Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996

Vol. 463 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Political Confidence in Independent Radio and Television Commission: Motion.

Miss de Valera

I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to restore political confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, damaged by the recent revelations of political party fund-raising, by relieving the current chairman of his responsibilities; requests the Government to immediately review the system of programme managers so as to properly define their role, in view of the substantial State funding incurred in this regard; and calls on the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, in view of the adverse implications for the principle of ethics in public office, to resign, particularly in view of his inability or unwillingness to fully understand the consequences of this matter.

I move this motion in an attempt to restore some public confidence in the Independent Radio and Television Commission and in the political system generally. Both have been damaged by the activities of, and statements from, the chairman of the commission and his political master, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, over the last number of days. The fact that the Government has not tabled an amendment to my motion is unprecedented and indicates the disarray of the three parties in Government in dealing with this issue. Even in the darkest hours of previous administrations, at times of crisis there was always somebody in the ranks who could cobble together a retort on an occasion like this. If the Government cannot agree on this issue, it does not augur well for its future.

In my motion we seek the immediate removal from office of the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission who has clearly failed to meet the standards required by the holder of that office by involving himself in a partisan way in the political system, and the immediate resignation of the Minister who has supported such activity and has failed to comprehend the seriousness of the situation.

What we have in this case is the chairman of the State body responsible for allocating radio and television broadcasting licences fundraising for the re-election of the Minister in charge of broadcasting. How can the public believe that Mr. Stockes is acting independently while being politically involved with the Minister? The system has to be fair and it has to be seen to be fair.

The actions of Mr. Stokes in the past few weeks and earlier are obviously imcompatible with his chairmanship of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. It should be remembered that the Independent Radio and Television Commission is not an ordinary State board. The legislation setting up the commission distinguishes it from the majority of other State boards as its responsibilities involve the granting of broadcasting licences. It is for that reason that Fianna Fáil appointed Mr. Justice Henchy as the first chairman of the commission in 1988. We wanted to ensure that the chairman was independdent and was seen to be independent.

If Mr. Justice Henchy had acted in the same way as Mr. Stokes there would have been a similar breach of standards. Would even asking Mr. Justice Henchy to participate actively in a fundraising political event be considered acceptable by the Minister? Surely the answer must be no. This should give the Minister pause for thought.

I want to make it clear that nobody believes it is wrong for a director of a State body to maintain his or her friendship with the Minister. Nor do I suggest that a person should be disqualified from a State board because of their involvement with a political party. As I have already said, the Independent Radio and Television Commission is not the normal type of statutory body to which the Government makes appointments. Unlike statutory corporations such as CIE or Bord na Móna, the Independent Radio and Television Commission is given responsibility to select persons who wish to provide broadcasting services in the State. In addition, the Independent Radio and Television Commission regulates the service provided by such persons. In blunt terms, licences issued by the Independent Radio and Television Commission have a huge commercial value.

It is well established in Irish law that an administrative body created by statute, such as the Independent Radio and Television Commission, is obliged to act in accordance with natural and constitutional justice. This requires the body to be even-handed and fair in all its dealings and also to be seen to be even handed.

The applications of these principles to the Independent Radio and Television Commission was up held by the High Court and the Supreme Court in the case brought by the TV3 consortium two years ago. In that case the Independent Radio and Television Commission had failed to give TV3 notice of its intention to withdraw a previoius decision to allocate to this company a national television franchise. There is, therefore, a legal onus cast on the Independent Radio and Television Commission, and in particular its chairman, to ensure that the requirements of natural and constitutional justice are met. A doubt and a shadow is now cast over the manner in which the Independent Radio and Television Commission carries out, or may have carried out, its functions.

Natural justice is explained by Hogan and Morgan in their book Administrative Law as follows:

The best way of explaining constitutional justice is to begin with natural justice, which consists of two fundamental procedural rules, namely: that the decision-maker must not be biased; and, secondly, that anyone who may be adversely affected by a decision should not be condemned unheard; rather he should have the best possible chance to put his side of the case.

Does bias raise its head here? That bias which should be a concern of the Minister is emphasised by a court case taken against the Independent Radio and Television Commission by Dublin and County Broadcasting in 1989. In his judgment Mr. Justice Murphy stated:

If it is shown that there is on the facts circumstances which would lead a right minded person to conclude that there is a real likelihood of bias, that would be sufficient to invalidate the proceedings of the tribunal.

This is the territory into which the Independent Radio and Television Commission may be descending. It should never be there. A statutory body is established to carry out its functions without fear or favour in a fair and even-handed manner. Recent events call that into question.

I repeat that the Independent Radio and Television Commission is not just any old statutory body. It is at the frontiers of technology. It is dealing with the brave new world of services in radio and television that have a commercial value. It is not dissimilar to An Bord Pleanála, the planning appeals board, and the functions it discharges under the Local Government Acts. It is not a body which should descend into the party political fund raising area.

For reasons I have given earlier, the principles of natural and constitutional justice apply to statutory bodies such as the Independent Radio and Television Commission. There can be no doubt whatsoever about that application as there have been judgements of the courts establishing this fact.

The rules of natural and constitutional justice, which include rules preventing bias, should have served as a warning of the ill-advised actions of the chairman of the commmission. Are there no standards left in public life? What will the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission be asked to do next?

The latest political fund raising endeavours by Mr. Stokes were not his only display of political partisanship. Through his magazine, Hot Press, he has heaped vitriolic abuse on politicians from other political parties, but never on the Minister, Deputy Higgins, and the Labour Party.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Surprise, surprise.

Miss de Valera

I will give an example of what I am talking about. In an editorial in Hot Press magazine last September during the divorce referendum campaign, Mr. Stokes described representatives from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil as a “lily-livered shower of swine”, “cowardly bums” and “flotsam”. This is quite unacceptable from the head of the State agency charged with upholding the integrity and standards of independent radio and television communications. There was a clear conflict of interest between expressing opinions like those expressed by Mr. Stokes and being ultimately responsible as a Government appointee to the democratic representatives of the people. Public representatives have a duty to represent the views of their constituents.

I wish to refer to a decision of the Independent Radio and Television Commission in October 1992 to force the resignation of Senator McGowan from the board of Highland Radio. The letter from the Independent Radio and Television Commission dated 23 October 1992 reads:

The Commission at its meeting considered whether it should give retrospective approval of the change in the composition of the board of directors which your Company has sought to make. The Commission decided that it could not do so. Mr. Patrick McGowan is a member of Seanad Éireann and it is the Commission's opinion that the independence, actual or perceived, of an independent radio station would be imperilled if its board of directors included a members of either House of the Oireachtas. None of the other twenty local radio stations has a member of either House of the Oireachtas on its board of directors. The Commission decided at its meeting that it could not make an exception in the case of Senator McGowan.

At its meeting the commission decided it could not make an exception in the case of Senator McGowan and in a further letter, dated 5 November 1992, the Independent Radio and Television Commission once again demanded Senator McGowan's resignation. The letter states:

I refer to my letter of 23 October regarding the presence of Senator Patrick McGowan on the board of the Company.

To date I have not received a reply to this letter and must therefore assume that the Company remains in serious breach of the Contract with the Independent Radio and Television Commission. Please note that if you do not confirm within seven days that the compostition of the Board has been rectified and that Senator McGowan is not longer on the Board of Directors, I will have no option but to serve a notice of termination on the Company.

Those two letters demonstrate that the Independent Radio and Television Commission was prepared to take action in the case of a commercial company and where a public representative happened to be on the board of Highland Radio. I am not questioning those decisions, but how can the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht square them with the decision to allow Mr. Niall Stokes, the chairperson of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, to fund raise for a Minister fail-with responsibility for broadcasting? I do not see the logic in the Minister failing to take action in this case. He allowed the chairperson of the Independent Radio and Television Commission to fund raise for his re-election in County Galway.

Mr. D. Ahern

Sauce for the goose.

Miss de Valera

In a letter in today's Irish Independent Mr. Justice Rory O'Hanlon, the chairman of the no-divorce campaign, stated that during the referendum campaign last year it was informed that a directive had been issued from the Independent Radio and Television Commission to all independent radio stations instructing them not to accept or broadcast notices about meetings to be held in connection with the divorce referendum on the basis, apparently, that it was a political issue. Mr. Justice O'Hanlon pointed out that public meetings were arranged by groups opposed to divorce while there were virtually no meetings convened by those in support of it. He queried why, if it were up to each group in that campaign to determine its strategy, the Independent Radio and Television Commission should decide that public meetings, a device used by only one group, should not get prior coverage?

We all know the stated views of the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission on divorce. We must ask, therefore, if he abused his position to attempt to manipulate the media during the referendum campaign? Taken with his editorials in Hot Press which were violently abusive towards those supporting the anti-divorce position. Mr. Justice O'Hanlon's letter is a cause of legitimate concern. It is evident from the political fund raising case we are debating this evening that Mr. Stokes was also repaying favours. He who pays the piper is obviously calling the tune, but as in the case of the traditional story, the piper may eventually lead all the rats into the water.

The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht has made great play of his support for the film industry. However, the current script being acted out looks more like a very sick B movie than Oscar material, unless perhaps under the arrogance category. The Minister's refusal to accept that anything wrong took place displays an arrogance and a lack of political judgement which makes him unfit for office. He should explain why the fund raising event was cancelled or was it cancelled?

Mr. D. Ahern

Sin an cheist.

Miss de Valera

On the News at One on RTE radio on Friday, 29 March, the Minister stated that the letter seeking support for his fund raising event was withdrawn because other units of the party in Dublin felt it might clash with their events. He stated "... a letter organising this particular event went to some members of the Labour Party in a Dublin constituency who were having their own fund-raising events and said they didn't like the idea of fund-raising events for other constituencies in, as it were, their territory, and for that reason the letter was withdrawn". However, according to Bruce Arnold in today's Irish Independent a spokesperson for the Teachers' Club said last night that the event took place and was attended by the Minister, Deputy Higgins, and the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg.

In addition, the Minister claims this fund raising race meeting was a once off event. Yet the letters seeking support for the race night refers to "a series of fund-raising events which will take place in Dublin during the remainder of 1996". It is obvious that Mr. Stokes was part of the fund raising committee for the Minister's re-election.

The House will recall that Deputy Hogan was forced to resign his position as Minister of State because an official in his office issued a press release on the budget a few hours too early, even though the full details of the budget were carried on the RTE nine o'clock news the previous evening. Deputy Coveney had to resign from Cabinet because he sought a contract for his family business. It could be argued that the case we are discussing tonight is a great deal more serious than those relating to Deputies Hogan and Coveney. The Minister used the head of a State body, for which he is responsible, to raise money for his re-election.

It is obvious that the Labour Party practises double standards. If a Minister from another party were involved in this scandal, the Labour Party would demand his or her immediate resignation as the price for staying in Government. However, when it involves another party, the Labour Party pontificates from the high moral ground. It is time for the Labour Party to stops the hypocrisy.

I wish to refer to the role of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the manner in which he carries out his duties. It is well known that the people in the arts world are speaking of a climate of fear. Groups are either in or out. Patronage and funding issues have been increasingly linked to a dangerously personalised clientelism. The words "openness, transparency, accountability and fairness" have no meaning for the Minister. We all remember reading that 50 per cent of an arts budget went to Galway, the Minister's county.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

That is not true.

Miss de Valera

There is a belief that the rest went to those who enjoy the Minister's favour and who have not dared to question or be critical. There are some people in the arts world who would miss the Minister if he resigned, but many others would be relieved. The Minister's legislative record is appalling. Only three Bills are promised under the Programme for Government and the Heritage Council Bill, initiated by the previous Government, was the only the dealt with by the Minister in the past year.

Where has the Democratic Left Party been during this controversy?

Mr. M. McDowell

Where is Fine Gael?

Miss de Valera

If this had happened two years ago the rabbits would have scampered to the plinth in front of Leinster House to tell the RTE cameras about the dreadful crisis and how there would have to be dozens of resignations forthwith.

Mr. D. McDowell

The Deputy should ask the man beside her.

Miss de Valera

Where are the rabbits today? They are safely ensconced in their burrows surrounded by their legion of advisers. I will remind those furry creatures of what their Leader, Minister De Rossa, said in this House on 15 November 1994. He stated that "Democratic Left want a Government in which the public can have confidence. We want a clean Government from which sleaze will be eliminated, which will not stumble from scandal to scandal or from crisis to crisis".

What about poor Fine Gael? It is still delighted to be in Government and will accept anything from the Labour Party merely to remain there. Last night we had the pathetic sight of the Taoiseach defending Mr. Stokes, the chairperson of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, who failed to meet the standards required by the holders of that office. The Taoiseach is prepared to give more support to Mr. Stokes and a Labour Minister than he gave to his party colleagues, Deputies Hogan and Coveney. We all remember the statement by the Taoiseach when he took office 16 months ago. He told the nation this was a Government it could trust. However, the actions of the three parties have led The Irish Times to state in an editorial today:

There is a perception of sleaziness in the way the constituent parties of the Government conduct their business whose main characteristic is an apparent disregard for public opinion or concern.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

Fianna Fáil quoting from the The Irish Times. How times change.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy de Valera without interruption.

Miss de Valera

The editorial continues:

Yet when Mr. Higgins appoints Mr. Stokes to his part-time position, and Mr. Stokes joins a committee to raise electoral funds for Mr. Higgins, something happens that ought not to happen. There is a crossing over of the line of separation that must exist between the holder of political power and the wielder of executive authority. The distinction is fully understood by every barrister appointed to the bench and every civil servant who rises to the highest Department ranks.

It concludes by reminding the Taoiseach about his statement regarding trust: "It is time for Mr. Bruton to show that his fine opening words were not the usual empty promises".

The Taoiseach had an opportunity on this occasion to show he wants to lead a Government the public can trust. He failed to seize this opportunity last night. However, it is still not too late to take action and to restore some public confidence in the political system. By removing Mr. Stokes and demanding the resignation of the Minister, the Taoiseach will have displayed his commitment to heading a Government of trust. Failure to do this will only further undermine the political system.

Mr. Spring

The controversy that has led to the motion before the House raises four themes. All of the themes implicit in this controversy relate to fundamental political values. However, this motion has nothing to do with values but everything to do with party politics of the most base kind.

The motion seeks to cast a slur on one of the most honourable, decent and able people ever to serve in Government in this country. It seeks to traduce a proud record of service, and an even producer record of accomplishment. It will not, and it cannot, succeed for that reason alone.

Mr. M. McDowell

Why did the General Secretary of the Labour Party say it was unacceptable?

Mr. Spring

The motion moreover seeks to bring into disrepute the contribution made by a private citizen to a complex and sensitive area of public policy. Niall Stokes is a private citizen who has made a huge donation of his time and energy to the interests of his community. The roles played by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and Mr. Stokes, their singular contribution to a newly vibrant Irish culture, will be remembered long after this motion and the pettty vindictive calculation behind it is forgotten.

I mention the praise due to the Progressive Democrats for their assiduous hunt of the highest standards with regard to political fund-raising. Their relentless quest for politically motivated fund-raising has led them to borrow in dark corners, and to help us, at least sometimes, shed light on this crucial issue. As recently as March 1994 the redoubtable Deputy Molloy put down a parliamentary question to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht asking him to identify the semi-State companies under his responsibility that had contributed to political parties in the previous year. The Minister was forced to reveal that Údarás na Gaeltachta had contributed £100, not once but twice, to a fund-raising event in Oughterard in his constituency.

The only problem was that the fund-raising event in question was a golf tournament, rather than a race night, and it was organised by and on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. This probably explains why the matter was not relentlessly pursued at the time by Deputy Molloy. It was not a matter concerning any political values, at least according to the Progressive Democrats. In this respect the Progressive Democrats are a bit like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty — when they use a word, it means just what they choose it to mean, neither more nor less. For example, let us consider the word "quasi-judicial", a much favoured word of Deputy Michael McDowell, who is senior counsel. In his voluminous correspondence about this controversy, I note he applies the term to a number of offices and agencies, including the DPP, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman and An Bord Pleanála. It is central to his analysis that anybody who has expressed a political preference is automatically disqualified from holding such a quasi-judicial post.

There are, however, a number of agencies which perform functions ordinary mortals mights well regard as quasi-judicial, which Deputy Michael McDowell forgot to mention, no doubt inadvertently in his excitement over the weekend. An example is the Employment Appeals Tribunal, a highly sensitive agency making decisions crucial to the people involved, decisions that can be complex enough to make it a statutory requirement that legal qualifications are necessary for either the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship. Who was in Government when a distinguished lawyer and well known party political activist, Mr. Gerard Danagher B.L., was appointed chairman in January 1990 under the seal of Deputy Bertie Ahern? To our surprise we discover that two Progressive Democrats Ministers bear collective responsibility for what were no doubt very wise decisions.

Mr. M. McDowell

Who appointed the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission?

Mr. Spring

The Deputy should take his medicine. He is good at given it and he should take it for a change.

Mr. M. McDowell

I will give it during my speech.

Mr. Howlin

What was the Deputy doing in the Law Library today?

Mr. Spring

He did not even turn up for a very important trial. He was elsewhere.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste without interruption.

Mr. Spring

Perhaps Deputy McDowell might care to mention the Valuation Tribunal, another body whose decisions are crucial and final, except for an appeal on a point of law? The Goverment which agreed to the appointment by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, of a former Fianna Fáil Deputy, and undoubted party activist, Mr. Henry Abbott, was graced by two senior members of the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. M. McDowell

Is this the best the Tánaiste can do?

Mr. Spring

Surely such appointments, well merited as they no doubt were, transgressed the deep rooted values of the Progressive Democrats? Or is it possible that the party applies one set of standards to itself, one set of tailor-made values that are expendable when necessary, and a different set of others? The truth is that this motion is not about values; it is merely about party political point scoring.

Politics is a noble profession, a profession embellished by somebody who has made it his chief preoccupation to secure a central place in Irish life for good writing, good art and good music. Those who play the acrid, bitter, virulent games implict in this motion and its like, are seeking only to debase the profession.

There are four themes implicit in the controversy behind the motion. Each of them goes to the heart of good politics. I will list them and then deal with each in turn. They are disclosure, judgment, integrity and consistency. I wish to begin with disclosure and to make a disclosure of my own. Long before I became a Member of the House I was involved in fund-raising for the Labour Party. Since I became Leader of the party our ability to fight campaigns, to pay our way and to elect representatives — sometimes our very survival — has depended on honest and open fund-raising. I have tried to the best of my ability to play my part in that fund-raising and to do so in as open and honest a way as possible.

Political parties have no product to sell — they survive or thrive on the basis of ideas, values, policies and messages. In the modern world, they complete by applying the best possible communications skills to those ideas and trying to ensure they are understood and valued. Ninety per cent of the work they do is carried out on a totally voluntary basis. However, like any other organisation, political parties need to be administered and organised and campaigns have to be fought, either around single issues or over the course of an election, whether it is local, national. European or presidential. A political party that is not prepared to throw itself body and soul into the task of trying to win a democratic mandate for its ideas, values and candidates is not a political party worth believing in.

As every Member knows, all of this costs money. In our case it would be true to say that we are required to raise approximately £300,000 per annum for day-to-day head office operations. Membership fees, levies on parliamentary Members and affiliation fees account for slightly less than half of this amount and the rest has to be gathered by fund-raising.

Mr. D. Ahern

Not by the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission.

Mr. Spring

In common with most of my colleagues on all sides of the House I regard it as part of my democratic responsibility to be involved in fund-raising, which involves three elements. The first is the party leader's allowance which is paid to the leader of each qualified party in the House. This allowance has been in existence for many years and it has always been the case that a larger allowance is paid to the Opposition parties. The allowance is paid directly to the party leader each month. I endorse the cheque each month and it is handed over to the party office. It appears each year in full in the professionally audited accounts of the Labour Party. Any intrepid investigative journalist would be able to find it in our published national reports.

I presume the same is true of all the other parties in the House. For example, during the four years I served as Tánaiste to Dr. Garret FitzGerald there was only one party in Opposition and, therefore, the entire parliamentary allowance was paid by monthly cheques to the then leader of the Opposition. The total sum involved during the period 1983-87 was approximately £750,000 and each monthly cheques made out to the then leader of the Opposition would have been worth approximately £15,000. I assume that normal accounting procedures would demonstrate the normal democratic uses to which that money was put.

As I said, the lion's share of the sums available for leaders' allowances goes to parties in Opposition. This can be seen from the current figures which are as follows: Fianna Fáil, £292,361 per annum; Progressive Democrats, £145,250 per annum; Fine Gael, £103,256 per annum and Labour, £44,413 per annum.

Mr. M. McDowell

Plus £90,000 for mobile phones.

Mr. Howlin

What about the £300,000 in legal fees?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste without interruption, please.

Mr. Spring

The second area of fund-raising in which I have been involved over the years is collections, usually outside churches, and attendance at functions, some organised in my constituency and others in different parts of the country. The functions range from dinner and supper dances to table quizzes, race nights and raffle draws.

Mr. Cowen

No breakfasts.

Mr. Spring

They generally fulfil a number of uses. For example, they raise some money, provide an opportunity for party members to socialise with each other and serve as useful introductions for new members.

The third area of my activity in regard to fund-raising has been the conducting of national business appeals. This normally takes the form of a letter from me to the chief executive of the top 100-500 companies explaining what the party stands for, what it has achieved and what it hopes to achieve in the future. I have to admit that in the past some of these appeals have been more successful than others. I have never at any time during such fund-raising efforts offered anyone anything in return for their financial contribution to the Labour Party. Unlike Fianna Fáil I have never accepted cheques for £50,000 from people in the beef industry with whom I was engaged in daily negotiations about export credit insurance. Unlike the Progressive Democrats, I have never tried to sell my party to the highest bidder by calling it "an investment opportunity with a proven rate of return". Unlike them, I have never written only letters to beef barons, accepted a cheque for £20,000, delivered on the day a Government fell, and looked for a cosy dinner so that the donor's concerns could be discussed "in more detail in a more relaxed atmosphere".

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

What about the "unique opportunity"?

Mr. Spring

Despite all this and my failure to do little deals of this kind. I wish to disclose that during most of the period I have been Leader of the Labour Party it has been a struggle for the party to pay its way. That we have managed to do so is a tribute to voluntary effort and the dedication of people who get nothing in return.

Mr. D. Ahern

The chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission.

Mr. Spring

I wish to refer to the famous race night which has been the subject of controversy. This is an event which merits and must get full disclosure. It was held in Cumann na Múinteoirí in Parnell Square on 12 March last, 120 copies of the famous letter were sent out in advance, those in attendance were mostly friends and supporters of the Minister, Deputy Higgins, and there were to be ten races with ten horses in each race. Members will be glad to know that three of the races were sponsored at a cost of £100 each, 46 of the horses were sponsored at £20 each, 21 of the jockeys were sponsored at £10 each and the frenzied betting which took place on the night yielded £206.35 net after the winnings had been paid out.

Mr. Lawlor

I would not trust a man who could only raise that amount.

Mr. Spring

The total "take" from this sinister event was £1,635.35.

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy

This is disclosure.

Mr. Spring

The cost of hiring the hall and the racing films came to £408.95, leaving a profit of £1,227.40.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The Minister should sack him.

Mr. Lawlor

That would not pay for the napkins.

Mr. M. McDowell

Pathetic is the right word.

Mr. Spring

It is fair to say that the event was a modest success, at least in the sort of terms which I am used to. The money will be useful in helping to defray the debt of the Galway West constituency.

Another strange thing also happened that night. No radio licences were bought or sold, no favours were offered or taken, no new friendships were struck up since all the people in attendance were already friends, no cheques were written, no brown paper bags were handed over and an enjoyable night was had by all. That is all there is to disclose about the race night over which the Opposition is demanding two resignations.

The second issue I need to address is that of judgement. Niall Stokes occupies an important position. He chairs a commission whose decisions must be made and be seen to be made in a totally impartial way. Nothing would bring local radio or independent television into disrepute faster than the charge that it had been allowed to be politically manipulated. There is no evidence whatsoever — and none has been offered — that Niall Stokes would be capable of such manipulation. No Member of the House would believe that the Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, would be capable of the political corruption inherent in such activity. Those who know both these people know that the independence of commercial radio and television is in safe hands between them.

It is fair to say that the independent broadcasting sector is in a healthier state than ever before. Niall Stokes and the Minister have something in common, that is they share a strategic vision of how broadcasting, among the other cultural industries, can become a vibrant area of economic and creative activity.

Mr. D. Ahern

And of fund-raising.

Mr. Spring

If we reward that vision and effort with the kind of abuse that has been heaped on Niall Stokes over the past week it says little for our efforts to attract people of creativity and talent into this area. We are supposed to be able to take abuse in the House but I wonder if anyone on the other side has stopped to think about the cavalier and unfounded attacks on a private citizen and the damage they are doing.

Mr. M. McDowell

The man cannot take it but he can give it out.

Mr. D. Ahern

He has been well able to dish it out over the years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste, without interruption.

Mr. Spring

I have total confidence in the integrity of the people involved in this case. However, for those who do not know them, a definite error of judgment occurred in this case. It was wrong and imprudent to place Niall Stokes in a position where he could be accused, however wrongly, of political favouritism. His name should not have been on the correspondence promoting the race night, as it should not have been used in support of any fund-raising activities for the Labour Party. He is not a member of the party, and should not have been put in a position where he was made to appear a party activist.

My colleagues know my views on this matter and I have told them I regard it as imperative that the party should learn from this and earlier mistakes. It would, rightly, be unacceptable to the people who vote for us, the people who work for us and the people who support us, if we were to lose sight of the need for total sensitivity where issues of standards are concerned. Our members and our electorate demand — and they are entitled to — the conviction that we are capable of applying to ourselves the standards we demand for public life generally.

I will now return to the third theme I mentioned at the beginning, the theme of integrity. The motion advanced by Fianna Fáil, and supported by the Progressive Democrats, seeks to impugn the integrity of two individuals. Deputy McDowell, for instance, despite his much-vaunted reputation for legal scruple, has accused them, tried them, and convicted them already, in radio interviews and press releases.

I will not go down that road. I will not stand by and watch two people of undoubted and unchallenged integrity sacrificed on the alter of Deputy McDowell's ego or the Fianna Fáil's hyprocrisy.

We are dealing here with one central issue. Has the enormous contribution of Deputy Michael D. Higgins to the life of this country been compromised by a fund-raising event, honestly and openly conducted for legitimate and democratic purposes?

Deputies

Yes.

Mr. Spring

Has Niall Stokes's role in helping to raise £1,227.40 jeopardised his ability to do his job properly, and at arm's length, from a politician he admires?

Miss de Valera

Yes.

Mr. Spring

The answer to these questions is no. Any fair-minded person can see that. If Deputy McDowell and others were willing to open their eyes and their minds instead of deciding to be judge, jury and executioner, they would see that what happened was an impulsive mistake——

Mr. M. McDowell

It was a premeditated plan.

Mr. Spring

——and they would have the grace to admit there should be no question of people being pilloried further for that mistake.

Mr. M. McDowell

There was to be a series of fund-raising events throughout 1996.

Mr. Spring

I want to turn now to the last issue this motion raises, that of consistency. It seems it must be addressed at two levels. There are a great many people on State boards here and many of them are political loyalists and activists. Some are prominent fund-raisers for their parties and their names are well known.

Miss de Valera

They are not in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Mr. Spring

If we impugn the integrity of one, we must impugn the integrity of all. Is anyone in this House suggesting that? Did anyone in this House, for example, argue on grounds of integrity or judgement when Deputy McDowell's wife was appointed to a State board or when Deputy O'Malley's first cousin was appointed a ministerial adviser? Of course not.

Mr. M. McDowell

How low can you go?

Mr. Spring

I would be falling for a long time to reach your depths. The Progressive Democrats can do anything they want. They are above question.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. McDowell

You are a hypocrite. You are a stomach-turning hypocrite.

Mr. Spring

I will not be shouted down by you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us have an orderly debate.

Mr. Spring

These were two people among many whose qualifications were respected and whose integrity was assumed.

Mr. M. McDowell

Why mention them then?

Mr. Spring

If integrity is to be so cheaply abused and accusations can be so lightly flung around, will anyone's reputation be respected?

In the motion before the House, there is a catch-all phrase asking us to review the programme manager system, and there will, no doubt, be the usual cheap jibes about people who work long hours trying to ensure that services are delivered faster, that policies are translated into action quicker, that the public gets value for money.

These individuals have saved this country money through their expert advice. They have brought forward innovative ideas that have contributed to an improved quality of life for citizens of this country. They have provided the independent analysis that has informed fresh thinking on issues like long-term unemployment or disability rights. They work on the basis of mutual respect with civil servants at every level, and provide a professional and committed service to the country. The benefits of the system could be documented in detail.

However, that would not do justice to the need for a daily headline about one person's mobile phone or another's fax machine. The truth does not matter, only the point-scoring.

I will be accused of hypocrisy by some of those opposite, because I have defended the reputations of two people whom I believe are under unfair attack. Last night, for example, I heard Deputy Cowen on television say that if anyone other than a member of the Labour Party had been involved, we would be the first to demand their resignation.

History has a way of distorting even simple facts — especially in the hands of propagandists. In my entire political career in this House, I sought the resignation of one politician, Deputy Charles Haughey, and I did that from a position in Opposition, and for very good reasons.

Mr. M. McDowell

Where is Phil Hogan?

Mr. Spring

I tried to prevent the promotion of Mr. Harry Whelehan to the Presidency of the High Court, although I never queried the then Taoiseach's right to appoint him or to retain him as Attorney General.

Mr. M. McDowell

"We are here for a head, yours or Harry's". Get off the stage. This is stinking hypocrisy.

Mr. Spring

I would hate to get off the stage and leave it to you.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

On two occasions in my career, I disagreed in conscience with actions taken by Governments of which I was a member. On both occasions, I did not seek the resignations of others — I resigned myself, with my Labour Party colleagues. I did so because I believed then, as I believe now, that each Member must be accountable in the first instance to his or her own conscience. I have always tried to take the view also that if issues arise that cause difficulty within or between parties, it is for the parties involved to sort out those issues for themselves.

Deputy Cowen knows that nobody in the Labour Party raised a hand against him when he apologised to this House for an error of judgment.

Mr. M. McDowell

It was not an error of judgment.

Mr. Spring

Deputy McDowell knows that there is no party in this House with a record of head-hunting that compares with his at a time when the most vocal member of the Progressive Democrats was not even in the House.

The record of this House shows, to any fair-minded observer, that we have never taken an inhumane view of mistakes——

Mr. M. McDowell

You must be joking.

Mr. D. Ahern

What about the head. You wanted to behead Harry Whelehan.

Mr. Spring

——and we have been prepared — and are prepared — to admit our own mistakes and to try to learn from them.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us have an orderly debate.

Mr. Spring

For some time now, the Deputies opposite have sought to run a consistent strategy with my party as target for constant propaganda. In the process, they have tried to destabilise a good, coherent Government which is implementing policies of change and renewal. We are putting peace first and consolidating and building on economic growth. By the time our term comes to an end, we will have implemented a wide range of reforms that can only contribute to more accountability.

At the end of the day, I find myself wondering if this is the real agenda. Some of those who most strongly attacked the personal integrity of Deputy Higgins are also among those who most viciously attacked the whole process of reform. Again, the record of this House will reveal that it has been the Progressive Democrats who have been the most sceptical of ethics legislation and most opposed to State funding of political parties, although not averse to pocketing whatever they can get.

The juvenile attempts at damage will not work. This Government will last, united and disciplined. Integrity will be valued, and the vital, vibrant contribution of Michael D. Higgins has a long way to go yet.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I wish to share my time with Deputies Lawlor and Kenneally.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is agreed.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Government of openness, transparency and accountability has been well described by some eminent journalists as the most secretive in the history of the State. In recent weeks the shutter has been padlocked and only the Tánaiste holds the key. He seems to have assumed an empirical air comparable to that of Caesar's wife who was, of course, above reproach.

Even a cursory examination of Labour's record in Government will show that they have sinned more than they were sinned against. Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald had been in this House for only a short period when she proclaimed that she did not want to see an Imelda Marcos type situation arising in the country. That was patent nonsense but it sounded well and had a certain gloss to it. Although Deputy Fitzgerald proclaimed ethics on that occasion, she had no difficulty subsequently in selling access to the Minister for Finance. The Labour Party appears to go around with an ethics Bill in one hand and a collection box in the other. Ethics, it would appear, are not for sale, but access and information are.

The next speaker was the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who was unable to identify any difficulty whatsoever with the so called independent chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission collecting funds for his Labour Party organisation. The fact that the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission exercises a quasi-judicial position in this State does not appear to interfere with the Minister's interpretation of the world "ethics". Of course, the most extraordinary aspect of this entire affair is the full blooded support which the Taoiseach is giving to the Ministers concerned, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins. This underlines what I have felt and what I have been saying for some time that Fine Gael are truly the poodles of the rainbow coalition Government. They bark a little every now and then but they never bite——

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): Pity yourself in Government with the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. O'Donoghue

——in marked contrast to the rottweilers in the Labour Party and Democratic Left Party who are extremely good at sinking their political teeth into political opponents whether in Government with them or not.

At the break-up of the last Government the Labour Party illustrated for all and sundry that it was a past master of the art of what I can describe as political cannibalism. It was quite noticeable tonight when this debate began that there were no Fine Gael Deputies in evidence.

Mr. J. Higgins

Anseo.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Clearly the Fine Gael Chief Whip decided to send in two or three for cosmetic purposes. The Chief Whip of Fine Gael would do well to remember that his Taoiseach sacrificed two of his colleagues on the altar of openness, transparency and accountability at the diktat of the Labour Party.

Mr. Connor

Your party sacrificed your Taoiseach.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I have long said that this Fine Gael Party is not the party of Paddy Lindsay, Liam Cosgrave or James Dillon because their rich descriptive words in describing the actions of the Labour Party would be worth listening to. When they said something they meant it and at the very least they had the courage to implement it. It was most extraordinary that the Taoiseach was not obliged or forced by the Labour Party to seek the resignation of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry. If the Labour Party had come looking for a head one can be absolutely sure that the head of the poodles would have given it to them. The only other explanation for the Taoiseach's extraordinary support of the Minister in this case is the old adage that if you lie down with dogs you will surely get up with fleas.

Mr. Connor

We know that.

Mr. O'Donoghue

It would appear that the Tánaiste has missed the point and so has the Labour Party. It is clearly provided in the legislation dealing with the Independent Radio and Television Commission that the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission cannot be removed except for stated misbehaviour and then only by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is precisely the same provision that applies to the Judiciary so it was clearly envisaged when the legislation was put in place that the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission would exercise a judicial function. Strangely enough the same Independent Radio and Television Commission under precisely the same legislation is empowered to act in relation to political partiality. The Independent Radio and Television Commission following an investigation can conclude that a radio station has been guilty of political bias and can terminate a broadcasting contract. How can the Tánaiste and the Labour Party honestly tell the Irish public that an individual who holds a quasi-judicial position and has been publicly involved in collecting money for the Labour Party organisation in the constituency of the "Minister for Broadcasting" can act impartially in relation to deciding whether a radio station has acted with political impartiality?

Mr. D. McDowell

Is the Deputy suggesting he has not acted impartially?

Mr. O'Donoghue

It is to insult the intelligence and perceptiveness of the Irish people. It is completely unacceptable for the Tánaiste to come into this House and wash his hands of this affair on the basis that he has nothing to do with it. He is the Tánaiste and Leader of the Labour Party. He and his party have a considerable number of seats because he said to the electorate prior to the last election that there was a need for higher standards in political life.

Mr. S. Ryan

There surely was.

Mr. O'Donoghue

If there is a need for higher standards in political life, let him enforce and implement them and not come into this House making self-congratulatory and self-contradictory statements. The position is quite clear. When a member of another party transgresses, irrespective of whether they are in Government——

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): What about Deputy Cowen?

Mr. O'Donoghue

——the very first out with the political scalpel is the Labour Party. It is all very well when the Minister is from Fine Gael because one gets the Taoiseach to repay for saving his political bacon about 16 months ago and makes absolutely sure that he forces resignations.

Let me put it to the Tánaiste that his behaviour and the behaviour of his party not only smacks of hypocrisy but is political hypocrisy of the worst kind, possibly the worst ever seen in this House. Make no mistake about it. The Fine Gael Party is steering a wide berth of the Labour Party and well it might.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): We are here.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The tragedy is that their senior Ministers are out barking in the night when they should be in here sinking their political teeth into the rottweilers who forced the resignation of two of their most distinguished Members. The Deputy leader of Fianna Fáil was correct when she said that they are glued together. Glued together they may well stay for some time to come but it can be said without fear of contradiction that the much heralded and much trumpeted openness, transparency and accountability will surely enter the lexicon of Irish political mythology as the epitaph of the rainbow coalition Government.

Mr. Kenneally

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The people are absolutely sickened and saddened by what is happening in some Government Departments and the actions of certain Ministers in recent times. They are applied at the adverse publicity generated by the unbecoming conduct of some Ministers and the damage they are doing to the organs of State through their naked greed and anxiety to fill their constituency coffers for the next election. For the public that cannot come soon enough and their toll on those parties who made lofty promises but delivered low standards will be great. In any organisation large or small, Cabinet or even a club committee, mistakes will be made and there will be occasional lapses of judgment when things will be done which are not entirely in accordance with approved practice. People understand and accept that, but what they cannot accept is seeing their Cabinet Ministers constantly and consistently involved in affairs which are at best shady and at worst an assault on the integrity, independence and high principles of the organs of State. That may sound a bit excessive——

Mr. Spring

It does.

Mr. Kenneally

——but in the light of the series of scandals which have dog-get two political colours of this rainbow coalition there is no other interpretation we can apply or connotations we can attribute to what has emerged about their fund-raising activities.

Deputy Spring may well grind his teeth at lapses in standards and breaches of ethics which have been perpetrated by senior members of his party. He may well privately deplore their antics but ultimately he has to accept responsibility for the actions of those Ministers whom he nominated to the Government, in whom he continues to have confidence and with whom he continues to share his Front Bench. He will soon have to face reality; he may have to do so tomorrow. He will shortly have to accept that there are some lapses which are not minor breaches of etiquette but major assaults on the code of ethics which one of his junior Ministers imposed with such pomp and cant, and by now we realise, hypocrisy, on the Members of the Oireachtas. I found it objectionable at the time, I have considered it regrettable since and I find it laughable now that a Minister from the Labour Party should make comparisons between the Marcos regime and Members on this side of the House when all along it must have been herself and her party she had in mind when she framed that famous quote.

I am all for ethics in parliament. I support and endeavour to practise high standards in public life and I deplore any actions which might bring our political system into disrepute. However, those standards must apply equally on both sides of the House and must be aspired to and practised by all. There is no greater hypocrisy or farce than the exhortation "do as I say, not as I do". It illustrates the attitude of those who feel superior, above the law or beyond all regulations. It is the credo of the powerful who see themselves as beyond correction. That is what we have been subjected to by successive Ministers from the left of this lopsided coalition. They preach ethics in Government and yet, before the President's signature is dry on their new Bill, a succession of them trample on every principle it contains.

Mr. Howlin

Rubbish.

Mr. Kenneally

The prophet may not be accepted in his own land but he generally understands his own message. The message the Labour Party, through Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, preached ad nauseam does not seem to be understood by that party and least of all by Deputy Fitzgerald who is not adverse to selling party favours to feather her constituency nest.

We have had a succession of events where Labour and Democratic Left Ministers have been gravely compromised and yet cling to office like limpets to a rock. Compared with their Fine Gael counterparts, those Labour and Democratic Left Ministers have acted in a cheap, shabby and quite disgraceful manner. If it were to any other party they gave their allegiance, they could and would have been forced by their colleagues and their leader to consider their positions long ago. Whether it be £100 a plate lunches, packing the Department with party activists or late night jaunts through the Phoenix Park, some Ministers have been more than lucky that they have such an accommodating leader whose primary purpose in life is surviving past the presidency of the European Union.

At least Deputies Coveney and Hogan did the decent thing and accountability still seems to exist in some measure in parts of the Fine Gael party. However, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the Minister, Deputy Higgins, one of the finest preachers of ethics to come into this House, should take a lesson from them and consider his own position today.

The Minister went on RTE radio on Monday morning huffing and puffing about the role the chairman of the commission plays in issuing licences. He tried to make much of the title Independent Radio and Television Commission and seemed to suggest that, as it was not called the Neutral Radio and Television Commission, it should not act independently at all. The Minister said "It does not recruit either its staff or its representatives from that group of people who are proud of having no opinion on anything".

Does the Minister not realise even at this stage that everyone is entitled to have an opinion on any matter but that the constraints of office may and sometimes must preclude people from declaring those opinions openly or otherwise making their view known publicly on a variety of matters? The Minister does not seem to realise such people do not have the right to publicly involve themselves with the activities of any political party, even the one from which their nomination for office came. Why else would the Minister fail to agree that people who have political opinions of any kind whatsoever should be "excluded from consideration for appointment"?

He later said: "I as Minister simply require that people will be independent, impartial and fair". That is precisely the point. One cannot be deemed to be impartial if one is acting to further the candidacy of a Member of the Oireachtas. Why else are such people debarred from holding even the office of poll clerk at election time? Surely the chairmanship of a body such as the Independent Radio and Television Commission requires at least that same impartiality. If it does, furthering someone's candidacy by fund-raising for his re-election campaign is not a realistic, impartial or acceptable practice. He gave the Independent Radio and Television Commission chairman the thumbs up when he said: "I think that Niall Stokes has done nothing improper whatsoever".

Such behaviour by the Minister does not surprise me. On 28 November last I asked him for the breakdown of the allocation of capital moneys from his Department for the last two years. While I was expecting that Galway would be a reasonable beneficiary from the Minister's generosity I was shocked to find that over 60 per cent of the funding went to the Minister's county. Like the unjust servant in the bible who made provision for his future by currying favour with his boss's clients through shady discounts, so did the Minister seek to provide for his political future by generously scattering his departmental largesse among his constituents. "Take the pen and write 80" might be his favourite bible quote but "take my pen and write what you like" has to be his working principle. It may no longer be barrels of oil or bushels of corn but theatre seats and art galleries which guarantee the future of this doomed Minister but the principle is the same and the cunning no different, even at the remove of 2000 years.

Mr. S. Ryan

Who wrote that speech for you?

Mr. Kenneally

The people will one day want an account of the Minister's stewardship and of how the party given the biggest increase in votes at the last election used its power in Government. They will not be impressed at how easy the parties of the left slip into the practices they purported to despise in other parties. They will not be enticed to vote again for those parties who preach one creed in Opposition and practise another in Government and who seek to impose standards on others in which they do not believe themselves.

The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht has lost credibility, not only through his own actions but through his approval of the actions of his appointees and his ostrich like defence of the indefensible. He has lost the credibility of the people and the confidence of many of his Government colleagues. He has also lost the confidence of his party and leader, though they are unlikely to admit it. He has become a lame duck Minister whose position is untenable and he now has no option but to resign that position.

Mr. Lawlor

I wish to share my time with Deputy Sargent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Lawlor

The most unsavoury aspect of one's role in this House is to have to criticise a colleague in a practical and constructive way. I do not know and have not met Mr. Stokes. I heard him on the radio for the first time recently. There was a practice in this house until a couple of years ago whereby Members were not permitted to name private citizens or others outside this House. That seems to have gone by the board.

This issue is quite straightforward. The Tánaiste's words were "It was wrong and imprudent to place Niall Stokes in a position where he could be accused, however, wrongly, of political favouritism". I presume nobody placed Mr. Stokes in any position. Mr. Stokes willingly placed himself in support of the Minister in what turns out, per the Tánaiste, to be a very glossed over fund-raising event?

Mr. S. Ryan

Not in Fianna Fáil's league.

Mr. Lawlor

The Deputy might say a few words about TEAM. We attended a meeting at that premises and he did not have anything to say. Programme managers are paid from public funds. When my party was in power and the programme managers were civil servants would anyone suggest that the civil servants, under any guise, would have embarked on what happened in this case? "No" is the answer.

Mr. D. Ahern

It is a lesson to be learned.

Mr. Lawlor

If a programme manager who is doing a good job, wants to put himself in the position, as he claimed on radio, of being a quasi public servant during the day and a Labour Party activist in his own time, one cannot distinguish the overlap. People who want access to the Minister and receive correspondence from the person who has to discharge his duties in a pragmatic and responsible way, however, innocent, will feel compelled to contribute and support.

If Mr. Stokes's name is associated with something, as in this case, people will feel compelled. There may be no wrongdoing and no intent of wrongdoing, but the concept is there that letters sent by people in sensitive positions put the recipients in an invidious position.

The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, wrote 700 letters. What did the Labour Party in Dublin South want with £70,000 at the next general election?

Mr. O'Donoghue

To hold 17,000 votes at £4 a vote.

Mr. Broughan

How much did Fianna Fáil spend in Dublin West?

Mr. Lawlor

About £5,000. The Minister of State, Deputy Burton, would spend that on a newsletter every other month.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms Burton)

I pay for it out of my salary.

Mr. Lawlor

As we all do. There is an unfortunate overlap in this case. The Minister's programme manager and an independent appointee have been compromised by their activities. That must be the conclusion on this issue.

I heard Mr. Stokes refer to Deputy Michael McDowell's profession. It is my understanding that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht wrote for Hot Press before he became Minister and, presumably, was paid for it. He was double jobbing in the same way as Mr. Stokes accused Deputy Michael McDowell. From his position as writer Deputy Higgins became a Minister and then appointed his arm's length, non-party political friend as chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. What was called the golden circle has become a pink, smoked salmon circle.

I do not believe there is any corruption at the heart of this. However, there is a perception that it is not correct. The Minister for Health wrote recently to medical personnel and the perception was that they had better attend the function. If the chairman of the Labour Party in Galway West wrote to everybody in the country there would not be anything amiss. He would be doing his job as a party officer. However, that is not the case in this instance.

Mr. Sargent

Debate on this issue is commonplace in the House, which is a pity because it gives a sickening impression of an addicition to point scoring in politics which is not rooted in the issues which should be dealt with in the House. A mistake was made in this case and the Tánaiste admitted as much earlier. The Minister, Deputy Higgins, should come clean about the matter and give an undertaking it is not being treated lightly. Standards should be maintained and be seen to be maintained. An individual of the calibre of Mr. Stokes should not be compromised as his like are not too plentiful in Irish life.

Some of the comments in the interviews on this case on radio yesterday were more stinging in that they were Freudian slips than any grilling the Opposition might give the Minister and Mr. Stokes. I heard Pat Kenny on RTE say the matter would be "decided" in the Dáil. He then corrected himself and said the matter would be "discussed". That slip indicated how ineffective the Dáil can be in dealing with a matter such as this. Ironically, on one of the independent radio stations, there was a more stinging slip when a presenter introduced the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission as Mr. Michael Stokes. That was the ultimate and, from the Minister's point of view, most unfortunate mix up. It indicated a Freudian overlap of identities. It probably has a more stinging effect than any slap on the wrist from this debate.

Many issues have been earmarked for Private Members' Time and it is sad to have to spend the time on an issue such as this. There are Bills on land mines and other issues waiting to be debated. This may be a policitical land mine for some.

Mr. S. Ryan

Deputy de Valera got it wrong.

Mr. Sargent

It is sad that when people are being blown to pieces we are sniping harmlessly at the Minister in Private Members' Time. The Bill to deal with the issue of wandering horses should have been discussed, especially in the week of the Dublin West by-election. The Leader of Fianna Fáil should have been made aware how wandering horses can cramp one's style. The debate on the White Paper on Foreign Policy has been put off, despite there having been discussions today in Turin. The important issues of our neutrality and the Western European Union etc. have been put off. I wonder about our sense of priorities.

A mistake has been made. The Minister could have prevented this motion being moved. Had he been thinking about the prioritisation of issues he should have had the good grace to admit the mistake and let us get on with important issues.

Mr. D. McDowell

That is what he has done.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

I propose to share my time with Deputies Derek McDowell and Pat Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly).

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leonard)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

An interesting fact which has emerged about this matter over recent days, amplified by the comments of the Opposition, is the glee with which so many people have vented a pent up frustration with the legislative framework the Labour Party has championed in recent years — addressing the issue of standards in Irish public life. We went into negotiations with all political parties after the last general election with a clear set of objectives to address the fundamental disquiet about standards in public life. We were not motivated because we felt many Members of this House or the institutions of the State were corrupt, but we felt it essential to establish in legislation a new openness in the way we did business. Many people scorned that proposal and fought it trenchantly — I negotiated with every political party in this House and know their attitudes to the Ethics of Public Office Act and the Electoral Act. Using those Bills we sought to have openness about the way political parties are funded and about the means and ownership of individual Members, particularly office holders, so there would be no fears that Members, Ministers or decision makers would be compromised by self-advancement or financial improvement arising from decision making.

A number of people felt we were setting ourselves up for a fall. We have fallen — we have made mistakes in the last few weeks — and the gleeful way in which those opposed in principle to what we wanted to achieve have rejoiced at minor mistakes and sought to rubbish the principle and dump the framework is a clear indication of their stance. We knew we had ruffled many people's feathers in trying to put in place what we wanted. We never set ourselves up as paragons of virtue and we are not better than any other party in this House. The vast bulk of Members of every party have nothing to fear in the legislation we advanced and sought to enact. The notion that minor mistakes — which should not have occurred and were wrong and foolish — should somehow bring a major plank of public policy tumbling down is one which we in the Labour Party totally and absolutely reject.

We have tried to be honest in our position. The Minister, Deputy Higgins and the Tánaiste have put on the record every last detail of this fund-raising effort — a Member opposite described it as more of a farce than anything else but it was not dishonest. There was no indication, suggestion, or even charge made that there was anything dishonest or self-seeking about the actions of either the Minister or Mr. Niall Stokes, as a long-time friend and ally of Deputy Higgins in the crusades he has been involved in throughout his public life, to bring about social change. Mr. Stokes was not and is not a member of the Labour Party, but he saw in the Minister a champion, someone who could change our political culture in so many ways. Foolishly he allowed his name to be associated with a minor race night, which would be held for a local school or social club, at £20 per horse, which raised £1,200 in total — hardly the stuff of major scandals or, to dovetail with Deputy Sargent, a matter which should occupy this House on two consecutive days.

It has also been charged that the Labour Party has somehow set standards it is not willing to accept, or that anyone else who makes a mistake is removed from office. That is wrong also. In the last Government, the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, discovered he had a small shareholding in a company which had a licence application before his Department. There were howls and demands from the then Opposition for his resignation — I suppose there is a pro forma game whereby the Opposition demands the resignation of Ministers. The Labour Party did not immediately demand any resignation; on the contrary, I went on television and explained that it was a simple mistake which in no way compromised the actions or decision of a man I regarded as a competent Minister.

Miss de Valera

What about Deputies Coveney and Hogan?

Mr. Howlin

That is the reality, anything else is a misreading of the facts or a distortion of the truth — I will leave it to the Deputies opposite to decide which best characterises their motives.

The Tánaiste has given a complete and open account of the Labour Party's financial affairs. It is now incumbent on the Deputies opposite to do the same, to tell us where they got their money.

Mr. S. Ryan

Where did Fianna Fáil get its £3 million?

Mr. Howlin

I will put more facts on the table. I negotiated with Fianna Fáil, who agreed to the enactment of an Electoral Bill which would include a compulsory legal disclosure of contributions to political parties. Part of the agreement struck with us was that we would delay its enactment until Fianna Fáil could gather sufficient funding to clear its £3 million debt. The Labour Party does not have debts of that order; we have always dealt with small contributions from affiliates, trade unions, members, church gate collections, etc. — small beer.

Mr. M. McDowell

Why did Labour agree to the delay?

Mr. Howlin

I know the sort of money Deputy McDowell and the Progressive Democrats regard as farcical but it would not be so to Labour Party members, supporters and voters.

Mr. M. McDowell

Rubbish, we could not afford——

Miss de Valera

Does Mr. Stokes regard it as farcical?

Acting Chairman

I ask Members to refrain from interrupting the Minister.

Mr. Howlin

We will slip up on many occasions. We will make mistakes——

Mr. M. McDowell

But never pay for them.

Mr. Howlin

——but we will not sell our offices, our favours or compromise our principles.

The nub of the issue before this House, in terms of the motion put down by Fianna Fáil, is the suitability of Deputy Higgins to be Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht — I ask Members to ask the people of Ireland. I have met no one in any county who does not regard the establishment of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the appointment of Deputy Higgins as its first Minister as anything other than most enlightened and wonderful decisions——

Miss de Valera

What about the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission?

Mr. Howlin

——which have benefited the arts, film, heritage and any area for which he has responsibility. He made a mistake on this issue but it has in no way compromised his office or integrity.

Mr. M. McDowell

Why did he not——

Mr. Howlin

I was on a television programme with Deputy Cowen last night and I saw his heart was not in this. It is shameful for Deputies opposite to exaggerate this mistake into a resigning matter either for the Minister or the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission who is an honourable man, one of many people involved in public service for no personal gain, who is belittled by their attitudes, insinuations and snide remarks.

Miss de Valera

Unfortunately there is no need to exaggerate the seriousness of this matter.

Mr. M. McDowell

Deputy Hogan is a decent man also.

Mr. Howlin

The confidence of this House in the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht will be shown tomorrow; I believe this will simply show the confidence of the nation in the work he has done to date.

Debate adjourned.