I had moved this amendment the last day. It is consequential on the deletion of section 6.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 7.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 12:
In page 8, lines 1 and 2, to delete "(other than broadcasts made pursuant to section 6 of this Act)".
—(Minister for Posts and Telegraphs).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 15, after "making" to insert "or retaining".
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 may be taken together.
On Report Stage of the debate in the Seanad it was suggested that there was a technical defect in the wording of this subsection which could mean that the authority and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission could be liable to legal action by performers under the Performers Protection Act, 1968, if recordings were retained for longer than six months. I indicated at that time that the issues raised would need to be considered in greater detail than was possible in the time available, and that if, following further consideration, legal advice was that amendments were necessary to ensure that nothing in the Performers Protection Act, 1968 or the Copyrights Act, 1963, would prevent retention of recordings made under section 7 of this Bill for as long as they are required, I would introduce amendments accordingly on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I have since been advised that amendments are necessary to ensure that recordings made under section 7 may be retained for as long as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission consider necessary to enable them to complete their investigation of any particular programme. The amendments proposed are intended to achieve this, and I hope the House will agree to them.
(Dublin Central): Do I take it that six months was the limit for which they could retain these recordings? Is that what stands at the moment? It does not state so in the Bill.
I think that is correct.
(Dublin Central): And the reason for these two amendments is to enable the authorities to hold the recordings for an indefinite period?
That is right. For as long as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission consider necessary.
(Dublin Central): I read the Seanad reports in this connection. Under the Copyright Act I understand there were certain complications, but these amendments will get over those?
That is the intention.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, subsection (3), lines 16 and 17, to delete "section 2 (1)" and "section 3 (1)" and substitute "section 2" and "section 3", respectively.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): It is agreed now that with the Minister's amendment the authorities can retain recordings for an indefinite time. It is desirable that this type of proof, which is so necessary if the complaints commission are to carry out their job effectively, should be available. I do not think there is any obligation placed on them to retain these recordings. The only obligation that will be placed on them is the 60 days. I think that certain obligations should also be placed on them beyond the time laid down in the Bill. I believe that 60 days is not a sufficiently long period especially for the complaints commission and also for the public generally in regard to making a complaint.
I think I mentioned when we were discussing the Bill last week that people may take an action against the Authority, but there is no obligation on the Authority to produce the necessary proof when this action takes place six or eight months later. There should be a provision to oblige them to retain recordings beyond six months seeing that the Minister has provided that they can retain these recordings for an unlimited time for the purposes of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, without infringing copyright. I would like to see provision for the retention of material for up to 18 months. Complaints can be protracted and if the type of cases I have in mind arise these recordings will be necessary in a court of law. The Authority might be requested to produce these recordings as evidence to protect themselves, or, indeed, the plaintiff could very well require the recording to prove his case. Therefore, I believe the 60 days is not long enough.
I have listened to the Deputy's points with attention, but I wonder whether this may not be adequately met by part of the wording of section 7 (2) which provides that such recordings be retained for at least 60 days or for such other periods as shall be agreed by the Authority and commission, so that if something comes up the period can be extended. I would be reluctant to make it mandatory on the Authority to keep recordings for as long a period as 18 months in all cases. The House will understand that in view of the tremendous amount which is broadcast by a fully functioning broadcasting station, putting out a great deal of sound and visual material that a mandatory requirement that 18 months of this whole output would have to be kept would involve the station in heavy expense. If it were absolutely necessary I would say O.K., but do we all feel that it is necessary? This is not a contentious subject between us. If Deputies opposite feel strongly that it should be kept for as long as that, I would be prepared to have another look at the matter between now and Report Stage and see what sort of scale of expenditure is involved, what RTE think and so on.
There is a point on which the Minister might be able to relieve what I would call the public mind generally, and that is how does one ensure that a broadcast—news commentary, or whatever it might be —is retained even for any period? I am speaking of the ordinary member of the public who is not conversant with the manner in which one appeals to a commission against something that has been said and so on. There is some degree of public anxiety in regard to things that may be said on radio and television, and before the individual, who is relatively ignorant of these things, can get around to finding out how to do anything about it the material has been destroyed and there is no use in arguing. Could the Minister relieve the public generally on that aspect?
I hope I can. Section 7 (1) obliges the Authority to record every broadcast made by the Authority and there is no exception to that now, provided, as regards a television broadcast, that the sound should suffice, and these recordings will be then retained necessarily for 60 days in all cases. It is a matter of experience that if a broadcast becomes an object of debate if it is considered in some way improper by any section of the public, its impact is virtually immediate. Whatever controversy there is follows immediately on that, so that all concerned are alerted if a broadcast in fact leads to complaints. One can hardly envisage a case in which a broadcast occurs and more than two months later somebody complains about it. It is very unlikely. It is conceiveable that somebody returning from the forests of Borneo where he has been isolated will return and learn something. This possibility can be imagined, but one does not need to pursue these unusual cases. I think that is really the answer, that the contention, if there is any, would follow immediately on the broadcast.
Nothing can be destroyed for 60 days?
That is right. I would expect the Broadcasting Complaints Commission when appointed to consider the period of 60 days laid down in section 7, and if they consider it desirable that the period for mandatory retention should be longer than 60 days I would agree this with the Authority. RTE considered it desirable that a period of more than 60 days should not be made mandatory, and I think their sole consideration there was money.
In regard to section 7, which requires the Authority to record every broadcast, the point touched on by Deputy Brugha, I would like to elaborate on it. In regard to maintaining a number of sporting programmes, can the Minister tell the House, say in regard to race meetings, hurling matches, football matches, the length of time that extra special items of sport are retained in RTE? Will they be retained for only the 60 days, for 18 months or indefinitely? I mention this because I believe that the outside broadcasting unit of Telefís Éireann in covering a number of sporting programmes—and I refer particularly to last Sunday's match between Clare and Kilkenny— have not sufficient cameras allocated to cover these events.
In watching the replay of the match on Sunday night there was no replay in slow motion. Two goals were scored and there was no replay in slow motion of either of the goals scored, in my opinion two brilliantly scored goals by the Clare team. This match, a national league final, deserved far more elaborate treatment than it received. The number of cameras there was not sufficient. I do not want to draw comparisons but some of our major sporting programmes are not on a par with Match of the Day as broadcast by the BBC.
The Deputy is going into too much detail on a particular item. I think he has made his point.
I will not go against your ruling, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but in regard to the match last Sunday I would like to know why we had not a replay in slow motion of the two goals I have referred to. We should be in a position to have items like that recorded by Telefís Éireann in slow motion. For a lot of these sporting items it is necessary to have more cameras present. I appreciate that the Minister has to work within a limited budget and that he has some difficultes but it is necessary to provide cameras and sufficient personnel and equipment to have these items televised.
I do not think that arises in this debate.
I would ask the Minister the length of time a number of these sports items are retained and what is the position in the records department in regard to retaining sporting items?
This section deals exclusively with recordings and the preservation of recordings, and in particular with what shall be mandatory on RTE in that connection. We do not envisage making different mandatory provisions affecting different categories of material. This applies to all matter broadcast which must be preserved for at least 60 days and may be preserved longer by arrangement between the Authority and the commission, and we are dealing here with a matter that might lead to complaints; that is to say, in answer to the Deputy who is concerned quite legitimately with sporting programmes, that the material must be preserved for 60 days, may be preserved longer by arrangement between the Authority and the commission. Nothing in this section or in the Bill prevents material which is regarded as historically important—which would apply to a sports programme of classical interest and high standard performance —from being preserved indefinitely. But the judge on that would have to be the archives section of RTE and the Deputy's remarks will be brought to their attention. They will sympathise with the objective they have in mind and as broadcasters they would also be concerned with having a good sporting archive. Although I agree with the general points I do not think it is necessary to cover this point by statutory provision.
The Minister gave a very detailed and comprehensive reply to the points I made for which I thank him. He mentions that this section deals with recordings and the preservation of recordings of RTE. In relation to the match last Sunday it is impossible to retain something if it has not been filmed properly. I would like to know if there are sufficient cameras allocated to cover some of these sporting programmes. I would also like to know why in a large number of sporting programmes we do not see a replay in slow motion of some of the more spectacular items. I do not know whether or not a particular item can be relayed in slow motion at a later time—I presume it can be—but for the people who are in the recording and preservation section if it were recorded and relayed in slow motion at the time of showing it would give them a more intimate knowledge of it so that they would be able to recognise the value when deciding whether to retain a recording. In order that there would be better televising and recording of these events I believe more television cameras would be needed.
Deputy Enright's remarks put me in a difficult position, in so far as I am constrained to speak very directly to the section, and the section deals only with the question of recording and preservation of recordings and not with such questions as the number of cameras assigned to a particular task or slow motion. I sympathise with the point the Deputy is making, but it is not totally and strictly relevant to every point of the section. I will see to it that his remarks are brought to the attention of the Authority.
(Dublin Central): The Minister partly agreed with me when he mentioned that the 60 days could be extended by an agreement with the commission and the Authority. The Revenue Commissioners have laid down a requirement that accounts of all types of business should be kept over a statutory period of six to seven years. I do not want to complicate matters at Montrose by suggesting that this infliction be imposed on the Authority. They would need a new department to retain all recordings for that length of time. To give discretion to the Authority to discard recordings after 60 days is too short.
The preservation of recordings of sports programmes is an important point made by Deputy Enright because a lot of people would like to ensure that an historical or outstanding final in Croke Park or somewhere else could be shown three or four years later and that the Authority would not destroy it within 60 days. The two amendments that the Minister brought in indicate that the Authority are anxious to keep some programmes longer than the limit of 60 days which otherwise they would be compelled to destroy due to the Copyrights Act. There are programmes which they would like to preserve in their archives and which would make very entertaining programmes in five or six years' time. Apart from entertainment, evidence could be needed, in relation to an action taken against the Authority in a court of law or, perhaps, taken against some employee even, not an employee in the Authority. Sixty days is too short in such matters. It would be damaging to the plaintiff and the defendant if certain material was not available. It would not be destroyed deliberately. The complaints commission may be hampered to a certain extent in their findings.
The Minister has said this will arise only on rare occasions and he is probably right because complaints will be made within a short period. I do not know how long it would take to initiate a civil action against the Authority but it could be well beyond the 60-days limit and the material could be destroyed. I should like to see the time extended but I do not want to make things impossible for the Authority. I am sure Deputy Enright will concede that in regard to outstanding events in sport and entertainment the Bill does not compel RTE to keep records of them.
Broadly, we are dealing with two distinguishable classes of material which ought to be preserved, evidential and historical. As regards the evidential part, that is what is envisaged in section 7, the reason why we make it mandatory to preserve for a certain period certain classes of material is because any broadcast may lead to a controversy, to complaints, and it is vital that the material by which the complaints commission can judge be available. The question is whether 60 days is long enough. If Deputies opposite fear it may not be long enough, I should like, assuming we allow this section to carry, to consult with the RTE Authority between now and Report Stage and see whether the views expressed can be met without significantly adding to the Authority's budgetary and administrative difficulties. Then I would report to the House on what appeared to me as a result of this examination and we could look at the Bill again in this respect. I hope that procedure will be agreeable to the House.
The other matter which Deputy Enright and others raised is in regard to historical archives. When I speak of history I am not thinking of political history. I include also under that denomination the history of any particular activity, including sport which is an important aspect of social history. This comes under the general heading of archives policy which I think is rightly left to RTE themselves to decide on. Certain matters are obviously of historical interest, for example, the funerals of Presidents or ex-Presidents. Irish people would wish that a record be preserved of such events, and it would be.
There are other more marginal matters. If I may speak a little informally, if there are Deputies interested in an archives policy—it is an interesting theme and takes us pleasantly out of the political arena for the time being—I am sure the RTE head of archives would be glad to discuss archives policy with them. If such Deputies would give me their names we could, perhaps, have a meeting at some convenient time with the head of archives, solely for the purpose of finding out what the historical policy is. I am sure there are a number of Deputies interested in it and it would be of interest to the Authority and to the public to have matters discussed in that way.
I would be very interested in having such a meeting in the future. There are many matters which I should like to find out about for my own information and, perhaps, it might be of interest later to have some of them discussed in the House.
At the beginning of section 7 we have a provision stating that it shall be the duty of the Authority by means of its own facilities and in a manner approved of for the purposes of this section by the commission to record for those purposes every broadcast made by the Authority, and so on. I was with a number of people last Sunday watching a match and I compared it with the coverage of "Match of the Day" which is televised on Saturday nights. The difference in camera coverage was obvious. It is quite clear that the programme "Match of the Day" had more cameras to cover it than the Clare-Kilkenny match last Sunday.
I am sorry to interrupt, but this is not relevant.
The point I am making is that there are not sufficient cameras available at such events to keep a proper record of them and the section provides that it shall be the duty of the Authority to keep records of certain events. I appreciate the difficulties there may be from the social side. On the evidential side also there are difficulties and I am glad the Minister will be reporting back later in regard to the 60-day limit. As somebody practising law, I know the delays that occur. A person watching a programme may think it is injurious to him. He may have to consult with his family to decide whether to take an action. He has to go to his solicitor who may not have seen the programme. The solicitor may wish to consult counsel and counsel may have to give an opinion. There may then be some time lag before a letter is written to RTE on behalf of the person who feels he has been injured. It can take a considerable period of time. I presume that any material about which a protest letter might be received would be retained at least for the period during which proceedings can be initiated but I can understand the difficulty for the authority in this regard since, for instance, letters are sometimes written frivolously.
I take it that what is meant by section 7(2) is that in the event of a complaint being made the material in question will be retained irrespective of the 60-days' provision.
That is the idea.
(Dublin Central): As the Minister has promised to have another look at this, I am prepared to leave it at that. I would refer him to section 7 (1). On the historic and evidential question again may we take it from that subsection that it will not be necessary for the Authority to retain a visual recording?
That is so.
(Dublin Central): This means that the visual recording will not be retained but from an evidential point of view one can be slandered on a television broadcast in more ways than by the spoken word. Therefore, there will be a weakness in the section. So far as sports programmes or those of an historic nature are concerned there is no way of preserving them on a recording basis only. I doubt if the complaints commission will be furnished with sufficient evidence on a recording basis only to enable them to reach a balance in regard to complaints. There are several ways of creating imbalance apart from the spoken word and this is true particularly of television. Take, for instance, a commercial. There may be a conflict between the words spoken during a commercial and the images shown, images that might be slanderous to any company.
I admit that the Deputy's point is very material, possibly the most material point that could be made in relation to the section. I should like to say how it comes about that the section provided for mandatory recording in sound only. As Deputies are aware there is no statutory obligation at present on the authority to make or keep recordings for any purpose. They keep recordings primarily for historical purposes and partly, I presume, from the evidential point of view where dispute may arise. This section imposes an obligation on them to keep recordings. When creating new obligations one tends to be somewhat parsimonious and to listen carefully to those who are affected. We were advised by RTE that retention of all broadcasts by way of visual records as well as sound would involve considerable expense and storage space. From now on I shall be confining my remarks on this section purely to the evidential aspect which is the mandatory one. We have wandered a little far on the historical aspect which is of interest but is not involved directly. RTE suggested that sound recordings only should be adequate. The Complaints Advisory Committee were consulted on the matter and they were satisfied with the provision as it stands.
Listening to the Deputy I was not entirely happy with the provision and it is something that I would need to look at again with RTE. The point about expense is very material but the point the Deputy makes, that is, that an unfair or unbalanced impression may be given by images while the sound may be perfectly above board, is valid. We have all seen and heard programmes in which what we would object to, rightly or wrongly, would be the visual but I would like to take up the matter again with RTE. I take it that Deputies will appreciate the Authority's point about expense in preserving visuals but we might consider a compromise measure regarding the preservation of visuals for a shorter period and of sound for a longer period but I should not like to enter into any commitment without further consultation with RTE. I agreed with them on this question but since the Deputy has expressed his view I should like to explore the question further and to come back to the House on it at a later stage.
(Dublin Central): It surprises me that the complaints commission——
The present committee.
(Dublin Central): Yes, the present committee, that they thought that the wording would be sufficient for them.
They were consulted and they acquiesced.
(Dublin Central): It is a pity we have not the complaints commission established now, when I would like to submit this section to them. It is very important that visual tapes be kept; for what length of time I do not know. I take the Minister's point that it may be expensive but, if certain people's characters are damaged in any way, then one does not count expense until their characters have been cleared. This can very easily happen on television. I do not want to get the Authority involved in a highly expensive operation but I think it will be necessary. Probably we will have to make it mandatory that, for a short length of time, some visual tapes should be retained, especially on the evidental section. I would be rather concerned about that.
The new complaints commission, when it does come into being, would feel very hampered and the evidence available to them inadequate if a person—whether through advertising or a particular programme—felt that his character or business was damaged in some way or, indeed, on the question of balance. I do not see how the complaints commission will be able to do their job effectively with resort to sound recordings only. It would be a task in which they would find it very difficult to give a balanced judgment.
Without the visual tape in any evidence in court it would be very difficult also for any jury or judge to decide. The Minister should take a serious look at that part of Section 7 which reads:
...the Authority shall be regarded as complying with the requirements of this section if it records in sound only the broadcast.
As time goes on, we will find that we will be back in the House, probably with a request from the complaints commission for clarification when they will be confronted with some complaints. In this respect one programme springs to mind immediately. At present there are two programmes the subject of complaint. I refer to the programmes on the Dublin Bay refinery. It was what one saw on those programmes that made a big impression on one's mind as much as what was said on the programmes. Were the Authority to retain recording of such programmes in sound only, for the life of me I cannot see how a complaints commission could adjudicate on them. To my mind that would present them with an impossible task, rendering a balance judgment impossible also. I am sure there are numerous other programmes of that type where, without the visual tapes, what one would get on sound would be useless. Of course, the Minister has correctly admitted that images on advertising can be slanderous at times, when again the visual part of the programme would be of vital importance.
I do not know what the Minister has in mind. It is important, certainly important when the complaints commission comes into being if and when a case should ever arise of a serious slander in which damages are involved against the Authority, perhaps, in respect of a company or its reputation. Were there a court case 12 months later for substantial damages against the Authority and all the Authority could produce at that time was a recording of the programme, I am not sure what would be the remarks of the judge of the day. Some provision should be made, for a short length of time, to ensure that the visual tape is available both to the complaints commission and as evidence in court in any case being heard. The Minister did say he intended to have a look at it on Report Stage?
Yes, indeed I did. I take the Deputy's point very seriously, indeed. I wish to have it explored and will report further on Report Stage.
There is only one additional point I should like to make—as we will be coming back to this on Report Stage —whereas the complaints advisory committee did not object to the wording of the Bill, as it stands, I think they had very much in mind also the financial restraints on RTE and the difficulty of preserving visual records over any prolonged period. I do not wish to suggest that they were necessarily satisfied with the preservation of sound records only. I am sure they would be much more satisfied were it possible to provide for visual records also. I want to look into the question of how expensive that would be and whether we can provide for a minimum mandatory period which would not involve RTE in excessive expense.
I think I am reasonably clear on what has been said. May I ask the Minister if I am correct in thinking that when a set of letters originates from a firm of solicitors on behalf of somebody, proceedings are commenced and served, even then— as the situation obtains at present—the sound recording only is retained as distinct from the taped film? I think the Minister is in agreement with everybody on this point—that sound is one thing but that gestures, appearances, approaches of people on a television screen, even an inflection in a person's voice or expression on a person's face can have an entirely different bearing on the matter. May I take it that, once proceedings have commenced, both the sound recordings and the taped film will be retained? I appreciate that proceedings may not commence for a long period, of say, nine or 12 months, when, in many instances, such recordings and films may have been disposed of. Perhaps the Minister would let me know exactly what is the position there.
I know the Minister is considering the matter with regard to the future. In my opinion there should not be any great expense on RTE in retaining films that may have repercussions and likely proceedings being initiated in court because the number of programmes in respect of which that is likely to happen would be limited. The Minister is very much in agreement with Deputy Fitzpatrick in this matter and says he is giving it his serious consideration. Perhaps the Minister would let me know what is the position when proceedings are served because I believe there must be a duty then on RTE to retain all of the material involved.
I do not want to be crossing from one section to another with regard to evidential as distinct from the historical aspect. To return to the historical aspect of it in my opinion we should make every effort in regard to our national sports, hurling and football, to promote interest in them. During the last few months we have seen some of the most wonderful exhibitions of hurling ever.
The Deputy is departing from the section now.
It has been discussed in regard to historical items during the last few minutes. I believe if those exhibitions of hurling are recorded and retained, particularly if they are properly filmed, it would not alone be a spectacle which could be witnessed by people interested in that particular sport but people throughout the length and breadth of Ireland would be interested in watching such films. If the film was distributed throughout Europe and the world many people who never tried to play hurling would become interested in attempting to play the game. I know the Minister is very interested in this matter and he will give it his attention.
I think the Deputy will agree that the section deals with one point and he seems to be widening it.
I do not wish to enter into an argument with the Chair. I believe what I have said is quite relevant.
There are two points I would like to make. I would like to confine myself, under your ruling, strictly to the section. The matter of existing practice has been raised, which does not strictly arise under the section. As I pointed out, there is at present no statutory obligation on the Authority to make or keep recordings for any purpose. They preserve recordings but generally these are, at present, matters of day to day presentation proper to RTE and I do not think we should expand on their present practice here. The question before us as legislators is what obligations we wish to make mandatory on them.
As I said, Deputy Fitzpatrick's point about the preservation of visual records is highly relevant and I will have it studied. I would also like to make the point, because some references here seem to imply that everything that was broadcast could be preserved, both visually and in sound, that a very considerable proportion of television broadcasts are live and there is no record. That is one material existing limitation there. Of course, filmed material can be preserved. The question is do we make it mandatory to preserve such material and if so for how long? As I have indicated, that is a matter about which I would like to consult with RTE and come back and talk to the House again about it on Report Stage.
The Minister has touched on a very important point there that RTE do not record film of live material. Would the Minister take that matter up with them in case something arises in relation to that?
(Dublin Central): That is very important in current affairs.
I will explore with them every point that has been made in connection with this matter.
(Dublin Central): This section places no obligation on RTE to record anything that would come under section 6 which is now deleted?
That is so.
(Dublin Central): Will that same provision apply with the rebroadcasting of programmes under RTE 2? Those programmes will be rebroadcast by the RTE Authority.
The same obligation as applied in relation to RTE I will apply to RTE 2, that is to say, whatever they are broadcasting will have these obligations applied to them.
(Dublin Central): In the future they will be rebroadcasting sound programmes in an official capacity. We are getting those programmes at the moment but they are not coming through RTE so they are not responsible. They have no obligation at the moment in relation to UTV, BBC 1 or BBC 2.
RTE have no responsibility for them.
(Dublin Central): When RTE 2 is established the programmes which they decide to broadcast will officially come under the umbrella and be rightly within the control of RTE?
Yes, if broadcast by RTE.
(Dublin Central): Therefore, the same recordings will have to be kept of BBC programmes that are rebroadcast?
Yes.
(Dublin Central): That is important. This is a very technical point but in relation to programmes from BBC 1 or BBC 2, which are of a libellous nature, who will be held responsible?
If RTE broadcast anything my understanding is that RTE are responsible for it. If they take some material from a foreign broadcasting station and they broadcast it here they are responsible under our laws for that broadcast but they have no responsibility for anything broadcast by an outside station which may be received here without their aid.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, line 22, after "such functions" to insert "in respect of the carrying out of subsidiary activities".
I believe the Minister discussed an amendment similar to this in the Seanad. Section 8 empowers the Minister to assign to the Authority further functions beyond those which they already are empowered to carry out. Our belief is that in inserting this section any duties which the Minister deems necessary that the Authority should carry out should be of a subsidiary nature to those carried out at the moment. As the Bill stands, it is quite evident that it would be possible for the Minister to ask the Authority to carry out other functions of a different nature altogether. It is for this reason, and to be more precise, that we are putting forward this amendment. I believe this amendment would improve the section and the Authority would know exactly where they stand. At the moment I doubt if the Authority could understand what activities the Minister could request them to carry out.
A similar amendment was debated in the Seanad as the Deputy is aware. I indicated that I had some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment but I did not accept it at that stage. There were two reasons for that, the second of which was really the decisive one. First, I considered that the fears expressed regarding the excessively wide powers embodied in this section were perhaps somewhat exaggerated seeing that under subsection (3) a Minister proposing to make an order assigning additional functions to RTE would have to lay a draft of it before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Either House could then prevent the making of the order by resolution passed within 21 sitting days. I felt that the fears might be somewhat exaggerated. I still would have been prepared to meet the point except that at that stage I was advised on the legal aspects that the amendment as drafted was not acceptable. I have, however, had the matter further examined in the meantime, especially in the light of the amendments tabled by the Deputy. I have now been advised that no objection need be raised to the amendment on legal grounds. Having regard to that, and in order to allay misgivings about the section—even though I may consider the misgivings somewhat exaggerated, still I have to accept that they are there—I am prepared to accept the amendment.
(Dublin Central): I thank the Minister for accepting this amendment. Our reason for putting it down was not to impede the Minister, much less the Authority, but to find out more precisely where the Authority stood. We wanted to find out exactly what duties the Minister had in mind. I am sure the duties he will ask the Authority to carry out will be of a subsidiary nature. I doubt very much if we would oblige them to carry out duties beyond their existing powers. They will now know just what functions the Minister has in mind. What kind of additional functions will it be necessary for him to ask the Authority to undertake from time to time under this section?
I would not like to limit them because so much depends on the contingencies that might arise. On 11th June last I indicated in the Seanad the type of functions which might be desirable to have performed by a subsidiary. They are, for example—I would not like this to be taken as exhaustive because other things might arise—provision and maintenance of cable systems, publication of educational tests related to educational programmes provided by RTE, should these develop to a considerable extent in the future, and so on.
Amendment agreed to.
(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, lines 31 to 35, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) Wherever a direction is proposed to be made under this section a draft of the proposed direction shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a direction shall not be made until a resolution of the draft has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas."
In other sections the Minister is anxious, when taking decisions, that they should be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. To be consistent this draft should be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas before the order is made and after a given time. Before it comes into effect the House should have an opportunity to look at it and, if necessary, discuss it and deliberate on it, as in other sections, such as the removal of the Authority and so on.
I support what Deputy Fitzpatrick said. Most people will agree that the laying of a draft before the Houses is a less active way of dealing with an order which is not likely to be accepted or to which any exception is taken. I am influenced in favour of this amendment because it is not possible at any given stage to visualise what a Minister might feel should be additional activities by a broadcasting company. Therefore, in my opinion, it should be a subject of discussion and approval by both Houses rather than the automatic laying of an order before the Houses and being passed after 21 days. I do not think any Minister could tie himself down as to what additional activities an organisation like RTE could possibly carry out in future years.
I am anxious that adequate protection against abuse should be provided and that is in line with general thinking in the Bill, as Deputies opposite said. In relation to any particular matter, the question arises as to how restrictive and protective we ought to be, how serious the danger of abuse of a particular section, for example, may be. That does not seem to me to be very high in relation to this section. I have thought the matter over and I consider the proposed amendment is unduly restrictive, considering what is involved here. The need for a resolution of either House should arise, in my view, only if the House feel the order should not be made. That provides inherently adequate protection against abuse of the section. Wherever there is this feeling, the House has the remedy. That, in my view, is enough. The wording of the subsection is not new. For example, it is almost identical with that in the Transport Act, 1950, under which at least three subsidiaries have been set up by CIE. I am afraid I cannot agree to the amendment.
(Dublin Central): I must confess I was not sure the Minister would accept amendment No. 15. By virtue of the fact that he accepted that the activities he will direct them to do will be of a subsidiary nature, that modifies the section to a large extent. I put forward this amendment because, as it stood. I was not sure what type of functions the Minister had in mind. I was not sure what duties he would impose on the Authority. Because the Minister has accepted the other amendment which modifies this section, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
I thank the Deputy for the constructive spirit in which he approached this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 in the name of the Minister are related and may be discussed together if the House agrees.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, lines 37 and 38 to delete "in respect of each financial year after the financial year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975,".
Section 9 provides for the payment to RTE of grants equivalent to the net receipts from ordinary television licence fees and from wired broadcast relay licence fees—cable television— in 1976 and in future years.
The Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1974, covers the payment of grants to RTE in respect of ordinary television licence fees up to the end of 1975 but there is no similar statutory provision for payment of net cable television licence fees. Wired broadcast relay licence fees which were first introduced in April, 1974, are being paid to RTE at present under subhead (1) (ii) of the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is desirable that there should be specific statutory authority for the payment to RTE of these fees for 1974 and 1975 and the amendments are intended to achieve this.
(Dublin Central): This is an enabling section to ensure that cable television licence fees are transferred to the Authority. I take it there is no provision for the transfer of these moneys to the Authority?
There is no specific statutory authority.
(Dublin Central): Are they transferred at the moment?
Yes. The amendments are designed merely to remove all doubt.
I take it that the payment of licence fees will not require the making of an order in future?
That is right.
Formerly the position was that the Minister had to get an order through the House before the expiry of each year.
For a period of five years.
I should like to raise a point regarding the quality of service given by firms operating in the city. I have had numerous complaints——
It is not relevant to the amendment.
I have been told by people that the service being provided is very poor——
Acting Chairman
What the Deputy is raising is not relevant to the present discussion and it should be raised at another time.
The Minister should look into the matter and see what can be done. People are paying each week or each month and they are getting a very poor service. The Minister has a responsibility to ensure that these companies, including RTE, provide a proper service.
If the Deputy wishes to raise a point of that kind he has Question Time available to him. I put it that he is wasting the time of the House by raising a matter which he knows is irrelevant to the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 8, line 40, before "an amount" to insert "in respect of each financial year after the financial year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 8, line 54, before "an amount" to insert "in respect of each financial year after the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974,".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
The point raised by Deputy Timmons could be raised on the Bill generally but not under a section. I think I am correct in this?
Acting Chairman
Possibly, yes.
(Dublin Central): Perhaps the Minister would tell the House what the cable television companies are paying to the Department. It is quite right that they should contribute to the Authority and I should like to know from the Minister what is the sum involved. I think it is calculated on the basis of a certain amount per house.
The Authority have come in for a considerable amount of criticism with regard to increases in the licence fee and with regard to programmes. The amount of money they receive will play a big part in the programmes they can offer and any deductions the Department make with regard to the collection of fees will have a bearing on the amount of revenue available to the Authority. There is provision in a section to deduct expenses with regard to collection of certain fees. To some extent I can see the point in that but I am not totally satisfied that the present deductions are justified and they are inhibiting the flow of cash to the Authority. I am not sure how this can be got over but I should like to know what percentage of the licence fee is deducted before the moneys are transferred to the Authority. I am informed that this is substantial. It would have a bearing on the amount of money available to the Authority to carry out their work. Has the Minister taken into consideration what has already been deducted? Has the Minister considered any alternative way of collecting this money?
This matter was dealt with by the Broadcasting Review Commission. The Minister should investigate this and see if the deductions made are justified and if they can be reduced. The Authority do not seem to have any say with regard to the amount of money that should be deducted. In criticising the Authority people will draw attention to the fact that they pay their licence fee annually but they do not bear in mind that the Authority are obligated to carry on with the money transferred to them by the Department. The Authority should have a say as to how the cost of collecting licence fees could be reduced. They have a right to put forward any scheme which would reduce the cost of collecting these fees. The views of the Authority should be taken into consideration because RTE are the sufferers if the system of collection is bad, not the Department, or the Minister. I accept that the Minister must listen to a certain amount of criticism when the licence fee is increased but by and large it is the Authority who are involved.
In this day and age we are all trying to economise and if it is found that the present system of collection is not efficient we should have a look at it. I believe suggestions were put forward that the fee could be collected, on an experimental basis at first, through ESB accounts. Has the Minister teased out this possibility to see if the amount being deducted for collecting fees by the Department can be reduced? What percentage is contributed by the cable television companies and what percentage of the licence fees is deducted by the Department?
I should like to support Deputy Fitzpatrick on the points he made with regard to the collection of licence fees. On a number of occasions when I was connected with RTE I put forward some alternatives. This question has been discussed over the past ten years and various methods of collection suggested including getting the ESB to collect the fee on behalf of RTE. It strikes me that if this was a private enterprise economy and if the Post Office and the ESB were private enterprises the executives of one side would get in touch with the executives of the other side in an effort to collect the fees. Something in excess of £500,000 is charged by the Post Office for collection of these fees, and that is a significant item but times are difficult and economies and efficiency are more mandatory now because we have so many State bodies. If it was a case of private enterprise it would respond to the discipline of efficiency more rapidly than State companies. For that reason the Minister should take another look at that problem.
There is the question of the portable set but I do not think there are many of them and I do not think the problem of collecting the fee in respect of those sets would be any different. Certainly, it is not possible in the case of more than 99 per cent of television sets to run one unless one is paying an ESB bill. Therefore, as with the hire-purchase system which the ESB employ in the sale of some electrical goods, there should not be much difficulty in collecting the licence fee through that system provided there was an effective arrangement between the two groups.
Deputies Fitzpatrick and Brugha have raised a number of interesting points some of which I would like to consider at more leisure and some of which I have had occasion to consider a good deal over the years. One suggestion was that a different method of collection of the licence fee would benefit RTE. That is not strictly so. When licence fees are being increased the new fees are fixed at a level which will give RTE the increase in income which the Government consider they need and the Department's costs of collection. If the cost of collection could be reduced, something we all think very desirable, the public, not specifically RTE, would be the beneficiaries. Of course, that is not a reason for not looking for economies.
(Dublin Central): RTE would be the beneficiaries on current rates. I take it that the Minister was talking about future increases.
Yes. A number of queries were raised about the payment to RTE of net wired broadcast relay licence fee receipts which is provided for under clause (b) of section 9. Under the Wireless Telegraphy (Wired Broadcast Relay Licence) Regulations, 1974, cable operators are required to pay an annual licence fee equivalent to 15 per cent of their rental receipts and so on from customers or £2 per year per household connected to the system where there is no identifiable income from the systems. Net receipts from these licence fees amounting to £185,000 were paid over to RTE in 1975. The thinking behind this system is that the extension of cable systems has reduced RTE's attractiveness as an advertising medium because of loss of viewers to BBC and UTV programmes, as Deputies and the public are aware. It seems only reasonable that those viewers who enjoy the benefit of cable systems should contribute towards the consequential loss of advertising revenue to RTE rather than that the full cost be borne by viewers generally. The Broadcasting Review Committee recommended in their report that a levy should be paid by cable operators to compensate for the estimated loss of advertising revenue to RTE arising from the development of cable television. That recommendation was, generally speaking, implemented and, I believe, with general support here.
The expenses deductible from the licence fee receipts before they are paid over to RTE, referred to at paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (a) of the present section are identical with the provisions of the previous Bills, that is to say, the cost of collecting TV licence fees and the cost incurred by the Department in connection with the control of interference. The former amounted to about £.63 million in a recent 12 months; the latter, which are really insignificant, are incurred mainly by RTE, dealing with the cases of interference with TV or radio reception in accordance with the statutory order made by the Minister under section 12 (A) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, inserted in the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960.
The provision at (iii) of subsection (a) is new, although not very significant. It provides for deduction from licence fee receipts of the costs of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to be set up under the Bill. These are expected to be relatively insignificant. For example, the cost of the existing Complaints Advisory Committee has been estimated by RTE at about £250 during a recent 12 months. As Deputies are aware, the members of the committee are not remunerated. The possibility for the remuneration of the committee exists, but I have commented on that elsewhere.
The question of RTE taking over collection work has been mentioned. RTE did request that responsibility for collecting licence fees be transferred to the Authority. The Broadcasting Review Committee recommended that this be done. Consideration of this matter has been deferred pending study of the possibility of securing more efficient licence fee collection by computerisation of the system. A feasibility study of computer processing of licence fee collection was completed recently and indicates the possibility of fairly substantial savings, but the initial cost of implementation would be high. The viability of the project is being studied at present. There does not appear to be any guarantee that a body such as RTE could do the job of collection more cheaply than the Department. A major drawback would be that they would not, under existing legislation, have access to the information about transactions in TV sets supplied by dealers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1972.
The question of collection by arrangement with the ESB has been mentioned, and that would be a very tempting idea. It has been explored by the Authority and, as far as I know, rather informally with the ESB, but so far no proposals have come before me in relation to this matter. However, I should like to assure the House that I am naturally concerned about the question of reducing collection costs. I am very anxious that anything that would result in economy in this area should be done, and I shall certainly take into consideration with my Department any suggestions that may be made in this House in this area. I agree that these matters arise generally in relation to section 9, but I do not think they would require changes in section 9 as it stands. However, we have covered the question of amendments.
(Dublin Central): Could the Minister say what percentage does the figure £.63 million represent of the total funds collected and transferred?
About 9 per cent.
(Dublin Central): Could the Minister indicate what paragraph (ii) means?
It reads:
any expenses certified by the Minister as having been incurred by him in that year in respect of the performance of his functions under sections 12 or 12A of the Act of 1926 in relation to interfering with or injuriously affecting wireless telegraphy apparatus for receiving only, and
I thought I had dealt with that or attempted to deal with it in my remarks.
(Dublin Central): Perhaps the Minister did, but I did not catch it properly.
I understand it is expenditure incurred in connection with interference with broadcasting. It is not a very significant item of expenditure. I do not know what the figure is. Most of it is carried out by RTE themselves.
(Dublin Central): There is no provision for deductions for injury in respect of interference when RTE is introduced. There are people, especially in remote parts of the country, who are at present getting reception on the 405 line. These sets will become obsolete when the second channel comes into operation. I am not sure whether the Minister was considering giving some compensation to these people under this section. I put down a question some time ago about a substantial number of people in Mayo who will be adversely affected.
On a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy, especially in view of the very constructive manner in which he has conducted this whole discussion, but I do not think that point arises on this section.
(Dublin Central): It may not arise, but there is no reason why we could not insert a subsection here, because if the Minister or the Department wanted to pay any compensation they would make the consequent deductions under this section.
The Deputy should have put in an amendment there.
(Dublin Central): That has inspired me to put one down for Report Stage. I am thinking it is on this section——
Acting Chairman
This is not relevant.
(Dublin Central): It will be relevant on Report Stage——
Acting Chairman
But not at the moment.
(Dublin Central): The Department will be making deductions under paragraph (ii) and although, on the one hand, I am arguing that the Minister is deducting too much, on the other hand, I am concerned about 4,000 people in Mayo who will be affected. I had numerous representations from that part of the country. These people are small farmers, old age pensioners and so on who are using very old sets that were bought 16 or 17 years ago. They will have to purchase a new set or they cannot receive RTE 2. That is going to be their situation. The Minister says it should not go into this section but I think it should.
As the Deputy is very well aware, I have already told him in reply to a question that I cannot agree to compensate those affected by adjustments in the existing television services, which, unfortunately, are unavoidable if the new service is to be provided at minimum cost for the maximum number of viewers. Sets which can receive 405 only are now quite old, as the Deputy is aware. It is open to him to table an amendment but it is my duty to say that I have to resist any such amendment but he could have it inserted and discussed.
On a point of information under section 9 may I ask the Minister if a person who is prosecuted for the non-payment of his television or wireless licence——
Television only.
If he is prosecuted and fined £40 or £50 for not having a television licence, is that fine paid over to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or where does it go?
It does not go to the Department. I am not sure where it goes. I will try to find that out but it is only of academic interest to me.
(Dublin Central): It would be very useful for the Authority.
It is an idea.
That is why I raised the point. Here we are dealing with annual amounts which the Minister has to pay over to RTE. RTE itself spend quite a lot of money warning people against what it would cost them to be caught without a television licence. It seems remarkable, I had thought—and it was only some nagging doubt that prompted me to ask the question—that if I were brought to the district court for not having a television licence and I were prosecuted, usually the fine exceeds the amount of the licence. The Minister in his reply told me that he on behalf of RTE does not get that fine, but I am wondering, if the fine is twice the licence fee. Is there not an arrangement whereby whoever it is, the Department of Justice or the Paymaster General, who gets the money pays over at least the equivalent of the licence to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for transmission to RTE?
I appreciate the spirit of the Deputy's suggestion. Needless to say, I would like if these fines went to either RTE or the Department of Posts and Telegraphs but they do not at the moment. I make the point that the payment of the fine does not relieve the person concerned of the duty to pay his licence fee. Both the threat and the reality of the fine are a means of making the person concerned come to the point where he pays his licence fee, so in that respect RTE do benefit but the fines themselves do not come to my Department or to RTE.
(Dublin Central): I have little to add except to ask the Minister if he would look again at the system as regards collection. It does seem rather a high percentage, the cost of £.63 million to collect the fees. Of course, it is RTE who have to carry this burden. The suggestion was put forward by the Authority, as the Minister stated that it could be collected through the ESB accounts. If this is feasible and economical, the Authority should be given the right to carry out this collection. Economies are important in every section and if the RTE Authority can effect economies along this line they should be allowed to do so.
As I told the House, methods of cutting the costs of collection are under study at the moment and I hope to be able to report to the House at a later stage what the outcome of that study is. I have no prejudice in favour of one way of collecting this more than another. If I were satisfied that collection by RTE could cut the costs, I would go for that, or if agreement were reached with the ESB whereby that could be done, I would be very happy about that. I will have the various points made in relation to this here studied.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): Could the Minister give any idea as to what is the present financial situation where RTE borrowing is concerned? I understand that the Authority were rather anxious that this section should have gone through about 12 months ago because that borrowing is confined. I would like the Minister to inform the House through what channels RTE carries on their borrowings within the confines of what is in the 1960 Bill as to where they got the money over the past 12 months to expand and develop RTE 2.
Section 10 amends section 23 (2) (b) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 and raises from £4 million to £15 million the limit on the amount the Minister for Finance may advance to RTE for capital purposes by means of repayable advances out of the Central Fund. The Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, set a limit of £2 million on the amount that may be advanced to RTE by means of repayable Exchequer advances. The limit was raised to £3 million by the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1964, and to £4 million by the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1973.
In my speech on Second Stage of the Bill on 28th October, 1975, volume 285, No. 3 of the Official Report, columns 387, 388 and 389 I explained why it was necessary to provide for a large increase in the limit of the Exchequer advances that may be made to RTE by the Minister for Finance for capital purposes. In 1975 and 1976 Exchequer advances totalling about £6 million have been approved for RTE. They have estimated that in the five years 1975 to 1979 their capital requirement would amount to £14.7 million of which £5.4 million represents the cost of renewing the transmitter network for the existing TV services and providing the new transmitter for the second service. It also includes £2 million for renewal and expansion of television production facilities and provision of regional studios, £1.5 million for improvement of coverage of the existing TV service, £2 million for renewal of miscellaneous TV and radio equipment and £3 million for miscellaneous works such as monitoring and control equipment, building improvement, radio coverage and so on. Extra capital will also be needed for RTE 2. The House will agree that it would be unreasonable to expect RTE to finance a programme of this magnitude from their own resources.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.