I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
This Bill was introduced in the Seanad and was debated at length through the various Stages before it was passed by that House earlier this year. Accordingly interested Deputies will have had an opportunity of studying what was said on the general principles underlying the Bill and on the main provisions contained in it. Its chief purpose is to provide a revised legislative framework for the broadcasting services in the light of changed circumstances since the original 1960 Act was enacted and the climate in which these services are likely to be operated over the next decade.
It is hardly necessary to go into great detail about the background to the 1960 Act, which on the whole has stood the test of time remarkably well. Up to the 1950's the broadcasting service was governed by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was legally responsible for the detailed control and operation of broadcasting. In 1953 the then Minister, the late Erskine Childers, set up Comhairle Radio Éireann, a committee of five persons appointed in a part-time capacity to be responsible under him for the general control and supervision of the service. From then on Radio Éireann was free in practice to manage their own affairs and to spend the moneys allocated for broadcasting purposes. This was a very significant step in the history of broadcasting in this country and one on which it is appropriate to pay tribute to the creativity of our late President in this as in other fields. Towards the end of the 1950s the pros and cons for establishing a national television service were being discussed and the then Government announced their intention of considering proposals from private interests for a television concession.
They subsequently set up the Television Commission to consider such proposals and the relations between the proposed television service and sound broadcasting. The commission reported in May, 1959. The majority expressed their misgivings about entrusting the operation of the service to any private organisation and indicated that if the necessary capital were available there was little or no doubt that television should be established as a public service. In the event the Government decided that the two public broadcasting services—sound and television—should be under the control of a single statutory authority, and that the television service should be operated without ultimate cost to the Exchequer.
The Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959, was initiated in the Seanad to give effect to these decisions and when passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas became the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. It is perhaps not surprising that with the passage of 15 years since then there is a need to improve and modernise it in certain respects.
The present Bill, which is intended to achieve this, has two main purposes. The first is to clarify and expand the duties of the RTE Authority in fulfilling their task of providing a national broadcasting service in the light of developments, experience and new insights since the authority were established. The second main purpose of the Bill is to provide greater autonomy and freedom for the broadcasting service within clearly defined statutory restraints and obligations, while at the same time improving public control in certain areas. The Bill as passed by the Seanad also contains an enabling provision to provide for direct retransmission of outside broadcasting services here and a number of provisions in regard to financial matters. Finally it provides for certain amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, the main one being to facilitate statutory control of local programme origination for distribution on wired broadcast relay stations—cable systems.
At this stage it might be appropriate to refer to the enabling provision regarding open broadcasting and in particular to the proposals to arrange for rebroadcast of BBC 1 on the second transmitter and microwave network which is at present being installed as a first step towards the open broadcasting concept. The indications I had were that many viewers in the single-channel areas believed that a rebroadcast BBC 1 would best meet their wishes for a choice of TV programmes approximating as closely as possible to that available in multi-channel areas. There was much public discussion about this issue during the year. I welcomed this, particularly the widespread participation in it by the media generally, the public and RTE. The pros and cons for a second television channel controlled by RTE and for a rebroadcast BBC 1 were thoroughly aired. Doubts were raised as to what the people, particularly those in single-channel areas, really wanted and in order to resolve this, a survey was sponsored jointly by my Department and RTE in order to determine what the public preference is. As Deputies will be aware the results of the survey which was carried out by Irish Marketing Surveys Ltd. were announced recently.
The survey showed a clear preference for RTE 2 over BBC 1 (Northern Ireland) in both the single-channel and the multi-channel areas. The percentages were: 62 per cent for RTE 2 and 35 per cent for BBC 1 overall; 59 per cent to 37 per cent in the single-channel area and 64 per cent to 33 per cent in the multi-channel area.
The only significant deviation from this trend was in the cities of Cork. Limerick and Galway, where RTE 2 was preferred by 50 per cent compared with 47 per cent for BBC 1. Copies of the survey report are in the Library for those Deputies who are interested in further details.
I said in the Seanad that if it was clearly demonstrated that there was a public preference for an RTE 2, I would be happy to recommend that solution to the Government. I accept the result of the survey as a reliable indication of a clear public preference for the RTE Authority's concept of an RTE 2 "selected from BBC 1, BBC 2, the 15 ITV companies, other overseas sources and additional home-produced material" giving, to quote the authority's statement on the survey, "a range and a variety of programmes as near as possible to those already available in multi-channel areas".
Accordingly, I will be recommending to the Government that the second television network should be used for a second RTE channel as described by the Authority. I shall be introducing amendments on Committee Stage to delete section 6 and other related provisions of this Bill. I shall come back to this aspect of the matter.
I mentioned earlier that the two main purposes of the Bill were to clarify and expand the duties of the RTE Authority in fulfilling their task of providing a national broadcasting service and to provide greater autonomy and freedom for the broadcasting service within clearly defined statutory restraints while improving public control in certain areas. At present the general duties of the Authority in regard to providing a national broadcasting service are laid down in section 17 of the 1960 Act.
Section 14 of the present Bill, as Deputies will see, is broader in scope, reflecting the growing recognition of the diverse interests and concerns of the people of Ireland, the paramount need for peace and understanding, the variety and richness of our culture, and the need to cherish those elements which distinguish our culture from those of other countries, particularly the Irish language. The Authority are also required in their programming to uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution and, to guard against our being too inward looking, they are asked to have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of other countries. I hope that this general conception of what our national broadcasting service should reflect will commend itself to the Dáil.
As to the second main purpose of the Bill, the statutory restraints on the Authority are contained in section 3 of the Bill which restates and expands the provision in the 1960 Act concerning objectivity and impartiality. It imposes on the Authority the obligation to apply the same standards as regards objectivity and impartiality to any written, aural or visual material they may publish. It gives statutory backing to the present practice whereby the impartiality requirement is considered to be fulfilled if all significant views are aired in two or more related programmes if these are broadcast over a reasonable period. It provides for a relaxation of the prohibition on expression of their own views by the Authority in the case of broadcasts relating to proposals regarding broadcasting which are the subject of public controversy or public debate and which are being considered by the Government or the Minister.
The section also prohibits the Authority from broadcasting or publishing any matter which may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State. The present formulation owes a good deal to suggestions made in the course of the Seanad debate which I accepted. This new provision is intended to replace the directive issued by my predecessor under section 31 (1) of the 1960 Act as well as that section itself. That directive will, therefore, lapse with the passage of this Bill. Normally, the Authority will be left to apply this new provision independently, in accordance with their own judgement. However, because the Government responsible to Parliament must retain the final say in the particularly difficult and sensitive area of the security of the State, I propose to retain, while modifying, the power to issue directions. I will refer to this again later. Section 3 also prohibits the Authority from unreasonably encroaching on the privacy of an individual.
The Bill contains a number of other provisions conferring additional powers and independence on the Authority. Section 2 confers greater security of tenure on the Authority by providing that a member may be removed from office by the Government for stated reasons and only if resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Under the existing Act, of course, members of the Authority can be removed by the Government at any time without the necessity to state reasons.
Section 5 empowers the Authority with the consent of the Minister to appoint advisory committees and advisers—a power which rests with the Minister under the present Act. Section 9 provides for payment of net receipts from broadcasting licence fees to RTE for an unlimited period—rather than for a limited number of years as has been the case under the 1960 Act and later amending Acts—thus giving the service greater financial security.
Under section 15 the Authority will have more flexibility in settling the hours of broadcasting and in deciding when advertisements may be broadcast, while under section 22 the Authority will no longer require the consent of the Minister to publish and distribute books, magazines, or recorded aural or visual material.
I was concerned about the risk of erosion of the Authority's freedom under the system whereby the Minister was the recipient of complaints that the Authority had been in breach of their statutory duty of impartiality, and had unlimited power to judge and act on such complaints. Since the Minister is a political figure it is clearly undesirable that he should be the sole judge of impartiality in cases which may involve comment on party politics and politicians and even on his own Department. Nor could the Authority be left as the sole judge as to whether or not they were properly discharging this responsibility. The Oireachtas itself, under section 2 of this Bill, would be the ultimate judge of the Authority's conduct generally. But it would be impracticable and undesirable to bring every instance of alleged failure in this area before the Oireachtas.
The appointment of the RTE complaints advisory committee last year reflects my concern about this problem. This system seems to have worked well and the broadcasting complaints commission provided for in the Bill would give a more precise statutory basis for this solution.
The commission will be a statutory body, independent of both the Minister and the RTE Authority. Their independence is reflected in the provision in the Bill that a member of the commission may be removed from office only by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Here much the same principles apply as apply to the removability of members of the Authority itself.
The commission will deal with complaints alleging that RTE have not complied with the statutory obligations as regards objectivity or impartiality, that they have breached the prohibition on the broadcast of matter which might reasonably be regarded as likely to promote, or to incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State or that there was a breach of the prohibition on encroachment on the privacy of an individual or that advertisements broadcast by RTE were in breach of the Authority's code of advertising standards.
I mentioned earlier that the Bill provides for retention of power by the Minister to issue a direction in regard to one particular area of broadcasting. This is dealt with in section 17 which provides that the Minister may issue a direction, by statutory order, to RTE to refrain from broadcasting a particular matter or matter of a particular class which in his opinion would be likely to promote, or incite to, crime or would tend to undermine the authority of the State. Such statutory order would be subject to annulment by resolution passed by either House of the Oireachtas. That, of course, is entirely new. If not annulled it would remain in force for not more than 12 months but could be renewed by order or by a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Minister's power under section 31 (2) of the 1960 Act to direct the Authority to allocate broadcasting time for ministerial announcements will of course remain.
Section 6 provides that the Minister may direct the Authority to rebroadcast other programme services. As I have already indicated, I will be introducing amendments on Committee Stage to delete this section and other related provisions. Since it will no longer form part of the Bill I will not discuss it further here, but I will return to this subject at the end of my speech in order to discuss more fully the implications of the debate which we have had on the subject of television choice.
On the financial side the Bill contains a number of important provisions. Section 10 provides for an increase of £11 million in the amount that may be advanced to RTE from the Central Fund for capital purposes. Section 23 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, authorised the Minister for Finance to make repayable advances not exceeding £2 million in the aggregate to RTE for capital purposes. The 1964 Act increased the limit by £1 million to £3 million and it was further increased to £4 million by the 1973 Act. The present Bill proposes to increase the limit to £15 million.
The initial capital cost of providing the television service was financed by Exchequer advances, and a few small advances were made in the early 1960s. No advances were made to the Authority in the years 1964-65 to 1970-71 apart from a small capital advance for the Ballymun multi-channel communal aerial system. During most of that period the Authority's revenue from licence fees and advertisements was buoyant, mainly because of the increase in the number of television sets in use, and necessary developments were financed in that period almost entirely from internal sources.
However from 1969-70 onwards there was a falling off in the increase in the number of television sets and the increase in revenue slowed down while expenditure increased rapidly mainly as a result of inflation. The Authority's financial position deteriorated sharply and despite a number of increases in both advertising charges and licence fees they did not generate sufficient income to finance capital needs. In the five years 1969-70 to 1973-74 RTE earned a net surplus of about £500,000 out of a total income of some £36.5 million. Capital expenditure, including expenditure on renewals, in the same period totalled £4.2 million, the bulk of which had to be financed by the Exchequer. When approved advances to meet RTE's commitment on capital works during 1974 were made, the £4 million limit authorised under existing legislation was exhausted.
RTE's approved capital programme for 1975 amounts to £3.5 million which includes nearly £1 million expenditure on the second television transmitter network, and £1.5 million on renewal and extension of TV production facilities and regional studios. RTE have estimated their capital requirements for the five years 1975 to 1979 at £14.7 million at 1975 prices, excluding any extra production facilities needed in connection with the second television channel. The £14.7 million is made up broadly as follows: £3.7 million for the transmitter network for the second television programme, £1.7 million to renew existing TV transmitters, £2 million for television production facilities and extension of regional studios planned and a further £1.5 million approximately to improve coverage of the existing television service in those areas where reception is below average, a programme which has often been discussed here. Renewal of other television plant at a cost of £2 million is also envisaged and miscellaneous works on improvement of radio coverage, monitoring and control equipment, buildings, and so on, which RTE consider to be necessary, are estimated at over £3 million.
RTE could not finance a programme approaching this magnitude from internal sources and it would be unreasonable to expect any organisation to generate sufficient surpluses to finance a major development programme of this kind over a relatively short period. It must be envisaged therefore that much of future capital investment in broadcasting will have to be financed from outside sources, including repayable advances from the Exchequer.
The increase of £11 million on the limit of Exchequer advances provided for in the Bill will enable the Minister for Finance to make available the necessary repayable Exchequer advances to help finance RTE's approved programme for 1975 and capital investment in broadcasting in subsequent years.
Other financial provisions contained in sections 11 and 16 of the Bill enable RTE to borrow in foreign currencies for the general purpose of broadcasting and for current expenditure. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
Following the enactment of the Exchequer and Local Financial Years Act, 1974, it was decided that RTE's financial year, which formerly ended on 31st March, should in future end on 30th September.
RTE earned a relatively modest profit of about £260,000 in the 12 months ended March, 1974, but they ran up a deficit of over £500,000 in the six months April-September, 1974, mainly because of cost inflation.
Despite the significant increases in television licence fees which came into operation from 1st October, 1974, RTE's present financial position is not healthy. Like many other organisations their expenditure has soared as a result of higher costs during the present period of high inflation.
Moreover, the buoyancy of their advertising revenue has been adversely affected by the general economic situation. They say that they will have a small deficit of £25,000 in the 12 months ended 30th September, 1975, but, although they have made some substantial savings and have plans for more stringent economies, they are seriously concerned about their financial position and have indicated that they will need a substantial increase in revenue from licence fees if they are to break even in their financial year which began on 1st October, 1975. They have accordingly applied for an increase in licence fees from an early date, and this matter is at present under consideration.
I referred earlier to the provision in section 9 of the Bill for payment of net receipts from broadcasting licence fees to RTE for an unlimited period. This section also provides for payment of net receipts from wired broadcast relay licence fees to RTE for an unlimited period. These fees which are payable by cable operators under the Wireless Telegraphy (Wired Broadcast Relay Licence) Regulations, 1974, comprise 15 per cent of annual income from cable systems or £2 a year per connection where there is no identifiable income from a cable system. Provision is contained in this section also for charging the expenses of the broadcasting complaints commission against receipts from television licence fees.
The amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, contained in the Bill are mostly of a technical kind dealing with a widening of the definition of wireless telegraphy and of the Minister's powers in relation to control of interference caused by electrical appliances.
The exception is section 18, which provides enabling power to regulate local programme origination for distribution on cable systems. Quite a number of experiments in relay on cable systems in the Dublin area of locally originated programmes have taken place, as Dublin Deputies are aware.
I welcome this development, and regard its potential with considerable interest. It is essential however, that, if local programme origination develops on an extensive scale, it should be subject to statutory regulation and control, including regulation of programme content. Cable television offers the opportunity for much wider local diversity and thus need not form part of the national broadcasting framework. Within any one locality, however, the effective availability of channels is very limited. This is a situation which may change in the long term, but, in the meantime, cable programming will need a framework of control, rather than the degree of freedom which is traditionally available to the Press. I have in mind that local programmes should be subject to the same type of restraints as those applicable to the national broadcasting service. It will be possible to arrange this under section 18.
I should now like to discuss at some length the implications of the long debate which took place in the Seanad and elsewhere on the relative merits of rebroadcasting BBC 1 (Northern Ireland) or an RTE second channel, and, of course, on which much wider issues were quite properly also raised.
As I have said, I fully accept the public preference shown for the RTE Authority's concept and I will be proceeding accordingly.
However, I think it is only right that I should explain to the Dáil, as I did to the Seanad, the basis of my general thinking in this matter. I would also like to dwell a little on the implications of the preference which has been shown, and which are not, I think, generally understood.
The twin themes on which I have based my policy have been the need to treat broadcasting as a service that is based on popular demand, like all the other media, and a wish to use broadcasting to further what I think we would agree is a primary national concern, that is a greater degree of mutual understanding on this island.
In matters of broadcasting the state of public demand has to be kept in mind when public policy is formulated or applied. This is true not only of a view of national culture which would seek to treat Ireland as a unit, but also of any more exclusive view of our national culture.
I would seek to put forward the proposition that there has been a change, perhaps several changes, in the generally accepted view of what the public wants, which has occurred over the past few years.
This has partly been an evolution in those wants themselves, as when RTE put their ideas across in public discussion. How such an evolution can occur was evident in the recent debates. It seemed to me that there was a certain evolution, not only in the more positive public reaction to an RTE 2 but also in RTE's own conception and presentation of what the public wanted and would accept. Discussion is not a one way process, or one-sided in its effects. During this period also our assessments of public opinion have moved from deputations and letters, the comments of newspaper columnists, through petitions and public meetings, to the kind of systematic assessment shown in the recently conducted opinion survey.
In general, as regards the evolution of demand, the notice of this has been most dramatically evidenced in recent years by the explosive expansion in multi-channel reception of cable, in those areas where cable has been a feasible option. Dublin Deputies and many others are well aware of this. This expansion was in conflict with certain narrow definitions of national culture which had gone apparently unquestioned for a long time. It is fair to say that if these culturally protectionist views, still often heard, had been strongly, sincerely and consistently held, and widely supported, this expansion of multi-channel reception of cable would not have been tolerated. In fact, it has been given State encouragement from 1970 on.
By widening the concept of our national culture, by highlighting the importance of cultural pluralism in promoting a wider national identity, the idea of wider access to external channels was deprived of its status as "forbidden fruit". Instead it was possible to debate, as was done recently, the relative merits of systems of control that would either involve direct rebroadcasting of an outside service, or a second national service which, while remaining under RTE control and editorship would consist largely of imported programme material and which was presented by RTE, during the recent debate, as the nearest approach to multi-channel viewing that could be made available in the present single-channel area.
The latter proposition, as the recent survey shows has been found the more acceptable in the single-channel area. This preference should not, however, be interpreted indeed cannot be interpreted, as a rejection of wider freedom of choice. On the contrary, RTE 2 was consistently presented as the widest freedom of choice actually available; that indeed was the whole basis of the case made for it. The RTE official booklet The Second Channel: A statement on television development in Ireland and the question of national choice, published in June 1975, and available in the Library, states as follows:
On a two-channel Irish service the best selection of programmes from BBC 1, BBC 2, the different ITV channels and other sources would be carried. This service would, in effect, be a concertinaed version of the British services—supplemented by other bought-in material and containing a range of new home-produced programmes of a significant kind. RTE is confident that such a two-channel national service would meet popular expectations while also providing a worthwhile choice of programme for other interests within the national audience. In RTE's view the criteria of satisfying public demand for as wide a choice as possible and of complying with the statutory national broadcasting obligations can best be met not by rebroadcasting a single external channel but by establishing a second national television channel along the lines set out in this paper.
This line of argument in more succinct form was given special prominence in the case of RTE 2 which was presented to the sample of viewers including the survey.
As will be seen from the survey report, in the section, "Arguments for RTE 2", the first two arguments used to persuade viewers of the advantages of that service were as follows:
1. RTE 2 would be selected from BBC 1, BBC 2, the 15 ITV companies, other overseas sources, and additional home produced material.
2. RTE 1 plus RTE 2 would offer single channel viewers a range and variety of programmes as near as possible to those already available in multi-channel areas.
It has to be assumed, therefore, that those viewers who opted for RTE 2 were opting for a service so defined. The result cannot, therefore, be interpreted as any kind of victory for cultural protectionism or rejection of multi-channel viewing. The majority who voted for RTE 2, on the case presented for it, were voting for what they saw as the widest freedom of choice available to them. The minority who voted for BBC 1 were also voting for freedom of choice, but interpreting it differently. The survey shows no very significant differences between the two groups in terms of class, age, sex or region and probably the differences in general outlook are not as wide as the wilder fringes of this controversy might suggest.
Now that these questions have been directly faced and answered, we are in a much better position to go forward. RTE 2, so defined, can now be seen to be the direct choice of those most directly concerned, the individual viewers, rather than a means of protecting them from what they were rather widely presumed to prefer.
As I indicated earlier, I accept the outcome of this survey as a valid test of public opinion, and shall base my recommendations to the Government upon it.
I should now like to develop somewhat further the implications of this choice. This Dáil debate is a culmination of a national discussion on broadcasting which has extended over a number of years. The crux of this discussion has been, I think, the relationship between our individual preferences as viewers and efforts to formulate a collective national view of what broadcasting ought to be doing.
During this debate, while the debate was actually going on, this relationship has shifted, giving increased influence to the preferences of the individual. Broadcasting naturally has its greatest chance to exercise influence in a single-channel situation—a captive audience. Once the audience has the choice of a number of channels, whether delivered by broadcasting or cable, the audience and influence of any one programme is split and the mere existence of choice, even complementary or planned choice, reduces the capacity of the broadcaster to lead public taste.
This Government came down firmly for choice from the beginning. In October, 1973 the provision of a second television network was authorised, so that the debate about the nature of that choice should not delay the actual provision of the transmission material. These transmitters are now expected to be ready about the end of 1976.
One of the major problems in this whole question of television choice is that there had been a build up of rather acute tension between what people appeared to want as individuals and what collective public policy was deemed to require, without either of these concepts, perhaps, being entirely clear.
The whole history of cable television in this country, has been a history of the abandonment of a series of more or less artificial lines of defence, in which public policy and the institutional interest of RTE appeared intertwined and in continuous retreat. Cable TV systems expanded, through the 10 outlet limit, into Ballymun flats in 1967, then up to a 500 outlet limit in 1970, through that limit in 1973, with the line currently being held against the use of micro-wave links. This continued process of retreat began to look like an elaborate game, perhaps, in which public policy and the RTE interest appeared—wrongly as we now see—to be in continual and losing conflict with popular demand.
As a result of this, an atmosphere was created in which it was difficult to imagine that RTE could actively become the vehicle for a development which was widespread in the east and north and yet had been contested so vigorously in the name of national culture; that is, the conveying of popular British programmes to the south and west.
Equally, it was difficult to imagine that the process of retreat before the expansion of cable television would not continue, and that popular demand would not lead to a proliferation of micro-wave fed cable systems serving fewer and fewer people at an ever increasing cost.
In this atmosphere it became fairly widely accepted that popular demand was for direct access to the BBC and ITV channels. I accepted that view myself, and so clearly did those who, while opposing direct rebroadcasting, also opposed the holding of the recent survey, and sought to discredit its findings in advance.
Given this conflict between apparent strong popular demand and certain strongly held views on public policy, it clearly made sense to take a fresh look at public policy and what we meant by our national identity and culture, as well as to take steps to ascertain more precisely what public demand was, and precisely what RTE would offer to meet that demand.
One major discrepancy was that the notion of national culture as traditionally used in the broadcasting context did not altogether coincide with the concept of national identity which was commonplace in the political context.
"National identity" has been generally, if loosely, understood as something which applies to the whole island and all its population. "National culture" as traditionally used in the broadcasting context, has been, also rather loosely, understood as the culture felt to be prevalent among the population of this State, together with the minority in Northern Ireland. There has been a great deal of ambivalence and confusion in this area, which has done serious harm both to relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland, and to the prospects of peace and harmony in this whole island. Out of the growing realisation of the damage and danger caused by this situation, has come a growing sense of the need for better understanding between the two main traditions in this island—as they actually are not as we might wishfully imagine them to be.
In broadcasting terms the significance of this is clear; it is not just a question of adequate coverage, of making programmes about Ulster people or reporting their activities and reproducing their views. It is a question of accepting people as they are with their own understanding of their own identity, creed, aspirations and allegiance.
There are television services in Northern Ireland and their existence and character reflect the prevalent view there of the nature of Northern Ireland and the interests of its people.
Many people, of different traditions, now accept, at least in some sense, that there is both a "British dimension" and an "Irish dimension" to Northern Ireland. Broadcasting in this island will have to take account in some way of that pluralism. A concept of our culture and identity which does not take account of it is less than complete, if we are really thinking, as we usually claim to think, in terms of this whole island and its entire population.
And in terms of broadcasting it has been long apparent that the population of the eastern and northern part of the territory of the Republic have shared a large part of the broadcasting interests of the population of Northern Ireland. To regard this as regrettable, as some people do, seems to have depressing implications as regards progress to better understanding with the majority in Northern Ireland.
I argued rather strongly in the Seanad that, if we aimed to create a society in which the common interests of all the people of this island were recognised—primarily interests in peace, harmony and progress for all— it was a necessary precondition to build into the broadcasting system the cultural pluralism which we wish to see reflected in that society.
In other words, I was arguing that, from the point of view of the national culture, multi-channel television was, in fact, a desirable development. In principle, RTE, I am happy to say, do not disagree with this, and those who chose RTE 2 in the survey did so on that explicit understanding.
Having made the case that the national culture would benefit from a move towards pluralism, I invited the RTE Authority to make their case publicly for RTE 2 and to test the reaction of Irish viewers as individuals to that case.
The RTE Authority did so in TV and radio programmes and in booklet form. In addition, discussions took place during the summer in a number of centres in the single-channel area, where this debate aroused the most interest for obvious reasons. I spoke to meetings in Cork, Limerick, Listowel, Clonmel, Westport, and Killarney. In these debates I presented a case for the people being free to choose between BBC 1 and RTE 2.
These local debates served a number of useful purposes. In the first place they countered the proposition that the second TV network should be used for an RTE 2 precisely because BBC 1 would have been a popular channel. That argument was made a number of times by the Opposition and some Independent Members in the Seanad and it never seemed the most democratic of formulations. It was not often heard in the popular discussion of the matter in the single-channel area. The argument against popularity was not, of course, appropriate as a response to the greatly increased choice provided by the advent of cable television.
The meaning of cable television was to shift the balance of influence away from the broadcaster into the hands of the viewers. One can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. What is clear, however, is that when we seek to match this type of choice through broadcast television, the wishes of the individual viewer have to be taken much more closely into account, and were, of course, so taken, and are now so taken.
The most important effect of the series of discussions in the summer has been to bring home the reality of what a second RTE channel would be trying to do. That is something which at the beginning of the debate was not widely understood in the single-channel area.
As a result of these prolonged explanations, it can be truly said that the RTE concept of a complementary two-channel service drawing most of its additional programming from BBC and ITV sources is now preferred by most viewers.
Without this discussion and the clarification which emerged from it there would always have been wide acceptance of the view that an RTE 2 was a piece of cultural protectionism designed to prevent people looking at the programmes they actually wanted to see. As long as that view prevailed in the single-channel area there was a degree of palpable resistance to RTE 2 as the second channel. It was the achievement of RTE in its ably conducted public campaign to diminish that resistance and degree of irritation and get a hearing, a growing hearing, I believe, for the idea that RTE 2 would work essentially as an anthology of the programmes available to viewers in the multi-channel area. In doing so RTE spokesmen specifically and firmly repudiated the theme of cultural protectionism as an argument for RTE 2. However, while a series of meetings may generate discussion, everyone would agree that they may not be the most reliable guide to public opinion. The question then arose as to how these individual wishes should be assessed. In the case of cable TV systems, of course, individual preferences find an expression through normal commercial mechanisms, though the role of the State in progressively permitting these systems is in itself interesting.
Representations from interested bodies form much of our daily life as politicians, and while this method has its uses, there is always the problem of judging how representative are the bodies in question. Of course politicians and Governments are there to act as the representatives of their people in the fullest sense. That is what we are doing here in this debate.
But the broadcasting field is one, as I have said, where there can be very clear and demonstrable differences between what the individual prefers for himself and what we collectively may feel would be right for the nation. We are familiar with this situation in many other aspects of political life. But we should bear in mind, more clearly than perhaps we sometimes do, that the nation is not something different from the individuals who make it up. Since the preferences of these individuals must form much of the matter of this debate, it is consistent with our functions to have an assessment, as reliable as is attainable, of what those preferences actually are.
Because of the distinction between collective and individual attitudes and because the content of broadcasting is a matter of individual preference in all the other media of information and entertainment such as the Press, theatre and cinema, I concluded my reply to the Second Reading in the Seanad by inviting RTE to put the question of individual preference to the test. This has now been done by means of a sample survey. I have already referred to the results of that survey, their meaning and my acceptance of them.
The discussion we have had has, I think, rightly focussed much more attention on the role of individual preferences in broadcasting. The fact that a second RTE channel can now be launched as the preferred choice of the single-channel area, not something imposed on it, is of considerable significance and of positive value both to RTE and to the citizens whose preferences are ascertained and respected.
Many of the arguments heard in this discussion left RTE 2 perhaps appearing to be the second best solution in terms of preferences, but something to be imposed nonetheless. Some of these arguments may be studied in the report of the Seanad debate, as well as in the Press.
The atmosphere of resistance from the single-channel area was vividly illustrated by Deputy Robert Molloy when speaking in the Dáil on 23 May, 1973—Vol. 265, Col. 1772 of the Official Report:
This is a very important matter as far as those people who are only getting RTE reception, that is those people in the west of the country. It is rather disturbing that the Minister is not giving a clear indication as to his priority. The people who requested that I put down this question, and some of them were on the deputation who met the Minister, are anxious to have multi-channel television before we get a second RTE channel. I should like to know whether the Minister is committed to doing that before he starts talking about giving us a second RTE channel.
In this type of atmosphere, when an RTE 2 was apparently being rejected by the very people it was intended to serve, it seemed clear that the essence of the appeal of multi-channel television was direct access at the touch of a button to an alternative source of programming. I say "it seemed". Now that RTE have made the case for an RTE 2 based on a selection from BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, overseas and additional home produced material, it has become apparent that the "variety of choice" element in multi-channel viewing has a higher priority among viewers than the "direct access" element.
It is, I think, common ground between us that we would like to seek out and promote those domains in our national life where there is sufficient in common between North and South for an overlap of some kind to be feasible. We are all aware that this has been possible in certain sectors, such as the traditional ones of religion and sport. In the communications field, tourism and transport are obvious areas where overlapping and co-ordination are both desirable and feasible between North and South, though indeed some who profess an ideal of unity make a habit of destroying cross-Border links. Related to the transport field, we enjoy an overlap of the printed media and the important point to notice here is that the pattern of overlap is based on individual preferences.
In the field of television the existing overlap was geographically limited and was frequently implicitly regarded as undesirable, sometimes explicitly too. Broadcasting has always been closely associated with the State, and the State of its very nature is based on an exclusive territory.
But in Ireland, our political traditions, our Constitution, the very name of our Twenty-six County State demand that we should explore the relationship between the unitary political State, and the island, containing as it does a plurality of cultural outlooks, political systems, creeds and allegiances.
The Leader of the Opposition, Deputy J. Lynch, spoke eloquently of the possibility of using broadcasting to explore this area of cultural pluralism, during his speech last year in the Dáil debate on the Northern Ireland situation. He said in Volume 273, col. 1595, of the Official Report of 26th June, 1974:
I suggest that, instead of the stated objective of the second RTE channel proposed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, the feasibility of a television and radio service which would be neither exclusively British nor, for want of a better term, Southern Irish be examined.
I suggest further that a body be established to examine the possibility of the three "Irish" channels, BBC (Northern Ireland), UTV and RTE coming together, instead of RTE 2 as envisaged by the Minister.
It is worth discussing at this point the commonly made assertion, implicit in that quotation, that BBC 1 (Northern Ireland) and UTV are "British" rather than "Northern" TV channels.
The first point to be made is of course that a major cultural characteristic of Northern Ireland is precisely that it is inhabited by a large number of people—a majority there— who see no contradiction between those two terms. This concept has been of course traditionally very difficult for us to understand or accept in the Republic. It would however be fair to say that the mutual incomprehension on this point is perhaps the major failure in communications in this island. That being so, it was worth considering whether developments in Irish mass communication should not contribute towards bridging this gap. I think Deputy Lynch did well to focus attention on this point and I hope that he may be able to contribute to this debate for which he was present at the beginning. I think in fact they have contributed in some degree towards bridging it, through various forms of North-South link up, but there is certainly room for further development.
In this context it is interesting to note the remarks made in the recent memorandum from the BBC Northern Ireland Advisory Council to the Annan Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, Report of September, 1975, that local Northern Ireland production tended to be characterised alternatively as "too Irish", "too British" or "too parochial".
Those who wrote the memorandum saw Northern Ireland as suffering from the particular problem that "the threshold of acceptability for opt out programmes seems to vary with the different sections of the community." Thus broadly speaking they say, "Republicans prefer more `Irish' programming. Loyalists resent its displacing `British' programming", as we might expect.
As in other matters, we often tend to underestimate the extent to which broadcasting in Northern Ireland is a result of its people's tastes. The clash of identities may be mainly a negative influence, but it can be a powerful influence nonetheless in broadcasting as in other fields.
Interestingly, one approach which the committee put forward is the concept of "pan-Irish" programming, reflecting the common aspects of life in Ireland. They say of this: "Scheduling part of the fourth channel simultaneously with the second channel in the Republic might be one way of achieving this without depriving viewers of the principal networks." It is interesting that that suggestion should have come forward from the Northern Ireland Advisory Council to the Annan Committee.
The programming of the RTE second channel here will, of course, be a matter for the RTE Authority, who will—I am sure—take this view into account. However, I would like to make one or two observations about it in the context of this.
The making of co-productions between North and South is of course a trend that I welcome. However, in so far as the second channel in the Republic is to be used by RTE to expand our intake of British programmes, and the fourth channel in the North might be used for an element of "pan-Irish" programming, it does not seem likely that these will be identical programmes.
A two-way flow might be a less constricting concept to aim for, rather than mutually agreed neutral programming. This would appear I think to be compatible with the ideas which Deputy Lynch has discussed, as well as with the ideas which I believe the Authority to be exploring. I hope it will be closely and sympathetically examined both in Northern Ireland and here and that there will be close contact between broadcasting organisations in both parts of the island.
Both sides of the political religious divide can, I think appreciate the other's culture, as long as it is not seen as threatening their status and identity. To avoid that danger is not always an easy matter, especially in present circumstances.
An interesting sidelight on just how sensitive, delicate and fluid these questions of status and identity are, is shown by the fact that it was thought necessary to state in an introductory note to the NIAC Memorandum:
This submission is made within the political context of the late summer of 1975. At this time we have no reason to believe that the principles outlined will not remain valid.
I do not know whether that is not a footnote that should be appended to many public statements on that subject.
One difficulty to be confronted arises from the fact that the identity of any channel is essentially established by its news service, particularly its local news. Thus, for example, most Northern Ireland TV production effort goes into local news and current affairs programmes. That is the material which is originated in Northern Ireland, whereas the entertainment and more general material is mainly taken over from the British general network.
Paradoxically, therefore, an RTE 2, should it exclude this element, would have a greater tendency to draw its BBC material from metropolitan British sources rather than from Northern Ireland. This would, I think, be a pity, and I think many other Members of the Oireachtas, on both sides would be disposed to agree with that. As Senator Yeats said in the Seanad at column 304, Volume 80, on 16th April, 1975:
If the Minister were to suggest that all UTV or BBC or other television programmes that originate and are created in Northern Ireland should be transmitted here, I would be entirely in favour of it.
The normal flow of television programming does tend to distort our view of, for example, Britain and America because the natural tendency is to import entertainment, since informational programming has often to be local to be felt as relevant.
That is an understandable and perhaps inevitable tendency though one may sometimes wonder about the relative coverage given to the fictions and the realities of, say, American life. When the question is raised as to whether British programming is not better situated in the context of the realities of its own society the answer is more difficult.
There is a lot to be said for the value and interest of seeing our neighbours on this island as they see themselves, and studying the intricate relationship of Northern Ireland to Britain at first hand. These realities are important for us and while we may often profoundly differ in our instinctive approach and in our analysis, it is the knowledge of these differences which is valuable. RTE have frequently given us direct relays of large set pieces in British broadcasting and British-Irish relationships but the continuing realities of daily life have an important cumulative message too.
In so far as we wished to expand the area of a wider plurality, the interpenetration of broadcasting offered a number of advantages.
(1) As I have said, the day-to-day news and current affairs coverage from Belfast would be a major item of British programming which an RTE 2 might be likely to exclude unless a deliberate effort is made to prevent that tendency. This interplay of news and current affairs programmes between Belfast and Dublin adds a strong element of plurality into the "multi-channel" areas. It must be seriously questioned whether it makes sense to speculate about pluralism in politics, if we cannot embrace pluralism in television news programmes.
(2) One of the major psychological stumbling blocks in the Northern image of the Republic is its picture of a closed and censored society. This is of course, to a large extent, an outdated image and indeed RTE television has been a major force in bringing that change about. The debate in the Seanad, however, indicated that some of our public representatives continue to retain this image of ourselves as a culturally protected society or certainly if not that, one that ought to be so. It will be interesting to see how far similar language may enter into the debate now opening in the House.
In concluding this part of my statement I should like to come back once more to what still seem to such people the basically opposing concepts of national culture on the one hand and the opening up of broadcasting on the other hand. It was apparent in the Seanad debate, and in the wider discussions, that there is a minority, but a minority which includes some thoughtful people, who have deep reservations about the whole idea of open broadcasting if by that term we understand, as I understand, the widening of freedom of individual broadcasting choice, and the greater availability of programmes from outside the country. Let me say here that I remain an advocate of open broadcasting in that sense, and that I see the retransmission of BBC 1 and the selection channel advocated as RTE 2, and now accepted, as alternative ways of advancing freedom of choice in the present single-channel area, and RTE also saw the matter in that light.
There are, however, those who dislike this whole process, perhaps quite understandably, as tending to reduce us all to the lowest common denominator of common and debased Anglo-American mass culture. This view is understandable, especially when one contemplates what we feel to be inane or sinister manifestations of that culture, although we should not forget, especially today, that our own culture, even understanding that term in its most insular sense, is itself not lacking in inane and sinister manifestations. But one can understand the appeal of the idea, which sometimes attracted W. B. Yeats, of developing here a unique culture behind a kind of spiritual wall, rejecting the 20th century, and inhabiting "our proper dark". In practice we as a people have not chosen that path.
We have not chosen to shut ourselves off: quite the contrary, the results of the EEC referendum were clear evidence of that. Some recent comments, such as a statement by Ogras—the youth body of the Gaelic League—published on 27th October, in the Irish Times, have tried to interpret the results of the survey in a contrary direction, saying it showed that people were “tired of being pressed to accept foreign opinions and Anglo-American attitudes”. RTE were not of that opinion when they formulated their arguments for a second RTE channel, and only 2 per cent of those questioned rejected both means of conveying BBC and ITV programmes to them. Both the growth of cable and this whole debate on television choice are evidence that we are not anxious to shut ourselves off either from Europe or from Anglo-American mass culture. That trend is I believe irreversible; certainly no democratic government has seriously tried to reverse it, though some have sought to project the idea that we were reversing it, and restoring an ancient and exclusive culture, although, in fact, all they were doing was looking the other way while the tide was coming in. In this way they contributed to raising the double-think content in our actual national culture to a dangerously high level.
What can our national culture be, when we are already to a great extent submerged in a wider international culture, and submerged in it by our own choice and at our own demand even if we seek, as we sometimes do, to conceal that fact from ourselves. I think the first requirement for restoring a healthy national culture lies in the honest and candid acknowledgement that that situation exists, that our culture can never again be purely national—if, indeed, it ever was so—but that it is also part of a wider culture, even if there are many elements in that wider culture which we do not like. But at the same time there is no need to conceive of that wider culture as a steam-roller reducing all whom it touches to the same monotonous dead-level.
There is plenty of evidence, both in Europe and elsewhere, of the resilience and versatility under such pressures, also such accepted pressures of national and regional habits, characteristics and even prejudices. The situation in Belgium, for example, reminds us of these things. That international culture is in itself uniform enough, but those on whom it impinges are not uniform, and do not respond to it in a uniform, way. To the extent that we seek to exclude it, or pretend it is not there, we lend it an extra attraction, with all the power of a suppressed reality. But if we openly accept it as part of our lives, then I think the need for something else, something unique, the peculiarities of our own heritage, is likely to express itself more strongly. Putting it another way, and somewhat more bluntly, if we can strip the Irish language, and the culture associated with it of the accretions of exclusivism and even the humbug which have surrounded them, and if we can see them as a significant part of our heritage, but neither its totality nor its sacred, dominating element, then spontaneous interest in and love for these things can reassert themselves. Certainly that concept is reflected in the relevant part of the Bill before the House.
Too long, in the days of British rule we were taught to be ashamed of speaking Irish. Too long since independence people have tried to make us ashamed of speaking English. We now need to stand culturally upright, not ashamed of any aspects of our culture, neither those which are purely Irish, those which we share with our English-speaking neighbours, or those which we share with Europe. Broadcasting can powerfully help in this process, both through its inevitable international components and through the domestic response of home-produced programmes, both in Irish and in English.
Another aspect of the opinion survey which is deserving of attention is the difference between the urban and rural components of single-channel area. The difference I mean is reflected in the survey in the figures I quoted earlier which show, for example, that the cities of Cork, Limerick and Galway are fairly evenly divided as between the BBC 1 idea and the RTE 2 idea.
For a start, this goes a long way to explain the contrast between the articulate groups based in urban areas, for whom direct access to an outside channel was seen as an attraction in itself, and the preference of single-channel area viewers as a whole, who are predominantly rural.
One of the original contradictions in the debate was the call to serve cable TV systems in cities like Cork and Limerick by micro-wave links. Of course, the question then immediately arose as to why BBC and ITV channels should be transported across the country purely to serve relatively small urban populations. If this was to be done deliberately in response to public demand, there seemed at first, before we were in possession of the information we have now, no apparent reason to believe that rural tastes were any different from urban ones in the matter of television programmes in the single-channel area.
Now, however, such a difference has been highlighted by the survey, and, indeed, this corresponds well with the different reactions I got during the series of meetings I participated in. It, therefore, makes much more sense now to study the possibilities here of cable television and micro-wave lengths for the larger centres, Cork, Limerick, Galway and, perhaps, others, since there is evidence that the characteristics of cable TV technology, with its suitability for urban areas, do, in fact, correspond to the pattern of demand among the viewers —a rather interesting coincidence between technical feasibility and preference.
One would be reluctant in this country to introduce deliberately any further sources of contention between country and city people, but in the event, on the pattern suggested by the survey, such a conflict does not seem to arise. Another characteristic of cable TV is that, although it is expensive, the costs are only borne by those who want the full service, while broadcasting has to be paid for through the inflexible method of the licence fee.
I should like to refer now to the question of an advisory committee. The Fianna Fáil party have spoken of the need for a single-channel area advisory committee to guide the selection of programmes for the second RTE channel.
I know the RTE Authority will wish to give this proposal their serious consideration. This Bill provides for the transfer of power to appoint advisory committees from the Minister to the Authority. I have already referred to that point. This amendment. I am glad to say, was welcomed by Fianna Fáil spokesmen in the Seanad. Accordingly, it is for the RTE Authority to act on this question and I would not wish to prejudice their decision.
However, I can see some possible objections to such an arrangement. The second channel is a second national channel, not the extention to the single-channel area of a service already available in the multi-channel area. Further-more it is to be run as a complement to the existing channel so that there is to be a single balanced national service on two channels. Given that this concept has won popular acceptance, I feel it should be allowed to work itself out. That being so, it may not be considered advisable—I do not know— to create a system of committees which would naturally tend to pull in different directions, in order to run a two-channel concept which is intended to be a balanced whole.
The choice of an RTE 2 in the form chosen has a logic of its own, the logic of complementarity, which during the long public debate was argued by their spokesmen against what was represented, perhaps, a little paradoxically as the strait-jacket of unrestricted competition.
If there was merit in that contention as holding good against competition with an existing outside service, there is I think all the more merit in it as telling against the deliberate setting up of a service in Ireland designed to compete against RTE.
I should now like to draw my remarks to a conclusion and I regret having taken so much of the time of the House.
In opting for RTE 2 as against BBC 1, the survey sample, which I accept as representative, in effect decided in favour of a version of multi-channel broadcasting which would remain under the control of this State as against the direct rebroadcasting of a BBC service from Northern Ireland. This does, however, leave open the question of the relation between such an RTE 2 and Northern Ireland. In the course of the survey the arguments presented on behalf of the RTE 2 concept did not mention Northern Ireland at all, at least directly.
I would be concerned, and I believe RTE itself would be concerned, to ensure that the benefit of a contribution to an understanding between North and South should also be pursued and attained by those who are responsible for RTE 2. In the course of these remarks. I have tentatively suggested, with the aid of the memorandum from the BBC Northern Ireland Advisory Council, some ways in which this might be approached. The different aspirations and allegiances of the two main sections of the population of this island make this matter a very difficult one, but also should give it a very high priority in our thinking.
Among other problems, we have to grapple here with the very ancient problem of the distinction between a nation and a state. Deputy Haughey, who I am sure will have a significant contribution to make to our debate here, touched on this subject of state and nation in an interesting speech which he delivered recently at University College, Cork, at the conclusion of which he said: "It is absurd, therefore, to separate the nation and the State for no better reason than it would appear that a unit of a different size would be preferable or in order to obviate some immediate crisis".
I am not sure if I entirely understand this formulation or its relevance to our situation, and I hope that the Deputy, if he does choose to intervene, may see his way to expanding it and clarifying it here because it is clearly relevant to this debate on Second Stage. It would seem to me that our main problems derive, not from considerations of size, or contentions based on them, but from the aspirations and allegiances of people. Our 26-county State, known internationally as the Republic of Ireland, is nationally homogeneous to a remarkable degree but I imagine few Members of its elected parliament would unequivocally affirm that this State constituted the Irish Nation. In Northern Ireland, a significant minority has historically regarded itself as being part of that same nation on which our State is based, but not many of these I think would regard that State as the full expression of their nation. A majority in Northern Ireland have historically seen the expression of its nationhood not in the Irish State but in the British Crown. Throughout the whole island there is a tiny but highly dangerous minority, frustrated, confused and angry at these contradictions and their results, who seek to shatter all the State institutions concerned, under the terrible delusion that out of the violent attempt at overthrowing these institutions the unity of the Irish people will in some way emerge. An important source of this destructive and regressive delusion is the widely received notion which I have heard expressed in this House that if the State is not conterminous with the nation then it has no legitimacy. There is no basis for that notion, either in honesty or in logic and in practice it contains within it the seeds of anarchy.
Broadcasting cannot cure these troubles and may often seem to inflame them. But the troubles themselves follow in great part from ignorance, prejudice and self-righteousness and these are evils which a serious attempt at mutual understanding can begin to dispel, and is I believe begining to dispel even though slowly, belatedly and in the midst of continuing tragedy. Broadcasting, if sensitively used, in a spirit of dialogue rather than propaganda can, I think, help to promote that better understanding, but a sufficient effort to do will I think require, among other things, closer co-operation between broadcasters and broadcasting services north and south, and the present time seems to be a very good one when the Annan debate is going on there and we have reached this stage of our own debate to press ahead with that. There would be a great deal more to be said about that aspect of the matter. I hope that our debate will shed light on it and I hope to come back to it in my reply to the debate.
I should like before I sit down to pay tribute here to the many Members of the Seanad who contributed, through amendments which I accepted in whole or in part, to the improvement of the Bill which is now before this House. I look forward to similar constructive debate, and further improvements here. In conclusion, I should also like to pay tribute to the authority and staff of RTE for the manner in which they conducted what might have been difficult and trying debates at the provincial meetings. The debates were, in fact, well reasoned, good humoured and illuminating, and I believe the spokesmen of RTE convinced the public and deserved to convince them of the merits of the particular proposals which they advocated and which I have discussed here.
I commend the Bill to the House.
