Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees inter alia liberty to citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions subject to public order and morality. In keeping with that right there should be greater freedom of the air waves, not less. Granting effective local broadcasting services to RTE or to any body is a diminution of that right. The Minister may talk about proposals which he will introduce to widen and broaden local broadcasting, but nothing like that is on the Statute Book.
His colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, has already ruled out quite categorically the suggestion that it is legal to broadcast without a licence. I contend, as does my colleague Deputy Kelly, that there may be a constitutional reason for suggesting that there is no basis in the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, for such an attitude. Assuming that is correct, the facts are that the only reference by this Government to local broadcasting, apart from after dinner speeches which run glibly off the tongues of some, the only policy statement, the only decision, is contained in section 3 of the Bill. The effect of that is to seek to enshrine for all time the power to maintain local broadcasting in the hands of RTE. That is regrettable. It is a disservice.
We have to analyse whether it is right in political terms or whether it is a question of individual freedom. Let us ask ourselves how it can be done and how suited RTE are to the job of instituting and maintaining local broadcasting. In case there is any misrepresentation, I want to put it on record that nobody wants to undermine RTE. We all seek to support them in every way possible. We want to grant whatever moneys are deemed to be necessary for the proper running and management of RTE. Many of us are fulsome in our praise of them. They did a splendid job recently on the occasion of the Papal visit when they showed themselves capable of not just competing with but surpassing some of the finest broadcasting networks in the world. Their integrity is not in question. Their competence is not in question at national level.
However, local broadcasting is something else. It is not a question of the national network getting themselves organised along the lines suggested in this document which is a report on "Radio Telefís Éireann, Ireland's National Radio and Television Service", published earlier this year. In a paragraph headed "Community Radio" it is stated:
This facility is provided either by a mobile studio and transmitter unit parked in a village square or city side street, or from one of the regional studios. Broadcasting at low power on VHF or medium wave, the studio has an effective range of 3-5 miles. On average, some five hours of programming per day are presented during a week's visit to each center. Members of the local community plan, research and present all programmes.
That is a very good initiative and one we would all commend and respect. Unfortunately, it is no substitute for any kind of community or local radio policy. It goes on:
RTE confines its involvement to provision of the mobile studio and technical staff. A senior producer is assigned to manage the studio and advise the participants. He does not make programming decisions. In choosing centers to be visited, RTE aims to serve both rural and urban communities. The visit of the mobile studio is normally timed to coincide with a festival or other major local event, not in order to cover the festival but because the presence of an active committee facilitates planning.
The demands which I suspect such a welcome although meagre service place on RTE are significant. If a decision was made which was considered to be wise and proper, to ban the advertisement of something injurious to public health, RTE might feel constrained to curtail services for reasons arising out of lack of revenue or the Government's reluctance to increase licence fees or raise revenue in some other way. Even the meagre community oriented services operating at present and doing a good job would be the first on the list to get the axe.
Is there a difference between the ability of RTE to handle a national network and local community based broadcasting? There is. They are totally different. The fact that there is general public subscription to the concept of community based broadcasting means that we will have local management structures and local resources under significant local control or influence. Local broadcasting in the hands of RTE would not permit of that sort of approach. The responsibilities, whether statutory or not, are vastly and fundamentally different. I contend that RTE are not the vehicle through which local broadcasting policy should be carried out. I believe in their heart of hearts RTE would agree with that view.
Local broadcasting is a fundamentally different concept from some sort of quasi extension of what RTE are engaged in at present. What is local broadcasting? I should like to quote from a brief document submitted by the Bray association for local community radio. It is an outline of the Bray local broadcasting radio project and a brief summary of the role of local radio in that community. They say:
The basic difference between community local radio and nationwide broadcasting is that with local radio complete two-wave communication is possible and more relevant. Local radio is an active process where the local community concerned is at one and the same time the author, the subject and the receiver of the transmitted message.
As local radio is germane to this Bill, it is reasonable to mention this point. The difference between local broadcasting and other broadcasting services is that one is based in the community, reflects community values, is structured with a view to community priorities and is managed by the community.
I want to quote from another document the source of which I have not got to hand:
Local radio should bring a community together, its value in combating loneliness, isolation and fragmentation is all out of proportion to its modest cost. Local radio with its unique service can greatly help people who find it difficult to leave their homes, mothers with young children, blind and handicapped people, older citizens. These groups need no longer feel alienated and isolated from what is going on in their locality. The benefit to the community of local radio is immense and the costs are low. It seems a shame not to make use of the potential of radio.
If we are to involve communities with their individual sensitivities, with their concern for the local social problems, local personalities and local issues, RTE, a nationally based and nationally oriented service, may not be the vehicle through which that can be orchestrated. Their whole momentum, their whole way of thinking, their whole outlook and philosophy, their responsibility and unanswerability to the Minister, are in a different focus and on a different plane.
It would be far more healthy to have separate responsibility. That is why I oppose section 3 of the Bill. It is regrettable that this Bill is not in the context of the kind of broadcasting policy which we assume the Government want to introduce and which they said they want to introduce, that is, a policy whereby—if I understand the Taoiseach correctly in his remarks on this about six months ago—the national broadcasting network will be in the hands of RTE willingly supported by the unanimous views of this House and it should be adequately funded and resourced to do the job. Accompanying this and parallel to it there would be an independent broadcasting network with licences granted by the Government to people who accord to certain criteria, which should obviously include a reference to the ability of such people to carry out their responsibilities properly, barring the likelihood of them defecting after causing public outrage and things like that.
A third stratum would be the area of local broadcasting, community broadcasting, which some of the stations broadcasting without a licence have been involved in. They have the ability to focus on a much smaller community. Even though I do not consider the stations broadcasting without a licence to be what I would consider to be the epitome of community radio they, nevertheless, make a reasonable stab at it. We are talking then about a situation in which a local radio has a certain amount of local management skill, in relation to local issues and deals with them in a way which is fundamentally different from what I believe RTE can ever do under this Bill. I do not believe RTE can cope with that and there are others who agree with me.
There was an article by Edward W. Ploman in a recent broadcasting review, in which he stated:
There are three main reasons why we need a communications policy, first, we no longer have any choice in the matter, second, we can no longer afford not to have one, and third, we continuously make decisions which amount to unintentional policies.
This Bill is a decision in isolation. It bears the hallmark of a thinking which says that local broadcasting should best be left in the hands of the "professionals" or maybe the "politicians" if tradition and what is on the record is to be accepted. That is dangerous, unhelpful and will do the broadcasting services and the full network of such services a disservice. It will not enhance the prospect of good broadcasting. It may distract energies, resources and initiatives from the standards and calibre of the present RTE services. It deprives people at local level of a certain amount of local autonomy in democracy, which I consider they are constitutionally entitled to as they are in the business of communications. It also deprives them of the right to make the input, which they have to give, because of their individual skills and so forth.
Who is this Bill designed to serve? I am omitting section 1, which is the financial enabling part of it. We have a tradition in the House where we have options in relation to a Bill. We can either vote for or against it or we can abstain. We can, of course, try to amend it but I have no doubt that such amendments would get short shrift here. I believe it would be a waste of time to try to amend this Bill. If this was a sincerely meant Bill I would have thought, in view of what Mr. Ploman said, and what many other communicators have said, that references to local broadcasting and the allocation and assignment of powers in respect of local broadcasting for the future should best be left until we have a comprehensive document enabling us to view in a critical manner how broadcasting for the future should go.
We are told that there is other broadcasting legislation on the cards and that one Bill has already been published. If the debate on broadcasting is to take place shortly why was it found necessary to bring in this insidious Bill at this time? It is a mistake. I hope it is an error of judgment rather than a deliberate mistake. How can the Minister justify the extraction of one fundamental element of broadcasting policy, for example, the question of the power of control and autonomy relating to local broadcasting, and bring it to a decision now while contending that we will soon be discussing broadcasting policy and the opening up of the airways to people, not necessarily RTE? This seems to me to be a most unsatisfactory way of doing business. I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister. At the moment it leads one to the conclusion that there is some desperate reason for it.
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, according to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, gives the exclusive right to RTE to broadcast. RTE is the only station licensed to broadcast under that Act. I do not know if there is a licensing capacity in the Act. Under what licence, statute or authority do RTE broadcast? What are the legal processes which allow RTE to broadcast? Are RTE also broadcasting without a licence? The Wireless Telegraphy Act is an enabling Act. What are the specific rubrics by which RTE occupies their broadcasting position at the central stage of Irish life? The position of exclusive monopolies, which is behind this Bill and the other Bill which is promised, is untenable and is repugnant to this party.
The Minister must agree that the Bill effectively limits freedom for RTE employees in section 4 and for people wishing to get involved in local broadcasting, in section 3. We have, to some extent, very adequate limitations on our freedom already, some of which have very dubious value. Thank God, they have not been excessively abused. I contend it is dangerous to have them there because there can be times of mass emotion and public reaction when politicians, with less wisdom than they might have on occasions, may seek to use such legislation for very temporary ends and when there could be massive inroads on the kind of freedoms we all seek to enjoy. I know that all legislation is a response to something. This Bill presumably is a response to some request from somebody some place. I see no demand whatever for sections 3 and 4. I do not know of any person who has asked for an exclusive monopoly of broadcasting for RTE. I do not know of any person who has sought to limit the freedoms of RTE members in relation to their access to this House.
I often wonder why it is that people who aspire to this particular profession are somehow tainted with the kind of brush which says that their freedoms should have more restrictions. What makes this job different? It is only a job, even though it may be argued whether it is an important one or an irrelevant one. Why should it be that every time a person raises his head and says he would like to exercise his constitutional right to run for the Dáil or Seanad we all say to him that he must lose his job, that he has to be seconded from his job, that we do not trust him because he is a political animal? If politicians were not so thick-skinned they would resent that. It implies that a person interested in politics, by definition, is a different person. That is not constitutionally sound and it is not acceptable. I ask the Minister to consider that also.
In an article in the Political Quarterly of April/June, 1976 called “Freedom in Broadcasting” by a writer called Tony Firth, he said:
Since the end of the nineteenth century, then, the trend of regulation and legislation has been to define, more and more narrowly, that freedom which radio and television might finally enjoy. I say "finally", because I am not suggesting that these powers, where they were not concerned with the details of licensing and such matters as endowing the Post Office with some probably necessary monopolies, were other than to be held in reserve.
Even in relation to a brief resume of the history of broadcasting, particularly from the point of view of the freedoms in it, we see that the tendency has always been to circumscribe those freedoms. Politicians attach great significance to the impact of broadcasting. Sometimes they exaggerate it slightly. Why are we all getting upset about licensing in this area? Why do we need a licensing system? The newspapers do not need licences. I accept that technical adjustments may be necessary to allocate frequencies to individual stations but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the freedom to broadcast. We are talking about the basic freedom to communicate which is enjoyed by the media. Neither the Minister nor I would suggest that the newspapers should be licensed or should have their power circumscribed by section 1. Nobody would suggest that and God forbid that it should come to pass. Why is this desire so articulated in relation to radio and television? Is it because television has more impact than newspapers? If the concept of the need to license people to communicate in an organised way through the media is valid in relation to broadcasting, it seems that it should be valid throughout a range of publications, including the new citizens' band radio, to which, of course, our first response would be to eliminate it or to introduce a regulation condemning it. We would rush in immediately. We should not rush in because it is a good development. I am not worried what they are communicating on their radios if they are speaking privately to themselves. I would like to keep an eye on it to make sure that it was not doing a disservice to public order.
I am not suggesting that we should license newspapers. I am suggesting that the non-licensing of newspapers is prima facie evidence that there is no rationale for licensing in relation to radio and television broadcasting above and beyond the technical and mechanical matters of allocating airways. I do not believe that the Minister paid any thought to that concept. If he has, I should like to hear about it.
Another reason why section 3 is unacceptable is that the character and sensitivities of local radio need a substantial amount of local input; in fact, they should be primarily locally managed. In an article by John Saunders in relation to the role of local radio in community education, published in the European Broadcasting Union Review of May 1976, Mr. Saunders, being the education programme services organiser of BBC local radio, there is a quotation to the effect:
The special aim of the local station will be to build a vigorous and satisfying local life, with a wide and progressive outlook. It would do much to make people proud of their community and willing to take part in its affairs. It would be at war against rootlessness to which so many social shortcomings are largely attributed....
He develops this theme which has as its basic philosophy the need for strong local control of local broadcasting. He was specifically referring to education which has enormous local implications for good. If local broadcasting is to succeed, how can it be administered nationally? Is it not contradictory to pretend that the best local broadcasting can only be administered by a national effort? He goes on to say:
"Community education" in the way we had seen it means putting back more where now there is less. It means establishing the individual firmly in the community in which he lives and which he understands and trusts. Seen in this light, there is perhaps little that is broadcast on local radio that falls outside our definition. It is, for example, significant information to be told that a piece of music is being played by a local musician. We do not, however, have to rely on such abstruse detail since the evidence quite clearly shows that BBC local radio is a major force in "community education".
There is no way in which we can deal with nationally organised local radio. There is a further reference from a series broadcast by Radio Stoke in autumn 1975 which expressed the essence of community education on local radio. Called "Time to Care", the aims of the series were explained in the booklet to accompany the programmes:
One of the most encouraging and significant ways in which the community is beginning to care for itself is in the development of "good neighbour" schemes and "community care" groups. The series "Time to Care" has been designed to encourage and support the development of such groups and to share and publicize their experience....
The Minister should reconsider the wisdom of depriving local communities of the power to organise their own radio service and of the power to give it the insights and expertise which such a process would inevitably mean.
