Amendments Nos. 21 and 21a are being taken together for the purposes of debate.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on 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".
—(Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick,Dublin Central.)
I was speaking last evening on Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. That amendment proposes to delete lines 45 to 63 of section 14, that is, subsection (b) which reads:
uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression, and
subsection (c) which reads:
have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of countries other than the State, including in particular those of such countries which are members of the European Economic Community.
The amendment deals with the responsibility of the Authority in relation to programming—that they be mindful of the need for safeguarding, enriching and strengthening the cultural, social and economic fabric of Ireland. It is a matter of vital interest to all of us that our national broadcasting system should do everything possible to encourage a sense of pride and dignity in Irish people, to put it bluntly, success in Ireland. For example, part of the amendment reads:
....strengthening the cultural, social and economic fabric of Ireland.
Over the past couple of years generally RTE have shown some improvement in that, indirectly, they do convey to people some idea of the industrial developments taking place. One of the reasons why it is essential to have a national broadcasting system in a small country the size of ours is that only a nationally owned system, as distinct from a foreign owned or commercially owned system, will have a vital interest in how we succeed economically. It will have a vital interest in the cultural, social and economic fabric and in the strengthening of our sense of identity. I have always argued that if foreign interests are allowed to have any control or influence over our broadcasting system that can only be damaging to us as a nation because no other broadcasting system, no other country will be as interested in the future of all the people of this island as are we ourselves and as a system under a national authority will be.
I do not want to use this amendment to too great an extent to draw attention to the sort of output we are getting from RTE. However, there are some comments I should like to make in this regard. For example, figures available to me indicate that programming production in RTE in 1965 was 61 per cent Irish, that is, programming created within the State. In 1970 that had dropped to 57 per cent and by 1975 it was down to 42 per cent. That may be due to lack of resources or capital but it is a factor I should like the Minister to examine. It is part of what we are talking about, what the Minister is talking about in section 14, and what Deputy Fitzpatrick is talking about in the amendments to this section. It is part and parcel of what Ireland is made up of. Admittedly in 1960 after the formation of Telefís Éireann—in the first ten years—probably there was a good deal of experimentation. I expect that programmes were made during that period that one would not repeat. Any authority working in that way would come to its own conclusions. Nevertheless, there is an indication that we are becoming, to some extent at least, more dependent on the import of overseas programmes.
I merely draw attention to those figures to stress the importance of keeping before us what we are providing the public with on our national broadcasting station. I have to bear in mind, having been a member of the Authority, that one has in a large area of the State to compete with other channels which are coming in side by side due to geographical accident.
In relation to the question of culture and language the use of Irish on RTE has always been a matter of some interest and at some times of public controversy. I am drawing attention to changes in the situation merely to arrive at some sort of analysis. The amount of time estimated to have been given to the production of programmes in Irish in 1970 was around 4 per cent. By 1975 this had fallen to 2.8 per cent. When I was a member of the Authority the emphasis some of us tried to put on the question was not the volume of programmes in Irish but rather their content. It is important that RTE, in dealing with their obligations in this area, should bear in mind that it is not merely a question of satisfying the demands of any particular group on the basis of so many hours. The important thing is the cherishing of our own language and culture. I would measure our responsibility in the content of the programmes put out rather than the volume of them.
The 2.8 per cent seems to be very small, but it is interesting to note that the programmes put out have a very large audience. As far as I know the peak programmes on RTE in the English language at the moment are programmes like "The Late, Late Show". It is interesting to note, if my information is correct, that recently introduced programmes such as "Trom agus Eadrom" have a viewing audience of between 600,000 and 700,000, which is within reaching distance of peak viewing programmes. It is important to appreciate this because it is not until one begins to study these statistics that one realises that programmes which I find very attractive and very easy to watch like "Trom agus Eadrom," have a great appeal to the Irish public.
It is also interesting to note that between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of our people like to look at programmes either in the Irish language or bilingual programmes. I am not suggesting that we should suddenly load RTE with programmes in the Irish language. Our obligations as legislators and also those of RTE as a national broadcasting system in regard to the Irish language and culture can be given a little more emphasis in the future, seeing that the public are showing their support for programmes of this kind.
Section 14 and the amendment refer to the same cultural relationship between ourselves and other countries. The amendment says "especially her partners in the European Economic Community". Paragraph (c) refers to "such countries which are members of the European Economic Community". The description in paragraph (c) does not seem to me to be quite right. There are other European countries. Since we are a European country the cultures of all European countries should be given equal emphasis in what is described in the Bill as "the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of countries other than the State". I do not see any reason for confining this to the eight members of the European Economic Community. There are other countries, such as Spain, Portugal, et cetera who are not members.
The amendment states that the service should "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". Unfortunately, those of us who are genuinely interested in television and broadcasting do not have the time to watch programmes and we have to rely on outside opinion and information to guide us on how far this sort of ideal is being attempted.
I would like to see more cultural programmes about the North of Ireland. It is unfortunate that our signal is not available there. Nevertheless, the more we see of what goes on there—the good and the bad— the better for us. The last paragraph of the amendment states that the programmes "be made available so far as practicable to the people of the whole island of Ireland". This is something which will have to await until the present unfortunate situation has settled down and some means found of arranging for the transmission of our programmes to the North of Ireland.
Deputy Fitzpatrick's intention is not to reflect on the Minister's proposals in the Bill but rather to ensure that RTE can provide for a continuing expression of Irish identity. There should be no doubt in the minds of people who come into the country when they turn on television that they are listening to a television station in Ireland. That is one of the priorities the Authority should bear in mind at all times.
The Minister on the last occasion said that we were less serious than we should be on an important issue like this. I want to refer to Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment in relation to subsection (4) which speaks of "a balanced service of information". It is very important that we should have a balanced service of information just as we have in this House Government and Opposition. It is important that the public should be able to assess information properly. That is not so at present. We have seen in recent times Ministers being interviewed and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs himself being interviewed after speaking to 40 people in Tipperary where it was indicated that this speech was an effort to influence the Labour Party Conference——
Is this in order?
I do not think that the broadcasting facilities of the country should be used by the Minister to try to influence a conference that takes places next Saturday. They have not yet changed the name of the station from RTE to RTOB and, until they do, the Minister has only the same right as anybody else.
The Opposition have been denied an opportunity of full expression in regard to their policy and to current affairs. In the past we have had political programmes in which members of the Opposition and members of the Government discussed current affairs and each in turn were allowed to put forward their points of view. That situation no longer exists since this Government took office. The Opposition as a result find themselves in a very vulnerable position without access to broadcasting, no way of communicating with the people, of discussing current affairs.
Current affairs have been presented by the Government in a variety of ways. I have gone through the newspapers and listened to broadcasts and I want to indicate some of the references that have been made. The Government have been propped up by the Government Information Services, the Government crutch for ailing Ministers. Statements have come from this source time and again when Ministers were in difficulties because their statements were incorrect or needed polishing or needed an additional slant. I ask the Minister to suggest to RTE that they should use one description or another and that the description they use must be used only in relation to facts and can be pinned down later. If we go through the different forms of reference used we find that information comes first to the aid of the Ministers and the Government. When statements need correction, having been made on the basis of collective responsibility, the Government Information Services come in. Then we have statements by "a Government spokesman". Then we get "an official Government source". Is there a difference between the two? The people find it difficult to know which form of reference carries some degree of responsibility. We also have the "informed source close to the Government". What does this mean? Is that something different from "a Government spokesman"?
We also find reference to "an unofficial spokesman of the Government". What is that? When information is given through the broadcasting service or the media it should be positive. We also have references to "a reliable source". Are the Government Information Services not a reliable source? Is the Government spokesman not a reliable source? Is an informed source close to the Government not a reliable source? Where do we stand in relation to the information that is being given? Again, we have reference to "a usually reliable source". Is that a source which is sometimes reliable and sometimes not? It is very difficult for the ordinary listener to try to assess what is fact and what is fiction in view of these various forms of reference. Quite a lot that has been presented has been fiction, especially in the past 12 months.
We also get "a source close to the Minister". Is that a different source from "a source close to the Government" or an "informed source close to the Government"? I could go on through a long list. We now hear of Ministers thinking out loud. What does this mean? Are they expressing the opinion of the Government or private views? In future the people should be told exactly what the basis of the information is because they are confused by the very many sources that are indicated, apart from supplied scripts and other descriptions of sources of information. If it is a supplied script that should be clearly indicated. The source of the information should be identified so that the public can try to assess its reliability. The Taoiseach has had to repudiate Ministers time and again and this is a very unsatisfactory situation. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has found himself repudiated by the Taoiseach, chastised by the Taoiseach.
This is hardly relevant.
This relates to a balanced service of information. We want to know the exact source so that we can make an assessment. It is irritating when a Minister goes on television and one has to wait two days to find out if he is being repudiated by the Taoiseach. At present people are unable to assess the situation for two or three days because of the confusion that has arisen in recent times as a result of this business of thinking out loud, abusive statements and the Taoiseach, or the Government or a Government spokesman, repudiating them. We must be able to assess the value of the information imparted.
I ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to ask his colleagues to come clean about this situation in regard to a balanced service of information. I ask that Ministers be made available to present their policies just as we did when we were in power. We should have these political programmes so as to stimulate public opinion and ensure that the public will be aware of the problems and will have them discussed by Government and Opposition in an open way and not have Government Ministers safeguarded by the Government Information Services as they have been on all too many occasions. This upholstery around Ministers is unhealthy for themselves because they do not think for themselves. Give them the opportunity to come out and discuss in an open way the various problems that confront the people, particularly current affairs and party policies, so that the public can understand. Is it a question that the Government do not want the public to understand what their policies are, that they are afraid to come forward and discuss matters because of their incompetence in relation to their activities over the past three years? If that is so, fair enough. Let the public know that they want to cover up for the past three years——
Deputy Dowling, I would remind you that what we are discussing here is the manner in which RTE do their work and not the manner in which the Government do their work. The Deputy must confine his remarks to the amendment.
I am dealing with the question of a balanced service of information, and the RTE Authority have a responsibility to the citizens and the Government also have a responsibility. If the Government can influence RTE—and they can—in relation to political programmes it is up to the Ministers, the Government and RTE to get together. We are ready, willing and able to meet the situation.
I say again how confusing and unbalanced the situation is. Recently in Wexford the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and a Wexford Deputy, Deputy Esmonde, were brought on to the "Late Late Show". There was complete and utter disregard for the Fianna Fáil Whip, Deputy Seán Browne. On that night at 9.30 p.m., just before the programme went on the air, somebody rang him up and asked him if he would go on the show. Was that sufficient notice? This was a complete frame-up on one of the RTE programmes. I protest against the manner in which Deputies of the Opposition have been treated by RTE in the past, and this is a recent classic example. The statement made by Gay Byrne on that occasion, that he did not know where Deputy Browne was, did not help the situation. Was this an effort to deprive Fianna Fáil of a voice on that occasion? Fine Gael and Labour, a Minister and a Deputy appeared on the programme, a completely unbalanced programme and there was a complete insult to the Fianna Fáil Whip and the Fianna Fáil Party.
I protest in the strongest possible terms that this type of unbalance is not what is desired by the people, irrespective of their political opinions. It may be desired by some persons within RTE, possibly by the Government and maybe by the Minister. It is a matter that will have to be rectified as soon as possible. The importance of the Opposition is often stressed in this House. It is alleged that we do not explain the whys and wherefores of our policy or how we can carry out the policies we indicate. We want the opportunity to do this on the air and we will be ready, willing and able any time the Minister, the Government and RTE are ready. We do not want any protection. We do not need to be propped up by political crutches such as the Government Information Services. We do not want to be isolated as Ministers are at the moment. We want to get there and explain and discuss the situation as we see it. On one occasion I had the opportunity of discussing on television the Forcible Entry Bill with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs when both he and Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick (Cavan), now Minister for Lands, put the then Opposition's point of view.
If RTE want a member of the Labour Party and of Fine Gael and we stand alone, then we can cope with that situation. We have a positive policy that we want to discuss. We are willing to discuss current affairs legislation that is before us at the moment. We need this balanced service of information. No longer can the protection that has been given to Ministers be tolerated. No longer can we stand for the type of selection there has been in the past and which is apparent right up to date. There is absolutely no balance whatsoever.
I again appeal to the Minister in all seriousness to throw off the shackles and cloaks, cast away the crutches, come out into the open and discuss a policy, if the Government have one. Let him discuss the affairs of the nation if he wants to discuss them openly and fairly so that the people may be able to assess, because they will have the opportunity in a short time of making their decision known. Before they have that opportunity let us get out into the open and let us have this balance that is necessary and desirable. I feel strongly about this as do other members of my party. I consider that "Late Late Show" was a classic example of RTE's complete disregard for the main Opposition party who represent in this House the greatest number of people in the country. It is unfair to ask a member of a party at the last moment to go on the air. I could understand this if a member had opted out. I cannot understand it where a programme is arranged, where a Minister and a Fine Gael Deputy are on the spot and Deputy Seán Browne is asked by telephone to participate.
The Deputy is indulging in repetition.
It is important that we get some explanation of this and an assurance from the Minister that on future occasions when a person is required to participate in a programme that they will get in touch with that person to get his views so that he will have the opportunity of assessing the situation and giving a reply. If at a later stage he wishes to consult with members of his party or with the party as a whole he can do so.
I have not much more to say on this aspect. I will have something to say on other aspects of the amendment, on the upholding of the values enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution has been kicked aside by another Minister of Government.
This is not relevant, Deputy.
That is what it is all about. Some of the Ministers apparently do not understand, and I hope this part of the amendment will be brought to their notice, that there are values enshrined in the Constitution which Telefís Éireann and the Minister must uphold. The Minister I referred to on the controversy——
This is not in order, Deputy Dowling. I must advise the Deputy first of all that this is the Committee Stage of a Bill and what we have heard here this morning are speeches tantamount to Second Reading speeches. The Chair appreciates the importance of the amendment and the section, but we are having Second Reading speeches.
I can always interpret the amendments as they are on paper, a balanced service of information——
The Deputy has been ranging very wide of that issue.
I am speaking of upholding the values enshrined in the Constitution. In recent weeks we had large-scale coverage from Press and television in relation to the upholding of the values enshrined in the Constitution. Some people are not aware of it. It is good to have it in the Bill, but not alone should the Authority be aware, which I am sure they are, but members of the Government should be aware that values enshrined in the Constitution must be upheld. There are other matters which I will deal with when other speakers have had the opportunity of expressing their points of view on this amendment.
Níl ar intinn agam moran moille a dhéanamh ach mar sin féin ní fhéadfainn an chuid seo den Bhille a ligint tharm gan mo chuid tuairimí ar a bhfuil ann a chur in iúl.
I regard section 14 as being one of the most important sections in this Bill. That is why I welcome the amendments our spokesman submitted in an effort to satisfy the recommendations made by the Broadcasting Review Committee in respect of what is described as "culture" and its relationship and relevance to RTE. I will not name all the members of the committee but it would be fair to say that with personalities on it ranging from Mr. Justice George D. Murnaghan to Dr. Thomas Kenneth Whitaker, the committee represented what might be regarded as a crosssection of the population. What is proposed in section 14 is not in keeping with the recommendation from that body nor is it acceptable to me because it does not have regard to the important elements of Irish culture.
When one speaks of the Gaelic tradition in the Minister's presence it appears to disturb him slightly. On a former occasion when I spoke of the Gaelic tradition here and expressed my views and hopes on the Irish language, the Minister subsequently—I will not say with malice or purpose, but for whatever reason—misrepresented what I said. He said publicly that I was advocating an Ireland where we would only have one language.
If the Deputy will permit me to interrupt, I said correctly that he was advocating a 32-county Gaelic-speaking Ireland.
The Minister said that as if I were excluding other languages. I want to put on the record of this House that that was never my intention nor would I be so foolish as to say we should only have a 32-county Irish-speaking Ireland. That may come in the year 5000, I do not know. I am talking about the Ireland I know or the Ireland I can visualise in the next decade or even the next century.
If we are in earnest about giving this country an Irish identity there is no better way to do it than through the Irish language. To me the Gaelic tradition is not peculiar to a few people in Connemara, to the membership of Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, the Gaelic League, the Language Freedom Movement or anybody else. It is a tradition 2,000 years old which covers all that happened in this country. That is the Gaelic tradition, the tradition which was once in the ascendancy and is now, one must admit, on the decline. If history shows anything, it is that one can never get away from tradition. At times tradition can be inconvenient to the people or to Governments and they try to substitute something else for it, something more convenient and more political, but you can take it from me, and from history, that they will never suppress it. I see in this legislation an effort to depart from the real Irish tradition covering and governing all shades of opinion, north and south. There are people in the North, Presbyterians and Loyalists, to whom the language is as dear as it is to the people living in Connemara or any other place.
Section 14, which I am sure was dictated by the Minister, includes a reference to the Irish language but in my view the thought behind it is that RTE will keep as far away from it as possible lest it disturb the equilibrium of the new pluralistic society. Again I wish to refer to chapter 14 (6) of the report which says:
Radio na Gaeltachta, which commenced transmissions in the West in 1972, and was extended to all who can receive it on VHF in 1973, was reviewed by the Authority in office in 1971 as an essential and timely element in its endeavour to promote the attainment of the national aim.
What respect was given to that view during the last few months? Everybody knows that if there was one successful element, one successful institution, tending towards a national aim, and more especially towards the national language, it was Radio na Gaeltachta.
Was?
It was Radio na Gaeltachta and still is, notwithstanding the Minister's efforts to kill it.
It is not true that I am making any efforts to kill it.
If the Minister bears with me I will show him how he is neglecting it.
If the Deputy misrepresents me I have the right to protest.
The Minister may protest but he can make his case later. Radio na Gaeltachta has been accepted by everybody as the most vibrant and vital agency in respect of our national aims and our national language. Since the Minister took an interest in it, it has been thwarted and frustrated. Everybody knows the importance of a ceannaire as far as Radio na Gaeltachta is concerned. An effort was made to relegate Radio na Gaeltachta to broadcasting times in the morning. Anybody who knows the Gaeltacht and the social life in Connemara knows that people are free and interested in listening and being involved in the evening rather than in the morning. The effort to relegate Radio na Gaeltachta to morning broadcasting did not succeed, buíochas le Dia. Subsequently, in the matter of replacing the ceannaire of Radio na Gaeltachta, under the appropriate legislation an interview board was set up—independent people who had a knowledge of and an interest in Radio na Gaeltachta were brought in—and made a choice. They submitted the name of a prospective director who was known as one of the outstanding personalities in what would be regarded as Irish culture, the national aim and kindred matters. That person has not been appointed nor has there been any move to appoint anybody else.
Meanwhile, the decapitated Radio na Gaeltachta is left there. That is why I say to the Minister that the success Radio na Gaeltachta had when it had its ceannaire in the past must now be affected. I want the Minister to assure me that this is not an effort by him, or anybody else, to make little of, to denigrate or downgrade Radio na Gaeltachta. I am hoping he will see the relevance of Radio na Gaeltachta to section 14 and Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment and that he will indicate where I am mistaking his interest as the responsible Minister having regard to Radio na Gaeltachta. I am anxious to see how he will defend the position. I do not think that what is happening in respect of the appointment of a director of Radio na Gaeltachta has been equalled in any other Department. I see in it, particularly having read what is proposed, that watered down, superficial anaemic provision which is made in section 17, an effort to make sure that whatever happens in RTE the language or matters which are genuinely Irish and in accord with our tradition will not get their rightful place.
I should like to make a reference to views I have on the language and here I disagree with the observations or recommendations of the committee. I am not too sure that what the Irish language wants is high quality programmes. For too long we have tolerated a situation where the preservation of the language was left exclusively in the hands of people who were over-zealous, over-enthusiastic, perfectionists who felt one did not have the right to speak the Irish language unless ab initio one could guarantee perfection. In this regard I am critical of programmes broadcast in the past. A programme ran on radio for many years in which eminent men of professional rank indulged in chats on matters affecting the language which had little attraction for anybody other than themselves. They were in no way helpful to people who were anxious to advance their knowledge of the language. At that level I know mistakes have been made in the approach and I am critical of them but I cannot accept the downgrading of the position of the language as indicated in section 17. The amendment proposed by Deputy Fitzpatrick serves to strengthen and give greater protection to the position of the national aims and of the language. For that reason I welcome it although I would like to see it stronger. I will postpone other comments on this section to give the Minister an opportunity of expressing his views on what I have said. I know that whether he is going to reject everything I say or not he will deal with my comments. I know he will not do me the dishonour of completely disregarding my comments.
At an earlier stage when we were considering this section I indicated the reasons why on the whole I prefer the wording of section 14 to the amendment tabled by the Opposition. I made it clear, as I did in the Upper House where a similar amendment was introduced, that the wording of the two versions was not in fact very far apart and that I preferred the wording of the Bill because it was somewhat more precise and, I thought, preferable. I do not intend to cover that ground again but I should like to refer to some of the points made in the debate we have been having. First, I should like to thank Deputy Brugha for his very thoughtful contribution. He speaks, of course, with the experience of a former member of the Authority. I believe his views will be carefully considered by the existing authority. Many of the views are appropriate for consideration by the authority and the director general rather than by the Minister of the day. He referred, and it is an important subject, to the fact that the percentage of broadcasting generated in Ireland has fallen from the early years of television in particular, and he made the point, which is probably partly true, that in the earlier times there was a greater amount of experiment, that some things did not necessarily work and that a certain shrinkage may have followed from that. I think it also probable that the expansion of cable television, especially in the Dublin area, from 1966 on, and into our own time—the general demands of viewers have a bearing on that—undoubtedly has caused a tendency which the authority would wish to watch carefully, and I believe they will wish to keep the percentage of quality in Irish-generated programmes as high as possible.
He also referred to an emphasis on content in Irish language programmes rather than on volume. Here there was some difference in emphasis between him and his colleague, Deputy Tunney, who seemed to favour a more populistic approach, if you like. I think there is probably something to be said for the two points of view. There can be high quality in different kinds of programmes, in children's programmes and comic programmes just as in what might be termed high-brow programmes.
Deputy Brugha also referred to the wording of the section which refers to the EEC countries, and I agree with him that the values and traditions of other countries are of importance to us. It is my understanding that the Authority also agrees with this. He mentioned European countries not in the EEC and I agree that this is relevant. However, our ties with other countries in North America, Africa and Asia are not insignificant to Irish people. Ireland has played a part in the formation of some of these countries and it was never intended that the wording of this section should confine our interest to EEC countries. The section requires the Authority to:
have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions or countries other than the State, including in particular those of such countries which are members of the European Economic Community.
The need for the words "in particular" is clear enough in that the people decided by a very large majority that they wished to join that close association of countries. Because we have to play a part in that association and because it affects our lives in many ways, our ties with those countries become particularly, but not exclusively, important to us.
As regards Deputy Dowling's remarks, I do not wish to follow him into many of the areas he mentioned, which are those of political controversy. He is profoundly mistaken if he believes that the Government, and myself as Minister, genuinely wish to keep members of his party off the air. No such effort has ever been made. Indeed, I found when I became Minister that RTE had been reprimanded by the previous Government for allowing a member of the then Opposition to contribute to a programme. Not long after I became Minister I pointed out to the Authority that there was no question then of any limitation on access by Members of the Oireachtas to the air. It was entirely a matter of judgment for the broadcasters and I personally should be very happy to watch any member of the Opposition on television or listen to him broadcasting on radio. I do not play any part at all in this.
Deputy Tunney made some important points. He referred to the Broadcasting Review Committee's formulation. Like him, I have respect for the Broadcasting Review Committee and I very carefully considered the suggested wording but of course the setting up by a Government of a commission does not and should not abrogate the responsibility of the Government of the day to present legislation in the form and wording which they think best to the Dáil or abrogate the responsibility of the Dáil to criticise that legislation, as Deputy Tunney has, quite legitimately, done. For the reasons I have indicated, I prefer the wording as it stands. I know Deputy Tunney's sincere and strong feeling for the Irish language, demonstrated and practised by a great deal of use of that language. I accept that, but when he refers to the part of the relevant section as being weak and watered down I would ask him to look at it again:
In performing its functions the Authority shall in its programming—
be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland, ensure that the programmes reflect the varied elements which make up the culture of the people of the whole island of Ireland, and have special regard for the elements which distinguish that culture and in particular for the Irish language.
What is so watered down about that? I confess sincerely I cannot see it. I know Deputy Tunney to be a fairminded man, but he accused me— and I think he will regret it—of trying to kill Radio na Gaeltachta. I can assure him that I have never in any way endeavoured to kill Radio na Gaeltachta and I harbour no hostile thoughts towards it—quite the contrary. I had the honour and privilege of opening the Radio na Gaeltachta station in the west. I went there and I spoke at the time. It was hardly the action of someone trying to kill this enterprise, unless I am fiendishly Machiavellian. It has expanded its range and it had, and has, an advisory committee appointed by my predecessor. I reappointed all the members who were available for reappointment and added a few others. That alone was the extent of my involvement with this as Minister. Subsequently controversies arose into which I do not wish to enter here. These were controversies within Radio na Gaeltachta involving some members of the advisory committee. Various matters were tried or contemplated about which I was not consulted. They were matters about which it was not necessary to consult me—various time changes and so on.
Very recently something else happened in respect of which I was not consulted either, nor did I have to be consulted about it. I refer to the question of the appointment of a ceannaire for Radio na Gaeltachta. This hardly arises under the section although, perhaps, it might be thought to arise under a liberal construction of the section. In case there might be any misunderstanding regarding appointments in RTE, I should explain that under section 12 of the Broadcasting Act, 1960, which, of course, is the Act now in force pending the enactment of this legislation, the Authority are empowered to appoint any staff needed for the broadcasting service. This situation will not change. Therefore, I have no statutory function in the matter of appointments and it is not something in which it would be appropriate for me to become involved in any way. However, if the Deputy so wishes I shall arrange to have his remarks brought to the notice of the Authority.
In concluding my remarks here I should like to say that far from harbouring a desire to see the end of Radio na Gaeltachta I believe the venture has been successful and useful, that in particular as we are affected by it on this side of the country it has been a means of making available access to the world of the native speaker. That access to the people generally is valuable. Here, I am paying tribute to what was an innovation of the previous Government. The enterprise has been a genuine contribution to Irish culture in a serious and basic sense of that word. In my time I have taken exception to certain elements of Irish revivalism which I have regarded as bogus. Quite understandably I have been taken to task for that and I now find myself depicted as an enemy of the Irish language. I am not that, as Deputy Tunney knows. It would be out of conformity with my wishes and attitudes to life to try to destroy or lower the importance of this important, successful and genuine cultural enterprise. I am glad that the Deputy has given me the opportunity of putting that on the record and I trust he will accept it from me.
For my part, if the Official Report shows that I said I did not include the phrase "appear to kill," I withdraw it unreservedly. Even if the word "appears" is included in the Official Report, I shall withdraw further. I am very happy that this discussion has given to the Minister an opportunity of making clear his position. In view of his attachment to Radio na Gaeltachta I am sure it is possible for him to make known his concern regarding the position whereby there is no ceannaire for the station. Obviously if this situation continues the enterprise cannot continue to be successful.
I thank the Minister for having indicated his intention to convey my views on the matter to the Authority. However, I am much more happy that the Official Report will make known his views. I do not flatter myself with the thought that the Authority might attach any great importance to my opinion but I am sure that they will give to the opinions of the Minister the importance they deserve and that arising out of this they will proceed to the appointment of the person who has been considered ideal to continue the management of the affairs of Radio na Gaeltachta.
I appreciate the spirit of Deputy Tunney's remarks just now. If I have not said anything to the Authority concerning Radio na Gaeltachta it is because I have complete confidence in the Authority in relation to this matter as I have also complete confidence in the director general whose personal interest in such matters I am aware of. Regarding the appointment of a ceannaire I know that the Authority are anxious to make the appointment as soon as they reasonably can. They, too, are concerned about this matter. Regarding the appointment or the non-appointment of a particular person it is not any part of my function to express a view.
(Dublin Central): This section is one of the most fundamental in the Bill. It relates to the type of programmes that the people expect from RTE. With the amendment before us we are discussing also amendment No. 21a. Although last week we discussed the question of the reporting of the proceedings of the Dáil, my reason for tabling this amendment related to some speculation that the Authority intended changing the duration of such programmes. If, at any time in the future coverage of the proceedings of either this House or the Seanad should be extended as a result, for instance, of the introduction of television into the Houses we should be happy to agree but that is a matter not so much for the Minister or me but for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. My views on this subject are already on record. I believe it would be good for the institutions of the State generally that the people would be given the opportunity of seeing on their screens how we operate here.
The quality of life is of paramount importance and to this extent we must have programmes that are of the right type. Unfortunately it can be said of some television programmes that they do not enhance the quality of life in any way. RTE have a vital role to play in this regard. I have no wish to be considered a spoil sport in relation to programmes or to say that they should be laden with a cultural aspect. Now that we are a member of a Community of 300 million people it is inevitable that the forces which prevail in the larger countries particularly are bound to have a bearing on our way of life.
We are surrounded on one side by the United Kingdom from which very powerful television programmes are beamed at our young people. This is welcome to a certain degree, but I have reservations about the quality of some of those programmes. On the other side we have the United States of America. We are sandwiched between those two powerful countries which can undoubtedly influence our way of life. We must always be conscious of the trends in those countries, especially the economic trends. It is vitally important that we should be alive to the development of their industries and how they are advancing along various lines.
I agree with the Minister that we should broaden the concept with regard to the EEC. That does not mean we must not pay attention to developments within the European Community. We are now a trading partner which puts us in a different category from the other countries of Europe and the United States. Because we are a trading partner, they depend on us and we depend on them for the development of our economy. We receive funds from the social fund, the regional fund, and so on. For that reason we must be conscious of developments within the EEC.
I am concerned about the quality of life that is developing and how we as members of Parliament and the RTE Authority can contribute to that quality of life. Today television is a powerful medium of propaganda. It can be used for good or for bad. Down through the years the Authority have done an excellent job. We must remember they are operating within a very narrow concept. It is practically impossible to provide a broad spread of programmes with a single channel. By and large, with a single channel they must cater for the masses of the people. They must also have an eye on their TAM rating because of advertising, and so on.
There are several minority groups in our society who are entitled to broadcast their views. In the past, they were not properly catered for. I am not blaming RTE for that. Deputy Tunney mentioned the Irish language which is part of our basic national heritage. Many other groups have played an important part on a voluntary basis. We seldom hear of the excellent work they are doing. We should try to give time on the air to groups such as those because they contribute to the quality of life.
Today our young people can view the type of programmes which were not seen 25 or 30 years ago. Teenagers are faced with greater temptations today. Sometimes I worry about the trends in our young society. There has been an enormous increase in the use of drugs and drink by our young people. We must try to highlight the terrible tragedies which can occur. Many young people fall into this trap without any knowledge of the consequences. Under section 14, RTE can play their part by putting on certain programmes. I should like to see them put on when the family are gathered together around tea time. These programmes could show the terrible tragedies which can be inflicted on a family if teenagers indulge in drink and drugs. As we develop into a much more enlarged community, these pressures will become greater. The press, television and radio can play an important part in preserving our quality of life.
We believe this amendment is in keeping with the report of the broadcasting committee. I agree the Minister's section is an improvement on the section in the 1960 Bill. It spells it out in more detail. We believe our amendment would improve the Minister's Bill. The broadcasting committee gave dedicated service to the RTE Authority over a very long period. They are drawn from all walks of life, trade unions and business. You could not possibly get a broader spread. Their contribution in their report can be a great help to the Authority.
The Minister should accept our amendment. It would broaden the whole spectrum of the section and spell it out in more detail. As I said, I am concerned about the quality of life of our young people. I am concerned about the type of programme the authority can put on the air to strengthen their characters so that they will be able to stand up to the pressures they have to meet daily and which I believe will be intensified in the future. Today's teenagers will be the men and women of the future. Anything we can do to strengthen this section will be helpful.
I should like to speak for a moment on a matter which may appear far removed from the matter to which I referred earlier, but which I believe is very close to it. Section 17 (a) of the Principal Act provides that in performing their functions the authority shall be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community. Perhaps the Minister would consider strengthening that to ensure that they would be representative of the different strata in our society. On television, people are often inclined to equate attractiveness and ability with eloquence and proper articulation. A fund of material is available to RTE. There are countless people who perhaps are not in the intellectual class as accepted nowadays; they do not have degrees; nor have they got recognition from any of our third-level institutions of higher education. Nevertheless they have a contribution to make in philosophical matters. For some reason unknown to me they figure only rarely in television programmes.
Recently on the "Late Late Show", that ofttimes perhaps overcriticised programme, we have had the normal quotas of authors and would-be authors peddling their wares but again on one of those programmes there was a lady from what might be described as a backward part of Wexford, who presumably had never moved beyond the confines of her own county, but who, as far as I understand from other people was refreshing and satisfying and provided more food for thought than any of the other learned people on the programme.
Television concerns itself with the dramatic. Unfortunately the profound and the sensible or the everyday are not dramatic and at least for the moment are not perhaps attractive. However, in accordance with what might be envisaged here, there should be acceptance of the truism that eloquence is not ability, that there are people throughout the country who have a tremendous contribution to make to what is really important in life, what is really important to keeping sanity in our society. The accident is more newsworthy, and the unusual is invariably the more dramatic. Nevertheless I am at a loss to understand why 80 per cent of our programmes, live and otherwise, seem to treat of misfortunes and unfortunate people in our country and in other countries. It does not seem to lead to any suggestion or moral as to how the pitfalls of which these people have become victims might be avoided. While people may have sympathy for and an interest in other people's adversities, other people's ill-founded judgments as to what they should do with their lives, unless their is some lesson to be learned, unless the finger points to how such can be avoided by other people, have no great merit. I am saying that in passing, and people will understand what I refer to.
Irish television should deal much more with the Irish way of life and with the successful way of life which so many people enjoy here. Unfortunately we very seldom see representatives of that group on our television. It would be no harm if the Authority would understand that this House, being representative of all the people would wish that the personalities appearing on our television programmes would be representative of the people, not professionals presuming to speak for them.
It will be said that these programmes are more costly than the others. I do not think it is any more costly to bring an everyday farmer or a father of eight from Wexford or Tipperary or Mayo or Galway, to Dublin than it is to fly an up-and-coming author or a brokendown actress from London. Such people have much more to contribute to what is envisaged in section 14.
I thought we might have got from the Minister some indication of how we would hope to increase the number of home-produced programmes being presented on Telefís Éireann. I have been concerned for some time with the number of American canned films being shown. When such films begin to form the basis of television viewing it is time to become worried. I support this amendment because I believe it goes further than the section. There are some horrible presentations on our television. I was watching a television programme last night portraying "Mr. Steed" who has been recently reintroduced from France or somewhere else. It was revolting to watch the things that occurred in that film at a time when young children are viewing. This section does not go far enough to enable the Authority to move in and stop the showing of such films.
As regards home-produced programmes, I think television has made us culturally lazy over the past few years. There has been a great improvement in the standard of the amateur dramatic movement in recent years, but attendances and the interest of the people generally seem to have fallen off completely. This is partly blamed on television. Our national television station should give a boost to these activities. In my own constituency there is a big development in the amateur dramatic movement. We have some very successful festivals in Doonbeg and Scarriff, but they get very little coverage on Telefís Éireann. As it might give us a cultural boost it is an area worth considering. The section is not strong enough to help in the development of television awareness. I should like to know if the Minister has any views on the decrease in home-produced material.
This stage of the debate has covered a great deal of ground and a number of observations have been made about culture and programming. Many of them, as I indicated earlier in relation to other remarks, while relevant to our debate, are more for the consideration of the authority than for mine. Opposition Deputies do recognise that that is the principle we abide by and we understand the reasons and necessities for it. The record of this debate will be transmitted to the Authority and they will have the opportunity of considering these comments on programming.
There are a few things which I should like to comment on very briefly without entering the general cultural area, which has been adequately covered. In regard to broadcasting the proceedings of the Dáil, I would be in favour of the Authority broadcasting full and adequate reports of debates but I do not consider it appropriate to provide for this in 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 sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept amendment No. 21a. I should like to add that the Authority and the Director General are very interested in the question of broadcasting Dáil proceedings and Oireachtas proceedings generally in whatever form may eventually seem appropriate to the Oireachtas itself. As Opposition Deputies have pointed out, that decision is one for the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. The suggestion has been made occasionally that RTE may not be all that interested in broadcasting our proceedings. That is not the case. They are at the disposal of the two Houses of the Oireachtas and of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to broadcast the proceedings, or parts of the proceedings, either by radio or television, as the Oireachtas itself may find desirable. They are ready and willing to do this and believe that it would be of interest to the people and of national importance as a service to our democracy; but it is not for them to take the decision, as Opposition Deputies have pointed out.
Deputy Tunney referred to that part of the wording which requires the Authority in their programming to be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community. He urges the concept of representativeness. That is a significant comment which I will bring to the attention of the Authority. We did not wish to include the word "representative" as it would seem to affect, as the section is worded, the actual composition of the Authority. It is not the view of this Government or of previous Governments that such a body should be representative of various interests, that the members should feel "When I am deciding on this I have to consult such and such an association which nominated me." The Authority are nominated as people who will, working together as a body, exercise their responsible collective independent judgment about broadcasts. Therefore the concept of representativeness is one which we did not want, although, like previous Governments, we did want the Authority as a whole to be representative of a broad gamut of Irish life; but we did not want to think of the individual members as representatives.
The Authority and broadcasters generally are conscious of the desirability of bringing into broadcasting people outside what you might call the community of communications— authors, actors and so on. In balance with that one has to weigh the fact that people who are listening to broadcasting or watching television are often looking for instruction and more often for entertainment. That is a field into which professional entertainers of one kind or another are easily drawn. Sometimes people who are thoughtful, useful and good citizens are not particularly articulate when they are faced with these machines. That is one of the sources of the kind of effect the Deputy had in mind.
As regards Deputy Daly's point about the amount of home-produced programmes, we are all concerned about that. As Deputy Fitzpatrick and others mentioned, there is a question of finance in this. The more home produced, the more expensive is the rule, and the Authority have to take account of the need for economy. We all have to consider how much the licence fee payer is willing to contribute in this area, because essentially he has to do that. There would be a general consensus against any further drop, at least, in the amount of home-produced programmes. We would hope that conditions may be such as to enable a rise in the number of home-produced programmes of quality. Where the Authority have to balance numbers and quality, they are rightly concerned primarily with quality. There is no point in raising the number of home-produced programmes if the extra ones are of low quality, although quality applies in a number of fields, including some which would be regarded as lowbrow.
I am sorry, therefore, that I am not in a position to accept amendments Nos. 21 and 21a. I have accepted a number of amendments to this Bill, mainly in the Seanad, but for the reasons explained I am afraid I cannot accept these two amendments.
In connection with the balancing of programmes, I wish to refer to a recent broadcast of "The Late Late Show" at which a young lady in the audience was asked for comments. She commented on the Donegan affair, and Gay Byrne, the presenter of the programme, allowed her to be attacked by a young man in the audience. Gay Byrne identified the young lady as being a member of Fianna Fáil, but he did not identify the attacker as a well-known member of Fine Gael. The Authority should look at this type of tactic and try to ensure that there is a balance so that when the discussion would finish the public would know that both views were political. It was obvious from Gay Byrne's comments on that programme that he was aware that she was a member of Fianna Fáil. When a person is invited to participate in such a discussion it is unfair that he or she should be attacked in a political manner and that the attacker's political affiliations are not advertised as well.
I would like the Minister's views on Deputy Fitzpatrick's suggestion that the service should be made available as far as is practicable to all the people of Ireland. For far too long we have had a paper wall around the Six Counties where penetration took quite a number of years. We now have a situation where Irish men and women in the North are fed with BBC propaganda in relation to Irish affairs. The time has come when we must ensure that our point of view is projected to the people who want it. False impressions have been created in relation to our position, our outlook and in relation to information which is available. The people in the other portion of Ireland might wish to get a view of the Irish way of life which in many cases is more wholesome than that which is being projected by the BBC television. Many of the films shown on BBC are concerned with sex and murder and the British and American ways of life are pronounced in the type of canned entertainment that is presented. This type of entertainment is not desirable and it is time we made a breakthrough on this score. It is desirable that the social and cultural activities of our country be projected. Even here our young people are being subjected to a murder a week in the "Kojak" type of presentation. As Deputy Daly stated, we have the capacity to produce programmes that can stimulate the values that we want to project. I hope that there will soon be a balance in the type of programme people can see by having our point of view available and by giving factual impressions of the situation that exists here. Would the Minister indicate that the question of making the service available as far as practicable to the people of the whole of Ireland has been considered so that we can penetrate the homes of the people who desire it but cannot get it at the moment?
As Deputy Dowling is aware, I cannot comment specifically on any particular programme. However, if any Deputy or citizen feels that there are serious grounds for complaint about the lack of balance in a given programme he can address a complaint directly to RTE and if not satisfied with the reply from RTE he may raise the matter with the existing complaints committee and, when this legislation is passed, with the statutory body of the complaints commission whose specific function is to look into matters of balance.
I agree with the bringing of RTE television and radio as far as is practicable to the population as a whole. As Deputy Brugha commented when he referred to this matter, the situation which has prevailed in Northern Ireland over the past few years has not been entirely propitious to any new agreements in this area, but we are anxious to secure such agreements. The extent to which RTE is already available in Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. Television is limited to about 14 per cent of the population, not including the Belfast region, for well-known topographical reasons. RTE sound radio programmes are transmitted on VHF and on medium wave.
The coverage in Northern Ireland of our VHF sound service is better than our present total television coverage there. A low power VHF transmitter to improve coverage in County Donegal was brought into service in March, 1975 which will also improve the coverage in north Antrim, Derry and west Tyrone. Coverage is of little value unless there is a reasonably high density of VHF receivers in the area covered. We have no specific figures for the density of such receivers in Northern Ireland, but a recent United Kingdom report suggests that about 50 per cent of all homes in the United Kingdom have VHF sets and that the percentage is increasing steadily. The report gives a proportion of the total number of radio sets sold in the United Kingdom which are equipped with VHF as 60 per cent. The proportion in the case of sets costing £20 or more is possibly 95 per cent. The new Tullamore transmitter which was brought into service in July, 1975 operates during daylight hours and gives excellent coverage throughout Northern Ireland. The transmitter operates at 1,500 kilowatts at night. The Athlone transmitter operated at 1,000. Improved coverage at night is being secured by the same transmitter, so there are modest but significant developments in that area.
(Dublin Central): The Minister seems to be in sympathy with the suggestion of making it available as far as possible to Northern Ireland. I am sure the Minister will convey that to the Authority.
Certainly.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 21a not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): Will the Minister give an indication of the contents of this section?
Section 15 replaces section 19 of the 1960 Act which states:
The periods fixed by the Authority for broadcasting shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.
The new section gives more flexibility to the Authority to settle the hours of broadcasting and is thereby in line with the general tenor of the Bill. Ministerial approval will be needed only for the maximum and minimum number of hours of broadcasting per year. Subsection (2) gives the Authority more flexibility in determining when advertisements will be broadcast. It replaces section 20 (3) of the principal Act which reads as follows:
The total daily times fixed by the Authority for broadcasting advertisements, and the distribution, determined by the Authority, of that time throughout the programmes, shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.
Both are intended to give the Authority somewhat more control and flexibility.
(Dublin Central): I have no objection to the section. Probably the Authority are more qualified than the Minister or anyone else to know when there should be advertising. Unfortunately, there is probably too much advertising but we must take the financial aspects into consideration and nothing can be done about it. I am sure the Authority are more qualified to decide on the right time for advertising. However, it has often seemed to me that breaks for advertising could be timed somewhat better so that there would not be too much annoyance caused to the audience. I accept that it is not possible to put on all the advertising at the end of a programme but it would be desirable to eliminate as much as possible any annoyance that may be caused because of too much advertising. It would be desirable not to have any advertising but until we can devise some other means of financing RTE there is very little that can be done. Let us hope that the Authority will try to keep the advertising to a minimum and that it will be broadcast at a time when it will not cause too much annoyance.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (1) is an enabling provision only. RTE have not indicated any immediate intention to avail themselves of the power under the section to borrow temporarily abroad to provide for current expenditure if the section is enacted. This power may be exercised only with the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Posts and Telegraphs.
With regard to subsection (2), under the existing Act RTE may use their overdraft only to provide for current expenditure. Under subsection (2), they may use their overdraft to provide for the general purposes of broadcasting, including capital works, but only with the consent of the Minister which may be given only in exceptional circumstances. The reason for this limitation is that it is not in accordance with the best accounting practice to use an overdraft for the general purposes of broadcasting, including the financing of capital works, save in exceptional circumstances. However, the need to do so arises occasionally when the financial position of RTE is weak and when moneys normally due to them cannot be paid over. For example, when an increase in the TV licence fee is authorised the receipts from the increase cannot be paid over to RTE until an increased grant-in-aid is approved by the Oireachtas. Subsection (2) is designed to cover this kind of eventuality.
As in the case of section 11, the provision about borrowing abroad for current expenditure was included in the section at the initiative of RTE. It is an enabling provision only and, as I have indicated, the power to borrow can be used only with the approval of the Ministers for Finance and Posts and Telegraphs.
While I know of no plans by RTE to arrange for temporary borrowing abroad at present, I do not think there is any real risk that to do so would jeopardise the independence of our broadcasting services. I would expect that the RTE Authority would not propose to accept a loan from a foreign lending agency if any conditions attaching to the loan would inhibit them from exercising their function of providing a national broadcasting service in accordance with the provisions of the Acts dealing with the Broadcasting Authority. In the unlikely event of any Authority proposing that they be authorised to borrow temporarily under such conditions it may be taken that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs of the day would withhold his consent to such borrowing.
(Dublin Central): In any expanding organisation it is important that sufficient finances be made available, especially when such finances are used for capital purposes. I am glad to hear the Minister say that it is not the intention of the Authority to borrow abroad for current expenditure. Certainly I should not like to see such a practice develop. Perhaps some of the other State bodies may have embarked on such a course but it is very difficult to get out of deficit budgeting in respect of current expenditure.
I should not like to see the Authority impeded in any way with regard to capital expansion. I should prefer to see them get it from Irish sources through the Minister for Finance or the associated banks. I am most concerned that any money provided for capital purposes is put to use as soon as possible. Everyone knows it is not economic to build a factory and then to leave it idle for three years. With regard to the second channel, I hope that any plant or equipment that has been provided is put to use as quickly as possible. It is well known that plant depreciates in the write-down—any business man can tell one how short is the life-span of plant and machinery and I am sure that this applies to the highly technical plant necessary for RTE.
I am sure that the RTE Authority are currently engaged in the provision of the necessary plant and equipment so that all may be ready if and when the Minister makes his decision regarding RTE 2. It is only when this is done that we will see the benefit arising out of this borrowing and for that reason I do not disagree with ensuring that money be made available to them. When companies do not have sufficient finances it has a detrimental effect on them and it undermines confidence in them. Similarly, the confidence of the Authority can be undermined if they do not have all the finances necessary. This section is necessary. I hope that the money spent on capital purposes will be put to use for the benefit of the Irish people.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 10, line 44 to delete "a matter" and substitute "any matter".
The phrase would then read:
...the broadcasting of a particular matter or any matter of a particular class...
This arose in this way: during the course of the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill on 6th November it was suggested that section 17, subsection (1) as then worded could be interpreted as providing power for pre-censorship of broadcasts by a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Certainly this was not my intention and, as promised, I have had another look at the wording of subsection (1) in the meantime. The amendment I am now proposing is intended to make it clearer that pre-censorship is not envisaged, and in any case the record of these debates will make it clear that that is not the intent.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 was dealt with along with amendment No. 4 and consequently is not moved.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): This section gives the Minister power to direct the Authority not to broadcast certain types of programmes. Recently we had the example of the Minister issuing a directive to the Authority under this section, or, I should say, under the old section in the 1960 Act. That takes me back to the amendment I put down on section 2 of this Bill. The Minister issued the directive under section 31 of the 1960 Act.
If we examine section 17—and I am not trying to be dictatorial as regards our attitude in this matter—it is important as far as the employees are concerned that they know exactly who is the head of the organisation, who is the boss or the man issuing the directions. I agree that under this section the Minister can issue a directive to the Authority not to broadcast certain matters. But I contend that the Minister would not have power to back that up under this Bill. I was wondering if the Minister has had any change of heart with regard to his thinking that he can operate this section without that power as regards the Authority.
I am convinced that the Authority can see my point of view with regard to directives under this section. What would be the Minister's situation in regard to the last directive he issued on the 18th of October had the Authority said: "No, we shall not refrain-from broadcasting this type of programme"? He would then have to go through a cumbersome procedure to rectify that situation. I am sure a responsible authority will always respect a Minister's decision but this did bring to light the position in which the Minister will find himself where the Authority are concerned under this Bill. Just as anybody else, the Authority like to know exactly how they stand. In any future directives not adhered to the Minister will have to bring an order into this House with regard to taking definite steps. That is a procedure I have always held is not in the best interests of the Authority. It is not in the best interest of the whole broadcasting organisation to have a long drawn-out debate in this House on the various communications that may have taken place between the Minister and the Authority. I contend that the Minister weakened his position under this section by not accepting our amendment earlier in this debate.
This section is not a workable one by virtue of section 2 of the Bill. Of course, one can say: "Do this" or "Do that" but people may refuse. After all, a properly constituted authority have a right also; they might have a right to dispute the Minister's directive. The Minister's interpretation and theirs of a particular programme might be different. We must remembers that there are nine of them sitting in judgment on a particular programme with all the expertise at their disposal. It is a very delicate situation as to who is right and who is wrong. The Authority are a responsible body of people. Naturally any Minister must give this serious consideration because he is dealing with people qualified in their own right. We must prepare for all eventualities. If the Minister's directive is not adhered to, in my opinion he is not in as strong a position as he was under the 1960 Act. I should not like to be seen to be dictatorial about this matter, but everybody likes to know where he stands.
I should like to ask the Minister what is the position now where RTE are concerned regarding the particular type of programme they should broadcast, especially those of a very sensitive nature in respect of which he recently issued a directive. If my memory serves me correctly—and I am subject to correction here—after the previous directive was issued I thought the Authority drew up guidelines within which they could operate and would be safe in doing so. I understood also—and again I am subject to correction—that those guidelines were drawn up, if not with the approval of the Minister, at least with his knowledge. I do not want to be misunderstood in any way in this respect. I presume that the Authority operated within those guidelines regarding the programmes the Minister asked them to refrain from broadcasting. Perhaps we might have clarification from the Minister in this respect. If they operated within the guidelines laid down, with the knowledge of the Minister, then no blame can be placed on them one way or the other. I should like the Minister to explain how they stepped outside those guidelines or, if they did, to explain how they did so.
The Minister's interpretation and that of the Authority must form common ground. If they do not we will quite often have conflict over interpretation, the Minister's view of certain programmes and that of the Authority. We will have to establish some type of common ground where the Authority can feel safe and say: "There are the guidelines. Here is the programme we are putting on. We are quite within the guidelines and are on safe ground." It would not be fair that any Minister should have a right in relation to any particular matter being broadcast, that his personal definition of it might not be in keeping with the guidelines laid down already. It is better for the country to understand that those guidelines are there. They will have to be there if the Authority are to operate with any flexibility in this sensitive area. I would like the Minister's comments on that.
First of all, I would like to refer to the general purpose of the section. I need only do so briefly here as the matter was covered fairly substantially in the Second Reading. Section 17 replaces subsection (1) of section 13 of the 1960 Act which states:
The Minister may direct the Authority in writing to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or matter of any particular class and the Authority shall comply with the direction.
Section 17 limits the power of the Minister to issue directions to matters which in his opinion if broadcast would be likely to promote or incite to crime or would tend to undermine the authority of the State.
Directions under this section would be issued by statutory order which would be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and would remain in force for a period not exceeding 12 months. An order could be extended by further periods not exceeding 12 months for any extension. Such extensions could be either by statutory orders made by the Minister or by resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Every statutory order made under this section would be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of the Oireachtas within 21 sitting days of the matter being laid before it.
As explained on Second Stage, the general thinking behind this and the related section is not to weaken the power of the authority of the Minister and the Government in relation to this important matter but to make that power more responsive to the authority as such. That is to say, that all such matters have to come before the Oireachtas. Deputies opposite have viewed that as perhaps unnecessary or as leaving the Minister, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, not in as strong a position as he was before. In a sense the Minister and the Government are not in as strong and independent position in relation to the Oireachtas as they were before, but the authority of the Oireachtas and the Government responsible to it is not, in our view, weakened.
Deputy Fitzpatrick raises—it is a fair enough point—the question of what happens if an authority choose to disobey a direction given to them and then the Minister has to come before the Dáil regarding the removal of the Authority. I agree with the Deputy that that is, almost by definition, an undesirable situation to contemplate and distressing in its implications for broadcasting. But I see no reason to suppose that any authority set up under the authority of this Oireachtas and appointed by the Government are likely to say: "Well, we have your direction. We propose to disregard it." No Authority have ever done that.
I want to approach this subject in a spirit of as little polemics as possible. I want to go over what happened. In the case of the Authority removed by my predecessor in December, 1972, the Minister issued a direction, still in force, which I have maintained, in the form of general wording and, therefore, obviously subject to various interpretations. The Authority sought clarification on what the direction means. They were already operating under certain guidelines which represented their interpretation. The Minister did not feel himself obliged to clarify a direction, which he regarded as already sufficiently clear. When a programme was broadcast which in terms of his interpretation of his direction, though not apparently in terms of their guidelines, violated the direction, he then dismissed the Authority, as he could and as can still be done until this legislation is passed, without reference to the Dáil.
When I became Minister I asked to see the guidelines. I then informed the Authority that the direction remained in force but that I, as Minister, regarded the guidelines, if observed, as constituting compliance with the direction. To that extent the element of possible conflict of interpretations disappeared. That raises the point of whether the guidelines may have been deemed to have been contravened by a recent broadcast—that of an interview with a spokesman for the Provisional Sinn Féin. It appeared to me that the guidelines could be differently interpreted in relation to that matter. I, therefore, am not taking the view that the guidelines were contravened by this broadcast. The conclusion I reached was that, if the existing guidelines can be so interpreted as to permit this particular form of broadcast, I am not faulting the Authority or the broadcasters but I am going to make these guidelines more specific and more clear to make it clear that that kind of broadcast should not occur.
I, therefore, issued the direction, of which the House is aware, prohibiting the broadcast of interviews or reports of interviews by members of the Provisional IRA, Official IRA, organisations which are illegal in Northern Ireland, including the UVF, UFF and so forth, and broadcasts by spokesmen for Provisional Sinn Féin. I was not and am not charging the Authority with failing to see that the guidelines were complied with. I added—this was a better and more suitable course of action—to the existing direction by way of clarification, as I see it, of its intention—and certainly of my intention and that of the Government in reference to this matter—this particular precise direction, which now makes it absolutely clear that interviews and reports of interviews of this kind may not be broadcast.
The Authority at their first meeting after the direction had no difficulty whatever in accepting the direction and set itself to implement the direction by new guidelines. I am satisfied that this Authority and any Authority likely to be appointed under the general responsibility of the Oireachtas is likely to take its responsibilities in law and in terms of its governing statute absolutely seriously. I believe that past authorities did so and I am aware that this Authority is doing so. I know that there can be clashes under the legislation we are now passing conceptually or theoretically. I do not believe these are likely to arise and I think that the broad question of ensuring that where a Government feels it has to act in this delicate area it must be doing so as it were within sight of Parliament and acting as responsible to Parliament under parliamentary check. I think that is so important as to outweigh the quite hypothetical danger of the kind of clash the Deputy describes. I am giving my view; I respect the Deputy's alternative view but that is how I see it and how the Government see it.
Would the Minister clarify a minor point. Why is it that subsection (1A) of section 17 says: "...an order made by the Minister or by a resolution passed by both Houses...."? Why are both included?
I do not understand exactly the Deputy's point.
If the Minister makes an order it says here that the order will remain in force, may be extended or further extended by an order made by the Minister or by a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Why are both included? Is not the normal thing that it would be an order of the Minister?
I think the intent is to involve both Houses of the Oireachtas in this. This Bill was introduced a very long time ago in the Seanad. The Seanad criticised and amended it and, I think, improved it and it is the Government's desire to give a possible involvement of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(Dublin Central): This is an important section, important in the fact that it must be evident to the public that there is no great censorship in this field except where it is really necessary. A badly informed public is probably the worst thing we could have in our democracy. RTE must be seen to be in a position to inform while keeping within the guidelines. I am not sure how restrictive the Minister's guidelines now are. I am not criticising the directive he gave.
Some will say that it did not go far enough as regards some organisations in Northern Ireland. They thought certain organisations in Northern Ireland which were probably perpetuating the same type of crime should have been included in the Minister's directive to RTE. It is important to ensure that we do not inhibit normal political development—that is the vital point. Legitimate political development must be seen not to be inhibited. That would be one of the worst things that could happen in regard to our democracy. I would be very conscious of how the Minister worded his directive with a view to ensuring that while the Authority realise their responsibility to the public, as they must do in this very sensitive area of communication, they are at the same time given latitude to report important matters. I am not speaking of the particular matter on which the directive was given although some people will say that there were elected representatives on this particular group that may be impeded as regards their political activities. I think the Minister qualified that at a later date as regards the elected representatives attached to some of these organisations. We do not want to tie down the Authority too much. It is a very delicate area between the Minister's interpretation of certain programmes and the Authority's.
I am glad that the Minister has found common ground with them so that if programmes come up in the future the Minister and the Authority will know whether they are inside or outside guidelines. It is important to have that established and ensure that the freedom of expression of legitimate democratic organisations is in no way impeded. I do not think that is the Minister's intention but I mention it to ensure that freedom of expression should not be impeded. I sincerely hope that we shall have very few directives because it would not help the whole system of broadcasting if the Authority has to look over its shoulder on every occasion. They should know exactly where they stand without any ambiguity. This section is necessary but like everybody else in the House I hope it will not be necessary ever to use it. I am glad the Authority have agreed with the Minister. Perhaps the new guidelines which have been drawn up are sufficiently comprehensive and give a certain amount of elasticity without going outside these guidelines. We must see the flexibility within which the broadcasting Authority is operating. In any other type of business you can operate within a directive but this is a very sentitive area and at times the Authority may step outside it— perhaps not deliberately—but in their interpretation of certain programmes.
I am grateful to the Deputy for giving me the opportunity of putting on the record of the House the actual wording of the direction issued by me to the Authority on 18th October, 1976. It is quite a short direction and, I think, clear.
In exercising the powers conferred on me by section 31 (1) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, I, Conor Cruise-O'Brien, TD, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, hereby direct you to refrain from broadcasting matter of the following class, i.e. interviews or reports of interviwes with the spokesman for:
(a) the Irish Republican Army (Provisional or Official),
(b) organisations classified as unlawful in Northern Ireland,
(c) Provisional Sinn Féin.
This direction is to remain in force for six months from the date of issue, or until the passage of new broadcasting legislation, whichever be the sooner.
I agree entirely with Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Dublin Central) when he says that the greatest care should be taken not to inhibit legitimate political development. There is to my mind a firm line to be drawn. For that purpose I have made the present draft legislation more specific than the old more general one, that a line be drawn as to where and in what area there may be such prohibitions and controls. That area is the area of crime. The Irish Republican Army, Provisional or Official, is an illegal organisation in this State. The IRA collectively and in both of its branches is also illegal and criminal. Membership of that organisation is now a criminal offence visited with very severe penalties. It would be hard to argue that known criminals should be given access to the airways and, if that were argued, which criminals. Are common law criminals to give their opinions and to propagate the aims of their gangs or conspiracies? That is not generally done. I do not see why we should do it.
The second group are organisations classified as unlawful in Northern Ireland. These again are obviously illegal and criminal organisations whose members have claimed many barbarous, cruel and murderous acts.
The third group is the one that is regarded as border-line, that Provisional Sinn Féin which in one of its aspects is a political party or presents itself as such; but in another of its aspects, which I suggest is the more operative one, is the front and propaganda arm for a criminal and violent conspiracy, that of the Provisional IRA. There are those who do not take that view or affect not to take that view. I think most people who are familiar with how these organisations work know that that is the case, and we know that persons belonging to and indeed convicted of belonging to the Provisional IRA can be elected to high office in this supposed political party. I, therefore, did not and do not feel that they can be regarded as a legitimate political party, not because of any objectives which they claim or hold or would avow but because, and solely because of their close organic connection with an illegal army. That is why interviews with their spokesmen are being prohibited, by the same token, as are interviews with members of what may rightly be regarded as their parent organisation. I would remind the House that the IRA split in 1969 into Provisional and Official wings; that immediately thereafter the organisation known as Sinn Féin split into Provisional and Official wings, each of them going with their parent wing of the original army. Nothing could make more clear what the nature of these supposed political parties is. I would like to emphasise that that is where we intend to draw the line round crime, and that is why we are making section 17 here more specific than the original section 31 so as to indicate that we cannot go beyond that line. It is only there that the State should have such powers to prevent criminal conspirators making use of our airways.
I do not want to be tiresome in asking this of the Minister, but referring back to section 17 (1) (a) I mentioned there was either an order or resolution passed by the two Houses. Could the Minister tell me who decides whether it was an order or resolution?
I take it it is the Minister who would normally make an order but in certain cases the Oireachtas themselves might decide. We wanted to leave that power open. It would be rarely used.
I would have concluded it would be only in the event of the removal of a member.
I would think so, in practice.
Would the Minister not continue to renew the order?
It has to be laid before both Houses and they can annul it.
(Dublin Central): Is it that the order can be annulled if any Ministers will change it or the enactment of this Bill?
That is right. I would have to prepare a new order and comply with the provisions of this. Both the existing section 31 and any directions issued under it lapse when this becomes law, and if we wish these to continue, and I am afraid the necessity for them will continue, we will have to bring up new orders before both Houses who can annul them if they so wish.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 24:
In page 11, between lines 31 and 32 to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(3) A licence under subsection (2) of this section shall set out a code governing standards and practice for local Programme matters."
This is laying the guidelines for local television and various factors to bring them into line with the rules and regulations which govern RTE at the moment. I welcome the introduction of local radio and television in various parts of the country. I have some experience in a community, in the Liberties, where local radio programmes were carried out over a number of years and I confess they have been a wonderful success. I was not sure at that time what rules were governing the local radio, whether they were governed by the same rules as RTE or not. It is for this reason that I have brought in this amendment. Naturally when we are dealing with this amendment we are dealing with new television programmes which will be run independently, like Ballyfermot and Tallaght. These are programmes which would be initiated by the community. I know the programme regarding the Liberties was under direct supervision of RTE and they would be operating within the guidelines laid down. We know these stations are developing. We have seen them. Even the local television stations operated in Ballyfermot at least, or did operate very successfully for a time.
The Minister gave us an undertaking on the eve of the Dublin-South-West by-election as regards advertising. I do not know what happened to that permission which was being sought from the Minister at that time. He conveniently gave leave on the eve of the South-West by-election, but I am not sure how it has developed since because Ballyfermot is not in my consituency.
Permission stands.
(Dublin Central): I have heard very little from the station since.
I cannot control whether they avail themselves of it or not.
(Dublin Central): I put down this amendment because I want to know what rules govern these television stations. Are they operating under the same conditions as RTE?
I sympathise with the purposes the Deputy has in mind but the situation does not require statutory provision here. Section 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, provides:
The Minister may by order make regulations prescribing in relation to all licences granted under this Act...
and then states the terms and conditions to be observed by the holders of such licences and subject to which such licences are deemed to be granted under the statutory power. This would apply also to licences issued under section 18 of the Bill. Accordingly, the Minister will have the power to insist on licences conforming to such codes of programme practice and so on which seem desirable in the light of development of local programme origination. However, we are still at the experimental stage in this type of development. I do not consider it desirable to have a mandatory statutory provision in regard to the conditions to be attached to licences. Accordingly, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
Could the Minister say how is anybody transmitting a local television programme to know what is right and what is wrong? Where can they get guidelines?
The groups which are operating such experimental systems—and they are experimental—are in touch with my Department. They are aware in a general way of the governing procedures affecting RTE and are specifically advised by my Department that they should comply with the provisions of the 1960 Act as it applies to RTE and the terms of this are drawn to their attention. So far as I am aware, no difficulty has arisen in relation to compliance with that Act. Whereas we do envisage that there shall be a code of programme practice, my Department feel, and I agree with their view, that it is early days yet to formulate such a code, that it is sufficient for it to be drawn to their attention that they have to comply with the terms of the Act and that essentially that they are under the same rules as the national broadcasting station in this regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): I do not have anything further to add on this section now but on Report Stage I shall have something to say about cable television.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): This is very much a technical matter.
Yes, perhaps the Deputy would like me to say something about it. Section 19 (a) extends the definition of wireless telegraphy contained in section 2 of the 1926 Act to embrace all systems of communication that use the airways. This is necessary because of technological developments in methods of radio communication since the original definition was drafted. Section 19 (b) strengthens the definition of wireless telegraphy apparatus to place beyond doubt the fact that cable television systems are wireless telegraphy apparatus. This is an entirely technical and legal section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): Is there anything very controversial in this section?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): Could the Minister give an indication about the keeping of certain apparatus?
Section 21 provides that apparatus used in the provision and distribution of local programmes shall come within the ambit of section 7, 8, 10 and 12 of the 1926 Act. The effect of this would be that, first, a person who is served with a notice in writing by the Minister would be required to state whether he has such apparatus and, if he has, the nature of the apparatus and the place at which it is kept. Second, a justice of the District Court could have power to grant a search warrant to enter a place suspected of containing unlicensed apparatus and to search for and seize any such apparatus.
Under subsection (2) during a national emergency full control can be taken by the State of equipment used to provide or distribute local programmes. Under subsection (3) it would be illegal to work or use equipment for provision or distribution of local programmes in such a way as would cause interference with wireless telegraphy apparatus. The Minister could direct the user of the apparatus to take such steps, including a complete stoppage of its use, to terminate the interference and failure to comply would be an offence. In short, this section is concerned with the necessary stopping of loopholes in relation to abuses in local broadcasting.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Next Stage?
The Whips will have to discuss that.
(Dublin Central): Perhaps in two week's time?
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st December, 1976.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.