(Dublin Central): Would the Minister again give an explanation of this section? I think he had just concluded. He need not do it as comprehensively as the last time.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 12.
Question again proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Deputy like me to do so?
(Dublin Central): Yes, certainly.
The RTE superannuation scheme is a perpetual fund registered under the Perpetual Funds (Registration) Act, 1933. The Schedule to that Act sets out the requirements of the Act as to the rules regulating perpetual funds. In particular, paragraph 6 of the Schedule specifies that when the trustees of the fund are authorised by the rules of the fund to invest capital moneys belonging to the fund by depositing such moneys with the employer or persons employed in the undertaking in connection with which the fund is established, such moneys shall not be deposited unless (a) the employer is a body corporate, (b) the undertaking has paid dividends of not less than 3 per cent on its ordinary stocks and shares in each of the past ten years and (c) the deposit is secured by a charge on the whole or part of the assets of the undertaking.
Under the terms of the RTE superannuation scheme the trustees may make loans to the RTE Authority provided the loans comply with paragraph 6 of the Schedule to the Perpetual Funds (Registration) Act, 1933, but in fact it is not possible for RTE to comply with paragraph 6. They do not declare a dividend on stocks and shares and the securing of a loan on the assets of the Authority could also cause problems. The proposed amendment would remove this legal difficulty but it would also remove the element of protection of the interests of the RTE employees contained in these provisions of the Perpetual Funds (Registration) Act. However, I wish to assure the House by way of this public commitment, and I have given a parallel assurance in the other House, that any advance made at any time by the RTE superannuation fund to the RTE Authority will be secure both as to interest and repayment of capital so that the interests of RTE employees will continue to be fully protected.
That is the public commitment entered into by me.
(Dublin Central): I can appreciate the significance of this section. As regards the funds of RTE and how they can be invested, I can see the complication which has arisen where the old section is concerned. I would like to know how the fund stands at the moment. I understand from what the Minister has stated that they are in a position to give loans to RTE. How much has the fund given to the Authority?
I believe they have given RTE a loan but I am afraid I do not have the data here. I am not quite sure whether it would be appropriate for me to make a public statement regarding it. If the Deputy wishes the information I will certainly be very happy to get it and communicate it to him.
(Dublin Central): I fully appreciate that money belonging to the fund should not be left dormant. It is the RTE employees' pension fund for the future and it is vitally important that it be properly invested. The Minister states that they are prohibited from giving any loan unless they are paid 3 per cent. When this Bill goes to the House I wonder what type of dividend or interest will be paid to the fund by the RTE Authority. With inflation as it is today the protection of the fund for the employees is of vital importance and investment should be at a very high rate. Any moneys lent from the fund should carry the rate of interest which would be applicable if the moneys were invested in any other financial institution. It may be wise for the Minister not to reveal the amount of any existing loan, but I would like an assurance that the proper interest rates and the proper return will be paid to the fund. A lot of financial institutions today go into equity on interest rates in order to keep up a standard. I would like to think that the Authority will make that provision when returning their proper interest charge on the fund. I see nothing wrong with the idea of the Authority borrowing from the fund. I am sure the employees themselves would not hesitate to say, “If we have money in our fund let the Authority have it, provided the guarantees are there that this fund is protected and that the proper return on the investment is accruing to the fund each year”.
I wonder if the Minister could give any indication as to what has happened since the establishment of RTE? I am sure that a proper audit has been carried out but what is the fund like at this time or have the employees in RTE any access to the information which I believe should be available from now on for this type of superannuation? At least some of the employees should have some access to this information, and I believe that is going to happen, not alone in RTE but in other State and civic bodies. It is right and proper that this should be. I know that one semi-State body recently was talking along the lines that the proper account would be given to at least some members of the staff. It is most important that they satisfy their minds that their money—and it is their money—is properly protected.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that there will be a proper return on the capital from the RTE Authority every six months or every year so that the employees will be satisfied that their pension fund is properly protected and is appreciating sufficiently to keep pace with inflation. I am sure the Minister can see my point regarding the protection of the fund and giving some members the right to supervise the accounts in the fund from time to time.
I note the Deputy's remarks and appreciate the concern that lies behind them. I will see that they are brought to the attention of the RTE Authority. At the same time, I should say that I do not think there are grounds for anxiety in this area. The fund is credited annually and the auditor has never suggested that interest rates paid by RTE were not adequate. The trustees of the fund would insist on getting proper rates of interest as a condition of granting RTE a loan.
The Deputy also spoke of the interests of employees. The employees are represented on the management body of the fund and, therefore, that aspect is taken care of. The great bulk of moneys invested by the fund are in Government securities and I would be happy to give the Deputy any information he requires in this matter. I am not quite sure how much I should give by way of public statement here on such a matter and I am sure the Deputy appreciates that. The amendment sought is a technical one necessitated by the actual legal situation. This legislation gives us an opportunity of correcting an anomaly and I hope the House will agree to it.
Will the Minister tell the House who are the trustees of the fund?
I said that employees are represented there.
It strikes me as most desirable that the employees would recognise the importance of having representatives as trustees who understood how the moneys are being invested. I have heard of instances, fortunately not in this country, where employees' pensions were handed over to management firms and invested unwisely and in high risk undertakings. Bernie Cornfield was involved in this type of undertaking. The employees concerned suffered quite severely and were lucky to get out with any of their pension fund. I am always happy to hear that funds are invested in gilt edge; even if the interest is not as great as might be obtained elsewhere at least it will keep in line with the rate of inflation. The whole future of employees when they retire depends on how the money is invested. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House how many employees are represented as trustees and who are the other trustees?
I was not anticipating this question and I do not have with me a list of the trustees. However, I know that former senior employees of RTE and a member of the Bank of Ireland are among the trustees. I do not think there need be any fear of wildcat speculation. This is a very respectable body.
(Dublin Central): I am glad to hear that employees of RTE are among the trustees. This is important because I know of some pension funds where employees do not have representation and this is bound to create a certain doubt in their minds. Once the money is invested in gilt edge that is the best that can be done. However, if there is a large surplus of fund within RTE, will the Authority be in a position to apply to the trustees for a loan from the fund? With the extension of RTE 2, is it envisaged that the capital might be found in this way, at the going rate?
I am not sure that the scale of capital available in this way would be commensurate with what the Deputy has in mind. The funds so far are not very extensive but I am sure the RTE Authority will have more possible sources of capital in mind. I understand it is unlikely that a further loan would be made available at this stage from the fund. I should like to repeat that the amendment sought is simply to dispose of an anomaly in the existing law. We are taking advantage of this legislation to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendment No. 20 is in the name of the Minister. This amendment has already been debated on section 1 in conjunction with a series of other amendments. Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 9, 12 and 20 are regarded as consequential on the proposal to delete section 6.
(Dublin Central): I take it we have discussed these amendments on section 1?
We have discussed this amendment. We cannot discuss it again.
(Dublin Central): This is in connection with the rebroadcasting of BBC 1——
We must dispose of the amendment now. The matter may be debated on the section.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, lines 34 to 37, to delete paragraph (b).
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): We have discussed this amendment but I am discussing the section now regarding the deletion of the section dealing with the rebroadcasting of another programme in its entirely. It was envisaged by the Minister at that time that BBC 1——
The section has now been amended by means of a deletion. Is it the Deputy's intention to discuss the deleted part?
(Dublin Central): I am discussing the section.
Perhaps the Minister would tell us what is the section now?
The section now reads:
The following is hereby substituted for paragraph (b) of section 16 (2) of the Principal Act: subject to any regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, which are for the time being in force, to provide for the distribution by means of wired broadcast relay stations of programmes broadcast by the Authority and such other programmes as the Authority may decide.
Is this what the Deputy wishes to discuss?
(Dublin Central): In effect, the deletion of this amendment which the Minister has proposed.
But that amendment has been carried.
(Dublin Central): Yes. I am discussing the section.
As amended.
(Dublin Central): Yes.
That is what is before the House.
(Dublin Central): I am speaking in relation to the Minister's reply to a parliamentary question yesterday, which certainly confused me, as regards the establishment of RTE 2.
On a point of order, I do not see how this arises under the section as amended.
(Dublin Central): I think it comes into this section.
I think it would require considerable ingenuity, which I do not deny to the Deputy.
(Dublin Central): This in effect deals with the right of the Minister to direct the Authority to broadcast another programme.
That point has been decided, a Cheann Comhairle. With due respect, I think the Deputy is seeking to debate the deleted section.
We must debate the section as amended.
We are just trying to understand the significance of the section as it now stands. The Minister read out what I have in front of me, but that is very technical jargon. Could the Minister just tell me what in fact that means in plainer English? I am a little confused.
The provision which stands at what is described as 13 (b), which is what remains of this as distinct from what does not remain, was inserted to make it clear that the Authority have power to provide multi-channel cable systems. Legal advice was that the Authority had power to do this under section 16 of the 1960 Act, but it was considered desirable to make specific provision on the point in the amending Bill in order to put the matter beyond doubt. That is to say, this is purely a section of clarification of the present law where doubt might be considered to exist.
(Dublin Central): Would the Minister give information about the meetings he had recently in Limerick and various other places: what is his intention, how soon he expects to have cable television available to people in Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and what the cost would be?
In a nutshell, I informed those who are interested in the linkage of cable systems in relation to Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford—this is a matter of course which applies only to centres of relatively high population density—that, as I understand the situation, the cable companies which originally showed some interest in this proposition have not shown active interest for some time past. The idea seemed to have gone about that they were deterred by my Department's alleged unwillingness to license such systems. I explained to them that no such unwillingness existed, that if sufficient interest existed, that is to say, if people in the areas concerned were willing to pay the cost of such systems, including the provision of the necessary microwave connections, my Department would be prepared to co-operate with them.
My understanding is now that, first of all, there will be a working party consisting of the technical advisers of the multi-channel groups in these areas meeting with technicians of my Department to explore the possibilities and also the costings. I was with the officials of my Department. I pointed out that this was likely to be a fairly costly enterprise and one which could not be entered into unless there was widespread support for the idea in the areas concerned and that the people there were prepared to pay for it. I stressed that there was no question of the State, in present circumstances, providing any kind of subsidy for such an undertaking, that those who desired multi-channel viewing in these areas would have to be prepared to pay the full cost of that. I must say that their representatives appeared entirely to accept that point of view. These studies are now going ahead.
In relation to the other question which the Deputy raised about the time scale, I understand that the provision of the necessary microwave links to these centres would take two-and-a-half to three years from the date of order, and rental would be about £200,000 a year at early 1976 prices. That is expensive, and I wish to underline this: I am not saying this is something we can simply take out of the air and do easily. It will take time even assuming that the effective demand exists, and it will also take money. If the other problems could be resolved, the copyright issue, the setting up of local cabling systems and the financing of these, it would therefore be two to three years before the systems would be operational.
I have given a general explanation of my conversations there, but continuing exploration is going on, and after the meeting between officials and technicians, I would expect to have a further meeting with those interested to which representatives of the cable companies would also be invited, and we could then explore the possibilities of further progress.
I would like to compliment the Minister on his elaboration of this topic, because it is of tremendous importance to many people in the country. I am not as familiar with this matter as my colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, but do I take it from what the Minister has been saying that those who are interested in receiving multi-channel programmes are pressing the Minister to allow private companies, if necessary, to set up cabling systems? Is that what the lobby would be? That the Minister is saying: "You may if you want to, but you will not get any subsidy from my Department", that the costs are in the region of £200,000 to set up one system. Is that correct?
Generally speaking, yes. I should explain that the people concerned are viewers and representatives of viewers primarily in four centres, Limerick, Cork, Galway and Waterford. In relation certainly to Limerick, Cork and Galway— Waterford is marginal—the possibilities of multi-channel viewing depend on linking these centres by microwave. That is an expensive enough proposition on the figures I have quoted.
The question is whether there is enough interest in this in the areas concerned to make it financially viable and whether the demands, which they very eloquently expressed, are strong enough in actual financial terms to make this work. If so, there are possibilities for the establishment of co-operatives in the different centres which would guarantee the cable companies or a cable company.
I want to emphasise again that there can be no question of a State subsidy for this purpose. I think the people concerned understand this. If they are prepared to pay for it, if they think it is worth it, then we are prepared to try to overcome such obstacles as there are.
(Dublin Central): Did the Minister decide this only last week or was that his opinion all the time?
We have been exploring the matter as to how far we could go to meet this demand. I have had a number of discussions in the Department about this but this, I think, was the first meeting at which I made this clear to the associations concerned. Earlier, I indicated it was a possibility that I was prepared to explore.
(Dublin Central): I am aware of the concern in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford in this respect. The cost figure the Minister gave, £200,000 per annum, was disputed by some of the multi-channel people who thought the Minister's figures were excessive. I take it that it would depend entirely on the number of applicants. In Limerick, for instance, if the entire population took the service, how much would it mean per head? I am sure it would be very big. The Minister's references were to cities. Has he considered the larger towns and has he got applications from them? If the cities get this service, I have no doubt the Minister will have applications from towns. Has he any idea of how he would handle such applications?
On the costings, the Deputy is quite right that the representatives of the multi-channel people in these centres challenged the figure of £200,000 per annum. They will have opportunities to discuss this with officers of my Department, when they will be shown the basis for the figure. I wish to emphasise again that we will not subsidise this. Neither do we intend to make a profit out of it. I think those people will find that the figure mentioned is realistically based. It is for all the four centres and this would work out at about £5 per head per annum if 90 per cent took the service. It would be £4.50 per head per annum if all took the service and it would be pro rata down from that. I understand that 20 provincial towns in the multi-channel areas on the east coast and along the Border are serviced.
In their 1974 report, at page 75, the Broadcasting Review Committee have some relevant comments to make in relation to the point the Deputy has raised. They say that even with microwave transmission from the point of entry of the external cable to the point of distribution, which is what we are dealing with here, cable television as a means of providing access to BBC and ITV programmes is effectively limited by economic considerations to the larger centres of population. The development of cable television on a commercial basis would still leave some 300,000 homes, or more than 1 million persons, dependent on the single station, RTE.
That point has to be made here. Therefore, provision of transmission to these centres is not a panacea and will leave the rural areas still single-channel, in effect. That is in-built in the situation. It is one of the reasons why I considered the rebroadcasting, which I have not discussed now because we have deleted it. I have tried to give the Deputies as much information as possible about a matter which is still being studied. It may be found that in present circumstances there simply is not sufficient financial interest and willingness, and if so that is it. If there is, my Department will be prepared to help those concerned to overcome the other difficulties and eventually to grant the necessary licences. Even if all this works out, it will still be two-and-a-half to three years away and it is still at the range of cost of £5 per head per annum.
If a private company decided to float a public issue to raise money to set up a cable television network to bring multi-channel television to some area, will there be objection from the Department and will the Minister give the licence? They would have to then pay a fee to RTE for the programmes they would be getting from RTE. Would that be correct? If no subsidy is being considered, where does the figure of £200,000 come in?
It relates mainly to the maintenance of the micro-wave links.
Would it be incumbent upon RTE to look after it? Surely the private company will be looking after it themselves.
My Department would be looking after that. My Department would insist on providing the wavelinks and charging a rental fee for them, the point being that the Department have responsibility to the State for seeing that these services would be provided in such a way as not to interfere with other services and they would also be provided on an acceptable standard which requires a high cost of maintenance. There could be an idea that this could be done on the cheap and that we could cut corners and provide this service a good deal more cheaply than the Department would be prepared to do. There are two objections: the question of interference, for which my Department cannot divest themselves of their responsibility, and also standards. It would be a disaster if those concerned bought, as it were, a service and then saw it maintained at a level which meant it was unsatisfactory to them. We have considered that it is well that those concerned should know from the beginning that this is an expensive business.
(Dublin Central): I concede the claims which the people in Limerick and the larger centres have made in regard to the choice of multi-channel viewing. The Minister has said it will be two-and-a-half or three years before they can expect this to be installed.
Two-and-a-half years.
(Dublin Central): Are the number of microwaves limited?
That is correct. Microwave links are needed to carry a signal from, say, Dublin to Cork so that Cork would get by this artificial extension, if you like, something that Dublin gets direct off the air by accident. In addition in, say, Cork, a local network of cables would have been provided to carry the signals to individual homes. That part, the cable, would not be of interest to my Department any more than it is here. That would be done by a contractor. The ultimate user, the viewer, would, if he decided it was worth while, have to pay for what the cable people did and also reimburse my Department for their expenditure.
(Dublin Central): Irrespective of what happens in the larger centres, it will be practically impossible to see it in the rural areas. We must take it for granted that it would not be economical. It is of importance for the Minister to be able to give a choice of programmes. The rural areas will have to depend to a large extent on the second RTE channel. I should like an assurance from the Minister that this could be operational sometime in 1977. It was debated by several people today and certain doubts have been cast on it. The Minister should reassure us that it is his intention to have the second channel operating in 1977 or as soon as possible thereafter. There is no doubt that it is in the Minister's mind that RTE 2 will come into being.
With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I do not think this directly arises under the section. I have promised the Deputy that I will make a definitive statement on this before the end of the year.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 21:
In page 9, to delete lines 45 to 63 and in page 10 to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute the following:—
"17.—(1) In performing its functions the Authority shall in its programming be mindful of the need for safeguarding, enriching and strengthening the cultural, social and economic fabric of Ireland.
(2) The Authority shall aim to provide a broadcasting service that is essentially Irish in content and character and which in particular encourages and fosters the Irish language.
(3) The Authority shall be responsive to the interests of the whole community, and be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland.
(4) This service should—
(i) be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion,
(ii) be in Irish and in English, with appropriate provision for other languages,
(iii) uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution,
(iv) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of information, entertainment and culture within Ireland, and between Ireland and other countries, especially her partners in the European Economic Community,
(v) provide for a continuing expression of Irish identity, and
(vi) be made available so far as practicable to the people of the whole island of Ireland."
It was brought to my attention nine months ago that transmission time of the report of the Dáil proceedings had been changed and that the time allocated for it had been curtailed.
Is this on 21A, Deputy?
(Dublin Central): Yes. This programme normally went on the air in the afternoon but I was informed that it was changed to nine o'clock. It is important that the proceedings of this House be reported by radio or television. People will tell you that Dáil Éireann is irrelevant. This is a dangerous opinion and it is our duty to ensure that the dignity of this House is upheld. I am not suggesting a prolonged programme but a certain time should be given for a report of the Dáil proceedings to let people know what is happening. Quite a number of people may not read the daily newspaper reports. I believe that there are quite a number of people who would listen to a more extensive radio programme of the Dáil proceedings. At some time in the future the Dáil proceedings could be televised. The Authority and the Department should be thinking along these lines. I tabled this amendment for that reason. I am not suggesting that the Authority would deliberately preclude the proceedings of this House. I should like to see future authorities being obliged to give time once or twice a week to a report of the proceedings in this House.
I am in sympathy with the spirit and the general tendency of what Deputy Fitzpatrick has just said. I do not think it is necessary to provide for this in the legislation. As a general principle particular programmes should not be legislated for. Day-to-day programming should be left to the Authority subject to general legislative guidelines and restraints.
I am aware that the Authority, and the director general—in fact, RTE collectively—are very anxious to cover the proceedings of the Oireachtas, preferably by direct broadcasting, if they can get agreement to do that. Of course, that depends on agreement by the Oireachtas and the parties making up the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not think they need to be urged on here. If I felt they did I might think that legislation of this kind was necessary. But I doubt if it will ever be necessary in the sense that the Authority are appointed by the Government, and the Minister, who are responsible to the Oireachtas. I would see no likelihood that any Government responsible to this Oireachtas would appoint an authority which would be disposed to treat the proceedings of the Oireachtas as of negligible interest. For obvious reasons that is highly unlikely.
Deputy Fitzpatrick made a point about a particular programme and its positioning in the programming of RTE. This is not the kind of matter in which the House would wish a Minister to interfere in the normal course of events, but the fact that the Deputy has made the comment is of importance and I shall see to it that his comment is brought to the attention of the Authority. I should again like to stress that at the moment it is not a question of our having to egg-on the Authority to be interested in our proceedings here. They are very interested and would like to broadcast them. I hope they will be able to do so, although this is outside my purview as a Minister. I hope an Oireachtas agreement will be forthcoming to some form of direct broadcasting of the proceedings, or part of the proceedings— various formulae are available—of one or other of the Houses of the Oireachtas, eventually both Houses.
I should like to support the amendment which calls for the broadcasting of full and adequate reports of debates in the Oireachtas. I should like to compliment the personnel of RTE responsible for Dáil coverage. In the limited time available they do a very efficient and effective job. However, a full and adequate report is not being given. Paragraph (b) of this section calls for the upholding of the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression. In this regard I should like to state that there is a censorship in operation here. It is a strict and positive censorship not brought about by the Authority in RTE but by the Government. It exists in relation to the covering of political affairs. The Minister will recollect that before the Government took office there was wide and comprehensive coverage of political affairs in politicians' programmes but this was terminated by the Government. That is Government censorship because the Opposition are not allowed to debate and discuss various policies on political programmes.
The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.
In that regard it is desirable that the amendment should be accepted. Reports of our proceedings are to a large degree edited with the result that on occasions they lose their true meaning. It is important that there should be a wide and comprehensive coverage of political affairs and that the Opposition should not be deprived of the opportunity of placing their views before the public. It is right that the people should be politically informed of the progress of Parliament. The Government should relax their censorship and reintroduce the political programmes. A limited amount of time is given at present and I have nothing but the height of praise for those who compile the programme involved. However, the true value of rightful expression is lost. The Opposition have the right of expression and the right to have their views projected in the same manner as the views of the Government were when they were in Opposition. We all deplore Government censorship. The Government have failed to live up to their responsibility to meet Opposition spokesmen and discuss current affairs and policy matters. Until we have this wider coverage our people will be fed with statements from the GIS.
The Deputy is again going beyond the amendment.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has called for full and adequate reports on RTE. We only hear statements from a Government spokesman or the GIS and on many occasions these are cover-ups for the misdeeds of Ministers. Our people have a right to hear the views of the Opposition. By maintaining this censorship the Government are ensuring that only their voice will be projected on radio or television. The Government should come out from behind the cowardly cloak and measure up to their responsibilities. They should ensure that the people get the true facts of the situation facing the country and the manner in which they, or the Opposition, intend to correct it. For that reason I believe Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment goes some of the way. I challenge the Minister to ask his colleagues to release their grip on the television service, which they have exercised for the last three years, of censorship of the Opposition. Occasionally, Opposition speakers are invited——
The Deputy will stay with Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment.
I am speaking to the amendment. I am dealing with this matter on a wider basis under section 14 (b). I am discussing section 14 in relation to the amendments.
We are discussing only the amendments at the moment.
I am concerned and the public at large are concerned about this censorship which is imposed on politicians. If a Minister wants to give his views, to substantiate, correct, or add to what he said in either House time is made available on television for him. If this opportunity is afforded to only one section, the whole question of censorship comes into focus. Deputy Fitzpatrick is right when he asks for full and adequate reports because nothing short of that will project the true position of the affairs of this House. Abbreviated reports can give an erroneous impression to the public. For that reason, the time has come when the Government must face their responsibilities and for us to expose weaknesses or credits if they are there.
I fully support the amendment and challenge the Minister and the Government to come clean and afford the nation the type of political discussion that takes place in every other country. Such discussion is taking place at the moment in America on the presidential election and in Britain almost daily on various programmes. I hope Ministers will no longer hide behind the veil of secrecy that has surrounded them for so long and that the Government Information Services will not be in the superior position where their voice, and their voice alone, will be projected. Irrespective of what point of view is put forward by an Opposition spokesman, only in exceptional circumstances will reference be made to it.
This section indicates the upholding of the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. This is important. Recently there were occasions when those democratic values were not upheld, even by Ministers of this House.
The Deputy must stay with the amendments.
I have to deal with amendments in relation to the section.
There are two amendments. We are not dealing with the section.
We must deal with an amendment in relation to the sub-section with which it deals.
The Deputy must deal with the amendment.
There is no way of dealing with amendments alone. This amendment as the Minister and Deputy Fitzpatrick said deals with section 14. In clause (b) an indication has been given that the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution will be upheld. It is pathetic that even at this stage we had to insert in a Bill that the Authority should be called upon to uphold those values. I hope this will be fully and effectively applied. I am certain members of the Authority will effectively apply it but apparently their masters feel immune from all ethical considerations in relation to upholding those democratic rights. That may be food for thought for another day and in another Bill. We should bring home to the people in Government that they too have a duty to uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.
I want to be fairly brief in dealing with Deputy Dowling's intervention. I regret its polemical character. We were having a fairly good and businesslike Committee Stage until we had this intervention. Deputy Dowling referred to Government censorship of RTE. I thought at first that what he might be referring to was the direction I issued recently prohibiting broadcasts by Provisional IRA, Official IRA, and Provisional Sinn Féin, but no, he was not worried about that.
No, I am not worried about that.
It appeared, however, that he was using this in a highly special and tendentious way and that what he meant by censorship was that some political parties were not willing to take part in a particular programme which RTE used to broadcast. Nobody who looks at our television screens or listens to our radio can believe for a moment that Opposition spokesmen are being denied a voice. Of course they have a voice. Of course they are being heard. They were heard loud and clear during the past week or so. They had something of a field day. I am not denying their entitlement to it, but to talk as Deputy Dowling has done as if the Government were surrounding themselves with a veil of secrecy and had clamped down on the unfortunate Opposition who were not allowed a chance of utterance on the airways is transparent nonsense.
Under the previous Government exception was taken by the then responsible Minister to a given member of the Opposition being available for broadcasting. In 1974 I made it clear to the Authority that if such a viewpoint ever prevailed it no longer prevailed, and that every Member of the Oireachtas could broadcast night and day as far as I was concerned. There is no such censorship as Deputy Dowling has described and he knows that very well. We have just had one of his tongue-in-cheek orations which are enjoyable in their own way but do not help us to get much forrader with the Committee Stage of a Bill.
Not even the Minister believes that statement
(Dublin Central): As regards my amendment which will put in the Bill that adequate time should be given to reporting Dáil Éireann, I believe there is merit in it. As I said, it is important that the dignity of this House should be upheld and we must remove the idea which is abroad that Dáil Éireann has no relevancy. If we project ourselves, whether that be on television or in radio reports, I believe this will strengthen the institution of this House. It was for that reason that I inserted that section. It is unlikely any Authority would dream of diminishing the amount of time given at the moment but, even though that may be so, it would be no harm to insert this into the Bill. It would not inhibit the authority in any way and it would be a protection in ensuring that adequate cover would be given to the proceedings here. The Minister said he hoped that at some future date the proceedings here would be televised. It is possible the proceedings might be boring but I am sure something could be organised so that a reasonable presentation would be given of important debates.
With regard to amendment No. 21, our reason for tabling this amendment is because it is much closer to the recommendation of the Broadcasting Review Committee.
Our purpose in tabling this amendment is to give greater emphasis to the recommendations of the Broadcasting Review Committee. The first paragraph of Chapter 3 says that broadcasting should be concerned with safeguarding, enriching and strengthening the cultural, social and economic fabric of the whole of Ireland. This is intended in the broadest sense and not in a narrow sense which might act as an inhibiting factor from time to time. Without becoming obsessive about it we must bear in mind the weight of cultural influences poured into this country from our nearest neighbour and from across the Atlantic and it is in the strengthening of our own basic identity we can counterbalance these influences.
I welcome the references to upholding the democratic values of the Constitution in section 14. One might not have thought some weeks ago, but one can think it now, that we have to determine to maintain democracy. Democracy could be eroded by our own negligence and in that sense I welcome this introduction into the Bill.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.