Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Dec 1976

Vol. 295 No. 4

Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975: Report and Final Stages.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, lines 15 and 16, to delete "31st day of December, 1976" and substitute "31st day of March, 1977".

This is purely a technical amendment. Section 4 provides that the Government shall establish a broadcasting complaints commission by 31st December, 1976. This date was inserted in the expectation that the Bill would be enacted well before the end of 1976. The time available now is, or may be too short to enable the formalities necessary in connection with the establishment of the commission to be completed by 31st December. The amendment, therefore, extends the date by which the commission must be established to 31st March, 1977.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I have no objection to the amendment but it is an indication of the unbusinesslike way in which much of the business here is transacted. The Bill has been circulated for a considerable time. I know there are changes in the Bill and this particular amendment is justified at this time. The Minister will require it to ensure that the Bill is signed by the President and properly processed through the House. Generally, the progress of this Bill over the past 18 months has been most unsatisfactory from the Opposition point of view and I am sure from the Minister's. We experienced a number of breaks over the past 12 months and this is not the best way to process legislation. We must have come back to the Bill on at least eight or nine occasions trying to pick up the threads where we had left them, perhaps, six months previously.

This type of procedure is most unsatisfactory and is one of the reasons why the Minister has to bring in this amendment. I do not suggest that adequate time should not be given. I believe that the Committee Stage of a Bill is the most important Stage and every opportunity for discussion should be given. Time should be available so as to ensure that when the legislation is finally passed it is accepted generally and is not repugnant to the Constitution and so on.

To a very large extent, this measure has been used as a fill-in Bill over the past 12 months. Whoever is responsible, this is not the best way to handle it. I am sure other Bills have gone through the House in the same way. If that happened to my knowledge I would be the first to complain about it but this is the first case of it of which I have personal experience and I, therefore, wish to lodge an objection in regard to the system of arranging business. Especially in the last few years we do not know where we are going from day to day and what Bills are coming up. The filling-in process for which this Bill has been used is very unsatisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 45, to delete "effusion" and substitute "effluxion".

I have a certain amount of sympathy with what Deputy Fitzpatrick said and I hope the Whips on both sides will take notice of his observations. Again, this is purely a technical amendment, indeed, a semantic one. I am advised that the word "effusion" is imprecise in the context in which it is used in this subsection and that the word "effluxion" should be inserted instead. There is no question of any change in the meaning of the subsection. This change has been recommended for technical reasons by the parliamentary draftsman. The words "effusion" and "effluxion" as normally used have much the same meaning, but the parliamentary draftsman has advised that "effluxion" is the more precise word for use in the context involved in this subsection.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I realise this is a matter of precise definition. I have one question on this subject. “The members of the Commission whose terms of office expire by the effluxion...” There is at present a committee of three. Do I take it that when the commission is set up all the appointments will start and expire at the same time?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): This means the Minister will be in a position to reappoint the same commission when their terms of office expire?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Yes, if that is desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

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

In page 7, after line 43, to insert a new subsection as follows:

"() The Authority shall, with the consent of the Minister, appoint a programme Council which shall as far as possible be representative of those parts of Ireland in which it is not possible to receive television broadcasts, at reasonable strength emanating from outside the State. The programme Council shall advise on the selection of material to be transmitted on any service of television that may be introduced after the coming into operation of this Act."

Ruairí Brugha

I would like to say a few words in support of this amendment. It seems to me to be worth while to provide people living in the single-channel area with a vehicle whereby they could indicate their choice of the programmes which would be available on the second channel. This has been a controversial problem over a number of years. There is a good deal to be said in favour of ensuring that the Authority will have a good idea of the kind of programmes the people would like when a selection is being made for retransmission as distinct from original home-produced programmes. Since it will be of greater value to those in the single-channel areas than those living in the multi-channels areas, it does not seem to me to be reasonable that the choice should lie as it does at present with channel 1. I hope the Minister can understand what I am saying.

We are accustomed to having a choice of four or five channels. The gist of the argument over the past few years concerned a wide choice slot over a second channel mainly catering for the single-channel area. It is reasonable to ensure that the needs of those people are met first.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): During the Committee Stage we tabled an amendment along these lines. During the debate I withdrew my amendment because, having looked at it again, I thought we were placing too many restrictions on the Authority and the people engaged in broadcasting. If you look at the wording of my last amendment on Committee Stage and this amendment, you will find that it is not compelling the Authority in any way to accept that obligation. In this amendment I am asking the Minister to establish a programme council to advise the Authority on the type of programmes appropriate to the viewers of the second channel. That is not asking for too much.

As I said in my amendment, this council will act in an advisory capacity. When the second channel is operating it is vitally important that the people in the single-channel area will accept it. This will fulfil the objectives for which the second channel is being introduced. There has already been a great deal of criticism of the contents of the second channel. There are many sections of the community who are seeking the same facilities as are available on the east coast. It is important that their views be considered.

The Minister said in various parts of the country that he would be willing to make multi-channel television available. I am not sure if this can be implemented. He has not spelled out in any great detail when that would become operational. The important point here is that when the second channel is operational the people living in the single-channel areas will be satisfied with the programmes RTE are capable of showing.

If our national broadcasting is to survive against our major competitors, it is important that our broadcasting stations are capable of commanding the respect of all sections of the community. That is why I put down this amendment. I believe the people will have more confidence in the Authority if they know their views are represented and that their choice of programmes is being forwarded to the Authority so that the producers will get an idea of the type of programmes the people in the single-channel areas would like to see on a second channel.

Most people would like to see the idea of a second channel accepted, even if it involves a lot of taxpayers' money. It is desirable, even in a small country like ours, that opinion be formed and that our culture be defended. On the east coast we are subjected to a lot of television competition and this poses a great deal of challenge to our own broadcasting system. It is our opinion that the type of body suggested in this amendment would be desirable because they would represent a cross-section of the country's views, west and south, of television programmes, not necessarily the views of those now in the single-channel areas but in Dublin as well.

In my visits to the country I have heard criticism of RTE programmes, I have heard people say that they are east-of-Ireland orientated, that they are from within the Pale. I do not accept such criticisms, but if we had a body to advise RTE, their producers and broadcasters, it would eliminate that type of bias, if it exists. Our television programmes go into the homes of most of our people, in many of which there are young children, and I should like to see most of our programmes emanating from our own broadcasting authority. If in this Bill we can make any contribution to achieving that, we should try to do so, realising of course that there will always be a certain foreign-based content. The Minister gave commitments in regard to multi-channel viewing in Limerick, Cork and Waterford. I do not know how definite that commitment was.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It is not relevant to the amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I am sure the body suggested in the amendment would be drawn from Limerick, Cork and Waterford as well as from other areas, and that they will represent various viewpoints such as trade unions, business, farming and so forth. Their advice would represent a cross-section and would be invaluable. In reply to a parliamentary question by me, the Minister stated he would be in a position to make an announcement on the second-channel proposal before the end of 1976. We await that announcement and we hope that in it will be a firm commitment to a full-blooded second RTE channel because it would be disastrous to embark on limited programmes only.

I appeal to the Minister to look carefully at this amendment. He will find that its acceptance will contribute towards strengthening a second channel because of the universal nature of the body proposed. We appreciate that the body proposed will not have much teeth because they would be very much in an advisory capacity, but they could be very useful to the Authority. People living in Dublin would not be sure of the type of programmes the people in the west and south would be satisfied to accept. If a manufacturer wants to sell a product he will carry out a countrywide survey to find out the type of product that would go best. The same principle would apply in this respect. The body suggested would be able to help the Broadcasting Authority and they would certainly not impede the development of our broadcasting system. What we are aiming at is the establishment of a council representative of people in the west and south. Those producing a programme would be in a position to form a balanced opinion having got this advice. Far from impeding the Authority, it would be a valuable contribution towards the Authority and other people engaged in broadcasting. For that reason I hope that the Minister will see his way to accepting this amendment.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I have considered very carefully this amendment in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick. I realise that it is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the Bill before the House, as indeed all the efforts of himself and Deputy Brugha have been. I would, therefore, like to have been able to accept it but I also appreciate the fact that the change in this amendment—which, as he indicated, is not the same as that debated on Committee Stage—is that it provides for the establishment of a council which would advise rather than control the selection of material to be transmitted on any new television service. I appreciate that that change is motivated by a desire to make the amendment more acceptable and it does move in that direction, but I am afraid it does not move enough to eliminate my opposition to the amendment even as it now stands.

The basis of my objection is that we already have a provision in the Bill for the appointment of such committees in cases where the Authority wishes to do that. The Deputy of course indicated his awareness of that. Section 5 (1) of the Bill states:

For the purpose of enabling the Authority to have advice in performing its functions, the Authority may, with the consent of the Minister, from time to time appoint advisory committees or advisers.

Therefore, if the Authority think it desirable, as they might—I cannot say —to appoint an advisory committee with the sort of functions that the Deputy has in mind here they can do so. Therefore, in those circumstances the operative character of the amendment would be to oblige the Authority specifically in the case in which they did not want to appoint an advisory committee or programme council of this kind to do so. It would be a mandatory provision and it is really not of use. It is not operative unless it applies to the situation where the Authority do not want to do this. If they want to do it, they can do it under the Bill as it stands.

The sense of that is contrary to the general sense of this Bill which is to increase rather than diminish the autonomy of the Authority.

In general, for example, the Minister ceases to appoint committees. It is left to the Authority to do so where they think that would be useful. It seems to be contrary to the spirit of that to build into the Bill a mandatory provision for the appointment by the Authority of an advisory committee of this kind which is of use only if it is to be taken as obliging the Authority to do something which in their own best judgment of their responsibilities they do not want to do. Except for obliging them to do that when they do not want to do it, it has no function that I can see.

I gave my views on the general question in considerable detail in my opening speech on Second Stage as reported in Volume 285, No. 3 of the Official Report, columns 410 and 411 and in the course of the Committee Stage on the section as in Volume 290, No. 5, columns 730 to 740. Of course, these refer to a somewhat different amendment, as I indicated, but I have now added to those general considerations my reaction to the amendment as amended, if one can say so. I am still convinced that it should be left to the RTE Authority to determine the best way of ensuring that the broadcasting services they provide in the future will reflect the wishes of viewers, particularly those in areas where BBC 1 and IBA programmes are not available. They have, of course, as the Authority responsible for broadcasting, every incentive to do just that as it would be in the interests of broadcasting, from which the interests of the Authority are in no way separate, to bring that about. In my opinion this is more in tune with the spirit of the Bill which was to give maximum freedom and autonomy to the Authority within clearly defined and understood statutory restraints. Accordingly, I am sorry that I cannot see my way to accept the Deputy's amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

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

In page 7, line 49, after "sound" to insert "and visual".

During the Committee Stage of the Bill again this section came up for discussion. We find in this section that the Authority are obliged to make recordings only of sound in certain broadcasts. We put forward the argument at that time that it would be difficult for the complaints commission to adjudicate on certain complaints which would be made to them without having a visual recording also. Remember that when the complaints commission come into operation they will be confronted with a situation which I believe will not be workable. It will place an obligation on them to adjudicate on certain matters without having the proper material. When I speak of the material here I mean sound and visual broadcast to enable them to make a proper adjudication. Especially where television is concerned, I cannot visualise how they are going to function as I would expect them to do when complaints are made to them as regards a certain television programme where a person may say that his character has been damaged in some way not by the dialogue in a television programme but in the picture and this can happen. There will be many complaints not so much of what was said but of what was shown. If anyone in this House can tell me how the complaints commission are going to adjudicate on that type of situation I shall be glad because I have not the foggiest idea of how they are going to come to a right decision. It is cumbersome for the Authority to have a considerable amount of these recordings kept in Montrose and various places like that.

I believe it is expensive, probably very much so, but the important factor is that if the programme council are to function efficiently and make balanced decisions they cannot do so without the proper evidence before them. In a court of law evidence and exhibits are of vital importance. Everything which reflects on the case must be made available in a court of law to help jurors and judges to form a balanced opinion. The complaints commission will be asked to make a balanced judgment on certain complaints made to them. If the complaint is made in relation to a radio programme, I can see that records in relation to sound broadcasting would be sufficient. When it refers to a complaint about a television programme, there will be a serious shortcoming in the whole operation in relation to the commission deciding who is right and who is wrong because they will not have the proper material available to them. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this.

It is important that television recordings should be made available to the complaints commission when they are asked to adjudicate on the disputes which will arise. I know that very few of them have arisen in the past but we are not legislating for the past but for the future and what may happen. Did the Minister seek information from the three body committee which we have adjudicating on broadcasting matters? Did he ask them if they were properly equipped with material that is at hand in relation to various issues? Did he ask them if it is possible for them to make a balanced judgment without visual recordings of television programmes? I would like to hear their reply. If I was on that type of commission, I would have no hesitation in saying that I could not effectively carry out my duties and be fair to all without this material available to me.

Let us give the complaints commission the material they require. This half measure will not work because any decision they make will be made in the light that they had not sufficient evidence available to them. It will be difficult for them at some future date to stand over their judgment. It is important to ensure that we have not to come back to the House at some future date and say that the commission cannot carry on their duties effectively. We would be to blame for this. That is why I have submitted that visual recordings as well as sound should be made available by the RTE Authority.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am sure the Deputy understands that in relation to this whole field it is not possible to achieve perfection. A great deal of what is broadcast is live in conditions where it simply is not possible to preserve a visual record at all. Nobody scans this, looks at it or exercises judgment and it goes out as it is. It is, perhaps, there that the greatest danger of offence being given arises. That cannot be done.

The visual material that can be preserved would not cover the whole area or, indeed, the most sensitive area. I have discussed the question of the retention of visual material with RTE. They advise that this would be quite a costly exercise. Retention for 180 days—as the Deputy knows this is what we have in mind now for sound material—would involve capital expenditure of the order of £100,000 at annual costs of about £15,000 at mid-1976 prices. While it might be useful in some cases for the complaints commission to have visual as well as sound recordings of programmes, which are the subject of complaint, I do not think that they will be seriously impeded in exercising their functions by not having the visual material; otherwise I feel sure that the existing complaints advisory committee would have drawn attention to any difficulties created by the lack of visual recordings.

The complaints advisory committee have been in existence for over two years. Their functions are not very different from those of the proposed complaints commission. The advisory committee have not had access to video recordings and they have not suggested that they were hampered as a result. The Deputy asked me and I should tell him that I did not specifically ask them for their views on that but they saw the draft Bill and they did not suggest any amendment of section 6. In these circumstances, I do not think I would be justified in requiring the Authority to incur the relatively heavy costs that would be involved in retaining the visual content of all those broadcasts of which the visual can be preserved. Accordingly, I regret I cannot accept this amendment.

Ruairí Brugha

Although the Minister may not be able to accept the amendment, it is no harm to say a few words about it. He referred to 180 days but at the moment the Bill says 60 days.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

There is a Government amendment. I am amending it because of points made by the Deputies.

Ruairí Brugha

It may be possible for the Authority to do video tapes of some programmes. I believe there will be many programmes that will not cause any problems to anybody. It seems to present some problems to have every broadcast taped. However, there could be incidents where one might have a different judgment if one was able to see the picture in addition to the sound. I am sure that the impact of visual would have a different influence on the complaints commission to merely hearing the sound broadcast. Unfortunately, nobody knows, although one may guess, what programmes will be controversial or difficult. We will not know until the programmes are over. Perhaps the Authority in approaching this, particularly in relation to current affairs programmes, may be able to consider using a video tape in place of an ordinary tape so that there will be a more accurate record of a programme available for the time specified.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I will see that the Deputy's remarks are brought to the attention of the Authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, to substitute "one hundred and eighty days" for "sixty days" in line 51.

During the Committee Stage debate on this section I promised to reconsider in consultation with the RTE Authority whether the mandatory period of 60 days for retention of recordings might be increased and whether retention of visual material in addition to sound recordings would be practicable. The result of these consultations is reflected in this amendment which provides that sound recordings of all programmes must be retained for 180 days rather than 60 days provided for in the Bill as it originally stood. This goes a considerable way towards meeting the reservations Deputies had about this provision. It is intended with that in mind. If the amendment is accepted, it would mean that sound recordings of all programmes would have to be retained by RTE for at least 180 days or roughly six months and that if the broadcasting complaints commission find that this is too short it could be extended by agreement between the commission and the Authority.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): We on this side of the House put forward this point of view on Committee Stage. We pointed out at that time that in the event of a court case arising, where the recordings would be necessary, the limit of 60 days was too short. I welcome this extension. We are not trying to make the work of the Authority too cumbersome. We have put forward amendments because we believe them to be desirable for the proper functioning of the Authority and to ensure that the complaints commission, when it is established, will be able to carry out their duties effectively. Many complaints are of a long drawn out nature and it would not be desirable that these recordings would be destroyed in a shorter period.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick, Dublin Central, is out of order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 6——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on amendment No. 7 now, Deputy. Amendment No. 6 is out of order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): On what grounds is amendment No. 6 out of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment seeks to empower the Minister to increase the grant to RTE by an additional amount equal to the total amount received in respect of fines for non-payment of licences. Section 8 to which the amendment is directed provides that such payments should be made from the Exchequer. Accordingly, it imposes a charge on State funds and under Standing Orders a private Member may not move such an amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): If I were allowed to discuss that, I could prove conclusively that the Authority and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs spent a considerable amount of money in the detection of this group of people and my reason for tabling the amendment was not to get the entire lot but the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the RTE Authority should receive compensation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The source from which these fines originally came is not at all relevant.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The fines would not have come about at all only for the work carried out by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is clearly a charge on the revenue and the amendment cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 7:

In page 8, line 52, after "fees" to add "and any compensation paid to licence holders for expenses incurred due to the discontinuation of line 405".

I put a parliamentary question to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in relation to the number of licensed television sets that would become obsolete when the 405 line is discontinued. The Minister informed me that he understood this line would be discontinued around July or August, 1977 and gave me a figure of about 22,000 sets which will become redundant in various parts of the country. I am not trying to inhibit the expansion of the second channel. I realise that when a second channel is in use it will be impossible for the 405 line to continue.

The holders of these 405 line sets are generally the poorer sections of our community. I understand that these sets were last manufactured in this country about ten years ago. The more affluent sections of our community do not use these sets any more. Many organisations collect and distribute these sets to the poorer sections of our community and in many cases this is the only type of entertainment they have. I would like to know how the Minister will compensate these people. I am not advocating compensation for people who can afford to replace a set. I am speaking on behalf of old age pensioners and so on who cannot afford to replace a set. It is unfortunate that the 405 line has to be discontinued. If it is for the advancement of television and the second channel, we must accept it but I am asking the Minister to state that in some way we will compensate old age pensioners and the weaker sections of our community. Twenty-two thousand sets constitute quite a considerable number and quite a considerable number of people will be affected. If they were in a position to buy a new television set. I would not sympathise with that category. They could have phased out the set in the past five or six years. Unfortunately, the people we are referring to will not be able to replace their sets and the same will apply to charitable organisations who help them. It is obvious that many old people will be deprived of television entertainment after the discontinuation of the 405 line. That will be a pity.

I think some provision can be made for those people. I accept that RTE are short enough of finances without making the necessary deductions here but I would remind the Minister that he told the House in reply to a parliamentary question that he would consult with the Department of Social Welfare. I am not sure how that Department will be able to help in the matter. I should like some indication from the Minister of what will happen the old television sets being used by the most needy section of the community.

Many parts of the country will be seriously affected. I understand that in west Mayo some 4,500 sets will be affected. One reason is the discontinuation of the 405 line as well as the withdrawal of the wavelength on which they operate currently. The majority of sets in use in some parts of the country will not be operational because of the change in the wavelength that services the west of Ireland.

I should like the Minister's comments on how he might compensate the section on whose behalf we are speaking. We are genuinely concerned that they may be deprived of any television entertainment in the evening of their lives. Charitable organisations will not be able to replace the sets because people will not give away new sets. Many of the people who were able to purchase television sets realised some time ago that the 405 line sets were being phased out and that was the reason they discarded these old sets and gave them to charitable organisations. Consequently, the recipients, the needy people, will be affected seriously as a result of the discontinuation of the 405 line.

Ruairí Brugha

When the Minister answered a question on this matter some time last week, I asked if there was any possibility of converting the sets to another line. It is unfortunate that most of those using the old sets are in the category least able to buy new sets. Many of them are availing of the free repair services they have been getting through various organisations. It is a very generous service operating in this city.

One of the reasons for phasing out the 405 line was that the channel will be required in the future but it seems rather a pity that such a large number of people—the Minister's reply to the question mentioned 22,000—may be deprived of television entertainment because they will not be lucky enough to get new sets. I agree it is not easy to see how the amendment could be operated but Deputy Fitzpatrick's motive in putting it down is a good one and I am sure the Minister shares the feeling behind it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I appreciate the motive is a good one and I am glad that Deputy Brugha also appreciates that such a provision would be difficult to operate in practice.

During Committee Stage on this section I informed Deputies that I could not agree to compensate those affected by the proposed cessation of 405 line television sets—Official Report, Volume 290, columns 1286-7 refer. I reiterated this in my reply to a parliamentary question on 25th November, 1976—Official Report, Volume 214, columns 800-802 refer.

All of the sets in question must be more than 12 years old and most, if not all, are probably due for replacement. I recognise, as Deputies opposite have stressed, that some of the disadvantaged members of the community may have these sets still and that there may be hardship involved for them in changing the sets. I am drawing the attention of the Minister for Social Welfare to the problem.

It has been said that charitable organisations have provided people with television sets and it has been argued here that when the 405 line sets go out of commission it will not be possible to replace them. However, I do not altogether accept that in that the 405 line change is not the only reason people give up a certain type of set. Television sets considerably junior to the 405 line sets would be obsolete from the point of view of some television users. For example, we know that an increasing number of people are getting rid of their black and white sets and going over to colour sets so that a certain number of the former, which are not 405 sets, should be available.

Owners of 405 line sets will not be the only people who will be inconvenienced as a result of changes necessary in connection with the introduction of the second television service. In some other areas people will need new aerials to receive the existing service and in other areas viewers will have to adjust their aerials and/or acquire VHF sets to receive the second service when that comes into operation. The principle of compensation in such cases could not be accepted and the question of deducting such compensation from licence fees paid to RTE would not, therefore, arise.

On other points made, the advice is that it is not practicable to adjust these old 405 line sets to operate on 625 lines. Apparently the cost of repairs would be more than the present value of the set. On the point about the means test, even if a means test were introduced there would be claims for compensation for sets no longer in working order. Accordingly, I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. As I have said, I will draw the attention of the Minister for Social Welfare to the problem to which Deputies opposite have adverted.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

That disposes of Report Stage. When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Could we have it now?

Agreed to take Fifth Stage now.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): This Bill has taken about 18 months to go through this House. Naturally, any Bill that may improve broadcasting is desirable and there are sections which will certainly be helpful to the Authority and to broadcasting in general. When first circulated there was a section with regard to broadcasting the BBC in its entirety which has since been deleted. That deletion will contribute to broadcasting generally.

Broadcasting plays a vital role in moulding attitudes and I would like to see our national broadcasting station made available to all parts of the country. The majority of the people in the North should be in a position to receive RTE and there should be an exchange of programmes between both parts of the island. Let us hope this development will come about. It is one which could contribute towards peace and harmony. I would like to see dialogue between North and South. We must change hardened attitudes and the best way that can be done is by showing how we live. Again, we should see the way of life of people in the North. Only by frank discussion will a community evolve that can live in harmony. I believe RTE can play a vital role in this.

Television here is comparatively young. It has contributed substantially to enjoyment. It is important to ensure that our way of life is properly projected. I am not asking for an insular orientated programme all day long but we must ensure that our identity and cultural values are protected within the EEC. Member states will ensure that their identities and cultures are projected. We must do likewise. In the European context the challenge will be all the greater. People will demand more. They will want to know more about the Community and how it is developing. It is important that our Authority should do this.

I will be interested to hear the Minister say when exactly he intends to have the second channel operational and for how many hours it will operate. If it is confined to just one or two hours a day, the audience will be lost. In selling any product it is the initial impact that is important. That is how one gets one's customers. If there is not a proper impact, getting customers becomes much more difficult. Everything must be done to ensure that RTE will attract as wide an audience as possible. Even though people may buy newspapers produced elsewhere, they always buy the native product as well because there is more localised news in the native product. The same applies to broadcasting on the second channel.

Criticisms have been voiced by all shades of opinion in the past. On the second channel there must be complete impartiality and, if there is, those responsible will have nothing to fear. The development of programmes in the coming year will be a test of impartiality. We are facing an election year. Broadcasting will play a bigger role than ever before in the forthcoming election and we shall certainly be anxious to see the way in which these political programmes are formulated. The Authority can prove themselves by showing their impartiality as regards these programmes over the next six months or whenever the election is called. I hope they will show their independence irrespective of who is Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and regardless of Deputies from this or the other side of this House who would try to influence them in any way.

During electioneering, Ministers, not the present Minister, have changed their minds about certain commitments on policies which they have promised to carry through. I would be anxious to ensure that promises made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs are not made for electioneering purposes, that if he announces that the second channel will be established in its entirety, that the commitment will be carried out in full not just providing one or two hours' viewing.

Disappointment has been expressed in Cork as regards television viewing. Provision was made in Cork for the recording of programmes and it is unfortunate that when a survey had been carried out and 90 per cent of the people indicated acceptance they were informed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that because of copyright difficulties they could not go ahead with these programmes. The Minister should have seen to it that everything was in order before the survey and wiring were carried out. It was hoped to have the service operating by 20th December.

The Minister has made commitments to various cities throughout the country such as Waterford, Galway and Cork that multi-channel viewing will be available to them. The Minister should be explicit in stating what problems will be encountered and how soon he will be in a position to provide this service. It is important that people know where they stand before capital expenditure is embarked on with these organisations that are seeking it at the moment. Full information should be available as regards cost, problems of copyright and so on, so that people will not be placed in the same position in which the Cork viewers have been placed. Making a vague commitment that he would not stand in their way is not good enough.

There are certain elements in this Bill which will be a factor in the expansion of RTE. I hope it expands as it should in the years ahead and plays its role the same as any major broadcasting company in the world. I would like to convey my congratulations to the staff of RTE and particularly to the director general for the manner in which he has performed the functions of his office. The handling of broadcasting in any country is a delicate matter in relation to keeping a fair balance within the various sections of the community. I believe he has done an excellent job. There are many groups and organisations, each of which would like to see their point of view being put forward. They are quite justified in seeking that, but the Authority must try to find a common denominator, try to please the majority of the community, which is a very difficult job.

We in this House can contribute constructively to these matters by putting forward our views. There is nothing wrong with being critical provided you are fair. As I have said, I will be looking forward to seeing what form the political programmes will take and how they will be constituted. Have they been drawn up already? Who will supervise them? I shall be interested to know what developments have taken place along these lines.

Ruairí Brugha

This is the first amending Bill since the original Broadcasting Act of 1960. In particular section 17 is replaced by section 13 of this Bill and new wording is introduced in relation to the culture of the people of the whole island and in relation to questions such as the encouragement of the Irish language. I do not quarrel very much with the change of words because I believe it is not so much words that can help situations as goodwill that one finds on both sides of the House here. Our national broadcasting service should, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, reflect life on this island, and it should do so partly because we are what we are but also partly because it is necessary to counteract the very strong influence coming from across the water and the United States.

In relation to the Irish language it has become obvious over the last six months that there is a favourable public reaction to popular programmes that are bilingual or entirely in Irish. A change has taken place in this area and we should have regard to it. It is important that at a time like this when there is goodwill towards the language in evidence that the Authority should have a special regard for what they may be able to do by way of an expansion of the type of programmes that have become so popular. I can think of no better way of bringing the language into more general use than by an intelligent use of radio and television popular programmes.

Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned Northern Ireland. In spite of the fact that our signal is only received in a small part of that area it is important that our programmes should be mindful of the need for understanding and peace on this island. Programmes should reflect the need for reconciliation amongst all the people of Ireland. This is a crucial time in the history of the people of this island and it is important that our station should be careful and restrained in dealing with Northern issues. What needs to be emphasised more and more in the use of broadcasting are the common interests we all share on this island because it is those interests I expect will bring us together eventually. I should like to compliment the RTE Authority, and the staff, on the contribution they are making to our community in general. In spite of all the controversies that may have occurred over the past 16 years I believe radio and television are making a considerable contribution as is only right with a national broadcasting system.

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

We have devoted, as it is right that we should, a very considerable amount of time to this Bill. There has been a long discussion interrupted, as Deputy Fitzpatrick made the point—I share his regret about it—for sizeable periods by the demands of other business. The provisions of the Bill were exhaustively debated in the Seanad and in this House and I propose, in concluding, to be brief and confine my remarks strictly to the major measures contained in the Bill. Deputies opposite have used their discretion, as is their right, to open up the whole area of broadcasting more widely. Some of the matters they have raised are matters on which I shall be making statements at an appropriate time. In concluding on this Bill it is better that I stick strictly to it. Deputy Fitzpatrick said it was important that the Authority should have independence, irrespective of who is Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I used the word “impartiality”.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I made a note of the word "independence" but we will not quibble. I am sure we all wish that the Authority should have independence and impartiality, irrespective of who is Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I should like to point out that when this Bill becomes law, and we are now in sight of that, the Authority will have a greater degree of independence and autonomy than they ever had before. That is the most important aspect of this Bill and it is the enshrinement of that principle for which historians of broadcasting will think it memorable. Up to now we have had a situation where a Minister could dismiss—that is still the case— an entire Authority without any need to justify or any need for the Oireachtas to consider the matter. From the time this Bill becomes law that will cease to be the case. Both Houses of the Oireachtas will have to agree to such a removal or, indeed, to the removal of individual members of the Authority.

Some Deputies have criticised that as cumbersome or an abandonment, or abdication of ministerial power and responsibility. That is a matter of judgement. I do not see it in that light and the Government do not see it in that light. We think that the degree of autonomy which is established by this is of considerable importance for confidence in the future of public service broadcasting here. However, we will be content to abide by the verdict of the public and of the future in relation to that. It is also a fact which tends to buttress the independence of the Authority that the old power under which the Minister could prohibit the broadcasting of any matter or matter of any category no longer stands and directions can now be issued only in a particular statutorily defined category of cases, broadly in the area of incitement to crime and matter tending to undermine the authority of the State. That is important. For the first time the line is clearly drawn in what areas may the State intervene in broadcasting. The State may intervene there but the Minister has not got the power, as he has now, to prohibit the broadcasting of anything he does not happen to like. Theoretically, it would be possible under existing law for a Minister to prohibit broadcasts by Members of the Oireachtas. That power is there. It is not conceivable that any Minister would use that power in that way but I do not think it desirable that the powers should be so broadly drafted, that it is technically possible and that, perhaps, certain dangers exist which might lead to abuses in critical times.

It is also important that henceforward any directions issued will have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. For example, the direction recently issued by me in relation to Provisional Sinn Féin, and so on, will lapse when this Bill is passed and if I wish a direction of that kind to be in force, as is probable henceforward, I would have to lay that before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Those provisions are central. Curiously enough, it was suggested to me by a journalist from outside the country today that the measures being taken are restrictive of broadcasting freedom here. Anybody who examines the Bill and compares it with the existing law will see that the reverse is the case. This directly strengthens the autonomy of the Authority and thereby it increases broadcasting freedom. It does not increase it to infinity. Definite statutory limits are imposed in this area of incitement to crime and undermining the authority of the State. It is our deliberate intention that those limitations should remain, should be enforced, should be open and should be under the authority of the Oireachtas. Those are the main provisions of the Bill. We believe that it will lead to a definite improvement in confidence in the broadcasting Authority and in the independence of the Authority.

In conclusion, I should like to thank those Deputies who have contributed to this debate and, in particular, Deputy Fitzpatrick who has come in at every stage of it and also Deputy Brugha, Deputy Briscoe and some others. I should like to say that it has not been often possible for me to accept their amendments although in some cases—one case at least—I have introduced a significant amendment based on their intervention. I already accepted in the Seanad a number of amendments from their party but irrespective of the acceptance or non-acceptance of amendments, I believe that a number of important points were made by them in the debate of which the Authority will take note. The record of this debate— not merely the Bill but the record— will be a help and not a hindrance to broadcasting. I accept that their concern in this matter is quite as genuine as ours on this side of the House. I think one of the best aspects of the Bill has been the message of concern now prevailing in the Oireachtas for the strengthening both of public service broadcasting and of its autonomy under statutorily defined and understood and debatable limitations applicable in one particular area only.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Bill, which is considered by virtue of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution, as a Bill initiated in the Dáil, will be sent to the Seanad.