's office has any advice on record from the Attorney General. Did the Government consult the Attorney General's office on this matter? If they did, what advice did they get from the Attorney General? Allowing the RTE Authority to advertise the position in December and intervening after that can only amount to the shabby, appalling mess in which we have ended up here today. Unfortunately, it has turned a very fine broadcasting station into a plaything for politicians.
Over 20 applications were received for this post and the final interviewing was taking place on 1 February. Just as it was taking place a letter arrived from the Minister suggesting that they stop. The other letter arrived saying: "I confirm that no further action should be taken." That arrived the morning the Authority sat down to make their appointment. I am afraid that the record is quite clear. Even if one did not wish to make any political capital out of it, one must conclude objectively that the Minister in sending these two letters sought to prevent a name coming to him and in so seeking violated the 1960 Act.
We must do two things. We must clear the question as to whether the Minister was correct and, if that is so, I want to hear from the Attorney General's office. If the Act of 1960 is in some way deficient, let us amend it urgently. In my view, under that Act the Minister was not entitled to take the step he took and he acted illegally in that.
I believe that the six months provision is a smoke screen. The matter will take much longer than that by the time the consultants get in, get through the work, the new Authority is appointed coming up to June and they go through this whole process again. The last process took from early December to the end of February — three months. If it takes three months from the end of next June we will be up to next September and before the new person gets into the saddle we will be talking about the end of the year. If the new person happens to be an outsider and must give notice, and the indications are that that is probable, then we are talking about a span of at least 12 months from now until the new Director-General takes up office. The question must be asked again and again, what is to happen in that 12 month period? Is the station not going to drift? If my sums are right the absence of serious decision making in RTE in the next 12 months will cost that station over £2 million. That will be the cost to the taxpayer. The station will have a kind of lame duck administration and anybody in the US dealing with out-going Governments will tell you that lame duck administrations get the type of treatment meted out to people who have announced that they are going and have no power after they make that announcement. Considering all that, the Minister's action is totally inexplicible.
Finally, as I have asked, if the Minister is now concerned about cable, satellite and technological advance, how come he is concerned about those matters in February 1985 and was not concerned about them in December 1984, some two months earlier? That question has not yet been answered. Did the Minister wake up in February 1985 and decide that this cable and satellite stuff was serious and that he must act on it? He did not. In February 1985 he saw emerging some names which were not to his liking, and he should have had the honesty to obey the Act, wait for a name to come to him and then simply say, "No" if he wished. He had that authority. He chose the low road rather than the high road. The high road was to wait for the name and then in a dignified fashion turn it down. Instead he interfered with the station and violated the Act, thereby bringing about a lame duck administration such as is there now which over the next 12 months will cost the station many millions of pounds, not because they are incompetent or inept but because they will not be able to make decisions. They will not want to make decisions. Everything that comes in will be put in the 1986 waiting tray on the plea that that cannot be decided because they are only holding the fort. We all know what happens in companies where people are holding the fort. They go down the tubes very quickly. The financial state of this station in 12 months will have deteriorated very rapidly as a result of the Minister's action. Perhaps we can learn something from this debate. If we get a new Broadcasting Act laying out clearly where we are going, what we are doing and the Minister's powers this debate may have been worth while, but I have my doubts.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following: "approves the consistent objective of the Minister for Communications and the Government to prevent political interference in RTE."
We had a request from The Workers' Party looking for time. We on this side of the House would be very willing to give them five minutes if the Opposition agree.
I would be delighted to give them five minutes.
At the outset of this debate tonight we had an extraordinary change of tactics from Deputy Leyden. When this issue was debated last week Deputies Reynolds and other Members of the Opposition including Deputy Leyden said how difficult it was for the Minister for Communications and how he had been forced into this by some hidden hand. Their sympathy was with the Minister, but on this occasion there is a total change of tactics. The beginning of Deputy Leyden's speech was devoted to a mean and petty attack on the Minister. I do not know the reason for the change: obviously they found that their tactics over the past week were not working so they decided to change focus again.
We had a recitation from Deputy Leyden about the various Fine Gael people, as he said, who were appointed to a number of boards, as if there was not any talent within Fine Gael, as if the talent of the people he mentioned was not known nationally and as if they could not make a contribution to the various State boards. One name mentioned by Deputy Leyden was also mentioned by Deputy Brennan who also spoke here this evening. They were objecting to the appointment of Bríd Dukes as a member of the Arts Council which comes under my aegis. But in any consideration for such an appointment Bríd Dukes would have to be considered because of what she has done in relation to the Belltable in Limerick. At least Deputy Brennan had the good manners and intelligence to withdraw his accusation. I do not expect Deputy Leyden to do the same.
The Taoiseach said he would not appoint any political person to a board.
I did not interrupt the Deputy's contribution although the temptation was strong. The Deputy's contribution was far removed from the truth. The temptation was almost irresistable when I considered the audacity of a Member from that side of the House in pursuing such an argument after 32 years of practice of the most objectionable kind in that area.
In proposing this amendment to the motion I can state categorically that the Government fully support the concept that our national broadcasting service should be an independent voice in its day to day operations and that it be as independent as we can make it. That autonomy and independence are fully enshrined and safeguarded in the Broadcasting Authority Acts. It has to be said however that its autonomy is not unequivocal — RTE does not exist in a vacuum, far from it — and just as the Broadcasting Authority Acts confer certain freedoms, duties and obligations on RTE, so too do they impose certain statutory obligations on the Government and Minister for Communications. It is the Minister who is responsible to this House for the overall discharge by RTE of its obligations and duties. He has an obligation to this House and to the public at large to ensure not just that RTE fulfils its responsibilities efficiently and effectively but that RTE is in a position to play its full role in relation to the many new developments in broadcasting services that can be anticipated in the coming years and which are imminent.
The context in which the Minister decided that it would be desirable to postpone the appointment of a new Director-General needs to be fully understood. In the first instance, it must be realised that RTE, particularly over the last number of years, has not been healthy financially. This was referred to by Deputy Brennan. He went so far as to say that RTE required a review and, as far as I could gather, a different one from that which he and his committee were involved in.
RTE has a substantial accumulated deficit and has in recent years been running a very high overdraft level. There is also a view abroad — and I am not making a judgment on it one way or another — that RTE is a somewhat over-staffed and not particularly efficient organisation. Deputy Brennan agreed with that. It is these factors, combined with our desire to ensure that RTE can face the new broadcasting era from a position of strength, that have prompted the Government to commission a major consultancy study of RTE's overall operations.
This study will be the most comprehensive ever undertaken in the 25 year history of the organisation and will cover such aspects as the suitability of the existing organisation's structures, the efficiency and effectiveness with which it carries out its functions, costs and staffing levels and its general ability to face the challenges that lie ahead.
I have little doubt that the results of this review could have a profound effect on RTE's future direction and, in turn, could have a major impact on the requirements of the post of Director-General in the years ahead and the qualifications necessary for the post. It is in this context that the Minister took the very wise decision of requesting the Authority to hold off the appointment of a new Director-General for the time being. It is a matter of some disappointment that the Authority felt unable to meet this reasonable request particularly when the Minister had indicated that he would wish to meet the Authority to explain and elaborate on his reasons for taking this action, as he has done. They have created a most unfortunate situation for some of the individuals involved. As an aside, perhaps I might remark that it seems extraordinary to me that in what I presume was a confidential selection process the short list of candidates seems to have been common knowledge among the public generally and published in the newspapers. This does not seem to have been a particularly satisfactory way of going about this sensitive appointment.
I spoke earlier about the new broadcasting era which we face and in order to put the consultancy study which we have now proposed for RTE into context, it would be useful if I elaborated somewhat on the major developments which we see over the next several years.
The first and most obvious of these would be the development of local and community broadcasting services. This has been too long delayed. We have already set in train the necessary action to get these services off the ground. As the Minister announced in his statement of 1 March, the Government have decided to appoint an interim local radio commission in advance of the enactment of the necessary legislation. The commission will be chaired by Professor Colm Ó hEocha, President of University College, Galway, and lately the distinguished chairman of the New Ireland Forum. The commission's task will be to undertake the necessary preliminary planning and organisational work so as to enable quick progress to be made in the setting up of legal local and community radio stations.
The fact that we will have the commission shortly will greatly expedite the arrival of legal local radio as distinct from the illegal radio stations operating at present. The commission will be able to do an enormous amount of work of a general technical nature prior to the passing of the Bill. The period following the passing of the Bill and the going on the air of the first of our legal radio services will be kept to a minimum.
The development and expansion of these services has been greatly facilitated by the many additional broadcasting frequencies made available here at the broadcasting conference which was held in Geneva last November-December. The shortage of broadcasting frequencies heretofore has been a major stumbling block in the development of broadcasting services here. This was perhaps most evident in the RTE situation where, for a number of years now, the major national radio service, Radio 1, has been required to share a VHF network with the Radio na Gaeltachta service. Apart, therefore, from the frequencies which will increasingly become available for local and community services over the next few years, we also have sufficient frequencies for five national networks, three of which are currently available to meet RTE's requirements. This will transform our radio position. The arrival of local and community radio is only the beginning as far as radio is concerned. Down the line there will be equally significant developments as improved technology becomes available and the cost of equipment decreases. I can see an ongoing process of development in the local community radio services.
The other major development which the Minister referred to last week was that of the imminence of satellite broadcasting services. Examination of the proposals received in response to the Government's invitation last year for the provision of an Irish satellite network and an Irish direct satellite broadcasting service is near the stage where it will be possible to make a decision in principle regarding the award of the franchise.
That represents a major move. I rate that as being on a par with the launch of the television service in the early sixties. It is introducing a totally new dimension and, as far as Irish television viewing is concerned, the arrival of satellite television will make available to viewers here, through the satellites of other countries and our own satellite, a choice of between 15 and 20 stations. Our satellite will give perfect reception using a small dish. Our stations will be seen throughout Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the north of France, Germany, the south of Sweden and Norway and, to the west, by people working on the oil rigs if that materialises. That will be available from the limited power given to us from our orbital position. The larger countries have been given greater power as far as their satellites are concerned. We will get TV reception from Spain, Portugal and most of the continent. That movement will change the concept of TV as we know it now. Those developments are not a long way down the line, they are around the corner. Many countries are ready to put their direct broadcasting satellites into orbiting positions.
Broadcast satellites present a tremendous opportunity for this country, not simply in terms of the possible industrial and technological spin-off that may be derived from it or the revenues which potentially may be derived from it, but also because, for the first time ever, it enables this country to reverse the one-way flow of broadcasting traffic into this country. Deputies will be aware that we have in general had a very enlightened approach towards facilitating the free flow of external broadcast transmissions into this country and this is something that is now being encouraged at EC level as anyone who has studied the EC Green Paper on television without frontiers will attest. Indeed, that document, as much as anything else, gives a clear indication of the kind of competitive broadcasting era we face in the future. Ministers of Culture in consultation in Council have been concerned about and discussing the disappearance of national frontiers for broadcasting purposes with the arrival of satellite TV. They have been debating the enormous opportunities present in the cultural and co-production areas. One way or another as the major television programme producer here, RTE will have a significant role to play in this new movement.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the current controversy about the RTE Director-Generalship is the fact that sight seems to have been lost of the very important Cable Television Systems Committee Report published ten days ago. This too is an area which will greatly affect RTE because RTE, through its subsidiary company Dublin Cablesystems Ltd. is the largest supplier of cable television service in the country with some 200,000 subscribers. There is little doubt but that Dublin Cablesystems network is approaching the end of its useful life. Indeed, it has been noticeable recently in this House that some concern is being expressed, in the form of parliamentary questions, about the quality of service being provided by the company. Dublin Cablesystems will undoubtedly have to embark on a major investment programme over the next few years if they are to be in a position to offer the quality and range of services which subscribers will be demanding and if they are to compete sucessfully with direct broadcast satellite services and indeed other leisure services. The Downes Report, as it is known, sets the framework for the future development of cable services and it is vital that RTE under the stewardship of its Director-General be able to play its full role in this area.
There will be another development with the improvement in the quality of the cable systems being made available to the various towns, the development of a limited local television service. An experiment is taking place at present in Cork in connection with Cork 800. That represents another opportunity and challenge as far as RTE is concerned. It is another development that will transform the viewing patterns that exist here. It is a challenge which RTE must face.
This then is the context in which the consultancy study on RTE has been commissioned and in which the request was put to the RTE Authority to defer its appointment of a Director General. There was no legal requirement on the Authority despite the doubts expressed by Deputy Leyden to make an appointment now given that it has clearly been envisaged that the vacancy will last for a relatively short period of time. I firmly believe that the interests of RTE would have been much better served had the Minister's request been met, and I regret that the Authority did not do so.
Did the Minister's pheasant shooting friend not get the job?
Earlier Deputy Leyden said a prominent member of Fine Gael, a previous head of the GIS, was one of the people seeking the appointment as Director-General. I do not know of any person seeking the job of RTE Director-General who was a previous head of the GIS and is a member of Fine Gael, never mind a prominent member of Fine Gael.
I am referring to the Minister's pheasant shooting friend.
I never deny my friends.
Deputy Leyden should cease interrupting.
I have friends and shooting friends all over the place. I do not deny my friends.
Present shooting friends.
I have no intention of denying my friends, but that does not mean that they do not have talent, does it?
The Minister has since had an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Authority and I believe the Authority now have a much better appreciation of his views in the matter and, in particular, why he felt it appropriate, in RTE's own interests, that the appointment should be deferred. The intention now is to make an interim appointment which will clearly not prejudice the position in relation to the long term appointment.
How does the Minister know that he is not a member of Fine Gael?
I worked in Fine Gael headquarters for a long period of time and know well the internal workings of it. As far as I know, he is not a member of Fine Gael.
We were discussing RTE, not Fine Gael.
We are discussing Fine Gael.
One of Deputy Leyden's major objections was to Frank Flannery being a member of RTE. That major objection was not to his talents, but his ability at winning elections. That is really what hurts the Deputy. I presume that Mr. Flannery will continue to do that in the future.
A passing reference.
It was a very substantial reference, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Unfortunately, you were not here then. I have no doubt that you would have asked Deputy Leyden to get down to the subject and not continue along those lines.
The Opposition see some threat to democracy in the postponing of the appointment of Director-General. The selection of a Director-General of RTE, or indeed of any other State body, could hardly be seen as central to our democratic institutions, unless and, in so far as, the selection process might be seen to be unfair, or unjust, or conducted in a manner contrary to the intentions of the Act of the Oireachtas involved. In response to the request of the Minister for Communications to the Authority that they should suspend all action in relation to the selection of a candidate for approval of the Minister as Director-General, the Authority replied that their obligations under the Broadcasting Act should take precedence over the ministerial request. Deputy Haughey followed the Authority statement, but stated additionally that it was "obligatory on the Authority to appoint the Director-General and to that extent the Minister was ultra vires in advising the Authority not to do so”.
There is nothing in the Act which requires the Authority automatically to proceed to the process of appointing a successor to an outgoing Director-General. This right of immediacy claimed by the Authority and subsequently invested with some kind of democratic virtue by the Leader of the Opposition is quite simply an over-statement of the position and a dangerous over-statement at that. The process of appointment and timing of such appointments should take into account the Government's overall plans, at any stage, for the role of RTE in the matter of future broadcasting policy. It is, of course, the Authority's responsibility to make recommendations about the appointment of a Director-General, in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, when such an appointment is to be made. The Government have decided that the process should not be now and for very good reasons which I have explained tonight and the Minister for Communications has explained at length and which the Taoiseach explained here.
It is perfectly clear that there are major developments on the way in relation to broadcasting such as community and local radio, and that we have to consider the development of a relationship between this new broadcasting network and the present national radio networks being operated by RTE. This is something I have already mentioned. Structurally, it is not possible to establish local radio without considering its relationship with the existing RTE radio service. With such development, any Minister involved would have to consider, if only to reject it, whether any change is needed in the existing inter-relationips between RTE television and sound radio broadcasting.
There is the question also of the future development of Radio na Gaeltachta and its relationship, in turn, with the new independent local radio service and the existing RTE radio service. I am glad of this opportunity to pay tribute to it for the work that it has done, but is Radio na Gaeltachta a local service, a regional one, a linguistic one or a national service? The future development of the local radio authority, and the role of its executive staff, including that of its chief executive, and the necessary relationships between the new radio authority, the existing authority and their staff are all areas that require major study. All of these considerations are central to the future development of Irish broadcasting.
It is right to say that the winds of change are blowing across the fields of Donnybrook, as they are across other fields. The Authority are rightly protective of the RTE staff and proud of the great service which RTE have rendered the country. Change, however, must be planned for. The great change in local radio is an opportunity to provide a choice for the Irish listener and acknowledge the tremendous local and regional identities which exist and which require access and new forms of radio services. These can be financed from within the country.
I spoke earlier of satellite developments. The prospects of satellite developments, however, raise both the prospect of enormous change in television viewing patterns and an identification of new methods of financing television and television services on satellite by direct satellite broadcasting. We may be faced, and are very likely to be faced, for the first time with the necessity to participate with foreign agencies and financiers in the funding and distribution of satellite services.
These are the sort of fundamental questions that need to be raised. I feel that were a new Director-General to be appointed without consideration, in advance of his appointment, of such fundamental questions, then we would not be doing our duty in the public interest.
This is a point which Deputy Brennan raised. If a Director-General had been appointed now, in advance of a new Authority whose very brief would be to participate in the contemplation of change, then the prospect of such change would be prejudiced. An incumbent in the office of Director-General in the present circumstances would most probably feel it necessary to defend the status quo. It is probable that the present Authority have not looked sufficiently at the prospect for radical change in broadcasting structures. Perhaps they are too busy with the extraordinaily big task of the day to day running of RTE. I think that the Authority's response to the Minister for Communications letter would seem to suggest this.
The Government's position is a straightforward one and also a public one. The Government had decided in the public interest that the time is appropriate to examine all structures involved in broadcasting, with an eye to an orderly development of the future. For the reasons stated already, it is felt that the appointment of a Director-General and the whole process involved should await the process instituted by the Government, which will allow for an inquiry by consultants into the future structures appropriate to RTE in the context of all the other developments now in prospect. I had the privilege of working in RTE for a prolonged period. I worked in what might be called the exposed area of political commentary and political reporting.
"Seven Days."
"Seven Days", among other programmes. It was a very celebrated programme to which I made a contribution, like everybody else on the team, at the time. I am very proud of that.
I used to watch it.
I know from this experience——
The Minister should have declared his politics at that time also.
As far as my politics at that time were concerned, nobody knew what they were. The best tribute that was ever paid to me, which I treasure, was made by a rather distinguished woman viewer who said: "I am satisfied with that man. He is equally offensive to all sides."
The Minister was very biased during the 1973 general election. He took advantage of his position on that programme to promote his Fine Gael viewpoint.
Deputy Molloy, you have just arrived in the House and the Minister is just concluding. Would you let him conclude?
He was telling the House a cock and bull story.
One of the attributes charged against me during my period on television, which I did not like and which I am still trying to live down, was that I was a Fianna Fáil hack. I would never like to be worthy of that accolade.
There is nobody accusing the Minister of that.
I know that political interference is vigorously rejected by all members of RTE and rightly so. However, the House will notice that there has been no vigorous objection by anybody in RTE to the present moves by the Government. Quite the contrary. In so far as they have come public on it, it has been to acclaim and accept the moves. We seek no political interference in RTE and that is what we guarantee. I hope the people on the other side of the House will be able to give a similar guarantee.
The Minister will give the new Director-General a very short contract.
It was interesting to hear the Minister of State recalling his performance on RTE. I do not think he convinced us with that one and particularly with his performance in the 1973 general election campaign. I will leave that to another day.
I wish to support the motion:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to respect the independence of the RTE Authority in the exercise of its statutory obligation to appoint a Director-General of RTE.
The spirit of this motion has been totally rejected by the Minister and by the Government. For almost 25 years it has been the practice to accept the recommendation of the RTE Authority on the nomination of a Director-General. Under section 11 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, it is provided 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.
It appeared that the Minister accepted section 11 of the 1960 Act because, in an interview in The Sunday Tribune of 4 November 1984, he indicated that it would be absolutely wrong to interfere with the Authority's right to appoint a Director-General. The Authority proceeded in the normal way, as was their right, to make the appointment and engaged consultants to ensure that the most suitable person was selected for the post of Director-General. This showed their concern and their determination to ensure that the most suitable person was appointed. The Minister, or the Taoiseach, or some members of the Cabinet had a change of heart and decided that the appointment could not be made. It must be remembered that during this time a vacancy had arisen in the Authority and had been filled by a prominent member of the Fine Gael Party who was very actively involved with that party and still is.
As I said, the Minister had a change of heart and sent a letter to the Authority at a crucial time indicating his wish that they should not proceed with the appointment. It is important to note that this was the day before the second round of interviews took place. On the morning the Authority were to decide on the appointment, the Minister sent them a second letter. The facts speak for themselves. I and the general public have no doubt that these moves were politically inspired. All we need to do is to look back at the numerous appointments to other boards made by this Government since they took office in November 1982.
The arguments being put forward by the Minister and by the Taoiseach to justify these actions are laughable. The Minister argues that his decision is the result of critical developments in the past few months during which an agreement was reached with the International Telecommunications Union to expand the frequency spectrum available to us and also because proposals for the establishment of an Irish satellite network are now moving into their final phase. The report of the cable systems committee was received recently. The Minister now feels this is the appropriate time to carry out a full review of the operations of RTE. This is nothing more than a smokescreen created by the Minister to take away public attention from his real reasons for interfering, that is, to ensure his man gets the position of Director-General. These developments have been well known to all concerned for some time. It is interesting that the Minister feels it is necessary to appoint consultants to investigate these matters.
I fail to understand why the Minister has decided to appoint consultants to investigate the operations of RTE. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies decided to engage consultants. I presume the Minister was aware of that. Does he now intend to withdraw those consultants and treat this committee with the contempt with which he has treated them in the past? That was very obvious in his handling of the liquidation of Irish Shipping Limited. That is not a very fair response to the hard work and efforts of the Members of the Dáil and Seanad who sit on this committee. We have been advocating giving more work to these committees for quite some time. It amazes me that these committees are treated with such contempt. They are doing the job they were appointed to do.
At the moment we have three teams of consultants — the consultants engaged by the Minister, the consultants engaged by the committee and the consultants employed to help to choose a new Director-General. Would the public thank us for engaging three teams of consultants to look into the affairs of RTE? Is this the way public money should be spent? This is a real example of political interference and it must be the most blatant example of political interference in the history of RTE.
This is a deliberate attempt to take control of RTE. In the process the Government are causing grave damage to the independence of our broadcasting system. They are interfering with an institution which was set up to protect our democracy. In the Minister's remarks last week there was an implication that there is political influence in RTE at present. This is an outrageous implication since it appears to the public that the Minister wants his own man appointed to the position of Director-General and also wants complete control over the RTE Authority. The RTE Authority have been carrying out their clear statutory obligation in appointing the most suitable person as Director-General under section 11 of the 1960 Broadcasting Authority Act.
In the Government's gospel Building on Reality there is no reference to proposed developments in RTE in relation to staff or financial targets. RTE have reduced their staff from 2,367 in 1980 to 2,246 in 1983. The overall turnover in RTE is now £62 million compared with £33 million in 1979. RTE have been subjected to many investigations and reports over the years — for example, by the Broadcasting Review Group, the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies in 1981 and recently we had the appointment of consultants. It is very dangerous to leave RTE without a permanent Director-General for six months perhaps. This will lead to dissatisfaction and will be a cause of unrest and a lack of direction within RTE.
I want to refer to the publication of the long awaited local radio Bill which has been promised in every Dáil session since 1983. We are only too well aware of the disagreements which exist between Fine Gael and Labour in relation to this Bill. Recently that was very evident. Does the appointment of this new team of consultants and the fact that the Director-General will not appointed for quite some time mean that the Bill will not be published for several months? I should like an answer to that question. Does it mean that local radio stations who hope to get a licence will be left hanging about indefinitely?
In my own county there is a very popular local radio station known as Kilkenny Community Radio. Over the years they have been giving an effective and an efficient service, but they are left hanging about having been promised on numerous occasions by their public representatives and Cabinet visitors to Kilkenny that they would get a licence within the next couple of months. It is two years since they were first promised that, and they are still waiting for the Government to make up their minds. This is further proof that it will be several, if not 12 months before the Local Radio Bill will even be published.
This is a smokescreen created by the Minister for no other reason than the appointment of his man as Director-General of RTE. RTE will be 25 years old next year. Their achievements in that time are ones of which we can all be justly proud. They have maintained a high standard in their presentation of news, information and features relating to matters of public controversy and debate. I might compliment the Minister on his participation in the "Seven Days" team. Although on occasion he allowed his political bias to infiltrate generally he did a good job, as did many others of his colleagues in RTE. It is unfortunate that this situation should have been allowed to develop particularly when we have a Minister of State who was a member of the RTE staff.
RTE have been guided throughout the years by various chairmen and directors-general of great distinction, none of whom could ever honestly be accused of political bias. Likewise successive Governments of the day did not interfere in the running of the station or with the Authority. In my opinion the present Chairman maintained that fine tradition in resisting intervention on the part of the present Minister. Therefore it is all the more regrettable and disappointing that this Minister and Government found it necessary to break with that fine tradition, using such devious methods to have their own man appointed. I am sure the general public will see this for what it is, a hamfisted approach by this Government which will have serious repercussions for RTE, for the Members of this House and the Government for many years to come.
I have been a Member of this House for approximately 20 years. In all that time I cannot recall any occasion when any Government in office interfered so blatantly in the affairs of a State body such as RTE.
In this case we have the extraordinary spectacle of the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers saying one thing and doing the opposite. They have been saying continuously that any appointments to State boards will be on a non-political basis, that such appointments will be made purely on candidates' ability. The Taoiseach continues to say that, despite the abundance of evidence that there is direct and vindictive interference on the part of the Government to ensure that favoured sons only are appointed to positions of authority. From what I have read and inquired into in this case the RTE Authority have very conscientiously carried out a series of interviews of those who offered themselves for the post. I understand that all of those interviews were carried out meticulously in a non-political fashion, based purely on the ability of those who came before the Authority and on their suitability for the job. But because the Government had a favoured son, Muiris MacConghail, whom they wanted appointed to this position, when they saw that their candidate, they interfered in order to prevent the appointment being made. In the most hamfisted, amateurish, childish way they got their way.
The Government have ruled because the Government wanted a political appointee of theirs to be in charge as Director General of RTE. There was no other reason for it; there are no other grounds for such interference. The story that the unfortunate Minister for Communications was asked to read out to us in this House last week constituted a pathetic performance on his part. The man was made to look a fool. He must have felt a fool because he knew his case would not withstand any examination. The child in the street could see that this was the Government wanting to get their way through subterfuge rather than be prepared to stand up and honestly admit that they did not want any of these people, that they wanted only Muiris MacConghail who has had very close associations with Coalition Governments past and present and who served as Head of the Government Information Service under a previous Government. His politics are well known. The man may have ability and suitability for this job. But if he had the ability and suitability he would have shone at the interview and been appointed; there would have been no reason to block him. Yet he was surpassed by some of the other candidates, when the whole appointment was called to a halt in a panic fashion by the Government. How anybody could be expected to accept the excuses of the Government to date is beyond me. I have been a Member of this House a long time. I have heard many accusations of political interference. Very few of them have stood up to examination. This warrants examination but does not stand up to it because the evidence is very clear.
I understand from reading the press that a Mr. Sorahan was the person who was outstanding at the various interviews undertaken by a selection committee of the Authority and by an independent management selection company who were brought in as independent assessors. It would appear they also came to the same conclusion. I had hardly ever heard of this Mr. Sorahan before. Certainly he has no Fianna Fáil associations and we have no particular interest in him. In fact I understand his politics would be more towards the Labour Party than towards Fianna Fáil. But he was not the man the Government wanted. He was not going to get the job. It is a disgrace.
Those who were so quick to criticise Fianna Fáil in the media in the past have been very silent on this issue. I have met press people who are now saying: why would the Government not interfere; are the Government not entitled to have their man in charge of RTE? That is the philosophy we are getting from some media people, one to which they would never have subscribed when Fianna Fáil were in office. Therefore, it makes one wonder. The Taoiseach doth protest too much; nobody believes him any more. He talks about appointments being above board, that his Government make no appointments on a political basis. How can we be expected to accept such ridiculous comment from the Taoiseach when we had a failed European elections candidate, Joey Murrin, who was compensated by being appointed Chairman of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara? Surely the Minister of State present must admit that Joey Murrin was a candidate for his party in the European elections in the Connacht/Ulster constituency and, because he did not succeed in winning that seat, equally he must admit that his appointment as Chairman of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara constituted some kind of sop to the man, if you like, a consolation prize because of his failure——
Does the Deputy deny that, by way of his services to the fishermen, he had not the qualifications for the job?
There were many excellent people.
Of course there were.
Why proclaim that all of the Government's appointments were made purely on merit or ability——
Was he to be handicapped because he was a Fine Gael candidate?
We are not supposed to see with one eye, having the other closed. The history of this Government to date has demonstrated an absolute ruthlessness in removing anybody who does not think the same way as they do or who does not support their political parties. An Bord Pleanála were fired, the whole lot removed, although they had only recently been appointed, all of the board members, on the basis of a false allegation made continuously by the Minister for the Environment, an allegation that they had been dilatory in carrying out their duties, that they were responsible for long delays in deciding on planning appeals, none of which was true and has since been proved not to have been true. Yet that was the story fed to the press by the handlers, that was the line put out by the media. They were too lazy to examine the situation, ascertaining whether such allegation was true or false. Of course it has since been proved to have been utterly false, that they had no responsibility whatsoever for any delays that took place. Rather had it to do with staff shortages down the line.
The appointment of Frank Flannery to the board of RTE is another——
Would the Deputy please move the Adjournment.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 March 1985.