asked the Minister for Communications if he or any person on his behalf, or any member of the Government or any person on behalf of the Government, expressed dissatisfaction with or made any representations or complaints to RTÉ about the content of any news or current affairs programmes, or about the content of any particular item in such news or current affairs programmes from 1 September 1989 to date; if he will give details of any such expressions of dissatisfaction, representations or complaints; the reason for making same; and the outcome of any such expressions of dissatisfaction, representations or complaints.

8.

asked the Minister for Communications the number of occasions within the past 12 months on which the Government Information Service has made representations to RTÉ regarding its coverage of Government or political matters; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 8 together.

Government Departments under all Administrations and the Government Information Service are in touch with the press, including RTÉ, on a daily basis about media issues.

It is not clear exactly what the Deputy is referring to, but if the Deputy has a particular case in mind he should be more specific.

Why did the Minister take the two questions together if he did not know what they were about? He knew well what they were about.

That is the prerogative of the Minister.

In my Question No. 4 I am referring specifically to the interview broadcast on "Morning Ireland" on the morning of 22 September last. Seeing that the Minister has failed to give details of whatever complaint was made to RTE on that occasion, will he now admit that the Government Press Secretary, or some Minister of the Government, complained to or threatened the Director General of RTÉ in such an intimidating and bullying manner he felt obliged to apologise for the interview conducted by Cathal Mac Coille that morning, which interview was clearly legitimate and was seen to be such in that it did not give rise to any disciplinary action on the part of RTÉ against a reporter but, rather, clearly vindicated the reporter on that occasion?

I want to assist Deputy Enright in eliciting information but he appears to be imparting rather than seeking information.

Furthermore, would the Minister not agree that this was a normal question, put by a reporter, leading to this complaint clearly being seen as an effort to stifle free debate on an important matter?

Absolutely not.

Would the Minister not agree that it is absolutely wrong in principle that a Minister, and particularly a director of elections whose party has sought and obtained large financial contributions from business firms, should have the exclusive and unfettered power to issue valuable airwave licences to any such business firms without their being supervised by a regulatory board such as the licensing board of RTE?

Please, Deputy Enright. The Deputy seems to be embarking on a comprehensive speech. That is not good enough at Question Time.

I am asking a very important question.

I told the Deputy earlier I wanted to facilitate him in eliciting information but he is not doing that. He is making a speech.

The Minister is ignoring the question.

In this instance, seeing that the Minister in question had the unfettered power of issuing licences, surely the question asked by Cathal Mac Coille that morning was a perfectly legitimate one, seeking information, a question that should not have led to this shrill, hysterical reaction on the part of the Government on that occasion?

Coming from a Fine Gael Deputy, talk about interference in the media is a bit rich when one considers the record of the predecessor of the present Government Press Secretary. The present Government Press Secretary practically borders on a vow of silence compared with his predecessor. With regard to the particular incident referred to by the Deputy, the position is that the reporter in question apologised to the Minister involved. The Minister went on air to answer questions in relation to one subject. A totally different set of questions was put to him and the reporter involved apologised to the Minister.

Would the Minister give us details of the complaints made by the Government?

Now that the Minister has come to realise what exactly it is we are talking about in both of these questions — although let there be no doubt he knew at the outset——

Of course.

——can he advise the House whether he or any other Government Minister played any part in making representations to RTE at any level consequent on that interview that led subsequently to the reporter in question issuing the letter of apology?

I made no representations to RTÉ in relation to that question.

Did the Minister or any other member of Government make representations?

I did not make representations. As far as the relationship between various Government Departments, RTE and the media generally are concerned, I can say there is daily contact, as there is on the part of all political parties. Unfortunately some of us, in some political parties, have to be on to particular press officers more often than others because we do not have the same contacts.

Can I appeal for brevity?

I will be brief and to the point. May I ask the Minister two questions: first, do he and his Government party consider that they have some proprietorial hold on RTÉ, and, second, would he agree that by reason of the culmination of events surrounding this interview, there now obtains within RTÉ a climate of fear and suppression of fair journalistic practices? Would he, as the responsible Minister, ensure that such practices are eliminated and such journalistic practices restored to their fair and proper status within the station?

Any fair-minded person looking at the reporting by the national broadcasting station will see that the Government do not get — to put it at its mildest — any unfair advantage in reporting. Apparently, I have more confidence in the strength, character and independence of the individuals in that newsroom than has Deputy McCartan. There are no shrinking violets in that newsroom.

I never went in seeking to——

Neither did I.

The Minister does not have to; he will not admit it. The Minister's Government did do it; they are bully boys.

I am calling Deputy Michael Higgins for a final supplementary.

Would the Minister agree with me?

If the House wants a debate on this matter it can arrange that at another time but not now.

Is it not correct?

I have called Deputy Michael Higgins.

Arising from the Minister's reply in which he suggested he had confidence in RTE and its news staff, would he not agree that it would render the quality of broadcasting much more assured and would enable broadcasting to be carried on in a much more orderly way if he, the other Members of the Cabinet, and spokespersons on their behalf, did not seek assurances in advance of material to be covered; if they allowed freedom and independence——

I had hoped for brevity.

——in order to allow the general standard in which he says he has confidence to obtain, so that we will have proper broadcasting; in other words, so that the threat of an embargo by Government spokespersons or the Government party will not inhibit full, fair and balanced broadcasting?

I do not accept that there is interference in any way. I believe that Government Deputies and Ministers make themselves available to RTE, as requested, in relation to particular items. When they are asked to go on air and answer particular questions they do so. We live in a democracy. As political parties we are entitled, if we feel — and let us not be hypocritical about it, it happens around most parts of this House, those who have to do it — our position is being misrepresented on any given item we have the right to establish contact with the news editor or newsroom and say: look, we feel we are not getting a fair shake in relation to this, that or the other. I would ask Deputies to please not endeavour to deny that that has happened on the part of most parties in this House.

A final supplementary from Deputy Enright.

Would the Minister confirm, one way or the other, for the benefit of the House, whether it is a fact that the Government Press Secretary, the Minister for Trade and Tourism and the Attorney General met and that a complaint was lodged following on that meeting? Is the Minister not aware that there is concern on the part of many people about this whole matter, especially when the question of the overall freedom of the airwaves and freedom of speech is involved? Is he aware that reporters are fearful——

The Deputy is repeating matters to which he has already adverted.

——that only questions appearing on an approved agenda can be asked? Is he aware that they are fearful that any other questions then asked must draw an apology on the part of RTE? Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern about this?

The reality is totally different from what the Deputy tries to portray. The idea of portraying the newsroom of RTE, or any other newsroom in this country, as being, in some sense, shrinking violets — afraid to ask Government Ministers questions—is too ludicrous to contemplate.

Why will the Minister not answer the question?

Question No. 5.