It has already been written into the record by Deputy Lalor, and I will come to that shortly.
Deputy Lemass made a rather interesting point when he said:
The Bill provides for the direct transmission for outside broadcasting services here and the Minister has stated that he intends to amend that section in view of the survey. I do not see that it should be necessary to amend that section because there might be an occasion in the future, if not immediately, where the provision might be useful, which would prevent the Minister of that day coming back to the House seeking fresh legislation.
I do not know if that view is held by Deputy Lemass's colleagues but, if it is put forward by the Opposition, I am certainly prepared to consider it.
I should now like to refer to a number of detailed matters made by various Deputies. On the financing of the second channel Deputy Fitzpatrick asked about the arrangements for financing the construction of the second television transmitter network. The intention is that the financing of the construction of the second television network will be by repayable Exchequer advances when the Bill becomes law. In the meantime expenditure incurred on this project is being financed by bank borrowing with my consent and the consent of the Minister for Finance under section 27 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. At the end of September, 1975, a total of £675,000 had been spent on the project.
Deputy Fitzpatrick also suggested that the Authority should have greater flexibility as to the amount of advertising and the time of it. Section 15 provides greater flexibility in regard to broadcasting advertisements by the Authority. It is considered desirable however that the Minister should retain control over the maximum period of advertisements in any hour so that the Authority will not concentrate the bulk of advertisements in the peak viewing period.
Again on the estimated cost of the second television channel, Deputy Fitzpatrick quoted figures of £2 million to £3 million as the capital investment necessary to set up the second transmitter network and suggested that the cost might eventually be £3 to £4 million. The capital cost of the transmitter and microwave link network for the second channel is estimated at £4.1 million at 1975 prices. The original estimate of the cost was £2.4 million at 1971-72 prices.
Deputy Fitzpatrick suggested that there should be 20 per cent home-produced programmes and greater regional production on the second RTE channel. The question of programming the second channel is a matter for the RTE Authority. Their document "The second channel: A statement on television development in Ireland and the question of national choice" mentioned 20 to 25 per cent home-produced programmes. It is, however, expected that initially the amount of home-produced programmes will be smaller than that. RTE also stated that there will be a significant increase in programming about regional and local affairs in all parts of the country on the two-channel service.
Deputy C. Murphy, in an interesting speech, referred, as did Deputy Brennan, to the important question of violence in television programmes. All material is viewed in RTE—and I mean viewed in RTE and not by the Minister—prior to its transmission and RTE also receive advice from the film censor. In previewing film material particular attention is paid to scenes of sadism or excessive violence which could be too strong for consumption in a domestic environment. RTE get a great deal of comment and feedback from the community in various ways on television programmes and any seemingly excessive violence could be brought to their attention in this way. The Authority believe that their standards are stricter than those for the cinema. The broadcasting review committee in their report of 1974 also refer to this question. The committee commented as follows:
The meagre evidence given directly to the committee did not suggest that RTE programmes in general merited censure on the score of overemphasising violence or sex. Nevertheless, the committee itself is satisfied that there is an undue portrayal of violence on RTE television, especially in imported programmes.
BBC and ITV also have codes of behaviour in this matter. Those codes draw attention to the danger of depicting brutality in children's programmes. In 1970, the British Home Secretary's television research committee reported:
The whole weight of research and theory in the juvenile delinquency field would suggest that the mass media are never the sole cause of delinquent behaviour. At most they may play a contributory role, and at that a minor one.
A report published by UNESCO in 1971 on the mass media in a violent world concluded that in this realm much is suspected, much is presumed, but little is actually known. The same point was brought out by some speakers in the Seanad debate.
Similarly a BBC report Violence on Television, published in January, 1972, stated that the results of its survey do not of themselves provide a basis for concluding either that those who criticise television for showing too much violence are justified or that there is no cause for concern. The state of research in this matter, as you will see, is extremely unsatisfactory.
An article in the April/May, 1973, issue of Social Studies by Michael Morris, RTE research consultant in relation to the social effects of television in the Irish context concluded that there was a need for the development of empirical research into the social and human effects of broadcasting and that there was little knowledge about the impact of broadcasting in Irish society.
I think it is very difficult to separate that impact from the other processes going on in society. Dr. Grant Noble of the Department of Psychology, Trinity College, Dublin, formerly of the Centre for Mass Communication Research at the University of Leicester in England, recently completed a research paper on a study carried out to assess the effects of television violence on Irish children. He concluded, inter alia, that realistically televised aggression, as distinct from stylistically televised aggression as found in many western countries, promotes aggression in children. He went on to say:
If society continually generates newsworthy violence we should not perhaps be surprised that our public actions not only disturb nonaggressive boys with well-socialised aggression inhibitions, but also incites them to the violence which news and sport portrays as the social norm.
That is probably the strongest statement I know of in this area. It is a very difficult area, as will be seen from the distinction there between realistically televised aggression and stylistically televised aggression, not always easy to make in practice. It is, I think, impossible to eliminate violence completely, as some people seem to suggest, from the television screen, for several reasons. One, unfortunately, as the last writer I quoted mentioned, is that it is a part of our lives in this island now and if we are to have news of what is going on around us, very often that will be sad and frightening, but I do not think we can keep it from the people.
It is also true that the portrayal of violence, grappling with the problem of violence, forms a large part of our culture and our literature, including our dramatic literature. A total ban on violence on the screen, for instance, would mean you would have to cut out the last act of Hamlet and many other important elements in the culture we have. But the distinction between stylised and realistic violence made by Dr. Grant Noble is, I think, of sufficient importance to be studied and retained by those responsible for programming. It is a fact of recent years that there has been a very considerable increase in realistic violence, without dwelling on details of what actually happened, in a manner verging on the sadistic, if not sometimes going over the line, and I would agree there is a need to be vigilant about that.
Deputy Ciaran Murphy suggested that the broadcasting complaints commission should be able to deal with complaints about programmes provided by local community groups through cable television. The whole purpose of the commission is to deal with complaints against the RTE Authority. The intention is that local programmes for distribution on cable television will be experimental for a time, but when the Bill before the House becomes law the Minister will have power to make statutory regulations which will enable the Minister to subject these programmes to the same type of restraint as RTE programmes. After some experience has been gained, the question of providing machinery for complaints regarding these programmes can be considered.
Deputy Murphy also mentioned a possible. Telefís na Gaeltachta. No serious consideration has been given to such a service. The capital costs would be extremely high, as would the operating costs, and RTE's experience of programmes in Irish suggests that it would be very difficult to provide programmes of a suitable standard. The same Deputy mentioned BBC 1 in the Northern Ireland context. He stated that there was a difference of 12 minutes between BBC 1 and BBC 1 Northern Ireland. In 1973-74, BBC 1 produced 296 hours of which 265 hours were on BBC 1 Northern Ireland. The balance of 31 hours was networked.
Deputy Esmonde mentioned the case of somebody who did not see a programme which treated him unfairly and he asked whether a complaint made to the complaints commission would be privileged. Under section 7, RTE will be obliged to keep sound recordings of programmes for 60 days. This will enable the commission to deal with any complaints in regard to any programme. The consideration of any complaints by the commission will, of course, be carried out under section 18B (10), but no question of privilege arises, I am advised.
Deputy Moore asked how far the Minister has gone in trying to get the British to accept "Pan-Irish" programmes. The Deputy must have misunderstood the reference in my opening speech to "Pan-Irish" programmes. Proposals in regard to this matter were put forward by the BBC Northern Ireland Advisory Council to the committee looking into the future of broadcasting in the UK. This is a matter being put forward in that context, not by the Minister.
Deputy Moore kindly suggested that because of the survey result, the Minister should offer his resignation to the Taoiseach. He also suggested that I was the only Minister who favoured rebroadcasting. My main concern at all times was that the viewers should receive the type of television choice they preferred. I received a very strong impression during the Galway by-election campaign that people would prefer a rebroadcasting of BBC 1 and I was by no means alone among Ministers or Deputies in that impression. Indeed I know that quite a number of Deputies still remain of the same opinion. Having given RTE the opportunity to make their case, I do not regard the fact that the public responded as they did as a defeat for my policy or as justifying the course of action Deputy Moore has urged on me.
Deputy Moore also referred to the question of an open university or a university of the air. I would refer the Deputy to the report Adult Education in Ireland which was presented to the Minister for Education in November, 1973. In dealing with the possibility of establishing an open university, that report concludes that since the British “Open University” is still evolving, and is in any event so costly, it would be advisable to postpone further consideration until the British system has been some time longer in operation. Furthermore, the very cost of an open university in relation to our population would give it a low priority in our educational requirements. On the question of introducing a service along the lines of the BBC “Open University” the committee found there were other countries in western Europe much wealthier than Ireland which regarded this as beyond their financial reach. The BBC “Open University” is a system of higher education for adults involving a partnership with the Open University which is an independent teaching and degree-awarding university.
The BBC produce and broadcast programmes for Open University students in a close working relationship with the university. The present agreement between the BBC and the university expires at the end of this year. The Department of Education and Science in Britain pay a grant to the Open University and they in turn meet in full the BBC production and programme costs to the university. Students pay a proportion of tuition fees, of the cost of summer schools, of books and other expenses. In 1964 the BBC provided 700 hours of radio and 840 hours of television in support of 65 courses prepared by the Open University. In 1975 the university is offering 84 courses or part courses to more than 40,000 students. The programmes are followed by many thousands of interested listeners and viewers in addition to the Open University students.
Regarding the cost of all this, the BBC accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1974 showed a figure of £2,199,000 the income received from the universities representing reimbursement of operating and capital expenditure.
Deputy Moore and others, too, raised the question of advertising alcoholic drinks. Advertisements for spirits—hard liquors—are not taken by RTE. The advertising of other alcoholic drinks accounted for about 7 per cent or £372,000 of RTE's revenue from advertisements in 1973-74. For some years past there have been criticisms of drink advertisements. Following joint consultations between the Department of Health, RTE and the Post Office in this regard, the Authority introduced a stricter code for such advertisements in November, 1973. The question of advertisements for alcoholic drinks on radio or television must be considered in the context of the general question of advertising in all the media. A complete prohibition on radio and TV advertisements might result merely in a diversion of the money spent formerly on these to advertising in the other media. The Broadcasting Review Committee considered this question but in their report they did not recommend that the advertising of alcoholic drinks on radio and television should cease. However, they welcomed the introduction of the RTE code in this regard. I shall continue to be in touch with my colleague, the Minister for Health, in relation to these matters and should he indicate that he considers a change in the present practice to be necessary I would see that that is complied with.
Other Deputies spoke of the use of advertisements produced in Ireland. Virtually all radio commercials and sponsored programmes are produced in Ireland. A few are made outside the country to suit the convenience of Irish artists working abroad.
Regarding television all slides are made in Ireland. About half of the advertisements, other than slides, are made specifically for the Irish market and practically all of these are made in Ireland. The rest of the commercials shown on RTE are not designed specifically for the Irish market and are not produced in Ireland but in almost all cases Irish actors are used for these sound tracks although in some cases the sound tracks may be produced elsewhere to facilitate Irish artists working abroad.
I understand that an agreement was negotiated between Irish Actors' Equity and the Irish Institute of Advertising Practitioners at the end of January, 1975 which provided that only Equity members would be employed in radio and television commercial work except in exceptional circumstances and in consultation with Equity. It appears that in the case of advertisements not made in Ireland the sound tracks must be dubbed using Equity members' voices except, again, in exceptional circumstances.
Deputy Lemass urged that there be statutory control of interference caused by television and radio receptions. There is a draft direction under consideration at present in the EEC which, when adopted, will set down maximum interference levels for television sets and FM radio receivers. When the objective has been adopted, regulations will be made applying the provisions here.
Deputy Lemass referred also to the television licence scheme for certain old age and blind pensioners and for veterans. These schemes are administered by the Departments of Social Welfare and Defence and any extension of them would be a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare and for the Minister for Defence. I should be happy to co-operate in any schemes which they might deem possible and advisable.
Deputies McLaughlin, Callanan and others raised the question of the desirability of the improvement in RTE television coverage of the existing service. RTE say that fairly satisfactory coverage of their television service extends to about 98 per cent of the population. In conjunction with the renewal of the existing television service which is taking place, RTE plan to increase the power of some of their transmitters and transposers and in conjunction with the provision of a network for the second service, new transmitters being installed will transmit the existing service as well as the second service. These two factors will result in improved reception in many areas. When the existing network has been renewed and the second one completed, RTE will be in a position to investigate the effects on reception and to determine what further action needs to be undertaken. The renewal of the existing network and the provision of a second network are expected to be completed at the end of 1976.
It has been decided, in relation to plans for improving reception, to make repayable advances from the Exchequer of more than £1 million to finance a large scale RTE programme for improving reception in those areas where it is not satisfactory. However, owing to the heavy programme of capital works which RTE must undertake, including the provision of the transmitter network and the renewal of the existing network and the various demands on scarce capital, it will probably be four to five years before the programme is completed. Even when it is completed there will remain small pockets throughout the country where, because of unusual topographical features and the low density of population it would be impracticable for economic reasons to improve reception. It is not possible nor would it be appropriate to say at this stage when individual areas will be catered for.
Deputy Lemass made the interesting suggestion that the entire cost of the second channel should be borne by those who will benefit most from it, that is to say, by viewers in the single channel areas of the west and south. I do not know whether the Deputy was speaking for his party when he made that point but I did not hear it mentioned in Mayo last weekend.
Turning to the points made by Deputy Brennan who had already referred to the question of pre-censorship, it must be remembered that section 3 of the Bill prohibits the Authority from broadcasting 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 complaints commission can consider any complaint that the Authority were in breach of that prohibition.
Every order made under section 17 comes into effect immediately on its being made but can be annulled subsequently if either House of the Oireachtas passes a resolution annulling the order within 21 sitting days of its being made. I shall come back shortly to those general matters but in the meantime there are several further questions to be dealt with.
On the question of the RTE Symphony Orchestra, Deputy Brennan suggested that when he was Minister this orchestra cost between £700,000 and £1 million per year. The Deputy's recollection would appear to be rather seriously at fault because, according to information supplied last year to the Department by RTE, the direct cost of the Symphony Orchestra in 1973-74 was £218,565. When hired accommodation and the apportionment of overheads, production, technical and transmission costs are added, the total cost of the orchestra in 1973-74 was £452,000. It does not appear likely that it would have been twice that when Deputy Brennan was Minister.
Deputy McDonald suggested that with four or five radio transmitters at their disposal RTE should be able to operate a choice of radio programmes. The Broadcasting Review Committee considered that a second TV channel should have priority over a second radio channel, presumably because many TV viewers can receive one programme only, whereas listeners can get many radio programmes from other countries. RTE now operates one high-powered and two lowpowered medium frequency transmitters to give national coverage of the national radio service on medium wave. The national radio service is duplicated on VHF. Five high-powered RTE transmitters are necessary to give national coverage of the service on VHF. It is possible the Deputy may be able to receive adequate reception from a number of transmitters in certain parts of the country where in certain areas these transmitters overlap. RTE have authority to provide a choice of radio programmes when splitting wavelengths for up to 450 hours per year which does, if you like to so regard it, furnish a sort of nucleus of a second radio channel.
Deputy Callanan inquired as to when RTE 2 would be on the air. The Government have not yet given the go ahead for RTE 2 though I am recommending this to them. As Deputies are aware, a substantial increase in the licence fee will eventually be involved. Further capital expenditure will also be necessary for production facilities for the second channel. RTE are planning to be ready to begin operating in the spring of 1977 but it is not possible to say precisely at this stage when the new service will begin.
Deputy Lemass asked if existing legislation was adequate to allow other countries to take broadcasts from here for direct transmission to other countries. Under section 16 (2) (1) of the 1960 Act, inserted by section 5 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1966, RTE has power to arrange with other broadcasting authorities for the distribution, receipt, exchange and relay of programmes whether live or recorded. The present legislation is adequate for the purposes visualised by the Deputy.
Deputy Lemass also suggested it might be desirable at this time to engage a firm of management consultants who would go into the question of the structure and management of the RTE Authority. The Broadcasting Review Committee, which submitted its final report in 1974, dealt with all aspects of the RTE Authority's activities and it is considered that there is no need at present for a further detailed examination of the structure of the RTE Authority.
Deputy Lemass asked if ordinary RTE signals can be received on TV sets in the North and remarked that television sets bought in Northern Ireland will not operate here and vice versa. Many TV sets in use in the North are suitable for the reception of programmes broadcast in the UHF band only. The RTE transmissions are on VHF and they cannot be received by such sets. RTE 405 line transmissions can be received on the older dual standard receivers which are suitable for both VHF and UHF transmissions.
Several speakers made reference to the survey. I do not propose to go into detail on that. Deputy Callanan inquired how the survey was carried out and Deputy Coogan questioned the way in which it was carried out and said he happened to have information of an interview and of the way it was carried out. The report of the survey, which is now in the Library, explains in detail how the survey was carried out and gives particulars of the areas in which interviews were carried out. Deputy Coogan may be interested to know that the report shows interviews were carried out in Galway city, in Tuam urban district and in certain rural districts in east Galway.
Deputy John Kelly, the Parliamentary Secretary, made some interesting remarks on the cultural aspects and he indicated that he thought cultural protection perhaps desirable but essentially a lost cause. He found the country to be culturally porous. He seemed rather to regret that. Personally, I think pores are necessary for health and, if it were a society not culturally porous, it would be a bad thing. I think a number of Deputies did agree with that, including Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick, whom I have quoted already, and I think Deputy Carter.
The Parliamentary Secretary in an interesting but, I thought, curiously pessimistic speech spoke of the Irish people's vestigial anxiety not to disappear. I think that is putting it too strongly. Our anxiety not to disappear is quite as healthy and non-vestigial as that of other peoples. What is disappearing is, I believe, the tendency to insist excessively on the differences between ourselves and other people. I think that was unhealthy—an unhealthy product of our past history— and I think that is what is disappearing.
Deputy Carter said, and I welcome this very much indeed, that the debate on this whole matter has tended to promote a better understanding and has helped to educate the public. I am glad to have that generous acknowledgment of that fact from those benches because I believe it to be the case. Whatever the outcome, and irrespective of the outcome, the debate was a healthy thing. It was useful as a means of proceeding and as an expression of respect by the State for the views of individual people and I believe it marked some kind of step forward in that area.
Two Deputies of my own party challenged the survey and held themselves to be aware of a preference in their own areas for BBC 1. That comment was made publicly here. It was also made in private to me by a number of others. It is, I think, a fairly widespread feeling. I should like to say here what I think is involved. What is involved is, I think, that the sample taken of those who were interviewed by the surveyors represented, as it should represent, a proper crosssection of the Irish people, urban and rural, young and old, of different classes and different sections, and so on, in different regions. Those who examine the survey will be able to satisfy themselves of this. They differed from many others like them in other ways in that they were fully exposed to the arguments offered in support of both concepts, and specifically, of course, to RTE's version of RTE 2. Specifically they knew when they made their choice that RTE 2 would consist very largely of imported programmes and that it was presented as the nearest thing available to multi-channel television viewing. They knew that as did those who attended the various debates held in the country—the six debates I attended and the others.
I found during these debates that when RTE made their point—this is the nearest approach to multi-channel you can get and our RTE 2 will consist of a selection—that point carried; the audience took that. I would agree that they also took the point that the selection would be in Irish hands. That argument registered, too. The arguments however registered together: the selection will be in Irish hands and what will be selected will be mostly imported programmes.
Those who were interviewed for the survey knew that, but not everybody knows it even yet. There are those— and this may be true of many, Deputy Kyne, Deputy Coughlan and others— who think that RTE 2 will be as like as two peas to RTE 1 and will represent for them no freedom of choice at all.
I think the sample represents what most Irish people would think if they had fully realised what the choice really was. But there now is this somewhat awkward period of a discrepancy between the views in the survey and the views of some people to whom the full arguments have not gone home. I should say that that in no way qualifies or mitigates my own acceptance of the survey. I do accept it as scientifically and properly conducted and as being the nearest approximation I am likely to get to what people want. I believe that most Deputies, though not all, will take that view. Those Deputies who are of a different view in this matter will have an opportunity to come back to the question when we come to consider the repeal of section 6.
I should like to come back to the important statement made by Deputy de Valera. First of all, I should like to acknowledge his very generous observations on the Bill generally and on my contributions here. However we are possibly as opposed in general viewpoint regarding many important issues in this country at present as any two Deputies can be. Therefore I shall have to take issue with him. I hope in doing so to emulate as far as possible, the high standard of courtesy and generosity he has set, and indeed does generally set in this House and elsewhere. He referred to the question of section 2. I only have a typescript of his speech here. I hope I will be allowed to quote from it. I appreciate that if there are any inaccuracies they will have to be cleared up later. However, he said:
The second section raises the question of the autonomy of the Authority and the relationship of that body to the Minister of the day. In the parent Bill and this Bill, there is no question, it would appear, that this is a State enterprise. There is no difference of opinion between us that it is a service for which the community is paying, it is the community's property and the Government are the custodians of the community's property. As executors of the community's property they have their duties. Therefore, it is a question of how much should be delegated, how much autonomy should be divested directly from the Minister and the Government and how much be retained by the Minister and the Government to enable them to discharge their trust and responsibility. These questions arise under the parent Bill and answers have to be found on both Bills within a common framework.
He sees merit in the proposal but then he turns around and says:
On the other hand, looking at another aspect of it, the Minister said—I will refer to that in more detail at the end—that this can be a very inhibiting provision for him. When he talks about retaining direct power in certain areas and provides for it, he still precludes himself from the possibility of exercising the sanction that may be necessary to enforce that power and he may come up against a managerial difficulty. This section provides, in effect, that any member of the Authority may be removed in certain conditions. One asks naturally what about the Authority as a whole? Of course, from the strict legal point of view all the Minister has to do is to remove them individually, but the practical difficulty remains.
I would insert there that I do not really think there is a difficulty. The power conferred on me, I understand, remains—and, through this, on the Oireachtas—of removing the entire Authority if the Oireachtas decide to do so.
Deputy de Valera continued:
It is not so serious if it is the case of one recalcitrant member, but if it comes to the whole Authority, the Minister may very well find himself with problems. He may have urgent reasons as well as cogent ones for giving a directive within the limits he has defined and the Authority may refuse to carry out his directive. There may be a practical urgency in such a case. What then does the Minister do? The procedure the Minister has provided for here can be cumbrous. What happens, for instance, in a certain situation—I am not thinking of an ordinary political situation but the type of problem the Minister digressed on in the Seanad and a little in the Dáil when presenting his philosophy? The Authority might well flout the Minister to his face. It might be Oireachtas vacation time and it might take a period to assemble the Dáil or the Oireachtas as a whole. Then because of the democratic nature of the Oireachtas there may be delays, perhaps from recourse to the traditional filibuster. Meanwhile the Minister is powerless; the thing he seeks to control goes on out of control and the mechanism he has set up here will aggravate it.
I will not go into the justification, the advisability or anything else of the decision that might have been taken, but it was made and the directive given.
He is referring to the directive given by Deputy Collins, my predecessor, and subsequent action.
He continued to say:
There was a directive under section 31 given by the Minister's predecessor. What about a case like that? If the provision is there as in sequences might have been serious. I am putting a hypothetical case. Supposing the Authority do not act in accordance with the Minister's directive. There is in such a case a stimulus given in the opposite direction. The object of the exercise under section 31 was to minimise publicity and incitement, but the result of this provision will be to maximise publicity and incitement in such a situation. That is the difficulty I see in a section of this nature.
Then he rather turns round, as he sometimes does, and says:
I must say the section appeals to me. In principle, I feel that when authority is delegated it should be delegated thoroughly so that a body or an individual cannot carry responsibility unless he has the inner certainty that comes from security to carry out that responsibility. Therefore, I see this section as a dilemma for the Minister in which the last stage will be worse than the first.
These objections made by Deputy de Valera are important and they highlight the significance of this section and of the Bill as a whole. It does indeed limit the powers of Government in relation to the Authority. It limits the powers of Government in relation to Parliament, and the Government must put its proposals before Parliment. It strengthens the autonomy of the Authority. It is meant to do all these things. The question is whether, as Deputy de Valera has said, it does these things to too great an extent, whether it weakens the Government's power of prompt response to a dangerous degree. That is a consideration which I certainly have had to bear in mind.
I shall spell out again what my objective was. My objective was to curtail arbitrary power, that is to remove from any Government power which could be used without any restraint and therefore possibly in pursuit of some purpose other than the purpose ostensibly aimed at. I considered that the events leading to the removal of the former Authority showed that these dangers were real under the former legislation. Good through that legislation was in many respects, I think it showed that it could be abused. I will say what the abuse was, using as temperate language as I can.
It seemed to me—and I said this then in opposition and I say it now— that the fault of the Minister was not in issuing a directive under section 31, but in the totality of what he did. He issued a directive then. The Authority did not demur to the directive, and certainly did not refuse to carry it out. It did what it was quite within its rights in doing: it asked for clarification of the meaning of the directive. The Minister did not provide that clarification. It does not seem that he sat down with the Authority and gave them general indications of his thinking, as he might have done. He just said: "That is the directive. It is for you to carry it out". Then a certain programme was broadcast which was deemed to be in violation of the directive. The Minister told the Authority so. The Authority did not defend the action. It said it was a mistake made in good faith. The Minister then dismissed the entire Authority.
I said then that I thought this was a humiliating course of action, not only in relation to the individuals who were so treated—although that is not unimportant in relation to people giving the public service of that kind —but in relation to broadcasting generally, and that it showed an inclination to bring down the big stick unnecessarily. I could not help relating it to other disputes which the Minister had had with the Authority —one dispute involving a matter within the competence of his own Department, a post office in Letter-more, one regarding excessively frequent appearances on television of a certain Deputy in this House who happens to be the present Minister, and another involving his predecessor on the moneylending matter. There was the general impression that impatience had been built up with the Authority on a variety of scores and that advantage was taken of an error, which they acknowledged, in order both to humiliate them and assert the principle of State control over broadcasting in its most naked and uncompensated form. Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lalor, to whose remarks I will come in a moment, were quite right in assuming that I had these transactions in mind when I was framing the present Bill. But Deputy Lalor made the point which, if I may say so, was rather disingenous: "What of it?" That the Dáil had an opportunity of debating the matter and that I contributed to the debate myself. That is quite true. The Dáil did have an opportunity of considering it and I did contribute to the debate. I shall go back to that shortly.
However, this was fortuituous. It happened that the Authority were dismissed while the Dáil was debating the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs. If the Dáil had not happened to be debating that Estimate, I do not see that the Dáil would have had an opportunity, certainly not an easy opportunity, of raising the matter except by means of parliamentary question. As it was, it could be debated. This legislation would not only make a debate mandatory but would make it necessary for the Government to carry their point.
I think most people will agree with me when I say that this legislation constitutes a barrier and quite a formidable barrier against any arbitrary action of that kind in the future, and that Deputy de Valera would not deny that. His point is that in providing against arbitrary misuse of power I have cut into what ought not to be cut into, that is to say, the power which the Government have the right and the duty to use to see that the institutions of State are not undermined, which is recognised in this Bill, but, according to Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lalor, the powers retained are not sufficient. That is by no means a frivolous objection and I have weighted it against the other matter, the use of arbitrary intervention. We know that arbitrary intervention is possible because we have seen what we at least regard as a clear example of it. It has been unknown, as far as I know, in any country possessing a similarly liberalised broadcasting code to our own, for a Minister to sweep aside an entire Authority. He swept them aside not because they defied him, not because they said: "We are not going to comply with your directive", not because they declared themselves or sought to present themselves as free from statutory restriction on them, but because they admitted they made a mistake and they looked for a clarification. That was not a very defiant Authority but nonetheless they were swept aside.
Similar powers exist in relation to British broadcasting. The British Government have similar powers in relation to the board of governors of the BBC. A story goes—I do not know whether or not it is true—that Ted Health, then Prime Minister, who was having trouble, as governments do from time to time in every country with the broadcasters, is said to have congratulated Deputy Lynch on this drastic action and to have wished he could do the same with the board of governors. The point there is that he had the legal power, but he had not got the power in terms of the conventions which have grown up in Britain and which made public service broadcasting a rather sacrosanct affair, conventions which make such action so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Therefore a Prime Minister has to say: "I should like to do all sorts of things to those people but I would not get away with it". The whole affair showed that our legislation, virtually identical as it was with the British in this respect, was not hedged round with the same conventions which protect the autonomy of public service broadcasting in Britain; and if we desire to provide that autonomy we have to take positive steps to do it by legislation.
I had in mind that this would be what you would almost call ratchet legislation, that it would be very hard to repeal it, hard to put it back, because of what I regard as the clear merit it has of curtailing arbitrary power and being seen to do so by making this more open and above board, obliging the Government of the day to come to Parliament whenever they have to take such action. They would, I suggest, know that, if it were action genuinely intended to safeguard the institutions of the State, they would get the power and the support they require.
That approach requires a certain amount of confidence in people both in the Authority, in Authorities likely to be appointed and in the Oireachtas. It implies at the same time a degree of suspicion of government, even democratic government. Suspicion of government is warranted because governments have power and, human nature being what it is, have some tendency to misuse it. They are more likely to misuse it, if his, her or their actions are not subjected to the maximum public scrutiny. The maximum public scrutiny of government is what this is intended to secure.
Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lalor appear to me to be less suspicious of government than they are of Parliament and of a nominated Authority. That is the difference between us. I regard it as exceedingly unlikely that any Authority will take it on themselves both to violate the specific legislation under which they are there to function and also directions lawfully issued to them. Any Authority will have to be nominated by a democratic Government. They will have to be an Authority which are regarded as at least tolerable by the Oireachtas as a whole. They will tend to consist of respectable, moderate, rather cautious people. That has been true of all Authorities and it will remain true of all Authorities I can foresee, barring such convulsions in the State as would make the whole matter of broadcasting of little significance.
I am therefore disposed to say that the State should trust the Authority to the extent that they regard the situation in which an Authority would defy the Government in persisting in a course of action likely to undermine the State as exceedingly improbable and so much more improbable than arbitrary interference by the Government that it is much less necessary to provide against it than to provide against the other.
It may be said: "All right, what you say is probable"—that is to say it is not likely that an Authority would not behave in this way. It is possible, and section 17 implies the possibility, that they may at least so seriously diverge from the Government's interpretation of what undermines the Authority of this State that a direction from the Oireachtas may have to be sought. Deputy de Valera said: "What happens in the emergency situation?" He spoke of an emergency situation where the Authority differ from the Minister and refuse to carry out what he regards as their obligation under the law, under the statute generally and under any directions issued under it. The Authority say "No", which is something which no Authority have hitherto done. Suppose they do it. So improbable a course of action on the part of the Authority would suggest they were running parallel with a grave emergency in the State as a whole, in which case the Oireachtas would be in session and in which case certainly it could and should be called into session, as it could be at any time if an emergency of this kind existed. Deputy de Valera and Deputy Collins, therefore, are wrong when they suggest that this dangerously erodes the power which the Minister has. However, it reflects the fact that the legislation divests the Minister and, by virtue of the sort of ratchet mechanism I referred to, probably all future Ministers of certain powers. It is certainly well that the Oireachtas should be aware of that.
Deputy de Valera spoke of a dilemma but I do not think the dilemma is real in the sense that the danger on the one hand is so clear and has been exemplified so clearly in the recent history of this country— that is the danger of arbitrary intervention by the State unnecessarily in this sphere of broadcasting, is a real danger—while, on the other hand, the danger of the Authority defying the Government in an area where they ought not to defy the Government and getting away with it is very small indeed. I am making the point "defying the Government in an area where they ought not to defy the Government" because that is important.
Deputy Lalor, in particular, to whose remarks I shall come in a moment, spoke in terms as if he believed—he may have been somewhat unguarded in his use of language, but he used the language repeatedly—that for the Authority to refuse to obey any order was wrong. Of course the old section 31—it was its great weakness—could be interpreted in that sense. The Government could tell the Authority to do anything and Deputy Lalor seemed to suggest that the Government had a right to do that, that the Government had and should have absolute authority in relation to broadcasting.
This Bill is designed to express explicitly the obligations of the Authority and the Minister's powers of intervention, namely, that they are limited to this matter of incitement to crime or tending to undermine the Authority or State institutions. Outside that area, in the future the Government will not have any powers to dictate to RTE. For example there is the question of impartiality of which the Minister was formerly the sole judge, and I have mentioned the case of matters within the Minister's departmental responsibility where he told the Authority that they had violated impartiality. Although he was himself a party in the proceedings he also made himself judge and I think that is most undesirable. In the future if the Government tell the RTE Authority to do something which does not fall in this area the Authority will have the right politely to decline. Of course they will not have a right to do anything or to tolerate anything in broadcasting which incites to crime or undermines the institutions of the State. However, undermining the institutions of the State is a very different thing from saying severe things about the Government.
I thought Deputy Lalor in his remarks this morning went on to a rather inordinate extent about broadcasters who criticise or even satirise politicians. Perhaps it is not important that a Deputy should be a little hypersensitive about all these things. Skins are not of equal thickness on either side and occasionally we all burn at things said about us by broadcasters and journalists. What distressed me rather in Deputy Lalor's intervention, both on Tuesday night and this morning, was the combination of that kind of hypersensitivity to criticism—I think I can describe it as hypersensitivity because I have been more severely satirised on that medium than has Deputy Lalor—the combination of that hypersensitivity and the attitude that the broadcasters have to do what the Government tell them without restriction of the class of matter in which the Government have and must retain the right to tell the broadcasters what they shall not do. This combination would be ominous if broadcasting were to be exposed to it.
Deputy de Valera rendered the House the service of going through the Bill section by section and, as one would expect, it was a very useful and philosophic discourse on the major areas of the Bill. I should like to refer now to some of the points he made. I have already dealt with his observations on section 2 and, although I do not agree with these observations, I wish to record that I think them important and the most important case that can be made against this Bill, that in curtailing arbitrary power it goes too far in the other direction. In the Seanad I referred to the Bill as a measure of moderate liberalisation and that is what I believe it is. I expected criticism that it was not liberal enough. Deputy de Valera has made the criticism, which on the whole is rather better founded, that it is too liberal I think the Deputy has deep suspicions of liberals and liberalism and these were undertones in his speech. His attitude towards what is liberal is complex; he is partly drawn towards liberal values and partly recoils from the dangers inherent in them. This may only mean he has thought a great deal about these matters, as I think he has.
Deputy de Valera spoke at some length on section 3—it was an interesting contribution—and he referred to the question of impartiality. He thought journalists were too often accused of a lack of impartiality and a lack of objectivity. As he acknowledged, there are very difficult problems involved here and I would not claim that this section does any more than indicate an area of concern for the Authority and provide them with a kind of general conceptual framework in which to approach their responsibilities in the matter. Certainly they will not find out what to do by looking up the book—the stipulations in the Act are only pointers for them.
I take Deputy de Valera's point when he said that journalists are too often accused of a lack of impartiality. Certainly the accusation is easily thrown about. It is easy to think that somewhere in broadcasting or on a newspaper there is some bad little man about his nefarious designs. There might be, but usually what is involved is not that but quite sincere differences in human evaluations of what, for example, is important. Every broadcaster and journalist believes in presenting what is significant in terms of news, comment, the choice of what is going on which should be commented on and so on. In his choice the journalist is like the historian. No two journalists would select the same things as significant and this is quite inevitable.
Deputy de Valera spoke very scornfully of what he called commitment, the idea that a writer, historian, journalist should be committed to an idea and serve that idea in how he selects the facts he relies on, how he presents them and so on, using them as a tool in pursuit of an idea. I found this very odd coming from Deputy de Valera because he is the head of a newspaper chain which is committed not, I think—I should like to define it as precisely as I can—to the service of a political party as much as to the service of the ideals which its owner, Deputy de Valera, believes to be the ideals of that party. That commitment most certainly influences its editorials which no one I think would claim to be impartial or detached and which would not make that claim for themselves but also influences the selection and presentation of the news. They do that in a way they believe to be right in pursuit of an ideal that they have and, as they think—although we may think they are very wrong—for the public good. What else is that but commitment?
I would suggest that the Deputy, although he rejects the term, is a highly committed person. I think he uses the term with the contempt he does because he associates it with the Left and in particular with the far Left where this term has been held. Of course, one can be as committed to right-wing ideas or to strongly nationalistic zenophobic ideas quite as much as you can be to left-wing ideas and you can show that commitment by deviating from what others would regard as objectivity. It is absolutely right that in the State there should be newspapers which are committed in that way. Everybody knows that when you get The Irish Press you will get a particular point of view and a presentation which suits that point of view. That is all right if there are other newspapers available and if you are not required to swallow that all the time, undiluted with any other matter.
Of course—and Deputy de Valera and I would be in agreement here— this is precisely the kind of commitment one cannot have in a national broadcasting system. It would be intolerable in a democratic state if you had the sole broadcasting system putting out all the time one point of view, selecting facts to suit that point of view. To a certain extent, although I think people who hold a strong point of view usually have some respect for facts, they cannot help being influenced by their own views in their selection of what is significant, just as, if you take an obvious example outside our immediate sphere, The Irish News and The Belfast News Letter are not likely to give the same coverage to Protestant deaths and Catholic deaths. That is an unfortunate fact but it is a fact and I am quite sure that the journalists who handle facts in that way do not think of themselves as deviating from objectivity. Also, I am sure their readers do not think of them as deviating from objectivity. Again, these deviations can be tolerated in newspapers where there is competition and diversity but cannot be tolerated in broadcasting—hence the particular restrictions which hedge around broadcasters, which separate them from their fellow journalists and which they, quite naturally, are professionally inclined to resent and sometimes, perhaps, to evade.
That is where the collective element must be brought in, a collective element which necessarily is a check on individual creativity. Anything produced by one person or under the guiding mind of one person is likely to be more interesting than anything that has gone through the oversight of a committee, has been trimmed and smoothed down and had a certain amount of waffle inserted in it—more interesting but in the case of a monopoly broadcasting system also regrettably to be sacrificed, I think, because since no single human being can attain objectivity—perhaps a committee cannot attain it either—you need in a monopoly broadcasting system some kind of umpire. The Authority is there as umpire and is strengthened by this legislation.
Deputy de Valera rightly said that objectivity is not attainable humanly. That, philosophically, is so. The legal objectives set by this Bill and other Bills are, if contemplated philosophically, not within reach. You may ask why they are there. They are there to point in a direction that is desirable if not fully attainable. Objectivity may be unattainable, but I think the effort towards objectivity is always recognisable. One can see and often does see across these benches when somebody on the opposite side stands up, the degree to which he is being polemical, whatever side he is on, and the degree to which he is really trying to get at the facts or present fairly the facts he has. It is never full in the case of any of us but we know when the effort is there and the Authority, a body of reasonable men and women, is also in a position to judge when the effort is there and when it is not and to curb its not being there—if one can restrain a negative.
I think the section rightly subjected to this criticism should, nonetheless, stand and I think Deputy de Valera would agree with that and, in fact, does agree with it. He paid tribute to the objectivity of the news services and I am glad that he did so. The problem of objectivity is probably more acute in relation to current affairs than it is to news because there one is representing views and there are difficult choices involved in what to select and whom to select. There are difficulties in the possible clash between the pursuit of what is interesting and the need to remain within the limits posed by this legislation and intended also by the last legislation.
Deputy de Valera said, and I think this is right, that the best safeguard lies in the multiplicity of media which we still have here. It is very desirable that we should have that. That same multiplicity is now threatened in many countries, including our own, by the difficult finances of the newspaper industry. If we had only one newspaper and only one broadcasting chain the dangers of departure from objectivity would be greatly strengthened. Deputy de Valera used the formula that there should be freedom of responsible views. I think I know what he means but I am not quite sure. It is desirable to be more specific than that; to be specific about what are limitations of the freedom, even of responsible views.
Undoubtedly, Deputy de Valera regards his own views as responsible but I would consider them to be, in some respects, irresponsible. I will return to that matter later. All of us know that no charge is thrown across the floor of this House more frequently than that of irresponsibility so that test is not the one that should be applied. Views, even frivolous, should be allowed to be heard and, in fact, so should all views that do not come into the category as set out in the Bill of incitement to crime or tending to undermine the institutions of the State. He also spoke of a censorship of a mature mind which seems to beg the same question. None of us would agree on who has a mature mind. Just as he suggested that the multiplicity of media was the best check so also would the multiplicity of minds on a body like the Authority provide the best barrier here.
Deputy de Valera also said that the Government's judgment might not be as sound as the journalist's judgment, a point I find interesting. That is true but it remains also true that it is the Parliament elected by the people, and the Government which results from the formation of that Parliament, which have the responsibility under law in this matter and which should have it even if their judgment on a particular point is not as good as that of a private citizen. If their judgment is consistently bad we trust in the conception that eventually the electorate will correct its mistake and change the Government.
Deputy de Valera in his attack on commitment, which he regarded as an incitement to go and demoralise people, somewhat overstated his case in that part of it. He seemed to deny any role to what the Americans used call, muck-raking—that is not a derogatory term—which relates to the function of probing and exposure which is a function of journalism, particularly current affairs journalism. Deputy de Valera seemed to suggest that this should be altogether eliminated. It would be a pity in the public interest if that was no longer considered to be a function of journalism, including broadcasting. I do not think it is eliminated under the present legislation. The merit of the present legislation is being specific about what shall not be done instead of having as of old the blanket proviso that was in section 31.
The same Deputy referred to the tendency as a bad habit of journalists to behave as if they were examining a hostile witness. As a politician I would not at all be afraid of a journalist who examines one as a hostile witness; it is the chap who is very nice, draws one out and makes one feel comfortable and gets one to say the things one should not say who must be watched. The fellow who is attacking one is not usually a danger. The habit of the hostile examination is one which is probably tending to fade out anyway.
On section 4, Deputy de Valera made the point about the complaints commission that when they have found something the Authority either take it or leave it. This is true. The complaints commission were not intended to have any sanctions which they could apply. Their sole sanction lies in their finding. The Government take the view that any Authority are likely to be a responsible body which will not take lightly the findings of a commission if the commission find there is something wrong. Of course, the ultimate sanction is there; and if an Authority—I think this unlikely—is constantly being found to be in breach by the complaints commission and if they blithely ignore the commission's findings, that fact will have to be considered when the Authority come up for reappointment. It might have to be considered even before that. In that unlikely event there is an implicit sanction behind the complaints commission, but it is implicit only. The complaints commission have only the right to find or not to find that there is something wrong.
So far the complaints commission, which have been functioning at a more informal level since I set it up, have in general found in favour of RTE in the three cases that came before them, though with some qualifications in one case. I was asked how much this would cost and I should like to state that the cost would be very small. At the moment it amounts to the cost of secretarial services. There is a possibility that if the commission's work increased it could be remunerated. For the information of the Oireachtas I should add that the Government have been requested by the committee not to provide for remuneration. They undertake this work voluntarily for which they deserve thanks. It would not be my immediate intention to introduce remuneration for them.
I want to provide for the possibility in the rather unlikely case that the work of the commission will so expand that this is required.
Deputies and Senators referred to the possibility of the commission being inundated with complaints. So far there is no sign that that will be so. Equivalent bodies elsewhere are not deluged with complaints; they get very few in fact. The complaints commission here have already received six complaints, which shows that they are being useful but not inundated.
Deputy de Valera puzzled me by raising a question about crime. He asked: what is crime? I thought the definition of "crime" was fairly clear in law. In this connection I would specify that it includes membership of an illegal organisation. I do not have time to cover all the Deputy's arguments, though I would like to do so.
He criticised me when he spoke of the problem of the North and said I was too preoccupied with the North in this Bill. He also said that the North does not really arise in connection with this Bill. I profoundly differ from the Deputy here and I am sorry he did not spell out more specifically exactly what he meant by this comment. It seems to me clear that the North is relevant under a number of heads. It is relevant under democratic values because of anti-democratic groups which seek to reunite the North with the rest of the country by force. It is relevant under the heads of culture. What do we mean when we speak of our national culture? Do we have the North in mind? Would Deputy de Valera say we have not and we should not have the North in mind? I do not think he would. It is relevant of course in relation to the whole question of violence and crime including membership of illegal organisations, which necessarily comes up here. I think, therefore, that Deputy de Valera is wrong in that suggestion.
I do not know whether I am right —and he will correct me if I am wrong—but I read into what he said here an implication that to treat as criminals—he asked this curious question: what is crime?—people who might be regarded as patriots seeking to bring about Irish unity by force is wrong and ought not to be done. I do not know whether he believes that, but if he does, I profoundly disagree with him and I do not think the questions can be separated. Those who use violence in the North will be, and are, prepared to use violence in the Republic also. I do not intend by excluding the question of the North from the ambit of consideration that this Bill should give any licence for that sort of thing.
Deputy Lalor spoke of my backtracking from views which I had held and quoted me on section 31. I think he must have been disappointed—and he had the air of being disappointed —when he failed to find anything dramatically at variance in what I said in Opposition and what I say now. I would agree there is a difference in emphasis, which you would expect, from being in Opposition to being in Government, but in substance the matter is clear. I will quote passages, if I may, from the speech I made at the time of the crisis over the Authority which culminated in their dismissal. In Volume 263, No. 13, column 2492 of the Official Report I said:
There are two basic questions which should be asked. The first is: has the conduct of the Authority been such as to justify such drastic, such draconian actions as the Minister has taken and is about to take through the directive and now through what the Press calls "the ultimatum".
This was before the actual dismissal of the Authority.
I would not argue that circumstances could never arise in which such an action would be justified. If it could be shown that in all their features and in all their news presentation RTE were concerned steadily with building up a pro-IRA atmosphere then in the last resort the State has to be defended. The State cannot allow itself to be undermined in a deliberate, systematic way through the exploitation and abuse of the freedoms of expression which are enjoyed and of the autonomy of such a body as this. Has that been the case?
I went on to say, and I think I was right, that it was not. I also said at column 2498 of the same debate that:
We believe that a real threat to the State exists but that the existence of this threat is being used not to defend democratic institutions but to erode them further because we believe that in modern conditions the degree of autonomy possessed—it is only a degree but it should be a very strong degree—by a body like RTE is a major bastion of democracy, democracy including liberty of expression, liberty of discussion. That is a pillar of democracy, to the same extent as Parliament and the Press in reality. When any one of these three pillars goes the whole structure is endangered. There is a tragedy of collusion here, that is to say that the existence of a direct and vicious threat to democracy, coming from illegal organisations, should then be used by the Government who have the duty of defending that democracy, not for defending it but for breaking it down through the humiliation and enforced degeneration of one of the major pillars of that democracy.
I held that view then and I still hold it and I think that is consistent. I said towards the end that we entirely supported the Government in the maintenance of law and order and in the enforcement of existing laws but that the Government had taken advantage of this situation in order to extend an arbitrary power and it is against the possible use of arbitrary power that this Bill is directed. Again it is for the reassertion of the supremacy of Parliament in this area, it is to ensure that the actions of the Government of the day are brought under adequate scrutiny and are such that they can carry the support of Parliament with them, and it is in support and extension and protection of the legitimate authority and autonomy of our public broadcasting system.
