I wish to share my time with Deputies Derek McDowell and Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly).
Private Members' Business. - Political Confidence in Independent Radio and Television Commission: Motion (Resumed.)
The following motion was moved by Deputy de Valera on Tuesday, 2 April 1996:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to restore political confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, damaged by the recent revelations of political party fund-raising by relieving the current chairman of his responsibilities; requests the Government to immediately review the system of programme managers so as to properly define their role, in view of the substantial State funding incurred in this regard; and calls on the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, in view of the adverse implications for the principle of ethics in public office to resign, particularly in view of his inability or unwillingness to fully understand the consequences of this matter.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
In the run-up to the last general election the Labour Party insisted that the whole issue of arts, culture and heritage should be given proper recognition by Government. Since he was first elected, my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, has campaigned for a planned strategic approach to the development of the arts. In essence, the political decision to establish a Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the decision to appoint a full member of the Cabinet to speak for the area was recognition of the importance of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and our language and heritage as fundamental parts of our life. These areas were also recognised as an integral part of the policy strategies necessary to create jobs.
The appointment of a Socialist of the calibre of Deputy Higgins as the first Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht revolutionised this country's whole approach to this area. His passionate and energetic commitment to the arts, culture and Gaelic Ireland is universally recognised and admired by people of all political persuasions and from all sections of society throughout the country.
Following his appointment the Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, set about ridding this country of the view that arts and culture should be the preserve of an exclusive and elitist minority. He recognised that culture and the arts belonged to all of us and was part of all of us. The momentum achieved in the cultural and artistic sector over the past three years under the direction of the Minister, Deputy Higgins, has been phenomenal. It is recognised, even by those who attempted to pour cold water on his ideas, that support and encouragement for the arts, the development of our film industry, improving our broadcasting system and fostering our language, culture and heritage have not only been significant in terms of culture and the arts but also in terms of assisting the high economic growth and creation of employment in our country.
For many years, both in Government and in Opposition, Deputy Higgins personified all that is good, honest and decent in Irish political life. He has championed many causes, stood shoulder to shoulder with the poor and the weak, the minorities and the persecuted. He has worked through his political life to change the political culture of this country.
Of course, much of what Deputy Higgins stands for is anathema to Fianna Fáil and its Progressive Democrats colleagues. Deputy Higgins has always opposed the type of stroke politics that was part and parcel of Fianna Fáil over the years and of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats coalition — the gombeen politics of the wink and the nod, of the brown parcel, of the secret donations.
Unlike Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, the Labour Party does not accept cheques of £50,000 or £20,000 from the beef barons. We raise the bulk of our funds from our members and supporters through collections, usually outside churches, from constituency events, race nights and raffle draws. All our funds are honestly raised, accounted for and audited professionally.
I understand that Fianna Fáil has raised approximately £3 million since 1993. It would take many church gate collections and race nights to raise that amount of cash.
Although the Progressive Democrats might sneer at the modest sums of money Labour collects at church gates, or through raffle draws, we can at least hold our heads high and say that our funds are raised honestly and openly from our members and from our supporters. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The great bulk of our funds come from the men and women of no property and from PAYE workers. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats depend on the beef barons and their fellow travellers.
We have always made it clear that it is our policy to restore confidence in the democratic process by encouraging greater openness and participation at all levels, by improving public accountability and trust and by ensuring the highest standards in public life. Already much legislation has been introduced to copperfasten this approach, including the ethics Bill and the electoral Bill.
We intend to continue implementing our programme despite the attempts by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to divert us from our task. This is a pledge that we gave to the electorate and labour always sticks by its commitments.
In terms of the sensitivity of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, it was unwise and an error of judgment to place Niall Stokes in a position where he could be accused of favouritism, and his name should not have been used on the correspondence promoting the infamous race night. This has been recognised by all involved. However, this is hardly the stuff of major scandal. A local county council would not waste more than ten minutes discussing such a matter, yet Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats waste the time of this House because they are unable to criticise us on the real and substantive issues, on the reform of our institutions, the completion of progress towards peace and reconciliation, the continued commitment to the employment needs of our people, the further development of our economy, the provision of funding for new roads, health, education, housing and so on.
It is ironic that parties like Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats would attempt to question the integrity of Deputy Higgins or of the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. I well recollect the period after I was elected to Sligo Corporation in the 1970s when I learned in no uncertain terms how Fianna Fáil did its business. Following complaints from constituents, I discovered that a local Fianna Fáil hotelier had carried out unauthorised development and, despite numerous reports and warnings from the fire authorities to the planning authority in Sligo, no action was taken. When I exposed this matter, Fianna Fáil called for the sacking of the person or persons who had provided me with the evidence. Shortly after I raised the issue publicly RTE sent down a crew from their current affairs unit to investigate the scandal in Sligo. Fianna Fáil knew that the scandal would greatly undermine them, and on the evening on which the programme was to be broadcast, the Fianna Fáil Government of the day succeeded in having the broadcast taken off the air. That is the way Fianna Fáil did its business and protected its supporters.
More recently, the people of Sligo and Leitrim learned of yet another scandal, of an attempt to sell off a significant development site on public property to certain developers for less than one quarter of its real value.
In 1992, when the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition was in power, the Office of Public Works received sanction to sell the property in Lower Quay Street, Sligo, to Sligo Corporation on condition that the corporation sold it in turn to two named developers. The land was not advertised for sale or put on the open market to allow all citizens and developers an opportunity to make a bid for it. When I objected to the sale I said that any attempt to sell off public property for less than half its value in a private deal behind closed doors could only be described as outrageous and appalling. It would not only be unethical, it would be bad business practice and an affront to the people of Sligo.
Fortunately, due to my objections, this matter became public knowledge. Other people expressed interest in purchasing the site and the corporation indicated that it would not become involved in any sale of the property. The fact that a Fianna Fáil Minister in a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government sanctioned the sale of this site to two developers in Sligo for less than one quarter of its value speaks volumes about the philosophy of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats.
The motion calls for the resignations of Mr. Niall Stokes, chairperson of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and of Deputy Higgins, Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. I wish to say a few words about Deputy Higgins. For me, and many like me, Deputy Higgins has been and is more than just an ordinary politician. For years, indeed, decades, he has been a passionate advocate of social change here. He has spoken up time and again for those people whose voice is often not otherwise heard. He has fearlessly challenged privilege and injustice to the discomfort of many who rejoice in the cosy conservatism which still dominaties so much of what we do in this country. He has instilled in others a belief that change — slow, halting but meaningful change — can be brought about by the political system. In that he has done a service not just to this country but also to this House and to the political system. In brief, he has been a powerful antidote to the politics of cynicism.
By contrast this motion is all about cynicism. It is, first and foremost, a grubby and cynical effort by the Opposition parties to grab a few extra preferences in the by-elections of Dublin West and Donegal North East. It is a cynical and unworthy effort to indirectly impugn the integrity of two fine public servants. A mistake was made. Niall Stokes and the Independent Radio and Television Commission should not have been put in the position where their integrity could be questioned, however wrongly or obliquely. However, this was an innocent error of no consequence. It in no way justifies the torrent of abuse and hypocrisy that has poured forth from the Opposition benches in recent days. No crime has been committed. Nothing dishonest or unfair has been done. There was nothing in Mr. Stokes's contract which requires him to divest himself of his known political views, nor is he or anyone like him, required to disavow a friendship which everyone knows extends back over many years.
What happened here is very simple. A few friends of Deputy Higgins met privately, but not secretly, in order to raise a few hundred pounds to discharge a debt. To suggest that the operation of the Independent Radio and Television Commission is compromised or affected in any way by such an innocent gathering is ludicrous and laughable. Is it being suggested that the purchase of a £20 horse at a race night would somehow improve one's chances of getting a radio or television licence? Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Nobody has suggested that Niall Stokes has been anything other than scrupulously fair and proper in the discharge of his functions. Nobody has suggested impropriety or dishonesty of any kind. Nobody seriously believes that this race night will have any effect on the operation of our independent broadcasting system.
This was an innocent mistake of no consequence. The same cannot be said of the hysterical and exaggerated response of the Opposition parties in recent days. By over-reacting in such a way, the Opposition has done a major disservice to this House. By concentrating on what is, in effect, a trivial incident, the Opposition has, deliberately or otherwise, obscured the important distinction between real abuse and corruption on the one hand and innocent mistake on the other. For years our political parties, more particularly the political parties of the right, have relied on donations from individuals and corporations who proffered money, many in the expectation that favours would follow. The beef and construction industries are two examples, as are rezoning scandals in many local authorities.
There has been abuse and corruption, but not on a large scale and not involving many people. However, it rightly gives cause for public concern. By their actions, some politicians — a very small number — have put themselves in the position where the public interest has come into conflict with their own interests and the interests of their friends.
However, nobody has suggested anything of that kind in this instance. This is not a case of abuse or corruption. There has been no genuine conflict of interest. Nevertheless, it is possible for a genuine conflict of interest to arise in innocent circumstances. We had just such a case in 1994 when the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications discovered that he owned shares in a mining company that had applied to his Department. The matter was dealt with properly and quickly, the conflict was resolved, the matter was put to rest, no resignations were demanded by my party and none were given. It is important that we maintain a sense of perspective; we do no favours to anybody if we lose it.
We have been well served by the majority of political appointees on State boards. There is nothing wrong with members of political parties or people of known political views being members of such boards. In 99 per cent of cases they have done their job without favour to anybody and in a fair and scrupulous fashion.
This is not to say that the system is entirely right. We would benefit if people on State boards or in other professions such as the law, journalism and the Civil Service, were more open about their political beliefs as it would be so much the better for the public to be able to judge whether their discharge of their statutory duty was affected in a way that would be improper. A genuine debate is needed on this. This motion is specious. It is motivated entirely by party political opportunism and deserves to be defeated.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I wish to address a number of points raised by Deputy O'Donoghue in the debate last night and by Deputy Michael McDowell in the media over recent days. In his colourful and entertaining speech, Deputy O'Donoghue referred to Members on the Government side behaving like political poodles and political cannibals. One of the finest examples I have ever seen of any party being led around on its hind legs in a posture of abject submission was the performance of the Deputy's own party in the Government of 1989-92 when, to build on his canine analogy, the Progressive Democrats' tail wagged the Fianna Fáil dog at every opportunity. The pain of such a poodle like performance exacted a terrible and telling cost in human, policy and political terms on the major party in that Government and it involved the Taoiseach of the day being subject to a perpetual power of veto of two of his Ministers.
Deputy O'Donoghue's reference to political cannibalism alludes to politicians eating their own. It is a charge he has levelled at my party, but in seeking to examine the veracity of that charge I cannot but be struck by the glaring examples of eating one's own prevalent in his party over the years. What about Jack Lynch, Deputy McDaid, the late Brian Lenihan, Charles Haughey, Harry Whelehan or Deputy Reynolds?
What about them?
(Laoighis-Offaly): If the cap fits, let the Deputy and his party wear it. With regard to the huffing and puffing by Deputy Michael McDowell over recent days, I accept that in his professional capacity he is well able to draw a line and exercise independence of thought and judgment between the role he plays here as a Member and the role he plays in defending all kinds of people, some very unsavoury, in the Four Courts. Is he seriously trying to imply that, although he can be professional and independent, Mr. Stokes cannot? The Deputy is trying to apply a double standard even when he is so trenchantly arguing against double standards.
Mr. Stokes's independence and professionalism are attested to not alone by the success of his magazine and other ventures in the area of music, entertainment and culture——
Do not forget fund-raising for the Labour Party.
(Laoighis-Offaly):——but also by the success of the Independent Radio and Television Commission which he chairs, and the majority of whose members are Fianna Fáil supporters. The listenership of local radio stations has been steadily improving, questions of quality in news and current affairs are being seriously addressed at last, community broadcasting in the truest sense of the word has been set up and running and the national independent radio licence has been allocated. This record speaks for itself and is above reproach.
Is Deputy Michael McDowell and his party willing to make full and open disclosure of their own funding and fund-raising record, as the Tánaiste did in respect of the Labour Party last night?
This is pathetic.
(Laoighis-Offaly): Is he prepared to admit that his party sought and received funds on a number of occasions from State or semi-State bodies? Will he tell the House what funds were raised by his party when Deputy O'Malley was Minister for Industry and Commerce and Deputy Molloy was Minister for Energy? Will he assure the House that none of his party's benefactors during that period received grants, State aid or any other form of State assistance or favouritism while his party was in Government?
What has the Deputy to say regarding contributions and communications between his party and a number of beef companies, specifically, a donation of £5,000 on 3 March 1987 and £20,000 given to Deputy O'Malley by Mr. Goodman and Deputy O'Malley's subsequent Mae West style invitation to Mr. Goodman to visit him sometime?
As a first time Deputy listening to this debate it has struck me how odd it is that the timeframe and subject matter of this House is so often out of sync with what is happening outside, that we can be seized with great fits of indignation which allows us to see the speck in our opponent's eye while failing to see the log in our own and that how little in debate in this House the desire for vengeance and expression of fury is tempered by ordinary human qualities such as understanding, sympathy or mercy.
I accept the Minister's recognition that the matter was not handled as it should have been. Perhaps it is because, as the Tánaiste illustrated here last night, we are not as cute in this party at fund-raising as our colleagues in some other parties. However, it is not a hanging offence. The old saying that anybody who never made a mistake made nothing is true. If the Minister has made a minor mistake in this case it is nothing compared to his achievements as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. I cannot imagine a Minister who is better qualified for this brief than Deputy Michael Higgins. The Minister should pick up his baton again and continue his good work with the renewed support of this House.
With the reluctant support of the Fine Gael Party.
Last night the Tánaiste treated the House almost with contempt in the cynical approach he took to dealing with this serious issue. He reverted to his usual theme which concerned himself and had little to do with the issue.
Mr. O'Sullivan
He told the truth.
The Tánaiste's favourite theme is to declare himself to be an innocent man who can do no wrong. On this basis, he proceeded to give a dissertation on the disclosure of a few pounds and pence he had legitimately raised over the years. He knows that all political parties and politicians could not survive or fight elections if it was not for the generosity of the public. There is nothing new in what the Tánaiste said. He was consistent in that he did little to defend Niall Stokes or his Minister; he was more concerned, as always when he speaks in the House, with his own image. What happened between the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission was wrong and unacceptable. It broke standards and all of the new barriers and regulations that have been legislated for.
(Laoighis-Offaly): That is not correct.
It is extraordinary to listen to the Labour Party defend itself on the basis that because somebody else did something, two wrongs now make a right. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment. Deputy Fitzgerald, who was present this morning dragged politicians through the mire when she first entered the House and cast aspersions on all of us about the standards we were supposed to have. She alone was going to clean up Dáil Éireann and everything that went on in it. She published the Ethics in Public Office Bill, a contemptuous attempt to sully the name of politicians and politics.
(Laoighis-Offaly): What are you afraid of?
Who was the first politician in this House — and which party was she from — to break the rules we are all supposed to follow?
(Laoighis-Offaly): What are you afraid of?
Acting Chairman
Deputy Cullen, without interruption.
The Deputy should stay quiet and let me deal with this serious issue.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I will not take any orders from the Deputy.
It is all a joke to the Labour Party. However, it is not a joke to me and I will tell the Deputy why if he will keep his mouth shut for a minute.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Cullen, without interruption.
Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, through her own office, organised £100 a plate dinners at a time when the Minister for Finance had told the public he would no longer have time to meet them to hear submissions on the budget. However, £100 might buy them some private time with the Minister so they could get his ear and influence him on the needs of Labour Party supporters, to the exclusion of everybody else.
Who are you bringing to dinner next week?
The Deputy was not interrupted.
We now have a series of speakers on behalf of the Labour Party. When their party transgresses it is termed naiveté but when anybody else supposedly transgresses it is termed wrongdoing for which they should be punished. The Minister, Deputy Michael Higgins, sits there with a straight face although the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, Mr. Stokes, was publicly involved in a fund-raising effort.
It is a resigning matter.
The Tánaiste almost had me in tears last night with his description of the farcical efforts to raise funds, the poor return they got on the few bob they raised and the effort which was put in. It is not whether £1 or £10,000 was raised but the ethics of what Niall Stokes was doing with the Minister which is the issue.
What was he doing?
No trivialising of that issue by members of the Labour Party is sufficient when they have rammed ethics in public office down everybody's throat since they arrived on the Government benches. They have breached every standard which they set for everybody else in the House.
The Deputy will have to disclose his own vested interests.
I have every right to be annoyed because I am sick and tired of the litany of nonsense which spews out from the Labour Party.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Ferris must not interrupt.
When the Labour Party is called to book to answer, collectively and individually, for their carry-on and the cynical way in which they have treated this House and the public——
(Interruptions.)
——the Tánaiste returns to his theme that he is the innocent man on the moral high ground, the guardian of all that is good and well in Dáil Éireann.
(Laoighis-Offaly): The Deputy was at it himself when he was in the Progressive Democrats.
The Tánaiste made no attempt last night to defend the Minister, Deputy Michael Higgins, and Niall Stokes. All he would say was that it was naiveté and there was some wrongdoing involved. There was a serious breach of ethics by the Minister and Niall Stokes and the Tánaiste failed to defend that in this House last night.
Nonsense.
It is my view, and that of people involved in broadcasting, that Niall Stokes is no longer fit to be chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. He has the power to close a radio station if it shows political bias.
(Laoighis-Offaly): That is not true.
The man who has that power, the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, is involved in political bias himself by fund raising for the Minister responsible for that area. It is disgraceful, a sham and shameful for the Labour Party to put up such a cynical and laughable defence of their carry-on. Niall Stokes, the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, should resign and the Minister, if the Labour Party and the Government are to retain any credibility, must also resign his position.
When is the Deputy going to jump ship again? When is he going to leave Fianna Fáil?
The Tánaiste's limp and lacklustre defence of this latest outrage can be distilled into one simple proposition: other members of State boards engage in political activity but should they all be impugned? The position of Mr. Stokes is different, as has been amply demonstrated. Every independent commentator on this affair has accepted the logic of that.
Acting Chairman
Does the Deputy intend to share his time?
I intend to share my time with Deputy Killeen.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy O'Dea and Deputy Michael McDowell are doing decent journalists out of jobs.
Every objective commentator outside this House who has no axe to grind has accepted that. If the Minister cannot, or does not, see that, if he has any respect for this House and the people we are supposed to represent, if he has any respect for his office or for himself, the only honourable course open to him is to offer his resignation to a Taoiseach who is obviously too weak, spineless and supine to damand it.
The Labour Party is proof positive that, for some, politics has become the art of repackaging. In 1987 a failed and dispirited politician, Deputy Spring, who survived the electoral holocaust of 1987 by four votes, led his motley crew into Opposition after having participated in the most disastrous Government in the history of this State. In just four years, he managed to re-emerge with a record number of seats, reincarnated as the prince of probity.
And brought the Deputy's party back into power. The Deputy was happy to come into Government with us.
He gave them the kiss of life.
The record since then has been a contemptible catalogue of cynicism, hypocrisy and double standards. Labour Members have become the quintessential political acrobats — they keep their balance by doing the opposite to what they say.
Like joining the Progressive Democrats.
Their performance in Government has been an exquisite minuet of hypocrisy from beginning to end. The Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, cited Imelda Marcos as justification for the ethics Bill.
It is a disgrace.
She and her party have as much credibility left as a barefoot Imelda Marcos. When other people transgress it is a resigning matter, when the Labour Party transgresses it is a laughing matter.
Exactly, it is all a joke to them.
The total immunity of the Labour Party from the rules and standards which they are happy to apply to the rest of us is what really grates. The Taoiseach stated in the Irish Independent yesterday there was no evidence that Mr. Stokes had acted “without integrity”. Is the Taoiseach then saying that Deputy Hogan or Deputy Coveney acted without integrity? If that is the yardstick——
Please do not shed crocodile tears.
Of course, it changes according to who is transgressing. The truth is the Taoiseach applies a different set of standards to Labour Party transgressions. He is doing so because he is afraid. The Taoiseach obviously believes — and looking at some of the recent manoeuvrings in Limerick he has good reason for fear — that on the day he ceases to be Taoiseach he will be consigned to political oblivion. Where Labour Party transgressions are concerned, the Taoiseach has consistently behaved like a leaning tower of putty and demonstrated the most appalling, selective cowardice.
I am glad to see that Deputy Dukes, a former leader of Fine Gael and distinguished member of the party, does not agree with the Taoiseach. I call on Deputy Dukes to join us in the division lobbies at 1.30 p.m. and not allow himself be bullied into being one of the weak and feeble minded crowd who are easily persuaded — unlike his colleagues on the Fine Gael and Labour backbenches.
This selective blindness of the Taoiseach is not confined to the Labour Party. Recently, a blind eye was turned to the linguistic revisionism of the incurably semantic and bilingual Marxist who currently holds the portfolio of Social Welfare. Basically, Fine Gael is out of it, as far as the Government is concerned. Deputy Carey may laugh, but a once proud party has been reduced to a pawn in a power battle between Deputy Spring and Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, a contest between an egomaniac and a megalomaniac.
The Deputy should go up to Donegal and see how well he did there.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy, without interruption.
The reality is that, henceforth, being lectured on ethics by the Labour Party will be exactly akin to being called ugly by a frog. I will not take any more lectures on standards from the grubby Labour Party. I have my own standards which I will mind and let the Labour Party try to find some standards for itself.
That is a good one.
We do not want to lower ourselves to the Deputy's standards.
They will be out next time.
Acting Chairman
Let us hear Deputy Killeen without interruption from either side of the House.
The Deputy should be a man and vote against this grubby nonsense.
Tá sé de dhualgas orm agus ar éinne a chreideann sa chóras polaitiúil cuidiú leis an rún seo os comhair na Dála.
Ní cúis áthais dom go bhfuil gá leis an rún seo. Ach tá gá leis. Ní amháin go raibh beartas an Aire féin agus an Uasail Stokes amaideach sa chás seo ach tá easpa muiníne sa Rialtas i measc an phobail.
There is undoubtedly a belief in some quarters that the Minister, Deputy Higging, is unfortunate to be the Labour Minister finally named for censure in the long list of his colleagues caught with a finger in the pie. I note that no less than eight current Ministers, more than half the Government, have been in trouble during the life of this Dáil, another has been forced to resign, as has a Minister of State, and two others, both Labour members among the junior ranks, have seriously compromised themselves. That is an extraordinary score.
Of the Cabinet members involved only two, the Ministers for Equality and Law Reform and Education, Deputies Taylor and Bhreathnach, suffered embarrassment during the partnership era. That is so long ago now that we have nearly forgotten it.
There is some confusion about whether the Deputy wishes to share time with Deputy McDowell.
Yes, I wish to do so.
In the cases of both Ministers their persecution was at the hands of their current Government partners.
Under the rainbow flag there has been an avalanche of unsavoury incidents involving Ministers. None other than the brother of the Minister for Finance was charged with putting a proGovernment spin on the divorce issue and pocketed £250,000 for his trouble. Apparently his campaign was considerably assisted by a directive of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, chaired by Mr. Stokes, which the anti-divorce lobby claim effectively censored it.
The Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, has stored up a campaign fund of which we are extremely envious. This handsomely exceeds what he may legally expend on the next election if he chooses to obey the ethics directives.
He wants to be the next leader of Fine Gael. He is working at it already.
Perhaps he will be generous to his running mate. That little nest egg was accumulated courtesy of the healthcare and pharmaceutical gravy train with no favours offered or expected.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, champion of the poor in Opposition, has particularly championed the cause of those converts to democracy from the Left who carry his party's membership card and read the party publication. In fairness, he set up only a few cosy sinecures for his friends at the taxpayers' expense.
The Lowry saga became so farcical that it is difficult to recollect how the Minister managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. It raises fundamental questions about ethics in Government which should have been pursued more thoroughly and which reflect badly on this Administration and on the political establishment.
The Minister for Defence, Deputy Barrett, joined the list when he managed to secure the transfer of an excessively humorous garda from Cyprus to Ireland, presumable to contribute to levity at home. Gone are the days when gardaí were sent to islands because they lacked a sense of humour.
Who sent them there?
The treatment meted out to Garda Fitzpatrick is in stark contrast to the laissez-faire attitude adopted towards Mr. Stokes and the Minister, Deputy Higgins.
The Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, who allegedly wanted a slice of the contract action for his family firm, was sacked from a Department which disburses relatively few contracts and ended up with responsibility for the Office of Public Works which handles a great many of them. That decision, among others, defies all logic, as does the demotion of the former Minister of State, Deputy Hogan, to the position of chairman of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party. Among his former Minister of State colleagues, Deputies Stagg and Fitzgerald have also hit the headlines for the wrong reasons.
At this stage I feel somewhat like a speaker thanking those who have contributed to a successful event. I hope I have not left anybody out.
The Deputy has omitted himself.
If it were a litany it would surely invoke the response "pray for us".
The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, referred to the gleeful reaction of this side of the House to Labour's catalogue of misdemeanours. Why does he believe his Fine Gael colleagues were absent? Does he not realise that they could hardly be reasonably expected to hide their delight in the Chamber when they could not hide it all week outside and inside the House. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, concluded that the gleeful response to which he referred was indicative of unhappiness at Labour's insistence on addressing a fundamental malaise in standards in public life by establishing particular principles in legislation. The Minister appears to have missed the joke that the legislation fails to address the serious malpractices engaged in by various Ministers in this Government. It is so fundamentally flawed that if it addressed them, the decision-makers who have been compromised could, as in this instance, plead to the lesser crime of poor judgment and ignore the principle which Labour so vociferously sought to enshrine in legislation. The ethics Bill and its related public relations campaign is a cheap con job which has been truly exposed by a succession of Labour Ministers, including its author. Is it any wonder that Members on all sides of the House have difficulty hiding their amusement?
Despite the Tánaiste's pleadings last night and some nasty personal jibes, Fianna Fáil had to take some action and call a halt. This matter had to be put on the Order Paper and I commend my colleague, Deputy de Valera, for doing so. This matter had to be debated in the Chamber. It was the straw which broke the camel's back and it should be pursued to its logical conclusion by a substantive motion which would include all previous incidents in a confidence motion if the gravity of the present situation is not recognised and acted on by the Minister and Mr. Stokes.
Nobody in this House has suggested that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, or Mr. Niall Stokes is corrupt or have been found to be so. For my part and my party I say that the Minister is a decent man who is trying to do his best. I am not acquainted with Mr. Stokes but I am ready to assume the same of him. We are not dealing here with the charge of corruption and nobody has claimed there is a shred of evidence that either of these gentlemen has behaved corruptly. Since that charge was never made the heated rebuttals we have heard last night and today are wide of the mark and redundant. We are dealing here with evidence that both of these men acted improperly, a case of serious impropriety, nothing more and nothing less. Not every impropriety is corrupt or dishonest.
The Radio and Television Act, 1988, created a new body, the Independent Radio and Television Commission. It provided that none of the members of the Independent Radio and Television Commission could be removed from office except for stated reasons and if, but only if, resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for their removal. That unusual degree of security of tenure is reserved in our system for judges and the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Constitution and by statute for members of An Bord Pléanala, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Ombudsman and members of the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
It is a feature of important offices where judicial or quasi-judicial power is given to the office holder and where the nature of the office requires demonstrable impartiality. In the case of the Independent Radio and Television Commission it is easy to understand why that body is described in Administrative Law by Hogan and Morgan as a tribunal and one which bears the responsibility of allocating the franchises to private broadcasting and thereafter policing them.
To understand the grave implications of the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission engaging publicly in party political fund-raising, it is necessary to remember but a few of the provisions of the 1988 Act. Section 9.1 of that Act requires every broadcaster to abide by a code of strict political impartiality in matters of news and current affairs. Section 4.7 makes it "the duty of the commission to ensure that every sound broadcasting contractor and the television programme service contractor complies with section 9". Section 14 of the Act provides that the Independent Radio and Television Commission at its discretion may terminate a broadcaster's contract and thereby close a radio station if the broadcaster has in the opinion of the commission committed serious or repeated breaches of the obligation of political impartiality.
The Independent Radio and Television Commission, its members and chairman are charged by statute with upholding political impartiality in the independent broadcasting sector and with forfeiting the licence of any broadcaster who is seriously in breach of that obligation. These functions lie at the heart of our democratic system. As soon as I received a copy of the circular last Thursday, it was and still is apparent to me that the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, Mr. Stokes, could not possibly hope to combine in future that role with public participation as a committee officer raising funds for one party and one candidate, irrespective of whether that candidate was the Minister who appointed him and who held the responsibility for deciding the State's broadcasting policy. How could anyone think, justice could be seen to be done if the Independent Radio and Television Commission dismissed or upheld a claim to revoke a licence on the grounds that a broadcaster was being politically partisan if the chairman of that body was publicly fund-raising and supporting the re-election of one political party or a candidate thereof?
A moment's reflection shows that the very nature of the Independent Radio and Television Commission's jurisidction as a tribunal with the power to revoke a licence on these grounds requires demonstrable political impartiality by the Independent Radio and Television Commission's chairman. It is for this reason that Mr. Stokes's behaviour is gravely improper. He has effectively disqualified himself from being involved in any valid decision by the Independent Radio and Television Commission to revoke a radio licence on the grounds of political partiality. As chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, Mr. Stokes, is in short a broken reed. He has publicly acted in a manner which would expose any decision by him to revoke a licence on the basis of political partiality to a valid legal challenge. He has cast off the mantle of impartiality which his position required him to wear. For that reason alone he must resign as he can no longer discharge one of his central functions with the required degree of demonstrated impartiality, no more than a judge found publicly fundraising for a particular party after his appointment could possibly sit in judgment over an election petition. The principle is the same.
The impropriety of what happened is clear and irrevocable. The damage cannot be undone and even if it could, by an act of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment, we are, unfortunately, confronted by Mr. Stokes's public assertions that what he did was not improper and that he feels free to repeat and continue his behaviour. What he did was not dishonest, but gravely improper. If his behaviour is acceptable as chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, then, in logic, it must be acceptable for the chairman of the RTE Authority, the DPP, the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General and any other senior office holder.
That is the reason I express amazement and disquiet at the wrong assertion made in the House yesterday by the Taoiseach that any office holder is free to behave in the same way as Mr. Stokes unless expressly prohibited from doing so by the terms of a Statute or his or her appointment. If the Taoiseach calmly reflects on that proposition for a while, he will see that misbehavior meriting dismissal could not possibly be confined to a breach of the letter of a Statute or contract of service. I hope he will come back to the House to set out the true position about the standards that he and we, as members of a democratic society, can expect from office holders.
This grave impropriety has been described yet again today as an innocent error of judgment. In one sense, that it was not overtly corrupt, some people might fairly describe it as innocent, but we are faced with a deliberate decision by a senior office holder in a tribunal to compromise his functions in the future by agreeing to become publicly identifiable as a committee officer of a party political fundraising group which intended — some figures were mentioned last night — to run not just one, but a series of such fundraising event's this year.
Common sense tells us that this gravely improper decision was not that of a volunteer. Mr. Stokes did not volunteer for the position, he was asked to engage in that activity by a Minister who knew the radio and television Act and its requirements like the back of his hand. He knew precisely Mr. Stoke's functions as chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, how he could be compromised if he engaged in party political fundraising and knew, more than any other Minister, that the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission was one of the potential judges of any serious charge of political partisanship by any broadcaster and one of the people who might have to revoke a licence on that account.
We are not dealing with one or two dishonest or corrupt men. I have acknowledged the decency of one and assumed the decency of the other, but neither are we dealing with two political naives, two occupants of an ethereal intellectual other world who are thereby somehow excused from normal responsibility or awareness of the obligations of their office. Each in their own honourable way has spent many years analysing and criticising Ireland's political culture of clientelism. Neither could be unaware of the significance of overtly politicising the membership of the tribunal, which the Independent Radio and Television Commission is, which is primarily charged with ensuring an impartial, apolitical, independent broadcasting service.
If, as is now obvious, Mr. Stokes's decision was gravely improper, it follows, as night follows day, that the person who invited him to make that decision also acted in a gravely improper way. Perhaps the public would be satisfied if Mr. Stokes were to resign and the Minister acknowledged that he had wrongly invited Mr. Stokes into impropriety. Perhaps the public would forgive the Minister for his grave impropriety on the grounds that he, as his supporters pointed out yesterday, has been a capable and energetic achiever in his office, but, by the same token, nobody said anything less of Deputies Coveney and Hogan who were dismissed from their offices for offences far less grave than this.
It is disturbing that up to yesterday the Minister insisted he had done nothing wrong and this remains the stated position of Mr. Stokes. It is one thing to embarrass the Labour Party and apologise to his colleagues in the parliamentary party, but it is a different thing to acknowledge that what he did was profoundly wrong and accept the personal responsibility for that grave transgression. Such an attitude, if demonstrated today, might radically alter our attitude because it would be clear that no precedent had been created by the behaviour of the Minister. For this reason we must support the motion. There has been no indication of an acceptance of the gravity of what happened.
I have tried to deal with this matter dispassionately and without rancour in the face of considerable personal abuse, in the House last night and on the airwaves, from the Minister, the Tánaiste and Mr. Stokes. I will not descend to what I describe as the bilious level of invective demonstrated last night by the Tánaiste's script writer because this issue is too serious to become an exercise in political mud wrestling, but I recommend that the Tánaiste should change his script writer.
A defence of what has transpired by reference to the behaviour of others is not acceptable. That tu quoque defence is the same as that offered by the Nazis at Nuremberg. It was rightly rejected there and ought to be rejected here. The particular set of circumstances with which we are dealing is unprecedented. A grave impropriety has occurred, we are not dealing with an instance of party activism by, say, a director of a semi-State company of which, doubtless, there have been and will be in the future many instances, but with an instance of proven and admitted public party political activism by a member of a tribunal, one of whose functions is to detect, prevent and disqualify others from partisan behaviour in the crucially important area of broadcasting.
This is no mere error of judgement, but a grave impropriety committed by one man at the express request of another, neither of whom has thus far recognised or acknowledged it for what it is. This impropriety, if uncorrected, strikes at the heart of democracy and fairness in the media; opens the door to the worst forms of clientelism and invites a permanent degradation of standards in public life. From what transpired in the House yesterday evening and on the airwaves in recent days, it would appear that some people here think that it is more important to shoot the messenger than exact responsibility, personally and politically, for this grave impropriety on the part of these two men.
In short, Mr. Stokes has demolished his own capacity to serve as chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and must go because he cannot preside over any hearing that a radio station is impartial. Any effort by him to discharge that function would be challenged successfully in the courts. The Minister, who cannot be involuntarily removed except by both Houses of the Oireachtas and who invited Mr. Stokes to engage in this impropriety, is now in a dilemma. What course is now open to him, but to promise a vacancy in the chairmanship of the Independent Radio and Television Commission or deliver a vacancy in his own office or both?
I wish to share my time with the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and the Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
That is satisfactory and agreed.
It would not be much of a challenge to come into the House today and articulate a verbal balance sheet comparing the depredations of Fianna Fáil in office with the combined efforts of the other parties. A former Taoiseach was fond of saying, with a magisterial wave of the hand, that by comparison to Japan and Australia our scandals did not amount to a hill of beans. Everything, I suppose, is relative.
I will resist the tempatation of taking the House through an itemised balance sheet for a number of reasons. First, I cannot take this bout of by-election induced righteousness from Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats seriously. The proposer of the motion, Deputy de Valera, regards the debate so seriously that she used up only half her allotted time. If Deputy de Valera runs out of steam half way like the west Clare train in the time of Percy French, how can she expect the rest of the House to treat her motion seriously?
Second, I regard with some disbelief the fact that the man described as the "craftiest most cunning, most devious politician of them all". Deputy Ahern, has permitted this debate to take place on a Fianna Fáil motion because he surely knows, and in more ways than one, that it will return to haunt him. When it comes to breaking conventions, party fundraising or appointing one's friends to quasi-judicial or semi-lucrative positions the other parties in this House are floundering in the wake of Fianna Fáil. That Fianna Fáil should set itself up by sponsoring a debate on such issues can only mean that it has lost its legendary touch or is suffering from total policy bankruptcy. Private Members' Business is normally jealously protected by the Opposition of the day and used to highlight policy initiatives or ventilate topical issues of interest to the electorate. It is a remarkable comment on the combined Opposition that this motion founded on the twin pillars of humbug and hypocrisy is the best they can do.
Mr. Niall Stokes was wrong to lend his name to even a once-off low key fund-raising event for his friend, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins. It seems unlikely that Mr. Stokes ever contemplated the construction now capable of being put on his actions and, for all I know, he does not see his action as partisan in the party political sense. Nonetheless it was an error and he should appropriately acknowledge that.
That said, to take up the time of the House arguing for the resignation of a man who has by common consent been our most creative and imaginative Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is a mind-boggling leap of hypocrisy, so much so that it is difficult to take this debate seriously.
The Deputy would not understand it.
Mr. Stokes unwisely allowed his name to decorate an invitation to the kind of fund-raising event that would not induce a Fianna Fáil Minister to cross St. Stephen's Green or earn a hopeful litigant a consultation with Deputy McDowell.
Nor do I take very seriously yesterday's tight-assed sermonising by some prissy leader writer in The Irish Times. I am no less and, I hope, no more venal than the next Member of this House but language has lost all meaning if the absurd claim that “there is a preception of sleaziness in the way the constituent parties of the Government conduct their business” is allowed stand unchallenged. If Members of this House were appointed in the same fashion as some would like to make senior appointments at The Irish Times then the Dáil would be an hereditary chamber. Of course, the proposer of the motion, Deputy de Valera, only has to look into history, if not her own heart, to teach us all a lesson about fund-raising and the hereditary principle.
Sermonising has also badly affected Deputy O'Donoghue, the "Bull McCabe" of Fianna Fáil. Day after day since he was given his head the Bull rages about death, rape, pillage and robbery in apocalyptic terms like King Lear on the heath. No hyperbole is adequate to do justice to the sights that greet this man every day on his way from Cahirciveen — bandits running wild with guns, bodies strewn everywhere in hedges, children fleeing certain molestation, women skulking behind shuttered doors and punative criminals everywhere jumping bail.
The Deputy has not lost his cynicism.
He has not lost his touch.
Please ask the little turncoat to stay quiet until I finish.
Order, Please.
I do not always agree with Deputy Albert Reynolds but keeping this man under wraps until now was a wise decision. In keeping with openness, transparency and accountability I will now reveal the runners and riders for the first 10 races in Cumann Na Múinteorí on March 12 last: No. 1, "Arcon Lad" ridden by Brian Cowen and trained by Dermot O'Leary; No. 2, "Green Acres" ridden by Liam Lawlor and owned by Lord Lucan; No. 3, "Concrete Jungle" owned by Ray Burke and trained by C. J. Haughey; No. 4, "Passports for Sale" by the same owner with the old maestro Albert Reynolds up; No. 5, "Another Leaflet Drop" ridden by Séamus Brennan from the Tara Mines stable; No. 6, "My Lovely Franchies" ridden by Ivor Callely also from the Haughey stable; No. 7, "My Own vocational education committee" owned by Mrs. O'Rourke and ridden by Donie Cassidy; No. 8, "The Brother-in-Law" jointly owned by Dessie O'Malley and Bertie Ahern with Michael McDowell up; No. 9 "Avalon Sunset" ridden by Pat Tuffy, again from the Dermot O'Leary stable and No. 10, "Put your Sweet Lips a little closer to the Phone" ridden by Seán Doherty and owned by John Ellis.
What about "Rocking the Foundations of the State" ridden by Pat Rabbitte? The jockey fell off that one.
(Interruptions.)
Members will have an opportunity to contribute. Let us hear the Member in possession.
I could have added "The Little Turncoat" ridden by Martin Cullen.
Surely the Deputy can come up with a new line. The Workers' Party remembers him with love and kindness. Tomás Mac Giolla would do so.
(Interruptions)
Order, please.
I predict that not only will Fianna Fáil live to regret initiating this debate if and when it gets the opportunity to return to its buccaneering ways but the Progressive Democrats will regret it. I know that Deputy Harney has repulsed the advances of Deputy Ahern for now because he was coming on too strong but what kind of Government is it suggested we would have in the event of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat courtship being consummated? I am on record as warning that in the event of Mary and Bertie getting into bed, politically speaking, Deputy McDowell will be a brooding presence on the bedpost. Therefore, if Deputy McDowell is true to form I have no reason to believe he will not be——
The Deputy is true to form today.
Deputy Brennan should keep his mouth closed.
——no one would be left in the Cabinet after six months except Deputies Harney and McDowell and perhaps Deputy Woods, who I have always thought has a particularly saintly demeanour.
Especially the way he joins his hands.
The use of Dáil time on this issue is out of all proportion to Mr. Stokes's lapse in allowing his name to be used in the fashion described.
What about all the lies the Deputy told the Dáil in his time?
Let us have no further interruption.
The Deputy told lies.
Nobody in this House seriously believed that this is a resigning issue for the Minister concerned. I have refrained from retracing the legacy of abuses of public office by Fianna Fáil since it returned to office in 1987. However, I would remind Deputies that it is only a short time ago since I accepted on the floor of the House that Deputy Cowen was guilty of no more than a lapse of memory on the Arcon shares controversy. On the matter of quasi-judicial appointments I remind the Leader of Fianna Fáil that no one now on this side of the House objected when he appointed his brother-in-law to an important quasi-judicial position. I do not know if Fianna Fáil is saying that no one appointed to a quasi-judicial function by any of its Ministers, for example, to An Bord Pleanála, has ever raised money for the party.
I have known Deputy Michael D. Higgins all my adult life. He is an honest politician and a creative Minister. I, for one, am glad that he will continue after today to add to the gaiety of public affairs and generally adorn and enhance public life.
I am disappointed——
On a point of order, do I take it that the Minister for Arts Culture and the Gaeltacht is not going to comment on this?
He will have ten minutes.
The Minister of State is in possession.
On a point of order, is that the First Fine Gael speaker?
I will not have as many gems to contribute to the debate as Deputy Rabbitte.
At least the Deputy will be more honest.
I am disappointed that my constituency colleague, Deputy de Valera, saw fit to put down this motion asking for the resignation of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. I have worked with him in the Department and Deputy de Valera has worked opposite him as Fianna Fáil spokesperson on this area. I have found Deputy Higgins to be a man of integrity, without malice or badness.
The motion implies that he deliberately set out to mislead. Deputy McDowell's argument rests on his interpretation of a section of the Act. Other speakers have explained the section that he is relying on. I refer to the so-called quasi-judicial role of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. Deputy de Valera also made that claim. The Deputies refered to the role of the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and quoted paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Radio and Television Act, 1988, in support of their view. The provision in question deals with the removal of a member of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and provides that the Government may remove a member for stated reasons if, and only if resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for the member's removal. While this is an unusual provision it is a mirror of section 2 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976, which provides for exactly the same procedure in terms of the removal of a member of the RTE Authority. A reasonable person could not claim that the chairman or members of the RTE Authority exercise a quasi-judicial function. The reason for the provisions in both Acts is to preserve the autonomy and independence from the Government of the day of the institutions concerned with the provision of broadcasting services.
On each occasion we have debated behaviour or misbehaviour Deputy McDowell has gone for the jugular. He talked about the grave mistake made by the Minister and criticised people on this side of the House who said what happened was an innocent mistake. I accept it was an innocent mistake. Deputy McDowell supported the Fianna Fáil view that there is party political opportunism at all times. There is a by-election in progress and Deputies feel there must be hype about it. Similarly, there is baseless media hype in the case of a young garda, and the Minister for Defence has been pilloried wrongly by the other side of the House in that regard.
Deputy Rabbitte referred to the scale of appointments by Fianna Fáil. I wish to quote from The Sunday Tribune of 13 February 1993 in which Gerald Barry, political correspondent, stated: “More than 600 appointments were made by the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government in the period between the general election and the formation of a new Government.
The present Government made 1,000 appointments.
That is the Deputy's most eloquent speech in a long time.
Unlike Deputy Rabbitte, I do not tell lies in the House.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins has been fair and balanced in his judgement as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, and I oppose the motion.
Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an deis seo agam an freagra a thabhairt ar a lán atá ráite agus mo thuairimí féin a nochtadh.
I apologise to the Dáil that the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on arts, culture and heritage has felt it necessary to table this motion which alleges a lack of public confidence in the Independent Radio and Television Commission, assails the integrity of the chairperson of the commission, and accuses me of failing to understand the proper and ethical behaviour required of a person who holds high public office. As Deputy Sargent said last night, the public are entitled to wonder at the judgement of those who have required that the Dáil spends three hours discussing this matter when there are so many other important issues queuing up for consideration in Private Members' time.
I have complete confidence in the way the Independent Radio and Television Commission is discharging its statutory duties with Niall Stokes as chairperson and nine others men and women of diverse views and backgrounds. The Independent Radio and Television Commission is not a one man band. The role of the current chairperson, unlike that of his predecessor, does not involve executive functions. His task is to facilitate and guide the deliberations of his colleagues in order to arrive at a collective decision on issues concerning the commercial broadcasting sector.
Last night a number of Fianna Fáil speakers unjustify and incorrectly accused the Independent Radio and Television Commission of being politically motivated in its decisions; issues such as the composition of the board of Highland Radio and guidelines for local radio during the divorce referendum were given as examples. Advantage was taken of this debate to make unfair innuendos in that regard. The clear inference intended by the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on broadcasting was that decisions of the Independent Radio and Television Commission are driven exclusively by the political views of its chairperson.
However, Niall Stokes has no executive functions and decisions of the Independent Radio and Television Commission are not his alone. Of the other nine members three were nominated by me for appointment. They are: Jude Bowles, community arts programme, Combat Poverty Agency and freelance radio producer; Aiden Meade, the independent audio visual producer from Dublin and Mary Ruddy, Station Manager of Connemara Community Radio.
The other six members were nominated by Deputy Albert Reynolds. They are: Gerard Danaher, barrister and former chairperson of the Employment Appeals Tribunal; Gillian Bowler, managing director of Budget Travel; Eileen Brophy, journalist, formerly a reporter with Radio Limerick; Jack Davis, chairman of the Meath Chronicle; Kieran Mulvey, chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission and Christy Cooney, FÁS manager and chairman of GAA Cork County Board, all of whom have political associations of one kind or another, as they are entitled. They were appointed for their competence, fairmindedness and representativeness.
I reiterate my complete confidence in the way the Independent Radio and Television Commission is carrying out its statutory duties. In alleging that there is a shadow on the impartiality and Independence of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, as she did last night, let Deputy de Valera ponder the disservice she is doing to Fianna Fáil and its six nominees who comprise a majority of the commission.
The mantra like repetition by Deputy Michael McDowell in recent days that the Independent Radio and Television Commission is a quasi-judicial body will not make it so. It is neither "in a certain sense" nor "in appearance", which the term means, a body of judges. The continued use of this pseudo legalism by Deputy McDowell, who is a senior counsel — is a piece of jargon deliberately used to cause confusion. The Independent Radio and Television Commission is unlike the Employment Appeals Tribunal or the Valuation Tribunal, which the Tánaiste referred to last night, both of which indeed can be described as quasi-judicial bodies.
A body which hands down judgements in the field of broadcasting is the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Are Deputies de Valera and McDowell inferring that the public can have no confidence in the independence and impartiality of that commission because its chairperson is an active member of Fianna Fáil and one of the members of the commission is a Progressive Democrats member who has stood for election?
The Independent Radio and Television Commission was set up to ensure the creation, development and monitoring of independent broadcasting in Ireland. Niall Stokes is to be admired for the vision and leadership, qualities he brings to the position of chairperson of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. He is a person who discharges his responsibilities without fear or favour, with intelligence and integrity, with commitment and conviction. As far as I am concerned he must, and will, continue to serve as chairperson of the commission for the full term for which he has been appointed.
As Deputy for Galway West I accept full responsibility for the circumstances which have unfortunately prompted this motion. The Labour Party in Galway is not dissimilar to party organisations elsewhere. We need funds for the election and referendum campaigns which occur from time to time, and we have fought all referenda. We seem always to be in debt and almost never to have the resources in place for the next campaign. We have fund-raising events where we call on the members and the same group of supporters to make the contributions necessary to make ends meet.
On this occasion a number of friends offered to help with the organisational arrangements necessary to put such events in place. It was entirely inappropriate that their names, including those of Niall Stokes and Dorothea Melvin, should have appeared on the booking form for a single event in March. I accept that and I regret it.
This oversight occured in my constituency office and the booking form was sent out from there to about 120 Labour Party members and supporters in Dublin. I greatly regret the embarrassment and the difficulties which have been caused to Niall Stokes and Dorothea Melvin by the adverse public comment and the several political criticism to which they have been exposed in the media and in this House. This was as a direct result of my failure to prevent their names from being appended to the booking form in the way it occurred.
I accept too there is a line between the personal sphere and the public sphere which should not be crossed if the people we serve are to have trust and confidence in the impartiality of the institutions of the State. I regret that my actions may have blurred that line in the perceptions of some people over the last week or so. I also apologise if by inadvertence any of the persons named have been caused concern or embarrassment.
I believe that in many of his radio interviews Deputy McDowell of the Progressive Democrats, unlike today, totally disregarded the principle of proportionality in his political opportunism and that the damage done by him to individual citizens was disproportionate to the mistake he sought to highlight and which I now acknowledge. Nevertheless, in the context of this debate, I wish to reassert the fundamental right and the central importance of talented men and women committed to our democracy being politically active and giving public service, and I say this irrespective of party affiliation or sympathy.
There are many commendable individuals, representative of all the parties in this House, whose skills are contributing to the quality of leadership in the public sector. It is the willingness of such people to give their time and energy in public service which has assisted, and continues to assist, many aspects of the economic, social and cultural life of this country.
In the course of making appointments to State boards I have recognised those individuals who have made a vital contributions to the work of their organisations and have reappointed them in the full knowledge that their party political sympathies are not shared by me. I could give many examples. Their contribution was and is valued by me and I do not ask them to deny friendship with anybody as a condition of service. That is an important point. Should I have said I am not a friend of Naill Stockes? Should Naill Stokes have said he was not a friend of Michael D. Higgins?
Nobody suggested that.
That is not the point.
The world knew it, and that is the point. I emphasise that I accept full responsibility for the mistakes I have listed and which I accept. In the short time remaining to me I cannot deal with other aspects of criticism of me as Minister for which this motion seeks to have me resign. For example, I did not create a climate of fear here in trying to do my work at the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, as was suggested last night.
The Tánaiste has spoken of the invaluable contribution programme managers make to the Programme for Government and the work of their respective Ministers. I reject all the allegations and imputations made about the participation of my programme manager, Kevin O'Driscoll, in the organisation of this modest fund raising event. His work on this event in his own time involved full consultation with me and my approval of all the arrangements made. I wish to express my personal gratitude to him for his assistance to me in my work as Minister and for his energetic contribution to the work of my Department. In addition, I am most appreciative of his voluntary work in the service of the Labour Party in Galway.
I have noticed that in their pursuit of this debate in the media, the language of members of the Progressive Democrats has been colourful. I suppose that is to be expected in light of the by-election. There are three examples, however, of their over-excited language on which I would like to comment. They used the word "gombeenism" to describe Dorothea Melvin's honest, open and legitimate involvement in political activity. In any fair thinking person's opinion they have maligned a private citizen and done a serious disservice to the practise and image of politicians.
Deputy McDowell had been particularly partial to the words "peddling influence" to describe the Labour Party's efforts to raise modest funds.
That was Eithen Fitzgerald.
This I reject emphatically and I would remind the House of the Progressive Democrats fund-raising exploits among merchant princes, described in their own literature as "an investment opportunity with a proven rate of return".
I must now call another speaker.
I would like to thank my colleagues in the parliamentary party for their personal support in the face of this attack. I am also grateful to the Deputies in Fine Gael and Democratic left.
What about Deputy Dukes?
I am committed as Minister to advancing the principle and practice of autonomy for all the institutions and agencies for which my Department is responsible. I am content to let time and history be the judge of my success or otherwise in this regard.
Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Brian Cowen agus an Teachta Síle de Valera.
I am sure that is agreed.
Speaking in the House last night the Tánaiste said that we are supposed to be able to take abuse in this House but has anybody on the opposite side of the House stopped to think about the cavalier and unfounded attacks on a private citizen and the damage they are doing? I agree with the Tánaiste that unfounded attacks should not be made and I ask him to instruct the general secretary of his party to retract the unfounded statement he made on RTE radio last Sunday that a former Member of this House, Éamon de Valera, who is no longer with us, had become a milionaire during his lifetime. As the people opposite know, that is untrue.
He did not say that.
The Deputy, without interruption.
He did say it. I call on the Tánaiste to instruct his general secretary to apologise for the unfounded remarks made on that radio programme.
It is extraordinary that no mention was made in this debate by the Tánaiste, who quoted figures as low as 40p, of union funding for the Labour Party.
That is all on the record.
All that information is published but the Deputy has not read it.
Let us hear the Deputy in possession.
This money, which is deducted at source from workers, has not been mentioned. No doubt it will be pointed out by Members on the opposite benches——
It is done on a voluntary basis.
——that if they go through a long and convoluted system, workers can refuse to pay that money. A large number of members of those unions, however, are not even aware that such a deduction from their wages is made.
(Laoighis-Offaly): There was a ballot on that three years ago.
I put it to the Labour Party that if the IFA or the farm organisations made a similar deduction through the mart system in favour of Fianna Fáil we would hear about it every day of the week. I call on the Labour Party, which is so interested in transparency and openness, to ask the members of SIPTU individually which political party they would like their money to be contributed to annualy. They should leave that decision to individual members and not have one of the social parties in a cosy relationship with the Labour Party.
Will the Deputy say how much Fianna Fáil is getting in contributions from builders and developers?
Claptrap.
As a Deputy in the constituency of Galway West I am intrigued by the need to go outside the constituency to raise these funds.
The Deputy's grandfather had to travel, if I remember. He collected more than I did.
Fortunately, I can rely on the party organisation in our constituency to collect money. We do not need much because we do not spend a great deal of money.
Do not tell that to Frank Fahey who I believe is doing very well.
I am more than intrigued by the need to involve outsiders in collecting money for Galway West but I suppose that is an indication of the state of the Labour Party in Galway.
In the short time available I wish to raise a couple of points as our spokesperson wishes to conclude this debate. The motion is: "That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to restore political confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Independent Radio and Television Commission..." This matter has come to a head because concern has been expressed within the independent radio industry about the behaviour, activities and opinions of the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and whether there is public confidence in his chairmanship.
The Tánaiste referred to consistency and accountability. In his words "accountability" is the right of the public to secure adequate explanations. He always claimed in his speeches that the Labour Party was interested in fair and true accounting. We have an independent radio sector which has a statutory basis. The legislative measures were introduced because of the problem with pirate radio stations, the unregulated activity and the need in the public interest to bring it under a legislative framework. The Independent Radio and Television Commission was established under the Radio and Television Act, 1988, with the specific function of entering contracts for the provision of sound broadcasting services and to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926.
It is important to note that Mr. Stokes in his private capacity is a good editor of a rock journal, Hot Press, which I have often read. I recall reading the columns for many years when the Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, was involved. In the interests of consistency and impartiality and being seen to be independent, as an editor of a rock journal, Mr. Stokes had an editorial line promoting pirate radio stations. For example, on 24 March 1993, under the heading “Outlaw Radio” it said:
With the problems besetting Irish commercial radio and an increasing dissatisfaction with the output of Dublin Independents, the way has been opened for a resurgence of private radio stations. We profile the major players.
On 5 May 1993 under the heading "Going Underground" he states:
The Fight Back Begins! Legally sanctioned Irish radio may continue to go from bland to worse, but in recent months a whole plethora of pirates have begun to waive the rules and may eventually rule the waves. We go behind the scenes of the most exciting and anarchic pirates to yet emerge.
Even this week's edition, despite the controversy, of 3 April 1996 under the heading "Turning The Tables" states:
While Dublin's licensed stations continue, for the most part, to feed the mainstream, stations like Club FM are offering one kind of alternative. Journalist visits what is currently the capital's leading dance pirate.
If the Independent Radio and Television Commission is to be independent and the Chairman, who has the statutory functions of maintaining a regulated independent sector on one hand, and on the other, in a separate capacity, is promoting unregulated radio broadcasting here, that is unacceptable to this House which set out the statutory framework within which people in the Independent Radio and Television Commission have to operate. We have imposed legal duties on the members of the commission to uphold the standards that we as legislators have set down. Yet, the chairman, in a separate capacity — as he is entitled to do — in a separate operation in a private area, is involved in promoting policies which are the negation of his own Minister. He is promoting policies which are totally inconsistent with a properly regulated independent commercial sector. That is the reason I say public confidence is ebbing. That is why I say it was not only the specific issue that occurred in Cumann na Múinteoirí, it is only one of a series of editorial judgments which he is entitled to make as rock journalist but they are editorial judgments which impinge on his perceived independence as chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. Those are issues which should be brought to book by the Minister who is responsible for ensuring that we have consistency and accountability. I submit that is the most serious charge that can be made against the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
Responsibility and accountability are not only about decisions taken, it is about the failure by the Minister to take decisions to ensure that the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission is actually propagating publicly and privately the policies he espouses. If he wishes to pursue policies in a different capacity, his time as chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission must come to an end.
I was rather amused this morning to listen to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte and his use of verbal camouflage. That is the only reference I could make to his speech. Having looked over eight pages there is not one single reference to the Independent Radio and Television Commission which indicates he had very weak arguments. It was a supercilious approach to what we on this side of the House consider an important and serious matter.
The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, referred to the fact that a certain person in this House once looked into his heart. I ask the Minister of State to look into his heart and see whether he can genuinely accept the position and vote with the rest of the Government at 1.30 p.m.
With regard to the use of Dáil time, I was interested to note that only ten minutes, out of 25 minutes Government time, was allocated to the Minister. Deputy Michael D. Higgins, to whom this motion is specifically related. The Minister did not have the opportunity to speak for 25 minutes because Democratic Left muscled in to make sure it had its say, although it was not really worth it, considering the speech given by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and Minister of State, Deputy Carey, felt Fine Gael had better be seen to make some comment on this occasion.
When we are talking about this question we are referring specifically to the chairperson of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, and not to any other members of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. The Independent Radio and Television Commission is not just any old statutory body. It is a tribunal which grants broadcasting licences to people who wish to set up radio and television stations. The Independent Radio and Television Commission is similar to An Bord Pleanála. Can one imagine what would be said if a chairman of An Bord Pleanála got involved in political fund-raising for the Minister for the Environment? The Independent Radio and Television Commission has to be fair and has to be seen to be fair. The Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, was perfectly correct in saying that people will obviously have their own friendships with Ministers or their own political points of view and will have their own right to fund-raise for a political party. He forgets, and this is the important distinction, that when one takes on the responsibility of such a quasi-judicial position — perhaps the Minister would read the Act which refers to this and get advice on it——
I have. It is not a quasi-judicial position.
——a person in such a sensitive position is obliged to ensure he does not at any stage take the opportunity of making any political statements or fund-raise for any political party or Minister.
Deputy Cowen referred to the fact that the editor and owner of Hot Press, who happens to be the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, had an article in the last publication which referred to two illegal radio stations. To say the least that is inappropriate when he is supposed to be chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission for the legal licensing of our radio and television stations.
Last night the Tánaiste, if he was to be perfectly honest, felt rather embarrassed about the position. He detailed at length what a race night entailed and talked about only small amounts of money. The situation does not hinge on the amount of money raised but on the principle. It is difficult to believe that a person of his legal training and his general intelligence does not appreciate the principle involved here and the logical action that should follow from that principle. I urge the House to support the motion which the Fianna Fáil Party has tabled regarding the resignation of Mr. Niall Stokes and the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Question declared lost.