Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Mar 1976

Vol. 289 No. 5

Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:

Before section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

"The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution in section 4 (1) of ‘ten' for ‘seven' and ‘twelve' for ‘nine'."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): This amendment is in keeping with our policy in relation to a second channel but since debate on the Bill has been disrupted on so many occasions, it is difficult to remember exactly what point we finished on. However, when discussing this amendment on the last occasion we said that in the event of the introduction of a second channel and of its being within Irish control, the Authority should be enlarged and a programme council set up. We consider an extension of the existing Authority to 12 to be appropriate at this time. I am not in favour of a very large board in any concern and would prefer compact boards which can be more efficient than the larger ones. This has always been conceded in the private sector and it is a policy that has worked effectively in the public sector—in many semi-State bodies where there are boards of seven, eight or nine people. Although the Authority with which we are concerned here may not have the large volume of employees that is a feature of other semi-State bodies, we must realise that the department concerned is very technical and, with the introduction of a second channel, will become more complex.

It is important that the second channel should have the good will of the people. In this context we consider that an enlarged Authority will help in the diversification of interests in that they will ensure that the views of those in single channel areas are taken into consideration and reflected in programmes. I can foresee the Authority having to form sub-committees consisting of members who would be conversant with the wishes of the people in the single channel areas. Preferably, the additional members we propose would be resident in the single channel areas because there is no better way of knowing the views of people than to live in their area.

The number of the present Authority residing in these areas is very small but acceptance of our amendment would make it possible to increase it.

I am not casting any aspersions on the existing Authority. They are doing a good job in trying to satisfy viewers but a second channel will give them more scope in this regard. It is for these reasons that we tabled the amendment. We are anxious, as is the Minister, that the second channel which is expected to come into operation in about October, 1977, will be acceptable to all sections of the community. From a survey carried out we know that a majority favoured a second RTE channel as opposed to what the Minister proposed originally. However, we must ensure that those who opted for the Minister's proposals will be given what we can consider a better choice than that which was suggested by the Minister in the first case. It is for us to ensure that the people generally will accept the second channel because in the main they will be paying for the service. This is why I ask the Minister to consider seriously the new burdens which the Authority will be undertaking. It will be their task to monitor programmes and decide on which are most suitable and acceptable in the various parts of the country that now enjoy only single channel viewing. The board were appointed originally on the basis of operating a single channel but the view of the proposed new channel the Minister should consider our amendment.

If the Minister looks at our amendment he will find substance in it. I do not want to see the Authority becoming too cumbersome. I am not for very large authorities or boards because I believe a compact authority can operate just as efficiently in normal circumstances in relation to other semi-State bodies. Such authorities are commercial enterprises. There are not the diverse interests in those that we have in relation to this Authority. This Authority will have to please all sections of the community. The task we are entrusting to the new Authority will be far more complicated than it ever has been. We will not be dealing with the huge volume of turnover in personnel that other semi-State bodies are dealing with. Here we are dealing with culture, news, current affairs and the various aspects of broadcasting which are technical and complex.

It would be impossible to please everybody in relation to broadcasting but I know the Authority will be anxious to do their job as efficiently as possible and to please as many people as possible. That is the reason I am putting this proposal to the Minister. I believe there is substance in it. If the additional number we are proposing in our amendment were resident in the single channel area this would give added confidence to the people in that part of the country that we are genuinely concerned that they will get a balanced programme, that it will reflect their views and that it will be the type of programme they feel they are entitled to. I have said that at various meetings we have had throughout the country that television viewers in the single channel area are entitled to as good a programme as those who live on the east coast are entitled to. Now that the decision has been taken as regards the channel it is our duty to ensure that the board are facilitated in every way to bring this type of programme to the people we are speaking about. I hope the Minister will look sympathetically at my proposal.

Ruairí Brugha

The case put by Deputy Fitzpatrick for this amendment is a reasonably good one. He is proposing that the Minister should have the power in increase the number on the Authority by two or three. I do not think we can avoid the conclusion that when one has two channels, one of which is available in the whole of the State and the other which will be available in what is known as a single channel area, we have two areas of representation and, therefore, irrespective of from where the present Authority have been drawn, there is a need through some means or other, to ensure that the very important viewpoints of those in the single channel area are represented.

There may be other ways of doing this. In fact, this side of the House have put forward proposals in this area. Nevertheless, one of the ways of ensuring it is to add two or three to the Authority to ensure this gives additional balance to the single channel area. This is a fair argument. Deputy Fitzpatrick has covered the subject pretty adequately. I have said that an addition to the Authority could be in the staff area. At present one member of the Authority represents the executive side. Unless the Minister has some ideas about how to ensure that the views of those in the single channel area are adequately safeguarded in the Authority from the time the second channel starts, this is one of the ways in which he could safeguard the interests of that element of the community.

Mr. Callanan

As a Deputy who represents the single channel area and who has gone around to inquire what people think of the second channel I would like to put forward the views of those people. I would go further than the amendment but I am prepared to settle for what the amendment contains. If a special board cannot be set up there should at least be a special committee to deal with programmes on the second channel. The people on that committee should be drawn from the single channel area taking in the south and the west and those people who cannot get any other programme except RTE 1.

I would not like to settle for anything less than three people being added to the board. It is not all I want or all the people I represent want. They want competition between the two. This would make for better programmes. They want programmes with a regional bias. People in the single channel area feel that if the one board are programming both channels the people in their area might not get what they are entitled to. The second channel may not have programmes with a regional bias, which people in the single channel area expect they should get. The people in the single channel area that I represent have asked me to try to get an independent committee—I know we cannot get this now—or at least get somebody added to the board from the regional areas who will put forward the ideas of the people in those areas. What would people in other areas know about the type of programmes the people in the single channel area want? Competition is the life of the trade. RTE 1 and RTE 2 would be much better if there was competition between them. We would then have new ideas. Therefore, if three were added to the board we would have better programmes on RTE 1 and RTE 2. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

I have considered further the question of providing for an increase in the minimum and the maximum size of the RTE Authority as proposed in Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. From what Opposition Deputies said on this amendment, the main concern seems to be that the Authority would contain sufficient people who would be in touch with the wishes of single channel viewers in regard to the second TV programme and that this was more likely to be achieved if more people were to be appointed to the Authority.

The argument was also used that the expansion of RTE's responsibilities justified a larger Authority. I understand these points and I have given careful consideration to them. I am sorry to say, however, that I do not feel that I can accept them. On the first point, an increase in the size of the Authority would not necessarily achieve the result Opposition Deputies are seeking. The maximum of nine members contained in existing legislation gives ample scope for appointing to the Authority people who because of where they live or because of their contacts or interests would have special insight into the wishes of single channel viewers. The quality of such a person or persons would be more important than the number involved or even the place of residence.

I certainly accept that a suitable number of such persons should be appointed to the Authority but this is not I feel the type of matter which can appropriately be legislated for. However, the fact that this question has been discussed exhaustively here and that the principle underlying the amendment is accepted by both sides of the House should be a sufficient safeguard to ensure that it would be borne in mind when appointments are being made to the RTE Authority in the future. Of course, other considerations would also have to be borne in mind. Deputies opposite are well aware of the different arguments that have to be balanced together in building up an Authority of this kind.

The second main argument mentioned for increasing the maximum size of the Authority was the increase in their responsibilities arising from the decision to give RTE the task of providing the second TV service. I recognise, of course, that that is an adequate consideration for introducing here a new amendment because this is a new circumstance which did not arise when the matter was before the Seanad.

There has, of course, been no change in the Authority's obligations to provide a national broadcasting service. Indeed, in one sense the second TV channel should make it easier for them to fulfil this duty by affording greater scope and opportunity to meet viewers' wishes. I think here, again, it is quality rather than quantity that counts. I would not accept that the heavier the responsibilities of a body either in terms of their diversity or sensitivity, the larger the board of that body should be. Indeed, I do not think Deputy Fitzpatrick argued that. He showed himself to be fully conscious from his own business experience that bodies of this kind could become so large as to defeat the object of diversification which was there when the membership was enlarged. A board of modest size but with high quality members is far more likely to operate efficiently and to fulfil the duties of the body. I am advised that the normal maximum size for State-sponsored companies is nine and I do not consider that a larger board than this is either warranted or desirable in the case of RTE.

I might add that the question of increasing the size of the boards of some State-sponsored bodies may arise in connection with legislation being prepared by the Minister for Labour regarding the election by employees of directors to the boards of State enterprises. It is not proposed that RTE will be designated as one of the State enterprises in respect of which the provisions of the Bill if enacted would come into effect initially, but it is probable that further State enterprises including RTE may be covered later on. If the size of the Authority were increased now to 12 and it had to be further increased later on to cater for election of workers' representatives on the Authority, there is a real risk that it would become too unwiedly for efficient operation.

I have considered this amendment very carefully because it deserves careful consideration but I am afraid I find myself unable to accept it for the reasons I have given.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I am sorry the Minister did not see my point of view. I am not in favour of a very cumbersome board. The point the Minister made about the quality of the authority is of vital importance. The quality of the personnel on a board of management is what really counts. We put down this amendment because of the additional duties of the Authority and the complexity and sensitivity of their new duties. Because a second television channel is being introduced, they will have a difficult task at the outset. Everyone will be watching the performance of the second channel. This will be the responsibility of the Authority. They will have to research the programmes well in advance apart from the producers and the broadcasters and people like that who will play a very important role. The Authority will be blamed in the end if anything goes wrong. The Authority will have the responsibility of ensuring that the second channel is a success. There is no doubt about that. They will spend much of their time from now until the second channel goes on the air in 1977 ensuring that it is a success.

I do not suggest that the second channel will be designed especially for the single channel areas. We will all benefit from it. I expect there will be programmes of interest to many of us on the east coast. I should not like to think it would be designed in particular for any part of the country. We must ensure that when it goes on the air there will be the choice of programme we enjoy on the east coast. I firmly believe we will have a better choice of programme on RTE 2 than on BBC 1. The Authority are conscious of the obligation placed upon them to ensure that the second channel is a success. It is of vital importance that it should be a success from the point of view of revenue, tam ratings and advertisements.

Broadcasting is expensive today. It is expensive to put on any performance but broadcasting in particular is very costly. The second channel must be streamlined to ensure that it will attract the viewers and justify the increased cost of the licence. In this part of the country we have a variety of channels at the moment. The Authority will have to concentrate on setting up subcommittees to ensure that the demand for variety is met.

Mr. Callanan

I am not convinced by the Minister's reply. Surely if we are to have two channels we need some new blood in the Authority. There are some good programmes on RTE 1 but it is terrible to have to pay a licence to see others. These people will now have to look after two channels. I am surprised the Minister does not agree there is a need for new blood and add three new people to the Authority. Part of his argument was that later on there may be labour representatives on it. That might be very good but it does not weigh against the argument that new blood is needed. It was expected in the single channel areas that there would be new thinking when RTE 2 was established. I think the Minister is making a great mistake and I would ask him to reconsider between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Briscoe

In the past I have been extremely critical of RTE and certain people within it. I should like to go on record now as saying that a remarkable improvement has taken place in RTE and in the variety of programmes which go out. I am fortunate enough to live in a multi channel area and I am satisfied that the programmes put out by RTE can compete with any of the programmes from other stations. I look forward to RTE 2 keeping up this high standard. According to the Reithian theory, the objective of television is to entertain, inform and educate, in that order. RTE are providing greater entertainment now and I am glad to be able to say that. In the past I have been critical when I felt it was justified but now I am very pleased to be able to say that the programmes from RTE are excellent.

I can understand the anxiety to have an increased number on the Authority in order to take account of various aspects that must be considered with the advent of RTE 2. I do not know if RTE 2 will be operating by the end of 1977; the present limitation of funds may not warrant it. From the point of view of the entertainment being provided, people are getting their money's worth in comparison with what is offered by other stations. We should be very proud of our television service, particularly with regard to the entertainment it is providing.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, line 32 to delete "written".

Before I proceed further, perhaps the Minister would tell the House if the RTE Guide is included in this section? If it is not included I will not pursue the matter.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It does include the RTE Guide.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Many other semi-State bodies such as Aer Lingus and CIE produce their own journals practically every month. RTE have been in operation for a considerable number of years and this is the first time their publication has been brought under ministerial control. My purpose for putting down the amendment is to ensure that the RTE Guide would be exempt from that stringent control.

Many of us have read the RTE Guide for many years. I do not think it has entered into any topic of a controversial nature that would embarrass the Authority. Bringing the publication under this rigid control may inhibit it in some way. We all realise there is a considerable difference between the written word and something that is broadcast. Broadcasting is the most powerful medium and all of us know how effective it can be. I should not like to think that the RTE Guide would be inhibited because of too rigid regulations.

I should like to hear the Minister's views on this matter. I doubt that the RTE Guide has ever stepped out of line but I should be interested to know if the Minister has reasons for including the publication. Semi-State bodies may issue their publications each month without any such rigid ministerial regulations. When I put down this amendment I had the RTE Guide particularly in mind. I do not think the publication has embarked too much on current affairs articles or anything similar but perhaps the Minister has some information available to him on this matter which I do not have. The section as it is may inhibit the RTE Guide to the extent that it may consider it has to look over its shoulder on every occasion to see if it is complying with the section.

Ruairí Brugha

Perhaps the Minister would tell us if the RTE Guide comes under section 18 (1) of the 1960 Broadcasting Act?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

No.

Ruairí Brugha

Deputy Fitzpatrick has made a good case. While he was talking I was trying to visualise how the RTE Guide in publishing something could infringe the new section 3 and I found it quite difficult. For example, section 3 (1) (a) refers to “all news broadcast by it is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner...”. The next subsection deals with current affairs and debate. None of this relates to the kind of article published in the RTE Guide. Its job is to publicise what will be seen on the programmes. I have been involved with the Authority and I must say that the people responsible for the RTE Guide must be complimented not only on its publication but on the way they manage to distribute it themselves. The RTE Guide is merely an advertising publication to encourage viewing of RTE television and listening to the radio programmes. It does not transmit as such and it is to the transmission of views on news which might not be impartial that the Minister is directing his efforts. He is also directing his efforts at the unequal treatment of debate.

I am inclined to think that the Minister should be more liberal in his approach by leaving out the RTE Guide for the time being. I do not think that since the television service was established the RTE Guide has ever transgressed in the area this new section is intended to operate. I suggest that on Report Stage the Minister might consider leaving out the RTE Guide. I appreciate that leaving out the word “written” might refer to other areas but I would like to see the question of the RTE Guide fully debated before one applies the principles of the old section 18 represented as they are in section 3 in an area which never came under that restriction before.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I do not know whether it is in order for me to mention that a similar amendment was introduced by Senator Yeats in the Seanad and my reply to that is to be found at columns 476, 483 and 484 of Volume 81 of the Seanad Official Report for 4th June, 1975. I should like to mention that the Broadcasting Authority were consulted in relation to the framing of this legislation. While I was not able to accept all their suggestions I accepted some of them. The Authority did not indicate that they objected to the same requirements which apply to broadcasts applying to written material which they publish. They seemed to accept that it was reasonable that the same requirements should cover both. Written publications by RTE are on a different footing from, for example, newspapers. RTE publications are produced by a corporation created by statute and bound by statutory restrictions. The corporation are financed out of public licence fees. In their ancillary activities of publishing I consider it desirable that RTE should be subject to the same restraints as regards objectivity and impartiality, and so on, as those which apply to their main operation, that of broadcasting. This seems fair and reasonable and RTE have raised no objection to the provision.

I should like to add that no reflection is intended on the RTE Guide which has been well produced, nor is it intended that it be shackled. I do not think these requirements entail undue trammelling on the liberty of actual broadcasting and I think the publishers of RTE written publications will not find them any more irksome, or irksome at all. They are precautionary rather than anything else. I would not like to give the impression that this was just aimed at the RTE Guide because RTE are involved in other written publications, for example in connection with education programmes. These may be far more extensive in the future and, indeed, I hope the development of broadcasting services would permit that kind of extension. It would hardly seem appropriate to exclude written publications from the restraints in the Bill and it was to make that clear for the future that I took occasion, in the context of this legislation, to introduce this provision. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

Mr. Briscoe

When I spoke previously I praised the entertainment side of RTE. I praised the station for the good programmes they were putting out but when the Minister spoke he mentioned reasonableness. Clause (b) deals with broadcasts in relation to current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debates, and that the Authority ensure they are fair to all interests concerned and they are presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the Authority's own views. Does the Minister consider it reasonable that Sunday after Sunday we should hear two members of the Government being interviewed on radio programmes without any representative of the Opposition being asked to contribute? If the Minister was in Opposition would he consider it unfair if Fianna Fáil members, on return to Government, were continually interviewed? When we were in Government any Minister interviewed was flanked by a member of the Fine Gael Party and a member of the Labour Party.

Many people outside this House have commented on this very notable change since this Government took office. Last Sunday we heard three speakers from the Government side but no spokesman from Fianna Fáil. On the current affairs side of things there is a certain bias which was indicated to me by people outside the House.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I take note, with pleasure, of the Deputy's praise for improved standards in certain aspects of broadcasting and I believe this will carry weight and will be an encouragement to the Authority, particularly when it comes from a Deputy who has, as is his right, been critical in the past. With regard to the question of bias, it is natural enough for political people on both sides of the House to feel sensitive about this. Some of my colleagues have come to me from time to time and told me that they thought RTE was being unduly severe on the Government. I am aware that Deputies opposite would not be likely to take the same view of the same programmes. It has not been my practice to intervene in programming except in so far as I have kept a watchful eye, as my predecessors always did, on the area of possible subversion.

My predecessors on occasion objected to the appearance of certain Opposition TDs, including myself on more than one occasion. Having taken note of this, shortly after I assumed office I informed the RTE Authority in writing that the Government had no objection to the appearance of Opposition Deputies in any capacity or at any frequency in broadcasting so they know now they are not subject to any interference from me in that direction. I believe the Authority will take note of what Deputy Briscoe has said. I would draw the attention of the Opposition to the recourse they now have. Where a Deputy or a member of the public feels the role of impartiality is being violated he has the right to complain to the present complaints review committee and, when this legislation is passed, to the complaints review commission. It is a fact, perhaps more notable when one is in Opposition rather than when one is in Government, that the public particularly wish to hear what Ministers have to say, irrespective of whether they hear it with approbation or the reverse, and I imagine that is reflected here. It would be as well if more use were made of the recourse for complaint to which I referred. I think it is undesirable that the Minister of the day should interfere in the matter of balance between the political parties. That is the view I have taken.

Mr. Briscoe

In case the Minister misunderstood me, when we were in office it was only on very rare occasions that a Minister appeared without being flanked by both sides of the House. Since this Government took office no Minister is flanked by even one member of the Opposition. Perhaps Ministers have refused. I am very interested in the Minister's invitation to refer such matters to the Complaints Committee. I do not like the word "complaints" because it connotes moaning. It might be just a case of pointing out that something was a little bit unfair. I am looking for complete impartiality. Let the Minister be under no misapprehension: there is a general feeling—it does not do the Government any good—that there is a tendency to keep Fianna Fáil off the air, particularly on controversial issues, and I am thinking here of the programme that usually goes out on Sunday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would point out that the Deputy is straying very far from the amendment.

Ruairí Brugha

First of all, I agree that partiality and impartiality depend to a certain extent on what particular side one happens to be. When I was first appointed spokesman I endeavoured to deal with the situation, to which the Minister has referred, of the failure of Ministers to appear on programmes with members of the Opposition. Now I exclude the Minister. I believe the public are being deprived of debate and information that could be engendered by good programmes in which both Government and Opposition take part. The fault has not been with RTE; it has been with members of the Government, with a couple of exceptions, the Minister being a notable one. They have avoided appearing on programmes with the Opposition. That was not the case with the previous Administration. Ministers in that Administration appeared with Opposition Deputies. That is not the pattern at the moment. There is a reluctance or a shyness on the part of many members of the Government to appear on programmes with members of the Opposition.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I would hope we would not inhibit the creativity or productivity of writers in any way. Bord Fáilte and other semi-State bodies publish some excellent periodicals. I do not think the Minister made any case for RTE in any way transgressing in this respect. I believe they have maintained very high principles and I see no reason for the restrictions the Minister seeks to place upon them here. Bord Fáilte, for example, project Ireland as a tourist area and they do that very efficiently. I would not approve of too much liberalisation but I have never found that the RTE Guide has in any way breached the trust placed in RTE as regards publishing this pictorial which is useful and concentrates on a certain line of information. It gives the following week's programmes and writes about actors and people like that. I doubt very much if it was necessary— evidently the Minister deems it was— to include it in the section. We do not want to be too restrictive. We know what we are aiming at in the section. This section, dealing with impartiality, is of vital importance. It is only right and proper that the Authority and the people working there should know what is expected of them, and that should be outlined in as simple a form as possible. The Authority may put the case that they do not know what is in the Minister's mind. They should not be left in that unhappy situation. However, as regards the RTE Guide it has worked effectively down through the years. Those producing it have not embarrassed the Authority in any way or neglected their obligations and therefore I think it was unnecessary to include them in this section.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I want to come in very briefly simply for informative reasons because Deputy Fitzpatrick said he was unavoidably distracted from a part of my substantive reply here. The point of this is that, although it does apply to the RTE Guide, it really is intended to provide for more than that. The RTE Authority are already involved in other written publications, for example, in connection with educational programmes. These may be far more extensive in the future, and I hope they will be; I think that would be a natural development of our broadcasting services. I took the view that this development ought to be regulated by the same principles as RTE's activity in the field of broadcasting itself, and the RTE Authority do not themselves dissent from that proposition. I am recapitulating very briefly and my other remarks are on the record.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, subsection (1A), lines 8 and 9, to delete "or as tending" and substitute "and".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 4 and 23 are cognate and may be taken together.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): In putting forward this amendment it is not that I want to liberalise what the Minister is aiming at but to ensure that it does not cause complications in the minds of the Authority as to what exactly the Minister wants. Section 3 (1A) reads:

The Authority is hereby prohibited from including in any of its broadcasts or in any matter referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section anything which may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime as tending to undermine the authority of the State.

We all agree that this section is necessary but we want to ensure that the Authority know where they stand and that they can operate the section effectively. If the word "tending" was omitted, the section would read: "... be regarded as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or to undermine the authority of the State." The word "tending" is very broad and it would be very difficult for the Authority to decide what would tend to undermine the authority of the State. If the Authority were to cover protests or strikes, would the Authority be in breach of the section? Would they be prohibited from showing pictures of protests outside Dáil Éireann? The Minister is probably aiming at a particular section of our community but it is not spelled out in this section. We must not be ambiguous in this. We have had too much of that on other occasions. Many things could tend to indermine the authority of the State. For instance, if RTE covered squatters protesting and blocking the streets of the city or housewives protesting against rising prices or other types of urban protest, would that tend to undermine the authority of the State? To me the section seems to be strong enough without the word "tending".

If the Minister can prove to us conclusively that it is necessary to include that word and at the same time if the Authority are happy that they can interpret and implement the section satisfactorily, well and good. However, I believe it will cause a problem, and remember it is the Authority we are speaking about here. It is no good the Minister saying to the Authority: "You are in violation of (1A) of section 3 by virtue of the fact that the programme you put out on television would tend to undermine the authority of the State." The Authority want to be sure that if they show the types of film I have already mentioned they will not be in violation of this section.

Ruairí Brugha

The argument here is, in a sense, in the mind. It is similar to what we were describing earlier: two people looking at the same programme but seeing it differently simply because they are not on the same side. I can see where the Minister and his advisers would say: "If you put on such a programme, it is likely to do something." To use the words "tending to" is stronger. I notice the two phrases "likely to" and "tending to" are used in sections 3 (5) (a) and 17.

Section 17 reads:

(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...

In my view, "likely to" is strong enough; "tending to" may, in itself, incline the people dealing with the programme to become a little fearful that they are likely to overstep. They could think along the lines: "If this is an industrial or some other protest, we better not do this in case we might be accused of having put on a programme which would tend to undermine the authority of the State." To a considerable extent it is a matter of judgment on words and, more important, it is a matter of more mature judgment on the nature of the occasion which can be serious in one area but trivial in another.

Here we must rely to a considerable extent on the judgment of the Garda. The Minister has to rely on the judgment of the broadcasters but, in my opinion, he is strengthening his hand a little too much. If he were to say to the chairman of the Authority: "I think if you put on such and such a programme it is likely to encourage...", that is fair enough. When using the phrases "likely to" and "tend to", one is giving a direct negative "do not" because "likely to" is not as strong. When one says "tend to" one is really saying "do not", in other words, one is taking from the judgment of the broadcasters. I would prefer if the Minister took from the judgment of the broadcasters by simply saying: "Do not put on that programme" rather than leaving them in this extraordinary situation where they will have to consider the difference between "a tendency towards" something and "a likelihood of" something. I am putting one side of this argument because I am no longer on the Authority.

As with the previous amendment, there is a danger here of the Minister creating a feeling in people's minds that they will have to keep on looking over their shoulders. That is not the kind of thing one likes to encourage in a broadcasting authority. One should try to give broadcasters as much freedom to use their judgment as possible. For that reason I recommend that the Minister consider deleting "tending to" in the two sections.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The wording of this subsection, as it now stands, was introduced by way of an amendment in the Seanad designed to meet objections to an earlier wording. Following a prolonged debate, it was accepted by that House. The effect of this present amendment would be to narrow the scope of the prohibition which has already been somewhat narrowed in the Seanad from the original concept, in my view, rightly. There is a considerable difference between prohibiting the broadcasting of anything which may reasonably be regarded and "being likely to undermine the authority of the State" and "prohibiting the broadcasting of anything which may reasonably be regarded as tending to undermine the authority of the State".

I appreciate the intent of Deputies opposite in raising this. It is a very moot point and they have recognised it—the point of what precise balance you have in wording between a more restrictive and more liberal interpretation. We are all agreed on the need for some restriction. It is a question of what degree and what kind. A few points have to be made here. The wording of the statute has to be fairly wide and, therefore, necessarily, like the wording of statutes, contains some ambiguity. It has to be interpreted and the Authority are there to do that. They have the phrases "tending to undermine" and "which may reasonably be regarded as tending to undermine". In relation to many of the activities Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to, the Authority could reasonably take the view that they could not reasonably be regarded as tending to undermine, that is, if the news team covered certain untoward events in the city, riots and so on, that could not reasonably be regarded as "tending to undermine".

We must also bear in mind that the Authority set up guidelines which give their own more detailed interpretation of what the statute intends. The Minister can indicate whether he regards those guidelines as adequate or inadequate. If a Minister considers that the Authority have wandered in one way or another from the intent of the statute, he has powers falling far short of the discipling of the Authority, of clarification of the intent as covering particular things.

I would also like to make this point. I fully admit that the amendment proposed here is more liberal and my own wording is more restrictive. It is a question of which is the right balance. The basic reason why I leaned to the more restrictive, that which gives the Authority power to curb broadcasters in certain conditions, is that I do not wish to malign broadcasters as a class. It would not be proper or right for me to do so. Most broadcasters are trying, according to their responsibility, to cover the news adequately, to give proper and informed coverage of current affairs or to probe into what is going on in our society. But it can occur from time to time that a broadcaster, from sincere convictions of his own, perhaps, may have a desire essentially to make propaganda. If a broadcaster is bitten by that bug he is likely to be very ingenious about it and it will not necessarily be all that obvious since he is a professional in that area.

Therefore, the Authority in discharging their responsibility need to have a provision which is worded reasonably widely and the wording we have here about tending to undermine the authority of the State is better than the alternative wording suggested. At least, that is the conclusion I have come to but I respect the motives of the Deputies who were considering otherwise and who have urged this point. On mature reflection, though, I regard the subsection as drafted as an essential restraint in this sensitive area of the general security of the State.

I should make it absolutely clear here that I accept fully that Deputies opposite are as concerned as I am with the security of the State and that they regard their wording as compatible fully with that concern but I consider that on the whole my wording is more suited to the purpose and, accordingly, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I appreciate the Minister's point of view. It is not a question of his wording being more restrictive or of our amendment being more liberal. We are anxious to ensure that the Authority will know exactly where they stand. The Minister has mentioned that the Authority can draw up their own guidelines within the meaning of the section. I expect that it will be necessary for them to do that in order to arrive at, perhaps, a broader definition of what the section contains. However, the point is that not only will they draw up guidelines to deal with broadcasters and producers but that they will have to deal also with the Minister who has his views on the section. I do not know whether any guidelines drawn up by the Authority would be vetted afterwards by the Minister but it is important that the Authority have regard to the wishes of the Minister and, in particular, to what is contained in the Bill. The words “tending to undermine the authority of the State” would pose a problem in regard to definition and this is why we were prompted to propose the amendment. There is no question of our wishing in any way to weaken or liberalise the section but we are anxious to ensure that the Authority will know exactly where they stand. I am concerned that they might be hesitant, because of the wording of this section, in regard to the broadcasting of news, especially of such items as protests, strikes and so on and that they might have a problem in regard to the word “tending” in the section. For instance, they might have difficulty in deciding whether the showing of a protest through the streets of Dublin was in breach of this subsection. This is the danger I see in the section and it is the reason for our suggesting the deletion of the word “tending” and its substitution by the word “likely”. We do not wish to put broadcasters or the Authority into a straitjacket. A certain amount of creativity is part of the lives of broadcasters and they must not be inhibited in regard to news features. It would not be possible here to spell out the types of programmes the Minister has in mind but we must not restrict the Authority too much. Comparing this section with, say, section 18 of the 1960 Act, I should like to hear from the Minister whether he considers we are creating more problems in this instance by the introduction of so much detail.

The section should be as simple as possible and should reflect what exactly are the views of the House. The Minister seems satisfied that the wording he proposes is necessary but we maintain that the same objective could be achieved by the less restrictive wording we propose. By virtue of their being selected for a commission of this nature, we may take it that the Authority are a responsible group of people. Therefore, we must give them some flexibility in regard to programmes. We agree that a section of this nature is vital to the Bill but I do not think our amendment would detract from the section but would result in the Authority being able to interpret it better. I believe they would be able to reflect the views of the Minister more clearly if the deletion was made.

Ruairí Brugha

Section 18 (1), which is the original section referred to now in section 3, tended to be a bit too simple, a laying out of the Authority's responsibilities that when they broadcast any information, news or feature which relates to anything of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate the information, news or feature will be presented objectively and impartially and without any expression of the Authority's views. Section 3 spells out in more detail what was intended to be taken for granted in section 18 (1) of the 1960 Act. I acknowledge that in subsection (1A) the Minister introduces for the first time the question of activities of broadcast which would be likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State. I welcome that because in the past I said that one of the responsibilities of the Minister is to withhold democratic institutions against any subversive efforts to undermine them. The Minister is quite right in introducing this.

The Minister is spelling out a little more clearly to the Authority what was intended to be understood in the section in the 1960 Broadcasting Act. I wonder if in the words written in in the previous subsection (IC), the Minister is going a little bit too far? I was interested in what he had to say in the Seanad on this. I would have thought that to keep things simple anything which "may reasonably be regarded as being likely to" is sufficient. One could go on talking about the difference between one word and another but there is no point in protracting the discussion too long. I feel this subsection would be better and a little simpler if the Minister were to concede the point.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

If the Chair will allow the amendment and the section to be taken together I would like to speak briefly on both of them. First of all, in relation to what Deputy Fitzpatrick has said just now about the amendment, I absolutely agree with him when he says how desirable it is that the Authority should know exactly what the Minister has in mind. This is very important. We accept that this being a statute the wording has to be general and that it is dealing with a very impalpable subject-matter, an unusually elusive subject-matter. A different Minister or a different Authority might interpret the section differently. Indeed, either or both might interpret it differently in different circumstances according, for example, as the threat to the security of the State became more remote, or more close, or seemed so. It is very desirable that each Authority at each time should know how the Minister interprets the statute or his views on it. One way of achieving this is that when the Authority issue guidelines they can issue their own guidelines. They do not have to be approved by the Minister of the day but it can help if they are. If those guidelines are approved then the Authority and the broadcasters know with a considerable degree of precision when they are deemed to be operating within the rules of the statute.

Shortly after I took office I asked to see the guidelines then operative and I approved them. The Minister can do that. As long as the Authority operate within those guidelines they know that their interpretation is upheld by the Minister. If the Minister considers that a change is desirable because of broadcasting events, or events in the rest of the real world, he has powers under this statute and its predecessor to issue directions which will then supersede these parts of the guidelines and further develop the interpretation of the section. It is very important, and will always be important in the future, that the Authority should not be in the dark as to how the Minister reads the statute. It is also important that their own guidelines should be as strongly founded as possible. I would think it generally desirable that they be approved by the Minister so that the Authority and broadcasters would know where they were.

I would like to say something about the section itself. Section 3 replaces section 18 (1) of the 1960 Act which reads as follows:

It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that, when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially and without any expression of the Authority's own views.

Subsection (1) (a) and (b) of the new section broadly restate the provisions of section 18 (1) of the 1960 Act. In addition, clause (b) requires the RTE Authority to ensure that broadcast treatment of current affairs is fair to all interests concerned.

Subsection (1) (c) requires the Authority to apply the same standards as regards objectivity and impartiality to any magazines, books, printed matter or recorded aural or visual material they publish or distribute under section 16 of the 1960 Act. We have, of course, already discussed that in terms of an amendment. Lines 38 to 44 of the section provide a slight relaxation in the requirement as regards the prohibition on the Authority expressing their own views. In matters concerning broadcasting policy which are of public controversy or of public debate and which are being considered by the Government or the Minister, the RTE Authority may express their own views subject to the overriding requirement of objectivity and impartiality in the broadcast treatment of such matters.

The final paragraph of subsection (1) gives statutory backing to the existing practice in RTE in regard to interpretation of the provisions regarding objectivity and impartiality. It is not always possible to cover all significant views in a single programme and RTE regard these provisions as being complied with if all such views are covered in two or more related programmes broadcast over a reasonable period. This seems to be a sensible interpretation and it has been incorporated in the Bill for the sake of clarity.

Subsection (1A) which prohibits the Authority from broadcasting, publishing, distributing, selling or exchanging anything which may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote or incite to crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State, overrides the provisions as regards objectivity and impartiality. Subsection (1B) is designed to promote the reasonable privacy of the individual. Subsection (1C), which relieves the RTE Authority of editorial responsibility in these areas in relation to programmes rebroadcast by the Authority by direction of the Minister, is being deleted by amendment No. 5, of course, consequential on the deletion of section 6. It is true, and I regret it, that the section is longer and rather more cumbrous than the section it replaces. That is not a criticism of the section it replaces which well served its purpose. It is natural after this lapse of years that events in the meantime should suggest the incorporation of further provisions, and that is what has happened.

Ruairí Brugha

It seems to me that under section 18 (1) which the Minister has just read, impartiality is only obligatory in controversial current affairs programmes and is not obligatory in non-controversial current affairs programmes, whereas under the new section it would be obligatory whether it was a controversial or a non-controversial current affairs programme. Does the Minister follow my point?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am not sure that I do follow it. What section are we talking about? Is it the broadcast treatment of foreign affairs?

Ruairí Brugha

That is right. Under section 18 (1) which the Minister has just read it is the duty of the Authority to secure impartiality when they broadcast any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy, or is the subject of current public debate. I am suggesting impartiality is not obligatory if it is a non-controversial programme.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

In the original?

Ruairí Brugha

Yes.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is so.

Ruairí Brugha

Under the new section, impartiality will be obligatory whether it is controversial or not.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is so.

Ruairí Brugha

The Minister wants that?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Yes.

Ruairí Brugha

Would the Minister express a view on why he thinks it is necessary?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I would be interested to hear any opinions to the contrary and I would be prepared to consider them between now and Report Stage. It seemed to be desirable that all broadcast treatment of current affairs should be presented in an objective and impartial manner. It might be construed as a defect in the original wording that they did not have to be objective and impartial unless it was a matter of public controversy. It seems desirable that, in general, broadcasting should be objective and impartial, and that this should not be limited solely to the areas of controversy. At least so it seemed to me. If Deputies opposite have a contrary argument I will consider it.

Ruairí Brugha

I do not necessarily disagree with the Minister. I have some experience of this. If it is non-controversial, I do not think the need for what I would describe as immediate impartiality or immediate balance is all that great. Provided there is no incitement, providing it is not becoming dangerously controversial, flexibility is desirable. By flexibility I mean a more liberal approach. The programmer may be afraid to put somebody on because of what he might say. That is not desirable. If it is an area in which it will not cause a controversy I do not think it is important. That is the difference I see. If it is a political area, or an area which is likely to cause incitement or to be controversial, that is different. There I would expect the director of programmes to use his judgment. In the other area I would not be inclined to tie him down that much.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

My feeling is that the wording of the new section which makes objectivity and impartiality general requirements in the coverage of current affairs seems to be unobjectionable in itself, and to cover the possibilities which the present legislation does not altogether cover. It is a little difficult to conceive of a programme on current affairs which does not at some point evoke an aura of controversy or debate. It would be a rather dull programme if it did not.

Ruairí Brugha

It could be a humorous programme perhaps.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Yes.

Ruairí Brugha

People could say the most atrocious things.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am aware of that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I do not think they would do any harm to broadcasting.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

This is true.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Providing they did not breach subsection (1A). That would be different.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I would regard a current affairs programme and a funny programme or a satirical programme as being different fish. I certainly would not wish to catch the humorous one in a cumbrous web of this sort of thing. One can imagine a programme on current affairs which was not related to a public controversy at the time it was broadcast, and not the subject of current public debate and, therefore, not caught by this but which, perhaps by reason of its very failure in objectivity and impartiality, stimulated a subsequent controversy. The people who ran it could say: "It was not a controversy at the time. It is now. We were not in breach of the Act." On the whole, I think the new wording should be unobjectionable and it is better to make it a matter of principle that the treatment of all current affairs should be presented in an objective and impartial manner. The point raised is an interesting one.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): When we look at section 18 of the 1960 Act, this is more restrictive in paragraph (b). I believe the Minister will bring humorous programmes into the net. I am thinking of programmes which have been shown on the BBC. I have seen British Prime Ministers shown in a humorous way dealing with current affairs. Paragraph (b) will include humorous programmes. Some of the programmes shown on RTE are humorous programmes on current affairs. They could be about the budget. I believe such programmes will be caught in the net. I do not know if that was the Minister's intention in paragraph (b). It refers to the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters of public controversy. If the Minister could tell me humorous programmes will not be caught I would be quite happy. The RTE Authority, reading this section and looking at the words “including matters”, are bound to say: “We cannot put on this programme because it would be in breach of paragraph (b).” Even though it was a humorous type of programme it could deal with matters of public controversy. I should not like to see this section abused, where people would put on a humorous programme just for the purpose of saying what they thought. On the other hand, I do not want the Authority to be put into a straitjacket. Frequently humorous programmes are very entertaining and I do not want to see them brought under the provisions of this section. We must be careful to ensure that the provisions of the section will not mean a lowering of the standards of broadcasting.

I am not sure why the Minister elaborated so much on the 1960 Act with regard to impartiality. I am not altogether sure that it will be to the advantage of the Authority. I share the point of view expressed by Deputy Brugha that the 1960 Act was not explanatory enough but in this case the Minister may have gone too far. In trying to spell out the matter in detail, probably he has complicated the matter. With regard to section 3 (1) (b) which states:

The broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate,

will the Minister state if this will include all kinds of humorous programmes at present on RTE if they relate to current affairs?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The only area where current affairs and humour are considered to overlap is in a satirical programme. Admittedly the new wording could catch those programmes but I do not see that it is more likely to catch them than was the old wording which stated, "when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate".

The kind of satirical programme we are thinking about deals almost exclusively in matters of public controversy or are the subject of current public debate. If people are sufficiently sensitive or lacking in humour they could regard such a matter as falling under the old Act just as much as under the new legislation. As I see it, there is no difference in relation to that area.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): There is a difference when one considers the words “including matters” that are used. Perhaps the Minister would look at section 18 of the 1960 Act.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

With respect to the Deputy, I do not think he is right. I agree that the new wording is wider. It is intended to be such and it covers all current affairs. I am quite prepared to look at the wording and to think over the matter between now and Report Stage because it is an interesting matter. If we want to give a certain scope or licence to the humorist and do not want him to be caught, the old wording was as likely to catch him because, almost by definition, he is interested in matters of public controversy or matters that are the subject of current public debate. I do not want to refer to any particular programme by name here but if one thinks of the best known programme in this area, it deals all the time with matters of public controversy or of current public debate. That is part of the fun of the programme. The existing Act could have been used to curb it but the convention has grown up in broadcasting here and elsewhere that the humorist has a kind of licence that enables society to let off steam.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I am not sure whether we should allow it. It is a matter that we should discuss.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am glad the Deputy raised the matter and I shall think over what he said. As of now I am not disposed to alter the wording but I will think it over between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Briscoe

I can understand the difficulty here in so far as current affairs programmes by their nature must be controversial. When the late President Childers was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs he said that when controversy did not surround a television or radio station it was dead. To some extent, current affairs programmes thrive on controversy. I am not against controversial subjects being debated as long it is done in a balanced and objective manner.

It would be a very foolish person who would object to satire being directed at him if it is done in a proper manner. There are some people who consider themselves satirists but the standard of some of their work could not be described as satire; some of it could be described as sheer vindictiveness. Therefore, one has to strike a delicate balance.

Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment seeks to delete the words "or as tending" to undermine the authority of the State. It could be very difficult to decide on that matter. Either it is incitement or it is not incitement. Before a Minister would act he would have to be quite certain that certain statements made or certain people brought on to a programme were inciting others to a certain type of action.

I frequently use the phrase, "dealing with uninformed emotion is always difficult". Frequently there are issues before the House or before local authorities where information is available to a very limited number of people but sometimes a broadcaster who does not know all the story and who becomes involved in a particular issue—it may be motorways or any other matter— may put a scare into people that half the city of Dublin will be knocked down to make way for a motorway. This might be done when the maximum number of displaced people may be in about 30 houses in an entire scheme.

We have to ensure at all times that a balance is kept, that people are not emotionally drawn into something they do not understand. From time to time all of us receive hysterical letters from people because they have read or heard about something that has been only half stated in the Press, on the radio or on television.

Controversy is the lifeblood of any current affairs programme. The Minister has been asked a question which he has said he will think about between now and Report Stage. The question being asked is about the exclusion of humour because we may find ourselves running into definitions of what is humour and what is sheer bitter criticism in the guise of humour. It is one which may be very difficult to draft into a Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I should like to hear the Minister's view on this matter. I do not wish to put forward the view that I am too liberal with regard to the Bill. A certain amount of liberalism is needed but we must keep our restrictions also. If the Minister thinks it would inhibit the humorous programmes we have become accustomed to, he should say so on Report Stage. I disagree with the Minister when he says that section 18 of the old Bill could be interpreted in the same way. I will have a look at the matter between now and Report Stage.

I should like to refer the Minister to paragraph (a) of section 3 which states:

all news broadcast by it is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the Authority's own views,

That is fair enough but now I should like to refer the Minister to the matter at the end of paragraph (c) which states:

Paragraph (b) of this subsection, in so far as it requires the Authority not to express its own views, shall not apply to any broadcast in so far as the broadcast relates to any proposal being a proposal concerning policy as regards broadcasting, which is of public controversy or the subject of current public debate and which is being considered by the Government or the Minister.

I should like to know if when a matter relating to broadcasting is before the Government, or this House, the Authority will be permitted to express their views on television. Will this section apply in such a case? Will this subsection give them liberty to defend themselves on RTE if the removal of the Authority is being debated by both Houses of the Oireachtas?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The point raised is an interesting one but I do not think that the wording can be so construed. It is not intended to be so construed. I do not think one could reasonably construe a decision to remove a member or members of the Authority as being a proposal concerning policy as regards broadcasting. I shall have that looked at again and if it is felt that there is ambiguity there I shall see to it that it is removed between now and Report Stage because it would be highly undesirable to have a debate of that kind. I think it is unlikely that any authority would engage in such a debate but I will have a look to see whether the ambiguity exists and if so I shall remove it.

Mr. Briscoe

In the final analysis the Minister has the power to say what may or may not be broadcast. While the Minister is explaining to this House his reasons for removing an authority he has the power to forbid any discussion on the removal taking place on RTE. That is my interpretation of the situation. If the Minister has not got that authority he should make sure that he has. We have had the situation, quite rightly, where RTE were allowed to put up their own defence as to why we should have RTE 2. I was glad the Minister did not try to prevent the Authority expressing their views on that matter. RTE did an excellent job on this matter which was of national importance. I am not saying that the removal of the Authority would not be of national importance. We would be satisfied if the Minister could say to the Authority that they were not taking over the station to defend their actions.

Earlier the Minister told the House that section 10 gives him emergency powers but by the time the Minister invokes that section that station may have been taken over. Can the Minister give us an assurance that there is no conflict there?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I will have another look at the matter.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I take the view that the Authority could look at paragraph (b) and maintain that they were generally speaking about broadcasting in defending any broadcast made which might result in the Minister removing the Authority. The subject matter under discussion would be the programme broadcast and I am not sure that the Authority would not make that case and say that under paragraph (b) they had the right to defend themselves. This subsection deals only with broadcasting and nothing else. Of course, we all accept that the Authority cannot be allowed to express their views on all matters but it is in order for them to express their views on general broadcasting. The fact that they expressed their views during the debate on RTE 2 was welcome.

This section also provides that the Authority shall not unreasonably encroach on the privacy of an individual. Will the Minister define what is "unreasonable"? In the making of programmes the privacy of the individual must be protected. It is of vital importance that people are not harassed or their homes invaded by anybody making programmes but if it was a programme concerned with exposing vice what would be reasonable in one case might be unreasonable in another. RTE might want to embark on a programme exposing some racket or vice but they would have to ensure that in such exposure they did not invade the privacy of the individual. RTE might want to highlight an injustice perpetrated by a small group and in doing that they might have to go a little further than they would in an ordinary programme. I would like to have the Minister's view on this. My definition of unreasonable in that context would be different from my definition where they invaded the privacy of a home for the sake of a normal programme of an uncontroversial nature. There must be a balance. RTE operate in a very sensitive area and they must never be allowed to go too far but they must have some latitude. Is it the Minister who will lay down guidelines or will they lay down their own guidelines? Citizens must not be harassed.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Moore)

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Was the amendment put?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I think the ruling of the Chair was that we would discuss amendment No. 4 and the section together.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Did the Chair say that?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I think that is what the Chair said. I should like to make my position clear on the amendment and the section. For the reasons I have given I cannot accept the amendment. Deputies opposite have made a number of interesting points on the wording of parts of the section. Between this and Report Stage I will endeavour to clear up ambiguities. With regard to Deputy Fitzpatrick's last point, the present wording was decided on after a long discussion in the Seanad. The provision with regard to privacy was put in at the suggestion of the RTE Authority. The word "unreasonable" is designed to protect broadcasters in their exploration in the public interest of areas of possible abuse. Where there is not a valid defence the privacy of ordinary individuals should not be violated. There would be a widespread consensus on that.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree with that because in other countries a situation was reached where there was almost trial by television. We had an episode here some years ago and a man's appearance on a particular programme probably added years to his life. He is now dead. This is something we must guard against. There is an obligation to expose social evils but there is also an obligation to research the subject thoroughly. To bring a man cold into a studio and there interrogate him as if he were a criminal is something we could not support. This is a worth-while section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): What will the provisions be with regard to restrictions? We will have no control over rebroadcasts. If they contain matter prohibited under (1) (a) what will the reaction of the Authority or the Minister be? Will the Authority be in a position to say what these programmes may contain and what will happen if they contain something contrary to what is laid down by this section? I can see the Authority finding themselves in a rather difficult position with regard to the transmission of programmes from outside the State. Will these programmes be subject to the same restrictions as programmes emanating from RTE?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

This section will apply to all broadcasts by RTE. The problem is likely to arise only in the case of simultaneous rebroadcasting. The Authority will have to be cognisant of their responsibility in the choice of programmes rebroadcast simultaneously. The possibility of making a mistake exists. Without intending it they might find themselves in violation of the statute. But the obligation applies generally. I do not think any Minister or any Government would be likely to be unreasonably harsh in his or their judgment if a genuine mistake should be made which might happen in rebroadcasting something which normally would not have a bearing on the security of our State at all or look as if it was about to incite to crime, and which could, therefore, be seen to be an accident. However, I think RTE in the selection of subject matter of a programme they were rebroadcasting would take care to avoid that area.

In general, of course, both the BBC and IBA are subject to much the same restraints as RTE as regards objectivity, impartiality and incitement to crime. Sometimes in the past they have not construed this in the same way that we would, as they have not felt, for example, as threatened by certain kinds of armed conspiracy as we have been here. However, I think events have changed that, so that the danger of the kind of unintentional violation, if I may so call it, which the Deputy has quite rightly drawn attention to here is not so great now as it would have been in the past. The main point in relation to what he says is that the statutory obligations apply to everything broadcast by RTE over either channel, including rebroadcast material.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): As regards employees under their control RTE can issue their guidelines and say: “This is the type of programme we do not want”, but they cannot issue directives to an outside broadcasting company that has no obligation to them at all. Therefore, in relation to rebroadcasting by RTE there can be genuine mistakes made. The Minister of the day will probably have to take a different attitude on certain programmes if mistakes are made. If such mistakes were made deliberately and continued to be made, that would be a different matter. Therefore, this will present a problem to RTE in regard to foreign channels whose programmes will constitute a considerable part of our second programme. It is for that reason I raise this matter. Again, there is the phrase “undermining the authority of the State”. Is the “authority” of the State the right word there? Would the word “security” or “institutions” of the State be better? That is only my own view. The authority of the State, that would be the Government?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

No, it includes the Government.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It includes the Government. That is the point I want to bring home. To undermine the authority of the Government——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Of the State.

Mr. Briscoe

That would include the Garda, the Army and so on.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): But it would include the Government?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Government, the Dáil, the Courts, the Garda, the Army, the lot.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): If I am on this side of the House trying to embarrass the Government to bring them down it is our duty——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Deputy is not undermining the State——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): No, I am not undermining the State.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

——on the contrary he is buttressing the State——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Would the “security” of the State be just as good a word? I am not disputing it. It is just something that sprang to mind as I was going through the section.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Could I deal with that point? We considered this, whether to say "security" or "authority". We are using "authority" as a broader word. Anything that undermines the security of the State, of course, also undermines its authority, and you also have the reference to incitement to crime. But hypothetically you could have certain programmes which would cast doubt on the legtimitacy or effectiveness of the democratic State which could not be construed as a direct threat to the security of the State but which would undermine its authority, programmes reflecting, for example, not on this one or that one in Parliament, not on the Government of the day as such, but on Parliament as a whole, on the Judiciary, on the Army, on the Garda. All these programmes would not necessarily threaten security but they would undermine the authority of the State. The authority of the State is the phrase used in the Constitution, Article 46.1 and we followed that wording considering it the most appropriate in the circumstances.

The provisions of the 1960 Act, including the direction issued under section 31, apply to any BBC or IBA programme broadcast by RTE at present. Therefore, the factual situation is that with the second channel there is likely to be more of these but the legal situation is unchanged.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, lines 13 to 16, to delete subsection (1C).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dowling

Subsection 1B of this section reads:

The Authority shall not, in its programmes and in the means employed to make such programmes, unreasonably encroach on the privacy of an individual.

There is also the question of the family or an organisation or society. Are they protected by this section or does it apply only to an individual?

On the whole question of impartiality, can we be assured that the use of concealed microphones, such as were used in the money lending programme that was made by RTE, will be discontinued for all time? Although this programme was highlighting a social evil, it intruded on the privacy of the individual, who was unaware of this bugging at the time. Can we be assured that there will be no permission to indulge in such tactics in future?

I, together with Deputy O'Connell, was on one occasion subjected to star chamber tactics by Radio Telefís Éireann. On that occasion a particular locality was highlighted and downgraded by objectionable references made by RTE at the time. Because we questioned this, we were invited to the studio and subjected to star chamber tactics by the producers who brought in a number of individuals they had researched over the weeks together with a cleric from this area. They brought them into the chamber knowing well that their views were hostile, politically and otherwise, to Deputy O'Connell and myself. These people got the major portion of the programme, together with the interviewers and the producers. I hope that in future public representatives who defend their constituencies and who take note of objectionable references to downgrade areas will not be subjected to these tactics. Can we be assured that Deputies can refer to programmes in this House and in the Press without being attacked by programmes similar to that which I have already mentioned?

I do not want to mention the area or the programme because I am sure the Minister knows what I am talking about. At that time cider drinkers were paid to perform in front of the cameras. I did not know until after the programme that those cider drinkers had received a payment from RTE. That programme gave a vicious look to the area and downgraded it to a very large extent. I hope there will be no further programmes of that type and that there will be adequate protection not alone for individuals, for families and for society, but also for areas and that discretion will be used to a greater extent in the future.

This did not happen during the present Minister's term of office but it happened some time ago. Nevertheless some Deputies are aware of this subject and have seen the way Deputies were pilloried on that programme. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my colleague, Deputy O'Connell was pilloried in a grossly unfair way for his very valid comments. References were made to statements which he had made under different circumstances some 12 or 18 months earlier. They were trotted out by a man who has risen to the heights of his profession in recent times. He was one of the men who was instrumental——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Is it in order for the Deputy to refer to individuals in this way?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must be careful that people are not identifiable by his references.

Mr. Dowling

I do not want to identify the man because the Minister knows who I am talking about. I want to ensure that Deputies will be in a position to defend their constituencies from references such as "soup kitchens" which were used in that programme. Social workers were doing a very good job there under very difficult conditions. Because we questioned these matters we were brought into a star chamber and subjected to a cross-examination by a hostile audience. I want to make sure this does not happen to any Deputy in the future.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Dowling brought up a few points which merited mention. There has been a tremendous growth in the maturity of the interviewers in RTE. I do not think we will witness that kind of thing happening again. During the Cork by-election in 1966 an RTE employee came to our headquarters and was using his tape recorder, unknown to the people there, to pick up any gossip he could. Those tactics were used in those days but no longer.

Instead of journalists aspiring to be Alaistair Cookes they think they can get to the top much quicker through the sensational story. It is not for me to tell them their jobs. The journalist will always have the last word and this will always give him a sense of forbearance. I heard an expression which said that the mighty should be merciful, although sometimes it is difficult for them to be merciful.

I believe that any public representative who goes on television should be able to look after himself when he is before a tough interviewer. If he is asked too many questions too rapidly he can always put his hand up and say: "You asked me a question and I intend to answer it. When I have answered it I will then go on to your next question". It is up to the public representative to defend himself. I often watch politicians on television and I can see who are good and who are not so good, who loses his "cool" and who does not. A greater understanding has grown up between the journalist and the politician. When television was relatively new, interviewers tended to look to other countries to see what was being done there but our interviewers have developed their own style and they do fairly well.

I remember the first time I was ever interviewed—in 1965 when I was first elected. I wrote to the interviewer and complimented him. I did not think there was anything very pointed in his questions, although many people said he asked me very unfair questions. I did not think they were unfair and I answered him straight. I said then that a good interviewer should never be more important than the least important person he is interviewing. This makes a big impression on the public.

I was recently in the United States and watched some news programmes. On one particular news programme in Baltimore, three newsreaders must have thought they were kings because they gave the impression that they were very important and nothing else mattered. If they had only realised the way they looked in the eyes of the public, they would have been more humble in their approach.

The aim of an interviewer should be to get information and nobody should be obliged to answer questions. Deputy Dowling's criticisms were legitimate and the day of what I would call amateur interviewing is gone. I realise that people like action and that where there is no controversy, a station may as well be dead. You can get good controversial debate without having people tearing at one another's throats. The sport of the day used to be to have politicians tearing at one another and giving a bad image.

I agree wholeheartedly with what the Minister said when he referred to the authority of the State. I once said that if you bring politicians into disrepute you bring the institutions of the State into disrepute, and eventually people will have no respect for that authority. One of the interesting things about satire is that it can be far more damaging than the serious attempt to argue the point. There is a very narrow line between satire and sarcasm. I am not talking of television now but of radio. One particular programme—I will not mention it by name—comes to mind which has a very cynical attitude. The attitude adopted on this programme towards politicians is rather cynical. People who present these programmes do not see us as we work in our constituencies. I was concerned originally when I saw the reference to the authority of the State as against the institutions of the State but I realise that the question of the authority of the State is very important. Democracy has gone too easily from too many countries.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Hear, hear.

Mr. Briscoe

Once democracy is lost it may never be regained or, at least, it takes a long time for it to be regained. Democracy is for responsible people and we have an obligation to defend the democratic rights of the majority of our people. I recall writing to a former Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—perhaps the letter is still on file—saying that the television medium was much too important to be allowed fall into the hands of a few people and that, consequently, one had to watch it carefully. I am glad that the Minister recognises that responsibility.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): This section is probably the most controversial one in the Bill. Certainly, it is very important. It is not possible for RTE to please everyone and the question of impartiality must arise from time to time. Individuals or groups may complain of being misrepresented. I have an open mind on these matters but recently a matter was brought to my attention regarding impartiality on a programme relating to the Dublin Bay oil refinery proposals. I do not know whether this is a matter on which the Minister would like to comment but because of the representations made to me I tabled a question to him in regard to the matter. I was informed, however, that it was the concern of the RTE Authority. One group of people complained that the programme was not presented in a balanced way. On a programme of this nature it is imperative that a balance be maintained. It is not the type of programme on which a broadcaster can express his views. The question of an oil refinery is very important and controversial in so far as Dublin is concerned. Indeed, the programme was of much interest to people throughout the country as well as in the city. In researching a programme of this nature every effort should be made to ascertain the points of view of all concerned and to do this objectively. Researchers and presenters have a duty to ensure in so far as possible that the people interviewed know what they are talking about. After much representations and public criticism RTE decided to broadcast another programme in relation to the refinery but there are those who consider that justice was not done to the subject in this second programme any more than in the first.

I am putting the case to the Minister as it has been presented to me because I consider it relevant to what we are discussing on this section. I shall not express my views in relation to the refinery question—our party have done so already—but I am putting forward the views of RTE listeners throughout the country and of residents of this city in particular. This type of case highlights the importance of this section. I am aware fully of the difficult and important job of a broadcaster or a producer in endeavouring to arrive at a perfect balance. It is a task requireing professionalism and skill.

Producers and broadcasters have a task different from that of the journalist who can express his view in a newspaper column, giving it a bias one way or the other. He is not bound in relation to impartiality. Therefore, the role of those in radio and television is more difficult in that respect. As human beings we all have views of one kind or another, be they political or otherwise, but a broadcaster and, ultimately, the Authority under which he operates, must not reflect his views or those of anyone within the Authority.

Some of the criticism levelled at the Authority from time to time may be justified, some not, but we must realise the difficult role they play in trying to maintain a balance in relation, especially, to public and current affairs programmes. Politicians generally are sensitive to television and to the Press. They may consider their point of view not to be put forward adequately or accurately. Perhaps they have reason on occasion to be aggrieved but we must not overlook the difficult role of the Authority. The reporting of the proceedings of Parliament and of other current affairs programmes add substance to our institutions. Debates of this nature should be given a fair airing.

The question of the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament is one that we shall come to in another section. It is something I have views on because I believe that people should see that democracy works in the House. I would not like to bore the viewers with a number of hours of this type of broadcasting but I believe a reasonable amount of this type of current affairs programme is no harm. I do not know what the TAM rating for this is but I believe it is a good thing to let Ministers go on a television programme, irrespective of what their views are, and have their Opposition spokesman on the same debate. This makes for a good type of programme and I believe the public at large would enjoy it. I hope we have programmes like this in the future. If a Minister is putting forward a controversial issue, the best way he can get this message across is through the television channel. Although we might speak in the Dáil for hours and hours we know very well that the coverage of a debate like this is very limited. A short synopsis of a Bill on a current affairs programme and the Minister being questioned on it by the Opposition spokesman would do no harm. No Minister in this House should hesitate to go on that type of programme.

Mr. Briscoe

Except the Minister for Finance.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): They should not hesitate to go on such a programme. I know the Minister for Finance refused to go on with Deputy Colley on a “7 Days” programme on the budget. I mentioned in particular the Dublin Bay controversy because it was brought to my attention.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We had a good discussion on this important section. I would like to be brief but I would like to refer to a few questions about what I should do. As regards section (1B) Deputy Dowling asked if this would protect the privacy of a family as well as an individual. It must by the very fact that it protects the privacy of individuals protect the privacy of families also through the individuals which make them up. He also raised the point about the use of concealed devices, which has a direct bearing on section (1B), encroachment on privacy. A directive to the staff about the use of concealed devices was issued by the Director General of RTE in December, 1969. The directive reserved absolutely to the Director General authority for permission to use hidden devices in any case. This directive has, in fact, amounted to a virtual ban on the use of such devices.

Deputy Dowling also went over some of the programmes in the past, to the conduct of which he objected. I do not think I should enter into that here nor would he wish me to do so. Deputy Briscoe made some very wise comments, if I may say so, in that whole area.

Deputy Fitzpatrick raised a specific question about a recent programme on Dublin Bay under the heading of impartiality. I would like to refer here to the existence of the complaints commission before which matters such as those raised by Deputy Dowling can in the future be raised. In relation to the Dublin Bay programme this has, in fact, been raised. The programme in question is the subject of a complaint by a member of the corporation. It concerns the two programmes on 14th and 29th December. The complaint is that they were biased. That complaint is now before the complaints commission so, although this is not technically a court, in spirit we should regard it as sub judice for the moment. That is all I wish to say.

Mr. Briscoe

It is refreshing that we have this opportunity of almost widening the scope of the section because we do not have an opportunity of talking very often.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would not wish the Deputy to widen the debate on the section.

Mr. Briscoe

We will not do that. I am speaking specifically in relation to subsection (1B) because that is very wide in its implications. The journalists on public affairs programmes should not get the feeling that they are being got at but that this is a two-way communication. We do not have the opportunity of letting them know not only what the feeling of the Members of the House is but also what the ordinary man in the street feels about the conduct of the programmes. I have one wish in my heart, that on the Sunday programmes, particularly, they would cut out some of the jargon when they say so and so is "on air", "in studio", "on phone". I wish they would say that he is either on the phone, in the studio or on the air but "on air", "in studio" is like Boy Scout jargon which I wish they would drop.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.