asked the Minister for Communications if his attention has been drawn to the fact that cable television companies in this country, including Cablelink, have been transmitting the United States Information Agency, Worldnet television service, which is an official propaganda arm of the US Government and which is alleged to have close links with the US Central Intelligence Agency; his views on whether it is appropriate that cable television companies should transmit propaganda stations of this nature; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cable Television Company Satellite Services.
10.
I am aware that some cable television companies have relayed the service in question as part of the current experiment in the relay of satellite services generally. Under the terms of that experiment, as announced by my predecessor in October 1986, the selection and mix of satellite services to be relayed was left to cable operators themselves, the objective being to enable cable operators to demonstrate the range of services available and to assess audience reaction and demand.
In the context of establishing a permanent regime for the delivery of satellite services, it will be a matter for cable operators in the first instance to put forward proposals relating to the services they propose to relay on a continuing basis. These proposals — including the question of whether they intend to include the Worldnet service among the additional service to be offered — will be considered on their merits, and I do not wish to prejudge the outcome at this stage.
Since this service itself is not available for transmission in America where it is banned because of its content, and in view of the great public disquiet that has been expressed because of its close links with the propaganda arm of the CIA, surely the Minister reserves to himself the authority to intervene or make his views known to the cable services? In that context, would the Minister advise us as to whether or not he has caused any inquiry to be made by his Department into the content of this service and if he has, as a result, conveyed any views to the cable link services that have been transmitted?
I do not accept as being general the concern that Deputy McCartan speaks about. This concern has been coming from specific sources. I have made inquiries and I am informed that the allegations that the service has close links with the CIA are unfounded. The USIA is funded by means of an appropriation voted by Congress of the US separate altogether from the CIA. On the question of what services should or should not be permitted, the general principle should be that we should not object to any specific service unless there is clear evidence that it could undermine public order or morality. There is no question that Worldnet is doing that. As to whether it will be there long term, that is to be decided and I do not want to get into too much detail at this stage.
I do not want to get into a debate with the Minister about who funds the CIA; Congress makes its full budget available to it. Could the Minister advise us who it was that gave him his information that the suggestion that there is a link between Worldnet and the CIA is totally unfounded?
It is not the only organisation the funding for which seems to be a matter of public question. But as far as the information that I have received is concerned, this is followed through from the Department of Communications through its normal sources.
Does the Minister envisage publishing any criteria against which he will be judging programming proposals put forward by stations?
It was not my intention, but it is something that I will consider.