For the purpose of debate, amendments Nos. 5, 9, 12 and 20 are being taken together, with the proposed deletion of section 6.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 2, lines 14 and 15, to delete the definition of "rebroadcast".
(Dublin Central): We have gone over this already. Are we discussing section 6 also at this stage?
That is right.
(Dublin Central): With the amendments.
The Deputy is in possession.
(Dublin Central): It is so long ago I have forgotten what happened. Sometime before Christmas we spent about three quarters of an hour discussing these amendments. The purpose of these amendments which the Minister had submitted is, in effect, to delete section 6 of the Bill which we have debated often throughout the country over the past 12 months. The section says:
The Minister may, after consultation with the Authority, direct the Authority to rebroadcast in its entirety a service of programmes specified in the direction and broadcast from any source other than the Authority and so specified.
This section which occupied a considerable amount of debate in the Seanad was opposed by Opposition Members in the Seanad. We pointed out in the debate which was held throughout the country we believed that if the second television channel was to be established it should be under Irish control. The Minister's view was that it should be used to rebroadcast BBC in its entirety. The Minister was adamant about this in the Seanad. It was pointed out to him at that time that it was very doubtful if this would be successful from various points of view. Objections to this section were outlined in the Seanad. The Minister was told then that the employees at RTE, the journalists and broadcasters, objected to his proposals. He was told that redundancies would occur—the figure mentioned was 600.
When the Minister circulated the Bill we put forward our proposals. We told the people that we would not allow this to be used by any outside broadcasting company, that we wanted it under the control of the RTE Authority. That Authority stood by our proposal. During the debate which the Minister initiated we told the people that we would establish a programme council which would be representative of the rural areas and be in a position to pick the best programmes available for the second channel. I always held the view that all viewers had the right to the same selection of channels as those living on the east coast and we told the people that the Minister's proposal would not give those in rural areas that selection.
The Minister proposed rebroadcasting BBC 1 in its entirety while we favoured the selection of the best UTV, BBC 2 and BBC 1 (Northern Ireland) for showing by RTE 2. There is no reason why we should not use some of the European programmes on the second channel. If we took the Minister's line we would be depriving those who live in the single channel area of the selection I have mentioned. Nobody would allow a valuable asset such as our airwaves to be handed over for use as the BBC saw fit. The Minister did not feel we were handing over control but if we accepted his proposal we would have no option but to accept the programmes transmitted by BBC 1. Some people put forward the argument that if we had RTE 2 we would have censorship in Dublin but I should like to state that if we accepted the Ministers proposal we would have censorship operating from London.
From the outset we opposed this section because we felt it would be harmful and would undermine the status of RTE. Was it the Minister's opinion that RTE 2 were not capable of handling a second channel? I believe RTE have the script-writers and broadcasters capable of handling a second channel. The establishment of that channel would give confidence to the employees. Many talented people have emigrated and now occupy senior posts with other television authorities and I have no doubt that when RTE 2 is established they will return and take up employment with our service.
I would be grateful if the Deputy would relate his remarks to the amendment before the House. We have had what is tantamount to a Second Stage speech from the Deputy so far.
(Dublin Central): The amendments have a bearing on section 6 and I understand that once we decide on the amendments we will not have an opportunity of dealing with section 6 again.
That is so; section 6 is being debated now.
(Dublin Central): The Minister made a mistake and he is aware of that. He was given ample advice to the contrary. The Broadcasting Review Committee, established by Deputy G. Collins when he was Minister, deliberated on this topic for a considerable length of time. That committee, in their comprehensive report, were in favour of RTE 2. The committee were representative of every walk of life and nobody can say they were politically orientated. The report of that committee was a solid basis on which the Minister could have made his decision. Journalists and trade unions were in favour of RTE 2. They wanted a second channel to be under Irish control but, in spite of all the arguments against him, the Minister introduced this section.
Even had the survey come out in favour of the Minister's proposals, I doubt if he would be in a position to adhere to them because of opposition from trade unions and difficulties over copyright. The survey saved the Minister a lot of embarrassment. We participated in the debate prior to the survey, although we were not invited to do so, and we had hesitation in putting forward our views. Our party represents 47 per cent of the voters and it was only right that our views should be listened to. Our campaign played an important part because we were able to explain to the people the choices offered to them. We were able to show the people that, not only was this valuable asset being retained under Irish control, but we could give them a broader choice of programme.
We heard many criticisms of BBC 1, BBC 2 and UTV. Excellent programmes are available on those channels. I hope that, when our second channel is established, the best will be picked from those programmes. I should like to see an extension of RTE programmes into Northern Ireland. At the moment only about 14 or 16 per cent of viewers receive RTE in Northern Ireland. If the beam into Northern Ireland could be strengthened, it would be worth while. I should like to see it done on an organised basis between UTV and RTE. Closer co-operation would be a step in the right direction.
There is no reason why we should not see some of the UTV programmes showing the cultural aspects of life there, showing both the nationalist culture and the unionist culture. I see no reason why people in Northern Ireland should not be given an opportunity of seeing some of our homemade programmes. This would give us a better understanding of one another and would be a useful exercise. As time goes on, I hope we will get that close co-operation. We must make every effort to cross the divides which exist in a small island such as this.
I hope we will keep control of our broadcasts. I should not like to see RTE put into a straitjacket. They are entitled to a certain amount of liberalism. We cannot streamline the Authority too closely. That would destroy the function of the Authority.
Would the Deputy relate these remarks to the amendment we are dealing with?
(Dublin Central): I am dealing with section 6 which we are deleting. We are dealing with several amendments.
Nos. 1, 5, 9, 12 and 20.
(Dublin Central): We are also debating section 6 which we are deleting. We put forward our views during the debate in 1975. We welcomed the Minister's survey. If the Minister had taken our advice originally there would have been no need for the debate in the Seanad which went on for five or six weeks. Our members in the Seanad were totally opposed to handing over a station to be used——
There was no proposal to hand over a station.
(Dublin Central): That is problematical. We were giving it to the BBC to use it as they saw fit.
There was no proposal to hand over a station.
(Dublin Central): The Minister would have no control over the programmes on that station. They would be directed by the BBC in London. It was a misjudgment on the Minister's part to include this section in the Bill. When the debate started, people were astounded to think that the Minister would spend £4 million or £4½ million of the taxpayers' money, or money raised on their behalf, to establish this second TV channel, and then hand it over to the BBC to broadcast their programmes on it. This was a gross mistake. It is not the first mistake Government Ministers have made over the past 12 months. There is nothing unusual about mistakes. Now we have to delete this section. The Minister had no consultation with other people before writing the section into the Bill. We welcome the deletion of section 6. I am glad the Minister has listened to the advice of the people.
The deletion of section 6 gives me the opportunity to comment to the RTE Authority and to those responsible for television in Ireland that, because they now—as we on this side of the House maintain rightly—have control of the second channel, they should take into account very scrupulously the feelings of the people and the type of programmes the people want and demand from RTE 2. We had the spectacle just before Christmas of people in the one channel areas being used as a pawn in the game at the time of the threatened strike by the people in RTE 1. We do not want a situation like that to occur again. We do not want to be held up to ransom by any television group, be it RTE 1 or RTE 2.
We expect from RTE 2 better local coverage than we are getting from RTE 1. I am afraid my criticisms of several years ago have gone unnoticed. We still have a very distinct metropolitan bias on RTE. Some small effort was made to readjust the balance. Very few people in Dublin watch RTE television. People in the one channel areas have no choice other than RTE. It is surprising that we should have such Dublin-orientated programmes coming out from that station.
Not very long ago the vocational school in Bandon won the Aer Lingus award for a group project. This was hardly mentioned by RTE. They were interviewed and, as they thought, filmed for television but, so far, there has been no programme dealing with this great achievement by the Bandon vocational school. That is why people feel such frustration in relation to the administration of RTE.
We hope that when RTE 2 comes into operation it will take into account the feelings of the people down the country and the kind of programmes they want. We have had an absolute surfeit of programmes dealing with all sorts of issues of no interest whatsoever to people generally in the country. If someone wants to talk about abortion, contraception or other subjects that some leftist researchers think we should be plied with from time to time they seem to find a ready platform on the current affairs programme or some other programme. It is no harm to have it go out now from this House that, if RTE 2 does not give the programmes we want, then we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure we get the kind of programmes we want.
Just by way of an aside, I wonder who was responsible for the decision to cut down "Today in the Dáil" on radio. Initially an effort was made to cut it out but subsequently it was decided to reduce the amount of time devoted to it.
I would point out that this is widening the scope of the debate.
I refer to it in order to prevent the same kind of whizz kid doing the same sort of thing or having the same power on RTE 2.
I am sure the Deputy realises this would be relevant on the Second Stage or on the Final Stage.
I think it is relevant on this.
We are here confined to rebroadcasting.
I agree and that is why I am concerned about the type of programme that will be rebroadcast. We want to ensure we do not get the kind of filth coming out at the moment. We want to ensure there is someone with a sense of responsibility to the people who appreciates what the people want. In regard to the programmes rebroadcast presently, such as "Match of the Day", they are very welcome and have a huge viewing public. The complaint mainly is we do not get enough sport on RTE 1. Certainly we get nothing like what comes out from BBC or ITV. I would urge those responsible for the programmes rebroadcast to remember that the people like sport and are interested in it. I hope the maximum number of programmes will be rebroadcast so that people in the country will enjoy the same viewing facilities those in the multichannel areas have at the moment.
I referred to the whizz kid responsible for trying to cut out "Today in the Dáil" and, having failed to do that, reducing it from 15 minutes to ten minutes. This is an example of someone wholly out of touch with the feeling in the country because that is one programme that is listened to by people who want to find out what is happening here. Apparently there are pseudo-TDs in RTE who are taking the decisions for us here. I say this to ensure we do not have a repetition of that kind of performance and that we have a rebroadcasting of all that is best on the other channels, not alone, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, in Britain but elsewhere as well. We will have to take very seriously the strengthening of the signal to ensure we get across to the people in the Six Counties. As he said also, a very small percentage are receiving RTE 1. There are skilled people in my constituency in south-west Cork who do not even get one channel and talking about a second channel is a bit ridiculous as far as they are concerned.
We are getting away from the amendment now.
I want to sound a note of warning. While we want RTE 2 and the best programmes rebroadcast from other stations we will not put up with just anything that is put out. If it is not to our liking we will let the Minister and the Authority know.
This is a most important matter. We have had the experience of the Minister referring to "hawking around the country" as a democratic exercise. There was no democratic exercise by the Minister in regard to the increase in postal charges, telephone charges——
That has nothing to do with these amendments.
There was no "hawking around the country" on equal pay or on the cut in the health estimate.
This is not relevant to the amendments.
I am merely painting in the background.
The Deputy cannot bring in that kind of background on these amendments.
This is in conjunction with the amendments.
The Deputy must keep to the amendments.
The Minister is now aware of the collective wisdom of the people. They were not in favour of his proposition. Up to this the Minister believed himself to be infallible in his pronouncements in regard to policy. He now knows he is no longer infallible. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out there was no consultation with the major political party. A carefully selected group came to a certain decision but a survey indicated that the collective wisdom of the people was in line with our thinking despite the efforts made by the Minister and some of his colleagues. Mark you, not all of his colleagues were in favour of his proposition. Apparently the Minister thought he might be able to overcome some opposition within his own party and some opposition within the Government by getting a group outside this House to make a decision. The position is now clear-cut. I was reading a book last night—To Katanga and Back—and I found it very interesting. It indicated that the first thing to do in times of crisis and trouble is to gain control of radio or television. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs apparently subscribes to this grabbing of this kind of installation in order to ensure that the news projected will be controlled in a very real way. Radio Telefís Éireann could well have programmes superior to those produced by the BBC. We could have “Upstairs Downstairs”——
I would remind the Deputy we are not now dealing with programmes.
We could have upstairs in the Fine Gael rooms and downstairs in the Labour rooms.
I have already reminded the Deputy we are not dealing with programmes.
And we could have "The Brothers"—Justin Keating, Michael O'Leary and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
I do not want to have to remind the Deputy again.
I just want to point out that we are capable of producing programmes which would give a realistic picture of current affairs to the people.
We could put the Deputy in charge of light entertainment.
We are not going to have a discussion on programmes.
No longer will it be possible for the BBC to project into the homes of Irish people because we can produce these programmes ourselves. I would suggest to the Minister that perhaps he might have current affairs programmes on the row going on upstairs and downstairs between the brothers who are not in agreement on section 6——
"Comrades" would be a better description.
I have told the Deputy that he must stay on the amendment.
We can project the Irish way of life in a practical way. We can make suggestions to the Minister regarding current affairs programmes that will give the general public a true assessment. Many other programmes will be mentioned in the course of discussion of this great document before the House, this masterpiece of ingenuity on the part of the Minister. We know that Irishmen have the ability to do the job. Members of RTE have produced current affairs programmes that are comparable with or superior to those made by the BBC and other broadcasting corporations.
I give the Minister full support with regard to the deletion suggested in this and in other sections. I am very glad that at last I have found some area of agreement with the Minister who has been forced to put forward the amendments. The document is a great one——
We are not dealing with the document as such. We are dealing with the amendments.
Section 6 is of vital importance. The responsible people of Ireland have given their decision and the Minister is now forced to fall into line with that decision. No longer will the people slavishly follow the Minister. He hawked his suggestions around the country and I am sure that people who took issue with him will speak in this debate. Our views were accepted by the people and they will again be accepted by them on a broader base than what we are discussing now. We hope the opportunity will come at an early stage.
Perhaps the reason for the original suggestion was that the time that could be allocated to the Minister on RTE was so limited that he felt he could get additional time on BBC 1 in order to project himself on a wider basis. He has now been told the views of the people in no uncertain terms and the speakers before me have indicated their views. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the points I made about the excellent programme RTE 2 can make. I would mention the row in the Fine Gael and the Labour Party rooms——
The Deputy continues to repeat what has been ruled out of order. If he repeats it again I will ask him to sit down.
I do not wish to offend the Chair. I merely wish to be helpful to the Minister because he has become so confused——
The Deputy has been ruled out of order.
I studied the Bill in great depth as it was presented to the Seanad and it is rather confusing to see the amendments now put down by the Minister. It shows how confused he is and how he has underestimated the intelligence of the people. In future they will not be misled by the Minister or by any of his brothers from the other side of the House who may participate in this debate.
I will be very brief because there is consensus in the House in favour of the amendments. Deputy Fitzpatrick, as was his right, referred to the past history of this matter and I think it right that I should put my views on the record. He stated I was adamant on rebroadcasting BBC but that is not quite right. What I was adamant on, and the record shows this, was the right of the people, particularly those in the single-channel area, to receive a service they would regard as satisfactory——
(Dublin Central): We agreed on that also.
Yes. There was then a controversy about what exactly they wanted and thereupon I gave two assurances in the Seanad. The first was that RTE would be free to explain to the people what exactly they had in mind by way of second channel because there was considerable confusion about what it would be. The second undertaking I gave was that there would be an opinion survey taken on a scientific basis after the matter was fully discussed and that I would abide by the results of that survey. I fulfilled those undertakings.
I believe the discussion that took place was useful and I think this is also the view of RTE. It put RTE in the position of getting out and explaining to the people in the single-channel area what they had in mind and how they would use the second channel. They explained what had not been clear before then, that approximately four-fifths of the time on the second channel would be devoted to transmission of various programmes from BBC, UTV and so on. It was on the basis of that presentation that the people in the survey opted for RTE 2. I immediately recommended to the Government that RTE 2 be accepted and the Government agreed with that. All of that was a useful exercise, both for the people in the single-channel area and for RTE. In the course of the discussion on the activities of RTE, they were in a position to learn a good deal about the nature of the demand in the single-channel area. Most Deputies would probably agree it was quite useful to bring the national station into closer contact with popular demand.
Some expressions have been used here which I would rather deprecate. Deputy Dowling referred to the decision of the responsible people of Ireland in favour of RTE 2. I see no reason to question the degree of responsibility of that considerable section of the people who were of a different opinion, who in fact wished for rebroadcasting of BBC 1, including approximately half of the population in the cities of Limerick, Cork and Galway. I would hesitate to stigmatise half the population of these considerable cities as irresponsible. They were in the minority, that is all.
The Minister is, perhaps, being too glib, too smart by half in trying to quibble, as it were, at this stage over the stand he took during the course of a number of months, which the deletion of section 6 now covers.
The Minister questions the contribution of Deputy Fitzpatrick. The Minister said Deputy Fitzpatrick was not quite right when he said the Minister went in serpentine fashion through the country trying to get people to accept BBC 1. The facts are that in the earlier stages of the Minister's campaign to get the public, in particular the people in the single-channel area to accept BBC 1, the Minister personally and through his office, and through the Government propaganda machine which he controls, did his utmost to persuade and influence the viewers in the single-channel area what was best for them. Copies of scripts by the Minister, speeches which he made in the earlier stages, are available and, indeed, on occasions I myself had publicly to correct the Minister and point out to him where he had publicly advocated that the second channel be used for the dissemination of BBC 1. I think it is only right and proper that if the Minister now wants to backslide from the stand which he took then, the facts must be pointed out to him.
The Minister's whole attitude has been, to say the least, schizophrenic. Undoubtedly, the Minister wasted valuable time going around the country to meetings hoping that he was meeting the popular demand. The Minister said he would try to meet the wishes of the people. That is in line with what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach the other evening regarding trying to buy popularity by putting through the Social Welfare Bill. If the Minister's effort in trying to give us BBC 1 was just another effort to try to buy votes for this crumbling Labour/ Fine Gael Government that can be understood.
The Minister should know that the Government are expected to lead from the front not from behind and that what the Minister did and the way he did it were wrong. As time went on and as this debate changed from one county to another and when he saw that public opinion was mounting against him, it is fair to say the Minister changed his mind. The Minister was not as definite at that stage as he was in the initial stages. I was present at a couple of those meetings and I could easily detect the change of attitude on the Minister's part. It is only natural then that when the Minister was in the Seanad he gave assurances that RTE would be free to explain their position. With all due respect to the Minister, I am quite sure RTE were going to explain their position anyway. The Minister did say that an opinion survey would be taken. In fairness to the Minister, while the debate was raging it certainly was a good ploy but not good in the way the Minister thinks. It was good in this respect, that those of us who use television in the single-channel area almost continuously saw a remarkable improvement in the output of RTE. We saw RTE making an effort to impress the viewers.
They gave the viewers for the first time decent programmes which they wanted.
It did have this effect and I am sorry to say that the output which was excellent during that crucial period is not anything as good as the present time. Certainly if competition is to lead to better television, then RTE should not fall back on their soft seats so early on as they seem to be doing.
At that stage, particularly in the west and south-west of Ireland, there was no question of the transmitter being at less than half strength in sending out signals as we have had since last October and right at the present time. The situation is that there was more to this than the Minister trying to meet the public demand or buying votes for his political party grouping in the Coalition Government. It was deliberate ploy on the Minister's part to try to camouflage the economic situation as it was at that time. I think the Minister will be man enough to admit that for the length of time he was on his BBC promotion tour of the country he was taking the local newspapers and television in the single-channel area away from the economic conditions at the time. He succeeded.
I think the Minister is wrong in one important fundamental principle and that is, leading from the rear. The Minister is in a responsible position and as a member of the Government, which he was when he went around the country, the Minister should have given the lead and put forward his views rather than asking people who were confused as to what was involved in BBC 1 or RTE 2 or what was involved in the suggestions of the Minister against RTE 2 or against the suggestions put forward by our party at the time. I believe the Minister did a disservice to the whole concept of broadcasting in helping to create this confusion, and in helping to keep it alive. I feel that this could have been avoided.
I feel that as in other areas in Government, the Minister responsible should say, "This is what we believe as a Government, part of our job and responsibility. We believe that this is the course that should be followed rather than having the sort of service we have". Nobody denies that people must have the opportunity of saying what they want at all times. Nobody was taking away the rights of the people in these areas but when this was being voted on and when the publicity was mounted as a result of this voting in the different centres the Minister went to it took on an entirely new picture altogether. The decision that was eventually decided on, that the second broadcasting service in this country would be under the responsibility of RTE, is the proper one. As I said many months ago in public debate with the Minister on this matter, I hope there will be a representative committee from the single-channel area who will have a say in the type of programmes put out so that those who live in the single-channel area will through the committee made up of people in the single-channel area, be able to have direct access to the RTE Authority and put their views to them so that better television will be available to those people.
(Dublin Central): If I said the Minister was adamant what I inferred was that when this Bill was drafted—not as the debate proceeded because it became quite obvious to me then that the Minister was changing his mind—the Minister was quite convinced that this was the best solution for the second channel. If I used the word “adamant” I used it in that context. I assure the Minister that I was in no doubt at all after about a lapse of three weeks and having followed some of the debate in the Seanad that the Minister was changing his mind on the whole matter. It became quite obvious the complications which would arise. The complication with regard to copyright is a most complicated and insurmountable one. I am sure the Minister knew well that he was getting himself into a very difficult area with regard to the copyright. He knew very well the decision the employees in RTE had taken with regard to this situation. It would undermine the whole strategy of the organisation taking this channel away from the realms of RTE and handing it over to be used by BBC.
The view was put forward at that time that there would be redundancies of up to 600 in RTE if the Minister's proposals were put forward. It was quite obvious that the Minister's mind was changing when these things came to light. If he allowed the BBC to be broadcast in its entirety it would be a sad state of affairs in our present economic situation when we have 120,000 people unemployed. If the survey had gone in the Minister's favour, we would be raising capital, building transmitters throughout the country and when the money was spent we would hand this valuable asset over to be used as the BBC felt like using it. We have heard too much over the past month of contracts going outside the country. The Minister would be doing this under section 6.
It was my colleague, Deputy Collins, who first started this campaign when the Minister passed out his survey. When we put forward our proposals we stated that we intended to keep this television station under Irish control. That was a definite decision, and we stood by it. We also put forward our proposal that we would establish a programme council. We intend to do this if we get an opportunity, which might not be too long off. The members of the programme council would be representative of the rural parts of the country. People would be in a position to put forward their views as to the type of programme they wanted.
We have too much violence in television programmes today. I would like to see violence on television minimised. I have young children and I know what an impact violence can have on them. I am glad we have succeeded in having this section deleted. Members of the Seanad tried to have this done but they failed. All during the summer our party tried to convince the Minister of the consequences of allowing this section to remain in the Bill. The Minister should have withdrawn the section at that time. Valuable time was wasted in the Seanad debating this Bill. There are several important pieces of legislation which the Seanad could have been employed discussing instead of debating this section. We know that 90 per cent of debating in the Seanad was taken up debating section 6. The Minister is not deleting this section by choice. It was the decision of the people and their decision must be abided by.
We respect the opinion of the people who voted for BBC 1. I have not at any time said that those people have not the right to vote for BBC 1 but we must respect the views of the majority. I am glad the Minister abides by the majority rule. I hope the second channel will be properly utilised. I hope the choice of programmes on the second channel, which will now be established under the control of RTE, between BBC 1, UTV and some European programmes as we become more integrated in the European Community will be a pleasant surprise for the people who voted for BBC 1.
A lot is expected of RTE now. They will have to give the choice of programmes necessary. If I got the choice in the morning, I would not opt for BBC 1. I have experience of looking at the programmes on all those channels for the past ten years. Many of the programmes put out by RTE are also put out by BBC 1 and UTV. We will be giving the people in the single-channel areas the choice they would not have if they opted for the choice the Minister was offering them. How soon will the new channel be in operation? How much capital has already been spent? Will our economy be strong enough to get the new channel introduced? What is the opinion of the Minister in relation to these matters? When will the new channel come into operation?
In view of the deletion of section 6, could the Minister give us the starting date for RTE 2?
That does not seem to arise now?
Would the Minister like to make any comment?
As the Deputy knows, the Bill has to go through other stages and we are only dealing with amendment No. 1 at the moment.
The Deputy can put down a question on that.
Is the Minister saying that he is not in a position to give us any idea as to when it will start?
We cannot deal with that on these amendments.
Well, approximately. We are not looking for any political point to be made. It is a perfectly reasonable question in view of the deletion of section 6. Another important point as far as our party are concerned would be the people who would be selecting the programmes.
We cannot raise that on these amendments.
I do not want disagreement with the Ceann Comhairle, but if we are going to rebroadcast programmes somebody has to decide which programmes are to be rebroadcast, and surely section 6 is totally relevant.
If agreed, section 6 is going out. There will be no statements.
There is a way open to us if we have to, and that is we can table another amendment at this stage which will open arguments and discussion on it.
Under the section we are dealing with the amendments.
The Minister is quite willing to answer the question which is only a separate one, (a) to give an approximate date when RTE 2 will be starting, and (b) who makes the selection of programmes. Would the Minister accept that it is important that representation from the one-channel viewing areas be on a committee or a board or whatever group makes the selection because——
The Deputy must not raise matters other than those relating to the amendment.
I accept the Chair's ruling. Is the Minister willing to give us any idea of when he is going to start RTE 2?
A Deputy
We would love to hear it from the Minister.
I am in the hands of the Chair.
I am still waiting for it and the whole country is waiting for the date.
I am in the hands of the Chair.
That means the Minister is not going to answer then?
Have I the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to answer the points raised?
If the Minister wishes he may answer the question.
As regards when RTE 2 will be on the air, the transmission networks are scheduled to become completed before the end of 1976 or early 1977. While RTE have not yet indicated when they hope to inaugurate the new service, I am sure they will wish to provide a choice of television programmes, particularly for viewers in the single-channel areas, at the earliest possible date after the completion of the transmission network. That is as far as I can answer on that at the moment.
As regards who will control RTE 2, like RTE 1 it will be under the general control of the RTE Authority who will, I am sure, appoint a controller of programmes in the usual manner for the new service.
With regard to what the Minister has stated we understand fully that RTE 2 will be under the RTE Authority, but can the Minister at this stage say if any provision will be made so that people from the single-channel areas in the form of an advisory committee to the RTE Authority will have a say in advising as to what programmes will be transmitted in RTE 2?
Regarding the question of an advisory committee for RTE 2, in the course of my opening speech on the Second Stage of the Bill on the 28th October, in Volume 285, No. 3, columns 410 and 411 I said:
This Bill provides for the transfer of power to appoint advisory committees from the Minister to the Authority... 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 an extension to the single-channel area of a service already available in the multichannel area. Furthermore 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.
That is my answer.
That is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The only slight misgiving I have about it is in the event of the type of programme being selected not being suitable or acceptable to the people in the one-channel areas, would it not be better to include some sort of advisory committee to whom they could go rather than try to contact the Authority, who we all know can be impersonal at times? Would the Minister consider the appointment of such a committee?
As I told the House at that time this Bill itself provides for the transfer of the power of the appointed advisory committees from the Minister resident at the moment to the Authority, so it would be for the Authority to decide that. In the event of it becoming clear that the service provided was not satisfactory, then that is a matter which will be discussed with the Authority. I have no reason to doubt that if the Authority felt that such a situation was arising where it might be losing contact with the people in the second-channel areas, it would be willing to give favourable consideration to the setting up of such an advisory committee, but it will be for the Authority to decide.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 1a:
1a. In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and not otherwise the members of the Authority or any member thereof may be suspended or removed from office, if, and only if, an order under this section is made by the Minister for stated reasons contained therein.
(2) The Minister may by order suspend for stated reasons every and any member of the Authority named therein provided that upon the expiration of thirty days from the date thereof the said order shall lapse and have no further force or effect and the suspension thereby made shall be annulled and deemed never to have been made unless before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order resolutions approving and confirming the same shall have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(3) Upon the passing of resolutions by both Houses of the Oireachtas approving and confirming an order made under subsection (2) of this section the members or member named therein shall be deemed to have been removed from office with effect from the date of the order and shall be so removed unless otherwise provided in the said resolutions.
(4) Where the Minister by order under subsection (1) of section 31 of the Principal Act as amended by section 17 of this Act, directs the Authority as therein provided and the Authority fails or refuses to comply with the order the Minister may by order under this subsection remove every and any member of the Authority from office and every order so made by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and the provisions of subsection (1B) of the Principal Act as provided by section 17 of this Act shall apply to the order under this subsection.
(5) Where in consequence of suspensions made by order under subsection (2) of this section the members of the Authority competent and willing to act are less than seven in number the Director-General together with the members competent and willing to act, if any, shall discharge the functions of the Authority for the period of thirty days from the date of the order but no longer unless resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas within that period otherwise determine.
The House will understand that section 2 is now under discussion as well as the amendment, as the amendment involves the deletion of the section.
(Dublin Central): Our amendment provides that a member of the Authority may be suspended or removed from office. We believe that the Minister is the appointed person in relation to the appointment of the Authority and that when appointing the Authority, he does not have to come into the House to get sanction for the appointment. He can appoint in his own right. I can envisage a situation arising in which much embarrassment would be created for the Minister, and I am dealing in particular now with suspension and removal. I want to make it clear that I have full confidence in the Authority and personally have no axe to grind in relation to any member of the Authority, but we believe that the amendment will protect the Minister in addition to strengthening the whole RTE organisation.
I know from my experience of business that there are occasions when it becomes necessary to suspend and we know that in the ordinary course of business where a serious fault has been committed, a normal procedure is laid down by trade union practice, which gives a right of suspension. This is very valid, but the position is that it takes a good while to get a conciliation committee or a labour relations committee together to decide a particular issue. It can take a week or ten days and during that time the person concerned stands suspended. He does not stand sacked by any means and he is not removed but temporarily suspended for good and valid reason. A person in charge of a business or a factory cannot be allowed to continue in full operation during the time when these labour relations consultations are going on. The Minister, or some other Minister at some future date, may find himself in this rather embarrassing situation. I repeat that I have the fullest respect for the present Authority but I am looking into the future and to the possibility of some such situation arising.
The Minister under this section will have to convene Dáil Éireann, if it is not then sitting, before he can remove or suspend any member of the Authority and we know that this can take a considerable time. The matter could arise during the Christmas or Summer recesses and the Minister could be presented with a problem in convening the House in which there could be a protracted debate on such an issue. The Minister, in my belief, would be weakening his position in this type of situation. This function should be an executive responsibility as it has always been, and the Minister of the day has always acted responsibly in the past, but this is undoubtedly an executive responsibility and he must accept his responsibility in the matter of doing justice to the RTE Authority and RTE. There is nothing which so undermines an organisation or business as a weak executive at the top. Every organisation in business which is strong and progressive has expanded and progressed under good management, and if there is one thing which employees down the line can detect immediately, it is weakness at the top.
Is the Deputy suggesting that the Minister is the executive in charge of RTE?
(Dublin Central): No. He is the ultimate man where the Authority is concerned, the man at the top in this regard. If the Minister at the top does not accept his responsibility, it will reflect down through RTE, and I am speaking in that context.
This is a long and complicated amendment, but we feel that this is the Minister's duty. I want to make it perfectly clear that we do not want to act in any dictatorial manner. When it is a matter of removal or suspension, a resolution will have to be brought into the House and passed. That is very proper, but during that time we are conferring a right on the Minister in relation to the proper running of the organisation which we believe he should have. We believe he should have this right and by exercising it he will have to come to this House and justify his actions under sections 1 and 2. That is only fair and nobody can say we are being dictatorial in that.
In the other sections the Minister would have a right to remove a member of the Authority. We are doing this because of the provisions of section 17. That section provides:
Where the Minister is of the opinion that the broadcasting of a particular matter or a matter of a particular class would be likely to promote, or incite to, crime or would tend to undermine the Authority of the State, he may by order direct the Authority to refrain from broadcasting the matter or any matter of the particular class, and the Authority shall comply with the order.
No Minister would give such a directive or interpret that section loosely. It is a serious matter particularly when we hear so much today about law and order. The Minister has expounded that principle and told us how important it is on many occasions. If the Minister believed that section was being broken he would be justified in making such an order and insisting that it be obeyed. In the event of it not being obeyed subsection 4 of our amendment is justified.
We considered these amendments seriously and we believe they are for the common good. The Minister, if he thinks deeply about our amendments, will find that there are no selfish motives attached. He will find that we are not trying to restore the section in the old Bill as it stood. We are endeavouring to help and strengthen the Authority. We believe the Minister should carry the authority contained in parts of this amendment. I am sure the Minister will find that the substance of the amendment will help the RTE Authority and himself.
I should like to recall briefly our approach on Second Stage. In his opening statement the Minister recognised two essential points which were difficult to reconcile. The first was that the Authority should be in a position to carry its responsibility and have the necessary autonomy to do it. The second point was that there would be certain areas in which the Minister could not relinquish his control. The Minister aimed to give the maximum authority while retaining, in certain areas, as contemplated in section 17, specific control. The whole spectrum was covered on this from complete abdication by the Minister— giving responsibility the whole way— to the other extreme where it was argued on Second Stage that the Minister should not delegate any responsibility.
During the course of that debate I said that when people are given responsibility they must be given the security to discharge the responsibility. I also argued that if the Minister was retaining control in a certain area that control would have to be effective. I did not see any essential difference in approach between that of the Minister and myself. However, from the Bill it seems that not only was there the difficulty of reconciling these two desiderata there, but, in fact, they were put in opposition to one another and were practically contradictory. If one has a situation where a member of the authority can only be removed by the cumbersome procedure of coming before the House, on the one hand, and the necessity claimed in section 17, on the other hand, for the Minister to be in a position to give an order, an impossible situation could develop.
The Minister could be completely frustrated and, from a legal point of view, one could put the Authority in the position of virtually snubbing the Minister. On Second Stage we pointed out that in cases where the Minister would feel he was justified in interfering they would demand urgency of action or else any action the Minister would take would have the net result of aggravating rather than coping with the problem confronting him when he intervenes. With that basic outlook before us it seemed that section 2 was too protective; it excludes the Minister. The existing provisions in the original Act were too inclusive, too paralysing. Therefore, the structure of the amendment is an attempt to meet this.
Sympathising with the Minister in the desire that the Authority should have very real autonomy and the security necessary to exercise that autonomy properly, it was desirable that summary dismissal or suspension by the Minister would not be indulged in quickly. Subsection 1 of the amendment states that no member of the Authority can be removed in any way by anybody except as provided in the section. That is a general protection, an outlining of the domain, a limitation that precludes arbitrary action. On the wording of subsection 1 of the amendment, there is an absolute protection given to the members of the Authority, as absolute as that in section 2 of the Bill. Subsections 2 and 3 of the amendment visualise the case of a suspension. I am still dealing with the area where the Minister wished to delegate autonomy and responsibility and when I come to subsection 4 of the amendment I will be dealing with section 17 cases. Subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment visualise the case where, for one reason or another, it may be desirable to suspend a member of the Authority.
These may be very different reasons from those operating where the Minister would intervene. I could visualise a number of cases where suspension might be desirable in the public interest, and even in the interest of the Authority. A member of the Authority might go so completely out of line that the rest of the Authority might go to the Minister and say: "We have to do something about this". I can visualise a number of cases where it would be desirable that the Minister would have power of suspension. When you say that simply, immediately and quite rightly you are informed that you are defeating the whole idea of autonomy if you give a power of suspension like that without qualification—but there is a qualification.
That suspension cannot be exercised without coming before the House. If it were exercised without coming before the House within 30 days, the Minister would have to carry the odium and the publicity for a performance which would be obnoxious and inept. A suspension must be brought to the House. That corresponds to the provision in section 2. The effects of subsections (1) (2) and (3) of the amendment are nothing more than the spelling out of section 2 in the Bill with, however, interim power given to the Minister to suspend, pending the decision of the Oireachtas. I hope I am making my point clear to the Minister.
The only difference in effect of subsections (1) (2) and (3) of the amendment and section 2 as it stands, is that, as the section stands, no action could be taken until the decision of the House was made. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, this would entail considerable delay and probably a great deal of embarrassment. We are suggesting the provision of a power of interim suspension where the Minister thought it desirable to act. It is perfectly possible to imagine a case where one or two members of the Authority might go off the rails and the majority of the Authority would come to the Minister and ask for immediate action.
Subsection (4) is a different kettle of fish. In our opinion, quite rightly the Minister has retained certain powers in section 1. The wording of this amendment would possibly be improved from the draftsman's point of view in its ultimate form in the Bill. It had to be worded this way because it is an amendment to an amending Bill. I am sure what it means is intelligible to the Minister. If the Minister gives an order under section 17, there are provisions in paragraphs (1A) and (1B). These are being accepted. It is provided that the authority shall comply with the order. The practical question is: suppose they do not? I need not labour the point that such a situation could arise. What does the Minister do?
(Dublin Central): He tries to recall the House.
This may not be altogether feasible. It may not be done in time, and he may have an urgent problem. Subsection (4) is proposed to the Minister to give him the necessary power to enforce his authority in the area he reserves in section 17. It is agreed that he should reserve that authority. We believe he should have the power to enforce that authority. Subsection (4) does nothing more than give him power to enforce his order and the necessary power to act swiftly. Swift action might very easily be necessary—not only desirable but highly necessary. It might be impossible to recall the Dáil. The Dáil cannot be recalled for a number of days anyway. This subsection is commended to the Minister on that basis.
Subsection (5) of the amendment is purely administration and deals with who takes responsibility if the Authority are gone in the case of a suspension. In the case of a suspension which is not put through the House, in the end the Authority are in the same condition as they were in the beginning. They are vindicated. In the meantime someone has to carry on. Subsection (5) of the amendment is purely an attempt to provide that there is no hiatus.
In summary the substance of the amendment is this. No member of the Authority can be removed except in the circumstances of this section. In all ordinary cases within the area where the Minister wishes to give autonomy, exclusive of the area he has specifically kept to himself, subsections (1), (2) and (3) really do no more than section 2 of the Bill, with the one practical provision of power of interim suspension at the end of which the Minister, on the recommendation of the House, decides that the suspension should be made permanent and there is a removal, or else the Authority or the members of the Authority are vindicated and reinstated and the Minister has to carry the odium of having made a mistake in the opinion of the House. That puts everybody on a fairly fair basis.
Subsection (4) is in a totally different category. It enforces the power which the Minister is rightly claiming under section 17. The wording is intended to keep the procedures and the structures as close as possible to what the Minister visualises in the Bill. As I say, subsection (5) is purely a provision to avoid a hiatus. I hope the Minister will see that a logical attempt is being made to meet his policy of giving autonomy and security over the greater part of the area while preserving special areas. In that one is assuming, of course, that the Minister cannot and neither can this House completely abdicate their ultimate responsibility to the public.
The Minister as a member of the Government and an executive of the State cannot abdicate all his powers and responsibilities. Even though he is not an executive in the sense which prompted him to pose the question a moment ago he still has a function of authority and supervision. This is an effort to give the Minister power and protection and to give the Authority power and protection. That is the logical case to be made for this amendment.
With regard to the power of suspension it is conceivable the Authority would want it just as much as the Minister. Instead of there being a conflict between the Authority and the Minister this would facilitate efficient co-operation. I will not labour the point. I think the Minister appreciates the point. Would he consider it a great discourtesy on my part if I go back now to a committee in which I am involved very closely at the moment, the Corporation Tax Committee?
I would like to refer specifically to a difficulty I see, a difficulty I believe the Minister will encounter unless he accepts this amendment. What we are discussing here is a situation we all hope will never arise but we have to take precautions. We are dealing with what would be an emergency situation and I hope the Minister is receptive to something complementary to his proposition. I can foresee a certain inhibition unless the Minister accepts the amendment. Reference was made to the Dáil being in recess. That would not present an insurmountable difficulty. Suppose there is a general election. The Dáil has been dissolved. What will happen during the period of dissolution? Are subversive elements to be allowed to remain until the new Dáil comes into being? The Minister nods his head. A general election would mean that the Dáil would be dissolved for at least a month.
Does the Deputy mean if the Dáil had decided there was no subversion and the Minister was wrong? Is he talking about the position where the Dáil rejected a ministerial order?
I am talking about a situation where there is no Dáil in existence.
I am sorry. I misunderstood.
The Dáil has been dissolved. The Minister is concerned about a situation, perhaps a situation that precipitated the general election, and he finds himself still Minister but with no Dáil and with all sorts of botheration, to use that mild word, rampant in the organisation. Does he think that a desirable situation? If the Minister had the powers Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment would give him, he could cope with the situation. The question is what happens when there is no Dáil.
I believe the section as a whole is far too weak from the point of view of the proper exercise of authority by the elected Government. I can visualise all sorts of things happening. There could be difficulties in the middle of a general election because of some national issue or crisis and the Government would not be in a position to deal with the Authority or the executive of the Authority. Even though it may call for the exercise of a little imagination, it is as well to spell out that awkward situations may arise under section 2, and that it might be necessary to get resolutions through the House. For that purpose the House must be sitting but the House is not always sitting.
I have spoken on this in the past. I believe the general principle of accountability of a government to the Dáil for the actions and performance of a State body should be precise. It is the duty of a Minister to whom the State body reports to take the decision in exercising authority. I do not think the Dáil, to which the Government and the Minister are responsible, should come in the way of exercising that authority which is how I see section 2. Perhaps the Minister may be over-reacting to what he may have thought was the over-exercise of authority in the past. I spoke on this on radio before and after the particular occasion. The fundamental thing is the responsibility of the Government to the Dáil.
What the Minister is doing here is transferring executive authority from himself to the Dáil. I do not think it is a wise thing to do. I should prefer the risk of a government over-reacting than breaching the other principle. What the Bill is doing in section 2 is putting one particular State body out of the 52 or 53 State bodies that exist in a similar position as that of the Comptroller and Auditor General or even of judges. I do not think that is a wise thing to do.
The responsibility and the right of the Executive is to act on behalf of the Dáil and on behalf of the people. The Dáil set up a State body to run broadcasting on behalf of the Dáil, reporting to the Government and to the responsible Minister appointed by the Government. The position regarding his accountability to the Dáil should be no different from the position of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or any other Minister reporting and answering for a State body. Having had experience of this for a number of years, I admit there are all kinds of burning issues involved in a broadcasting system but I am not at all convinced that section 2 is the right way to go about it.
The amendment is a compromise between the old section 17 and section 2. It is a little complicated but it makes a certain amount of sense. I am not sure that I would have departed from section 17 to the extent to which the amendment does but I would prefer the amendment to section 2.
The Deputy is referring to section 6 of the old Act?
Yes. Even the amendment tends to tie the Minister's hands but perhaps in the circumstances of broadcasting that may not be any harm. I would urge the Minister at this time or on Report Stage to consider this question from the point of view that responsibility should be a good deal more direct than the Minister is taking under section 2.
The Chair ruled that section 2 and amendment No. 1a should be taken together. With regard to section 2 which it is intended will replace section 6 of the 1960 Act, I dealt with this matter at some length on Second Stage. I would refer to my statement at columns 285 and 286 of the Official Report dated 28th October, 1975, and to columns 1045-1046 and 1073-1081 of the Official Report dated 6th November, 1975. I do not want to cover the same ground at any length. The section would replace section 6 of the 1960 Act which reads:
The Government may at any time remove a member of the Authority from office.
The amendment in general is aimed at buttressing the autonomy of the RTE Authority, at asserting the authority of Parliament in this area and minimising the dangers of arbitrary intervention or intervention in the interests of the Government of the day which might not necessarily be in accord with the purpose of the Act or the amending legislation.
I entirely recognise that the amendment represents a carefully thought out effort at improving the Bill in the interests of broadcasting and I respect that. Through this amendment I welcome that there is a consensus in the House that the old section 6 requires amendment. Deputy Brugha deviated a little from that consensus but broadly speaking it is there and it is welcome.
It is necessary to have the authority.
I agree. The question concerns the distribution of authority and that is a question on which it is difficult to obtain any finality. Every one agrees that Parliament should have overall authority in relation to this. Everyone agrees that public service broadcasting requires a degree of autonomy but the frontiers of that autonomy and of the authority of the State are notoriously difficult to draw. My own draft represents an effort to draw this frontier in a sense more favourable to the autonomy of the Authority.
I can well understand there could be a genuine feeling that this unduly weakens the authority of the State, and that has been avoided here. The authority of the State is not necessarily best upheld by adopting or implying in legislation a suspicion of the authority set up by Parliament itself. I am only expressing a view here and Deputies may entirely legitimately differ. It seems to me that where the Oireachtas set up an authority and where the Government of the day, with the support of the majority in the Oireachtas, appoint that authority, a degree of confidence is due to the authority and that the extension of that degree of confidence, of fortification, will tend on the whole to uphold not only the autonomy required but also the legitimate interests of Parliament and of the State, so that a relation of mutual confidence is seen to exist.
In those countries where the autonomy of broadcasting is generally regarded as best upheld, the broadcasting Authority and broadcasters are in fact regardful of the legitimate needs of the State. Therefore, I would tend to deprecate legislation which would thrust in the direction of providing for every possible hypothesis in which the Authority might go collectively or individually mad and become subversive, or whatever.
I would think it likely that while our democratic State continues to exist, which we hope it will for many decades and generations to come, no Government are likely to commend to the Oireachtas an Authority which would be likely to behave in some extraordinary or subversive way, and if no such likelihood exists, I would think it unwise to proceed legislatively as if this were possible and as if every loophole needs to be stopped.
For these reasons, though I would like to be able to accept an amendment in this area, as I did accept, as Deputies may be aware, a number of amendments, including Opposition amendments, in the Seanad, I feel this amendment goes against the purpose and the general thrust of what I was myself proposing, and what I was proposing definitely strengthens the autonomy of the Authority and is in the public interest at the present time. I think Deputies opposite showed in their interventions that they themselves feel that the machinery which would be set up by this amendment is overelaborate. It seems to provide for two eventualities. First, it deals with the need to suspend an individual member or members of the Authority at a moment's notice, and two, a need to remove the whole Authority from office as a matter of urgency for failure to comply with a direction under section 31 (1) of the 1960 Act, as amended by this Bill.
However, the amendments as drafted seem to cut across the whole spirit of section 2 which was designed to give greater security of tenure to the Authority by eliminating the possibility of arbitrary action by an individual Minister or by a Government, while at the same time establishing positive control by the Oireachtas. Under the proposed suspension procedure, even though the members of the Authority are appointed by the Government they could be suspended by a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at a moment's notice.
(Dublin Central): I am sure he would consult his Cabinet before doing that.
Any sensible Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would do that. I hope all Ministers will fall into that category. I would deprecate the suggestion that my proposed section involves an abdication of power by the Minister. The Minister would still be responsible for putting the proposal before the Oireachtas and anyone who imagines in the vigorous parliamentary climate we enjoy in this country that any Minister is abdicating responsibility by binding himself to putting a measure before Parliament for approval would be very much mistaken. On the contrary, he would be actually increasing his responsibility in the strictest sense of that term.
Admittedly, the suspension would lapse if it were not approved by resolution of both Houses within 30 days, but I find it difficult to envisage a situation in which such a procedure would be desirable. Perhaps Deputies opposite, in framing the amendment, have been a little too imaginative in envisaging a situation which is not at all likely.
(Dublin Central): It would make the Minister reconvene the Dáil in time—it would keep him on his toes.
That is the Deputy's view with which I must agree to differ. The need for urgent action to remove a member of the Authority or the whole Authority should be envisaged only if the security of the State were involved. I think Deputies opposite, particularly Deputy de Valera, have recognised this. In the very unlikely event of a refusal by the Authority in an emergency situation to comply with a direction under section 31 (1), as amended by section 17 of the Bill—paragraph (4) of the amendment is intended to cater for that but the solution offered seems to me to be unsatisfactory—while the members could be removed quickly by ministerial order, they could not be replaced for a long time because the order could be annulled by a resolution of either House within 21 sitting days. This would be a most undesirable situation.
In my reply to the Second Stage debate I referred to the misgivings expressed by Deputy de Valera about the adequacy of the present section 2 to cater for urgent action in emergency situations. I said then that if the country were faced with an emergency the Oireachtas would almost certainly be in session and that if it were not it would certainly be recalled. Accordingly there should be no problem about having the resolution to remove the Authority from office discussed. If the Government wish to remove a member or the whole Authority, my view still is, though I have heard arguments to different effect here, that I should seek the approval of the Oireachtas for such a course of action. Because of the importance of an independent broadcasting service in a democratic system I regard this restraint on the part of the Government to remove an Authority as very desirable. Past history of this question shows that.
There are other aspects of the amendment which would present difficulties. My main objections to the amendment are those expressed earlier. A point was made by Deputy Tunney, and I apologise both for interrupting him and for not having understood what he was saying, on the difficulty of dismissing an Authority during an election. This seems to me to be an example of being perhaps imaginatively over-fertile in thinking what might possibly happen however unlikely. The period of a general election would be a very odd time to dismiss an Authority. Admittedly, theoretically, an Authority could run collectively mad during an election period, do very strange things, but I think it extremely unlikely and that it is undesirable to provide in legislation against the extremely unlikely. Our legislation, by providing a remedy for failure on the part of the Authority to carry out their responsibilities, should not reflect a view of that as being likely but rather should reflect confidence in an Authority set up by and constituted by the Oireachtas. Of course, another hypothesis was envisaged by the Deputy. If the question of the suitability of the Authority to remain in office precipitated an election it would be undesirable in those circumstances to dismiss the Authority until the new Dáil had the opportunity to consider the position. Again, there is the theoretical possibility that the Authority which had not been dismissed would then run riot during the general election period and would permit all kinds of excesses.
This draft section is intended for the purposes which I have stated, primarily for the protection of the autonomy under Parliament of the Authority and their protection from arbitrary intervention. It, therefore, necessarily reflects confidence in the body because we do not set ourselves to provide increased autonomy for a body in which we do not a priori feel confidence. Those are the principles, which I explained in greater detail in earlier statements, which underlie the draft section. I find the amendment incompatible in principle with the draft section and I am sorry that for that reason I am unable to accept it.
(Dublin Central): The Minister finds the amendment incompatible with what?
With the principle of my draft section.
In so far as the legislation belongs to the Minister he will have to take credit or discredit if he so desires, for what he describes as the excess of imagination which it has brought from this side of the House. I refer to section 17 and I also refer to section 2 of the Minister's legislation. If we take the Minister at his word there is no need for those sections. The Minister has made a very good case for not having section 2 or section 17 in the Bill. The same case can be made for not having either of those sections in the Bill as that which the Minister has made against accepting Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment.
My case to the Minister was that looking at section 17 I see that he is providing for a situation:
Where the Minister is of the opinion that the broadcasting of a particular matter or a matter of a particular class would be likely to promote, or incite to, crime or would tend to undermine the authority of the State, he may by order direct the Authority to refrain from broadcasting the matter or any matter of the particular class, and the Authority shall comply with the order.
That is the Minister's provision, not mine. That is the product of the Minister's imagination, not mine. With that as a basis I now move to the protection which I thought the Minister should give to himself.
I visualise the situation where an employee of the Authority is guilty of the offence to which the Minister refers in section 17 and where a member of the Authority—not the Authority in toto—is unwilling to accept the Minister's direction or his power in respect of that section and where this occurs at a time which is immediately prior to a general election. The general election is called and the Minister is there with his desire to have the member of the Authority removed. He has no Dáil to give approval, as he is providing for the legislation, to that which he desires. That is a practical presentation which politicians know can happen. I agree entirely with the Minister that what is envisaged here is of an emergency nature. I visualise one of the occasions on which I could see it happen.
I agree with the Minister that we want to give to the Authority all the power they would desire and that nobody wants to inhibit the Authority in any way, that we would give them absolute autonomy, but on the other hand there is on the two sides of the House acceptance that this precaution must be there. I believe the precaution provides for the hoped for eventuality but in so far as the provision is there at all I indicate to the Minister what I would describe as a soft area, the case where he will still be Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, or his successor is there as Minister responsible for the Authority being thwarted by the legislation which he has introduced in respect of dismissing a member of the Authority. That does not savour as much of the fertile imagination as the Minister seems to suggest. It is a real weakness in the legislation I see before me.
I want to reply briefly to one particular point which the Deputy raised. I think I have replied as best I can to the second point he raised. The Deputy made a very good debating point that whereas I fought the Opposition amendment with over-fertility of imagination about conjunctures, my own section 17 is very fertile about:
(1) Where the Minister is of the opinion that the broadcasting of a particular matter or a matter of a particular class would be likely to promote, or incite to, crime or would tend to undermine the authority of the State, he may by order direct the Authority to refrain from broadcasting the matter or any matter of the particular class, and the Authority shall comply with the order.
There are differences in degree of imagination here, because opinions may differ about whether a given matter might or might not incite to crime. There might be very legitimate difference of opinion. The Authority might look at something and say : "Well, there are dangers here, but it is right that this should be broadcast." The Minister might reach a different conclusion, equally legitimate. That is quite a probable conjuncture, not highly probable, but certainly within the order of possibility. What the author of the amendment is concerned about or what is a possibility, to my mind a very remote one, is one in which the Authority deliberately disregards an order made by the Minister under statute by which the Authority function. That is an unlikely possibility and one against which we should not be at too much pains to provide very specifically. There should be a general power in reserve, there has to be, but in my mind that is provided for adequately in section 2.
(Dublin Central): In section 2 the Minister is providing that the Authority shall be removed by the Government, by both Houses of the Oireachtas. In effect what we are doing in section 1 (2) and (3) is giving more precision, giving the right to the Minister to suspend a member of the Authority. The Minister stated that very few would appoint an Authority unless they had confidence in them. This is true. No Minister of the day who is careful about the members which he will pick for his Authority is going to pick everyone sent to him. He is going to see that they are competent persons. I am convinced that this is how any Minister would function in appointing an Authority, and I have no doubt that the Authority who are patently exercising their function today are composed of such people.
However, when we are legislating here we should be precise and know exactly what we are doing.
On numerous occasions I have seen Finance Bills going through this House, and we have had to come back the year after and rectify them because there were loopholes in them. During the course of the year the weaknesses in the Bill and in other Bills that have come before the House, have become obvious. If they have been found to contain loopholes they can be rectified the following year, making amendments to provide for that.
However, in the present situation we are legislating as regards the removal of the Authority. This is a function which I think any Minister would be very hesitant to put into operation and it is only in case of the emergencies which have been pointed out in the House that he would do so. Subsection (2) states:
The Minister may by order suspend for stated reasons every and any member of the Authority named therein provided that upon the expiration of thirty days from the date thereof the said order shall lapse and have no further force or effect and the suspension thereby made shall be annulled and deemed never to have been made unless before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order resolutions approving and confirming the same shall have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
We believe the Authority would welcome this to function in its own right. However, we envisage a situation where members of the Authority on their date of appointment, and in the Minister's opinion, could be some of the most perfect people one could select and would be perfectly suited to exercise their right within the Authority, but in the course of time, in two, three or four years, may oppose the views of the Minister or may impede the operation of the Authority in day-to-day functions. There are several reasons why they could create an imbalance in the whole operation of RTE and the Authority generally. It is to deal with such a situation that we have drawn this amendment. We want a situation where, if we abide by the Minister's section 2 the Minister would be obliged to have both Houses of the Oireachtas pass a resolution. If such a position did arise the Minister should there and then have the right of suspension. For the full and efficient functioning of the Authority any member who is impeding the progress of the Authority and of Telefís Éireann on the whole structure should be removed, and let the Authority carry on with their business. We are not trying to bestow greater powers on the Minister than he has in section 2. What we say is he will have to have a resolution approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. He will have to come to this House to justify his actions to the Members of the House.
Even under section 2 the Minister is inclined to be democratic in delegating authority, or at least so it appears. He appears to be giving the Authority more autonomy. However, this is not so. The Minister who makes this decision of removing any member of the Authority, or removing all the Authority, in effect is saying: "We know perfectly well that the Minister of the day will have a majority in the House. There is no way he will operate otherwise and hold his position as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs." He is bringing a resolution into the House to remove a member of the Authority or all the Authority. He is shelving his responsibilities and nothing else. He is asking the House to do his work for him. He knows the day he takes that decision and moves the motion in the House, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, that that resolution is going to be carried within the House. No Minister could hold his position unless he had that majority.
What is the difference between the amendment we are proposing here and that of the Minister? I believe there is none when we unvarnish it and can see it in its true light. The Minister is only refusing to accept his responsibility. There is no good in buying popularity at this price. The Minister is appointed to legislate and to do so effectively. We do not want the situation to arise in maybe two or three years. The examples which Deputy Tunney has given are valid and could arise. This is what we should legislate for. We do not want to legislate for what we know happened in the past. We should look to the future possibilities. The first, second and third parts of this amendment are doing nothing more than the Minister's section 2. The right of suspension is a normal, accepted practice in every employer/trade union gathering.
I have on numerous occasions in the past had experience of this, of being on conciliation boards in relation to a suspended person and that conciliation board deciding to restore the suspended person. Everybody knows this takes place. We are asking only for suspension. This is a normally accepted concept in business and in the trade union movement, and we know well that people in commercial life and in trade unions, who are very much alive to the whole situation, can visualise circumstances arising in which it is desirable—and trade unions have conceded it—that employers should have the right to suspend. When the whole case is brought before the labour relations machinery, it can be discussed in a pragmatic manner and the case put by both sides as to how it should work. That is how you legislate properly and let us not be afraid to do our duty with regard to the fourth section under which the Minister gives a direction. In the world in which we live today, the authority which the Minister has is perfectly correct, but unfortunately he will not be able to exercise it effectively—although he will be able to exercise it eventually when a lot of damage has been done— due to the fact that he is bound by section 2.
Deputy Tunney has mentioned examples of what could happen. The Dáil could be in recess; it could be right in the middle of the Christmas holidays, and we know how difficult it would be to convene the Dáil in Christmas week. The Minister would find a certain amount of difficulty in convening both Houses of the Oireachtas to put his function into operation. We could have the situation outlined by Deputy Tunney of the Dáil having been dissolved. These are the realities and we should legislate for them here. They are very valid examples. At no time would we wish to take autonomy away from the Authority or do anything by this amendment which they would regard as undermining their authority. I am in favour of delegating authority at all times in every walk of life, but at the same time there must be one man at the top to take the final decision. We have this new concept working well in all types of industry, but even with that devolution of authority at the top must remain the one man. Any man occupying that position will not take harsh decisions but he should be there to exercise his responsibility.
I do not believe that any Minister would deal lightly with the matter of the removal of the Authority. It is a decision which he would consider very carefully and on which he would have consultations with his Cabinet. Any Minister, finding himself in conflict with the Authority in relation to a serious matter such as is contained in section 17, would have long and serious deliberations within the Cabinet as to what steps should be taken and it is only after those deliberations that he would be in a position to exercise his powers under these provisions and would be justified in exercising his rights. When operating section 2 he will carry out these deliberations within his Cabinet to see what opinions exist within the Cabinet and when a final decision is arrived at in relation to invoking section 2, he knows perfectly well that if the decision has been taken by the Cabinet to remove any member of or the entire Authority and to get the necessary resolution passed, that member of the Authority or the entire Authority will be removed from the time the Cabinet make the decision. It is merely an exercise to bring it here and have it debated. It looks more democratic, but I do not believe that any member of the Authority is under the impression that there is anything additional given in the section as opposed to our amendment. I agree that it was different in the old Bill which provided that the Government may at any time remove a member from office and there is a big distinction between that particular section and the amendment.
I suggest that the amendment is reasonable and I am sure that every member of the Authority would welcome that situation because the members, as intelligent responsible men, know that they can be saddled some day with one member who is undesirable and who will impede their business. Any group of men would welcome such a provision, while at the same time tying down the Minister to a right of suspension. When the case has been proven, he may often change his mind in putting his case to the House so that the person may be restored. We are not giving too much power to the Minister. We are giving sufficient power to suspend so as to let the Authority function smoothly as they would wish to do. I know that if I were a member of the Authority, I would wish to have this type of section. It is practical and has nothing dictatorial about it. It is a democratic but businesslike section which is required, if any organisation is to function properly.
In regard to subsection (5) dealing with removal of certain members of the Authority, we could envisage a situation in which the Minister would suspend, but at the same time would be forced to bring a resolution before the House, and during that time, we believe, it is necessary that there should be some type of Authority functioning in relation to the day-to-day running of the broadcasting system. Under the Minister's section 2, members of the Authority may be removed by the Government from office for stated reasons. The members of the Authority know what the result of any motion moved in this House would be, irrespective of how long it would take for that motion to be passed. They are aware that once the Minister decides to move such a motion they will be removed. However, as the section stands they will have full authority and can exercise that authority during the debate on the Minister's motion. The Minister cannot do anything about that. Does he realise the significance of the matter? It is dangerous to leave the situation as it is.
I am certain that no business concern would leave a man in complete control while protracted proceedings were being engaged in to remove him. While this House, and the Seanad, would be discussing a motion to remove the Authority the members of the Authority could take decisions that would be detrimental to the security of the State. I do not say that will happen but we must legislate for that type of eventuality. In drafting this Bill the Minister had no thought of what the consequences would be. He must have realised that a debate on a motion to remove the Authority could last up to five weeks, and, therefore, he should have included a provision to restrict the members of the Authority while a motion to remove them was being discussed by this House. If the Minister visualises a situation arising where it will be necessary to remove the Authority, he has left himself open to a lot of trouble and has left our national broadcasting service at serious risk.
Our amendment includes a right of suspension while such a motion is being considered by the House. I feel sure members of the Authority would agree to the terms of our amendment. Business people would view the Minister's provision as farcical and irresponsible. We are dealing with a responsible organisation, one of the most influential services in any country and we are all aware of the responsibility that rests on the members of the Authority. If the Minister could tell me that the powers of the members of the Authority will be restricted in any way while a motion to remove them is being debated in this House, I would be satisfied to some degree but I can see nothing in the Bill to the effect that the Authority will not retain their functioning powers while that is taking place.
The section is too weak and that is why we have tabled the amendment. I agree with the authority the Minister is holding under section 17 but the putting of it into operation is another matter. If he was confronted some morning with a blatant breach of that section he would have to take the matter before the Cabinet. If the Cabinet decided to remove the Authority the Minister must move a motion to this effect in this House, but that does not interfere with the function of the Authority in the meantime. That is the great weakness of the section. The Minister will find that our amendment strengthens the Bill and will help the Authority.
I agree with the cogent arguments put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick. I cannot see how the Minister finds anything objectionable in the amendment we have put forward. The Minister reserves the right to order, under section 17, that a matter should not be broadcast if he considers it a danger to the State but, at the same time, if that order is flouted and he fires the Authority, the Authority still have 30 days in which they can do what they like. It seems to me that it would be most logical that the Authority would be suspended and that suspension would come before the House to be confirmed. I can see no difference in the sentence, as it were, on the Authority if the Minister has to do what we had to do in our time. We all recall vividly the Minister's reaction at that time. So do all the members of RTE.
Basically there is no difference. As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, it is left wide open for the Authority to do what they like for a period. It is possible that the Dáil could be recalled the next day. I will not say a lot of damage would be done because that would be under-estimating the intelligence of the Irish people. The fact is that they could become mavericks overnight. Acceptance of Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment would not change the principle enshrined in section 2 of the Minister's Bill. I do not see how it would in any way change the sentiments expressed there. All it does is strengthen another institution of the State. Whether we like it or not, the broadcasting system is an institution of the State, and a very vital one.
It seems to me that there is an inconsistency between sections 2 and 17. The Minister quite properly is taking power similar to the power under the old Act. It is very important that he should. The Minister suggested that it had been said responsibility was being transferred to the Dáil. He is correct in saying that is not what is happening. Under section 2 the Minister is removing some measure of responsibility from himself to the Dáil. I do not think this is wise. He could find himself in a situation where matter he felt should not be put across was being broadcast. So far as I can see, he has no power to ensure that it is not broadcast other than by making an order.
The Minister said he could not visualise a situation in which the Authority could get into the type of difficulties which would require him to have this power. I do not think any Authority have ever got into difficulties because of their own actions. Difficulties which arose for Authorities in the past arose from activities further down the line. This is where the problem can arise. Because executive authority is needed, and should be seen to be there, we are suggesting that the Minister should reconsider section 2 and strengthen it somewhat. I assure the Minister this is not put forward as a party political issue but because of a genuine concern that whoever is Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should be in a reasonably secure position to defend the rights of this Parliament and of the people.
I have accepted that.
(Dublin Central): I do not intend to delay the House. We have put our views on this matter. We considered it very seriously. We looked at the Minister's section and we came to some of the conclusions I have outlined. We thought there was a weakness in it and that it needed to be strengthened. We drafted this amendment. We believe it does not go too far. It would modify the old Act. It would lead to a better working relationship with the Authority. It possesses the ingredients the Minister wants. The Minister requires a certain authority. This is important in all walks of life. We did not put forward the amendment to try to reenact the 1960 Act. As it is drafted, it is removed from section 6 of the 1960 Act. It gives the necessary power to the Minister. I do not know why we on this side of the House should be giving additional power to the Minister, but we believe he requires it to carry out his duties efficiently.
Subsection (5) of the amendment gives the Director-General and the remaining members of the Authority power to carry out their functions until such time as the new Authority are appointed. The Minister does not see fit to accept the amendment. Bringing section 2 before the House is only an exercise which is intended to make it look more democratic. The Minister has made up his mind that, before he will move any resolution in this House, he will remove a member or members of the Authority. There is no doubt about that. We are more unvarnished in our approach. We are more pragmatic. Ours is a direct approach. We are not looking for the great powers which some people might accuse us of seeking. Before doing so, I hope they will read the amendment. I hope the Minister is never caught in a situation during his term in office where he will have to invoke section 2 of this Bill. If the day arrives when the Minister has made a decision to bring a resolution into the House to remove a member of the Authority, he will find himself in an embarrassing position putting his case in the House while the members he wants to remove will be exercising full authority.
In so far as Deputies opposite are preoccupied I want to be very brief. I should like to make some progress with this Bill. If Deputies are genuinely concerned about the concept that the Minister may lack power to act in an emergency situation, I would draw their attention to the powers already possessed by the Minister under section 16 of the 1960 Act. Section 16 (3) (b) provides:
During any emergency declared under section 10 of the Act of 1926, the Minister may suspend any licence under this subsection...
That is the licence to broadcast.
...and, while any such suspension continues, the Minister may operate any service which was provided by the Authority under the suspended licence.
That seems to me to provide any necessary emergency power a Minister could possibly require and, if Deputies are genuinely worried about this, and I accept they may be, I think that is the answer.
I am not familiar with the particular section and I have not had an opportunity of studying it. The Minister has only brought this out now and what was exercising my mind was the fact that the former RTE Authority were fired, not for their actions but for failure to control certain actions, as the Minister must be well aware, after many repeated warnings.
The point is that once the Authority are put on notice they are going to be suspended, or fired, or whatever word one likes to use, they would completely lose all authority over the people who were responsible for putting them in a position they could not control. While I would find it difficult to visualise anyone doing this, the possiblity is always there. Now the amendment is basically no different from the Minister's section except that we say that, where the Minister finds it necessary to remove the Authority, he should be able to do that immediately by coming before the House and having this decision ratified, but until such time as the decision is ratified, or otherwise, the Authority are suspended.
There is no use in codding ourselves that the Minister has suddenly become more democratic. It is very easy in Opposition to be slightly, if I may use a euphemism, irresponsible, but we have always regarded the responsibility of Government as a very serious function. It is something the people expect from a Government. They endorse a Government and they elect a Government to carry responsibility and, if a Government fail to be strong when they should be strong, they lose the respect of the people and the whole fabric of society is under attack with danger of a possible takeover.
What the Minister proposes and what we propose is practically identical. All we are asking the Minister to do is to be strong and have the courage of his convictions. As Deputy Brugha said, the matter could well be not the fault of the Authority. It could be something happening within the organisation and there would be a lack of power of control. As far as section 10 is concerned, at that stage we would have something approximating to a military situation where the forces of the State are brought in to take over the station and guard it. It could be described as a coup d'état. If it came to that situation we would have a real state of emergency which would not end with the dismissal of the Authority.
The Minister is not wise in refusing to accept this amendment. We fully appreciate that in 1960 the Oireachtas in its wisdom saw at that time it was necessary for the Government to have power to remove the Authority. Now we have a situation where the present Minister feels this can be improved upon. This is where the Minister is making a very great mistake. He is not facing up to his responsibility. He is trying to pass on to the Dáil and Seanad powers conferred on the Government under the 1960 Act. I know the argument can be advanced that if the Government instruct the Minister or agree with the Minister that the Authority should be removed the Minister can come here and start proceedings. Now the Government parties have a majority though at times it is a very slender majority as we saw on two or three occasions in the past few weeks when dealing with the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill or the importation of furniture from abroad. On three occasions the majority was as small as it could be. If an emergency situation arises, the Minister must come to the House, and remembering what happened on the occasions I mention, and the kind of Government we have, a Coalition Government comprised of two parties, where it is obvious agreement is not shared, or the majority do not rule with the consent of the minority on all occasions, the Minister could find himself in this Labour-Fine Gael Coalition in difficulty in getting Dáil Éireann to approve the removal of the Authority.
The Deputy's colleagues have been arguing the opposite.
I listened carefully, though I was engaged on other work, on the monitor to the arguments and when the Minister hears what I have to say I think he will readily agree with me.
The removal of members of the Authority might unfortunately arise— I say "unfortunately" purposely and I hope it will be a very rare thing. However, if such an occasion did arise, I want the Minister to understand that he must be in a position to do his job properly. The Minister may not have given due consideration to the practical problems that could arise when he comes to this House and if he were able to get the legislation through this House he might have further problems in the Seanad. All of this would take time—it could be a prolonged period—and a Government might not be too happy about it, particularly if an emergency situation existed.
If there were a time lag or a delay in the Minister acting in a responsible fashion, can we imagine the situation that would develop if the Dáil or the Seanad were in recess? Can we imagine an instance where a Government with a majority of one or two were forced to recall the Dáil during the summer recess to deal with the situation of the kind I spoke about? It is perfectly reasonable to assume that some Members might go abroad on holiday when they could not be contacted easily. We might have a situation where the Government, because of their inability to locate their members who would give them a majority in the House, would not be able to get the House to reassemble in order to get the legislation through. Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment is a good one. It gives the Government the means to deal responsibly with an emergency situation.
I understand there is no power of suspension. I do not know where members of the Government go on holiday. I wish them a pleasant holiday wherever they go; I mean that because I am sure all of them deserve it, as does every Member of the House. This is particularly so in view of the long summer session we had last year. We would not like to see too many such sessions because they were physically very severe even on the younger Members, not to mind some of the older Members. It could easily arise that members of the Government party might not be easily contacted. By their own actions, the Minister and the Government are tying their hands and they are not facing up to their responsibilities. They are putting themselves in a corner where they will not be able to act responsibly in an emergency situation.
The Minister should have another look at this amendment. I hope he does not have occasion to deal with an Authority under this section. In fact, there is every likelihood that the Minister will not have to deal with an Authority under this section because of the proper guidelines that were laid down by the previous Authority and which have been implemented, almost line by line and word by word, by the Authority the present Minister has appointed. I gather their term of office expires at the end of next May. Any Government would not want to put themselves in a situation where they were hanging by the collars of their own coats, where they were helpless and not in a position to take any action during the summer months or the Christmas period. It would be extremely difficult for the Ceann Comhairle or the Clerk of the Dáil to get this House assembled for a period of two or three weeks. If the Government think it desirable that such a situation should be allowed to occur, their thinking is all wrong.
The argument has been made by previous speakers that in this day when there is unrest in so many countries that the principal target of people who want to cause unrest are broadcasting premises, both radio and television. Many charges have been made in this House by Members of this and other parties in the last four or five years. Many people are of the belief that the Provisional IRA would never have been as popular or would not have been given the footing they have but for the way they were glamorised in Telefís Éireann in the early days.
We must be prepared. We must not tie our hands, as this section seemingly does, when we are dealing with people whose sole aim in life is to cause unrest and chaos in countries such as ours. At least the Minister should have the power of suspension. As in the 1960 Act, the Government should have the power to remove the Authority. By going along with the section in the Bill the Government will be allowing a situation to develop where their hands will be tied for many days in certain cases, and for long periods particularly on account of the way this House operates. If there was something controversial in the suspension or removal of the Authority and if the Government had to depend on a majority of one or two in their parties to get legislation through, and if they were not happy or satisfied that full membership was available to them, then the Minister and the Government Whip would be extremely slow to reconvene the House to get such a proposal agreed in this House before going to the Seanad.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.