Mr. Noel Curran:

Deputy O'Donovan raised a very important question about the presidential election being called into question. That is possibly the most significant question anybody could raise today. A colleague was interviewed on the radio and gave a personal opinion about that. I feel it is really important. That colleague was asked a question and gave their opinion. They were not speaking for RTE but they gave their opinion. People are entitled to their opinion. I do not know how one can say that this programme decided the outcome of the election. It was watched by 700,000 people, but 1.8 million people voted in the election. That means 1.1 million people did not see the programme. Mr. Gallagher appeared on "Today with Pat Kenny" the following morning, which had an audience of 230,000 people. He appeared on the "Six One News" the following evening and while he was on air the audience was 600,000 people. I do not know if that had an influence. Matt Cooper of "The Last Word" covered this and Vincent Browne did a full programme on it. The newspapers gave it wall to wall coverage for days. Did that have an influence? I cannot say; I do not know.

Also, consider what happened in the days just before the election. The last opinion polls were on 22 and 23 October, the ReDC poll for the Sunday Business Post and the MRBI poll for The Irish Times. Mr. Gallagher was at 40% and Mr. Higgins, as he was then, was at 25% and 26%. There was a swing of 12% away from Mr. Gallagher and a swing of 14% to Mr. Higgins, but that 14% swing could have gone 3% to another candidate, 2% to another and 1% to somebody else. It did not, and that cannot be attributed to a single programme. Frankly, people inside and outside the media sometimes exaggerate the influence we have. I am not saying the programme did not have an impact and did not impact on the election at that time, but it is difficult to say that everything else that was happening in those two days and the amount of media coverage elsewhere could be attributed to that single programme. I cannot say that because I do not know, and I do not think we will ever know.

As regards the other issues raised, our goal is to get fairness and trust. I have already answered Deputy Moynihan. His suggestion of having debates about how we handle presidential debates in future is timely. We will engage positively and constructively in that. Personally, I have misgivings about the American commission system, where two political parties control an organisation that negotiates a 32 page contract with the two political parties. That would be a difficulty for me. However, there are different ways of looking at and doing this and we will engage in whatever debate takes place.

On the Deputy's question about how we can ensure that this does not happen again, we have already implemented the recommendations from Rob Morrison and Steve Carson. Following on from them, I have had discussions with the new managing editor of current affairs as part of that structure and accept his recommendations. He is already of the opinion that we will use a polling company for the selection of the audience at the next election. The Morrison-Carson recommendations suggested that as an option, but he is already inclined to do that. He will see that the audience is as democratically and politically representative as possible, and he will have three people on a panel, one of whom will be external, which will decide the questions. He intends to introduce a range of changes. We will be far more open about the format in advance of future elections so the public will know what has been agreed between the broadcaster and the political parties.

Another important question was asked by Deputy Dooley. He asked if I had any misgivings. I have absolutely no misgivings about appointing somebody such as Rob Morrison to this. I approached Rob Morrison to do this report. The next time I spoke to him was when he presented it to the board. It is important that people know that.