JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 2007

Broadcasting Issues: Discussion with RTE.

Chairman

I welcome the representatives from RTE, Mr. Cathal Goan, director general, Mr. Noel Curran, managing director, RTE television, Mr. Ed. Mulhall, director RTE news and current affairs, Mr. Conor Hayes, chief financial officer and Ms Bride Rosney, director of communications.

The joint committee has invited representatives from RTE to discuss the following areas: digital terrestrial television roll-out and possible implications; the proposed broadcasting Bill; political balance in television and radio programming; RTE factual programmes; and licence fee issues.

Before we begin I want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Goan to make his opening remarks, after which we will have questions.

I propose to deviate slightly from the agenda as listed and start with a discussion on the report on the "High Society" television programme which was published yesterday, then revert to the issue of political balance in programming. If we have time, we will then discuss the other issues on the agenda.

Mr. Cathal Goan

Tá mé buíoch daoibh thar cionn mo chomhghleacaithe as an cuireadh a bheith anseo le labhairt leis an chomhchoiste úr. Táimid ag súil le plé leathan ar réimse fhairsing ábhar a bhfuil impleachtaí móra ann don chraoltóireacht seirbhíse poiblí in Éirinn agus don phobal i gcoitinne. Is am cinniúnach é seo agus táimid ar tháirseach ré nua teilifíse, agus, go deimhin, reachtaíocht chuimsitheach don chraoltóireacht uilig.

I thank the Chairman for his opening remarks. It is timely that RTE is invited to meet the new Oireachtas committee. We did not have an opportunity in the run up to the last general election to meet the outgoing committee, as had been the custom for a number of years.

Following on from the recent meeting with the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland on new legislation on digital terrestrial television and a new broadcasting Bill, it is good to have an opportunity to engage fully with the joint committee on those discussions. In a general sense and not wanting to take away from the reordered agenda, the underlying themes for all of the topics under discussion today are access, choice and public support for broadcasting. In that context today's discussions, these are very timely.

Our reasons for wishing to engage with the committee are digital terrestrial television on foot of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Act2007 and the specific function of RTE to roll out one national public service multiplex. That provides a challenge and our sense is that it requires further engagement to make it a fully successful platform so that all Irish people can enjoy access to a wide range of programming. The outgoing committee was party to a pioneering piece of communication in the e-consultation process on the new broadcasting Bill and we contributed to a number of discussions on it. We look forward to the forthcoming Bill and its timely passing into law. Several key issues should be addressed in it.

I am happy to talk to the committee on the issue of political balance in television and radio programming and RTE's legislative obligations with regard to fairness and impartiality. Likewise, I am happy to deal with questions regarding RTE factual programming and the very obvious current interest in the broadcast of the two part series, "High Society", in November. I am happy to answer those questions and set the issue in the broader context of RTE's output of factual programming in the widest sense.

It is important to reflect that in 2002, on foot of a very significant review of RTE's activities, a major licence fee increase was granted to RTE. I can demonstrate that the fruits of that significant increase are evident in the increased home production by RTE television and radio and in the quality of that programming. At that time a five year review of the licence fee was promised. We look forward to a full review of RTE's activities in the context of the development of public service broadcasting and a general sense of ongoing support for public service broadcasting in an era of increased competition.

I look forward to engaging as openly as possible with Deputies and Senators and to dealing with their questions.

Chairman

I thank you, Mr. Goan, for appearing before the committee. I hope the change of date did not cause too much inconvenience for you. I appreciate that you are attending a week later than we originally planned. I requested material from RTE late last week and the organisation was most efficient in delivering it to me. I also appreciate that.

In some quarters people have referred to a witch hunt. On behalf of the committee I categorically deny that. I look forward, during the life of this Dáil, to dealing with RTE on a regular basis. The committee has an obligation to hold RTE to account on behalf of the taxpayers. Similarly, RTE has a duty to hold others to account, which it has done on many occasions.

I have not seen the internal report referred to but I heard snippets from it in yesterday's news headlines and I have seen the press release issued by RTE. On the one hand, RTE admits to having shortcomings and accepts that checks and balances were not in place. On the other hand it makes a staunch defence of the programme and praises its overall thrust. It appears to me that the only person who had access to source material for the programme was the author of the book, Ms Justine Delaney Wilson. She is the only person who knows the identity of the politician, the pilot, the nun, the medical professionals, the teacher and others who were involved. Her publisher appears to have accepted her assurances and RTE now appears to accept the publisher's assurances without direct access to the source material. If RTE did not have direct access to the source material, and Mr. Goan obviously feels he needed it, why does he accept the full assurances of the publisher?

It is a pity the controversy revolved around the politician. A politician who takes cocaine will not cause the end of the world but an airline pilot taking cocaine might mean the end of the world for 350 passengers sitting behind him or her. If the source material exists and someone knows the identity of that airline pilot, is there not an obligation on the publisher, on RTE or on Ms Delaney Wilson to bring this information to the attention of the Garda? This is important information and it should be given to the Garda in the interest of the public.

The programme was broadcast in two parts. Were concerns raised in RTE after the first broadcast? Did anyone suggest that the project should be reconsidered before the second programme was broadcast? Was the first programme viewed in RTE and cleared to go on air before it was broadcast?

I compliment the team which produced the "Prime Time Investigates" programme on the same subject. Not for the first time, "Prime Time" has produced a powerful, factual and well researched programme. I am at a loss to know why RTE outsourced a programme containing dodgy source material when a fine group of people who make powerful programmes were available in-house.

Mr. Cathal Goan

Thank you, Chairman. I will be happy to deal with your questions as well as I can and I will ask my colleague, Mr. Noel Curran, to follow up on any issues I neglect to address.

It is important to recognise that RTE has said there were shortcomings in the editorial process and that too much reliance was placed on assurances given by third parties. It is equally important to say that when this issue became a matter of concern after the broadcast of the first programme, the initial checks were repeated. Subsequent to the broadcast of the second programme and in the course of Mr. Noel Curran's internal inquiry, every aspect of the source material, other than a specific number of anonymous sources the detail of which I will ask Mr. Curran to explain, were checked and verified.

This is not an issue of RTE's having taken everything on the word of someone else. The vast majority of the source material for this programme has been listened to by RTE. As we know, an unfortunate sequence of events has left us unable to access the sound recording of the politician. However, in the course of the inquiry, the weight of evidence of all the source material which has been checked leads RTE to believe that the overall programmes are true. We acknowledge fully that our rigour in approaching the initial examination of that source material was less than it should have been. That is what the RTE Authority has acknowledged in its response to the report by Mr. Noel Curran.

Assurances regarding the source material were initially sought and given. Subsequent to the broadcast of the first programme reassurance was given and since then further assurance has been given by the publisher. The vast majority of that material has been accessed and verified by RTE. I say this in case there is doubt in anyone's mind in this regard. The programmes do not mention a nun. I do not know the origin of that, except to assume that some people have confused the programmes with the book on which they were based. There are differences between what is said in the book and in the two television programmes. I have tried to address the question of concern after the broadcast of the first programme. I am heartened by your compliments, Chairman, about "Prime Time Investigates" and the work the programme does, sometimes in dangerous circumstances.

There are different ways of engaging with the public. To be a public service broadcaster at the centre of Irish life engaging with different audiences in various ways calls for different approaches to the many subjects that merit our scrutiny. This is not to say there is only one way of telling a story or raising an issue. In the past we have profitably looked at very painful issues. When I say "profitably", I mean in the sense of the issue being aired properly in the context of hepatitis C and in the context of Stardust. These were dramatic treatments of issues of real current interest. There are different ways of engaging with material.

I am heartened by what was said about "Prime Time Investigates". We acknowledge that in adapting to a new genre of programming we did not do all we should have. We have also said that in the context of this finding, that kind of treatment will be put aside in assessing future factual commissions until we come to a fuller view of the efficacy of it. I would not like that to be taken as some kind of white flag from RTE that it will not seek different ways to engage with topics of current interest. That is our job in a competitive environment but also as a public service broadcaster who wishes to engage with the public as fully as possible.

Mr. Noel Curran

Regarding the Chairman's reference to the apparent contradiction in the report, the report criticises our editorial controls before broadcast. Following broadcast of the first programme, we gained full access to the remaining tapes - seven hours of tapes. We interrogated the commissioning editor, spoke at length to the author and received additional assurances from the publishers and from their legal representatives that they had viewed contemporaneous notes of the remaining interviews, which constituted 18% of what was broadcast in the programme. Some 82% of what was broadcast in the programme constituted the tape material to which we gained access, expert opinion and what we call pieces to camera from the journalist. Afterwards we gained additional assurances. We had some interrogation before the first broadcast but we have acknowledged that was not enough. The seeming contradiction is that we are saying that before the first broadcast our editorial controls were not sufficiently exercised in that we did not seek enough interrogation. We are standing over the programme because we have followed up on that interrogation and we have also spoken to and seen testimonies from a range of experts who have said that the documentary series rings true. We have spoken to organisations such as Narcotics Anonymous, who said that they put the author in touch with cocaine abusers. They would not confirm, for reasons of confidentiality, whether those were used in the programme. In terms of the point on contradiction, that is the answer.

It also covers what happened after the first programme. Was the first programme viewed before it went out? It was. I echo what Mr. Goan has said in terms of the compliments on "Prime Time". Deputies Coveney and McManus have acknowledged RTE factuals output in recent years, which we should not forget. This is a particular genre of programming. It is a genre which has been used in other countries and relies heavily on dramatisations. It relied on a book and it was the first time we had done this. We need to question ourselves as to whether this type of programme should be done through factual programming. We need to look at what guidelines are necessary if we do it. We also need to look at the guidelines we need if we do documentary series which are largely dependent on or based around a published book.

Chairman

The source material has been listened to and verified by RTE and was subsequent to the broadcasting of the programmes. You are satisfied, having listened to all the tapes that everything is fine.

Mr. Noel Curran

We are satisfied as to the veracity of the tape recordings that we heard. We are satisfied in that regard.

Chairman

Then why are we concerned about the editorial difficulties before the programme was broadcast, if you have subsequently seen that everything is fine?

Mr. Noel Curran

The concern is that we did not access all of the tapes beforehand. We had listened to samples, but not to all the tapes. In terms of RTE's editorial standards, which are incredibly high, we feel this did not live up to the kind of interrogation that we would normally have for a series like this.

Chairman

Having heard the tapes subsequently, do you know the identity of the people mentioned - the airline pilot or the politician?

Mr. Noel Curran

No, we do not.

Mr. Cathal Goan

It is important to say, for absolute clarity, there is no recording in existence now of the politician. What the publishers have said is that they -

Senator Donie Cassidy

Is the tape recording available?

Mr. Cathal Goan

What the publishers have assured us is that they have viewed contemporaneous notes and they are satisfied with the veracity of the statement and the assurances they got from the author. As Mr. Curran has said, in the case of 82% of the programme, which are the recordings of the vast majority, the expert testimony and the pieces to camera are all verifiable. There is 18% which relates to material which is dependent on notes and that has been independently verified, with the exception, in RTE's case, of the politician.

Mr. Noel Curran

In terms of the dependence on the publisher's examinations of the notes, journalists very often depend on sources who have seen something they have not seen. A Sunday newspaper published last Sunday a report of my report. They had not seen my report but they obviously found someone they trusted who either felt they knew what was in it or had seen it. That happens quite regularly and it is accepted if you have trusted sources.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I welcome RTE. The panel of people here today is an indication of how seriously it is taking this issue. We appreciate that.

My understanding is that before RTE broadcasts a programme of this type there is an editorial meeting to discuss problems that might arise as a result of the broadcast. Was there such an editorial meeting before the first broadcast of "High Society" and, if so, what were the recommendations from that meeting as to whether there had been a sufficient level of research into the programme? Was there an editorial meeting before the second "High Society" programme and had research been done between the first and second programmes?

I ask these questions because for me the most important thing for RTE is credibility. When we see a programme on RTE television we must know that we can believe it, that we can be sure the necessary research has gone into the creation of that programme so that when we see a report of a politician using cocaine we can believe it, rather than a quote from a politician being almost discredited before it is put on screen. That is what happened this time.

Cocaine use in Ireland is a hugely important issue. We have had tragic examples in the past two weeks of people who have lost their lives as a result of using cocaine. The first attempt at raising consciousness about the effects of using cocaine, the impact on people of all backgrounds and wealth and levels of education, was the "High Society" programme. For that reason, the credibility of that programme and the decision to run it at that time are hugely important. That is why politicians are exercised about this, apart from the defensive approach taken by some people who want to discredit claims that a politician or a Cabinet Minister is using cocaine. I am not really interested in those arguments. The issue for me relates to the importance of RTE in setting the agenda on social issues such as the use of cocaine, prostitution, human trafficking, etc., matters with which it has dealt so successfully in factual and investigative programmes.

As the Chairman stated, the "Prime Time Investigates" programme on cocaine was hard-hitting and excellent. However, our focus today rests on the "High Society" programme, the level of credibility attaching to it and whether RTE intends to stand strongly over its content.

When it emerged that RTE's internal report had been finalised and that the RTE Authority was to comment on it yesterday, I was expecting to hear representatives of the station say that they had made a mistake by not carrying out the necessary research before broadcasting the programme, that they could not, therefore, stand over its content and that events of this nature would not happen again. On the other hand, they might have stated that they had investigated the position in respect of a programme relating to a controversial issue, that they were not prepared to apologise for its content and that, on the basis of the review carried out, they were prepared to stand over everything that was broadcast. Instead, as the Chairman stated, we appear to have been presented with an ambiguous mixture of these two explanations. On one hand, it is being stated that RTE accepts that there were shortcomings in respect of the editorial process while, on the other, the station has indicated that it is standing over the accuracy of the content.

Is the station aware of the identity of the politician concerned? Is he or she a Minister or a backbencher? I accept that our guests may be bound by confidentiality but surely they can indicate, without revealing his or her identity, whether the individual in question is a Minister. The latter would add some credibility to the story. Justine Delaney Wilson openly stated that she spoke to a Government Minister. Will our guests, who have spoken to Ms Wilson, clarify the position in respect of this matter in the interests of establishing a degree of credibility?

Were these issues discussed at an editorial meeting? Yesterday, the chair of the RTE Authority, Ms Mary Finan, stated that she does not know the identity of the so-called cocaine-taking politician. However, on 19 November, Mr. Kevin Dawson, the commissioning editor for factual programmes, indicated that he is aware of his or her identity. Our guests are the bosses at RTE. Do they know the identity of the individual in question?

Many people believe that the credibility of the programme and RTE is undermined by virtue of the fact that the one interview in respect of which there is no tape recording is the most controversial one involving the politician. The author's explanation is that she had a tape but that she destroyed it. Do our guests believe her? Was there a tape in existence and was it subsequently replaced by detailed notes? I accept that many journalists who interview people take notes and do not make recordings. It is perfectly credible to state that one would take notes of an interview with a Minister rather than making a tape recording.

Will our guests outline the facts as they know them? They spoke to the author at length and to representatives of Gill and Macmillan and had access to taped material as well as detailed documentation. Will they outline the sequence of events and clarify whether they had access to the documents relating to the so-called interview with the so-called politician or whether they are relying solely on legal assurances from Gill and Macmillan and the author in that regard?

Mr. Cathal Goan

The Deputy is correct. It is not our place to be flippant about the trust members of society have in RTE. It is a tribute to the colleagues accompanying me and their hard work and journalistic standards that the station occupies that position. There are different balances of interest which have to be represented and these relate as much to people outside RTE as they do to our internal processes.

As a result of the fact that the RTE inquiry relates to the stations internal processes, it is entirely correct that we should focus on what we did or did not do. That is why I believe what the chair said is not inconsistent. There were shortcomings, as we have described, in the full examination of sources before the first broadcast of the programme. There was some level of examination but this was not enough.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Was that matter raised at an editorial meeting before the programme was broadcast?

Mr. Cathal Goan

There are a number of editorial meetings that happen at different levels in RTE. Departmental meetings and television, news and radio editorial meetings are held on a weekly basis. There is also a weekly corporate editorial meeting which I chair and which takes place each Friday morning. On the Friday before the first broadcast, as far as the corporate editorial meeting was concerned in respect of forward plans, there was no discussion of the programme. It was simply signalled that the programme was forthcoming. The programme was discussed at the subsequent corporate editorial meeting and some of the issues of concern were raised. On foot of this, RTE began to interrogate the material before the second programme was broadcast.

Mr. Noel Curran

Between the first and second editorial meetings, I asked TV programmes for a report outlining the verification process, etc., and whether it was happy to allow the second programme to be broadcast. That was when, as I stated earlier, a much more detailed series of interrogations began. On the Wednesday, I received a four-page document from RTE factual programming indicating that it had spoken to the author, spent considerable time with the publishers, investigated the due diligence of the publishers and gained access to the tape recordings we had only sampled prior to the first programme. RTE factual programming stated that it was strongly of the view that it could stand over the veracity of the programme and that the second broadcast should proceed.

I do not know the identity of the politician involved. Mr. Kevin Dawson stated that he believes he knows the identity of the person in question but I do not. This matter did not form part of my investigation. The identity of the politician was not part of the terms of reference in terms of internal processes because the individual in question was not named. The answer to the question on my part is "No".

Deputy Simon Coveney

Do our guests not think that before RTE broadcast a programme as controversial as that under discussion - expectations in respect of which were built up through all sorts of radio and television advertisements - it would have been appropriate for top level management at the station to satisfy themselves with regard to the identities of those involved, particularly in light of accusations to the effect that a politician was using cocaine and the author's claim that it was a Government Minister whom she met in Buswells Hotel this time last year? Would it not have been appropriate for the station to deal with matters in this way, particularly as Kevin Dawson stated on the "News at One" on RTE radio that he knew the identity of the politician?

Mr. Noel Curran

I absolutely agree with what the Deputy said in respect of credibility. Most of the people around this table rose to their positions through a range of routes, including making current affairs programmes, etc. I was editor of current affairs when "Prime Time Investigates" was launched. I take no pleasure in issuing a report which states that editorial controls were not sufficiently exercised. This programme was not an edition of "Prime Time Investigates" and it was not seen as a means by which to out a politician. We are saying that editorial controls were not applied. Some people would make the argument that prior assurances from the publisher, and the fact that there was a published book which had been legally cleared for publication on the basis that people were not being named in the television programme, amounted to due diligence. We say that was not enough because RTE's standards deserve a greater level of due diligence.

Deputy Liz McManus

I welcome the delegation. We are very proud of our national broadcaster, which has served the people very well. When something like this happens it is important it is given due consideration. I will ask a couple of questions. First, I would like clarification on the very first statement at the beginning of the first "High Society" programme to the effect that all events and testimonies were true. Can Mr. Curran say if that was the case?

Mr. Noel Curran

We have directly interrogated what was broadcast and the vast bulk of it was either expert testimony or tapes that we directly interrogated. We have no reason to doubt the assurances given on the rest of the material by the author, the publisher or the publisher's lawyers.

Deputy Liz McManus

I am sorry but I was looking for a "Yes" or a "No".

Mr. Noel Curran

The answer is "Yes".

Deputy Liz McManus

Mr. Curran is saying that all the testimonies and the events portrayed are true.

Mr. Noel Curran

We believe so.

Deputy Liz McManus

Maybe we need to go into the matter in some detail because that is quite a statement for Mr. Curran to make. Some 50 people were contacted or interviewed during the making of the programme. Some were obviously medical experts but how many were, or claimed to be, cocaine abusers? Mr. Curran says that back-up information is held for 82% of the content, but not the remaining 18%. That does not tell us how many cocaine abusers were taped and how many were not. Can he clarify how many of those are on tape and how many are not?

I was not convinced by the words, yesterday, of the chairperson of the RTE Authority, when she argued that the thrust of the programme had been conveyed and that, in some way, the end justified the means. Can Mr. Curran comment on that? When one makes an error it is much better to admit it because it has implications for other programmes RTE broadcasts.

In these days of greater transparency, if something happens in our line of business an independent investigation is called for, and rightly so. A resulting report would then be published. Does RTE not believe it would serve its interests for an independent report on an event such as this to be published, rather than leaving a lingering doubt about the natural inclination of the people on the inside of the tent?

"Prime Time Investigates" did an excellent job and RTE generally does an excellent job but defensiveness undermines confidence and trust. I do not believe all the testimonies are true, not because I think RTE is trying to bamboozle us but because the programme was not evidence-based, which is what we expect of RTE when it provides information to the public.

Mr. Cathal Goan

I will ask Mr. Curran to answer the specific question on the number of people interviewed but I will make a few observations on some of the questions Deputy McManus asked. On the question of an independent report, it is important to reflect that the RTE Authority is the regulator for RTE. The authority asked for full scrutiny of the events and was happy that Mr. Curran would fully interrogate the circumstances. It is unlikely that anyone independent of RTE would have come to a conclusion more critical of the way it handled the matter. We have acknowledged there were shortcomings in the way we handled it. To satisfy the Deputy an independent report would have to be a judicial one, where the key testimony of the author and of the publishers would be challenged and I cannot see that, in this context, such a process is called for.

Deputy Liz McManus

There are other options than a judicial report.

Mr. Cathal Goan

Under the circumstances journalistic privilege is such that the author would be believed. Her privilege to keep the identity of the person in question anonymous would be respected, short of going through a judicial process.

Deputy Liz McManus

I have no interest, and nor does any other member, in breaking journalistic confidentiality.

Mr. Cathal Goan

Short of that, what other way can we directly answer the Deputy's question? We have done as much as we can and believe what has been presented to us, under the circumstances. It gives us no pleasure that our processes were incomplete and that we find ourselves in this situation, particularly given the nature of the public discussion around cocaine abuse in Ireland and the other contributions RTE has made to that issue, including in this programme, in terms of the witness it bore to the damage cocaine does and the expert testimony of specialists on which it relied.

I do not want to speak for the chairperson of the RTE Authority but I doubt if she wished to convey the impression that the end justified the means. Context is the important issue and the overall burden of the programmes consisted of an effort to highlight the very widespread abuse of cocaine in Irish society. It is a matter of great regret to us that 1% of the programme, as broadcast, is the focus of today's discussion.

Deputy Liz McManus

Before we move on to the other point, we are discussing the 1% of the programme to which Mr. Goan referred because it was controversial. We do not know whether there is more to come. That is why I asked about the individuals who were taped.

Mr. Noel Curran

In percentage terms, 64% was audio-based and 36% note-based. I understand that, for the book, the ratio was 75% to 25% in favour of audio.

Deputy Liz McManus

So for every two cocaine users whose interviews were taped, one was not taped.

Mr. Noel Curran

That is approximately the case, in terms of air time.

Deputy Liz McManus

Can we be sure the pilot was real?

Mr. Noel Curran

The pilot's testimony was not audio-based but note-based.

Deputy Liz McManus

What about the nurse?

Mr. Noel Curran

The nurse's testimony was audio-based. I do not want to bamboozle people but we were very forensic in terms of what we broadcast. The vast bulk of the note-based testimony which amounted to 18% of the entire programme, related to one individual, namely the teacher. The publishers reassured us - albeit after the broadcast of the first programme, which is why we observe difficulties with our editorial controls - that they had carried out independent due diligence in respect of that individual.

Deputy Liz McManus

Is there a tape of the teacher, politician or nurse?

Mr. Noel Curran

No.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I welcome the ladies and gentlemen from RTE and thank them for attending and their admission of shortcomings in the programme, although I recognise the valuable work they and "Prime Time Investigates" have done during the years. I wish to refer specifically to the investigation which was a wide ranging inquiry according to their briefing document. How wide ranging was it and what contacts were made with external bodies? It is beyond belief there was no independent examination or inquiry. Was the Irish Airline Pilots Association or the Irish Nurses Organisation consulted or the Government Information Service contacted when reference was made to a Minister? How many of the 50 interviews for the programme were determined by the inquiry to be note or audio-based? How extensive was the inquiry and was there outside consultation? Was it merely done to cover tracks within RTE or was there a proper investigation? The delegation has admitted to shortcomings, but it would be kind to say we all knew that there were, although I did not see the programme. Was the organisation or order of the sister to whom it referred consulted? That would have been the very least that could have been done.

Chairman

I will break with precedent and take two more speakers, as the main spokespersons have concluded their lines of questioning.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Like my colleagues, I welcome Mr. Goan and his team to answer questions. He stated he did not know the identity of the politician concerned. Does any of his colleagues know the identity of the Minister or politician concerned?

An increase in the licence fee is an item on the agenda.

Chairman

Perhaps we should conclude the item being dealt with. We will have ample time to ask questions on each of the other agenda items. Instead of confusing the issue, it would be more appropriate to finish the line of questioning on RTE factual programming before dealing with the other items.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

That is fine.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I welcome the RTE representatives and reiterate the Chairman's comment that "Prime Time" and its factual investigations, of which there was another last night, are always top class. As such, I cannot understand how RTE's standards slipped so much. I would deem it tabloid journalism. I am surprised RTE would take that route and let its standards slip.

Mr. Goan admitted to shortcomings in the editorial process, the exact statement of the chairperson of the RTE Authority, Ms Mary Finan. If the shortcomings had been identified in time, what changes would RTE have made to the programme broadcast? Mr. Curran put his hands up regarding RTE's editorial processes and stated there were difficulties therein. The first recommendation in our guests' document is that RTE "put on hold the making of any factual programming which is largely dependent on anonymous contributors and re-enactments". This suggests that, had the recommendation been implemented, the programme would not have been broadcast. Will Mr. Curran comment in this regard?

The word "credibility" has been used often. In all honesty, does Mr. Curran believe any politician would tell any journalist that he or she was using cocaine and, to compound the matter, agree to make the statement on tape? I do not believe it is credible. Is it possible the politician does not exist? That may be the case because there is no proof to the contrary. Deputy McManus pressed the delegates for a yes or no answer to her first question on whether they stood over what everyone had stated. The answer of yes seemed to contradict the first recommendation made.

Senator Cassidy has left but was going to ask my next question. Someone has told me that it is technically possible with some modern tape recorders to determine what might have been erased. Is the tape recorder available and, if so, can a technician examine it to determine whether the recording can be recovered?

Chairman

I shall ask the delegates from RTE to deal with the questions asked. I shall then call Deputy D'Arcy and Senators Corrigan, O'Reilly and Walsh.

Mr. Noel Curran

The inquiry was wide-ranging. I spoke to all internal staff, the production company, the production company's lawyer, the author and her lawyer on two occasions and the publisher and its lawyer. I have received individual reports from every RTE staff member involved on his or her involvement in the sequence of events. We have also received reports from the production company on its involvement in it. I have read pages and pages of e-mail exchanges and subsequently interviewed people with a new series of questions. As with anything requiring natural justice, I informed people of the likely findings in advance. I hope this will be seen as wide-ranging.

It is not a question of what changes we would have made had we had these guidelines. Rather, had they been in place, the interrogation that occurred after the broadcast of the first programme - there was an interrogation before the broadcast; I do not want to give the impression that there was nothing, but it was not enough - would have occurred beforehand or the programme would not have been broadcast.

It is my understanding the tape recorder is not available.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

That is convenient. I asked whether Mr. Curran believed it to be credible that a politician would do as suggested and it to be possible that none of it occurred.

Mr. Noel Curran

That would be to state a politician taking cocaine is credible, whereas admitting to it on tape is not. Due to events in recent weeks, the matter of credibility as it relates to cocaine abuse has been altered for me to a large degree. Had the Deputy asked me a number of weeks ago whether 92% of pubs would test positive for cocaine use, I would have said no. I might have said 30% nationally and 40% in an urban area. Regarding the pathology of abuse, a number of experts asked whether we would find it difficult to believe a politician would have an alcohol problem or admit to using soft drugs such as cannabis. Credibility is a significant issue, but I can only refer to our answer to Deputy McManus.

Mr. Ed Mulhall

I welcome the comments concerning "Prime Time Investigates". It would be remiss of me not to point out that we have spent an hour or more on this discussion. Particularly in respect of an item that has created some controversy publicly, it is appropriate that we are interrogated about it. If there is a flaw in the programme, it is that in terms of both the media notice of it and, with due respect, the political follow-through it has allowed a certain distraction from what is really the core issue and problem in our society. The purpose of both last Monday's edition of "Prime Time Investigates" and this programme was to deal with this problem. A subsequent series on the Rutland Centre also intends to deal with drug abuse in our society.

Most of the journalistic scepticism has been similar to that expressed by Deputy Kenneally and concerns whether someone would be naive enough to admit drugs abuse to a relatively inexperienced or unknown journalist. That is what has given rise to the initial questions regarding the credibility of it. The context in which that and all of the testimony was used on the programme was one of trying to give some insight into users and abusers of cocaine and the therapies and people dealing with it. That is one side of the story in terms of cocaine abuse in Ireland.

The other side of the story was the one that "Prime Time Investigates" sought to give by getting hard and real evidence in terms of actual location of cocaine abuse and following the track in terms of the people who act as couriers and those who sell and import the drugs. It also aimed to raise issues and questions about our society's acceptance of this phenomenon. Despite the praise for the programme and raising it during Leaders' Questions to the Taoiseach last week, I am still slightly disappointed about the follow-through in terms of real journalistic interrogation of the evidence that is now coming out and the follow-through in terms of policy discussion on it, either through Dáil committees or otherwise. That is really the core issue. There has been some notable work done by "Prime Time Investigates" but also by the Irish Examiner in recent weeks in terms of highlighting this issue. The appropriate questioning on this issue should not lose that element of it just because of the “Prime Time Investigates” programme.

Deputy Simon Coveney

On that issue--

Chairman

Deputies Mattie McGrath and D'Arcy want to ask supplementary questions. I do not know if Deputy Coveney will be back here this afternoon. I must keep order. Deputy McGrath may ask a brief supplementary question.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I asked about an independent inquiry, which Mr. Curran did not mention. I also asked whether contacts were made with external bodies. This is a fundamental issue because if RTE will broadcast items concerning certain persons, as well as politicians. Surely the authorities or bodies should have the right to reply and should have been asked to respond? It was a glib inquiry as far as I am concerned and I am not at all satisfied with the answers.

Chairman

Does Mr. Curran wish to make any further comment?

Mr. Noel Curran

We contacted external bodies and organisations such as Narcotics Anonymous. I apologise for not including that in the original answer. We contacted a range of experts in the area of drug abuse and treatment. We got their comments and views on the programme.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

What about the Government or the Irish Nurses Organisation?

Mr. Noel Curran

We did not contact the Irish Nurses Organisation or the Government Information Service.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Would it not be common decency to do that?

Mr. Cathal Goan

I am not sure if the import of the Deputy's question is to suggest that the Government Information Service would confirm whether a member of Government took drugs or that the Irish Nurses Organisation would similarly be in a position to confirm whether one of its members took cocaine. To put it another way, if we are to assert that cocaine abuse is confined to people who are not in specific professions in Ireland, namely, politics, aviation and medicine, that is a very large statement. If nothing else, the cumulative effect of "High Society" and "Prime Time Investigates" is to prove that precisely the opposite is true.

In respect of contacting outside bodies, it is fair to say that the Irish Airline Pilots Association and the Irish Aviation Authority have corresponded with RTE. We have responded to their letters.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I bet Mr. Curran is glad that this time next week Santa Claus will have come and this will be far from his mind. He certainly seems to be tired of it and seems to have done an in-depth investigation. Why did RTE sensationalise the advertisements for the programme? It was almost Sky-esque in respect of the small slots that were going out about the Minister taking cocaine. That it was a Minister should be irrelevant. What was slightly unfair was that RTE pointed the finger at one person in a very small group. There are between 30 to 35 Ministers when one includes Ministers of State and all the Ministers in the Government. I would not like to be one of those people when I go to a pub or have a few drinks over Christmas because the first thing that would be said to me would be "Are you one of the lads or ladies who take cocaine?"

I gather that nobody in RTE heard the tape relating to the Minister. Subsequently, this tape was destroyed. Did the publishers or their lawyers hear this tape? How did the delegation - as the senior officials within RTE - feel when the author told it she had destroyed the tape? It is fair and relevant to ask whether the delegation asked the author why she destroyed the tape. It is quite possible that the notes that were taken and that were viewed by the delegation could have been taken subsequently.

RTE's standards must be higher than those of everyone else because it is the public broadcaster and is publicly funded. This is why it has credibility. I agree with Mr. Mulhall that the full focus has been on one issue in respect of drugs at a time when three young people have died of cocaine overdoses in a very short period. It is unfortunate that we have gone down this road and that we are dealing here with this specific issue when the extent of the drug problem is there to be seen by everybody. I am not being glib but if a Minister is stupid enough to take cocaine, he or she could be stupid enough to admit it to a journalist. I think it was Napoleon who said that intelligence is not a requirement in a politician.

Mr. Noel Curran

I will take a few of the specific questions from Deputy D'Arcy. In respect of whether the publisher's lawyers heard the tape relating to the politician, the answer is "No". They were unaware that there was a tape of the politician until a statement was released by the author in that regard.

In respect of the reason she destroyed the tape--

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

Did the publisher hear the tape?

Mr. Noel Curran

The publisher did not hear the tape of the politician. The publisher worked off contemporaneous notes.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

And the publisher's lawyers?

Mr. Noel Curran

The publisher's lawyers did not hear the tape of the politician. They worked off contemporaneous notes which they verified but they know the identity of the person.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

Did anybody beside the journalist hear the tape?

Mr. Noel Curran

Our understanding is "No". We have received assurances on a confidential basis so I do not want to say directly as part of the inquiry where they came from. However, we have received direct assurances that the tape was destroyed on the advice of the author's original lawyer. The author subsequently changed lawyers. I am happy with those assurances.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Does Mr. Curran believe the author on that?

Mr. Noel Curran

Is the Deputy referring to the assertion that they were destroyed on the advice of the lawyer?

Deputy Simon Coveney

Yes.

Mr. Noel Curran

Yes, the assurances are very direct, namely, that legal advice was given by her original lawyer.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

To be clear, nobody apart from the author has heard the tapes.

Mr. Noel Curran

As we understand it, nobody apart from the author has heard the politician's tape.

Senator Maria Corrigan

I, too, welcome the members of RTE and compliment them on the quality of programming, in particular, RTE's coverage of events such as the budget and elections and its work in highlighting issues such as abuse, as contained in the programme "States of Fear", which was very welcome. On "Oireachtas Report", some of us might prefer a different schedule and a rebalancing of content.

In regard to "High Society", Mr. Curran made the point that contemporaneous notes were acceptable. While they are, the uneasiness relates to the initial claim that a politician had taken cocaine and the assertion that the claim had been made on tape. However, when the tape was sought, it became apparent that nobody but the author had listened to it and that it had been destroyed. It now appears, based on the response given to Deputy Kenneally, that the tape recorder has also been destroyed. The uneasiness relates to the fact that the claim was made on tape which was used to support the initial assertion. If the initial assertion had been that contemporaneous notes had been taken, we would not be in this position.

On the recommendation made in the report produced by Mr. Curran that new guidelines be introduced for any programme that relies heavily on external publications, who will author the guidelines and approve them and when will they be in place? My compliments to RTE in respect of the standard of programmes produced are genuine. It is a public service broadcaster of which we can be proud. However, I ask Mr. Curran to clarify an issue that has arisen from the "Prime Time Investigates" programme broadcast on, I think, 3 December. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has expressed concern that it was misled by the makers of the programme.

Chairman

The matter is not relevant to this discussion.

Senator Maria Corrigan

The question relates to factual programmes.

Chairman

The Senator may continue.

Senator Maria Corrigan

I would appreciate it if Mr. Curran answered the question. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council understood RTE was making a low budget public education programme and as such, waived its fee. The council has stated, in terms of the accuracy of the report, that the claim was carried that in excess of 60% of the ethics disclosure returns were not date stamped. It takes issue with this.

Mr. Noel Curran

On the recommendations, the director of television programmes will lead a group which will ensure all findings are implemented. It will report back to me. While I do not wish to comment on external matters, I agree with the Senator's comments in respect of it being easier to deal with this matter if the tapes were available.

Mr. Cathal Goan

I do not wish to get into the specifics of the first programme mentioned other than to confirm that RTE stands by the programme. I understand the "Prime Time Investigates" team confirmed in writing the nature of the request around the core issue of statements of interest. I have not used the correct term but I am sure members will understand what I mean.

With regard to the request in respect of filming, I understand the initial request did not specify the nature of the programme but that the matter was clarified in a second request. We are happy to discuss this matter separately. There is ongoing correspondence on the matter.

Mr. Ed Mulhall

The position is as set out by Mr. Goan. I am trying to find my notes in that regard. The initial contact was in respect of access to the chamber by a researcher. The following day the producer who contacted the person dealing with the request clarified that he was from the "Prime Time Investigates" team. As such, that element of the query has been addressed.

On the issue of date-stamping, the initial question was submitted by e-mail and followed up by telephone calls until a reply was eventually received in writing. This issue relates to separate records and information subsequently received. These matters are the subject of ongoing correspondence between both parties.

Mr. Cathal Goan

I would like to clarify a point made by Deputy D'Arcy about sensationalisation in promotions. No reference was made to the politician in the promotions or press release. My colleague back at base, Ms Bride Rosney, has confirmed that this is the case. I accept there can be views following programmes that they have been given more prominence than they merit. However, I do not believe that is the case in this instance. There are times when one regrets having promoted a programme excessively. It is important to point out, however, that RTE, uniquely in western Europe among public service broadcasters, occupies an extraordinary place in the audience share it enjoys for programmes of this nature. The "Prime Time Investigates" programme broadcast last week had an audience share of 49%; in other words, almost one in two people watching television that Monday night tuned into "Prime Time Investigates". To put this in perspective, 12% of the population watch an average "Panorama" programme on BBC in the United Kingdom. RTE is in a privileged position. I believe we live up to that privilege the vast majority of the time.

We have in the past 24 hours given a measured response in acknowledging our shortcomings. I reiterate again that we stand over the programme, although we are unhappy about some of the matters that have arisen from it. We regret there are circumstances which prevent us from going the whole way in verification. In total, the net effect of the programmes, notwithstanding the focus on "High Society" and "Prime Time Investigates", has been public good.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I accept Mr. Goan's remarks in respect of the advertisements. However, immediately after the programme RTE advertised on practically every radio programme in the State that a Minister had admitted on tape he was taking cocaine. I appreciate what Mr. Goan had to say about RTE's shortcomings. As I understand it, he is saying this was the first programme of its type and that RTE had not yet established its standards or procedures in this regard. I appreciate the difficulty in this regard.

Mr. Ed Mulhall

The row in identification of the politician developed well in advance of the programme. It happened at the time of publication of the book and its serialisation in the Sunday Independent . I believe Deputy Coveney was one of the people who raised the matter in the Dáil at the time.

Senator Joe O’Reilly

Like my colleagues, I share a pride in RTE and an admiration of its programming. It is because of this that these concerns have arisen. We value highly the national broadcast service.

I am sure the programme was viewed in RTE prior to it being shown on television. Surely the explosive allegations made in it should have given rise to or triggered a set of procedures almost as rigorous as those in place when the issue broke. This should have been the case.

Mr. Mulhall has stated the journalist concerned was relatively inexperienced. This, again, should have led to a rigorous investigation. I seek an assurance that RTE will avoid going down the road of tabloid television in this sphere. It would give me great heart to leave this meeting believing that RTE would avoid tabloidism in this sphere.

I am heartened to hear about the programmes at the Rutland Centre. The drug problem is of huge and endemic national proportions and of great concern to everyone in this room. We need an assurance that a subject of such gravity will not receive tabloid treatment. I accept that Mr. Goan reserves the right to be experimental and forward-thinking in programming, but that must avoid any kind of tabloid treatment of such a serious issue. As Deputy D'Arcy said, the tragedy of this is that it distracted from a proper discussion nationally of a very serious issue for so long and continues to do so.

Senator Jim Walsh

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Cuirim leis an fáilte roimh an fhoireann ó RTÉ. Is dócha go bhfuil sé oiriúnach dom, ar an gcéad dul síos, a rá nár fhaca mé an clár atá i gceist anseo. I followed the subsequent controversy in the media with regard to it. The programme highlighted that cocaine use cuts across all classes of society and all professions. That distinguishes it from heroin in particular. Some good, therefore, has come of this. I also welcome that Mr. Goan has conceded that there were deficiencies in editorial control and that he has given assurances in that regard. I do not criticise RTE greatly. If there were a repeat, more criticism would be called for.

The Chairman put his finger on the nub of the problem when he referred to the airline pilot. It would be foolish to think that various professions are excluded in terms of cocaine use. Where public safety is involved, journalistic privilege should not absolve anyone, including the author of the book, from identifying people who have done that and ensuring they are not allowed to fly. What would be the situation if, in a few months, there were an accident involving an aeroplane whose pilot was the cause of the accident? Nobody would have a leg to stand on and nobody would forgive them. There are boundaries to privilege and this situation goes beyond the boundaries as I see them.

I am not sure whether the question has been answered or whether it was asked. Much of the focus has been on the politician but very little on the airline pilot. Does RTE know the identity of the airline pilot? If it does not, what steps has it taken to have the airline pilot identified? If it knows the identity of the pilot, has that been brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities?

The RTE programme "Prime Time" has been mentioned. The programmes on cocaine were very good. There is greater potential than the programmes achieved. Presumably there will be follow-on programmes. Last night's programme on diesel smuggling was particularly effective. I applaud the public service reporters involved in those programmes, who do not undertake the making of those programmes without considerable risk to themselves. That should be acknowledged.

I agree fully with Senator Corrigan that the programme on planning issues left much to be desired. I know many of the characters who were interviewed on the programme. I also know some of the issues, having spent a long time in local government. There is no doubt in my mind that the programme was approached with a biased agenda. That is not to say there is nothing wrong in planning. There are problems. However, a balanced programme was required.

I was very impressed by the interview with the chairman of the RTE Authority by Mary Wilson and also of one of the RTE managers by Seán O'Rourke. There was an element of deference to the people they were interviewing which contributed to getting the best out of the interviews and gave the opportunity to the interviewees to make their point. I would like to see that spread across other areas. Reporters are far too quick to cut across with questions without listening to the answers. I heard a very good interview by Pat Kenny of Professor Gerry Stoker from Southampton University. There is a lesson in that programme for politicians, but the media could learn lessons from it. We all need to instil confidence among the public in the way we approach our jobs.

Chairman

We will deal with those questions. I will allow Deputy Coveney to ask a brief question as it is nearly 1 p.m. and there are other issues to discuss. We must conclude by 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Noel Curran

I will take Senator Walsh's final point. We do not know the identity of the pilot. That part of the programme was based on notes. The publishers, their lawyers and the author know the identity of the pilot. One of the tape recordings to which we listened was of an interview with a person who talked about attending a Narcotics Anonymous group and about an airline pilot being part of that group. We do not know whether it is the same person but we are relying on the assurances I mentioned earlier in terms of the note-based interviews.

Senator Jim Walsh

Does Mr. Curran know the airline with which the pilot worked?

Mr. Noel Curran

We would not have been told that because of confidentiality issues.

Senator Jim Walsh

Did RTE ask?

Mr. Noel Curran

We asked.

Mr. Cathal Goan

On the issue of the first "Prime Time" programme having a biased agenda, that is quite a serious charge. It links with the second item which we are here to discuss. Without having the specifics of that charge, I do not know whether I can say anything meaningful other than that we take it very seriously. If there is evidence, we will address the matter separately. I am concerned that anyone would perceive that RTE treated people from RTE with greater deference than anyone else who comes on RTE. Speaking from personal experience, I do not agree with the Senator.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Everyone hopes this meeting will have aired all of the issues and that this matter will continue into the new year. From that point of view, does RTE stand over the credibility of Justine Delaney Wilson, with whom RTE has been dealing in terms of the internal report as well as the research that was done before, during and after the airing of the programme?

Mr. Cathal Goan

That question is invidious. The Deputy has singled out an individual in a way that I do not believe is appropriate. In the context of this programme, RTE stands over the programmes broadcast.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Allow me to ask a more direct question. There seems to be continuing ambiguity in terms of the politician. The focus has been on that issue and people want an answer. Are we talking about a Government Minister or a politician? The journalist says it is a Government Minister and RTE, in that section of the second broadcast of the programme, referred to a politician rather than a Minister. Was there an editorial decision taken in an attempt to reduce the impact of the reference?

Having read the quotation in the book and having seen the relevant section of the programme, it seems that the focus since the "High Society" programme has been on the politician, even though there was only a minor reference in the programme to a politician. Most of the longer contributions were from other personalities who were interviewed. Was that the result of an editorial decision? It would be helpful if Mr. Goan could clarify whether we are talking about a Minister or a backbencher. Otherwise there will be continuing ambiguity. Mr. Mulhall said he was disappointed with the response to the programme from politicians and the lack of a policy reaction to cocaine use in Ireland. He said it was unfortunate the issue had shifted from cocaine to a quest for "whodunnit" in the Dáil. Was that response not entirely predictable, given that during the build-up to the second "High Society" programme everybody was waiting to see what the programme told us about the politician concerned? Was it not entirely predictable that it would detract from the issue rather than contribute to a detailed debate on cocaine use in Ireland? The reaction continued to be about the controversial activity of individuals in positions of responsibility in Ireland, whether judges, politicians or pilots. It is a little surprising to hear Mr. Mulhall say he is disappointed with our response without also acknowledging that, given the experience available in RTE, it should have predicted the political response to the accusation that a Minister was using cocaine and that people would be curious as to his or her identity.

Now that the issue is on the agenda, I hope RTE will continue to address drug use, and cocaine use in particular, and will not be deterred by what has been a distraction. I urge RTE to continue its work in that regard because we, as policymakers, need to continue to be pushed to find solutions to a growing problem in Ireland.

Deputy Liz McManus

I want to put on the record the fact that I do not have a problem with tabloid-style journalism. If it is accurate it can be extremely useful in getting a message across. These programmes looked very well made and they were interesting to watch. However, having listened to the presentation it is clear that there is no taped record for one third of the people interviewed. There is no taped record for the pilot, the teacher, the nurse or the politician.

Mr. Noel Curran

The teacher's testimony was note-based.

Deputy Liz McManus

Exactly. Would RTE agree it is very hard for us to accept its assurance that all the testimonies are true? The impression one gets is of flaky reporting and that undermines the credibility of the programme. Can RTE reflect on that?

That leads to the question of what kind of investigation should be undertaken when something like this happens. I have difficulties with the fact that RTE carries out an in-house investigation. Mr. Goan said the only alternative was a judicial investigation but that is not strictly the case. I ask RTE to consider a system where there is a certain distance between RTE and the person carrying out the review and where the possibility of publication is allowed. Otherwise it gives the impression of a closed system and the one thing RTE needs to do when shortcomings are identified is to produce a good set of conclusions which people can scrutinise.

Mr. Cathal Goan

I fully accept what Deputy McManus says about being seen to have approached these matters with a forensic disinterest. The authority is our regulator and is not part of the executive management team. It has twice held vigorous inquiries into what happened and I had hoped that would have addressed the Deputy's concerns. However, I hear clearly what she says.

Deputy Liz McManus

I understand no one was available to be interviewed by any other radio station.

Mr. Cathal Goan

Yesterday afternoon the chairperson was not available because she had other appointments.

Deputy Liz McManus

I am not criticising her but no one was available. That does not appear to be a very good approach.

Mr. Cathal Goan

That is a separate issue and concerns our availability to other, competing broadcasters. If there is a fault on our part in handling public relations, we can deal with that.

On the question of inquiries, I support the Deputy's general thesis that we need to be seen to be forensic in our approach. We must all be cognisant of the fact that a new, overarching broadcasting authority will soon come into being, which hopefully we might even discuss today. This will have powers with regard to the content of the programming of all broadcasters. That is not to kick the issue to touch. We have a regulatory body, the RTE Authority, to which we answer. It is vigorous in the way it questions us, the management team, and that is quite proper. If that distance is not sufficient, perhaps the new regulatory oversight envisaged under the broadcasting authority of Ireland will address the Deputy's issue.

Mr. Noel Curran

I will answer Deputy Coveney's questions. I have tried to be as open as possible on all questions but RTE changed the word to "politician" on advice from the lawyer to the production company, for reasons relating to defamation.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I asked whether, even though RTE used the term "politician" it was Mr. Curran's understanding that it referred to a Minister or a backbencher? There is a difference between the two as a politician who has the seal of office is in government and has responsibility.

Mr. Noel Curran

All of our understandings are based on what was in the book.

Mr. Ed Mulhall

I would expect all politicians to have the same sense of responsibility, as legislators. I just wanted to underline my earlier comment. I was referring to the response to the "Prime Time Investigates" programme, as well as "High Society". I am not naive enough to think a reference to a politician, even if unnamed, would not cause some controversy. It would be interesting to compare the public controversy with the controversy in political or media circles. The point I was trying to make about the follow-through is that there were real issues relating to the two programmes.

The issue of pilot safety is not whether one exposes a particular pilot, because then all we will do is get one person. The question is whether there should be testing for pilots. Our drink driving laws have been quite successful and journalists and public officials have been caught. Questions exist, however, over whether our tests for drug use while driving are sufficient. It would be appropriate to follow up on many public and political issues in the context of our scrutiny of cocaine use. I was trying to advert to the lukewarm response to the issue of cocaine use in comparison with the nature of the scrutiny of one aspect of one programme.

Mr. Noel Curran

In response to Deputy McManus, the question of an independent inquiry is a very obvious one to ask. Mr. Goan said we should consider all things but people should be under no illusions about what happens when one goes down the road of an independent inquiry which is to be published. The BBC launched such an inquiry into a 30-second promotion of a programme involving the Queen. The issue concerned whether the Queen had walked into the room or out of the room, and whether it was before or after the interview. I do not wish to be flippant but an admission of error that the clip had been misused was made before the person was even appointed. That inquiry took three or four months. Mr. Cathal Goan has said we will look at this area but once one goes down that road--

Deputy Liz McManus

I do not wish to show disrespect to Mr. Curran and his work. Chairman, am I correct in saying we have only 20 minutes left?

Chairman

Yes, but I want to break my own rule slightly. Deputy Coonan has been patient and I will give him an opportunity to raise some issues on the licence fee.

Deputy Liz McManus

Important issues remain to be discussed.

Chairman

We will not deal with all the issues today. I will ask RTE to return in the new year to deal with outstanding issues.

Mr. Cathal Goan

We would be happy to do so, Chairman.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We have given considerable time to the "High Society" programme because it is the topic of the day. However, we should not gloss over the broadcasting Bill in 15 or 20 minutes.

Chairman

I want to allow Deputy Coonan to raise an issue regarding the licence fee.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Go raibh maith agat, Chairman. I was not aware that patience was one of my virtues, but thank you for that. I wonder at the uproar about a Minister taking cocaine. Looking at the performances of some Ministers--

Chairman

I have given you some latitude, Deputy.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

I am thinking of the Minister for Transport in relation to the driving test and the Minister for Defence in relation to the Shannon and Aer Lingus debacle, the Taoiseach's loss of memory at the tribunal and the Deputy Mary Harney at the Department of Health and Children. It might be easier to identify the Ministers who are not taking cocaine.

Chairman

Please speak on the issue, Deputy.

Deputy Peter Kelly

What is Deputy Coonan on?

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Does Mr. Goan consider it a loss to the national broadcaster to have lost the right to broadcast our national games, given that in many areas of the country other television channels are not available?

Will he comment on RTE's finding the word "crib" in the Veritas advertisement offensive?

Chairman

Deputy Coonan, your original question was about the licence fee. The issues you raise can be dealt with under other headings.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Mr. Goan seeks an increase in the licence fee. The coverage of GAA sporting events is of major interest, especially to people in rural Ireland who do not have access to other channels. Will he comment on that matter and on the Veritas advertisement?

Mr. Cathal Goan

I will be happy to do so.

Chairman

Deputy McGrath also wishes to comment on the Veritas advertisement.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I was appalled and dismayed, as were most people, to learn that the broadcasting authority or someone in RTE would not allow the word "crib" to be used in the Veritas advertisement. What possessed someone to object to such a secular item? We were given spurious reasons why an independent inquiry could not be held but we need some kind of inquiry. Some test should be carried out on the members of the RTE Authority to see what they are on and how they are behaving. This decision is incredible, outrageous, disgusting and offensive to all denominations.

Mr. Cathal Goan

Unless Deputy Coonan knows something I do not, RTE has lost a proportion of the television rights to TV3. Five packages were offered, one of which has been awarded to TV3. The GAA has not announced the final destination of the other four packages.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

What about the championship matches?

Mr. Cathal Goan

They are all championship issues. Given RTE's 81 year association with the GAA, we would like to see as much as possible of that continue at its present high standard on radio and television as well as the options we offer on-line. We are in the business of trying to compete as strongly as possible for those rights. Despite people's view of RTE as the big player, it is the minnow in this operation. RTE is funded 45% by licence fee and 55% by commercial revenue. Our total annual turnover is approximately €400 million. Our competitors have access to vastly greater resources when they compete against us and that should be understood clearly by everyone.

There is no question of RTE having banned cribs. Rather foolishly, someone in RTE said to Veritas that we thought that maybe the word "crib" was in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, which prohibits advertising aimed at a political, religious or certain other ends. The RTE person said the advertisement might be towards a religious end. The RTE person said the station was not banning the advertisement but that it should be withdrawn while it was referred to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, which is the arbiters of these things. Veritas simply removed the reference to the crib and continued with the advertisement. This was interpreted as RTE having banned the reference. In our anxiety to be politically correct, we are too scrupulous. There is no question of banning cribs. RTE's first interaction with Veritas was in deference to the law which specifically prohibits advertising to a religious end. That is the law and has been for 40 years. Deputies and Senators might consider that too sweeping a ban when they decide to look at broadcasting legislation again.

Since we are putting up our hands today, I accept that the original volunteering of the fact that the word "crib" might be in contravention of the legislation was a wee bit of excessively friendly advice and should not have been given.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Is Mr. Goan saying Veritas was sin-binned rather than banned?

Mr. Cathal Goan

I would not even say it was sin-binned.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

I hope the person who had that brilliant moment has been clearly told it was not such a brilliant moment.

Mr. Cathal Goan

Given the level of scrutiny we have had over the past couple of weeks, and far be it from me to curry pity from Members of the Oireachtas, does the committee not think we would have had some words to say about the matter?

Senator Jim Walsh

Chairman, may I contribute on this issue?

Deputy Simon Coveney

Chairman, I have been waiting to speak and you told me I would be next.

Senator Jim Walsh

Deputy Coveney has spoken at least half a dozen times.

Chairman

I am aware of that.

Deputy Simon Coveney

With respect to Senator Walsh, I am my party's spokesperson on this issue.

Chairman

Deputy Coveney, I have acknowledged that you are the main spokesperson. I will allow you to contribute.

Senator Jim Walsh

I find it astonishing that this happened at all. I am in no way reassured by the comments of the director general, who seems to put the ball back in our court. If that advertisement was submitted to RTE at this point would it be accepted or not?

Mr. Cathal Goan

Yes, it would.

Senator Jim Walsh

I thank Mr. Goan.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Mr. Goan's response represents a delayed reaction on his part in response to the public outcry over what has happened. Why did RTE not give this explanation in the earlier stages?

Mr. Cathal Goan

We gave this explanation on "Morning Ireland" the following morning. This issue arose on a Thursday evening and the clarification was given on "Morning Ireland" the following morning.

Chairman

I accept that.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I am glad we have clarification on the last issue.

There are genuine concerns regarding the licence fee and a need for change in how the contributions are collected. With the advancement of technology, the reality is that more and more people will start to watch television programmes on their computer, possibly on their mobile phone and personal digital assistant. What is Mr. Goan's view on whether we should radically transform the way in which we collect the licence fee in Ireland? It will cost the State almost €13 million next year to collect it. Is it appropriate that someone continues to physically knock on people's doors to increase the percentage who pay their licence fee? Payment through direct taxation or another revenue gathering mechanism would avoid the situation where those who pay their fee effectively subsidise those who do not. Is it time that we, as policymakers, reviewed the mechanism for the collection of the money to ensure it is not politically influenced to an excessive degree by the Department of Finance? Perhaps it might be collected under the aegis of the new Broadcasting Authority of Ireland in order that we can anticipate changes in technology and ensure the licence fee is collected efficiently.

Mr. Cathal Goan

The Deputy has raised a number of interrelated and current issues. I will briefly address some of them, while Mr. Conor Hayes will address the others.

The principle of the licence fee is one RTE believes should be continued. The licence fee is not just handed over as a gift. It comes with conditions and RTE should be obliged to provide evidence as to precisely how it is spent, which I believe we do. In comparison to other European broadcasters which enjoy a licence fee, the fee in Ireland is relatively small. Ireland is also to the fore in dividing the licence fee and having a top slice which goes to other broadcasters. As members will know, the sound and vision scheme is administered by the BCI. Currently, net of collection fees, to which the Deputy has adverted, 5% goes to the BCI fund which contributes to independent production, both radio and television, for all broadcasters, including RTE and the independents.

On the question concerning the range of devices on which people will be able to receive television signals, I do not believe we should consider a licence fee for each reception vehicle. The RTE position is that there should be one licence per household and that people should pay for two licences if they have two households. Under current legislation, that includes holiday homes but it would not be appropriate to oblige everyone to have a separate licence for their personal computer, PDA, BlackBerry and television set.

On the efficiency of the system for collecting the licence fee, we believe the contract for the current operation which we are glad to note has improved in recent years should be put out to tender. An Post should tender with others who may be in a position to bring the expertise to which the Deputy referred and can adopt 21st century collection mechanisms, whether these involve direct debits or other means. As to whether there should be a general tax administered by the Department of Finance, I would definitively say no. That would be a bad idea. Whatever space RTE had as an independent public service broadcaster, at a remove from the Government, would be imperilled by such a move.

Mr. Conor Hayes

Approximately 25% of licences come directly from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, following a change introduced a number of years ago, and some 75% from An Post. There are issues around efficiency of collection. If one takes the number of occupied houses according to the census and compare it with the number of licences issued, there is a significant gap.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

How wide is the gap?

Mr. Conor Hayes

Approximately 15%, although it could be smaller or much bigger. The difficulty An Post has in analysing the figures lies in measuring the number of vacant homes recorded in the census. It has been the focus of our attention for many years. An Post is responsible for collection and the increase in the number of licences during the years demonstrates a significant improvement. The current environment suggests, however, that improvement will tail off.

Deputy Liz McManus

Mr. Goan spoke about the spending of the money. I am new to this committee and I am trying to access information in that regard. I note the salaries of top presenters have now been made public, which is very welcome. The salaries of staff are linked to national pay agreements but where do I find out the pay levels of senior management? Perhaps Mr. Goan can tell me. Every salary increase for politicians is noted by the media. Can Mr. Goan say what salary increases there have been for senior management in the past five years?

My other question concerns an issue which has received some media coverage and has perplexed me, namely, changes RTE has made to the superannuation scheme. The pension scheme was changed in 1988-89.

Chairman

I will allow the Deputy back in but I forwarded an agenda to RTE and at the end of the meeting some items will have been dealt with. Others such as the one she has raised may have to be dealt with at a future date.

Deputy Liz McManus

I would be happy if RTE came back to me at a later stage. I am having difficulty accessing the information.

I will make a final point on pensions. The scheme must be initiated and closed by an order of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I cannot find any evidence that the scheme initiated in 1988-89 was actually closed. Can the delegation comment on the fact that, although a new scheme was brought forward, there does not appear to be any evidence that the process was followed completely?

Chairman

Other members have raised the same issue. As RTE will not be able to deal with everything today, it is an issue we will have to deal with at the next agreed meeting.

Mr. Cathal Goan

My salary is published and a matter of record in the annual report. I have not discussed the matter with colleagues.

Deputy Liz McManus

Are the salaries of senior management recorded in the annual report?

Mr. Cathal Goan

No. My salary is reported in the annual report.

Deputy Liz McManus

What about salaries across the board?

Mr. Cathal Goan

I have not discussed the matter with my colleagues present today.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Did Mr. Goan receive the same pay rise as the Taoiseach?

Mr. Cathal Goan

I have not received any pay rise, unfortunately. I believe it may have been one of the salaries under discussion but I have received no formal communication. However, my salary is a matter of record and published in RTE's annual report. The pay scales and grades of RTE management are all published and will continue to be. We do not go into details on specific individuals.

Deputy Liz McManus

Are they published in the annual report?

Mr. Cathal Goan

No. My salary as chief executive is the only one published in the annual report, which is in accordance with the principles of good corporate governance. We publish the salary ranges for middle and senior management and will be happy to do so again.

Deputy Liz McManus

I would appreciate it if Mr. Goan got back to me on the matter.

Mr. Cathal Goan

My salary is €284,000 per year. I hope that will avoid the need for further research on the question.

As well as being chief financial officer, Mr. Hayes is also chairman of the trustees of the superannuation scheme. Therefore, I will ask him to answer the Deputy's question on that matter.

Mr. Conor Hayes

The question was about the closure of the superannuation scheme but the scheme was not closed. Approximately 600 staff are members of what is a defined benefits scheme. Approximately 1,300 people are members of various defined contribution schemes. While other people have not yet worked up enough service to become members of the scheme, they are eligible for PRSAs or devices of that kind.

The authority decided in 1989 not to continue with the form of employment contract that would give people entitlement to become members of the scheme. As an alternative, the RTE defined contributions scheme, now the main pension vehicle in the organisation, was introduced later that year. This is how it has evolved over quite a number of years.

Deputy Liz McManus

Is Mr. Hayes saying the original scheme has never been closed?

Mr. Conor Hayes

No. To become a member of the scheme one has to fulfil certain conditions. People who fulfil the conditions are members of the scheme and those who do not fulfil the conditions are not members of the scheme.

Deputy Liz McManus

How many people would have fulfilled the conditions?

Mr. Conor Hayes

At this stage, approximately 600 people remain members of the scheme. Anybody who joined after 1989 would not have fulfilled the conditions. That is the way it was organised. I was not a member of the company at the time so I cannot give chapter and verse on this.

Deputy Liz McManus

Nobody has joined the scheme since 1989.

Mr. Conor Hayes

There have been people who joined having met the various conditions. From memory, approximately 50 people were eligible for membership as a result of various Labour Court adjudications in the early 1990s. Information in respect of three people who left the organisation was incorrectly recorded at the time. It is important to point out that significant discussions on this issue have been ongoing in RTE for some time. I could talk about this at length but we do not have time to do so.

Chairman

We will come back to the matter at a later date.

Mr. Conor Hayes

I initiated this process five years ago. It did not come from members, the trade unions or anybody else. I raised concerns about how we should operate pensions.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Hayes could provide a note on the matter to the committee. We will then see what further discussion is required.

Mr. Conor Hayes

The industrial relations process is ongoing and as such we are not keen to comment further.

Chairman

We accept that. We will revert to the matter.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

Mr. Goan said that 45% of funding is derived from the licence fee. A figure of 8% is given in respect of the RTE performing groups. If the orchestra is to assemble, there is an assembly fee. I was part of the Leader group that sanctioned funding for the orchestra when it came to Wexford. The orchestra gave a great performance on the day and the following day gave a great performance for 500 children. This is an outstanding public service benefit that does not take place often enough.

The only negative of this is that had the Leader group not provided the required funding the 500 children concerned would not have had the benefit of seeing the RTE orchestra. Consideration should be given to who should meet the charge for this service which is of enormous public benefit. I cannot think of any greater benefit than having the orchestra play for 500 children.

Mr. Cathal Goan

I thank the Deputy for his remarks. We run a "music in the classroom" option as a routine part of our work across the country. The orchestras play countrywide. RTE makes several musical offerings including, the two orchestras, the RTE concert orchestra and the RTE national symphony orchestra, the RTE Vanbrugh String Quartet and the philharmonic choir. People are asked to pay an entrance fee to cover some of the costs involved. The performing groups cost approximately €15 million per annum. The commercial return from this, including ticket sales is a tiny fraction of that sum. The public service, which the Deputy has acknowledged, is a very real one. Without the level of subsidy available via the licence fee this simply would not be possible.

We are currently discussing an association between RTE and the Opera in Wexford when it moves back into its new home. Perish the thought that any of my colleagues from the fourth estate would misinterpret this but, as this has been our first opportunity to meet members of the new Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources I take this opportunity to invite them to visit RTE in the new year to view our public service offerings.

We are happy to resume our discussions with the committee. While not wishing to detract from members' real concerns around the issues discussed today, for obvious reasons, we would prefer to talk on the next occasion about the issues not discussed today. We welcome an opportunity to do so as soon as possible.

Chairman

Thank you. I speak for members in accepting Mr. Goan's invitation to visit RTE in the new year. The clerk will communicate with the delegation about reconvening our meeting sometime in February to discuss the very important issues of digital terrestrial television, the broadcasting bill and political balance.

I thank Mr. Goan and his team for attending today. We look forward to meeting with them again in the new year. Happy Christmas to all.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 16 January 2008.