Mr. Noel Curran:

We will have to consider that issue, including in negotiations with parties on leaders' debates. In terms of the surprise about the confusion in the gallery, I have indicated that this was a surprise. If there are two senior editorial figures in this key and terribly intense area when decisions are being made, it must be absolutely clear who is calling all the shots. We have introduced an extensive system of training. An important development to emerge from this incident is the introduction by RTE of training. It is not done for one month or six weeks but is systematic and will continue. It is also important that we engage with those outside the organisation. Independent producers are a very important part of RTE production and it is important that we engage with them.

Deputy Noel Harrington asked an interesting, pertinent and serious question on whether we would be here if the tweet had not been sent. While I believe the timing would have been different in respect of where issues would have surfaced, issues surrounding the programme surfaced in other places, including the Sunday Independent. It would be difficult to say that if the tweet had not have been sent, nothing else would have surfaced. The reason we established the new editorial standards board is in order that it will, as an external body, go into programmes, particularly where there have been elements of controversy, and engage in spot checking of editorial procedures and aspects of decision making for programmes. From our point of view, I cannot give the Deputy an answer other than to note that we are aware of this issue and are putting in place procedures to try to tighten up the relevant regulations.

In terms of audience participation, most broadcasters in most countries have audience participation, although they may do it differently. If, during a general election where the public votes in the democratic process, one were to decide to have debates without audience participation, it would be difficult to put this proposition to the electorate. Audience participation is a vital element of debates. We need to learn the lessons from this case in terms of how we manage audience participation.

Senator John Whelan referred to the grudging apology, which is a matter on which I have reflected. I did not have any hesitation in apologising to Mr. Gallagher when the ruling came through. We were involved in a process with the regulator, with legal teams working on both sides. This probably complicates issues around either side coming forward and apologising because one is in the legal realm, rather than a head to head dispute. RTE has set up a new complaints procedure, under which we will put up our hands and apologise quickly if we make a mistake, while defending our position if we believe we have not made a mistake. Once such a procedure is in place, one can make a stronger defence of one's position because one has already considered whether to quickly raise one's hands and apologise. These are ongoing debates in RTE.

Senator Ned O'Sullivan raised the role of the presenter. Presenters do not run programmes. There is a misconception outside RTE that the presenter is effectively the editor of the programme. Presenters who are dealing with a show as complicated as "The Frontline" cannot also be the editors of the programme. There is a separate editorial structure. The presenter conducts the orchestra in the sense that he or she is centre stage, on camera and dealing with the audience. However, presenters do not drive the editorial output of the programme. This would be impossible as there is too much happening, with people speaking into the presenter's ear piece and set formats being transmitted through ear pieces from the editorial process.

The Senator asked a direct question on the resignation issue. I will address this issue at a general and specific level. People talk about accountability in RTE. The organisation is accountable to the laws of libel, as are all other media organisations. We are also accountable to a board which has an editorial sub-committee. It is highly unusual for a media company to have an editorial sub-committee that can question executives on editorial issues. RTE is now subject to regulation from the regulator. Britain is debating the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry and there is a strong argument that the recommendations go too far, with senior politicians describing them as a threat to democracy. Leveson recommended the establishment of a statutory regulator without members from the industry and the setting of fines, all of which applies to RTE under section 53 of the Broadcasting Act. We also have a normal complaints procedure in place and an audience council, which was established under section 96 of the Act. The council met the board and senior management and expressed its views in no uncertain terms on the "Prime Time Investigates" programme.

RTE has undergone wholesale changes in management. People have left the organisation and disciplinary procedures have been used. It has shown accountability and, as an organisation, it is accountable to many external bodies.

This is another example. This is our third time before the committee. We have faced open interrogation, which is absolutely part of the democratic process. That is another form of accountability.