Perhaps the Minister will tell us what date he has in mind as the appointed day?
Committee on Finance. - Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959 [Seanad]—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
It all depends on when the Bill becomes law. As I said in the Seanad, the ideal day would be tomorrow but for accounting purposes, it might not be the ideal day, according to Deputy Sweetman's forecast.
I should not like it to start tomorrow.
I am not able to say. It all depends on the date on which the Bill becomes law and as soon possible after that date.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
As I understand it, it is appropriate to discuss on this section the policy or outlook which will govern the members appointed to the Authority who will be charged with the responsibility of running the new service to cover both sound and television broadcasting. On that, I should like to get some indication from the Minister as to what he has in mind.
One of the unsatisfactory features of the manner in which legislation has been introduced and indeed the policy behind it—I know that to some extent the Minister inherited this—is the change of outlook. When the Commission was established, it was decided, according to the terms of reference, that no charge would fall on the Exchequer. Subsequently, that Commission reported and the Government decided to introduce the present measure.
About the same time, they appointed advisers to the Minister and since then structural work has been proceeding in regard to equipment such as transmitters and so on. But it is difficult to ascertain from all these various developments—the establishment of the Commission, the decision to establish an Authority as envisaged in this legislation and the appointment of advisers to assist the Minister in the course of the preparation of this legislation and so on—what actually is the Government's policy on the type of service it is expected to provide for the country.
It seems to me while there are many advantages which may flow from the establishment of a television service, there are also serious dangers and drawbacks involved and the consequences of such a service may be such as would make it necessary to provide certain definite safeguards. It is only in comparatively recent years that television has developed to the stage we know to-day. Whether it is in the United States, where it has been in existence for a number of years, on the Continent or in Britain, up to the present, we have not felt anything like the full impact of it.
I want to draw the attention of the House to certain dangerous consequences. I quoted earlier the remarks made this week by one viewer who did not profess to be an expert. Nevertheless, one would regard him as a person having some experience of general conditions. Mr. Bevan, who had time to view television, said he was appalled at the generally low standard. Leaving aside entirely whether a person likes a particular type of broadcast, whether he is interested in drama or music or other matters of that sort, Mr. Bevan was appalled by the low standard. No matter what service is established here, this country will, because of its proximity, be exposed to a considerable extent to the influence of what he has described as, and what I think a lot of people would agree with him is a standard other than that to which this country could hope to aspire. Quite recently, when a youth was charged with murder in Britain, he said he had viewed similar happenings on television and that he had got the idea from plays, shows or films which had been shown on television.
I mention this merely to emphasise a fact which I believe the Government and the House should be cognisant of, that is, the vital importance of having on this Authority people of the highest integrity and people who are capable of differentiating between what should be provided in a television service and what should not. There are sufficient problems confronting the youth of the country, as well as youth generally, without putting forward on a national service of any sort ideas which are not only contrary to their interests but contrary to the interests of humanity.
For that reason, I believe the greatest possible care should be exercised in the choice of the members of this Authority. The Minister in the course of his observations in the Seanad very properly said it was not proposed to appoint a censor, that the matter would be left to the good sense and discretion of the Authority and those appointed by it. That seems a reasonable approach on the assumption that the persons appointed are persons of integrity, persons in whose judgment the House and the country can have confidence.
There is one other aspect of this matter to which I think attention should be drawn at present. From time to time, criticism has been expressed of views which were given over Radio Éireann—and there may be criticism in the future of views given over the television service—on the ground that they were political views or expressed an opinion on matters which could give rise to controversy. I do not object to controversy and I do not object to a conflict of views, but I think that if controversial matters are to be discussed, both sides of the question should be given and that an adequate opportunity should be afforded to opinions on both sides. It is quite improper, and indeed a great abuse of a public service, that a particular viewpoint on any matter, whether a matter of current political or economic interest, but particularly political, or even events within living memory, should be put forward without other views being given.
If you have a round table discussion or a debate, then the team or panel or whatever it is described as should represent different views in order to give a balanced presentation to the listener and to the country. If, on the other hand, it is a review of a book, a story or an historical talk and only one particular view can be expressed at one time, then on another occasion, without an unreasonable gap in time, a contrary view, if there is one, should be afforded full opportunity.
I believe that support for this Authority and its acceptance by the public as a genuine effort to provide an Irish television service of a high standard will inevitably depend on the capacity, ability and standing of the persons appointed to this Authority. Their standing in the community, and acceptance by the community as people of standing, will be sustained and justified if in the establishment of this Authority there is a recognition that the Government have attempted to appoint people—as they are entitled to, some of whom, if necessary a majority, would reflect their own political viewpoint—who will be people of integrity, of capacity and of ability, and that their interest is to give the country the best possible service without any political or other bias. That is the most likely bias, though some views were expressed elsewhere that there might be a need for certain viewpoints to be represented on the Authority. I do not accept that because since this State was established there has been universal recognition, implemented in practice, that all are equal before the law.
So far as any danger of political impressions, or any dangers of the other aspects I have mentioned, are concerned, I believe it is important to have an Authority in which the country will have confidence, knowing that the members are anxious to provide a service that will measure up to the high standards and the high ideals which we believe should inspire our sound and television broadcasting service. In that way we can be assured that no programme or broadcast will be permitted on that service unless it accords with the high standards which we believe our Christian heritage and civilisation make it incumbent upon us to uphold, and nothing but that which we believe is appropriate for all sections of the community should be portrayed by the television Authority.
I have already expressed my opinion as to the type of people who should find their way on to this Authority and I may point out that this section authorises the Government to make the appointments. Therefore, there is a serious obligation on the Government to make certain, as far as they possibly can, that the proper people will find seats on the Authority. I fully agree with the statement that has been made by Deputy Cosgrave that the appointments should not be made on a political basis; neither hould the members of the Authority be representative of any particular sectional interests. They should be Irish people with a deep and broad knowledge of Irish life. They should be people in whom we would have confidence as persons conversant with the effect that a television service will have on the minds of the public, young and old. I am fully convinced that unless we obtain people of a very high standard with a very good knowledge of Irish life, capable of applying their minds in a business way to the operation of the service, people who are fully conversant with our heritage, both national and Christian, we shall not get from the Authority the service that we desire.
The policy to be pursued by this Authority is laid down in a broad sort of way in other sections of the Bill. I do not propose to go into that matter at the moment. It is true that censorship is not provided for in the Bill because we place the matter entirely in the hands of the Authority but, of course, they will have a liaison with the Film Censor and, in the last analysis, the public will be the censors. If it should happen that there be a television show that would not measure up to our standards, it would be necessary for the Minister, or the Government, to take immediate cognisance of that, and for the Authority itself to take cognisance of it and do something about it to make certain there would not be a repetition of shows that were sub-standard, so far as our ideas of good shows are concerned.
Will the Minister be responsible to the Dáil in that regard?
In the last analysis, the Government are responsible for the setting up of the Authority and we could not shed our responsibility in that matter.
I want to ask the Minister shall we be allowed to ask questions if we dislike a particular programme?
It will be possible to have the matter brought to the attention of the Minister and to the attention of the Authority. I would say there would not be anything to prevent a Deputy raising the matter in this House.
By question?
It could be a motion. Once the Government are responsible for the appointment of the members of the Authority, I do not see how they could shed any responsibility in that particular matter. There is one matter I forgot to mention in relation to the candid expression of opinion given by the Leader of the main Opposition Party in so far as Government responsibility in the making of appointments is concerned. I was pressed in the Seanad to consult with the Opposition Parties so that we could get general agreement on the personnel of the Authority. I resisted the suggestions put to me and I want to say that I am grateful for the candid expression of opinion, made by the Leader of the main Opposition Party, which confirmed my own view.
I think the Minister was right in resisting that suggestion, not merely in the national interests but in the interests of all the political Parties in this House because, once it came about that the political Parties were entitled to make nominations to this Television Authority, every Party in the country would be scalded with about 20 fellows claiming to have super-national qualifications to be members of it. If a Party had a right to make only one nomination, and 40 people sought its support, it would have the remaining 39 howling after it for what they would call their gross and ignominious betrayal. That method of appointment would make no appeal to intelligent people and I think the Minister is right in resisting that suggestion.
I should like to get one piece of information from the Minister. I gather the four members of the Authority have been provisionally appointed.
No, they have not. They will be asked.
I gather the Minister said that these four would be members of the new Authority.
They have not been asked yet. They will be asked and, if they accept——
They will be asked?
Yes.
So that if the four, on being asked to be members of the new Authority, accept, the position therefore is that the Government will appoint three more or five more?
That is right.
Would the Minister tell us whether it is intended to appoint three or to appoint five?
The Government feel that they will have to appoint nine to get full representation.
There is one point that needs clarification. I have always a good deal of sympathy with a Minister trying to give as much information as he can. Sometimes all the implications of a question addressed to him do not immediately present themselves to him when he proceeds to deal with it off the cuff. I understood Deputy Dr. Browne to inquire whether individual items of a programme could be raised by way of question and answer in this House and was the Minister prepared to accept responsibility. I understood the Minister's reply at least to imply that that was so. I am not quite sure that the Minister meant to imply that that was so. I can imagine that a very strange situation would arise if you establish an independent Authority to operate Radio Eireann and if, by question and answer, every item of a programme could with propriety be raised here by way of Parliamentary question and answer. I can well imagine the situation arising in which a motion could be put down calling for the resignation of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for cause stated and time being provided to discuss that. That is clearly within the Parliamentary competence of any responsible Deputy of the House and, in certain circumstances, Government time would be provided and, in other circumstances, Private Members' time would be provided.
But, let us be clear on this. If I hear a book review on the radio that I do not like or that I think is tendentious, is it proposed that I should be entitled to ask the Minister a Parliamentary question as to whether he does not think the book review in question was tendentious and what steps he proposes to take in regard to it? I very much doubt if that is in the best interests of the proper administration of this service and I should like to be clear in my mind what the intention is. I rather imagine that we desire this Authority to have a certain quasi-autonomy while retaining in the Oireachtas the ultimate right to determine major issues of policy but that, in setting up the Authority, by implication, we divest ourselves of the claim to deal in detail with each programme by way of Parliamentary question and answer as we are entitled to deal with the day-to-day administration of the Minister's Department by Parliamentary question and answer. That is a distinction that I want to make. Does the Minister make that distinction because, if so, I think he has created ambiguity in his desire promptly to answer the question put to him by Deputy Dr. Browne?
Major de Valera
Would the position not be the same as for the E.S.B., C.I.E. or any of these bodies?
All I want is that the Minister should not say something that he does not wish to say.
I do not want any doubt to exist in regard to this matter. When Deputy Dr. Browne asked the question, I assumed he was making reference to a programme that would be regarded by the people as generally objectionable. I was not dealing with any particular item in a programme, in a different class of a programme. Take a situation in which you would have a general objection expressed, say, at county council meetings or at other meetings at which our people come together, similar to a situation which developed recently as a result of a programme from another broadcasting service. If such an objectionable programme were put out by our broadcasting service and our people took grave exception to it and so expressed themselves, I think it would be very hard for a Minister to resist a discussion on the matter in this House, a matter that was of vital interest and which so affected the moral standards of our people. It is true that the Authority will be an autonomous Authority and that the Minister will not have any interference whatsoever with the day-to-day programmes of that Authority but we have an overriding responsibility to our people in the matter referred to by Deputy Dr. Browne. I think I would be failing in my duty to the House and to the country if I gave any type of answer other than the answer I have given to Deputy Dr. Browne.
When I asked the question yesterday the point I was interested in was the ability of the public to apply pressure to the Minister—that is all—and the facility of doing that through a Deputy in the House. On the general principle, this has been very valuable in years gone by in relation to Radio Éireann. It is a tribute to Deputies that they never abused their right to inquire into things they disliked, a tendentious review of a book, and so on. They have never abused that right. In view of the fact that this is a very considerable extension and that television is a tremendous propaganda and educational medium, I just wonder if it is a pity that we should have deprived ourselves of that right and if it would have been wiser, in view of the experimental nature of the type of television Authority we are establishing— a commercial type—to retain that right here and to be in a position to apply pressure on the Minister directly in the form of Parliamentary question. I cannot see why we have departed from that principle.
On the analogy that Deputy de Valera draws between the State company and this Authority, and the acknowledged difficulty of trying to run a State Corporation subject to daily interference from the Dáil, everybody knows that that is true but, in view of our experience and the experience in other countries, America in particular, and even in the UTV recently, of the possibilities, of the deterioration in standards and the poor, bad standards, under the commercial type of television service, it would seem to me that it would be wiser to retain a greater measure of control in the Dáil.
Quite obviously, if it were left to Deputies in the Government Benches, to put down critical questions or contentious questions in the House, understandably we would have a very equable time all the time. We cannot accept that, because we have a most conscientious Minister just at the moment in charge of the Department, we shall always have such a Minister. Therefore, I think the responsibility of maintaining the standard of the service should be vested in the whole lot of us so that our accumulated standards may achieve the high level of television service that we all have in mind.
Apart from objectionable plays and other matter of that sort it is quite possible that certain people may be featured on television programmes for political reasons and that, therefore, there would be many grounds for objection and many reasons for Parliamentary questions. Apart from any question of objectionable plays, the service will be the medium for debating politics in the future.
Does the Minister envisage an annual Estimate for this service indicating the passing of a sum of money for it?
Yes, each year for five years.
There will be an annual Estimate providing for an annual discussion?
Yes. There is an annual grant being paid to the Authority for five years. The report will be laid on the table of the House each year. At the end of five years if the licence fees are to be paid to the Authority there will be new legislation and we can have another look at the whole situation.
Could the Minister amplify that? There will be a capital advance of £1½ million pounds and a free grant of half a million pounds to the Authority which could all be made in the first year.
We do not propose——
I am saying "could be".
Yes, could be.
If so, as I understand the situation, the licence fees must be paid into the Central Fund. They must be paid out of the Central Fund to the Authority and will be in the annual Appropriation Bill each year. It will be in the Book of Estimates each year?
Yes.
Therefore we shall have an opportunity of an annual discussion on the service.
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I take it all the members will not be wholetime?
We do not expect to have any of them wholetime in the initial stages.
Not even the chairman?
No, not even the chairman. We shall have to wait and have another look at the matter when the service is in operation before we decide whether it would be advisable to have a wholetime chairman or not.
Would the Minister say whether the amount of the salary has been decided?
That has not been decided. It has not even been discussed.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Is there a precedent for a Government being able to remove a member of the Authority from office without cause stated?
This is new. I do not think the same sentence is used in any other Bill. We regard this Authority in a different manner from other semi-state authorities because of the special position in regard to the service it will provide. If a member is removed from that Authority there will certainly be public notice and the matter may be raised in the House. The Government appoints the member to the Authority and under Section 6 the Government may at any time remove that member from the Authority. Therefore any Deputy is free to raise the question of his removal.
After the man is sacked.
A man will not be sacked except for very grave reasons and the Deputy ought to know that. I am not talking about political reasons.
We are not talking about them either.
Or religious reasons.
Governments do queer things sometimes, regardless of who is in Government. I am very glad to hear the Minister say he regards this Authority as being different from other State authorities. The Minister has completely delivered himself into our hands in relation to Section 8 because his defence in relation to Section 8 is that Section 8 is the clause that went into all such Acts. However, we shall come to Section 8 in a moment.
On Section 6, the Minister should consider adding that where a member of the Authority is removed the Government must state the reason, if so requested by the person removed. It does seem unfair that a man could be sacked without being told, of right, why he was being sacked. There ought to be a provision that if the person concerned wants the reason the Government should so furnish him with the reason. It then becomes a matter for the person concerned whether he wishes to publish the correspondence or not. Otherwise Governments—I am using the word in the plural, not in relation to any particular Government, no matter how much I may think that Government may misbehave itself—are in a position of appalling power over the individual members of the Authority who may differ genuinely and in a bona fide manner from them. If they can be just removed without any notification or without publication of the reason, then it puts the members of the Authority in the position of being merely puppets. Having regard to the very special nature of this Authority I can see the Minister's reason for wanting to have some power to that effect, but if the Government may remove a member they should state the reason. That gives a person acting on the Authority a status and a stature he would not have otherwise and it equally preserves the right and the power of the Government to deal with a difficult situation.
I have had some experience in my lifetime and I trust nobody. You can picture a situation in which those people on this Authority will have certain political viewpoints. I am wondering could they, although members of this Authority, speak during an election on behalf of any Party?
We do not envisage anything like that happening.
Is the Minister serious in that statement, that he does not envisage their speaking during an election?
What did Deputy Sherwin ask?
I asked would they have the right to take part in a general election and express an opinion?
It depends on what the Deputy means.
Let us assume these are full-blooded individuals who will have a political viewpoint and who may be tempted to express an opinion during an election and let us say their arguments are favourable to the Government in power. If there is a change of Government is it not possible they will get the sack as do certain people from time to time when Governments change? I shall not mention names. A judge was sacked recently because he expressed some opinions in favour of the Republic. A man may express a viewpoint politically and be victimised afterwards. It is my opinion that only in consultation with somebody else should the Government have power to remove a member. To say that a political group without anyone else's concurrence should decide that someone ought to be sacked is most arbitrary and could be used in the most arbitrary manner. We do not know what the future holds.
Surely the Minister is speaking without thought? After all, he should not be allowed to say such things by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health. He has told us that four people are to be offered posts on this Authority but the Tánaiste and Minister for Health would not be elected without the activities of one of these people who is his mainstay. Surely the Minister is not going to muzzle his colleague's mainstay?
In Section 4, which we have been discussing, it is laid down that members of the Authority who are nominated as candidates for either House, or who are, for the time being under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas, entitled to sit therein, will cease to be members of this Authority. That is what is provided in the Bill and that is the position in regard to people in political Parties who happen to be members of the Authority. Power to remove a member from the Authority is a matter to which I have given a fair amount of consideration. No Government will dismiss a member of the Authority save for a very grave reason. It may be said that certain people were dismissed or were replaced on other authorities but arbitrarily to dismiss a member of this Authority is a different matter. It is not a thing that will be lightly undertaken by the Government.
In regard to the question of making speeches and the reason for a person's dismissal from the Authority there are two ways of looking at it. It could be that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the reason at that particular time and, as I have already said, any Deputy is entitled to put down a question on the matter. If the Minister of the day feels it would not be in the public interest to give the reason he can say so or he can give the reason if he deems it advisable to do so. Furthermore, the member of the Authority if he wishes can himself give the reason or what he thinks is the reason——
If he knows it.
——the Government removed him from the Authority.
I want to get back to the Minister's answer to Deputy Sherwin. I understood him to say to Deputy Sherwin that a member of this Authority could not speak at election time——
I understood Deputy Sherwin was talking about candidates at an election.
No.
I want to know can a member of the Authority take to the hustings on behalf of a candidate at an election?
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent him, as a member of the Authority, from speaking anywhere he wishes but the Government of the day will have to take that into consideration. If he is a member of the Authority which is broadcasting matter to the public, news and free expressions of opinion on controversial subjects, he is expected to be a person who will not actively take part in controversial discussion.
Then the Minister for Health is beaten in the next election—his mainstay is gone.
I want to put it to the Minister that some further consideration ought to be given to that matter. One of the four people to be appointed is not only the right hand but also the left hand of the Minister for Health and, although I cross swords from time to time with the Minister for Health in this House, the last thing I want to see happen is his elimination because he is a very fertile source of relaxation here from time to time so long as you are not a doctor, of course. Therefore, I hope the Minister will think twice before he deprives the Minister for Health of the very valuable election agent he has at present.
I rejoice at the light touch introduced into this question by Deputy Norton, but I think we ought to stop for a moment to think where we are going. I have constantly directed the attention of the House to the danger of unconsciously subscribing to the current heresy that anyone who participates in current life is disqualifying himself from respectable employment.
Major de Valera
Hear, hear.
That is the kind of insidious propaganda that is being spread about by people who detest Parliamentary democracy—really by people who hate freedom. I am a little shocked to hear a Minister in an Irish Government say, even by inadvertence, that participation in politics obviously disqualifies a man from being a member of the Authority controlling radio and television. Why should it? A man participating in politics—is he not perfectly well able to take a strong view and yet discharge his duty on an Authority of this kind faithfully? I hope I shall not shock people if I say that I like people who have political convictions; I am getting a bit sick of the hurlers on the ditch who are seeking in this country to elect themselves into a kind of superior body of men and, because they are afraid of the dust of the arena of public life, they set their gross forms upon the ditch to inform all those who are engaged in the active work of public life of what they should or should not be doing, always provided that the hurlers on the ditch are not required to shed their perspiration nor to receive any of the dust back.
My reaction to these people is to desist from the battle sufficiently long to eliminate them from the ditch and then to return to the work that those of us who have reached this House and our friends outside who are associated with us in public life are doing in the service of our country. I have had occasion to refer to this in connection with other Bills. I do not know the source of this poisonous doctrine; I am reluctant to locate it in the bureaucracy but there is a danger that every Minister will be told: "You cannot have politicians there". I repeat the question—why?
Reference has been made to one stalwart person who has been described as the right hand and the left hand but who is also the right leg and the left leg of the Tánaiste——
The whole torso.
Deputy Norton could have come nearer home.
The Deputy may express any views he likes on Deputy Norton.
Right hand and left hand also.
The person the Deputy has in mind never made a public speech in his life.
He need not necessarily make a speech.
I do not want to interfere, but I must say I subscribe to Deputy Norton's viewpoint. I did not even recognise Deputy Dooley. I do not think he has ever spoken previously in the House. But I hope he will. All he has done so far is to ask a question; it was Deputy Dooley who asked the question when the Minister for Education said he was going to abolish the teaching of infants through the medium of Irish. It was Deputy Dooley who asked that question.
He did not. He only signed his name to the question.
I am afraid we are getting away from Section 6.
We were drawn by Deputy Dooley. Bearing in mind that one of these nominees is the right-hand-left-hand-right-foot-left-foot of the Tánaiste, in my judgment, he is none the worse for that.
It is a good job he is not the head.
I might quarrel with him if he were. He may be utterly daft. To my way of thinking, he certainly is; but, so long as he feels he has a public duty to sustain the daft doctrines of the Tánaiste, and has the courage to come out in public and nail his flag to the mast, I have a great deal more respect for him than I have for the noodie-nawdies who are afraid to nail their flag to any mast and who spend their lives sitting on it for fear anybody might discover where it was ultimately going to be nailed.
What shocks me a little is that the Minister seems to have put himself in a position of extreme difficulty by an affirmation which I do not think he meant to make. Certain it is that, if his criterion is to be strictly applied, one of the persons whom he himself has told us he intends to invite on to this Authority is already disqualified. I do not think he ought to be disqualified. If he is fit to go on this Authority and if he discharges his duties conscientiously, the fact that he is the Tánaiste's right and left hand and right and left foot makes him no worse, in my opinion. I should like the Minister to clarify this matter further.
I should like the House to pause here and think. I do not think political affiliations—well known, notorious—should necessarily disqualify a person from a post of this kind. I see in America, with edification, prominent members of the Republican Party and prominent members of the Democratic Party sitting down in joint consultation on works of public service analogous to this. It is a source of satisfaction in the United States of America that a Democratic President will ask a prominent Republican to share in public work of this kind side by side with prominent members of the Democratic Party. I think it is true that in Great Britain at the present time one sees prominent figures in the Conservative Party collaborating with prominent members of the Socialist Party on bodies of this kind.
Far from thinking it undesirable, I think it is quite admirable. I go further: I think you will find it extremely difficult to find anybody who has no political convictions fit to go on a body like this. If the Minister's criterion is to be applied, we might finish up with a collection of milk-and-water old "doodies", who are not fit to do anything. I do not necessarily say they must all be politicians. There may be distinguished scientists and distinguished scholars, who are not in the ordinary current of politics, who would adorn a body of this kind.
I reject most emphatically the suggestion that, because a man plays a dignified part in the public life of his country, he is to be excluded from this body. I am prepared to accept that, if the role he plays in public life involves membership of this House or of the Seanad, which is to be the ultimate authority to control the Authority set up under this Bill, he should not, I think, be a member of both, though I am not sure that that rule applies in Great Britain. I think in England they have members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords on bodies like the B.B.C. But the fact that they do it in England is no reason why we should do it here. and I would be prepared to go so far with the Minister.
We have certain functions. We are members of the Oireachtas. We have functions we can probably discharge as members of the Oireachtas and it may, on the whole, be best that those of us who are charged with responsibility of membership of the Oireachtas should not ordinarily be members of what is a subsidiary body. I hope the Minister will clarify his position in this matter. Mark you, I think the House should feel indebted to the Minister in that he has tried freely and frankly to give us, at the shortest possible notice, any information we asked for in the course of this debate. As he knows in his long experience of parliamentary procedure and, as we know, trick questions can be formulated which often elicit an answer which goes perhaps somewhat further than the Minister would go, had his answer been prepared for him by a wily old civil servant who knows the ropes and has had time to measure them all.
Leaving that question to one side, I want now to return to the matter of the removal of a member of this body. Is there any Deputy on either side of this House who likes a section which reads: "The Government may at any time remove a member of the Authority from office"—full stop? I do not think that is a proviso that will commend itself to Deputies on either side of this House.
I think the section ought to provide: "The Government may at any time remove a member of the Authority from office for cause stated or for a reason indicated to the member of the Authority in writing" or something of that kind. I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that I am not trying to force him into a position, the full implications of which are not clear. I think that, if you concede that, you are conceding something that flows from it, that is, if the Government have a statutory duty to refrain from removing a member from the Authority without cause, if they in fact have a duty to show cause, that would confer upon this dismissed member of the Authority the right to go to the High Court to demonstrate that the cause alleged was not valid. Whether his remedy would be in damages or by way of injunction, I am not sufficiently versed in the law to say, but do you not think that he ought to have that right? Do you not think a person ought to be protected from arbitrary dismissal?
I think it is one of the good things about modern democratic society that the trade union movement makes it impossible today for an employer to dismiss an employee, except under certain circumstances. You cannot dismiss a member of a trade union in Ireland, without stating the reason, full stop. The reason must be stated. I have had a long experience as an employer of dealing with both men and women, unorganised and organised, and I am prepared to say, after that experience as an employer, that it is a good thing for an employer to have present to his mind the fact that, if he attempts to act arbitrarily in respect of labour, there is a power in existence which requires him to show cause. Is not that much more important in the case of the individual versus the Executive? Is it not the whole tendency of our law to create the situation in which there shall exist in this community no arbitrary authority from which there is no appeal to an independent tribunal?
Quite apart from the actual loss of office, picture the reaction on a man or woman, presumably of distinction, who has been appointed to this board, and has accepted appointment, and a notice appears in the papers: "Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So has been removed from the Authority, full stop." Surely that person should have a right to a remedy. Surely that person should have the right to try out the imputation of unsuitability. If there is genuine difference, and the member is convinced that his continued membership of the Authority is no longer practicable, that he cannot fall in with the general policy being adopted by the Authority, the ordinary course would be for the Minister to see that person and say: "Look, we are reaching a situation that is impossible. Here is the difficulty. I want to part good friends, but it is quite clear we cannot continue to collaborate. I suggest you should resign." If the person feels that is reasonable and sensible, and that his conscientious convictions do not permit him to collaborate any longer with the Authority on the policy they are pursuing, he or she will resign. No trouble arises in that way. Suppose he says: "I cannot do it. I accepted certain responsibilities and I believe I am faithfully discharging the responsibilities which I undertook. I believe it would be wrong to renege upon them." The Minister says: "I respect and admire your convictions but I also have my duty and it is to remove you from the Authority."
Is it the view of this House that a person in that position should not have the right to say to the Minister: "For what cause?" I think he should. If it is manifest that the Minister has acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable way, that person should have the right to go to the courts and make the case before an independent judiciary that he was faithfully discharging the duties he undertook to discharge, and that there was nothing on his record to disqualify him from membership of the Authority which was not there present and well known to the Minister when he first appointed him.
This is my last word on the matter. On its merits, I think the case I am making is strong. I implore Deputies to remember—and the Minister agrees with me—that there is probably no precedent for this section in its precise form. There may be, but it is contrary to the general principle. I want to warn the House that I have seen many of these precedents established. They are nearly always slipped into Bills that do not matter. They pass, and then they turn up in some very vital context, and the Minister rambles in with four or five precedents and says: "You were a member of this House when this other Bill was passed and you never objected to it." You even find you did not. In fact, you did not because the principle was first established in connection with an insignificant body which nobody cared about, and which nobody could foresee would ever give rise to any difficulty of substance.
Therefore, first, because I believe this principle in itself is wrong and, secondly, because I believe it is establishing a precedent on an important occasion which will certainly be quoted hereafter to justify a similar procedure, I advise the House to join with me in pressing on the Minister now the necessity of an insertion to the effect that removal from the Authority can only be for case stated, or for reason shown.
I should like to support what Deputy Dillon and other Deputies have stated with regard to this section. The Minister has said that it is unique and, in my view, it is very dangerous to put such a section into a Bill of this kind. In the first place, it appears, and should appear to any reasonable Deputy, that a section of this kind, misused as it may be, must destroy any suggested independence of the Television Authority. From the policy enshrined in the Bill, it appeared that subject to the Charter contained in the Bill, the Television Authority would be an independent Authority. That may be desirable, and it is certainly understandable, but if we provide that a Government may remove any member of the Authority and need not state the reason, the effect, in my view, is to destroy the independence it was intended to give.
The effect of this section could easily be to make the Authority, or certain members of the Authority, servile to the Government. I do not think that is a good policy. Certainly, since this State was formed, a number of different authorities and boards have been set up to run great projects under the benediction of this Parliament and in relation to none of those authorities or boards has a section of this kind appeared.
This policy is wrong and I do not think the Minister has so far adduced any reasons in support of it. The Minister said—and we could all accept this—that no Government will dismiss a member of the Authority, except for a grave reason. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that that is possibly so, but since the Government would have a grave reason I cannot see any way in which it would be undesirable at least to indicate it to the person concerned.
It is important that if a person is removed from office here in this House, where we represent the people, that reason should be examined and criticised, if necessary, but as the section stands at the moment if a Parliamentary Question were asked as to why a person was removed by the Government, the Minister would be perfectly entitled to say: "I shall not give any reason." That would be wrong, and it would be quite wrong that such a removal should take place and that as we are after all representing the people in this Parliament the general public, through this House, should not be entitled to pass judgment on the action of the Government in removing such person.
I would urge on the Minister after the Committee of this House has finished with this section to consider it between now and Report Stage. He could provide some safeguards which would ensure that no arbitrary action could be taken by the Government. I do not suggest that the section should contain what is usual in measures of this kind: that a person can be removed only for a specific stated reason such as misconduct, insolvency or matters of that kind. I do not think it is necessary to go so far. The person may be removed for some reason quite conformable with his character and outlook but his removal may be a matter of policy, so far as the Government are concerned. Whatever the reason may be, it should be stated and it should be possible to consider in this House whether or not the reason is, in fact, a good one, and, arising from a discussion here, for the people outside to come to their own view about it. As the section stands, it is a bad section. It is the first section of this kind in a Bill of this kind in the history of this House and certainly it should be resisted. I recommend the Minister very earnestly to consider this matter further between now and Report Stage.
Perhaps it might not be advisable for the Minister to have to give reasons. It might be dangerous or it might not be in the person's interest that the reasons be made public. If the Minister acted in consultation with some other authority such as a judge of the High Court the House would accept it. One does not know how the situation might develop or what the Minister's reason might be but everyone should have protection.
The Judiciary should function in public, not behind closed doors.
Everyone should have protection. I trust nobody. It might not be advisable to make some things public. It might not be in the interests of the person involved for things to be made public. However, there should be some check. I will leave it to the Minister as to what he is prepared to decide but he should agree on something.
Major de Valera
The person concerned would have the option of publication.
Yes.
With regard to Deputy Sherwin's point about participation in political organisations, I do not think I have any real necessity to correct anything I said. I pointed out that Section 4 restricted membership in so far as the persons to be appointed members of the Authority would become candidates in elections. Then I proceeded to deal in a general way with membership of the Authority in relation to persons who engaged in public controversy in a very big way. There are extremes in everything. It is easy to go to the other extreme and say that nobody with any connection with political Parties should be members of this Authority. That is not the position at all.
There is nothing to prevent members of the Authority from being members of any political Party. Neither is there anything to prevent them from taking an active part in political Parties. The Government will have to bear in mind that in Section 18 the Authority is obliged to maintain impartiality in the presentation of news and public discussion. I subscribe to the view that it is proper for every citizen to take an active part in the political life of the country and, in their simple way in their own localities, to be active members of political organisations and to express themselves as such to their neighbours and anybody else when the needs be.
I think the country would be very much better off if we had very many more people taking an active part in our political organisations.
As regards this Section 6 which was drafted so as to read: "The Government may at any time remove a member of the Authority from office," I have now been advised—even though I have been forewarned by Deputy Dillon in connection with precedents— that in the case of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Gaeltarra Éireann and Bord Fáilte members may be removed without cause stated but with the difference that in the cases I have mentioned the appointments are made by the Minister, while in this case the appointments are made by the Government.
The Government felt at the time the appointments section was being put into the Bill that it would give an added importance to the Authority by reserving to the Government the power to appoint its members. This is a new venture. It is an Authority charged with the provision for the people of a television service. It was felt that the Government should have this authority to remove a member. I do not think that that will make the Authority in any way inferior. Neither do I think it will leave the Authority under any obligation to the Government, that it will make the Authority or the members of it just puppets of the Government. I entirely disagree with that viewpoint.
Power is taken in the Bill to remove a member from office. I have said, and it has been conceded by Deputy O'Higgins, that a member will not be removed except for a very grave reason. Who can envisage a situation in which the Government would remove nine members, one after the other, by the use of this Section 6?
Why should they remove one?
For a very grave reason.
Why not tell the reason?
It could happen that if a member has to be removed it might not be in the public interest to state the reason for his removal.
What has the Minister in mind? I can understand the public interest in war time or in an emergency but in peace time what has the Minister in mind as not being in the public interest? Can he give a reason?
One would have to wait until it would present itself to the Government before one could give an answer to that question.
Would the Minister say whether if a person were dismissed from this Authority and considered he had been dismissed unjustly, according to this section he would have no right of appeal? The Minister says it might not be in the public interest to divulge the reason for his dismissal but surely a man would have his private rights? If that man considered it was his right as a citizen that the Minister should be questioned and should give an account of himself in this House, I think the Minister should now concede that that matter should be brought before this House, if the person dismissed or discharged asked for it.
It could also happen that if the reason for removal were stated, it would do that person other damage.
Even if it were privately communicated to him?
Would he not know the reasons himself, anyway?
That is to beg the whole question.
He would know he was being removed.
That is all right.
He would be told he would be removed from office. I am certain he would be told.
Put it in the Bill that he will be told the reason.
Putting it in the Bill is something different.
I regard the Minister's words as more binding than any provision of a statute, but in case the Minister ceases to be Minister, I should prefer to have it in the Bill.
If the person concerned wished to have the matter made public, he can have a question raised in the House.
Not under the Bill. Under the Bill, the Minister would be entitled to say that the Government removed the member from office and were not liable to state the reason.
He is entitled to raise the matter in the House. A Deputy can put down a question and the Minister would have to make up his mind as to whether he would answer the question or tell the Deputy concerned that he was not giving the reason.
The Minister could refuse to answer the question.
I am standing by the section as it stands in the Bill.
I appeal to the Minister not to stand by it.
The appointment is a part-time appointment and the person concerned will not be dependent upon the appointment to the Authority for a livelihood as a trade unionist is who is working for a private employer or any public authority. In that case, the unions look after the interests of their members. This is a different class of case entirely. I am unable to say whether the aggrieved person could have a case in court or not. I have not gone into that matter but I would consider that aspect of it.
The Minister said it was unthinkable that a member of this Authority would be removed without being told the reason.
He will be told the reason.
That is all we want. If that is the Minister's view, it corresponds with my view precisely, but surely it is common sense to say that if the Minister and I agree that the person removed from the Authority must and shall be told the reason, is it not the Minister's duty and mine to ensure that the House will so legislate that whoever is here in 20 years' time will be required to conform with the law as we enacted it? Our joint purpose, if I understand the Minister, is that the person to be removed from the Authority should be told the reason for his removal. I agree 100 per cent. That is all I want. I want to ensure that in 20 or 30 years' time, if the Statute is still on the Book, that obligation will continue to lie on the Government of the day. It is then for the person removed to look at the reasons stated and if he feels he has a grievance, to have recourse to the appropriate judicial authority in defence of what he regards as his constitutional rights by appealing to the independent judiciary in public and not in private.
He will be told in writing the reason.
If the Minister would find it more convenient, I will submit an amendment for the Report Stage to add the words "for reasons stated". I think those are the very words used by the Minister himself. If these words were inserted, they would be sufficient for me. Do I understand that it will be in order for me to move an amendment to that effect if the section is passed?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
What is the position in relation to the Chairman? Has the Minister taken any decision?
In relation to the appointment of the personnel—is that what the Deputy means? The only decision taken is that the Chairman of the Advisory Committee will be asked to accept membership and chairmanship of the Authority. That is something distinct from the Director-General. Apparently, the public confuse the two.
We know where we stand coming to Section 8.
I should like to point out that there is no corresponding provision in respect of the Chair of the Authority in Section 7 to the power taken in Section 6 in respect of a member of the Authority.
He will be appointed as a member of the Authority?
You cannot remove the Chairman from the office of Chairman. There is provision that he can resign.
He can be Chairman only if he is a member.
You cannot remove him from the position of Chairman of the Authority.
He cannot be left a member of the Authority and removed from being Chairman.
There is provision in regard to resigning from the Chair in subsection (3). I trust the Minister will bear that in mind when my modest amendment to Section 6 is made on the Report Stage.
What is the point of subsection (4)? Surely a person might be a good member of the Authority but not able to carry on as Chairman and should remain in the Authority?
It is clear to me that a non-member of the Authority could not carry on as Chairman.
I am sorry; I misread it.
If the Chairman does not attend regularly, can he be dismissed?
No.
It is like some members of the Dáil who turn up twice a year but who are paid just the same.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:
(1) A member of the Authority who, on becoming a member has any financial interest in any company or concern which has sought or seeks to make or with which the Authority has proposed or proposes to make any contract or financial arrangement shall, immediately on becoming a member, divest himself of such interest.
(2) A member of the Authority who has any financial interest in any company or concern which during his membership seeks to make with the Authority or with which the Authority proposes to make, any contract or financial arrangement, shall, immediately upon such seeking to make or proposing to make, either—
(i) divest himself of such interest, or
(ii) resign his membership of the Authority.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th April, 1960.