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.