Deputy Molloy moved the adjournment of the debate and he has ten minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - RTE Director-General: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Leyden on Tuesday, 12 March 1985:
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.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
(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."
With the permission of the Chair, I would like to speak now.
I understand that is an agreement between the parties and it is acceptable to the Chair.
I wish to add my voice to this motion. When I asked our spokesman, Deputy Leyden, for permission to speak on this motion I did so because I felt grave injustice was being done. The decision of the Taoiseach and the team that surrounds him to directly interfere in the internal business of RTE poses a distinct threat to democracy. Lest anyone think that that statement is going over the top I would confirm that it is the impression given to me from speaking to many people over the weekend when the affair had been aired for the first time and when people had time to reflect on the implications of the Government interference. As we go about our lives we daily see events being manipulated and manoeuvred to present a different picture from the actuality. It is mind boggling when one thinks about it. We are told that a situation is at a certain stage when the opposite is actually happening. We are led to believe that the true situation is not what is happening. Last week, on Thursday, 7 March we had a speech in the House from the Taoiseach from which I will quote directly:
No Government of which I am a Leader will take any step that will weaken the independence of RTE.
He went on to say:
That means that any member we will appoint to the authority as a replacement to an existing member will be, and be seen to be, independent.
How can the Taoiseach or anybody in public life stand over that statement — that anybody they will appoint will be and will be seen to be independent — when the person they appointed when the first vacancy came up is universally seen by writers and newspapers commentators as the chief electoral strategist of Fine Gael?
Here we expect truth to be told. We expect to be able to check and counter check the veracity of statements made here. Somehow, because he said it, the Taoiseach believed that we would swallow it. It is unbelievable. The head of the Fine Gael strategy committee has been appointed to the RTE board. In the light of that, how in future can we or anybody believe anything the Taoiseach or any of his Ministers say after a flagrant untruth — I do not use the other word because I am not allowed to say it — has been enunciated here by the country's leader? When the Minister of State replies I will be interested in his explanation of the Taoiseach's words. I want him to explain to me so that I can go back to the many young people who have come to me. I am particularly thinking of a young people's seminar I attended over the weekend and of a young woman standing up in the audience and quoting that speech by the Taoiseach. She asked me to demand an explanation of how the leader of the country, of one of the main political parties, could come out with a statement like that. George Orwells's book, 1984, is coming to fruition with chilling accuracy. I will quote from a paperback edition of that book:
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five and you would have to believe it. The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
When George Orwell wrote that he was talking about another party, but it is particulary apt in these circumstances. We are being told daily that two and two make five. On the day before the announcement was to be made we had a statement by the Taoiseach that he would not interfere. I will quote again George Orwell:
Every quarter, every three months, an astronomical number of boots were produced on paper whilst perhaps half the population went barefoot.
I am talking in a literary sense because frankly I am afraid of what will happen if this kind of behaviour, if these standards — low standards in high places — are to be continued. The Taoiseach said he is not interfering in or influencing the appointment of a Director-General of RTE. The exact opposite is the truth. The aim of the Government is to perpetuate their command of the country. They use mirages, machinations, plots and subterfuges. These have become the daily diet of all our citizens.
The RTE Authority went about this appointment in a completely open way. Independent consultants, MSL, were employed to go out, to interview them. Having interviewed the applicants they were to come up with a decision. They did that, exactly according to their brief and they came up with a person who in their view was the ideal candidate. He was not the ideal candidate for the Government. Again I say, the words of George Orwell are coming true and the words of the Taoiseach should not have been uttered or listened to in this House because of their untrue nature.
So far in the debate we have got much fulmination, indignation and so forth and it would be tempting to go back to the files to cite examples against each other. That does not get us very far. I enjoyed the literary exercise of Deputy O'Rourke — I always enjoy her literary allusions — but I did not see the relevance. I doubt if she could, either. I believe that at the end of the process RTE will not only be a more efficient organisation but much better geared to meet the needs of Irish broadcasting in the eighties and nineties.
If for a moment I thought there was a ploy by the Minister to put the Government's man or woman into RTE as Director-General, very emphatically I say I would not be speaking here tonight in defence of what the Minister and the Government have done. The integrity of the national broadcasting service must be beyond question. I believe there is no question of an attack on that. The behaviour of the Government has been open and above board. They made their request and they gave their reasons openly and in public. There were no behind the scenes pressures. The Government made their case to the House and to RTE. There has been no hidden agenda, no hidden motives.
Any party in Government or Opposition who tried to impose or insinuate a favoured candidate into the position of Director-General of RTE would be not just wrong but suicidally foolish to attempt such a move. It would be counterproductive and would damage the public credibility of RTE. Quite rightly it would lead to resentment if not mutiny within RTE. It would put the new Director-General into an impossible situation within the Authority. It would visit disrepute on the heads of politicians, be they Government or Opposition, who would try to do such a thing.
We all here know something about RTE and how they work. We know their many faults and shortcomings. RTE have also very substantial virtues, among them their very prickly sense of independence. Now many people who work in RTE may be prima donnas. Many of them may be obsessed with themselves, embroiled in their internal politics. RTE, like our political parliamentary parties, tend to leak their disputes into public print and most of us know what is happening there. RTE internal politics can be manipulative and dirty. It is sometimes said that academic politics are dirty because the stakes are so low, and that may be true of some of the rows in RTE. We all know that RTE contain factions, but balance exists there also and any attempt by outside politicians to manipulate the public politics of RTE will be spotted very quickly by those who work within the station and will bring together the various factions to oppose such attempt. Only a politician who wants to have his or her name day in and day out on the front pages of the newspapers in a most unpleasant way, who wants to invite all sorts of investigations into his or her motives, who has kamikaze urgings would embark on such a course.
The Minister has pointed out that RTE are on the brink of greater changes than have happened in their entire existence so far. The Minister has spelt them out and they are clear to anybody who has been following developments in broadcasting over the years. Anybody who looks at what is happening can see very clearly how extensive and exciting are the challenges that face RTE at present and how great are the possibilities. RTE must become a very different organisation if they are not to be just adequate in the face of these changes but to turn them to their and the nation's advantage.
Politicians tend to be very critical of many aspects of RTE, the extent to which duplication appears to exist in the station, the extent to which some people are over-worked or underworked while others appear to have no real function. RTE contain many titles, and I wonder what this or that person does when he or she comes in in the morning, what appears on that person's desk and so on. We are all aware of areas of inefficiency in RTE. The growth and development of RTE in recent years has in many ways been haphazard and unstructured. There are areas of top-heavy management and so forth. Nobody in this House would deny that there is a very strong case at present for a detailed study of RTE's past performance, present problems and future possibilities. RTE need to become not just more efficient. Fundamental restructuring and reorganisation are imminent, probably overdue in some cases. What could be more reasonable or sensible at a time like this, than that the issues be sorted out or clarified before the appointment of the new Director-General who will have the responsibility over five or ten years of seeing these changes through, before the job description is made clear, open and public, before the person is selected to take office?
The opposite side of the House has shown a great deal of unction about the question of the Authority. Ever since the founding of RTE 25 years ago we have been extremely fortunate in the calibre and integrity of those who have agreed to serve as members of the Authority. All of them have been characterised by integrity and commitment to public broadcasting. The political views of some were well known, but once they became members of the Authority their political party allegiances were subsumed into the greater good of broadcasting and of RTE as a whole. We have heard a great deal of talk tonight about people with political allegiance who are members of the RTE Authority. We are on dangerous ground here and not because I can give one list of names and somebody else can give another. We in political parties need all the expertise, advice and help we can get from different sections of our community. If these people are available they should not be debarred from serving on semi-State bodies which are a part of the public service simply because they are members of political parties.
Much more than members.
I did not interrupt the Deputy and I have only two minutes left. All political parties need these people. I see nothing wrong in any party appointing people to a semi-State authority if those people are competent. Two names have been flung around in this debate, Paul Kavanagh and Frank Flannery, both of whom are superbly qualified to serve on any semi-State body. Any member of any party, The Workers' Party, the Labour Party, Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, who is capable of giving public service should not be debarred from serving on a semi-State authority simply because of membership of a political party. We could make it almost unrespectable for a person to be voluntarily associated with a political party. I am far more concerned with the person whose views are not known. We should have a little sense on that point.
The Government have been totally and utterly above board in what they have done. They have asked that they be judged on the basis of their known public actions. The Government have promised that the next RTE Authority will be of the highest integrity and seen to be such. In doing so they are casting no reflection on the very fine people who are serving in the present Authority. They have made public the reasons why they do not want the appointment made yet. The calibre and integrity of the Authority will be such that the person chosen to guide RTE into its next quarter century will manifestly have the full confidence of this House and the country. Nothing else will be acceptable, and the Government do not want or expect anything else.
Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan.
We are sharing the time.
It is extremely unfortunate that a Private Members' motion regarding the appointment of a Director-General of RTE should be discussed in the House. It can only rebound on the people who have come forward in good faith seeking this position. I am concerned that the Labour Party have taken no active part in this discussion, especially because of the suggestion that the person chosen was a member of the Labour Party. I suppose I am flattered to some extent and a little surprised that the Opposition party should take up the cudgels on behalf of a member of the Labour Party. The accusation in this discussion of political interference must be clarified. All the Opposition speakers so far have made reference to this interference. The attack on the Minister is unjustified. The proposal is that the Minister for Communications may not make recommendations to the RTE Authority, a body of personnel over whom he has statutory powers. These powers are enshrined in the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. The relevant section states that from time to time the Authority shall appoint a person to be chief executive officer of the Authority and such a person shall be known as the Director-General. Does this Act give the Minister the statutory power to appoint members of the Authority? The Minister has the right to keep abreast of the business of the Authority and to make recommendations whenever he feels the need to do so. That is quite legitimate.
It is unfortunate that questions are continually asked by the Opposition spokesman on Communications as to whether things are right between Fine Gael and Labour regarding the local broadcasting Bill. The fact is that discussions are ongoing but there are areas where we are putting our respective points of view across. We will no doubt come to a decision in the coming weeks.
It is regrettable, at a time when we are likely to witness a great breakthrough in satellite and cable television, that this motion should divert attention from that kind of work. Over the last few weeks the Minister has entered into legitimate communication with the present Director-General. He asked the Authority to defer the appointment of a new Director-General until he had an opportunity to make a major comprehensive statement on broadcasting. Doubts have been cast about the reason why the Minister should investigate the affairs of RTE. As everyone knows, RTE have suffered in recent times due to a shortage of finance. It has been stated openly that RTE are inefficient and over-staffed. However, the real problem stems from a shortage of money which compelled them to cut back in their programming. As a result we have had more than our fair share of imported material. This does not reflect the true character of the station. I hope that as a result of this investigation RTE will be in a position to embark on more ambitious programmes which will reflect the Irish way of life and things of important cultural value.
Despite all the rí-rá of recent days, the Minister and the Authority have come to an agreement regarding the appointment of an interim Director-General. The honourable course for Fianna Fáil to adopt would have been not to table this motion, which no doubt is causing embarrassment to those who were short listed for this appointment. It could damage the body politic. Doubts have been cast about the motives of various political parties regarding the appointment of people to State agencies. The long term damage it will do will be quite serious. People will be reluctant to carry out the work requested of them not only in RTE but in other State boards lest they be charged with being political hacks and so on. That would be most unfortunate.
The quotations given by Deputy O'Rourke were not relevant. The year 1984 has come and gone and, thankfully, there are no people walking around barefoot despite what the statistics say. Big Brother is not putting his hand on RTE in any undemocratic way. The Minister has the right to intervene where he thinks necessary. He has done no more than that on this occasion. I do not know what it is hoped to achieve from this discussion.
We heard contributions last night from Opposition Members which were quite disturbing. One person indulged in what could be termed as character assassination. He named two people who are professionals in the field of broadcasting and cast doubts on their ability and on their person. That is not desirable. There is an element of sour grapes involved here. In the past when Fianna Fáil appointed people to these positions there was little or no opposition from the other parties. Since the establishment of RTE 25 years ago it was a Labour Minister, Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, who introduced amendments to the Act which safeguarded the rights of broadcasters. There is a rather hollow ring to what we hear from the Opposition.
There was a meeting held last Friday at which agreement was reached. Deputy Molloy stated that the actions of the Government at that meeting were ham fisted. I do not agree. I am heartened by Deputy Leyden's support for RTE in recent days because in other discussions he was not so forthcoming in this regard. He gave the impression that RTE, without a Director-General, was like a rudderless ship. There is a management structure composed of intelligent and competent people who will ensure that the station will function until such time as a full time Director-General or an interim Director-General is appointed. To suggest that they are not capable of managing their own affairs is less than fair. I support the amendment but regret that this debate is taking place.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. For the last two weeks this matter has been the subject of major debate inside and outside the house. Many questions must be answered. The Minister and the Government knew that a Director-General would have to be appointed because the present Director-General gave notice of his resignation.
In January last the chairman of RTE was told by the Minister for Communications that it was in order to advertise and when the applications were received to go ahead with the interviews. These interviews were taking their normal course. How did it come about that on 1 March there was a letter from the Minister for Communications saying that they were to proceed no further with the appointment. I do not want to wrong anybody but the Minister for Communications is called Jim'll Fix It. He is branded with that name again when he is seen to be scuttling this appointment. I presume there was Government approval. I have no doubt there was. Where does this leave the management people in RTE? They are very competent people. It appears to me and to the public that the proper people were not in the final shake up for the filling of the position. It smells badly. It all depends on how you scuttle something. The Government did not do a good job this time. The handlers let them down.
Last week the Taoiseach said:
No Government of which I am leader will take any step that will weaken the independence of RTE. That means that any members we will appoint to the Authority in replacement of existing members will be, and be seen to be, independent.
An appointment was made and I do not want to wrong the man in any shape or form. He is very well-known not only as a member of the Fine Gael Party but also as a professional media handler to the hilt. He glosses over things and makes them look well. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, made a statement some weeks ago that all members appointed to State and semi-State bodies would have no political affiliations and would be seen to be impartial. In other words, they would not be tainted. That has not happened. This smells very badly. There was Government interference in top management in RTE. That is the way the public read it.
The Director-General of RTE was appointed by Fianna Fáil. The Authority had been appointed by the Coalition. A name was put forward for appointment as Director-General and, without hesitation, our Government agreed to make that appointment.
Over the years RTE have been subjected to all kinds of reports and investigations. They were investigated by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial semi-State Bodies and by the Committee of Public Accounts. They were questioned very severely about the running of their affairs. Now another commission are to be appointed to look into RTE. This is a delaying tactic and it is intended to divert attention from the person who was to be the Director-General. Immediately after the present Director-General announced his resignation, if the Government had stated clearly that they were setting up a commission to investigate RTE, the people would have believed them. They do not believe them now. They believe this is skullduggery. The Government decided they did not like the final three or four people involved and that they would scrub them. That throws some doubt on the integrity and ability of the persons in the final interviews for that position. I do not like saying that but that is the way it reads. That is the way people accept it. RTE are to be left without a Director-General for some time. If the appointment is made in the near future by the Minister or the RTE Authority, he will be known as a caretaker. Caretakers are not very much respected. They are there for a purpose. I want to put it on the record that the independence of RTE has been undermined. There are many questions to be answered. The public like to know that RTE will give a balanced view when reporting the various issues at national and other levels. We expect that from all the people employed in RTE. Politicians may not like some of the reports but, by and large, over the years they have been doing a good job. That has now been undermined. A suspicion has been cast upon their integrity. There is no way the Government can get out from under that. I regret that a shadow has been cast on the independence of RTE. That is regrettable and must be very damaging in the long run. Deputy O'Sullivan was rather vague on many matters. He did not refer to the bungling between Fine Gael and Labour in regard to the local radio Bill, but that is another day's work. I regret very much that the independence of RTE has been badly shaken. I hope their confidence can be restored but for some time it will be shaken and I regret to have to say that.
As Deputy Connolly said, many questions arise which have not been answered, certainly to my satisfaction. The fundamental reality is this: that for the first, and I hope the last, time in the history of this State the Minister for Communications has not accepted the appointment of a Director-General nominated by the Authority. There are two factors which render that even more peculiar. First, it is in direct contravention of the Minister's several statements over the past couple of months, the last being as late as one month ago. The second peculiar factor about this is that the argument the Minister used to justify his position is so weak, transparent and cynical it tends to bring the Oireachtas into even further disrepute. What the Minister is asking us to accept is an evil now for a good at some indeterminate time in the future. We are asked to assume that the future good will outweigh the present evil.
The Minister has stated publicly on a number of occasions that his aim is to remove political intervention from RTE. In order to do that he asks us to accept a greater level of political interference in RTE at present. That argument is so absurd that it only has to be stated to be refuted; in effect, it refutes itself.
If the Minister felt that the appointment of a new Director-General for RTE should be preceded by a major review of broadcasting why then, as Deputy Connoly pointed out, did he not move last December when the job of Director-General was advertised? That is one question the Minister has not answered inside or outside this House and I still await a proper answer. I hope the Minister will make some less transparent attempt to answer that question when concluding.
Certain Government spokesmen have advanced a number of other arguments to justify the Minister's position. Those arguments are so far removed from the reality of the situation that either the people advocating them are in a total state of confusion or they wish to sow confusion in everybody else's minds. If I may I shall briefly dispose of two of those arguments.
There has been reference to the fact that the RTE Authority has been politicised since its inception. Of course there is a political dimension to the RTE Authority. Nobody on this side of the House has denied that. The RTE Authority are appointed by the Government of the day which consists of politicians. Therefore, in that sense alone there is a political dimension to it. Perhaps the problem with which we are now dealing could be solved if we had a situation in which the RTE Authority went out of office along with the Government that appointed them. But that is not the position obtaining and that is what makes the Government's position so indefensible.
There has been reference also to the statement of the late Seán Lemass that RTE should be an instrument of public policy. What one thinks of that statement is dependent on one's interpretation of it. It would be curious, to say the least, if our national broadcasting service constantly refuted public policy, or was seen to be an organ which was there not to support or promulgate public policy but rather to undermine it. That would be a very curious situation. The difficulty arises when I ask myself: how can the Minister justify his position from a statement of a former Taoiseach that RTE should be an instrument of public policy? How can that statement lead one to the Minister's present position in which clearly he regards RTE as the personal property of the Government who happen to be in power? The consequences of this whole situation will be grim and will have long term consequences both for democracy and our national broadcasting service.
I accept that people outside this House reading this debate and reading the statements and comments in the media over the past few weeks could imagine that the post of Director-General impinges constantly on the day to day operations of broadcasting when we know that is not the truth. Paradoxically that renders the Minister's position even more indefensible. The entire affair carries an atmosphere of puppeteering, of manipulation, of deliberate Government intervention on the management side of RTE. It has always been accepted that there must be a politcal dimension to the relationship between the RTE Authority and the Government of the day but that is now being extended. Politics have been removed from the administration block of RTE into the working area, which is bound to have profound, long term political consequences. The political interference, manipulation in the working area of RTE, has commenced with its top executive, but where will that lead and where will it end? The isolation of the Minister's position can be seen quite clearly from the fact that not one responsible political commentator over the weekend sought to defend or do other than trenchantly criticise the Minister's present activities. I have a number of quotations from weekend newspapers but time does not permit me to read them.
The advancement of politics from the administration side into the working area of RTE has profound consequences for democracy, because a free media, a media perceived as being free, forms an integral part if not the cornerstone of democracy. It will have another long term consequence, not referred to much in the course of this debate, that is that in order to create a quick smokescreen for his activities the Minister patched together a hasty, ill-conceived review of broadcasting. Of course the sad reality is that a review of broadcasting is necessary but a much more fundamental, far-reaching review than that announced by the Minister. In announcing that review the Minister referred to such things as satellite television, cable systems and broadcasting bands. It is significant that none of those has been included in the terms of reference of the study the Minister has initiated. If proof were needed, that proves once and for all that this whole charade operation is one of hypocrisy of the highest order.
There are also some short-term consequences. I was going to mention consequences damaging to the Minister's reputation, but unfortunately I must conclude that this Minister has acquired the type of reputation which could not easily be further damaged. It will have short and long term consequences for Mr. John Sorahan, who was appointed by the appointing sub-committee of the RTE Authority as Director-General of RTE. His career has been badly, if not irreparably damaged. He has been tarnished with a political brush. He has been convicted and sentenced without a semblance of a trial or without having been given any opportunity to speak on his own behalf. That is the treatment meted out to him by a Government and a Taoiseach who pride themselves on their pluralism and their tolerance of minorities, or so-called minorities, and the views of Unionists in another part of this country. What about tolerance for Mr. John Sorahan, because, like charity, tolerance begins at home?
I find this whole debate somewhat distasteful. The problems confronting democracy at present are great. One could plausibly argue that democracy in this country has never been so weak since the foundation of the State. Have we not come to a sorry state when the Government are seen to be damaging democracy before our very eyes? Have we not reached a sorry state when the Government charged with the protection of democracy are the very people undermining it, and seen to be undermining it, in this fundamental respect?
I have come into this House for many Private Members' motions and other debates, when people on this side of the House appealed to the Labour Party. The Labour Party have now demonstrated that they have been bought to such an extent that appeals to them have the quality of a ritual. I do not intend to engage in rituals but I shall appeal directly to the Taoiseach to change his mind even at this late stage because the consequences of what the Minister is doing and the long term fall-out will be grim and grave.
Will I be allowed any time to speak on this issue?
I am working from a list given to me by the Ceann Comhairle and your name is not on it.
I understood from the Government Whip's Office that I was to be allowed time to speak.
Unfortunately, 18 minutes were lost in the vote on the Social Welfare Bill.
I regret that the time allowed is so short although it is the second debate we have had on the subject and we also had a prolonged Question Time dealing with the matter. I wish to reiterate that, in so far as there were any political considerations in the Government's decision, it was to reduce and not to increase interference in RTE. The points made by Opposition speakers lack credibility, coherence and conviction. If they feel so strongly about political interference in RTE, could they assure us that they would deprecate interference from the Opposition as well as from the Government if that happened? I do not wish to say anything more on that point. The Government made their decision to reduce political interference and not to increase it.
I heard Deputy O'Dea referring to the consultants. Regardless of whether a vacancy was about to arise for the post of Director-General, consultants were being considered in my Department because of the very substantial developments in broadcasting. I accept that it is a pity that these two matters have become confused. I see the consultancy as an arrangement to organise RTE so that they are best equipped to seize whatever opportunities arise in broadcasting. It is not to do with RTE, as has been alleged by some people. It is an attempt to reorganise RTE so that they are geared to maximise the opportunities and the challenges in relation to broadcasting in the coming years.
Given the framework in which they operate, RTE do a good job, within the finances available to them, by an international comparison, although I know many people do not agree with that point of view. However, if people had the experience of television and radio services outside these islands they would agree that RTE do a very good job. We must reorganise RTE so that they can and will grow with the opportunities which will arise.
The Opposition did not make any points of substance; they were just a repetition of the shibboleths of last week without substance. Therefore, maybe it is as well that I do not have that much time to reply.
It is indeed.
I hope, when Deputy Leyden is replying to this debate——
I will not be replying.
Well, I hope whoever is replying on behalf of the Opposition will give a categorical assurance that there will be no interference, or that there never has been, from the Opposition.
Considering the assurance given, there was never any need for it in any event. I want to dwell for a few minutes on the legal and constitutional implications of what we are discussing. The first responsibility of a Government is to uphold the Constitution and the laws enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. This Government, the Taoiseach in particular, are undermining the Constitution and the laws enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. They compound the offence by asking Dáil Éireann to approve the consistent objective of the Minister for Communications and the Government to prevent political interference in RTE. I do not want to argue on a personal level but the record of the Minister for Communications on political interference is widely known——
That is a slander and untrue.
The Taoiseach is guilty of blatant cynicism in asking Dáil Eireann to approve that record. The executive power of the State is vested in the Government under Article 28 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann. In stipulating that, it says that the Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any way repugnant to the Constitution. It is assumed in the Constitution that the Oireachtas or any House of the Oireachtas will not be asked by the Government to approve a breach of the law passed by the Oireachtas which is the case here in terms of the Broadcasting Act. This is precisely what the Dáil is being asked to do this evening by the Taoiseach. It is clear that he not only approved but, in fairness to the Minister, directed the breach of the law by the Minister for Communications. In a statement to the Dáil on Thursday, 7 March 1985, the Taoiseach asserted, "We shall expect the Authority" a subjective interpretation by the Government —"to make appointments in a manner that will satisfy the criteria laid down by the Government." He completely ignored the statutory independence and obligation of the Authority to act according to their own criteria, not those determined by the Government of the day. I contend that, by doing so, the Taoiseach has already undermined the statutory independence of the Authority and any succeding Authority.
The Constitution specifically provides for the preservation of the rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, by the organs of public opinion such as the radio, although television of course did not exist in 1937 when the Constitution was drawn up. It is to avoid the possibility of any such criticism which would be unacceptable to the Government that the Taoiseach directed this blatant infringement of the rights and obligations under statute of RTE when the law which we passed said that the Authority shall appoint a Director-General. It is for that reason that the Taoiseach has directed this blatant infringement of these rights which were established by law.
I heard the Minister's mercifully short reply and he has been put in an indefensible position by the Taoiseach. Not even the most committed supporter of the Government accepts their cynical reasons for infringing the law which were advanced by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach has invested more time and taxpayers' money in manipulating public opinion than all his predecessors, going back to the late W. T. Cosgrave down to Deputy L.T.Cosgrave. None of them did anything like as much to manipulate public opinion as the Taoiseach.
The main purpose of this propaganda campaign is to set the Taoiseach above the rest of us as a man of vision and integrity. I am not suggesting that he has not his own standards but the Taoiseach is not the public. He seems to have been persuaded by his own campaign because he told us here last week, in the rather modest assessment of himself which is characteristic of him, that no Government of which he is leader will take any step that will weaken the independence of RTE. The inference about other leaders of other Governments is clear but equally he is telling us that we may rely on his personal assurance. The laws and the Constitution are the only guarantee we require. A personal guarantee from the Taoiseach that he will protect us against the kind of action he is undertaking should be dismissed with ridicule. For that reason the House can not be expected to approve of such actions as the Government are asking us to approve this evening.
Deputies, considering the events of the last fortnight, might be forgiven for thinking that 1984 instead of being the year that has passed, has only just arrived.
The attempt by the Minister for Communications to prevent the RTE Authority from appointing a Director-General was the most blatant act of political interference since the station was founded. What is of even greater concern is the way in which the Taoiseach and the Minister have sought to justify their actions. It is the type of statement they are prepared to make without even a hint of embarrassment that makes us so perturbed about the future integrity and independence of RTE.
This Government have developed a propaganda machine unparalleled in the history of the State. Because this Government are absolutely devoid of positive achievement and indeed have presided over a whole series of fiascos and disasters, the lies and distortions and subterfuges resorted to by them to cover up are something unique in Irish political history.
To bend RTE to their purposes, to make it a servile tool of Government propaganda, would represent a great step forward in their plan to gain total control of the Irish media and insulate them from the political consequences of their ineptitude.
When the Taoiseach said last week, after the most blatant act of political interference, that the Government's policy was to have less political interference in RTE, it was the authentic voice of Big Brother speaking. If Government Buildings were to be named the ministry of truth, one of the handler's slogans would be "more political interference is less political interference".
The Taoiseach's statement is a classic example of double think. As Orwell said of the party intellectual, and the Taoiseach would certainly fit the definition, "he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality, but by the exercise of double think he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated".
The system of double think is defined by Orwell as "a vast system of mental cheating". Newspeak is "the habit of impudently claiming that black is white in contradiction of the plain facts".
The Taoiseach and the Minister were certainly engaging in mental cheating last week. Our concern about RTE is that the Government want the double think, the mental cheat to become the political norm in our society. They want to propagate the double think and the mental cheat in our news broadcasts and in our current affairs programmes.
Many examples exist of the type of statement the Taoiseach made in Sligo last week. We all recall the disastrous humiliation at Chequers. We also recall the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Mullingar on 30 November that at the Summit there was "nonetheless real and unprecedented movement". He has made many similar statements since. An unprecedented setback is in Coalition "newspeak" unprecedented progress. The Taoiseach's speech on Monday to the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators is another political statement in the Big Brother style. He spoke of coming "a long way from the dark days of the early eighties" and said that "today we can present a far brighter picture". Yet we know unemployment has doubled since December 1980, that taxation has become crushing, and that living standards have fallen drastically. The message the Taoiseach wants RTE to carry effectively involves a complete rewriting of the economic history of the past few years.
The Taoiseach makes outrageous statistical claims. He claimed in an interview in the Sunday Independent on 16 December 1983 that, “Government overspending on the current account has been effectively halved”. There never was a current budget deficit of 13, 14 or 15 per cent of GNP. It has never been higher than 8½ per cent. The Taoiseach boasts about growth in industrial output and exports, without taking any account of the black hole phenomenon or the distortions of transfer pricing. The Taoiseach speaks of bringing the public finances under control, when his Minister for Finance has just introduced the highest current budget deficit ever brought before Dáil Éireann for approval. As Orwell said of the figures produced by the ministry of plenty, “It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world... statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.”
A completely Government controlled RTE would tell the nation as the Taoiseach told the Sunday Independent on 16 December that, “the collapse of employment has been halted and is in the process of being reversed.”. Yet unemployment in December and January increased by an all-time record.
I do not want to go on multiplying examples, but the Government and the Taoiseach have been rightly indicted of engaging in the politics of the big lie. The heart of the issue is whether RTE are to become a docile medium for the transmission of the big lie. As Orwell pointed out, the big lie allied to total Government control of the media is subversive both of democracy and of society.
An article in the Irish Independent on Thursday 7 March by Eoghan Harris, a producer with RTE, and a confessed member of The Workers' Party showed the direction. He argued that notwithstanding the obligation of impartiality and objectivity imposed on RTE by the 1960 Broadcasting Act, RTE should become totally politicised and that this was a good thing. Members of Fine Gael and Labour are very foolish if they believe that politicisation will only be of benefit to them. They are setting the precedent and the example which will be taken advantage of by others. A coach and horses can now be driven by anyone so inclined through the objectivity and impartiality requirements under the broadcasting Act. Mr. Harris argued also that RTE should only present what is euphemistically called “the pluralist view”. Undermine all moral authority, all private and public ethics, and you are then well advanced towards the overthrow of Irish democracy. One will not hear much talk of pluralism on Radio Moscow. Similarily the tendency behind the Minister's and the Taoiseach's intervention, to have one of the national handlers made Chairman of the RTE Authority, and to put one of their proteges into the slot of Director-General is designed to curtail the expression of a plurality of opinions on RTE. Putting forward only one point of view has nothing to do with a true pluralist democracy.
Let me put it to the other side of the House. Do you want us when we return to office to brush aside the nomination of the next RTE Authority and appoint a party activist without other qualifications as Chairman of the RTE Authority? Do the Government now accept the principle that in future when Fianna Fáil are in Government RTE should express only Fianna Fáil views?
That is the example this Government are setting. It is a sign of their desperation caused by their low standing in the opinion polls that the Government have made their cynical and unprincipled grab for control of RTE. They know they cannot persuade the Irish public by fair and free means of their own political merits. They hope now to be able to do it by systematic brainwashing.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fenneil, Nuala.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Partrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.