Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1988

Vol. 377 No. 7

Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. O'Sullivan

I should like to relate my remarks to the Bill before the House and to say that in large measure it is not acceptable to the Labour Party. I should like to state here the position of the Labour Party in relation to broadcasting. I believe that this Bill lacks any definition of broadcasting principles, that there is nothing in it to indicate what we want from our broadcasting service and the way we want it to develop in the future.

The most striking feature of the Government's approach to the development of broadcasting — an approach shared by Fine Gael in the last Administration — is that they propose initiating a new broadcasting system without any accompanying analysis to justify that approach.

New technology and the availability here of additional frequencies requiring a review of broadcasting policy cannot be doubted. Equally something had to be done to regularise the position in which many illegal broadcasting systems operated.

The response of this Government and of Fine Gael during the term of office of the last Administration has been to react to the new technological opportunities and the problem of illegal broadcasting systems in a purely pragmatic way. Neither party has made any reference to the fact that broadcasting fulfils cultural and social roles in society highly significant in themselves, indeed more significant than the product of most other institutions in the State. Broadcasting is not a normal social product; it serves to inform and reflect cultural and social values. The extent to which broadcasting will inform and reflect cultural and social values in a positive way will depend on the terms of reference of the broadcasting system and of the structures within which it operates.

In most societies decisions to change or modernise the broadcasting system have been preceded by serious national debate, the publication of a White Paper or the inauguration of a special commission on the subject. Such options have been avoided here. As a result this House is now being asked to evaluate a proposal for a new broadcasting system without the benefit of a clear statement of Government policy on broadcasting or of an analysis by an independent commission on the role of broadcasting in society and how that role can best be fulfilled in the new circumstances. Rather, policy appears to be dictated primarily by the need to respond to the existence of illegal broadcasters.

In so far as the policy proposed may have other motives, and given the lack of justification by the Government of their proposals, these motives can only be the Government's desire to see more friendly persons in charge of radio and their feeling that the alleged hostility of some of RTE's staff to the Government party can be best dealt with by an alternative broadcasting system.

Since the inauguration of broadcasting in the State, policy has favoured the public service model as appropriate to our circumstances. The concept of public service broadcasting was enunciated again in 1974 in the Broadcasting Review Committee report the last occasion on which an independent review of broadcasting was undertaken.

The Labour Party are of the view that the concept of broadcasting as a public service should continue to underpin an Irish broadcasting system. We are not aware of any arguments forwarded by this Government or others which would suggest that this concept be set aside. In this regard we see no reason to set aside the objective of the broadcasting system set down in paragraph 3.4.3 of the Broadcasting Review Committee report of 1974, although we do accept that the basic principles set down in the paragraph may need further clarification in the light of technological and social developments since then.

In essence, the objectives of broadcasting policy should be to provide a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment, to provide a means whereby people can communicate with each other within Ireland and between Ireland and other countries; and to provide for the expression of Irish identity in all its forms. It will be noticed that the concept of broadcasting as a means of achieving individualistic returns on private investment does not in itself constitute an aspect of the objectives of broadcasting policy set down in the committee report. What concerns me about the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, which is before us today is that it does not attempt in any way to reflect this balanced approach to broadcasting, or indeed to ensure the growth and future of public service broadcasting.

The Irish public service broadcasting system has served the nation well. It is internationally recognised as such and, overall, retains the affection and respect of the Irish public. RTE radio, despite the individual criticisms which can be made of it from time to time, has been able to retain a large audience for a widely varied and highly informative service. It provides a reasonable balance between information, education and entertainment in a way which is beneficial to society. Irish sound broadcasting in its legal form has not succumbed to crass commercialism and does not seek to hold a large audience by arranging its programming at the level of the lowest common denominator of public taste.

The fact that RTE radio has been able to hold its audience in this manner is a credit to those law makers who determined that Irish sound broadcasting should be a public service and should seek to provide an appropriate balance of information, education and entertainment in its schedule. The decision to opt for this form of broadcasting service and to reject a broadcasting service based on commercial interests was not accidental on the part of earlier legislators. It reflected a philosophy that broadcasting has a purpose to serve the public interest and that this purpose was likely to be obstructed by the increasing of commercial interests.

We know the philosophy of previous legislators and of the Broadcasting Review Committee of 1974 on the subject of broadcasting. We do not, however, know the Minister's philosophy in setting out to fundamentally change Irish sound broadcasting because he has never stated a philosophy of broadcasting. Instead, he is simply reacting pragmatically to pressure groups.

The Bill before us is grossly deficient on the grounds that it says nothing about the objectives of the new broadcasting system which the Minister wishes to inaugurate. Beyond imposing a requirement that a minimum of time be given over to news and current affairs and that a maximum time limit is placed on advertising, the Bill has nothing to say about the philosophy of broadcasting which will redesign the new system. Nor has the Minister given us any information of substance of the likely consequences financially and in programming terms of setting up a private radio system in opposition to RTE's existing national broadcasting service. The Minister has said nothing of substance about the financial implications for RTE of subjecting them to intense commercial pressure from a rival radio system inside the country at a time when they are under immense commercial pressure from competition, especially in television from abroad. To avoid this issue, as the Minister has done, is an act of gross irresponsibility.

In addition, the Minister is opting for private commercial ownership of local radio and has ignored totally the argument put forward by those, including the Labour Party, who believe that a significant segment of local airwaves should be given over to non-commercial community groups, thus democratising the airwaves to the greatest extent possible.

Minister of State at the Department of Energy (Mr. Smith)

The Deputy does not seriously believe that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

We do indeed. The Minister I believe has said that he will meet this need at a later date — live horse get grass. In fact, however, he has pre-empted the position in this Bill. The Minister in truth does not believe in the rights of communities to own and run their own broadcasting service. He believes in the right of private individuals and commercial interests to run local radio instead.

I believe the motives behind this Bill are clear. The Government wish to hand out licences to owners and, in return, to be eventually rewarded in terms of sympathetic coverage. I believe too that the Government party have felt for a considerable time that their views do not receive sufficient sympathy from RTE presenters and programme makers. For this reason they are setting out in this Bill to teach RTE a lesson. I want to say that if Fianna Fáil feel they receive unfair treatment from RTE they can make known their feelings through long-standing procedures. The Government have no right to seek to punish RTE in a way which places the quality of Irish broadcasting itself at serious risk.

We in the Labour Party accept that apart from the need to put illegal broadcasters out of business, the broadcasting system cannot stand still. Changes are necessary. What is important, however, is whether we wish to use the airwaves in ways which enhance the public interest or whether we wish simply to hand them over to private interests to do with them virtually what they wish under minimal public control. Labour reject the latter approach. What we have before us is a Bill, the effects of which will be to introduce two commercial tiers into broadcasting in Ireland. There will be little public responsibility in terms of news and current affairs output, which will represent 20 per cent of programmes of total output. All the other conditions attached to licences are essentially at the discretion of the Minister.

In the Bill as published the Minister has presumed unto himself large powers over the appointment of the advisory committee. I certainly welcome any diminution of these powers and will be supporting the motion from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that a Statutory Radio Authority should have representatives of community interests in order that some protection be provided against the threat posed to broadcasting standards by throwing open the airwaves to commercial operators. I will be asking the Minister to ensure that the advisory committee have representatives from the trade union movement, since this is the biggest voluntary organisation in the country and represents half a million workers. I will also be seeking a change in the Bill's proposal that the committee's meetings be held in private because I believe that public accountability is extremely important where broadcasting is concerned. I could understand confidentiality on some issues, but I feel that the general business of meetings must be open to public scrutiny and comment. If the Minister has any particular political or other reason for wanting secrecy at these meetings I think he should spell out his reasons to the House today.

I am also unhappy with the sections of the Bill which concern the applications for licence and the criteria under which these licences may be provided. As I have already stated in my comments on the Telegraphy Bill, I believe this Bill should be put through at the earliest possible moment and all those operators who defy the new law should be deemed ineligible for licences under the Sound Broadcasting Bill. On the last occasion, when both Bills were before the House, I said that the Labour Party would be prepared to go ahead with the Boardcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1987, to ensure that the airwaves were cleared of illegal operators and that anybody who behaved illegally would not be eligible. This is an effective way of determining the character of those who apply for licences under the new legislation and to flush out their attitudes to the law of the land. Those operators who would continue to abuse the law after the implementation of the Telegraphy Bill should be immediately barred from operating radio stations under the Sound Broadcasting Bill.

Apart from the Bill being wholly on who should be granted a licence, section 3 is also inadequate on determination in relation to applications for the granting of sound broadcasting licences. This section is at best aspirational and at worst totally ineffective. The Bill on this section runs the risk of falling into the same pattern as British broadcasting. For example, I understand that applicants for licences under the British legislation promised to provide a measure of news, documentaries and varying musical programmes. These promises were made by all types of operators when they applied for licences but when they came to operate on the air they were unable to provide this variety and they then had to appeal their case. On several occasions the British public ended up with wall to wall pop music from licensees who had promised a dynamic and progressive service to the British public on their initial applications.

Section 3 reminds me of the British experience and I should like to put the Minister on alert to this situation. He should know that if the section is to be effective, it must be tightened up with safeguards to ensure that we do not experience what happened under the British legislation.

I should also like to refer to section 7 of the Bill which concerns variation of terms or conditions of a sound broadcasting licence. I ask the Minister what is to stop a licensee promising to provide a variety of services and programmes and then being unable to do so after a period of time and simply changing the conditions under which the licence was issued. The Minister must be aware of the enormous loophole in the legislation on this point which is unacceptable to the Labour Party.

I should like to again commit the Labour Party to their support for public service broadcasting. During our term in Government we went a long way towards the development of legislation which would have given a fair crack of the whip to RTE. I regret that the present Bill does not even attempt to do that. The Bill has very serious and long-term implications for RTE both in terms of revenue, jobs and the quality of programming. We supported the then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell but, unfortunately, we fell at the last hurdle. That was a bitter disappointment to the Labour Party because it was one of the 14 points under which we went into Government. We clearly understood that broadcasting would be developed by democratically controlled community interests. Unfortunately, that was not acceptable to the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, at the time, which was regrettable. The Labour Party took up a position which they still hold and if at some stage they contemplated entering Government, that option is open to them. It is something to which we would have to give very serious consideration and I will be suggesting to my party that it would be one of the pre-conditions.

There is a unique facility in Cork which has been under-utilised. RTE in Cork has not been expanded to any great degree since it was introduced by a Labour Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien. The facility has served the city of Cork and the surrounding area very well. They have a full-time, professional staff who are capable of producing better things and I ask the Minister to give due consideration to expanding the Cork service because it rates very highly in the southern area.

The Bill is a regressive step although its effects will not be felt for four or five years——

An Ceann Comhairle

I presume the House is aware that two Bills are being debated, the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1987, but that they will be voted on separately.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I dealt with the other Bill previously, so I confined my remarks on this occasion to the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987.

Mr. Roche

This is most welcome legislation as it has been obvious for some considerable time that radical changes in the radio broadcasting legislation are required. It is an indictment of our whole parliamentary system that simple, sensible legislation like this took so long to come before us.

I will deal mainly with the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, which offers for the first time freedom of choice of the airwaves, freedom of competition for listeners, a breach of State monopoly and the chance of a totally developed broadcasting at community and national level, which must surely be welcomed. The Bill, when it comes into operation, will afford the most exciting prospects and the opportunity for talent to flourish in the area of broadcasting, which must also be welcomed. In the words of one editorial, the Bill offers a challenging prospect and one which promises to revolutionise the airwaves over the next few years. I cannot, therefore, understand the dismal comments of the last speaker on the Bill. The proposals provide for an expansion of the radio service by providing additional capacity to the tune of at least one national independent station, 24 community or county stations and up to 100 town and neighbourhood stations.

There cannot but be broad consensus on these particular issues. A further area touched on by the Bill is the format of the Government body to regulate the system. That has already attracted a degree of hostile attention, with which I wish to deal first. The emphasis in the Minister's proposals is to establish the simplest structure possible to administer and regulate the radio service and, therefore, to minimise the cost to the taxpayer and the potential radio operator. This seems to be a sensible approach. However, this proposal has met with a small storm of protest from those who occasionally find themselves on the left. It is difficult to understand why, because the criteria established in the Bill for judging any application for a licence are clear-cut and straightforward. It is not necessary to establish an elaborate authority to oversee this operation. The last thing needed at this stage is yet another bureaucratic structure to put its dead hand on development. The Minister indicated in his speech that he is open to advice and suggestion in this matter. My advice to the Minister — for what it is worth — is to keep the whole area simpler. The Minister's argument that radio services do not need or warrant the creation of another bureaucratic authority is correct. The print media in this country do not suffer the restricting yoke of any regulatory authority controlling, monitoring and overseeing their output. Why should radio have to operate under such a yoke?

Mr. J. Mitchell

You do not have to be licensed to print a newspaper.

Mr. Roche

That is right. I am not in favour of restrictive measures in any form in this area. The yoke should be lifted.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is an extraordinary statement for a State employee to make.

Mr. Roche

If this Bill is amended to the point where we place new broadcasting stations under a comprehensive system of detailed control, we will strangle the broadcasting initiative at birth, which would be a tragedy. Members of the National Association of Community Broadcasting, in their welcome for the Bill, seemed to make a great deal of sense when they praised the simple, non-complex way in which the Bill achieves its aims while suggesting that a few fundamental guidelines are desirable.

The second aspect of the legislation which I wish to touch on is the place of community broadcasting in the new order. In County Wicklow there are two fine examples of what I regard as the peak of community broadcasting. In north Wicklow, Bray Local Broadcasting has been operating since August 1979 and provides——

Mr. O'Sullivan

Illegally.

Mr. Roche

That is not their fault. It is up to this House to introduce legislation to bring some sense to the air waves. This station has been providing a unique mix of programmes to the people of north Wicklow and south County Dublin. The stereotype image which is being put forward in this House of a mindless diet of pop and more pop is shattered when you look at stations like BLB. Another stereotype image of the so-called pirates is also shattered by this station. Far from being a buccaneering non-tax paying profiteering, money spinning venture, BLB is entirely a community-based organisation. Its management committee is democratically representative of the various interests in the community. It is a co-operative venture with all the profits, if any, ploughed back into the co-op and being invested in expanding community based broadcasting. The station offers a community service in the best sense of the word. It provides a mix of music, jazz, classical, Irish, etc., and popular programmes, general chat shows and has open access to various community organisations.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is a first class structure.

Mr. Roche

I am sure your Labour colleague in Wicklow will be interested in what you are saying.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is no provision in the Bill for such a structure.

Mr. Roche

Nor is there anything in the Bill which would destroy such a structure. If we take the Deputy's route this structure has no opportunity of taking root at all. In south Wicklow, Arklow community radio has for the last six years provided the same type of community-based station. This station is again a cooperative venture and it offers the people of south Wicklow and north Wexford a unique brand of local broadcasting and it deals not only with an urban situation but also with a rural situation. It is my belief that the Touche Ross report is correct when it suggests that it would be very difficult indeed for pure speculative investors to get the type of return on investment from small town, or even county stations, which a typical investor would be seeking. This being the case, I submit that when it comes to licensing special attention should be given to the role of community stations such as BLB and the Arklow station. If there is a choice to be made for a licence between a community station and a commercial applicant in an individual case, I would favour the licensing authority coming down in favour of the community stations. Doing so would, I suggest, enhance the long term viability of any station.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Roche

It would also ensure that the broadest possible mix of programming would be available. This comes to a point Deputy O'Sullivan has made, how do we define a community station. We already have a ready-made definition available to us. I am sure the Deputy has been circulated with a copy by the National Association of Community Broadcasting.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They have changed sides.

Mr. Roche

The charter provides that community broadcasting should serve a recognisable local geographic community, that it should ensure that the democratic ownership and control rests with that community, that any profits should be distributed over a trust or cooperative, that it should have its general management and programming policy made by a governing committee which is democratically representative of the people of a recognisable local community, that the station should provide, within this democratic structure, a service of information, education and entertainment, that the station should be financed from resources generated by the local community including advertising, that such a community station should be committed to providing the local people with access to training, production and transmitting facilities, that it should endeavour to transmit programme material which is predominantly local orientated, that it should ensure that the Irish language and culture is adequately represented and, finally, that the station should have a programming policy which would encourage the development of a participating democracy and which is opposed to racism, sexism and other discriminatory attitudes.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is an aspiration. There is no provision for that in the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Roche

Those, a Cheann Comhairle, are not hollow aspirations. Those particular criteria are met in full by BLB, the very station that the Deputy opposite wants to put off the air.

Mr. O'Sullivan

But they are not in the Bill.

Mr. Roche

Any broadcasting station——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy had a good hearing without interruption. The Member in posession is entitled to an equally good hearing.

Mr. Roche

——which fulfils these charter requirements is a community broadcasting station, any station which does not fulfil those is not. The simple broadcasting of a couple of stray dog notices as we get on some of the Dublin pop stations does not turn that commercial enterprise into a community enterprise. This is an important point because Deputy Richard Bruton in putting forward Fine Gael's response came dangerously close to adopting a policy which has been peddled and which has been circulated to Members of this House by one of the Dublin commercial stations. This station which exists on an unvaried diet of hot hits has been suggesting that in a fit of benevolence the four commercial stations would sponsor a community access programme of what they call in their piece of paper "baby stations". This concept would deny any community stations any real control of their operations and would put them at the whim of purely commercial operators. I cannot believe that this is what Deputy Bruton or indeed what Fine Gael want to happen.

I hope that the licensing authority will be mindful of the National Association for Community Broadcasting's charter. When it comes to licensing, incorporating the charter in the guidelines of the licensing body would do no harm.

A final point I should like to touch on is the position of RTE. They have taken more than their fair share of criticism over the years, some of it justified, much of it not justified. This Bill should not be seen as undermining RTE as the national public broadcasting service for Ireland. Rather than see the proposals as a threat I submit that RTE should see the new order as a challenge. I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through this and through the other House. I hope also that politicians who have been messing about with broadcasting reform for the last decade will desist from any further obstructionism. There has been enough political messing in this matter for ten years now. I hope that this positive legislation will not be impeded by cant or by any unreal ideological arguments being trotted out for whatever reasons by people on the Left.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Roche

As one correspondent in one of our national daily newspapers put it, "let the action begin, a free media of the people, by the people and for the people, is about to be born." That should surely be welcome by all Members in this House. What have people to fear if we put the rights of broadcasting back into the community?

Mr. O'Sullivan

You are not putting them into the community. There is no provision for them in the Bill.

Mr. Roche

It is my pleasure to support the Bill because it expands choice. It provides for further freedom of expression, it breaks down a monopoly and, used wisely, it has far reaching potential to enhance participative democracy.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Roche

Because it affords us the opportunity of giving back to the people that which belongs to the people, the right to a genuine freedom in communications, this Bill and its sister legislation have a great deal to commend them.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of both these Bills. As has been said by the previous speaker in his closing remarks, this matter has been the subject of political messing, political cowardice and political two-stepping for too long, for the past ten years.

Mr. O'Sullivan

A programme for Government of 14 points.

Mr. J. Mitchell

A Bill was introduced in 1979 and there have been several Bills since then. I want to put on record the efforts I made in four and a half years and what I think is the absurd and totally unrepresentative behaviour of the Labour Party in holding up this necessary legislation.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Fourteen points for Government.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The fact of the matter is that the then Government in which I was a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and subsequently Minister for Communications agreed the heads of a Bill. That Government at that time included a Member of this House who subsequently and without notice, having resigned from the Government in the meantime, opposed the same Bill. That was submitted to the then Joint Committee on Legislation, where it was discussed during a period of eight months. Neither before its publication by the Government nor during that eight month period was there any intimation to me as Minister from any of my Labour colleagues that there was the slightest problem with the Bill but after the Joint Committee on Legislation completed their report a press conference was convened within a week, without any notice to me and the first I heard of the Labour Party "problems" was in the newspapers. Subsequently, amazed though I was, I tried to discuss with the Labour Party what exactly they wanted. After many meetings, always with different people from deputations from the Labour Party, it was clear that that party did not know what they wanted.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is not the truth.

Mr. J. Mitchell

In the process they held up legislation which was welcomed by all interests, including the great majority of interests in RTE.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Commercial interests.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of Deputy O'Sullivan but I do doubt his grasp of this subject and of what is possible in today's information and communications revolution. I doubt his understanding and grasp of what is required by the listening audience and of what is the case in other countries where there have been Socialist Governments for many years. It seemed that Deputy O'Sullivan and a minority of his Labour Party colleagues who still held sway wanted to exclude all private participation in broadcasting in this country, which is absurdly against the run of things.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is it in order to raise a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

If it is a point of order, Deputy.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I respectfully suggest that Deputy Mitchell is misleading the House and telling an untruth.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not in order and the inference that a Deputy in this House is guilty of an untruth——

Mr. O'Sullivan

He is not giving a true reflection of what has happened.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy is suggesting that a Member in possession has been guilty of an untruth, that suggestion must be withdrawn unequivocally.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am afraid I cannot withdraw it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then, the Deputy will withdraw from the House.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I will do that.

Deputy O'Sullivan withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr. J. Mitchell

A Cheann Comhairle, needless to say I rebut entirely the outrageous assertion made by Deputy O'Sullivan and what I have said can be fully vindicated from papers which are in my possession which are a record of what went on in discussions during my period as Minister.

One of the things I feel very sore about is my own failure as Minister to finalise the arrangements in relation to radio. They were frustrated by a total lack of consistency on the part of the Labour Party whose Ministers in Government had several times approved the proposals put to this House. There is not much point in going on about that anymore; what we now need is to get good legislation passed and implemented. I consider that the editorials which welcomed the publication of the Sound Broadcasting Bill — the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill is the same as that which I published — were premature in that they commented on the Bill as if it had already been passed and in place. That is nearly three months ago. There are many hurdles still to be overcome. The House has a duty to confront this issue and to provide sensible legislation to deal with this issue and to implement and enforce that legislation.

There has been a lack of will to enforce legislation and that includes legislation in regard to transport, road traffic, health contributions, etc. I suppose it is best highlighted by the failure to enforce the wireless telegraphy legislation against the pirate stations. The House will recall that in May 1983 soon after I became Minister I decided it was time to enforce that legislation, to get the pirates off the air and to get in new legislation. They were put off the air but, unfortunately, that resulted in marches on the street and scurrying backbenchers of all parties, including the Labour Party, pressurising the Government not to enforce the legislation. Overnight it became Government policy to phase in legal local radio as we phased out illegal local radio. I have to say that the political difficulties caused by the Labour Party were exacerbated by the typical opportunism of the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition when they opposed everything. My party in Opposition are not going to oppose everything but we certainly are going to propose constructive improvements to legislation before the House.

One of the dangers in a debate in relation to radio is that many people with very strong points of view have their own perceptions of what sort of radio broadcasting we should have. We hear such phrases as "public service broadcasting" and proposals which sound reasonable when presented in regard to the requirements about culture and language. As Minister I had great trouble in resisting imposing what essentially would have been a middle-aged, middle-class and middle-brow regime on local broadcasting. If other people had their way we would have a stale socialist regime for broadcasting which would not even reflect modern-day socialism or modern day working-class attitudes or requirements in relation to broadcasting.

Both this and the other House will want to be extremely careful not to try to say in legislation what is good for the listener and that this is what we are going to provide. At the end of the day it is the listener who will decide what form independent broadcasting is going to take. Presumably, when this legislation is enacted a broadcasting authority which I hope will emerge in this Bill — it is not in it as yet but I am sure that this House is going to see to it that it will be included — will provide licences consistent with viable radio to reflect the desires of the listening audience. It is they who ultimately will decide the success or failure of particular stations and not the overwhelming middle-class propensities of this House. As I have said, it would be both a shame and a disaster if we were to end up with a middle-class, middle-aged and middle-brow broadcasting system.

We want a vibrant alternative radio which will provide a number of different forms of alternatives. There are many types of listening audience. There are those who want to listen to wall-to-wall, hot hit music 24 hours a day. There are others who want to listen to country and western music all day. There are others who want to listen to a lot of politics all day — God help us — and there are others who want to listen to religious broadcasting all day. Indeed, I received more correspondence in relation to the Irish Christian Broadcasting Service, which is a religious pirate station, than I did about anything else. There is room for special interest groups in broadcasting.

Much of the variety which can be provided for the listening audience will be constrained by the size of the audience. At the end of the day the size of the audience will only be able to support so many stations. That is a matter which the Touche Ross report addressed. I believe that report, which, was commissioned by the then existing independent local radio commission, is too conservative. If Touche Ross are to be believed, we will end up with no more than three or four local radio stations. They are too conservative in that respect.

In my view there is room for several more of what I would call local radio stations as distinct from community radio stations and many more community radio stations which would either operate as separate community stations for a specific number of hours per day or per week independently or, alternatively, and I see this as a more likely long-term development, operate as satellites of wider local radio stations. The community station could serve a local area and opt out of a wider local service for so many hours per day or per week. That does not exclude independent community services but it is likely that such an opting out procedure will take place in years to come. It is important that in this legislation we allow for such a variety of developments.

I accept that there are a number of community stations in existence today, mainly pirates. From the information available to me it appears that some of those stations are extremely good examples of what good legal community stations should be. When the Bill is passed, and this applies more to independent local radio stations as distinct from the pirate stations, such stations will have to observe provisions in other legislation. For example, they will have to comply with social legislation concerning the condition of office premises and conditions of employment. The chances are that the cost structure for legal services will be somewhat higher than that of illegal stations who not only break wireless telegraphy legislation but also contravence laws concerning PRSI, PAYE, and so on. We ought to recognise that there will be a cost penalty for legal radio compared to illegal stations. Touche Ross recognised that in their report and, perhaps, gave undue weight to that penalty when deciding that a specific number of stations should be allowed operate.

A central omission in the Bill, if not the central omission, is the absence of an independent regulatory authority for independent broadcasting. Broadcasting will not be independent if it is left to the Minister of the day to grant licences. I was disappointed to hear Deputy Roche reiterating the Minister's initial proposal. The Minister, having heard the unanimous reaction of Opposition parties, said he had no hang-ups about this matter and that we would have an independent authority, but it appears that there has been a climb down on that. I should like to warn the Minister that we will be tabling amendments requiring the setting up of an independent broadcasting commission or authority to deal with the licensing of local and commercial broadcasting. I am certain that such amendments will be carried by the House.

The argument put forward by Deputy Roche was that we should not have another layer of bureaucracy, a fashionable type of argument. We do not want another layer of bureaucracy if we can help it, but I have been advised that the cost of an independent commission would be quite small and, in those circumstances, highly desirable. I do not think anybody can be under any illusion about the danger of putting in the hands of a Minister, who is subject to pressures of all types, the power to licence radio stations. It would not be a good move and I hope the Minister will accept our view that it would not be advisable to take on that power and that there should be a statutory independent body to licence stations.

The Minister has told us that he will have an advisory committee to assist him but that is not good enough. We must have a statutory body that will be independent of the Minister. People may say that the Minister will appoint such a statutory body and that is true. The Minister appoints the RTE Authority but the broadcasting legislation was amended in 1976 to ensure that that Authority will be independent and could not be dismissed at the whim of a Minister or Government. Under that legislation the Authority can be dismissed only by a decision of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I suggest similar provisions in relation to independent broadcasting. We must remember that the Minister has spoken of a national commercial radio station and a national commercial television station.

There have been developments in relation to cable satellite television and we may have, although this has slowed down somewhat, direct broadcasting satellites. Those developments will have implications outside of RTE. The great weakness in the argument of those who want to protect RTE from any competition is that we cannot do so because through cable television we have the British stations and we will have direct broadcasting. As technology develops, broadcasting will become an international issue which will not recognise national frontiers. That will give rise to questions as to how we should regulate such broadcasting or, if we can regulate it will national parliaments have the power to do so? In many respects national parliaments will not be in a position to regulate because they will be dealing with trans-frontier issues. Such matters are being discussed at EC level and, more importantly, at Council of Europe level. Many questions arise in regard to this issue such as advertising standards, copyright and national security. We must look at those issues in a new context because of the developments in technology. In the context of this legislation that will mean that in regard to television and radio, competition is unavoidable. That was the big weakness in the position of the Labour Party, in so far as a clear position was discernable.

Mr. M. Higgins

There is a distinction between international competition and international monopoly. What we have in international broadcasting is international monopoly.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am not sure that I would agree with the second statement by the Deputy. Certainly, I would not want to see international monopoly and, from what Deputy Higgins has said, I do not think he would like to see it but he wants to see national monopoly.

Mr. M. Higgins

No.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am glad to hear that and it is the first time I have got the Deputy to admit it in all the discussions I have had with him.

Mr. M. Higgins

I would not provoke that; I will have a chance to remind the Deputy of conversations I had with him.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I have extensive records of our conversations. We now have an admission from Deputy Higgins that the Labour Party are not in favour of monopolistic broadcasting. That is major progress.

Mr. M. Higgins

I was simply correcting the Deputy's suggestion that international competition exists, which is a profoundly ignorant opinion, since 80 per cent of the trash of the world comes from two countries, Canada and the United States of America.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Anyone who tries to prevent competition in broadcasting might as well have been out on Killiney beach last night trying to hold back the tide. It is impossible, yet a small number of people have been able to hold back legislation to provide for legal competition, as distinct from the illegal competition which we have had to endure for so many years. I do not intend to dwell at length on the international issues which now arise and the need for an effective international forum to deal with these issues. A great deal of progress has been made in the Council of Europe in teasing out the international issues but it is painstakingly slow. Even less progress has been made at EC level, perhaps rightly so since this question is bigger than the EC. The Minister when replying might give the up-to-date position in relation to the Council of Europe and the EC on the many issues which arise covering such questions as copyright, public morality, public security and advertising.

I have already made it quite clear that this party will be proposing amendments to make provision for an independent broadcasting commission or authority. The omission of provision for such a body is a central weakness in this Bill. We will oppose a Bill which does not include that provision.

The Minister, at the launching press conference, talked about county stations as if all counties had similar population figures and topography. Some counties have mountain ranges which affect the radiation of signals from a transmitter. Some countries are odd-shaped, such as Roscommon or Leitrim. The south of County Louth is close to Dublin. To talk in terms of county stations is even more absurd then trying to maintain signals within national frontiers. That is not the way it will work. A number of factors must be taken into account, especially the demographic and topographic factors. The size of population will be a significant factor in deciding how many stations can be sustained, because most stations will depend on advertising. There is a finite advertising pool. There will be some stations, perhaps, which will not want advertising but will be funded by subscriptions, as the Irish Christian Broadcasting Service seems to be. Talk about county stations was simplistic and showed a lack of grasp of the subject by the Minister which can perhaps be explained by his desire to get on with the legislation, a desire I fully share. I should not like him to be hoist with his own petard by speaking along those lines. These matters should not be decided by the Minister but by an independent regulatory authority if and when it is set up.

The ownership and security of transmitters is another central question. What about the transmitters belonging to stations which discontinue broadcasting for some reason, for example, bankruptcy? In the Bill which I introduced we provided that transmitters would in the case of premature or untimely closing or closure due to bankruptcy, fall into the temporary ownership of the independent commission for a period of, say, six months and would be exempt from the provisions of bankruptcy legislation so as to allow for the continuity of broadcasting while alternative contractors or franchisees were sought out for that service. If we have a total free for all, as some Deputies and others would wish, and allow stations to come and go with the minimum of regulation, there is a danger that we will have slapdash broadcasting with stations here today and gone tomorrow. While I am in favour of minimalist regulation, I enter the caveat that it must be consistent with viable and vibrant radio. There is no point in having stations on the air which will collapse within a few months. We would end up with greater confusion than at present. There must be some minimalist control which will be dictated by the desires and the size of the listening audience.

What if a licensed station collapses and there is a strong local demand for it to resume? The previous legislation made provision for this. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on the control of transmitters in that situation. There is also the question of the security of transmitters so that they could not be seized by subversive groups and used for purposes which the law never intended. I presume the Minister or the commission will lay down minimum standards of security.

A further problem is the maintenance of transmitters and the adjustment of their focus from time to time. In the United Kingdom the Independent Broadcasting Authority took on the role of maintaining transmitters and of making whatever technical changes had to be made. That frequently meant that the broadcasting stations had problems with the transmitters which affected the range and more often the quality of sound received by the listeners, who had to wait months until the IBA were ready to do the maintenance work. That was highly undesirable. It affected the quality of alternative radio. It is important that situation would not be repeated here. I understand that since then changes have been made in the United Kingdom and that is no longer the case. I think that local stations now maintain their own transmitters. I certainly hope that will be the case here. In addition, I hope that a minimum technical criterion will be laid down requiring stations to give a proper quality of sound.

It is also important that the maintenance of transmitters is correct and up-to-date so as to avoid co-channel interference or interference with television or telephones. It is a fact that in certain parts of the city, in the vicinity of these stations, that when the people who live there pick up their telephone they find to their utter annoyance that they cannot make or receive phone calls because they hear the local pirate station which is interfering with the line. I know also of one or two cases very close to an illegal station in my own constituency — which I did my best to close down and I was not very popular for doing that — that if you put a fork on your washing machine you could hear the illegal station. That is no joke. Those problems could be very well repeated when we have legal local radio. Obviously whether it is the Minister or an independent Authority who will grant licences they will only grant licences that have technical clearance. Licences will be granted for particular frequencies on the spectrum. However, if the equipment is maintained badly and diverts from those frequencies the same type of interference both with other stations at home and abroad, with other television services and indeed with people's telephones etc. could arise. That is why there is a need for proper technical maintenance and that the maintenance should be overseen by the technical people in the Department of Communications. The Department have the technical competence and they should be able to enforce the legislation. Otherwise we could have as many, if not more, problems than we have already in this area.

While I am on the question of interference with other stations, a more worrying aspect is that not only do the present pirate stations interfere with other stations, some at home and some abroad — we are subject to international law as well as domestic law and have obligations internationally — but they frequently interfere with the emergency services, the Garda, the fire brigade, and the ambulance service. Although to be fair, almost any time such a problem has arisen a telephone call to locate people quickly has almost always been responded to and the interference has ceased until it arises again.

A very worrying problem is the problem with non-vocal means of communication, such as instrument landing systems at airports. This is where the real danger arises from straying outside the legally authorised frequencies on the spectrum. There have been cases where the instrument landing systems, which are non-vocal means of communication, have been interfered with. When you are listening to a radio station you can hear interference or if you are in an ambulance you can hear the interference and you can complain about it, but the problem in non-vocal systems such as instrument landing systems is that nobody will know the instrument landing system is a bit off key and, in fact, you might be on the wrong flight path. I would not want to raise any scares but this is a problem.

There have been pirate stations in the vicinity of our airports and there have been cases of interference with vocal means of communication such as radio systems which communicate with aircraft, or Radio Éireann or the BBC. There is also a danger of interference with non-vocal means of communication, the principal one being instrument landing systems. That is why it is terribly important to have the legislation passed and to ensure that the technical frequencies are wisely chosen and that we make provision to ensure they are enforced. That would require the enforcement of proper maintenance standards, etc.

I do not know how long it will take this legislation to pass through both Houses of the Oireachtas. Clearly it will take a number of weeks. That having been done, there is the question of how do you phase out illegal radio as you phase in legal radio. I would not be surprised if this question has still eluded solution in the Department of Communications. The thorny question is at what point do you close down pirate stations? What will public reaction be to this? How soon can you get legal stations into place? It seems likely that there will be a gap of some months. I will explain why.

First, if contracts are issued, any reasonable investor who is going to invest in a broadcasting station is going to want to know precisely or as much as they can about the market in which they are operating. They will want to be assured for instance about the number of stations planned which they will be competing with as that is the only way they are going to know the market share they can hope to have. Some of the people could have very good plans laid for an independent broadcasting service on the basis that they were going to be the only one. Touche Ross may say the market is such a size, but they could think differently and if they got 15 per cent market share they would break even, because they would be the only service other than RTE. If having made their investment, suddenly there is going to be a second, third and a fourth station licensed, the groundwork is changed. That is no basis for planning. The Minister or the Authority will have to make clear from the outset (a) what number of stations they intend to license and the range and franchise area and (b) and that the broadcasting and wireless telegraphy legislation is powerful enough, effective enough and that it will be enforced to remove all unlicensed competition from the field. Otherwise you will create enormous difficulty in business planning. You will create obstacles, not to put it any stronger, for people making the investment decision to go ahead and seek a franchise and to become involved in radio. These issues have to be resolved.

Given the political weaknesses — and I fully own up as being part of that weakness over the past ten years — about enforcing existing broadcasting and wireless telegraphy legislation, I think that investors will want to be assured that the new broadcasting and wireless telegraphy legislation before the House today is going to be effective and will be enforced. That means putting pirate stations off the air in advance. It would be necessary anyway from a technical point of view because the frequency spectrum, although with modern technology it is less limited than it used to be, is still finite. There are only so many stations with such ranges that can be fitted into the spectrum which has been allocated to this country. For technical reasons as well as our international obligations there has to be a clearing of the spectrum.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us how he sees the transition being handled. How long will the transition take? How soon will we have legal services up and running after the close down of illegal services? How does the Minister see it happening? At what point will the illegal services be put off the air? Will pirate stations qualify to apply while still on the air? What time will be needed, for instance, to acquire studios and transmitters, to get planning permission and staff? Planning permission alone takes a minimum of two months after the application is lodged with the local authority and if there is an appeal it could be another six or ten months, and that after the legislation is set up. That is not allowing even for the necessary drawing of plans, acquisition of sites etc. That is why I thought that some of the editorials when the Minister had his press conference were a little premature in congratulating him on solving this problem. Had there been similar editorials five years ago I would have introduced the legislation then.

Many hurdles have to be overcome yet and I hope the Minister has what Deputy John Boland calls the "bottom" to tackle this problem and see this matter right through. The problem will not be solved in a matter of days or even weeks. It will require the Minister's full and extensive energy — which he has in abundance — and commitment over a long period. Let us face it, one reason this problem has not been tackled is the political fall-out of closing down certain pirate stations. It may be a little less than it was in 1983 when I had the temerity to try to close them down. There are problems, and the Minister is a Minister in a minority Government.

The nonsensical behaviour that has been a feature of this House for the last ten years, with Oppositions recklessly opposing, should be ended for all time. The approach from all sides of the House should be constructive and sensible in tackling and solving problems. That is the approach I will advise my party to adopt and they will need no pushing on that. We want this problem solved. We do not want directives and nonsensical opposition put in the way of the present Minister such as was put in my way when I was Minister.

I hope Second Stage of this Bill will be passed before many more weeks elapse. We will need a couple of weeks between that and Committee Stage so that all Members of the House will have an opportunity to frame constructive amendments to improve this legislation, in particular amendments dealing with the setting up of an independent broadcasting commission. I hope the Committee Stage will not rush through this House because it is important that we refine and improve this Bill. I hope also it will not take too long to get it through this House and the other House so that we can start on the road to sorting out a problem which for too long has not been resolved and has been allowed to fester because of political inaction. Whatever justification can be adduced for that inaction, action has not been taken and the problem has not been resolved. Let us aspire to have these problems solved as quickly as possible. If one year from today we have a satisfactory legal regime of radio installed we will be doing well. That should be our minimum objective.

Mr. T. Kitt

I thank Deputy Mitchell for allowing us a rare insight into the workings of the Coalition. I sympathise fully with his position. We should note his comments and appreciate his experience on this legislation, and I am looking to phase 2 from Deputy Higgins who, I understand, has something to say after my contribution.

In introducing this legislation this Government recognise the right of our people to communicate at national level. and community neighbourhood level. The new legislation will cause increased competition on the airwaves, in particular for RTE. RTE have been referred to and we should comment on their position in debating this matter. This will have a positive effect on our national radio-television station and I have no doubt they will meet this challenge as they met the challenge from illegal pirate stations for a number of years.

The challenging task facing the Minister is the setting up of a new independent commercial radio structure involving one national station that will reach every valley in the country, as he said. Up to 24 local stations, up to 100 town size and a further 100 neighbourhood stations will be provided. Unlike his predecessors, this Minister has faced up to his task and placed innovative, practical legislation before this House. He has been open to suggestions, and I look forward to Committee Stage when, the Minister said, he looks forward to proposals and amendments.

The Minister is, in effect, opening up the airwaves to the people and finally outlawing the pirates. In commenting on these Bills I pay tribute to the role of RTE in providing an excellent service over the last 60 years. They have competed with the best in the world. I refer the Minister to a point made by an RTE trade union. I know many Deputies, like myself, received various documentation about this. The points the trade union made are valid and should be noted, that while it is intended to allow ten minutes' commercial time in any hour for the new commercial stations, RTE are allowed only seven and a half minutes' commercial time in any one hour. There is also no legal limit on the hours of broadcasting for the new commercial stations. We must ensure that we do not discriminate unfairly against RTE in introducing this legislation. There may be a requirement to amend the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976 to allow RTE to compete on an equal basis. I understand RTE at present are allowed to carry no commercial advertising between the hours of 7 and 11 p.m.

The legislation before the House is in line with international developments. The last Government, sad to say, squabbled in public for four years on their proposed Radio Bill on ideological grounds and allowed up to 70 pirate radio stations to operate illegally. These two Bills will bring to an end this state of chaos on the airwaves that was bringing the law into disrepute and interfering seriously with RTE and the emergency services. The days of illegal broadcasting are over.

I welcome the setting up of the two local radio stations in the Dublin area. This will bring all of us into the airwaves in our city and county. The problem of illegal stations has been particularly acute in the Dublin area and it was not just the interference with our airwaves that was so undesirable and irritating, but the proliferation of illegal masts on the Dublin mountains is a most unwelcome development. As one living close to the Dublin mountains I say it has a devastating visual effect on the south Dublin mountains.

I welcome the provision for the setting up of a neighbourhood or local community station. As a result of the mobility of people in County Dublin and the insular and lonely existence of many people, particularly elderly, in modern suburbia, there is an urgent need to build up a sense of community in the Dublin area. The establishment of a neighbourhood radio service will lead to a vibrant, hopeful and living community that can communicate and discuss, reach out to the lonely and bring people together. It will make a pleasant change from the plethora of illegal stations at present infringing on the privacy of our homes. This legislation will be of considerable benefit to the blind and will allow them to play a more active role in their own communities. In effect, these Bills create the environment and atmosphere that will allow the talents and investments potential of this country to be realised in the world of broadcasting.

The implications for employment are worthy of note. The Minister said 800 to 1,000 people will be employed in the new services to be set up under this Bill. Government interference will be minimal. The new service will, in effect, regulate itself. The sole source of income will be advertising and this will mean healthy competition. The stations will survive only if they have the audience. The stations to be established under the Bill should reflect Irish culture, Irish language and a minimum amount of news and current affairs. The previous Minister referred to this point and we will all have our own views on it. I should like to express some of my own views during the course of the debate.

The Minister is anxious that the new radio regime will not simply provide wall to wall music. This is a very desirable objective. With the growth in the number of satellite TV channels the level of wall to wall music in our homes is at an all time high. Many of us have had our fill of the computerised music that is thumped out on these stations and, indeed, is also dished out at times by RTE 2. I want to give as an example a song that was recently in our charts called "You Are Always On My Mind" which was recorded by a group called Pet Shop Boys. This was an upbeat version of a Willie Nelson song and I believe it was an insult to many music lovers like myself. Obviously this is not a question for legislation but, to digress I might say that the music industry should seriously consider banning this type of treatment of established and well-loved songs. If this trend continues as it is at present there will be many redundant drummers in the years ahead as the natural sound of the drums is replaced with the aid of modern technology by computerised machine music. It is a very worrying trend and I certainly hope it will not continue in the future. For this reason I welcome the reference in the Bill to the quality of music.

If I have one criticism of RTE 2 it is that we do not hear enough quality Irish performers on that station. The previous speaker referred to young listeners and I accept that they represent the market we must reach out to. Many young listeners would like to hear more of musicians and singers such as Mary Black, Christy Moore, De Danann, Davey Spillane, Paul Brady, Donal Lunny and Dolores Keane, to name but a few. These are Irish men and women who embody in music the true traditional spirit and express it in modern day language and song. They are, in effect, part of a cultural renaissance and this movement should be reflected on our airwaves.

I might say that young people are not just interested in the modern day interpretation of traditional music as expressed by the artistes I have mentioned but are also very much aware of the vast resources of pure traditional music that is present in the country. Any new radio regime should realise that it will have a responsibility to plumb this vast reservoir of traditional music which tells a story as it unfolds of the exciting new interpretations of this deep tradition. There is a wealth of material in this country and the new legislation should embody and recognise this vast source of Irish music that has been referred to by many speakers.

The Minister stated that there will be a requirement that all stations will have to carry a minimum amount of news and current affairs programming. I should like to see some expansion of this proposal to include cultural, educational and historical matters. The aim of this is to interrupt this wall to wall music and this is most desirable. I am pleased that the existing pirates will not be debarred from applying for licences. They are illegal establishments and their growth was obviously a response to public demand at a time when the existing broadcasting services were not responding to the needs of the public. When they came on the scene they were an exciting new dimension to broadcasting and we should accept and face up to that fact. When stations such as Radio Nova arrived on the scene, with good quality and a wide range of music, they gave valuable experience to young disc jockeys and journalists, may of whom have since moved on to RTE. The pirate stations were the catalysts for the establishment of RTE 2 and this proves the point that competition produces better service all round.

The new legislation will be applied systematically to those pirate stations that persist in illegal broadcasting. The penalties will be very severe for those who break the law: on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £800 or three months imprisonment, or, on conviction on indictment, to a maximum fine of £20,000 or two years imprisonment. Those fines should be more than adequate to deter people from considering illegal broadcasting.

This is a workable piece of legislation. The Minister has struck a balance between the objective of getting a variety of new radio services working and setting up the means to achieve this objective. The State is providing the environment to allow the public to respond, the Government are taking the minimal option of involvement and the Minister is not getting in the way. He is not dictating to the public precisely what they can have. The legislation ensures this essential degree of flexibility.

A most important factor is cost. This legislation will ensure the minimum cost to both the taxpayer and the potential radio operator. The setting up of the advisory committee with total responsibility for assessing the applications for licences and for deciding who should get them will not be a costly exercise. I welcome the fact that the Bill states clearly that not only the character of applicants and the technical and financial resources available to the applicant will be taken into account but that the quality, range and type of programmes proposed will also be taken into consideration.

The introduction of a local community and neighbourhood radio service gives great scope for local news services involving schools and coverage of local historical and cultural issues. These are resources which have been untapped up to now. Likewise, so far as the Gaeltacht areas are concerned, I have no doubt that stations operating in Gaeltacht areas will make a major contribution towards the preservation and promotion of the Irish language, culture and music.

As one who has in the past advocated the establishment of a Press Council, I wish in particular to welcome the fact that the Bill provides that when a sufficient number of stations are up and running their operators can come together voluntarily and establish a code of conduct. I believe this will ensure that the highest standards will prevail. Such a body could deal with complaints on an independent basis; in other words, the whole emphasis is on self-regulation.

Market research into audience reaction to a service can be called for and obviously this should not be necessary if the stations are responding to the public needs. The setting up of this body to control a code of conduct and to ensure that high standards are maintained is a crucial part of this legislation. It cannot be assumed that commercial or community radio stations will enforce their own standards. It is not quite the same as the newspaper industry. Market forces alone cannot determine the quality of the service provided. From a purely financial point of view it is obvious that in the commercial tier of the proposed radio structures it will be more profitable to operate a wall to wall music style station.

I listened to Deputy Richard Bruton when we discussed this Bill before the break and I would like to point out that community radio does fit into all categories except the national one. As I understand it, there is nothing to stop a community group applying for a licence on a county, town, city or neighbourhood basis. At the end of a licence period the franchise will be thrown open to public competition again. This will provide a good incentive, if it is required, to ensure that the licensee is living up to his or her obligation and is providing a high standard of service.

I should like the Minister to take on board a few points in relation to community radio. Community broadcasting must have a clear definition. If the tremendous goodwill which exists for the concept is not to be exploited for private gain, it must respond more to social needs rather than commercial requirements. Community broadcasting must also be representative, democratic and promote genuine access. The advisory committee should be charged with the development role and within their make-up there should be representatives from the community radio sector.

I look forward to Committee Stage. This Bill is at last before the House and that alone is a major achievement in the light of the public squabbling on this issue that we all had to endure during the previous Government's term of office. The Minister is to be congratulated on that score and also on managing to get the right balance in preparing this important and historic legislation.

In drafting the Bill, the Minister has had an opportunity of looking at the British experience to help him make innovative decisions. The British method of dealing with pirate radio involved legalising a large number of radio stations but overburdening them with too many restrictive rules and policies. Having failed to create what they hoped would be a quality radio service for everyone they have now resorted to regularisation of the radio service in an effort to avoid strangling the industry.

This Government's objective must be to achieve a balance between imposing too many restrictions and allowing some radio stations too much freedom which could lead to misuse of privileges and an ultimate drop in standards. This legislation should embody an opportunity for research. Enough research was not carried out by the commission or the Government to determine what people want to hear on radio. The reference, for example, to current affairs in the first drafting of this Bill is very narrow. Does current affairs warrant more attention then the inclusion of Irish language, music, theatre or classical music? The Authority should have a right to demand that independent research be undertaken and the cost could be borne by the radio station. The results of this research could be used to compare the needs of the audience in the service area with the service provided by the station. If nothing is done the service will deteriorate to blandness and the Government will miss a great opportunity to capitalise on innovative advances. Progressive thinking can produce a service of which this State can be proud.

Mr. M. Higgins

Some of the points I will make are general and some will be very specific but I intend to be brief. It is incumbent on somebody like myself who represents the Labour Party and the socialist perspective in this country to speak, because of the extraordinary circumstances which now prevail in the Parliament, circumstances which come close to subverting the meaning of parliament itself.

We have the extraordinary situation where succeeding a debate on the budget we have an Opposition who do not oppose but insist on supplying a number of speakers justified on the number of heads in the House. They do not oppose the economic thinking of the budget. Now on this broadcasting Bill there will be no effective Opposition even though there will be speeches from people in the Opposition position. It is the kind of posture which that great antiquarian, Deputy John Kelly, has so often condemned but which like all great palaeological commentators he cannot see, because it is so close to his own nose when it comes to what is happening in parliament. This is relevant in relation to broadcasting because we are at a crisis in the media coverage of politics. How can the media cover politics if in the structure of broadcasting itself, be it in radio or television or even in the printed medium, it has to subscribe to the fiction that there are differences where no differences exist? In some of the right wing international channels in the US they have a programme called "A View from the Right, a View from the Left." Would it not be far more meaningful to deal with the real differences in politics in Ireland and have a view that represents 90 per cent of the people in this House and a view that represents those who oppose the current orthodoxy be it in terms of economics, broadcasting or in terms of so many other pieces of legislation? The artificiality is not a matter of something superficial or something of mere comment on my part, it is something that is deeply, structurally subversive to the concept of parliamentary opposition and the concept of presenting different viewpoints intellecutally in relation to matters like this. We are in the unusual position in which the public reading this debate, and future schoolchildren and adults reading the reports of this debate will take the speakers who followed each other alternatively and will ask if they differed about broadcasting. People will wonder what happened to the concept of public service broadcasting.

Public service broadcasting is a concept that has not surfaced so far in this debate. The brave new macho image that the Minister is portraying is one that does not need to be dragged down by such a concept. Neither has there been any reference to the last time when a group of outsiders looked at the nature of broadcasting in Ireland. I am referring to the Broadcasting Review Committee who reported in 1974. This committee included such distinguished figures as Mr. Justice George Murnaghan, Mr. T.K. Whitaker, Tomás Roseingrave, Bryan MacMahon and a number of others. On page 20 of their report in their opening chapter they said about broadcasting services at paragraph 3.4.3:

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.

I want to pause here and I want these new ignorama of the right to explain to me where in the history of economics or in the history of advertising or in the history of broadcasting have market forces ensured a broad coverage for people of different ages, interests and tastes. In such circumstances where it is impossible to have a balance across age groups, interests, and tastes the balance has been accommodated historically by the development and devolution of the concept of public service broadcasting which stopped us pandering to the exclusive tastes of those with a high degree of commercial purchasing power which in turn might be the forces of advertising. The report went on that the programmes of information should:

(ii) be in Irish and English with appropriate provision for other languages;

In the first legislation proposed by the previous administration there were less obstacles placed before an independent radio/television station than there were planning requirements for a hen house. One could have set up a station within spitting distance of Raidio na Gaeltachta. I will develop this point in detail in a moment. The report also went on that the service should:

(iii) 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.

I wonder at times whether it is the naïve or those who simply subscribe to authoritarianism in our society who want to go through the motions of imagining that every individual citizen has equal access to both providing information and influencing information. At present we are in conditions of the control of communications, which are extremely dangerous for an open democracy. It is very interesting to note that of more than 160 Deputies in this House, how very few will ever stand up and say whether they are worried about the near monopoly conditions that exist now in the Irish print media. John Pilger recently covering Australia, looking back on it, spoke about the disappearance of the diversity of forms of the print medium and the concentration of ownership in the hands of a very small number of people. I have watched in Ireland newspaper coverage gradually shrinking in terms of those who own and control and influence the news media. One figure showed that one individual who is at once Irish, American and Australian, being a true citizen of the world depending on where economic interests dictate, controlled 34 per cent of all the print media printed in this country in any one week.

In the case of Australia, domination of the print media brought forward a number of dangers. I do not want to bore the House with these, but they have been well noted, particularly the intersection between the print media, politics and commercial and banking decisions. It is not for me but for those who claim an integrity in relation to financial and economic matters to ask, for example, what are the consequences in relation to the Stock Exchange in relation to investment and commercial decisions of the type of ownership and quasi-monopoly which exists in the print media — a point to which this House will return. This is relevant in relation to the debate on broadcasting in this sense, that all during the time discussions were going on in relation to broadcasting, in dealing with which I sense that there is agreement on all sides of the House, an unsatisfactory situation where legal operators were using the airwaves, the same presence, the same notion, the same investment sources were waiting in the wings at all stages as part of a consortium to bid for private commercial interests in both private radio and private television.

In the case of the consortium that had been put together as regards private television, it included the interests to which I have already referred from the newspapers. I shall be very specific, it reflected three or four daily newspapers at that time which made proposals for what they though were forthcoming opportunities. It also included some of the Irish banks and a number of other interests.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I must say that I have no knowledge of that proposal.

Mr. M. Higgins

If the Deputy would wait and listen, we would learn more together.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I was Minister for four and a half years and no evidence was adduced to sustain such a statement.

Mr. M. Higgins

In fairness, I did not say that these interests were dealing with Deputy Mitchell as Minister.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. M. Higgins

I am saying that they existed. We have more facts. There is an interesting word which is not used by the Government on the Government side, or the Government on the Fine Gael Opposition side, and that is "de-regulation". Why is it that the word "de-regulation" does not come from the lips of the Minister, Deputy Burke, or from Deputy Kitt? Deputy Kitt is well intentioned in his own way, but I cannot subscribe to his views which are somewhat naïve and innocent, putting the best twist that I can on it. It is the notion, for example, of the concept of opening up the airwaves to the people of Ireland. What people of Ireland is he talking about? Is he saying that his wife, himself, his neighbours are free to use the airwaves? The airwaves are there not by international convention, but what is involved is taking the airwaves from them and saying that they will be manipulated by those who hold the possibility and capacity to go on the air in terms of investment, other forms of control and so forth.

Equally, his version about the benign influence of Thatcher's Britain and her thinking about broadcasting was truly curious. We are going to eliminate further layers of bureaucracy — another lovely phrase — which even the British did not have the courage to remove. What this translates into is that we in this legislation will bring about cruder de-regulation than even the British Government could force on their people. The word "de-regulation" exists in any serious discussion on broadcasting. There have always been those honest people who were saying: "I am not interested in the community and the soft notion of the public good. I am interested in making money from broadcasting. I am one of those strong, aggressive individuals who want to become a broadcasting baron, if you like." They argued for de-regulation but what we are getting is a cowardly de-regulation — every other silly, cowardly idea that we have borrowed in recent times from Britain. In other words, a set of Thatcherite consequences without the presence of the harridan herself presiding over it. That is what we are listening to here, day after day, from the tamed and neutered Republicans and the other nationalists that Deputy Kelly was trying to bring up from their graves last night when speaking on the budget.

The fact of the matter is this: we in the Labour Party believed in public service broadcasting because we saw it within the history of broadcasting as being profoundly democratic. It offered the ingress of democracy into the nature of the new technological medium of communications. When new forms of technology in communications emerge at any time, they sit in a context that is either one of free enterprise, or one of free enterprise which is limited by some forms of regulation by certain types of criteria. Sometimes liberals would argue that it must be in such a way as to sustain the fabric of democracy itself. Others, those to the left who have embraced the concept of public service broadcasting, have argued that it is much more, it allows for the evolution and extension of democracy through the right to participate, the right of access, the right of minority tastes to be serviced and so on. That is what is involved. It is just a very simple choice.

We are really saying: "This is what the thinking is in Britain and this is what the thinking is in Ireland. There are other people who represented this thinking internationally. There is a tension here between those who believe in the democratic control of broadcasting and those who believe in its private use". This split the UNESCO organisation down the middle internationally when there was a enormous contrast between the peoples of the world who demanded the right to tell their own story, as the report on Communications put it, and those, on the other hand, who had the capacity, means and possibility of dominating in a cultural sense those who had no other choice but to view and listen through developed tastes and so forth. It is in that sense that I am saying that in Turkey you can watch "Dallas", "Dynasty" and so forth with subtitles. Of that material, 84 per cent is produced in two locations.

There is a problem at world level in relation to the control of communications towards the civilisation of communication. There are cultures struggling for their rights and their capacity to tell their own story. That is not a case of putting a brown bag over your head and not watching anything. That is not a case of putting up shutters to cut out the international influences of broadcasting. It involves the development of your own capacities to evolve a modern and dynamic culture and to have the confidence and dignity to do so. That is precisely what is missing in this House. Week after week I have noticed a crawling, wheedling set of proposals, every member of the real Government standing up with his or her written paragraph mentioning these difficult economic circumstances and wanting to congratulate the Minister. On the far side, the Members say that they have to find a new role of Opposition which is not to disagree, but at the same time to disagree, but not to vote in case anything happens.

Let me return to the immediate task of debating this legislation. When the Labour Party went into Government there was no ambiguity whatsoever about what was agreed between the negotiating partners. My views on Coalition Governments are well known and particularly my belief — which thankfully developed very satisfactorily — that there is need in this country for a real alternative in Irish politics, a socialist alternative and that it was always inimical to the development of that alternative if the Labour Party combined with another party with which, ideologically, it honestly did not agree. I did not realise until I was in the House yesterday the depth of suppressed and repressed feeling that was contained within the larger partner.

Deputy Kelly referred yesterday to the "poisonous combination" of the Labour Party and Fine Gael. Their blue nearly turned from navy to black in apoplexy at having to deal with this strange people that they had to live with for a number of years. When we get past those very colourful eccentricities of that Deputy, there are a few realities with which we have to deal. The 1982 Programme for Government agreed with the Fine Gael Party by the Labour Party contained the following reference to broadcasting. I quote it now for the record:

Community radio is to be developed in an orderly manner by RTE and local community interests.

There would have been no difficulty whatsoever in reforming broadcasting if that commitment had been honoured by our partners in Government. It was not.

The former Minister for Communications, former Deputy Conor Cruise O'Brien, was wont on occasion to give people like myself lectures on Coalition theory, and he had an opening phrase which he used to use in his homilies, "Coalitions are about trust". Indeed he brought his belief in that almost to the point of absurd loyalty. Be that as it may, what kind of trust was involved in there being, from day one, opposition by the larger partner in Government to honouring a commitment they had given, and on which they had invited the members of both parties to vote at special conferences called to approve the charter for Government? We continued to deal with this problem, and the first intimation we got of what was to come was an exclusive interview published in The Irish Press where the Minister of the day revealed his thoughts as to what was appropriate for broadcasting.

It was something very different. We then were to have two different views. The first one suggested a plethora of stations; 30 local radio stations were to be licensed, and it went on and on and on. Many people asked questions such as, how were all these stations going to get on the air or who was putting them up, would they all be making money or would some be making money or would none of them be making money and so forth. Lo and behold, in the evolution of the departure from what the commitment was, a lesser number of stations was proposed later than that.

In my own notes about this period I have referred to the first Bill as the Nealon Bill, because the Minister of State of the day was associated with it and it was with him we had discussions, many of them fruitful, and I would have to agree with the point that was very accurate in relation to my colleague Deputy O'Sullivan's contribution in this regard, that the Labour Party's group who were negotiating the Bill kept continually changing.

Mr. J. Mitchell

True.

Mr. M. Higgins

I was one of the more continual elements in it, I think the former Minister will agree. I have a list of the meetings here, and the ones I attended and some notes I made afterwards. On those occasions, however, we made considerable progress until the decision-making on the issue was taken from the Minister of State back to the Minister himself, and there was no comparison between the two types of discussion. It is not my business to waste the time of this House in giving a total reconstruction of the meetings that took place but the notion that all that stopped the previous Government from legislating in this area was an obdurate, ideologically commited Labour Party is simply false — I had better stay within the limits that language in this House allows itself. The fact of the matter is that the commitment of Government was broken. Several different forms were proposed, none of which went near to fulfilling the commitment. It is also true to say that, in a spirit of compromise, the Labour Party, on more than one occasion, were willing to accommodate 49 per cent participation by commercial interests in broadcasting. What was at stake at the time was the notion, the old orthodoxy, that they will not come in and invest their money unless they have more than 50 per cent so, therefore, one had to have a dominating control among the commercial partners involved.

The Bill that was proposed in 1972 had as its most significant departure the proposal to vest the ownership of transmitters in the broadcasting contractors. This was a significant departure from the equivalent United Kingdom legislation in a number of ways. It raises the question as to what one can control without ownership. I might say that the discussions at this stage were very fruitful. Again there were many things in it. It is rather like the more recent Government, the Government du jour. This Government were talking about deregulation. There were proposals that were equally without deregulation; for example, the prohibition on musicians, newspapers, on advertising companies and so forth was absolutely forbidden in the British legislation in a number of ways and when one came to the Irish legislation it was confined to minority interest. It was again the old derived impulse that we would be a bit more macho than the British and it does not matter what we are doing. Then the question was that the British legislation equally had a number of requirements in relation to local interviews, balance, serving different interests and so forth. That was missing as well. As well as that, we were worried by the proposal for 30 stations because we felt that what it would create was a diversity of outlets but not necessarily a diversity of broadcasting content, which bring me rather neatly to the point that I think is very important which, I am afraid, is informing the debate from the other side of the House as well.

In any approach to legislating in this area it is very important, be one on the deregulation side or on the public service broadcasting side, to specify the separate different dimensions of the ownership, control and content of broadcasting media. If one does not do that one falls into the trap, as Deputy Kitt has, of suggesting that because the content of some of the new pirates was different to that being broadcast by RTE that was a case for a different kind of broadcasting. Once again, here is the nub of the matter. We in the Labour Party never spoke in favour of a total monopoly in relation to the content of radio. We never spoke about this idea that a single station should have the sole right to determine everything that was put on the airways. What we did speak about, however, was the necessity of keeping within public control, in the interests of a democratic ethos and theory of broadcasting, ownership of——

Mr. J. Mitchell

A Soviet regime of radio.

Mr. M. Higgins

I would ask the Deputy to withdraw that. He knows very well that that kind of suggestion was never put.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The only other country where the same regime existed was in the Soviet Union.

Mr. M. Higgins

I just find those kind of remarks intolerable. I do not care how long we delay on this because we have lots more of these cheap references. In the United States, for example, there are people who have opposed the Wizard of Oz, there are people who have opposed different kinds of stories being carried because they offend the actual written word of the Bible itself. If, in fact, the Deputy wants an example of the abuse of radio, including people who claim that they can cure haemorrhoids over the radio, he can just go to the United States. He does not have to indulge in that type of cheap irrelevancy here.

The fact of the matter is this: let those who are against the concept of public service broadcasting say so openly and honestly to this House. Let those who are in favour of deregulation discover the strength to say so here in this House instead of this sleight-of-hand, saying "we are really giving you the guarantees that were contained in public service broadcasting in terms of ownership and control by handing it to people who we will urge to be responsible" and then to use that new cliché, as the Deputy over there put it, "when they are all up and running they will regulate themselves in the fullness of time". Just ask the Irish people to bear in mind what kind of a scenario that opens up in relation to broadcasting.

Deputy Roche had the nerve to suggest, operating admittedly in a favourable atmosphere in which there is no distinction, no more than there was from the supremo on my left, that there was a distinction between local radio, commercial radio, community radio, public radio, people's radio or whatever kind of radio one wants. Thus, into all this comes this abuse of the concept of community. A community can mean anything from your most proximate gombeen to a local area of people who want to participate as equals or it can mean a group of people defined as interacting with each other on a regular basis.

Deputy Roche stood up and announced that this is a charter for community broadcasting. Deputy Roche is an intelligent, good Deputy in many ways. I would ask him to tell me before this debate finishes where in this legislation there is any reference to the charter provided by the National Association for Community Broadcasting. It does not merit a line in the legislation. The Deputy might like to remember what we were asked by the National Association for Community Broadcasting when we were dealing with broadcasting. I will quote from their charter which they submitted to all parties in the House. The said:

Community Broadcasting should:

(1) Serve recognisable local geographic communities and communities of interest.

(2) Ensure that democratic ownership and control rests within the local community.

(3) Have a commitment to the use of profits for community development work.

(4) Have its general management and programming policy made by a governing committee which is democratically representative of the people of the recognisable local community and the various interests in the community.

I could go on. There was no mention of that in the legislation. It is not even referred to and there is no definition of community broadcasting. The explanatory memorandum has not a single such definition. We are told we will know it when we see it. It is not really community broadcasting at all but one day when we have had private investment in broadcasting the sheer goodness that comes from that peculiar animal, the natural greedy Irish commercial person who, from the fulness of his heart, will break out and care for the community. These people will say to advertisers who want to hear particular things regarding their advertising: "I am sorry but I have become converted to community broadcasting; I must have a programme for the aged; there must be a piece of classical music, and the young have to have their programme, so take all your advertising revenue away; I would love to play pop music but I cannot because I am discovering community broadcasting impulses within myself." We are all going to regulate ourselves. Even though the present Government and the last Government have given us the capacity to make money we are going to restrain ourselves and become genuine community broadcasters. What a load of hogwash.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It certainly is.

Mr. M. Higgins

It sure is, this notion that there will be self-regulation. There are Deputies in this House who should have had a bellyful of self-regulation, even in the different professions which are well represented here including law and medicine.

The reason I am contributing to this debate is to correct the record on a fundamental untruth, that we have some ideological hang-up that block all reform that would have knocked the pirates off the air. In 1974 we issued a commentary on the Broadcasting Review Committee. In 1978 we held a press conference to produce our first document on broadcasting. We held a press conference in 1982 and again in 1983 and we entered in good faith into what we saw as a proposal for the orderly development of community radio. When that was broken we fell back on the arguments that we had been making and developed them. We said, yes, there is room for people to become involved and to invest their money but they must do so within a very clear, coherent model of broadcasting that leaves intact the accountability, the standards, the professionalism, the openness to democracy and the capacity to develop all the other forms of the community so that we will have in the future something that was built and devolved upon what has given us a satisfactory kind of broadcasting in some respects, unsatisfactory in others. What it has given us at least is a proper fit between the nature of broadcasting and a democratic society.

We were worried about the thinking about broadcasting, the tendency to remove broadcasting, an aspect of communications, from that whole ethos of public service accountability, into the marketplace, and that all the accountabilities, the standards, the professionalism and the diversity which had been argued and which had been carried within the concept of public service broadcast were now to be regarded from a residuum of the marketplace. Perhaps I have put it colourfully but in doing so I hope I have not distracted from the main thrust of what I have been trying to say. Where deregulation has taken place, where any of these previous diversities that were adverted to in the 1974 report have been met, it has been as much accident as anything else.

I also see it as profoundly dangerous in relation to the whole concept of national culture that we would be moving in this direction but that is not to say that I am an isolationist. Those who have been looking at the structure of international broadcasting in its better stages have been that the significant contributions that have been made — material has even been bought by stations abroad — are ones that were built upon a deep probing often of one's own culture and the discernment of the capacity of one's own culture. I will allow myself one pessimistic en passant remark in this regard. In the year of the Millennium people have a tremendous flair for putting up flags and that is encouraging and cheers people up but when people put up flags and imagine that decolonisation is over, they should reflect that the greatest wave of colonisation that is flowing over the planet at present is the colonisation of communications. If we look at a human geography model of the planet we will find that the capacity to participate in the world communications order lies entirely skewed in the direction of those with resources. On the other hand, there is the enormous peopled part of the world who are more and more denied the right to tell their own story or to seek a chink into the world transmission service to enable their cultural contributions to ever be respected and made.

The notion that you move into the marketplace to define the character of your broadcasting is full of perils. It is one which the Labour Party and I have not opposed absolutely. We sought again and again to reach accommodations in relation to the models that were being proposed. We will oppose this Bill because of its failure to address these issues and in particular because of its attempt to smuggle deregulation into broadcasting in Ireland without answering the questions as to why we are moving away from public service broadcasting or spelling out the consequences of de-regulation. I invite the people who are genuinely interested in community broadcasting, the minorities with special tastes, people who want programmes for the young and for the aged and people who are interested in the development of the language and, much more so, in the development of the culture in general, to think very carefully about the situation that has arisen in this House where 90 per cent of the people whom they elected into the House will agree to deregulation proposals for broadcasting in Ireland. The implications of the vote are not confined to this Dáil but will have an impact on the culture over a very long period. We are not traditionalists in the Labour Party as far as broadcasting is concerned. We believe that public service is but a context. It is one within which different forms of legislation must be developed to handle contemporary realities and possibilities and technical possibilities. Equally, we believe that at the same time there must be built into any broadcasting system the capacity to develop, it must be of a dynamic theory of broadcasting.

It was interesting to speak on radio with the Minister for Communications about broadcasting. Again and again some lovely interviewer, stuck for words about broadcasting, unfortunately used the phrase to the Minister that it was "minimalist" legislation. Like all of those who brighten up when they hear a good word, the Minister retained usage of the word "minimalist" for at least a forthnight when broadcasting on different media. He said that his legislation has been called minimalist when, of course, he had called it minimalist himself. In so saying the Minister was really saying that it was deregulation in broadcasting but he would not use the dirty English word from the pagan island next door. So the Minister's minimalist broadcasting is Irish creepy, crawly, deregulation.

We will be voting against it. It is not in the national interest, in the interests of broadcasting, of democracy to support legislation like this. Unlike the shadow Government over there we will not be conjuring up some kind of amendment. I actually agree with their amendment — they are correct — in that if we are to have this load we might as well have some kind of independent authority so that there will be some body to which people can have recourse to talk about standards. They need not be listened to; it will be therapeutic, but it is better than nothing. It is better than something constructed from the cumanns, the Dáil ceantars and the rest of it. They are right about that. I can understand the amendment, which is in the context of the tribal, no real difference kind of politics that Deputy Kelly likes.

I want to make it very clear that we shall not be resorting to an amendment on Committee Stage. We will be opposing the Bill on the grounds Deputy O'Sullivan advanced which I hope I have developed slightly.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The Minister is to be congratulated on introducing these Bills and on tackling a problem which has been allowed to fester over a ten-year period. Indeed it is one which successive Governments have failed to tackle, or were unwilling to tackle, as in the case of the Coalition Government because of divisions between the parties involved.

I will refer to an editorial in the Incorporated Law Society Gazette which pointed out:

Increasingly, it appears that in every facet of the State's activities, particularly in the areas of taxation and the collection of fines imposed by the courts, it is the law-abiding who suffer for being good citizens. Those who readily or voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the State are hardpressed, while those who thumb their noses at the system escape scotfree.

Of course this referred to the failure to impose the law in relation to illegal pirate radio stations. We can only conclude that if one law can be flouted with apparent impunity, without any corrective action on the part of the authorities, why not all other laws as well? I recall also a Business and Finance editorial as far back as 1978 which called for the removal of pirate radio because it broke the law, contending that either the law be changed or pirates treated as wrong-doers.

If a law is unenforceable or undesirable it should be amended or rescinded. It is regrettable that in the past legislators should have allowed illegal operations to continue, allowing some to co-operate with and appear on that type of medium, I would contend adding an inexcusable insult to the legislative process itself. Indeed the National Union of Journalists themselves stand indicted on this issue. In parts of the country members were accepted from pirate stations while, in other parts, there was a clampdown on admissions. In this regard I salute the stance taken by the National Union of Journalists Chapel in Cork who, from the beginning, decided they would have nothing whatever to do with illegals.

The machinations of illegals are even less excusable when it comes to the piracy of editorial material from other media, particularly newspapers. In this regard the existing law on copyright has been found to be totally deficient in the sense of affording any protection against blatant filching. Newspapers, as unionised institutions paying excellent wages, regularly had their material stolen by pirate operations whose employment record, to say the least, was questionable. The enactment of these two Bills will ensure that the days of illegal broadcasting are over. That is to be welcomed.

I am pleased also that the Minister has empowered an advisory committee to decide who should be granted licences, thereby ensuring that the granting of such licences will be removed from political patronage, a step that must be respected by all sides of the House.

It is encouraging to note also that, under the criteria laid down for the selection of licensees, the character of an applicant will be assessed on past performance. It is important that it be borne in mind that there are many individuals out there who are interested in becoming involved in local radio but who did not do so to date knowing that they would have been breaking the law. Therefore, I contend that the Government must ensure that applications from such sources be given bonus points. I am happy that the criteria laid down in the Bill will so ensure.

I might also refer to the possibility of applications from a combination of newsprint and illegal stations, comprising a composite application for a licence. Surely there would be a danger in such cases of a monopoly on advertising and media news to the detriment of other applicants? It would be my fear also that such an eventuality could have repercussions for the role of journalists in regard to which media they should be subservient to. Here I might refer to the reported negotiations between the Cork Examiner group in Cork and the illegal station, ERI, which has gone on allegedly over a four-year period. I understand the same to be true in relation to other newspaper groups.

Under the provisions of these Bills it is my belief that the problem of copyright will be resolved also. It is understandable that to date copyright bodies would not enter into agreement with illegals. Now that the stations will be legalised, commercial arrangements operated with RTE can be entered into with established radio stations and appropriate royalties paid.

It is appropriate also that the Wireless and Telegraphy Bill, 1987 complements the Radio Bill in that fines for illegal operations are being increased from the paltry £50 to the proposed £800 level and/or three months imprisonment.

I welcome the establishment of the new independent national radio service. For far too long a State monopoly was conferred on one single authority, an organisation established largely with Government funds which, in a Stokes, Kennedy, Crowley investigation, was described as being in a very financially-privileged position with guaranteed licence fee and a virtually monopoly of Irish-originated broadcasting advertising revenue. Revenue from licences is guaranteed. I am pleased to note that the fines for unlicensed television and radio sets have also been increased.

Alternative national radio will introduce an element of competition which is good. It will provide a national news service. The licensees will be required to relate to areas which affect public interest, such as being impartial and objective in the treatment of news and current affairs, the broadcasting of programmes conforming to good taste and decency, not inciting crime or undermining the authority of the State and, finally, promoting Irish language and culture. This is very important, bearing in mind the numerous external broadcasting services now available.

There can be no doubt, however, that a totally new national radio station competing with RTE has its attractions. The Minister rightly points to the need for diversity and an alternative source of news and current affairs. A monopoly is not very desirable in any area of activity, particularly in the matter of providing news and information. Nobody would find it desirable, for example, that there should be just one newspaper group in the Republic. The new station could be the catalyst RTE needs to raise it to even higher planes of excellence.

Something which has not been referred to in this House is the monopoly on the control of news. The Minister should have a look at this from the job creation point of view. I am thinking in particular of providing job outlets for young graduates from schools like Rathmines and the NIHEs. Are they going to be blocked off because of a system which has operated for many years?

It is important that simplicity is the key in regulating radio services. After all, we do not regulate what appears in newspapers and why should we be introducing a statutory authority for radio? Is it not much more practical to have a scheme that is self-regulatory rather than involve the State in a costly bureaucracy? I, too, welcome the suggestion in the Minister's speech that licensees should voluntarily come together and establish a code of conduct within the legislation to ensure that the operators conform to the highest standards. In any event, there is provision within the Bill for the revocation of licences where standards have not been met. Would it not be crazy to set up an authority which would propagate an operating cost of £272,500 after five years culminating in an overall operating loss?

The neighbourhood stations have great potential for real community involvement. As somebody who has participated in local community radio under the auspices of RTE, I am satisfied that they will bring greater coherence to neighbourhoods and will allow people to raise matters of common interest and set common goals for the immediate community. Surely, this would provide the necessary outlet for local initiative and provide an opportunity for the emergence of local talent in the broadcasting field.

Before concluding I would like to mention the extension of broadcasting time for Cork local radio. I take this opportunity to compliment the Minister on meetings, at my request, representatives of the unions working in the station and to pass on their gratitude for a personal hearing. May I also take this opportunity to castigate those members of the previous Coalition Government and some local councillors in Cork who are now clamouring for an extension of broadcasting time for the local station because we all know that within a four and a half year period it was within their competence to grant such an extension under existing legislation.

I welcome the decision, in principle, given by the Minister, Deputy Burke to grant an extension of broadcasting time to Cork local radio. I urge him to be generous when taking a final decision, keeping in mind the necessity to ensure that the station is viable in face of the two stations to be set up in opposition in Cork city and county. It is only fair that I should point out that difficulties are envisaged in setting up a county station vis-á-vis a city station. In all likelihood, a county station will encompass the city area and will be likely to draw advertising from that source but a city station may have a restricted broadcasting outlet. A suggestion has been made that Cork city and county cannot carry three radio stations. The Minister may have to look at the proposal that Cork local radio station might profitably be privatised. That is a suggestion I ask the Minister to consider when making his final deliberations on this legislation.

The introduction of these Bills is a courageous move. It shows a lot of imagination and initiative, qualities we have come to expect from what I would term a very innovative Minister.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Of necessity my contribution will be brief. I will not be in a position to resume the debate after Question Time because of a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. There is much to be said about this Bill and I will try to get all my comments on the record.

I believe the time is overdue for us to consider this matter. I welcome the Bills because at least they give us an opportunity to debate this matter in the Dáil, a subject which should have been debated in the previous Dáil and even previous to it. A large number of illegal stations were allowed go their merry way while the only legal station originating in this country had to comply with certain laws, an absurdity which could not be allowed continue. That is not to say that I want to argue the need for legislative control per se, but if there is to be legislative control of RTE, then there should be regulations and legislation pertaining to the other users of the airwaves.

RTE radio provides a very good service although it is not without fault. There are a few people employed by RTE who think they are indispensible and sometimes see themselves as the Government of the day, being the makers and breakers of all and sundry. The advent of competition should take some of that away. Unfortunately, the sort of competition we are considering will not be on a national basis, it will be on a regionalised or county basis. There should be competition. That is one of the problems when there are instant comments on the radio by all sorts of people, some of whom have become extremely arrogant. It is time this House gave those people some competition so that their lack of standards can be teased out.

I regret the tone which has been adopted by some interviewers on RTE. It appears that many members of the Democratic Unionist Party have taken on the personality of Ian Paisley, and in RTE some of the interviewers have adopted a certain personality — I would not like to mention any particular person. A number of these interviewers have a very arrogant attitude and have difficulty in addressing Members of this House. For example, they have difficulty addressing me as "Mr. Mitchell", "Deputy Mitchell" or "Gay". They say "Good morning Gay Mitchell". Some of these people who have set themselves up as lords need competition and I regret we are not giving them national competition.

It is only right and proper that we tell the RTE Authority they are providing a good service and when they overstep the mark we, as legislators, will not accept it. The arrogant attitude adopted by RTE to this House is incredible. Part of the motion allowing RTE to broadcast the proceedings of this House obliged them to cover committees but they have not done so. In the case of the Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am chairman, we have been trying for some considerable time to persuade them to cover this committee, the only statutory committee of the House. Every newspaper in the country has one, if not two, journalists covering that committee, but what do RTE do? They plagiarise it the following day. I repeat, they are required by a motion passed in this House to give time to these committees, but they do not find it possible to do so. It is about time we told them we are the people who make the laws with regard to broadcasting, not the people who for a long time have had a monopoly.

I was in the New Zealand Parliament last year and they, whose parliament is about the same size as ours, have a station exclusively covering proceedings. It is on the air as long as parliament is sitting and it is one of the most listened to stations in the country and even the staff, when not working in parliament, never miss this programme. Why should we not have a similar station? Why should someone in RTE tell us what we can do about broadcasting our affairs? It is indicative of the sort of arrogance which has developed in that organisation. I do not want to take this out of kilter because RTE have some very good points. Their television performance has certainly come on greatly and is probably the best station received here. Their radio is second to none, albeit their research is not always as good as it might be.

There are a number of faults in RTE, some of which I have already alluded to, and it is that sort of attitude and approach by the national broadcasting station that has irked the Legislature. Many people feel that RTE are unreasonable and that they need competition. However, the Bill does not go far enough in providing competition as there should be a national, independent radio capable of competing on a national basis. There should also be a number of selected radio stations. I strongly feel that there should also be a religious station, including the Jewish and other faiths as well as Christianity. I suppose it should be largely a Christian station given the make-up of the nation as I understand the illegal station is very popular and is listened to by a number of people, including Members of this House. Why should there not be a religious station on a national basis? It could be spiritually uplifting and people are prepared to provide that service. We do not always have to think in terms of how broadcasting is done in other countries or indeed how it was provided in this country heretofore. On Committee Stage the Minister should allow for a religious station, not just for the Christian religion, but others as well.

With regard to the fears expressed by some employees in RTE, the question of their security of employment is not threatened by the Bill. In so far as competition is the spice of life, it will give people working for RTE an opportunity to trade their skills and to move to another station if they are not happy. To that extent, encouragement should come from the employees of RTE because competition will improve their service and their opportunities, not just within RTE, but in the other radio stations which will be set up as a result of eventual legislation passed by the House. Too much concern need not be expressed in that regard. There is something hypocritical about journalists in RTE in introducing censorship on Members of this House and the Seanad. It is a question of the puppet working the master in introducing legislation to ban Members of this House and the Seanad from going on radio when, at the same time, members of their own union are servicing some of these radio stations. In a dispute last year, the RTE branch of the NUJ gave money to the NUJ branch of one of the pirate stations who were on strike. What sort of hypocrisy is that? Who gave these people the right to introduce this selective censorship? It is a further indication of the total arrogance which has applied in certain parts of the RTE hierarchy.

What is the principle governing State licensing of radio which would not be tolerated in any other form of media? Why do we need legislation to control RTE when we do not have legislation to control The Irish Press, The Cork Examiner or The Irish Times? I know there are those who say that The Irish Press is controlled in another way — I say that in jest. Legislation controlling editorial content or banning interviews with certain people would simply not be tolerated. What principle governs the need to have a State Authority appointed by the Minister, who can be hired and fired by him? The only need for legislation in the area of radio is to ensure that the bands are not over worked to the extent that you cannot get any radio station because the others are so close and cause interference. I understand that is the case in parts of Italy where you cannot get any station finely tuned because there are so many stations near one another.

There is also the question of the radio station being used by subversives. Presumably, if that was done on a long term basis, the source could be located and taken out. I can see a reason for that although there are subversive magazines on sale and nobody seems to be too concerned about them. I do not know if subversive radio would have many people listening to it. Apart from that, is there really a role for the State to be involved in radio? Should there be State boards answerable to this House for their actions? It is clearly a form of State control. If we had a religious broadcasting station and an independent national broadcasting station, would they have authorities similarly answerable to the Minister? There is a good argument for saying to them that we are setting down the law and that they must comply with it. For instance, newspapers cannot report on matters that are sub judice. It does not mean that the Dáil will pass legislation appointing boards to run The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, The Irish Press or The Cork Examiner. What is the argument for this? Perhaps there is an ideological argument — and Deputy Higgins had views in that regard — but I do not understand why we get so worked up over this question. If we are to continue along the lines of the legislation as explained by the Minister then, at least, if there is to be an authority I think that that authority should be fully independent and should not be in any way politically controlled. It should not just be independent but should be seen to be independent.

We had a problem with the question of appeals for planning permissions so we set up an appeals board — An Bord Pleanála. Then we decided that An Bord Pleanála was not really independent because the Minister had the right to appoint members to the board. A similar situation pertains here. Then we went to absurd lengths and we set up a committee to set up a committee to appoint members of the board who would then be totally independent. I am not suggesting that that should happen but there should be a means of appointing this board which would ensure that the people who are appointed are not of one political colour. I am not saying that this would just happen with the Government of the day. It could have happened as much when we were in office but it is not in anybody's interest or in the public interest that that should happen.

With regard to section 3 of the Bill where the Minister appoints an advisory committee, who will this committee be? How independent will they be? What will their credentials be? Will their credentials be that they will have to be card-carrying members of a cumann or sympathisers of a particular party of the day changing when the Government of the day change? I am concerned about this. There should be an independent committee — not an advisory committee — but an independent advisory committee. I would like to see machinery being introduced to ensure that that committee could remain independent. I note that the Bill allows the Minister, for stated reasons, to conduct an investigation into the operation of programming, financial, technical or other affairs of the licensee. Why? What is the need? Why does the Minister need to have the power to do that?

If the Minister does not like the programme tonight on RTE "Today Tonight" on this so called "General", should he have the power to investigate it and have a big report carried out?

Some years ago we had a report on the "Seven Days" programme on money-lending. If the Irish Independent were to do a programme tomorrow on the “General” would the Minister issue an investigation into that? What is the need for this power? Is there not sufficient sanction of publicity where Members can get up in this House and if they do not like what they see on RTE, or somewhere else, to complain about it and generally to bring odium upon the station concerned if they offend against some public principle? Should the Minister have the power to investigate programming? I seriously doubt it. That is something we should consider.

Section 3 proposes that the Minister must have regard to but is not bound by the advice of the advisory committee. What is the point in having an advisory committee which the Minister can appoint and control — by the way he makes that appointment — and then he is not even bound by their advice? That is a lot of nonsense. Where is the independence there? There is no independence there. Before we pass this Bill we should look for safeguards to be put in, particularly in section 3, against political control of such a committee. That is something which is extremely dangerous not just in the present situation but for any situation for the future.

Section 10 places a duty on each licensee to ensure that all news and current affairs programmes broadcast by him are reported in an objective and impartial manner and that a minimum of two hours of such programming is transmitted each day between 07.00 hours and 19.00 hours if the service is broadcast for 12 hours or more, or 20 per cent in other cases. In the case of a religious national station, why should we require them to have constant newscasts? What is the point? If people want to listen to newscasts they can turn on RTE or some other station.

We are being very narrow-minded in our approach to this matter. We should open up this debate. What I think should happen with this Bill is that it should be sent to a Committee of the House who would go through it, amend it, and bring it back here on Report Stage because there are a number of matters which are worrying. Who decides, for instance, that they are objective and impartial in their reporting? Whose decision is that? Is it the advisory group who would have a role in this matter which the Minister does not have to take any heed of? I have my doubts about that. If we are to broaden the terms of the Bill — and I believe we should — that particular section may not have relevance.

Section 11 — I am not on Committee Stage but I just want to refer to these two sections — says that the advertisements should comply with a code of standards drawn up by RTE. That puts an unfair onus on RTE and it puts local radio in a disadvantageous position because they have to take heed of their competitors' standards who can impose standards on them which they might find difficult and might restrict their ability to compete. That is something we should safeguard against and perhaps it should be taken out. If we were to have an independent broadcasting authority then that section should refer to an independent broadcasting authority rather than to Radio Telefís Éireann. It is unfair to Radio Éireann and to local radio.

I should like to say that, by and large, advertising on RTE is very tasteful. On one particular occasion there was a very distasteful advertisement which I thought was offensive and was moved once or twice to write to RTE but I did not. Eventually, I got a complaint from a constituent which made me go the whole hog and ring somebody. They range me back and said: "We have listened to the ad, you are right". They actually took it off and modified the advertisement. The advertisement was about a child who had lost his father — or something of that kind — it was an insensitive sort of advertisement and I must say I was very impressed with the way in which RTE looked at it rather impartially. They made their judgment and the advertisement was changed. By and large, their advertising is tasteful.

With regard to the next section of the Bill — and this is the last section to which I want to refer — there have been instances in the past where the Minister for Justice was advertising on the radio and the then Minister of State with responsibility for Youth and Sport — that was Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn's title at the time — was advertising on the radio at the same time. I thought that was a bit out of the ordinary to say the least and I made my point in the House at that time.

Section 11 states that any religious or political advertisement or an advertisement which relates to an industrial dispute may not be taken. What does that mean? I presume a similar section is imposed on RTE but, if it is, it did not prevent the then Minister for Justice or the then Minister of State advertising on radio and television at that time. What is a political broadcast? Does it mean, for instance, that a Minister has the power to go on and make an advertisement but not a Deputy? That needs to be clarified. If that is not the case and if this legislation does not relate to RTE and you are allowed carry political advertisements on RTE then presumably the same restriction should apply to both.

I think the Bill should be sent to a Committee of the House for consideration in detail. It is an important Bill. I wonder whether there should be quite the extent of regulation intended in its provisions. I urge that an independent broadcasting authority be created in so far as there needs to be any Authority. If RTE are to continue to have an Authority then there should be an independent broadcasting Authority which should be totally independent and which should be set up in such a way that it will not be politically controlled and would not be easily answerable to the Minister. It would be a good day's work if an all-party Committee of the House got this Bill into Committee and came back here with it because there are a lot of misgivings about it and a lot of changes which need to be made.

Dr. D. Fitzpatrick

I am very pleased the Minister has demonstrated his appreciation of the importance of community broadcasting. His announcement in the Bill that he is prepared to make 100 frequencies for low power stations——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry I must now interrupt the Deputy and ask him to agree to move the Adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.