To describe the debate on the Bill as sporadic would be to exaggerate its continuity. About eight months have elapsed since I was last on my feet in the middle of this interrupted speech. On the previous occasion the interruption was a short one of only three weeks. Having said that I am, nevertheless, grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging the debate today and to the Minister for attending.
I think I had better recapitulate the line of argument, without attempting to go into detail, so that I and the House can pick up the threads where I left off on the 29th May last. I had started by saying that in introducing this Bill and in the comments I had been making it was not intended to reflect on the Minister himself and there was no suggestion that the Minister himself had interfered improperly in any way with RTE. No such suggestion or allegation had, I think, been made. Nevertheless, I felt that there existed a problem of which there was substantial evidence. I accepted that the whole problem of radio and television and its freedom and freedom to criticise the Government, freedom of debate, was a thorny issue and that not alone in this country but in other countries there were divergent views on it and that indeed many other countries had less liberal regimes than ours in this respect.
I asserted, however, that this service should be a national service and not a Government service, serving the nation as a whole rather than any individual Government. I suggested that, in order to ensure that freedom of speech was maintained as it should be in such a service, four things were required: an alert public opinion, a strong director general, an independent board and legislation to protect its independence. It was, indeed, with a view towards strengthening this legislation that this Bill was introduced.
I suggested that interference with the work of the RTE organisation could come in two ways, through a board or board members who were not completely independent, intervening in the affairs of the organisation in order to suppress programmes or to get certain programmes broadcast. Alternatively, there could be outside interference of a political character, pressure being put on the Authority or its officers and servants to broadcast things or not to broadcast them.
We had a two-level problem of interference; there could be interference at two levels. I suggested as regards Board intervention we had virtually no evidence as to whether the Board did or did not intervence in an objectionable manner. The only evidence I had related to one instance where Board members sought to prevent certain people broadcasting on certain topics in a series of lectures.
Apart from that incident of which I had personal knowledge I had no evidence of such interference and whether it existed or not could only be a matter of speculation. But I added that there was concrete evidence over a long period of years of persistent intervention by Ministers of the present Government in the affairs of RTE— the Ministers do not include the present Minister. I gave these instances from the public record: the case of Deputy Blaney's speech at the Ard Fheis in November, 1959, which was followed in a very short time, a matter of weeks or so, by his departure from this post and his replacement by Deputy Ormonde. There was more sensitivity then to Ministerial misbehaviour in this respect than there has been since. I gave the case of Deputy Boland as Minister for Defence suppressing a programme on Civil Defence when he personally entered the Radio Telefís Éireann building to inspect the proposals for the programme and to suppress them. There was the case, again on the record, of interference by the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Haughey, to prevent dissemination of a statement by the National Farmers' Association which contrasts markedly with the only role seen by the Minister for External Affairs for the Authority as being the dissemination of information.
The Minister for External Affairs sees this as the only role of the Authority. The Minister for Agriculture did not think this was a proper role when the information came from the NFA. There were cases of suppression of programmes or attempted suppression like the case of the Mount Pleasant Square programme, which was dropped not because the Minister asked for it to be dropped, but nevertheless following his intervention it was dropped. Otherwise it would have been unfair to the Minister who had been misinformed accidentally. As a result of the Minister's intervention by ringing up to inquire about it, the purpose of the inquiry being quite evident to the Director-General, this programme was dropped. There were earlier programmes like the one on Nítrigin Éireann and the programme on the Special Branch which were dropped. We do not know whether there were other programmes suppressed. Whether on the direction of the Minister or by some other method, we know the programmes were dropped because of Ministerial intervention.
Then we had the cases of Vietnam and Biafra. I dealt with the Vietnam case. As regards Biafra I said that there was no Ministerial intervention in this case, but I felt that the decision to withdraw the team could have been influenced by the strong intervention of the Minister for External Affairs on a previous occasion on Vietnam. However, there was no direct intervention in this case. Apart from the instances of individual intervention there are statements of principle and policy made by the Minister for External Affairs and the Taoiseach, which laid down certain principles. They are dangerous ones and ones which should be challenged. The principles laid down by the Minister for External Affairs are, firstly, that the Government had responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of RTE and had the right to interfere with these day-to-day affairs. This principle is not applied in any other State body. Secondly, that a news-gathering organisation of this kind was going outside its normal functions in reporting wars in foreign countries and that he had a right to insist that they should have sought permission. The reporting of affairs outside Ireland is important and we must challenge this principle. The third principle laid down was that if a group of people go abroad where there might be a difficult situation they must consult with the Department before going, a principle which he said had always operated with semi-State bodies but which to my knowledge is one which does not operate in many of these bodies. They would not dream of talking to the Department of External Affairs before going abroad to somewhere where there might be some difficulties.
There were the views of Deputy Lemass on the subject when he laid down the degree of Government responsibility, that it was the obligation of the Government to ensure that the programmes of RTE did not offend against the public interest. He said:
RTE was set up by legislation as an instrument of public policy and as such was responsible to the Government. The Government had overall responsibility for its conduct, and especially the obligation to ensure that its programmes do not offend against the public interest or conflict with national policy as defined in legislation.
He went on to say:
To this extent the Government reject the view that RTE should be, either generally or in regard to its current affairs and news programmes, completely independent of Government supervision.
He was speaking of supervision of actual programmes. He went on to say that:
The Government would take such action by way of representations or otherwise
—ominous words—
as may be necessary to ensure that RTE does not deviate from the due performance of this duty.
These are propositions which concerned me. The incidence of Government intervention was worrying because of the repeated occasions on which there has been intervention. But behind these lies the philosophy that in fact this is not a national organisation but a Government organisation in some way. Its workings could be controlled tightly and there could be supervision of day-to-day affairs. It must not seek news outside the country without permission to do so and must not go abroad where things might be difficult without getting permission, and all its activities need to be under Government supervision. These are the propositions. This is the philosophy we challenge, apart from the actual incidents involved.
Finally, I put it to the Minister that unless we could, through the medium of this debate, obtain from him some dissent from this philosophy and a statement of a more liberal philosophy and a statement or a guarantee of an attitude in future that would ensure RTE against Government interference of this kind, I wondered whether this Bill itself would be adequate or whether I might not have to recommend to my colleagues the introducation of legislation to change RTE from a semi-State body to a body formed by many agencies which would take it completely away from political interference. I am reluctant to propose such a move. We on this side of the House are critical at times of appointments in State bodies. Nevertheless, a tradition exists that these bodies operate autonomously and do a good job. One would hesitate at this stage to change to a different system of appointment of a board without strong reasons. But unless we can get satisfactory assurances from this debate I think we would have to move in that direction.
I would like to come back at this stage to develop the four requirements which I stated at the beginning and which I have not yet developed and which I would like to put to you. Firstly, there is the importance of an alert public opinion. In any country where public opinion is not alert and the people allow interference by the Government in news media, freedom is in danger. I think one of the disturbing features of the French situation over the years, except for a brief period last spring and summer, has been the extent to which the Government has exercised governmental control of television and radio. When that situation exists and when the Government can use television and radio as a means of propaganda, which is something which has never happened here, you get to the stage where they are used for propaganda as has been the case in France for a long time, apart from the brief interval last year when freedom was asserted and quickly suppressed by the dismissal of two-thirds of the staff. An alert public opinion is therefore essential. We are fortunate in that we have had an alert public opinion in this matter.
There has been a growth of public opinion of a healthy kind in Ireland and an assertion of democratic rights in every sphere and we can be proud of it. Wherever there is a hint of Government interference of any kind, it has been the cause of public concern and condemnation. This is as it should be. I would hope that if there was any hint of anything undesirable being done in future, there would be a similar outcry if our liberties are to be preserved.
I think, therefore, that we have got an alert public opinion. Our public opinion is still not alert in some other spheres but in this it is. Here, we have the fair guarantee of an independent Radio Telefís Éireann authority actively engaged.
The second requirement concerns the Director General. It would be inappropriate for me to refer to any one Director General and we have no evidence whatever that the Director General has not stood up to any pressures that have been put on him. I have no criticism to make here whatsoever and I move on, therefore, to the next point—the independent board. Here, there is need for concern because the board of Radio Telefís Éireann is, to a degree which is, if I might say so, unusual, even among State boards, manned by people of a particular and openly avowed political persuasion.
The other side may say that of course there will be people on any State board who will have political opinions and, indeed, with the pattern of opinion in this country until recent times about half of these would be Fianna Fáil. But we are not talking of people who happen to vote for Fianna Fáil; it would not be surprising if out of a board of nine, six voted Fianna Fáil. This would not be statistically unusual, but what I am talking about is people who are actively or have been actively involved in Fianna Fáil or in a particular Party and who are associated with it in the Public mind, thereby undermining confidence in the Authority. Each of the members of the board as far as I know is qualified for the post he holds and each of them has something to bring to it. Some of them I know personally and some I do not know. However, they seem to have qualifications which are quite appropriate for the particular jobs they hold. Individually, I do not challenge the particular appointments but, taken together, I challenge the board composed of these individual appointments. We have as the chairman, Dr. Andrews, a man of great ability for whom I have great respect, indeed, I would say great affection but, nevertheless, who, throughout his lifetime has been publicly associated with Fianna Fáil. He makes a very good chairman and if he were the only one I would not mind.
However, there are others. There is Rory Brugha who has been mentioned as a possible Fianna Fáil candidate and who is on the National Executive Council of the Party. He is an excellent man and a personal friend of mine. Individually, he is acceptable and is, I am sure, making a great contribution to the board. But it is the cumulative effect of these appointments that worries me. There is also Mr. James Fanning who is an active Fianna Fáil election worker and who is actively engaged in the Party. There is Mr. Michael Noonan who was a Fianna Fáil candidate for nomination to Limerick County Council at the last local elections. I think he was defeated for the nomination and subsequently stood as an Independent but at the time he was appointed to the board his association with the Party was sufficient to put him in a position to go forward for nomination as a Fianna Fáil county councillor in Limerick.
There is also Mr. Michael O'Callaghan, editor of the Roscommon Herald. He was a candidate for Fianna Fáil in 1960. Then we have Mrs. O'Kelly, the widow of the former President who, himself, was a member of a Fianna Fáil Government. Therefore, we have six people who are publicly actively associated with Fianna Fáil—people who are not just Fianna Fáil voters but who are openly and actively identified in the public mind with the Party. There are three others who are not identified. There is Mr. Fintan Kennedy, though I am not clear that he is an active supporter of the Labour Party—perhaps I am wrong. There is also Professor Moody and Domhnall Ó Moráin.
I think it is little short of scandalous that on any State board there should be a predominance of people who are actively associated in the public mind with one particular Party as distinct from having their own private views, and on this board, of all boards, it is vital to public confidence in the board that there should not be such a predominance of people who are actively associated with one particular Party. Individually, they are acceptable, each bringing his own special knowledge and experience to the board but I think it was unwise and improper to have appointed such a board in the first instance. I would have hoped that on such a board there would have been a minimum of people who are actively associated with politics. It would be better if at least two-thirds of the board were people who had no active political life or background and the other-third might be political, divided between the different Parties.
I regret having to refer to people by name but in doing so I am not saying anything to their discredit, but I wish to put the situation on record as I see it. As I have said, they are individually entirely acceptable and I blame the person who appointed people who are actively engaged with a particular Party to the board. The board should be, and be seen to be, above politics. As I have said, except in one instance there has been no evidence of interference from these people. The staff and organisation of Radio Telefís Éireann have clearly and evidently maintained their independence throughout the existence of the organisation. We have reason to be grateful to the staff and organisation of Radio Telefís Éireann for the way they have maintained their independence. Except for the cases where they have accepted the suppression of particular programmes under pressure from the Government, they have maintained an impartial and independent view. Every political Party has suffered at times from exposure to the interviewers of RTE. We have all suffered about equally and I do not think we have anything to complain about. They have done such a good job that RTE has overcome to a considerable degree the problem created by the uneven composition of the board of the Authority. But it should be a principle of all Governments in future that the board should be such as to command confidence and not to arouse suspicion which, in most cases, may well be justified by interference by the board in the particular interest of one particular Party.
I move on now from that slightly distasteful subject, which I did not wish to have to raise, but which was forced on me by the composition of the board. The fourth requirement that I mentioned was legislation. Legislation should be such as to ensure in as far as possible the independence of the Authority. Experience has shown that the legislation drawn up and enacted in 1960 has one or two defects. There are one or two areas where it needs to be tightened up. I think I have pinpointed in this Bill the areas which need attention and I have put forward reasonable solutions to the problems but, of course, if any other Member of the House has a suggestion to make as to how the deficiencies in the original legislation could be better dealt with, I would be more than happy to accept any reasonable proposals of this kind on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I can see difficulties concerning some of the proposals I have made and I shall be glad of assistance from both sides of the House in improving the proposed legislation before it.
I shall turn now to the Bill itself and deal briefly with various changes I have in mind. The first section is, of course, the one naming the Act and defining the "Principal Act" as the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. The second section is concerned with the appointment of the Director General and proposes that his appointment or removal by the Minister should require the consent of a body comprising, as well as the Minister, "the Chairman of An Comhairle Ealaíon, a nominee of the editors of the daily morning newspapers and a nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions."
It is important that the method of appointment of the Director General should be one that would command public confidence. The method of appointment has given satisfactory results so far, but it is not one which commands public confidence. The Authority have, since this Bill was originally introduced—certainly since it was originally thought of—appointed a Director General who is entirely satifactory and against whom I have no criticism to make; but the principle should be established that if the board can be appointed as they are, some check should be required on their power to appoint a Director General or to dismiss him, so that we can ensure that their power is exercised properly as, I must say, it was in the particular instance of the last appointment.
It is important also that the board's power to remove the Director General should be limited—that the board should not for political reasons be in a position to remove a Director General who has offended them in some way politically, perhaps, by his impartiality. This is unlikely to happen, and I am quite sure that the present board, despite their political complexion, would not contemplate doing anything of the kind. However, we are concerned with the principle. If the board are to be appointed politically—if they can be and are a predominantly political board—then, because of this circumstance, some extra safeguard is required in the matter of the appointment and the removal of the Director General. Even if we accept that the present board would not abuse their powers, the fact that such a board can be appointed could lead to an abuse of political power.
It is the purpose of legislation to guard against all eventualities and it is not a good answer for the Minister to say he would not abuse this power. He might not, but one of his successors could. There is need for constraint here and the constraint should be more than the approval of the Minister who would himself be of the same complexion politically as the board which he had appointed. Though I am by no means convinced that this is the best solution, I think it offers a solution to the present situation of having politically-dominated boards with power to remove the Director General subject only to the Minister's approval. This provision is open to amendment and I am sure the House may suggest better ways of achieving this.
Section 3 is concerned with the expression of free speech on controversial issues on radio and television. The provisions of section 17 of the Principal Act are such that they might be interpreted in a way which would limit freedom of speech on controversial issues and it seems to me desirable that in section 17—which requires that the Authority, in carrying out their work, should have regard to national aims—there should be a provision ensuring that this will not be interpreted too narrowly. "Having regard to national aims" might mean that one would not be able to debate the ways of achieving these aims, much less the validity of the aims themselves. What might be regarded as national aims and accepted by the majority as such, might not be accepted by all.
Take, for instance, the reunification of this country. There are people in this country—I mean the whole island— who do not share this view. Though I think they are wrong and though I hope they will be persuaded to change their views, I must stand on the proposition of the right to express that view, not in an inflammatory manner with a view to arousing one man against another— and radio and television should be careful not to give free rein to inflammatory agitators who might seek to create violence—but subject to that limitation which must always be there, it is important that free speech should exist in the press and on radio and television, particularly on radio and television because of their great emotive power.
As I said, subject to the limitation I have explained, it is vital that the views of minorities shall be catered for. I fear that section 17 of the Principal Act can be interpreted too narrowly to say that in order to pursue the national aims there should not be permitted the expression of alternative viewpoints. This has happened. There has been a case where a proposed discussion on the means of reviving the Irish language and of preserving it, and the extent to which one would go to achieve this purpose, was unable to take place because of the interpretation by the Authority of section 17 and the sending out of an instruction to the staff requiring a balanced discussion.
The section has been interpreted in such a way that if there is a boycott of a programme by the majority view, the minority view may not be expressed. This principle was rejected by the Authority in relation to a political discussion in the case of the boycott of "Seven Days" by Fianna Fáil. That was not allowed to prevent the programme going out because RTE stood their ground, deciding that nobody has a right by refusing to appear to prevent the expression of a minority view. I may say that even if my own Party had boycotted the programme for some reason, I would still hold this view. However, the principle was rejected by the Authority in the case of the Irish language discussion. A programme was cancelled because nobody would appear to represent the Irish language organisations and the expression of the view of the LFM was banned because the Irish language bodies, knowing the views that would be expressed by the minority, refused to appear knowing that in that way they could prevent the minority view being expressed.
That is a most dangerous principle. Thank God it was rejected in the political sphere. In the sphere dealing with a national issue open to debate, in which a minority view exists shared by, I suppose, a million people in Northern Ireland and some hundreds of thousands here—perhaps, altogether by one-third of our people—the expression of the minority view was not broadcast because of the veto put on it by people holding the majority view.
It is in order to assert this vital principle that I put down this amendment, which clarifies section 17 and provides that the Authority shall at all times maintain the right of free speech and shall make provision for adequate representation of the minority viewpoint. This provision would mean that nobody would be permitted to interfere with the expression of a minority viewpoint from all parts of the national territory.
Here I wish to press this point about the national territory. Being partly from Northern Ireland, I, perhaps, take a different view from some people whose background is solely southern. As somebody who is half Northern Irish, indeed, half Presbyterian rather than Roman Catholic and half Presbyterian-Unionist rather than Catholic-Nationalist, I am, perhaps, more sensitive to the partition-mindedness of the people in the south. It seems to me that many people in the south in the matter of politics think solely in terms of a 26-county State.
I had the experience once—once only and never again—of addressing a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party, a research group, on the subject of the Irish language. I was very kindly invited to do so. At that time I had not a particular political commitment, and they asked me to speak. I expressed the viewpoint that using methods of compulsion was divisive and was alienating a part of our people unnecessarily. This viewpoint found support from about one-third of those present to the horror and shock of some of the older members, one of whom was speechless, when they had to report back of their study group what their views were. Several of the people who reported back for their study groups on that occassion described me as being somewhat Orange. It was extraordinary logic that I should be so described because I expressed the view that the Irish language could be a divisive influence if made compulsory, thereby telling a million people in Northern Ireland we do not want them and that if they come to this country they are not going to get any jobs serving the State.
