Before we proceed I wish to remind Senators that the proposer of an amendment may close the debate on that amendment but no other Senator may speak more than once on each amendment.
Radio and Television Bill, 1987: Report and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 16, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:—
"(6) No person can be appointed to the Commission until he or she has made a full declaration of his or her past or present membership of a political party. Nor may he or she be appointed without a full revelation of all contribution made by himself or herself or any company over which he or she has control to a political party."
Thank you for facilitating this amendment which is really putting into a formal form what we were saying about the Schedule just before the break. The reason for this amendment is that control of the media is constantly a very sensitive political point. It is a sensitive point here and it has been for years. There are constant eruptions about the position of certain newspapers and the position and sympathies of RTE.
The reason for this amendment is that I think there is a great danger that the membership of the Commission as allowed for, and the way they are to be appointed under this Schedule could lead to such a Commission becoming simply an arm of the Government. In this case, basically the Minister and the Government have the power to appoint exactly whom they like, regardless of qualifications, to the Commission. The qualifications — as we have already said — really cover anybody. Regardless of qualifications, the Government have the power to appoint anybody they like and unless provisions are put in, this will automatically lead to the accusation and the suspicion that the Minister and the Government are appointing their own people to do their will. It is for that reason that I put this amendment down.
I do not think any Minister should be sensitive about this at this time. It is an important principle that should be established for now and for the future because there is no doubt that, as the Bill stands, it is open to blatant corruption. I should have put in as well an amendment to try to prevent the situation arising not only where the Government have control or too much control over the media but where one person also has too much control over the media.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is a very narrow debate and the Senator should endeavour to stick to the terms of the amendment.
If you Sir, knew what I was just about to say you would have understood where I was leading to. I would have thought that no person should be appointed to the Commission who has not actually made such a declaration of political affiliations but also of interests in other parts of the media. I do not want the Government to have too much control or one individual to have too much control over the media, and in that I include RTE, this Commission and any large circulating newspaper in the country. It is because that source of accusation is so sensitive that protections of this sort ought to be put in.
I have been struck from that part of the debate which I have been able to read and listen to — I was not here for all of it, and I do not even maintain that I was listening to it all on the monitor as I was not here for it all — by the party political to-ing and fro-ing, the lack of warning about the dangers of party political control of the media. I am astounded at the reluctance of the Minister to accept this amendment. I am not asking for people to be excluded because they are members of political parties. I am not asking for them to be excluded because they have given money to political parties. I am simply saying that, if that is the case, it should be openly known and realised and declared to the public, I can see no objection to that. The only objection to that would come from people who have something to hide.
It is absolutely right that such declarations should be made and those who want to oppose the amendment must presumably want to perpetuate a system which exists in this country which is wrong. The system which I object to is the system of appointments being made to semi-State and State bodies such as this, because it is an acknowledged and well known practice on the part of the Government and the Opposition to change people on Commissions of this sort as their re-election comes up or as their re-appointment comes up, partly on the basis of their party political allegiance. What happens and what will happen on this Commission is this. People will be appointed to it who have got better qualifications than in this absurd meaningless Schedule, especially in paragraph No. 5. All other things being equal, and having these qualifications, part of the reason for their appointment will be their affiliation. If one person appears on the list of candidates and another person appears on the list of candidates and they are vaguely equal, all other things being equal, they will be appointed on the basis of their political allegiance.
There is a real danger that this body will become an arm of the Government in a much more subtle way than we see it at the moment. I would like to see the Minister accepting this amendment on the basis also of those who give money to political parties because there are many people in this country — indeed the system to a certain extent works like this — who are not paid up members of political parties but what they do for the political party is far greater than going around canvassing door to door at election time. They give hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of pounds to the parties when it matters. I do not want to exclude these people but I do not want this sort of a job being given to these people purely and simply as a reward for that and being seen to be purely and simply as a reward. If this body is to have credibility — I doubt that it will gain that credibility — those facts and other facts of this sort should be known. Those who oppose it should be asked why they oppose it and what they have to hide.
It would be wrong for the Minister to say that it is an unfair discrimination against members of political parties. It is not and it is not meant to be. It is just simply that they should be open about their allegiance. It would make the Minister and successive Ministers more reluctant to appoint political cronies to these sort of bodies.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment seconded?
I second it. This amendment has arisen because of the Minister's intransigence on the other sections and now we have opened up an area of debate which perhaps the Minister does not welcome.
I defend any Minister's right in legislation to appoint whoever he wants to boards. It is appropriate that the Minister should have regard to all the qualities that are necessary. I have no doubt whatsoever that people who are active politically can have these qualities, and in many cases probably have more of the necessary qualities than people who are not involved in politics at all. First of all, I want to defend the right of ministerial appointments, although when we were in Government, we were at times subject to criticisms in the other House for making such appointments. That arose from the appointment of the chairman of the Youth Employment Agency. There was major controversy in the other House because he happened to have an affiliation to the Labour Party. It turned out that he was the best man for the job and proved it by his work afterwards. When our general secretary retired——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
In fairness, this is Report Stage and passing reference to extraneous matters will be allowed but not dwelling or developing any points. The Chair would be obliged if the Senator would endeavour to stay with the content of the amendment before the House.
I was paraphrasing my attitude to the amendment as it is worded because it could be misrepresented. Certainly, my view could be misrepresented. I have no objection to people having political affiliations. I have no objection to people making contributions to political parties. It is a way of ensuring that democracy, as we understand it, survives in the country. We are able to go public and to look for subscriptions from people and to receive them. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with people disclosing these interests. As a matter of fact, the Labour Party are trying to ensure that disclosures, covered in the second part of this amendment, would be included in the Companies Bill. It is appropriate. I just want to make my position absolutely crystal clear.
Senator Ross does not want to debar these people either. All he wants is an openness and a frankness and that people would declare their interests. That will remove a lot of the criticism that comes on Ministers when they make appointments because the known appointees can declare themselves a member of the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party or the Progressive Democrats, or the Fianna Fáil Party which is most likely to happen in this case because I cannot see the Minister contacting our party to know if we have any suitable candidates for the commission.
I see nothing wrong with the people declaring their political affiliations. We do it every day of the week and it is not held against us — hopefully, it is not held against us by anybody. If we all were honest with everybody else in everyday life, in politics and otherwise, we would have a better society than if we have people who run around behind the scenes and try to manipulate things to suit themselves, whether financially or otherwise. That is the concept that Senator Ross is trying to get through in his amendment.
I am opposed to this amendment. I could not help being reminded when listening to Senators Ross and Ferris about when I was young and used to read in my history books about the tenant farmers, before the days of the secret ballot, lined up in front of the landlord on the day of an election; they had to put their hand up and say who they were going to vote for. It seems to me that this flies totally in the face of the democratic traditions that we have created and nurtured in this country.
If this amendment is accepted, we are insisting that from here on in, as a precedent and for any future appointees, that the person should stand up and do something which under the Constitution they are not required to do when they mark a ballot paper in a local, general or European election. Therefore, even on that one point alone, I would oppose this amendment.
I must confess to being a bit unhappy in some ways about this amendment. It strikes me as being excessively narrow and very much centred on membership of political parties or connected with funding, and donations or gifts to political parties. In my view there are certain sinister and subversive groups in this country whom I would certainly not like to see represented on a commission of such importance. I have in mind the sort of groupings who surface at the time of referenda dealing with constitutional matters; forces which we all know are active in our society holding the sorts of views that I would find distinctly worrying. I would be happier if Senator Ross had seen fit to broaden the scope of his amendment to include references to those sort of groupings, which I know he himself finds unpleasant and abhorrent. I feel confident he is unhappy about the movings and manipulations of those sort of groupings in society.
I see nothing wrong with overt declaration of membership of political parties. I wish more people, apart from party activists, felt happy and comfortable about declaring their particular party allegiance or affiliation. That is open, democratic, honest and upright. That is the kind of activity and attitude we need to encourage in this society. I am also personally in favour of full disclosure of donations and gifts to political parties because the absence of such disclosure is worrying and gives rise to feelings which Senator Ross gives voice to in the putting down of his amendment.
The Senator is perfectly correct in wishing to question the whole notion of cronyism. It is no secret that in the past, and indeed even in the present, appointments have been made which in the public perception give rise to certain questioning or querying. We should be moving into a more open, upright society which sets aside notions of rewards for services rendered being given to party hacks and cronies when everybody can see quite clearly and quite plainly that the reward of a seat on the board or a seat on something or other is what it is, and bears no relation to the capacity or capability of the person to fulfil a useful function on that particular body.
Senator Ross in some way attaches a certain political virginity to the notion of independence. He is very fortunate in many ways in being an Independent Member but the country does not run on the basis of a variety of Independent Members taking their seats in this House or indeed in the other House. There is a party political system. There is a suggestion in this, as I have said before, that there is something tainted or lacking in integrity or unworthy or ignoble attached to somebody who is a member of a political party. I am unhappy about any such suggestion, however marginal, which I feel is in some way attached to this amendment.
I would again make the point that I find cronyism totally unacceptable. I find the notion of stuffing boards with party hacks completely abhorrent and I would never ever support it. I feel that the amendment is peculiarly slanted in that it leaves out any reference to the kind of sinister groupings in society which we all know are there and which we all know are the sort of groupings who would love to get their hands on the media and in some way influence the dissemination of information and entertainment. If we are to put down any amendment of this sort, we should certainly broaden it out to include those sorts of groupings in society.
We had a very detailed debate in Dáil Éireann on the Radio and Television Bill and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill. A warm welcome was expressed in that House for the criteria laid down as to the type of experience and capacity in the areas listed in the Bill: capacity in "media and commercial affairs, radio communications engineering, trade union affairs, administration or social, cultural, educational or community activities". There was a general acceptance of the commitment of the Government to appoint people of the highest calibre to this Commission. We are establishing a completely new framework for legal radio and television, national radio and television and local and neighbourhood radio throughout this country. It will require people of dedication, commitment and high calibre to make it work. There was no suggestion of corruption — a word used by Senator Ross. The word was never uttered or suggested, by innuendo or otherwise, in the Dáil. I regret deeply that it has occurred in this House.
The suggestion in this amendment is that we should all be of independent frame of mind and that nobody should join a political party and if they do, they have to declare it from the rooftops. Does the same situation apply if you happen to be a member of the masons, the knights, or of a particular golf or cricket club where an application comes before you from an individual you might know. We live in a small society with three and a half million people. The political affiliations of people appointed to most of the boards in this country are known or they are well known because we live in such a small society. I think it is absolutely unnecessary in the society we live in to put in such declarations as are required here. If you carry it to its logical conclusion you would have to have a situation of them declaring which way they voted over the past couple of years. We live in a democracy where the ballot is secret and sacred. People gave their lives to have that democracy. It is unworthy to make the suggestions that have been made. I am glad that Senator Mooney, on behalf of the party, has indicated that he would not accept the amendment. I could not accept it either.
I am amazed at the Minister's response to my amendment. I will try to deal with it point by point. First, he says that he is astounded that I used the word "corruption". I wish that party politicians and Ministers who come to this House were not so particularly sensitive about general principles being pronounced about certain Bills and legislation. What I said and what I stand by, is that this Bill, as it stands now, is open to corruption. It is. I will spell it out even further. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent a future Government from appointing card carrying members of their own party to implement their will. There is no suggestion on my part that this Government or this Minister will do that. What I say is that this is open to corruption because of the principle which is established in this Bill. I do not believe anybody can argue with that.
The warm welcome given in the Dáil to the qualifications, as in Schedule 1 (5), may well be true. But the Minister failed to tell me of anybody or any category of person who would be excluded from being on the Commission. I maintain that that section is meaningless. No one is excluded. Putting in sections of that sort is purely a camouflage for justifying strange selections in the future. I reject that section.
The Minister went on to say that this amendment was unnecessary. It is extremely necessary. We had a Freedom of Information Bill before this House not so long ago.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Would the Senator——
I am raising the point about disclosure of interests and it is purely supporting my argument. Part of the purpose of that Freedom of Information Bill was that disclosures of this sort should be open to the public to inspect. It is the public's right to know. The Minister has not satisfied me here because he continues to support this policy of non-disclosure, which is fairly typical of most parties when in Government. There is a tendency for them to switch roles at they switch from Government to Opposition.
I do not say that there is anything wrong with being a member of a political party. I accept much of what Senator Bulbulia said. But there is a place for members of political parties and there is a definite conflict of interest in being a member of a political party and a member of this Commission. That is all I am saying. This amendment in no way criticises people for being members of political parties. Political parties have an extremely valuable, necessary and indispensable place in our democracy, but there are also certain roles they should not play. One of the roles they should not play is to control television or newspapers under the guise of commissions which are called independent.
As Senator Ferris said — Senator Bulbulia quite rightly said that she supports this — in the Companies' Bill there is an amendment down that there should be full disclosure of actual donations to political parties. I do not know what the Government's view on this would be, but I suspect it will be the same stone walling situation, because it might prove embarrassing for this Government or for future Governments to state exactly who is on what board, who gave what money and what positions they now hold. I am used to the sort of to-ing and fro-ing which goes on in this situation, but it is only realistic and fair that it should be pointed out that there are blatant political appointees on semi-State bodies, and it is quite obvious from this debate that there is an enormous reluctance on behalf of the Government to give up this particularly prized form of patronage.
Nothing the Minister has said has convinced me that the appointments to be made to this Commission will be in any way a departure from the sort of disgraceful appointments which were made recently to the board of Irish Life, to the sort of appointments which have been made in the past to the board of Aer Lingus, which is regarded as a political plum.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair would prefer if you did not name comparisons which have nothing to do with this. Those boards are not relevant to this debate.
It is something I raised on the Adjournment a few weeks ago. I thought Senators might be interested and it is to support my argument. I do not think all of them were here — I know I am not supposed to refer to their absence.
Finally, I find this response extremely discouraging. These appointments, when they are made should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. There is very little in what the Minister or Senator Mooney said which convinces me that these appointments will not have a large amount of party-political input. I would like to see those members of the Commission appointed and say that I cannot identify X, Y or Z with the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government. I am now not convinced that that will be the case. Indeed, I will summarise by saying this: I would place a small bet that certain members of that Commission, when appointed, will be identifiable with the Government. That is what this amendment was meant to prevent, by forcing disclosure. I am disappointed that the Minister does not allow this sort of disclosure.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Amendment put.
Vótáil.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The question is: "That the amendment be made." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Ross, Ferris, J. O'Toole, O'Shea and Harte stood.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The division will now proceed.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Ferris, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Níl
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ross and Ferris; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.
Question declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 18, to delete lines 41 and 42.
There is a genuine reason for moving these two amendments. Technically what that means is that, if a person is nominated to contest an election they would not be debarred from being a member of the commission or a member of the staff of the commission. I want to ensure that if people are elected to either House of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament they would, automatically, be excluded from membership of the commission. I am concerned about nominated people only and I am particularly concerned with Seanad nominations, with particular reference to outside nominating bodies because of the peculiarity obtaining in that respect.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Have we a seconder?
I second it.
We discussed this at great length. I have since had the opportunity to have this checked. Amendment No. 3 is not required because there is no question a nominated Member of either House or of the European Parliament having to be removed from membership of the commission. They can just stand seconded from employment; there is no question of them having to leave the employment.
Regarding amendment No. 2, if I had not to go back to the Dáil and the Dáil was not breaking up next week, I would consider accepting it despite the fact that I still have these very strong views in relation to the position of this commission being different from that of normal State boards. It is a high profile, media commission different from the one quoted earlier by Senator Ferris in relation to ACOT. I am not in a position to accept it in view of the time constraint.
I accept that at least the Minister is responsive to my point. It is a reflection on this House that, just because the other House is adjourning next week, what is a desirable amendment to a Bill cannot be made. Is that what the Minister is saying?
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying I would look at it in other circumstances.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister cannot speak after the Senator has replied.
Were it not for the fact that the other House cannot facilitate the Minister next week this amendment would be acceptable to him; in spite of the high profile, the principle is right. As a result and in defence of this House and its right to make amendments, which it considers suitable, I cannot withdraw this amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister, his Department, the draftsman and everybody else involved did not draw comparisons with provisions in other legislation and at least explain to us why the provisions of this Bill are different from any other legislation. This House would be losing an opportunity to strike a blow for itself in respect of a candidate who might be nominated to contest Seanad elections — particularly through the outside process or panels — if we did not ensure that such nominees could not be members of the commission. I am sorry to learn that the Minister cannot accept our amendment because the other House cannot facilitate us.
Amendment No. 3 is not necessary because a nominee does not lose his or her employment. There is no question of their losing their employment; it is a matter of secondment. Nobody loses employment as a result of being nominated or otherwise so amendment No. 3 is not required. I take the point made by the Senator in regard to amendment No. 2 but I still hold the view — in relation to the high profile media nature of this commission — that I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
I am rather disappointed at the Minister's approach to this. He says he accepts the principle, that were it not for the fact the Dáil is going into recess he would perhaps consider taking it back to the Dáil. I know he does not wish to denigrate this House. Of course he would never ever state he would and I must accept that. But the net effect of what he says is that something that he accepts in principle — which is felt in this House very deeply and strongly, because it directly impinges on this House — cannot have the logical amendment made to it in this House because it would need to go to another House to have that amendment taken also so that the Bill could become law. Therefore there is partial acceptance only of the principle.
I do not really buy the argument that because this is a megaboard, a superboard or a high profile board, or whatever other adjective we use to describe it, it is, in some way, so different as not to have this principle taken on board. It is an important principle; it has been argued during the day and Senator Ferris put the final touches to the argument. Logically, if the Minister, despite his reservations, accepts the principle of what we are about, then a facility should be made for this amendment to be taken today and for it to be inserted in the Business of the Dáil next week so that it can become part of the legislation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Question put.
Votáil.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey: Níl, Senators O'Shea and Harte.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is amendment No. 3 being pressed?
No, in view of the Minister's statement about the secondment, I accept his commitment.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.