Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 1988

Vol. 381 No. 5

Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987: Committee Stage.

Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

" `the Commission' means the Commission established by Part II;".

All of the amendments in question are related to or consequential on the establishment of the commission.

Amendment No. 8 proposes the insertion of a new section. It will be section 3 of the revised version of the Bill, if agreed, which provides for the establishment of an independent radio and television commission as a full body corporate. It will be taken in conjunction with amendment No. 59 which deals with the insertion of the schedule at the end of the Bill which sets out the detail of the constitution of the commission.

The introduction of the commission, as an independent Authority, meets the primary concern voiced by Opposition Deputies during Second Stage debate. Its constitution is precisely similar to that proposed for the Local Radio Commission in the previous Government's Local Radio Bill, 1985. In particular it meets the concern voiced by some Deputies, particularly by Deputy Richard Bruton, in that it must be comprised of people who have expertise or shown capacity in media and commercial affairs, radio communications, engineering, administration or social, cultural, educational or community activities — exactly similar to the 1985 Bill. The membership can only be dismissed for stated reasons and then only if resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is similar to the 1985 Bill and the Broadcasting Authority Acts. Apart from these significant features, the provisions include all of the conventional and routine legislative requirements involved in setting up a separate independent State authority. These include details concerning the appointment of the members of the commission; the conditions of service applying to the chairman of the commission; the remuneration and terms of office of members of the commission; disclosure by member of commission of interest in proposed contract; seal of the commission; meetings and procedure of the commission; staff of the commission; conditions of service, remuneration of staff; membership of Houses of the Oireachtas or European Parliament and superannuation of staff of the commission.

The Schedule also contains provisions relating to the duty of the commission in respect of its revenue, borrowings, investment, accounts and audits and annual report to the Minister.

A number of amendments have been proposed by the Opposition Deputies and I will deal generally with these. Deputy O'Malley has proposed amendment No. 17 which deals with the submission of annual reports by the commission. I believe that this matter is satisfactorily dealt with in section 17 of the proposed Schedule to the Bill where a standard provision relating to the submission of an annual report by a State-sponsored body is provided for.

With regard to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to the Schedule, I am satisfied that the standard arrangements under which the Government will appoint the members of the proposed commission are quite satisfactory — bearing in mind in particular the criteria which the Government must use as specified in the Bill.

Amendment No. 3 to the Schedule proposes the addition of the criterion of having expertise in trade union affairs to the general list of criteria which persons to be appointed to the commission must have. The existing criteria which include administration or social, cultural, etc, activities adequately cover the matter. Nevertheless I can accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 4 proposes to increase the minimum number of members who make up a quorum from three to five. The quorum which I have proposed is similar to that which applies to the RTE Authority. It must be borne in mind that the commission can fix a higher quorum and we should leave them as much flexibility as possible.

Amendment No. 5 to the Schedule is not acceptable. The normal industrial relations arrangements and terms and conditions of employment will apply to the staff of the commission. I would stress, incidentally, that my hope is that the commission will be a very modest organisation with a relatively small number of staff. Otherwise, they could become a total burden on the radio and television services we want to establish, not to mention the State.

Mr. R. Bruton

I seek clarification. It seems to me that amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 refer more correctly to the amendments being discussed at present by the Minister, even though they are further down on the schedule. May I address that subject, that is, the role of the commission?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

My understanding was that we would take the first group which referred to the establishment of the commission and to membership of the commission and that we would than deal with the second group which deal with the functions of the commission.

Mr. R. Burke

If it is of any help to the Deputy, it will be a separate section.

Mr. R. Bruton

In the Schedule the Minister has established a very broad set of expertise. Is it normal to establish so broad a set of expertise? A lot of the expertise required does not seem to refer to the task we are asking the commission to do. Why did the Minister decide to throw the net so wide in defining expertise for this purpose?

Mr. R. Burke

I was conscious of the concern expressed by Deputies on Second Stage about the fact that there was no commission involved in the decision in relation to who should get contracts or licences. In bowing to the genuine concern expressed by Deputies and accepting the fact that, with the addition of television, a commission could be a more viable proposition, I took the 1985 Bill that was introduced by the previous Administration and it is in that context that the net is as wide as it is here. It is exactly the same as in the 1985 Bill.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I am confused about what section we are dealing with here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will endeavour to clarify it. My understanding is that in the first group we will deal with amendments Nos. 4, 8, 17 and 59 together with amendments to amendment No 59, Nos 1 to 5. We will deal with what refers to the establishment of the commission. Having dealt with that we will then move on in the same group to consideration of the other amendments listed in the wider document which the Deputy has received, which refer to the functions of the commission.

Mr. P. O'Malley

Without labouring the point, I take it that the first set of amendments referred to here, Nos. 4, 8, 17 and 59 refer to the amendments on this list of amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is correct.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I am beginning to understand where I am. One of those amendments, the first one down in my name, is about the requirement to have a report laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas each year in which the commission will be required to give particulars in relation to the operation of the various stations set up, both the radio stations and the single television station. This is very important in that it would give the Houses of the Oireachtas an opportunity to understand a number of things in relation to how these stations have performed during the course of each year.

The powers and nature of the broadcasting carried out under the provisions of the Act should be established because some of these stations might well be awarded licences but may not be fully utilising the frequency space made available to them and other private interests could use that frequency if it were made available to them.

The area of complaints is very important. The annual report should contain information with regard to the number and the nature of complaints received arising from material broadcast during the course of a year. It is also important that we should have information from the contractor relating to the hours in which people viewed or listened to the service being given. If it is an inferior service and people are not listening to it, we will effectively be tying up a network or a wavelength that could otherwise be used by somebody else in the community who would like to fill that slot and provide that service. The other points I listed in my amendment No. 17. I put it to the Minister that it is necessary that such a report should, on an annual basis, on a given date, be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas so that we can examine these matters fully and ensure that any corrective action needed is taken.

Proinsias De Rossa

It has taken me some few minutes to sort out exactly where we are and what we are doing. I thank the Minister for accepting the gist of amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 59 which includes the insertion of "expertise in trade union affairs" in that section on the appointment of the membership of the commission. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 1 and to amendment No. 4 in the name of myself and other Workers' Party Deputies. On re-reading amendment No. 1, I see that it is not worded very well, but it was intended to ensure that the appointment of the membership of the commission would be brought before the Houses and would be agreed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, in much the same way as the situation whereby if the Minister wants to sack a member of the commission, or indeed the whole commission, he must bring it before the House by way of a motion. Having looked at it again I think that amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan is more appropriately worded and is seeking to do the same thing as I was proposing to do in amendment No. 1. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to accept that amendment. I am keen that this should be done because as we know over many years there has been concern about the appointment directly by Government of bodies of various kinds. We went to great trouble here during the previous Administration to establish a system of appointment for the Planning Appeals Board because of concerns expressed in regard to that.

The commission we are talking about establishing here is of equal importance. They will be dealing with a very sensitive area of communications. I have no doubt that the Minister will seek out the most appropriately qualified people in line with the terms outlined in the Bill, but it would be important that the House would have some say on the matter, if for no other reason than to clear the air and allow Deputies and parties in the House to make their views known and support, or otherwise, the commission as appointed. It would certainly avoid a situation at a later stage where accusations of one kind or another could be thrown about willy-nilly without any regard to facts. I urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan, if he will not accept amendment No. 1 which is not that well worded.

With regard to amendment No. 4, the proposal is that the commission would have a membership of not less than seven and not more than ten. If the Minister were to go for the lower figure of seven and we were to accept the position whereby a quorum for any matter being decided by the commission could be as low as three, one could, in effect, have decisions being made by two members out of seven or even out of ten, and presumably it could be any matter coming before the commission for decision. I do not believe that would be entirely satisfactory.

I know from involvement on committees of various kinds, inside and outside this House, that when decisions are made by minorities on committees because they happen to be present it leads to all kinds of difficulties and dissatisfaction among the members who were not present and also leads to rows of one kind or another among people who feel they have been badly done by and that the decisions were not really democratic because the majority of the members of the commission were not present. I am proposing there that the quorum should not be less than five. I think that is a reasonable figure. I would be concerned that a majority decision could be made by two people in view of the fact that the quorum is fixed at three, presumably until such time as a quorum is decided by the commission itself. We should oblige them to ensure that the quorum is not less than five. I will leave it at that for the moment and see what the Minister has to say on it.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 59 proposes:

In paragraph 1. (1), after "Government" in the second line, to insert "subject to the approval of a resolution by the Houses of the Oireachtas".

The Minister having gone so far in setting up the commission and acceding to the wishes of everybody in this House, should ensure the impartiality and the future role of the Government in broadcasting by accepting this amendment. It was a wise decision on his part to set up this commission but this would be an added safeguard. I would go along with Deputy De Rossa regarding the number of people to constitute a quorum. That would be a worthwhile safeguard. Likewise, I would welcome the inclusion of trade union people with the expertise to ensure that there is an input from one of the social partners. That is desirable and I support Deputy De Rossa on that point.

Mr. R. Burke

In relation to the point made by Deputy O'Malley, I believe that the matter is satisfactorily dealt with in section 17 of the proposed Schedule to the Bill where the standard provision relating to the provision of an annual report by a State-sponsored body is provided for. Let me read for the House the section as it will appear in the amended Bill. Before I go any further, I am not sure if other Members who are debating this have a copy of the document which I sent out, the Bill as it will stand if all of the amendments I put forward are accepted.

Mr. P. O'Malley

A dummy Bill. It might ease our problems greatly.

Mr. R. Burke

We will just send across a couple of copies of it. They were circulated before but it probably will help us all during the debate for the rest of the day. It provides that the commission shall in each year and on such date as the Minister may direct make a report to the Minister of its proceedings under this Act during the preceding year and the Minister shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas; that whenever the Minister so directs the annual report shall also include information on such particular aspects of the commission's proceedings under this Act as the Minister may specify and the commission shall submit to the Minister such information regarding the performance of its functions as the Minister may from time to time require.

As well as that it would obviously be in the interests of the commission to submit as much information as possible without going into the minutiae of the operations of each individual station. I do not disagree that there should be as much information as possible coming forward, but the intention is that this will be a small commission with small numbers of staff. We do not want to set up a bureaucratic monster that will cost the contractors, the radio or television operators, staggering sums of money. We do not want it to become a burden on the taxpayer. If Deputy O'Malley would be satisfied with the annual report and information to the Minister, which is the standard document as laid down for all State bodies, there is provision for a Minister to specify that particular information is needed on particular stations in particular areas. This can be done under amendment No. 2 and would meet many of the points that Deputy O'Malley is concerned about.

The points put forward by Deputy De Rossa are covered by No. 3 of the Schedule proposing the addition of expertise in trade union affairs to the general list of criteria which persons appointed to the commission must have. I believe that the existing criteria, including administration or social and cultural activities, adequately cover the matter but I am prepared to accept the amendment as proposed. In common with other amendments, I would have to ask the Deputy to leave it until I come back on Report Stage and I will include it then. That is what I have been requested to do by the staff of the House. It will appear on Report Stage but I accept it. It is a legitimate point. I think it was covered but it is as well to specify it and I accept it.

In relation to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 as proposed by Deputy De Rossa and Deputy O'Sullivan regarding impartiality of the commission, we are fully convinced that the criteria as laid down and that the standard arrangements under which Governments appoint members of the proposed commission are broad enough and in particular you must bear in mind the criteria which the Government must use as specified in the Bill, including now trade union officials. The criteria are broad and are as they were in the 1985 Act which I have now incorporated into this Bill, and I do not believe it will be necessary to change the particular procedure which has been followed since the establishment of the State.

In relation to the quorum aspect, which was mentioned by Deputy De Rossa and Deputy O'Sullivan, I have no strong view on it, that if there are ten five would be a suitable number. I believe though that it should be left to the commission themselves to fix the way they will operate. They can fix a higher quorum and I think it would be as well to leave them flexibility as to how they will operate. They might decide that they would require a quorum of five for particular types of decisions and for minor items, where they want to do an incorporeal type of thing, that it would be three. I do not know how they will operate but it is up to the commission to decide. They can be flexible. I can see the merit of the point made by Deputy De Rossa and by Deputy O'Sullivan in relation to major decisions being made by only three people. I do not think that would be good or right but I do not anticipate that any responsible commission would behave in that way. They will set their own procedures for their own behaviour. What I have down here is a copy of the 1985 Bill.

Mr. J. Bruton

In relation to the independence of the commission are there circumstances in which they might not be allowed by the Minister to increase their licence fees, which are their income, and thereby would be unable to perform their functions? I know the Minister himself would never have such intention but is there any conceivable legal possibility within the terms of the Bill as framed at present that that could happen, that the Minister could prevent them funding themselves?

Mr. R. Burke

No, it is strictly a matter for the commission to decide on the levies they will impose on each individual radio or television station. That is totally a matter for the commission. There is a provision in the Bill that they must be self-financing. There is no provision in the Bill for interference by the Minister in their financial arrangements. It is their responsibility. At the time when the inital proposals were put forward and we debated them on Second Stage, it was my intention, at that stage, to make the stations as viable as possible and without over-burdening them with great overheads, to have a figure of around 3 per cent as a levy on their advertising rate. That was my own view but the commission are totally independent and can decide what they like in relation to it with no interference from me or from the Minister of the day.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not wish to labour the point because I know there are perhaps more important aspects to be discussed. In relation to the quorum on amendment No. 4, the Bill as it stands indicates that the quorum shall be not less than three and until it is so fixed shall be three. Every question at a meeting of the commission shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an equal division of votes the Chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote. Section 7 (5) clearly states that every question at a meeting of the commission shall be determined by a majority of the votes, and the Bill sets a minimum of three as the absolute minimum.

Taking the point which the Minister makes that the commission may well set a higher figure, there is no legal obligation on them to do so. I would prefer to see a higher minimum figure included. We all have the experience of being on a committee and when people do not turn up and important decisions have to be made we tend to want to push the business through, with the best of intentions. We then have to face all the kick back, noise and rows that follow from that because people whose proposals may have been brought before the board and not decided, perhaps for very good reason, may feel that adequate consideration had not been given by all the members of the commission. For that reason I urge the Minister, in the interests of at least being seen to be fair as well as actually being fair, that the minimum figure should be raised to five.

In relation to agreeing the commission by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Bill ensures that where a Minister wants to sack a member of the commission he must bring a motion before the House to do that. Obviously where a Government has appointed a commissioner and then wants to sack that commissioner it would be for a very serious reason. Equally, in order to establish the absolute fairness of the appointment, to show that not only has the commission got the support of the Government in terms of its Cabinet functions and responsibilities with regard to this Bill but that it would have the support of the House as well, it is a reasonable request to have in the Bill that where the commission is appointed by the Government that it would come into effect when agreed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not intend to proceed further on this point.

Mr. P. O'Malley

May I ask the Minister for some clarification arising out of the points I raised on amendment No. 17 which relates to the annual report we discussed earlier. I accept, to a very large extent, what the Minister has said that the reporting system which he has outlined is probably adequate, although I would like to see it cater in a fuller way for the points which I have set out in my amendment. The main query I have in this is that under the system catered for in the Bill at present is it possible that an annual report would come out three years late? The purpose of my amendment is that, say, on 1 March each year that there would be laid before the House a report dealing with the preceding calendar year. It is important that the reports should be up to date because what I have outlined in my amendment were aspects that could need attention on a fairly urgent basis. I do not see that there would be much point in receiving a report if it is two or three years out of date. I am not sure from what is catered for in the Bill at present whether there is an absolute requirement to have the report laid before the House by a certain date after the preceding year and the year in which the report is being made. I think that is an important aspect and I hope the Minister will be able to accommodate it.

Mr. R. Burke

So far as the quorum question put forward by Deputy De Rossa is concerned I have no strong views on it. The only reason I was leaving it as it is was that I wanted to leave as much flexibility as I could in the operation of the commission to the commission rather than having the Government laying down every minute detail of their operation. Let me look at it again and we will be back on Report State and I will talk about it then. In regard to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I have said everything I can say. It would be a total change around in the situations. The RTE Authority are appointed in the way it is proposed here and so are all other semi-State bodies. The importance of the proposal to allow only Dáil Éireann to sack is to make sure that there cannot be governmental interference in the operations of the commission. If there is Government interference or any attempt at governmental interference, that can be rejected by the commission, and if the Government of the day wanted to sack the commission because the commission would not do what the Government wanted them to do, either directly or indirectly, the Government just cannot fire them; they have to come to the Dáil to do it. That is a very important safeguard for the independence and impartiality of the commission and I think it meets points one and two about impartiality, which is what the Members want to see.

Regarding Deputy O'Malley's point on up-to-date reports, I share his view about the need for all semi-State bodies to bring forward their reports immediately after the year of operation. The Government are pressing all the State agencies to bring forward their annual reports immediately after the end of their financial year. However, what Deputy O'Malley is trying to achieve really is that if there is a station in an area not meeting the conditions of the contract they get, they would be subject to a form of discipline and investigation by the commission, but we should not have to wait even for the annual report.

Deputy O'Malley talked about the urgency of the annual report. I believe it should be even more urgent than that and that is why I have included here powers of investigation. If there is a complaint or even if there is not a complaint they can go down to a station and carry out investigations to see that the contractor is operating on the basis of the contract he has been given and which has been agreed between the commission and himself as contractor. The day-to-day operations should go on without interfering in each individual station but if there is obvious non-compliance with the contract you should not have to wait for an annual report. You should be in there investigating it straight away.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will allow Deputy O'Malley to finish this point.

Mr. P. O'Malley

On the last point, how will one know the station is not necessarily operating in the way it should operate? Are we to be monitoring the operations of these stations on a continuous basis? We are both trying to achieve the same thing, to ensure that if there is any problem out there it be addressed sooner rather than later. That is why I was looking for the publication, within a specific period in the early part of the year, of a report on the proceedings on the year's activities. Otherwise it could well be that you would not be aware of the problems existing in some of these stations and consequently would not be able to take the remedial action necessary.

Mr. R. Burke

The very nature of this Bill is about listenership and viewership. We are talking about somebody getting a contract to run a radio service in a particular part of the country. When the contract is agreed between the commission and the contractor it will be available to general public examination. I have no doubt that if a contractor was not meeting the criteria laid down and the details of the contract as agreed between the commission and himself the listenership would be complaining about the quality of the service in the station and would bring that to the notice of the commission and the commission would operate. The commission when up and running, while they will have fairly minimal staff — I hope they will have minimal staff — will ensure that spot checks are carried out to see if there is any flagrant violation of the contract. I have no doubt that the listeners themselves through their complaints will bring it to the attention of the commission and in that way we will have interaction between the listener and the commission to bring about a position where the radio operator will meet his contract obligations.

Mr. R. Bruton

I have a very brief comment on amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to 59. I understand the concern of Deputy De Rossa and Deputy O'Sullivan about this, but it seems that having the requirement of Dáil approval could at the end of the day politicise these appointments instead of depoliticising them and I would be afraid that people might not be willing to run the gauntlet of a sort of Dáil inquisition if that sort of procedure was there. I have some misgivings about the sort of procedure although I understand the motive for it.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is Deputy Bruton suggesting that these appointments are not political at the moment? Let us have it out in the open here. We are around long enough to realise there is a political flavour to most of these appointments. Bringing them to the Oireachtas for approval I think is the proper way of doing it. If we are to be realistic and to be honest, we will see that most of these appointments are political appointments. We should recognise that. It is naive to think otherwise.

Mr. R. Burke

The point Deputy Bruton made is excellent. The Government's intention is that we will have a commission of excellence here. One of my concerns about the point mentioned is when the proposed membership would go before the Dáil and could be discussed here that could discourage people of excellence from allowing their names to go forward to serve on the commission. I do not want that to happen. I accept the point made by Deputy O'Sullivan that on occasions every Government have made appointments in relation to people of a particular political persuasion, including the Government that Deputy O'Sullivan has served in and the one I have served in. However, I believe in recent years there has been an attempt to depoliticise these appointments and as far as possible to appoint people with the best qualifications for the jobs. That has been the practice and I assure the Deputy and the House that that practice will be followed in relation to this.

Mr. P. O'Malley

Let me make a comment arising from what the Minister has been saying. Obviously, all of us in this House accept that it is a major step forward that we have a commission. I do not want to become too hung up on the composition of that commission in the sense that they could be influenced by politicians in any way, but arising out of the fears and reservations Deputy De Rossa and Deputy O'Sullivan have expressed let me ask if there is a system whereby part of the numbers who would comprise this commission could be nominated by bodies who would be recognised as having expertise and experience in the whole broadcasting area? Maybe a certain percentage of the commission should first of all be nominated by some of these nominating bodies and in turn those nominees would be approved by the Minister. That might do two things; it might ensure that the interests that should be represented on the board are being represented on it and, secondly, that the people who coming through as a result of having been nominated by these nominating bodies would not be leaving themselves open to the accusation of being political appointees.

Mr. R. Burke

I do not believe the people involved in this will be. Standard procedure has been followed since the foundation of the State in appointment to boards, be it the ESB, Bord na Móna or any board — there are quite a number of them under my Department. The criteria will be laid out in the Bill as to the type of individual and the expertise of the individual. I have extended that expertise now to include trade unions and the intention is to try as far as possible to fit in the various criteria with individuals.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No 8:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"PART II

The Independent Radio and Television Commission

.—(1) There shall stand established, on such day as the Minister by order appoints, a body to be known as An Coimisiún Um Radio agus Telefís Neamhspleách — The Independent Radio and Television Commission.

(2) The Commission shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to acquire, hold and dispose of land.

(3) The provisions of the Schedule to this Act shall apply to the Commission.".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

".—(1) The Commission shall not later than 1st March in each year make a report to the Minister of its proceedings under the Act during the preceding calendar year and the Minister shall, as soon as may be, after receiving the said report cause copies thereof to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

(2) The Commission's report under this section shall include full particulars of the following matters:

(a) the hours and nature of the broadcasting carried out under the provisions of this Act,

(b) the manner in which complaints by members of the public in relation to such broadcasting have been dealt with,

(c) data in relation to the extent to which each broadcasting contractor's broadcasts are received and listened to or viewed by members of the public.

(d) licences issued by the Minister under section 4 (3) of this Act and any variations made thereto,

(e) such other matters relating to the performance by the Commission of its functions as the Commission may deem fit for inclusion in the Report or as the Minister may require the Commission to include in the Report.".

The Minister has taken on board the points I made in my amendment and accepts my reasons for tabling it. I would prefer to see a requirement on the Commission to lay a report before the House on a specified date each year because I have a fear that if two or three years elapsed before a report is produced the action that may be needed to be taken in connection with it will not be possible. However, the Minister has assured me that the new system will not allow that to happen. I hope that will be the case and for that reason I will not press my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am now moving to the amendments to amendment No. 59.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 59 not moved.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 59.

In paragraph 1 (1), after "Government" in the second line, to insert "subject to the approval of a resolution by the Houses of the Oireachtas".

I was hoping that the Minister would take this suggestion on board but it appears that he will not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Many a hope has faded in this House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 59:

In paragraph 1. (5), after "engineering," in the third line, to insert "trade union affairs,".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has indicated that he proposes accepting amendment No. 3.

Mr. R. Burke

I will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy De Rossa happy with that?

Proinsias De Rossa

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 59.

In paragraph 7. (7), to delete clauses (a) and (b) and substitute the following:

"(a) it shall not be less than five, and

(b) until it is so fixed, it shall be five.".

Mr. R. Burke

I will consider that amendment between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 5 to amendment No. 59 not moved.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 13, after line 7, to insert the following Schedule:

"SCHEDULE

1. (1) The members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Government and shall be not less than seven nor more than ten in number.

(2) The period of office of a member of the Commission shall be such period, not exceeding five years, as the Government may determine when appointing him.

(3) A member of the Commission whose term of office expires by effluxion of time shall be eligible for reappointment.

(4) A member of the Commission may resign his membership by letter sent to the Government and the resignation shall take effect on and from the date of receipt of the letter.

(5) A person shall not be appointed to be a member of the Commission unless he has had experience of, or shown capacity in, media or commercial affairs, radio communications engineering, administration or social, cultural, educational or community activities.

2. (1) The Government shall from time to time as occasion requires appoint a member of the Commission to be chairman thereof.

(2) The chairman of the Commission shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns the office of chairman or ceases to be chairman under subparagraph (4) of this paragraph, hold office until the expiration of his period of office as a member of the Commission.

(3) The chairman of the Commission may at any time resign his office as chairman by letter sent to the Government and the resignation shall take effect at the commencement of the meeting of the Commission held next after the Commission has been informed by the Government of the resignation.

(4) Where the chairman of the Commission ceases during his term of office as chairman to be a member of the Commission, he shall also then cease to be chairman of the Commission.

3. A member of the Commission may be removed from office by the Government for stated reasons, if, but only if, resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for his removal.

4. (1) A member of the Commission shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the Commission—

(a) such remuneration as may be fixed from time to time by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and

(b) such amounts in respect of expenses as the Commission, with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, considers reasonable.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a member of the Commission shall hold office upon and subject to such terms and conditions as may, from time to time, be determined by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

(3) The Minister shall cause a statement in writing specifying the terms of office and the remuneration of the members of the Commission to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

5. A member of the Commission who has—

(a) any interest in any company or concern with which the Commission proposes to make any contract, or

(b) any interest in any contract which the Commission proposes to make,

shall disclose to the Commission the fact of the interest and the nature thereof, and shall take no part in any deliberation or decision of the Commission relating to the contract, and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the Commission.

6. (1) The Commission shall as soon as may be after its establishment provide itself with a seal.

(2) The seal of the Commission shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman of the Commission or some other member thereof authorised by the Commission to act in that behalf and the signature of an officer of the Commission authorised by the Commission to act in that behalf.

(3) Judicial notice shall be taken of the seal of the Commission, and every document purporting to be an instrument made by the Commission and to be sealed with the seal (purporting to be authenticated in accordance with this section) of the Commission shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be such instrument without further proof unless the contrary is shown.

7. (1) The Commission shall hold such and so many meetings as may be necessary for the due fulfilment of its functions.

(2) The Minister may fix the date, time and place of the first meeting of the Commission.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall regulate its procedure by rules made under this subparagraph.

(4) At a meeting of the Commission—

(a) the chairman of the Commission shall, if present, be chairman of the meeting,

(b) if and so long as the chairman is not present or the office of chairman is vacant, the members of the Commission who are present shall choose one of their number to be chairman of the meeting.

(5) Every question at a meeting of the Commission shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an equal division of votes, the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.

(6) The Commission may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies among its members.

(7) The quorum for a meeting of the Commission shall be fixed by rules made under subparagraph (3) of this paragraph, but—

(a) it shall not be less than three, and

(b) until it is so fixed, it shall be three.

8. (1) The Commission shall, with the approval of the Minister, from time to time appoint a person to be the chief executive officer of the Commission, and such person shall be known, and in this Act is referred to, as the Chief executive.

(2) The Commission may, as well as appointing the chief executive, appoint so many other persons to be members of the staff of the Commission, and to serve in such grades, as the Commission, with the approval of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, from time to time determines.

(3) The Commission may exercise all or any of its functions through or by such members of its staff as may be duly authorised in that behalf by the Commission.

9. (1) A member of the staff of the Commission, (including the chief executive) shall hold his office or employment on such terms and conditions as the Commission, with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may from time to time determine.

(2) There shall be paid by the Commission to its staff (including the chief executive) such remuneration and allowances as the Commission, with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, thinks fit.

(3) In determining the remuneration or allowances to be paid to its staff or the terms or conditions subject to which such staff hold or are to hold their employment, the Commission shall comply with any directive with regard to such remuneration, allowances, terms and conditions which the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may give from time to time, to the Commission.

(4) The Commission may at any time remove any member of the staff of the Commission from being a member of its staff.

(5) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the chief executive shall not be removed without the consent of the Minister.

10. (1) Where a member of the Commission is—

(a) nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann, or

(b) nominated as a candidate for election to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament, or

(c) regarded pursuant to section 15 (inserted by the Act of 1984) of the Act of 1977, as having been elected to the European Parliament to fill a vacancy, he shall thereupon cease to be a member of the Commission.

(2) Where a person employed by the Commission is—

(a) nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann, or

(b) nominated as a candidate for election to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament, or

(c) regarded pursuant to section 15 (inserted by the Act of 1984) of the Act of 1977 as having been elected to the European Parliament to fill a vacancy, he shall stand seconded from employment by the Commission and shall not be paid by, or entitled to receive from, the Commission any remuneration or allowances—

(i) in case he is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann or is regarded as having been elected to the European Parliament, in respect of the period commencing on such nomination or election, as the case may be, and ending when he ceases to be a member of Seanad Éireann or the European Parliament,

(ii) in case he is nominated as a candidate for election to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament, in respect of the period commencing on his nomination and ending when he ceases to be a member of such House or the European Parliament, as the case may be, or withdraws his candidature or fails to be elected, as may be appropriate.

(3) A person who is, for the time being, entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein or who is a member of the European Parliament shall, while he is so entitled or is such a member, be disqualified from becoming a member of the Commission or from employment in any capacity by the Commission.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, that subparagraph shall be construed as prohibiting the reckoning of a period mentioned in clause (i) or (ii) of that subparagraph, as service with the Commission for the purpose of any pensions, gratuities or other allowances payable on retirement or death.

11. (1) The Commission may prepare a scheme or schemes for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement or death to or in respect of such members of the staff of the Commission (including the chief executive) as it may think fit and the Commission shall submit any such scheme to the Minister for his approval.

(2) Every such scheme shall fix the time and conditions of retirement for all persons to or in respect of whom pensions, gratuities or allowances on retirement or death are payable under the scheme, and different times and conditions may be fixed in relation to different classes of persons.

(3) The Commission may at any time prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme amending a scheme previously submitted and approved of under this paragraph.

(4) A scheme submitted to the Minister under this paragraph shall provide that if any dispute arises as to the claim of any person to, or the amount of, any pension, gratuity or other allowance payable in pursuance of a scheme under this paragraph, such dispute shall be submitted to the Minister who shall refer it to the Minister for Finance, whose decision shall be final.

(5) A scheme submitted to the Minister under this paragraph shall, if approved of by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance, be carried out by the Commission in accordance with its terms.

(6) No pension, gratuity or other allowance shall be granted by the Commission on the resignation, retirement or death of a member of the staff of the Commission (including the chief executive) otherwise than in accordance with a scheme under this paragraph.

(7) Every scheme submitted and approved of under this paragraph shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is approved of and if either House, within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the scheme is laid before it, passes a resolution annulling the scheme, the scheme shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

12. (1) It shall be the duty of the Commission so to conduct its affairs as to secure that its revenue becomes as soon as possible, and thereafter continues to be, at least sufficient to meet its expenses.

(2) Any excess of the revenue of the Commission over its expenditure shall be applied in such manner as the Minister, after consultation with the Commission and with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may direct, and any such direction may require that all, or part as may be specified in the direction, of such excess be paid into the Central Fund.

13. The Commission may, with the approval of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, borrow temporarily by arrangement with bankers such sums (including sums in a currency other than the currency of the State) as it may require for the purpose of providing for current expenditure.

14. (1) The Commission may, with the approval of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, borrow money (including money in a currency other than the currency of the State) by means of the creation of stock or other forms of security to be issued, transferred, dealt with and redeemed in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the Commission, with the consents aforesaid, may determine.

(2) The borrowing powers conferred by this paragraph on the Commission may, subject to the consent of the Minister, be exercised for any purpose arising in the performance of its functions, but there may be attached to a consent to borrow the condition that the moneys shall be utilised only for the purpose of a programme of capital works approved by the Minister.

(3) The terms upon which moneys are borrowed under this paragraph may include provisions charging the moneys and interest thereon upon all property of whatsoever kind for the time being vested in the Commission or upon any particular property of the Commission and provisions establishing the priority of such charges amongst themselves.

15. The Commission may invest any of its funds in any manner in which a trustee is empowered by law to invest trust funds.

16. (1) The Commission shall keep in such form as shall be approved by the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, all proper and usual accounts of all moneys received or expended by it, including an income and expenditure account and a balance sheet.

(2) Accounts kept in pursuance of this paragraph shall be submitted annually by the Commission to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit at such time as the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, directs.

(3) Immediately after every audit under this paragraph of its accounts, the Commission shall send to the Minister—

(a) a copy of the income and expenditure account and balance sheet as certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General,

(b) a copy of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and

(c) copies of such of the accounts submitted for audit as the Minister may appoint as accounts of which copies are to be furnished to him.

(4) As soon as may be after he has received the documents required to be furnished to him under this paragraph, the Minister shall cause such documents to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

17. (1) The Commission shall, in each year, at such date as the Minister may direct, make a report to the Minister of its proceedings under this Act during the preceding year, and the Minister shall cause copies of the Report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

(2) Whenever the Minister so directs, the annual report shall also include information on such particular aspects of the Commission's proceedings under this Act as the Minister may specify.

(3) The Commission shall submit to the Minister such information regarding the performance of its functions as the Minister may from time to time require.".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now move to the second group of amendments and I hope our progress will be as satisfactory as with that on the first group.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, subsection (1), to delete line 20.

All the amendments in question, Nos. 5, 6, 9 and amendments to amendment No. 9 — Nos. 1 to 7 — and amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 20, 28, 29, 31, 33, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47 and 48, are related in one fashion or another to the functions it is proposed to give to the commission. Some are of a purely consequential nature — for example changing references to "licensees" to "sound broadcasting contractor" and "licences" to "contracts". Others are obviously of more substance.

Amendment No. 9 sets out the primary function of the commission as that of arranging for the provision of sound broadcasting services and a television programme service additional to services provided by RTE. A series of subsections follows outlining the powers and duties of the commission in the fulfilment of its primary function. These provisions, I might say, are essentially similar to those proposed in the Local Radio Bill, 1985 as put forward by the previous Government.

I should perhaps explain the rationale that lies behind the arrangments proposed for the commission and its relationship on the one hand with the Minister and on the other with those who will be providing the new radio services, that is the sound broadcasters.

The original Bill envisaged a straightforward licensing arrangement between the Minister and broadcasting. The fundamental reason for having any form of licensing for broadcasting services stems from the frequency management obligations of the State at national and international level. If it was not for the physical constraint of limited radio frequency availability there would be no reason for the State to be involved in licensing radio, any more than it has an involvement in the print media.

The licensing function — which is the frequency management function — still remains the responsibility of the Minister. It is not a function that could simply be delegated to the commission because first of all its origins go back to the various telegraph Acts of the last century which vested a monopoly in the Minister, and his antecedents, in the transmission of messages and to the wireless telegraphy Acts which vest the licensing function in the Minister. Secondly, the whole radio communications area is governed by numerous international conventions and treaties for which Governments are answerable. Thirdly, broadcasting frequencies are just one small element of the radio frequency spectrum and there is an inter-relationship between the way broadcast frequencies and other areas of the spectrum, such as aeronautical and mobile communications, are managed. It is essential, therefore, that frequency management be vested in one body alone. In the vast majority of countries in the world this function is vested in central Government. The only practical alternative would be the American model of vesting responsibility for managing the whole of the spectrum in one body, the Federal Communications Commission in their case. To achieve that here one would effectively have to convert the Department of Communications into a semi-State body.

Under the proposals in the Bill, the frequency management function of issuing licences remains with the Minister. A different form of relationship must then be established between the commission and radio station operators. The relationship adopted is a contractual one. The commission enters into contracts with persons to provide the broadcast service. The Minister then issues a licence to the commission covering the frequency to be used and other technical parameters and the benefits of this licence are conveyed under subsection 5 of amendment 9 to the broadcasting contractor through his contract with the commission. This ensures, inter alia, that the broadcaster will not be in conflict with the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926 which requires every person who is in possession of and who maintains and operates transmitting equipment, to have a licence.

The various other provisions of amendment No. 9 are those which are deemed appropriate to include under the functions of the commission and are similar to those in the Local Radio Bill, 1985. They include specifically:

a duty on the Commission to ensure that programme contractors comply with the provisions of the Act;

Deputy Bruton was quite emphatic in his demands that the regulatory authority should have such a duty and I concede that—

a power to require programme contractors to make recordings of their programmes and make such recordings available to the Commission — subsection (8);

a power to require contractors to arrange for the provision of services on behalf of Ministers of the Government — there is a similar provision in the Broadcasting Authority Acts relating to RTE and in the Local Radio Bill, 1985 and is used to allow Ministers from time to time make public announcements of national importance;

a new provision has been requested requiring contractors to co-operate with the gardaí, local authorities and health boards in the dissemination of information to the public in the event of major emergencies;

a power enabling the Minister to suspend licences and operate stations directly or have them operate in accordance with directions issued by him in the event of any emergency declared under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926. A similar provision is written into all forms of licences issued by the Minister and is intended to be used to enable the Government to take control of all forms of radio communications in the event of a major emergency such as war situation or other major civil disorder. The power in question has never been used in the past.

One of the major new elements of transparency introduced into the Bill is a subsection (6) which allows any member of the public to inspect every licence issued to the commission in respect of every broadcast service established. There is a further provision later on in the Bill allowing any member of the public to inspect and purchase a copy of any contract between the commission and programme contractor.

A series of amendments, Nos. 1 to 7, have been proposed to my amendment No. 9. Two of these amendments, Nos. 1 and 5, have the same substance, advocating a particular developmental or promotional role for the commission in relation to community broadcasting or community initiatives in broadcasting.

On this question I considered that the Deputies concerns on the community dimension are adequately covered by new criterion (h) in the selection process in section 6. It is important that the commission is given as much flexibility as possible to develop its own policies in relation to all potential forms of radio broadcasting and that it should not be constrained into focusing in on one particular framework. As to the suggestion that the commission should have a role in relation to the management structure of radio stations, we think that this would be quite inappropriate. Indeed it would be quite impractical for the commission to seek to have such detailed control. I would furthermore add that I have had meetings last Thursday with the National Association of Community Broadcasters who have expressed themselves fully satisfied with the arrangements, I am making, regarding the community dimension of broadcasting.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to Government amendment No. 9 propose to put the reference to television into the plural i.e. that the commission shall have the task of providing for television services as against a single television service as the Government have proposed. I must say that in principle the Deputies are pushing an open door with me in that I fully support the idea of more competition and more choice. However, I would ask the Deputies not to press these amendments at this time because I believe they will have consequential effects, if they prove meaningful, on the television element of the Bill which I need more time to examine. If the Deputies agree, I will see if I can accommodate their wishes when we come back to the matter at Report Stage.

Amendment No. 3 to Government amendment No. 9 proposes that RTE should be able to tender for franchises under this legislation. The whole objective of this legislation is to provide for non-RTE broadcast services. The RTE Authority and management were extremely unhappy about the arrangements proposed in the 1985 Bill because they felt it was invidious that they should have to be answerable to the Local Radio Commission proposed under that Bill. While RTE certainly argued that they should be allowed compete in the local radio scene, they felt that they should do so under their own broadcasting legislation. The position is, therefore, that any involvement in local radio that might be contemplated for RTE can be dealt with under their own legislation.

I should mention that there is nothing in this Bill which prevents potential contractors from entering into commercial arrangements to acquire or use some of RTE's programming as part of their schedules. We know from the NACB, for instance, that they recognise that some of the community stations which they plan would not be able to generate daylong programming every day of the week, particularly in the initial stages. They would hope, therefore, to be able to do a deal with RTE whereby they would carry some RTE programmes during unused capacity. That said, however, it will be important that all potential stations generate sufficient programming of their own and create their own identity if they are to stand a reasonable prospect of winning a franchise.

Amendment No. 7 to Government amendment No. 9 seeks to impose an obligation on the commission to require broadcasting services to carry party political broadcasts. However, this matter is dealt with in precisely the same way it is dealt with in RTE's legislation i.e. under the programming obligations which we will come to later in the Bill and I, therefore, see no need for this particular amendment.

We come now to amendment No. 6 to Government amendment No. 9. This amendment seeks to delegate to the commission responsibility for licensing multichannel television distribution systems. This amendment is quite out of court. The function of licensing these systems is primarily a frequency management function and I have already gone to great pains to spell out why any separate element of that function — be it management of broadcasting frequencies or frequencies which may be usable for television retransmission purposes — cannot simply be devolved to a separate authority. There is a substantive inter-relationship between the way each segment of the radio frequency spectrum is managed. You cannot, for example, simply devolve to that commission responsibility for deciding what part of the frequency spectrum is to be used for this or that purpose because what they decide may be firstly in contravention of the international treaties which govern the use of the spectrum and secondly may impinge upon a whole range of other radio-communications services.

Apart from these very real and practical considerations, which, on the basis of the proposal put forward by the Deputy, I am afraid he does not understand, we have no wish to be imposing the burden of a totally new and different area of responsibility in the commission. It will have more than enough on its hands dealing with the establishment of the proposed new radio services and television service and monitoring their operation.

I know of course that what lies behind the Deputy's proposal is the question of MMDS and I have no wish to be diverted into a discussion on that question. I have endeavoured to explain the reasons — which are primarily frequency management reasons — which lie behind my decision in this area on other suitable occasions, reasons incidentally which my predecessor and the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Mitchell, clearly understood when he too decided that MMDS was the correct solution for providing multichannel choice in the non-cabled areas of this country.

There are three amendments of substance which are relevant to amendment No 9, namely amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. I cannot accept amendment No. 13 because its whole ethos conflicts with what we are endeavouring to do here. For instance, it provides that the commission itself will act as a broadcaster and will instal all of the transmission facilities for the proposed new stations. This would require, inter alia, that the Exchequer would have to provide advances to enable it to undertake these responsibilities as well, indeed, as a much larger organisation than we envisage. The commission which we are proposing will not be a broadcaster; it will be a regulator.

Likewise amendment No. 12 is inappropriate and unnecessary because the substance of what it seeks to achieve is covered elsewhere in the Bill. First of all the commission have a duty to ensure that the terms of this legislation are complied with. For example, the element proposed in paragraph 2 (a) of amendment No. 12 — which provides that the role of the commission will be to ensure a proper balance of education, information and entertainment in programming, covering a wide range of interests etc. — is effectively covered by the requirement on the commission to provide for the establishment of a diversity of services catering for a wide range of tastes, including minority interest, by the fact that it must have regard to the range, type and quality of programmes proposed in selecting franchises, by the requirements to carry news and current affairs programming, all of which constitute in practical terms the informational, educational and entertainment aspect of broadcasting. Likewise the suggestion that the commission should have a role in opening up opportunities for Irish talent is inappropriate. These opportunities will be created by the new radio services, not by the commission. The radio stations themselves will have been selected on the basis of criteria which embody the objectives of the Deputy's amendments. In this regard I will be able to accept the principle of a proposal which the Deputy makes in this area when we come to dealing with the criteria for selecting broadcasters.

Precisely the same remarks apply to amendment No. 14.

I must again stress that we must be flexible and pragmatic in this legislation and avoid unnecessary frills and aspirational rhetoric which are adequately and in a practical way embraced elsewhere.

Finally, a series of other consequential amendments are embraced in a discussion in this area. They are amendments Nos. 21, 29, 30, 32, 34, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47 and 48 and are purely editorial changes converting references to "licences" and "licensees" to "contracts" and "contractors". Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential, inserted into the interpretations.

Mr. R. Bruton

I can understand the Minister's point that to some extent the items mentioned in amendment No. 12 specifying the role of the commission are met in various places within the text of the Bill. It is unusual and out of tenor with the legislation establishing other State boards not to set out what it is hoped this commission will achieve. The Minister knows there are aspirational texts in the ESB Bill about the provision of a certain type of service, the efficiency of their operation and so on. It is unusual for the Dáil to establish a commission and when dealing with its function to refer only to the mechanics of issuing contracts. It would seem more appropriate to express the hope that the broadcasting will be balanced in context, will open up opportunities for Irish talent, support community initiative in getting into broadcasting and uphold democratic values, particularly freedom of speech.

It is appropriate that the Dáil should make a concise statement as to what exactly it hopes the commission will achieve. The idea of freedom of speech is cited only in respect of television and not in respect of radio. The opportunities for Irish talent are cited only in respect of television and not of radio, as the Minister has set it out. The question of supporting community initiatives is simply one of the criteria that the Minister would have them refer to. Initially the NACB — I do not know what they think now because I am not privy to the Minister's discussions with them — felt that the commission could go a long way towards supporting various community and co-op ideas, by providing information, by perhaps holding meetings where they would provide advice to potential community applicants. This would not be high cost activity but nonetheless would extend somewhat beyond simply having regard to the desirability of community stations when allocating contracts. Similarly, the issue of a balance is the most fundamental thing and it is fair to say that it is accommodated in the Bill. That is the background to the amendment and is worthy of consideration.

Amendment No. 5 to the Minister's amendment No. 9 deals with community involvement in broadcasting. The Minister said that it would be appropriate that the commission would get involved in the management control of the station. What I had in mind was similar to what has been expressed in other areas — the expertise of the board, particularly in relation to community stations. The board could recognise a certain co-op structure that they would feel was appropriate for community stations. I had no more in mind than that they would satisfy themselves that there was a reasonable charter or divide-out of the proceeds and the various things that are involved in having a satisfactory co-op.

In regard to amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to amendment No. 9, I am glad the Minister is willing to consider these on Report Stage. As I have said this morning, the technology is pointing in the direction of a separate channel serving Dublin — which has a huge cable service — Cork and other areas if the system is developed to serve them. The opportunity should be kept open for more than one company to serve this area and I am glad the Minister will keep his mind open on that for Report Stage.

In regard to amendment No. 6 to amendment No. 9, I accept what the Minister is saying, that the frequency management function has to stay in the hands of the Minister. On the other hand, the handing out of the franchise or the contract to the MMDS operator or the cable operator will be intimately involved in the commission's work in setting up channels. For example, whether or not someone would make a ruling on the obligation to carry a station would be tied up with the decision to allocate to a station. As the Minister has rightly said, there will be a rapid growth in the availability of satellite services. They will have no obligation as to their content and no one here will be overseeing them. At the same time there is growing concern at the availability of excessively violent or pornographic programming coming through on these stations. It seems that someone will need to look at whether these programmes should be shown in Ireland, as they will not be subject to any Irish authority. I do not know how that can be accommodated. I would have thought that, if we are setting up an independent broadcasting commission which will be looking at issues such as quality of programming generally among the channels to which they give contracts, they would be the people who would have the knowledge and expertise to look at this issue. Perhaps under some sort of a ruling they would be able to say to cable companies: "We do not want you to show certain categories of material". Without getting into heavy handed censorship, it is apparent that there is growing concern about this sort of material becoming available.

Proinsias De Rossa

I want to address amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 7 to the Minister's amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 1 seeks to include paragraph (a) which would oblige the commission to promote the development of a community sound broadcasting service which is democratically owned and controlled by the community as a co-operative or other non-profit distributing structure and is used as a means of community development. That is an amendment largely drawn from the recommendations of the community broadcasting group. I am quite surprised that they have indicated to the Minister that they are satisfied that amendment 16, subsection 2 (h) covers the needs which they have expressed to me over a long period of time.

Amendment 16, subsection 2 (h) simply says, in consideration of applications received by it and in determining the most suitable applicant to be awarded a sound broadcasting contract, the commission shall have regard to the extent to which the service proposed serves recognisably local communities and is supported by the various interests in the community or serves communities of interest. That section has to be taken in the context of other parts of section 6 which also indicate that the commission must have regard to the adequacy of the expertise, experience, financial resources and the quality, range and type of programme proposed to be provided. It also refers to the extent to which the application accords with good economic principles. Obviously I have no objection to applications complying with good economic principles provided what is meant there is not an application must be seen to be aimed towards an economic end rather than a broadcasting end and that the expertise, experience and financial resources required will not be such that it would be impossible for a local community to provide the service.

It seems there is a need, in view of the development which the Minister has indicated will take place in broadcasting, for us to place an obligation on the commission to promote community broadcasting. There is nothing in the Minister's amendment No. 9, which replaces sections 2 to 4, or in section 6 (1) or section 6 (2) which obliges the commission to promote community radio or indeed to take any cognisance of the fact that an applicant may be serving community development needs.

I can think of specific cases — some were mentioned in the House this morning by Deputy Lawlor — where a community radio service, for instance in the Blanchardstown or Tallaght areas, would be a very beneficial service. There is no reason to believe that an entirely commercial radio station would serve the same kind of purpose. In the Finglas area, which is a relatively well-settled area, quite a number of people are anxious that a local community broadcasting service would be provided. They feel it would provide an identity for the area and would use a lot of the local talent. The same would hold true for the Ballymun area which needs all the assistance it can get from this House and from every other statutory body to establish itself as a viable community. Over the 21 years of its existence as an estate it has had to overcome and deal with some very severe problems, many of which are not yet even near to being resolved. I have no doubt that a community radio station would provide an excellent avenue for local people to get to know each other and to help develop the community. There is nothing in this Bill which obliges the commission to take that aspect into account. If a more economically viable proposal comes from an entrepreneur there is nothing in the Bill which says the commission must give the edge to the community group.

I recognise that there is a need to ensure that any service provided, whether it be a community or commercial service, should be run as efficiently and professionally as possible and it should be able to fund itself. I am anxious that the Minister accept some amendment to the functions of the commission which would place an obligation on them to promote the development of community sound broadcasting services. I can foresee communities being overrun by a plethora of commercially-orientated services, and that would be unfortunate. I fear, even with community status, that they may fall into the trap of being dominated by the commercial interests I mentioned earlier, purely from the point of view of having to survive financially. That is another aspect to which we should address ourselves.

My amendment No. 3 seeks to ensure that RTE would have the right to apply for contracts — the amendment says "licences" but it should be "contracts"— for sound broadcasting and television services from the commission. The purpose of this amendment was to ask where RTE fit into the picture. There is no restriction on any of the press barons, for example, applying for contracts and licences to provide a television and radio service. Section 3 (4) talks about having regard to the desirability of allowing any person or group of persons to have control of, or have substantial interest in, an undue number of sound broadcasting services or the desirability of allowing any person or group of persons to have control of or substantial interest in an undue amount of the communications media in the area specified.

I understand one newspaper group own a morning national newspaper, an evening newspaper, two Sunday newspapers and a third of the provincial newspapers. There may be other groups which have similar control, and it would clearly be in their interest to have some input and some say in the broadcasting services as well. After all, the broadcasting services will be competing with them for advertising revenue. Given the nature of our society, the people who own our newspapers are primarily interested in the bank balance and the balance sheet at the end of the year. In my view, there will be strong competition from the newspaper area to get involved in television and radio broadcasting.

It does not seem fair or right that RTE, the one group with expertise in this area, should be totally excluded. In response to amendment No. 3 the Minister said the purpose of the Bill was to provide for non-RTE broadcasting services. I could understand that if what he was talking about was the broadcasting services which would not be under the direct control of the RTE Authority, but a case can be made for RTE establishing subsidiary companies at local level to provide either county radio stations or city radio stations in the Dublin, Cork or Galway areas. In my view, it is not reasonable to exclude them entirely from this area.

The Minister indicated that there was nothing to prevent local community groups from doing deals with RTE for networking or for the use of transmission equipment etc. but, while I think that is a good idea, it is not precisely what I have in mind. RTE should have the right through establishing subsidiary companies to get involved in this area. After all, they too will be competing with whoever gets the broadcasting contracts for advertising revenue, which more and more is the life blood of RTE.

In relation to amendment No. 7, we are seeking to require sound broadcasting contractors or a television programme service contractor to provide for the transmission of party political broadcasts. I put down this amendment simply to raise this issue because we could not see in the Bill, or in the Minister's amendments, any reference to it. No one will argue that party political broadcasts are riveting radio or television — the one exception would be those broadcast by The Workers' Party.

Mr. R. Burke

The deck of cards was not a bad one.

Proinsias De Rossa

In any event, the Minister indicated that this issue is covered in another section. Perhaps he could be more specific?

Mr. R. Burke

In section 9.

Proinsias De Rossa

I was trying to ensure that it would not fall exclusively on RTE to carry party political broadcasts, presumably at their own expense, while the commercial stations would be free of that obligation.

Mr. R. Burke

It is covered.

Proinsias De Rossa

I take the Minister's assurance that this is covered in section 9.

Mr. P. O'Malley

Since we have agreed to conclude this group of amendments by 5.30 p.m. I will be brief. I want to pick up on something Deputy De Rossa said in relation to community broadcasting. We are all agreed that we want to see real community broadcasting developing. As Deputy De Rossa pointed out, the Bill says the commission should have regard to this, but it does not in any way positively discriminate in favour of community broadcasting or do anything to foster or encourage its development. This is possibly a weakness in the Bill.

I know that the Minister has said that he has had meetings with representatives of the NACB who have expressed themselves satisfied with it. In the phase they go through whereby they invite applications from the public to discuss what would be relevant services in a particular area, I hope that the commission will take on board the necessity for ensuring that community broadcasting in the real sense of the word will develop and that there will be the requirement on them actually to reserve specific frequencies to ensure that that kind of radio service can develop.

With regard to my amendment No. 14, this is somewhat similar to Deputy Bruton's amendment. I felt — and he likewise — that it was necessary to state and specify the role which the commission should play. The Minister in his response so far has indicated that we were involving ourselves in frills and aspirational rhetoric. In my case, and I am sure in Deputy Bruton's also, that was not the purpose in putting down these amendments. We felt that there should be a positive statement in the early part of the Bill as to the purpose of the commission. What I have down in paragraph 2 (a) of amendment No. 14 is entirely appropriate to the kind of thing that the Bill should state. It is basically about ensuring the orderly development of broadcasting services.

In my Second Stage contribution earlier today, I indicated that I had some worries about, for instance, the television channel being tagged on to a Bill that started out as a Sound Broadcasting Bill. I would like to see much more planning and control of the way broadcasting is developing here, particularly in view of the major technological changes that are taking place. It was not a frivolous amendment; it was put to give us some purpose and sense of direction. I do not accept the Minister's comment that it was put in for purely aspirational purposes.

On the amendment in the name of Deputy Bruton and myself, No. 2 to the Minister's amendment No. 9, I think that I understood the Minister to say that he cannot accept it at this point, but that he generally is in favour of what we have suggested in the amendment and that he will be making more comments with regard to that——

Mr. R. Burke

On Report Stage.

Mr. P. O'Malley

——on Report Stage. I thank the Minister.

Mr. O'Sullivan

With regard to amendment 13, I have been pressing this in view of the fact that the Minister rejected an earlier amendment of mine which affects this amendment, regarding the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is unlikely that I will succeed with this amendment. Quite frankly, I am amazed at the Minister's continuous references to the 1985 Bill which became an Act. He said that RTE were not at all happy with some of the implications of that Bill. Essentially, he is highlighting the Labour Party's position on that occasion. We were not too happy with the role of RTE during the discussions on this Bill. I am somewhat surprised to hear his reference to the NACB because at one stage I thought that they were thinking along the same lines as the Labour Party. Obviously, they have had a change of heart and have had discussions recently with the Minister and he seems very confident that he has their support. That is their entitlement and I shall not comment on that.

Deputy De Rossa mentioned party political broadcasts. Amendment 9, paragraph (10) (d), states: "subject to consent of the Minister, to arrange for the provision of services with or without charge for and on behalf of any Minister ...". Is it the Minister's intention to make recommendations on conditions to ensure that all minority political interests would be safeguarded under this section? It is quite possible, for instance, that parties that would not be thinking on the same lines as many of the commercial operators could lose out as a result of this section. Would the Minister allay my fears in this regard?

Earlier we had a contribution from Deputy Keating regarding the role of the State in broadcasting, the implication being that Big Brother had his hand on everything and was doing the country a service. It is well to bear in mind the history of broadcasting in this country. We are now discussing the introduction of a commercial television station plus, I should imagine, a multiplicity of radio stations. It should be said that were it not for the fact that the State initiated broadcasting we would have gone without a broadcasting system for many years. RTE have done an excellent job. It is wrong to say that the State brought undue pressure to bear and did not allow freedom to entrepreneurs, as they were described today. To me they were law breakers and we cannot fudge that issue. They posed a threat to life at times by their interference with important communication networks. The frequencies used by ambulances and by Dublin Airport were interfered with and we were very fortunate that there was not a serious accident. Like Deputy Keating, I was not happy that the Government of which I was a party on two occasions did not take these offenders to task. I sincerely hope that there will be no undue delay in coming to terms with these people who have got away with it for so long.

Regarding community and local radio, there have been news broadcasts on these pirate stations which have not been authenticated. First and foremost, it is dangerous not to get the source of the news. Items could be broadcast which are not accurate. I cannot see a section in the Bill which deals specifically with this problem, but perhaps it has evaded me. When news is broadcast over RTE, we can say with some justification that they will stand over what they broadcast. That has not been the case with the pirate stations. They plagiarise news items from newspapers which those newspapers would not authenticate. Steps must be taken when misleading information is given over the airwaves. I hope that this matter will be dealt with. Newspapers have the cost of the collection of news and of supporting a staff and they have their news items stolen from under their noses. In my own city representatives of these pirate stations waited daily for the newspaper to be published and proceeded to announce the news before the vast majority of the people had an opportunity to read the newspaper.

With Deputy De Rossa's amendment to amendment No. 9 I have no problem. I wish he had elaborated on paragraph (b), that is:

to arrange, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, for the provision of sound broadcasting services (including a national sound broadcasting service) and one television programme service...

This seems to be a departure from the traditional position taken by The Workers' Party. Perhaps he would fill me in on this.

In answer to my question to the Minister this morning regarding the role of Cork Local Radio, he said that there was no application for a joint venture by Cork Local Radio for an extension of broadcasting hours. I again ask the Minister to elaborate on this reply and to tell us what his intentions are in regard to Cork Local Radio. I was a member of the deputation that went to meet the then Minister, former Deputy Conor Cruise O'Brien, which led to the setting up of Cork Local Radio. That indicates my personal interest in this matter. Is the Minister now suggesting that there should be a joint venture with some of those who are actively engaged in violating the law? This morning these people were described entrepreneurs and, quite frankly, I think that this is a misnomer. I feel the Irish entrepreneur is a very rare animal indeed—

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but as it is now 5.30 p.m. I am obliged to put the following question in accordance with the order of An Dáil of this day: "That amendments Nos. 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 20, 28, 29, 31, 33, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, and 48 are hereby made to the Bill."

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. R. Burke

I would like to confirm the commitment which I gave to reconsider before Report Stage inserting the plural rather than singular.

Mr. R. Bruton

I take it that refers to amendments Nos. 2 and 47.

Mr. R. Burke

That is right.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will now proceed to deal with the next set of amendments — amendment No. 10, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 10, amendments Nos. 11 and 15.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

PART III

Sound Broadcasting Services

.—(1) In order to secure the orderly development of sound broadcasting services and, having regard to the availability of radio frequencies for sound broadcasting, to allow for the establishment of a diversity of services in an area catering for a wide range of tastes including those of minority interests, the Commission shall as soon as may be after it has been established and may thereafter from time to time by notice published in at least one national newspaper, invite expressions of interest in the securing of contracts for sound broadcasting services under this Act. Such expressions of interest shall indicate in general terms the type of service that would be provided and shall not be regarded as an application for a sound broadcasting contract.

(2) The Commission shall make a report of its findings under subsection (1) to the Minister who, having considered the report and after consultation with the Commission, shall specify the area (which area may consist of the whole or any part of the State) in relation to which applications for a sound broadcasting contract are to be invited and the Commission shall comply with such direction.

(3) The Minister, having regard to the report furnished by the Commission under subsection (2) and having regard to the availability of radio frequencies for sound broadcasting, may limit the number of areas which he may specify under that subsection.

(4) The Commission shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, invite applications for a sound broadcasting contract for the provision of a sound broadcasting service in each area specified by the Minister under subsection (2) and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may enter into such contracts.

(5) Where the Commission invites applications for a sound broadcasting contract for the provision of a sound broadcasting service it shall by public notice specify the area in relation to which the sound broadcasting service is to be provided pursuant to such contract and by such notice shall invite persons interested in providing such a service to apply for such contract.

(6) Having regard to the findings of the Commission under subsection (1) the Commission may, in considering applications for the award of a sound broadcasting contract, place greater emphasis on one or more of the criteria specified in section 6 (2) of this Act and whenever it is the Commission's intention to so do it shall specify such intention to each person who has indicated his intention of being an applicant for a contract.

(7) Every notice under subsection (5) shall—

(a) be published in at least one national newspaper, and where appropriate, in one local newspaper circulating in the area to be served;

(b) specify the procedure to be followed in order to make an application;

(c) specify any other matters which appear to the Commission to be necessary or relevant".

This amendment introduces a new section 5 which deals with the principles and mechanism by which applications for sound broadcasting contracts will be sought. It is the provision which most directly replaces the original section 2 which provided that the Minister would from time to time invite applications for licences. Such applications would be invited by means of appropriate press advertisements.

Under the revised arrangements for inviting applications for contracts put forward in this amendment the commission would by means of a public notice in the newspaper invite on a general basis expressions of interest from the public in securing sound broadcasting contracts. They would not be applications for contracts per se. The objective would be to enable the commission to test the waters with a view to identifying the extent of interest in various parts of the country in providing services and the different ideas which exist regarding the type of services likely to emerge. This would better help the commission when it eventually advertises the actual franchises to specify prospectives for services which have a realistic prospect of emerging in any area and this would help the commission to fulfil part of its mandate in facilitating the establishment of a diversity of services in an area catering for a wide range of tastes including those of minority interests.

It would also enable the commission when it comes to advertising the specific franchises already proposed by the Minister to let potential applicants have a better idea of the additional franchises for town stations, low power neighbourhood stations and community stations it may envisage offering in any particular catchment area. The commission would then synthesise the responses received under the foregoing process and submit a report to the Minister of the day which would give an indication of the extent and kind of services which would be likely to emerge. The Minister would then after consultation with the commission specify the areas in respect of which applications for franchises should be sought. This would be necessary for no other reason than the Minister must ensure that he has appropriate frequencies with appropriate associated parameters to offer for any proposed service.

In this regard it must be borne in mind that every frequency assignment available to this country under the relevant international frequency plans has a specific set of geographic co-ordinates associated with it and the degree of flexibility in the location of transmitters is quite limited. It would be pointless for the commission to advertise a franchise for a particular combination of county towns or townland areas without being sure that there was a suitable frequency assignment available for that area.

When the Minister has specified the areas in respect of which franchises are to be sought, including the whole country for the purpose of the new national station, the commission would then proceed to invite applications in accordance with the mechanics proposed under the original Bill by means of public advertisement. It is also specified in subsection (6) of this new section that the commission may indicate when offering franchises that it will lay emphasis on one or more of the criteria outlined in the subsequent section and on which it will be making its judgment in the selection of the franchises. For instance, as a consequence of its findings under the initial expressions of interest process, it may find that in one instance it will place more emphasis on the community element or Irish language element while in the case of another station the emphasis would be on the quality, range and type of programme proposed.

This gives me an opportunity to refer to a couple of the points which were raised in regard to community broadcasting. I have held a number of meetings and attended a number of seminars with the NACB. My most recent meeting with them was last week when I referred to the amendment which I had tabled. While they would like to see the broadest possible amendment being considered, they were satisfied that section 6 (2) would cover their particular requirements. I share the views which have been expressed by other Members of the House in regard to the development of community broadcasting and I see community broadcasting being developed through the establishment of neighbourhood stations in areas such as Finglas, which Deputy De Rossa referred to, Ballymun and Blanchardstown. I would envisage that these neighbourhood stations would be run by communities as I cannot see commercial interests getting involved in the running of such stations.

Good economic principles were referred to and let me say that these apply equally to community and commercial broadcasting stations. In considering applications the commission would have to take into account good economic principles. We do not want to see proposals being put forward which will not stand up on good economic principles in terms of the number of hours they intend to broadcast, the content of the programming and advertising revenue. Let me assure Deputies that I share their views on the need to develop and encourage community broadcasting.

I have received various delegations over the last couple of months from most of the counties in the country. In some cases a number of groups had come together under the umbrella of the NACB and in some cases independent of the NACB. They comprised business interests, football interests, community council interests, resident association interests and social club interests and they felt that they could get together under the one umbrella and make an application for a licence in a particular county. This is to be welcomed and I encourage it.

Two amendments have been tabled to my amendment No. 10. The first of these states that "the Commission shall consider broad regions within which there could be several competing stations and which, in particular, would be capable of sustaining special interest stations". I cannot see the merit behind this amendment. Surely the procedure which I have proposed in subsection (1) of my amendment adopts the more practical approach in that following the receipt of the expressions of interest the commission would have a good idea of the extent and nature of the services which would emerge, including whether the aim would be to set up a specialist station or a general station, and the commission would be in a position to determine from this trawl the most suitable geographic configurations for the setting up of radio stations, be they broad regions which Deputy Bruton has suggested in his amendment or the narrower county regions which I have suggested in mine. I believe that we should not focus the commission in one particular direction. I believe the commission will be well capable of forming their own coherent and practical policies on how best to organise the new radio stations. Of course the Minister of the day will have consultations with them.

With regard to amendment No. 2 to Government amendment No. 10, I cannot see any significant difference between the Deputy's proposal and what I am proposing in amendment No. 10.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 are also being taken in the context of the discussion on this section. I am quite perplexed by amendment No. 11 which requires the Minister to consult with the authority — I presume the Deputy means the commission — before allowing RTE to provide any further local or regional services and that any such proposal to rescind it must be laid before the Oireachtas. I consider that such an imposition on RTE would be totally unfair and unbalanced. I believe we should be loosening the reins on RTE and that is what I have been endeavouring to do.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned Cork. The practical effect of what would happen, if that amendment were carried, is that if I wanted to authorise extra broadcasting hours for RTE's Cork local service I would first have to consult the commission, to what purpose is not clear, unless it is envisaged that the commission could exercise a veto. If the authorisation was then given to RTE it would have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for 21 sitting days, which could entail several calendar months. Meanwhile, RTE could hardly risk introducing the extra hours in case the proposal was vetoed by the Houses.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I did not ask that.

Mr. R. Burke

I am afraid I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 15, which seeks to prohibit the granting of franchises to persons involved in illegal broadcasting, is perhaps somewhat misplaced. Quite frankly, I have no great sympathy for illegal broadcasters. Nonetheless it would be inappropriate to actually ban them from being granted franchises if their application was the best received. My position on this is in line with that adopted by the previous Government.

I would tell Deputy Cooney that, under amendment No. 16, subsection (2) (a) the commission must have regard to consideration of applications received by them and, in determining the most suitable applicant to be awarded a licence for a sound broadcasting contract, the commission shall have regard to the character of the applicant or, if the applicant is a body corporate, the character of the body, its directors, managers, secretary and other similar officers and, if considered relevant, its members and shareholders. I consider that to be a fair nudge in the direction of being anti those who break the laws of the land.

Mr. O'Sullivan

May I raise a point of order? In view of the unusual format we have adopted for this debate today would it be possible to allow the Minister — I would ask the other Members present — having reached the expiry of each of the four time slots some time to conclude? For example, we had the conclusion of the first slot at 5.30 p.m. without the Minister having responded to the debate. Could we agree that, perhaps at 6.50 p.m. the Minister would be allowed to respond to the points made up to then? In view of the number of amendments before us some points could go unanswered. I think this would be a solution to that problem.

Mr. R. Burke

I would welcome that.

Mr. P. O'Malley

At this point are we dealing specifically only with amendments to amendment No. 10? The others, amendments Nos. 16, 18 and 19 are being left to a later stage between now and 7 o'clock; is that correct?

Mr. R. Burke

Yes.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is the House in agreement with the proposal I advanced, to allow the Minister time to respond?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for Members at the appropriate time. Deputies will have regard to the order of the House that the question must be put at a specific time, in this instance, 7 o'clock. It is up to Members to ensure, if they so desire, that the Minister be provided with some time to conclude the debate, say, ten minutes before 7 o'clock. That is a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. R. Burke

I think we can agree to that.

Mr. R. Bruton

I should like to address my amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 10 and also amendment No. 11. My concern, in proposing amendment No. 1, is that the Minister, from the outset, has confined himself to what I believe to be a strait-jacket in considering county stations, the proposal being that, within the county boundary, there would be one countywide broadcaster only. There might be other town or neighbourhood broadcasters, but there would be one countrywide broadcaster only. I feel that network will result in the evolution of very similar stations, for example, a Radio Tipperary South, a Radio Tipperary North, a Radio Meath, Radio Kildare all pitching at a middle-of-the-road mix of programming that will not really serve the need to produce diversity.

I warmly welcome the Minister's idea of a trawl. I should like an assurance from him that if, as a result of that trawl, what appears most appropriate to the commission is that there be three stations operating and broadcasting all in the one area, a large area, that would be subject to possible agreement. I can envisage circumstances in which there would be different types of stations — as I mentioned this morning — for example there could be a dedicated jazz station. Under the Minister's proposals I cannot foresee that type of station emerging unless they got control of broadcasting in a particular town. It could be quite desirable, in the eyes of the commission that, in a region in which there was sufficient following to justify that type of dedicated station, requiring a fairly broad population to survive, that proposition should be entertained. I was seeking, by way of this amendment, to get some assurance that the Minister, in designating areas he would license, would not confine himself to that notion of exclusive, one station only operating with that whole region as its franchise area. That really encompasses the same intent as is contained in amendment No. 2. I feel it would be more appropriate that the commission, having done their trawl, would be able to come to the Minister and say: "We see the need for three stations serving the north-west region, which would result in this different type of configuration of programming. Those are the areas in respect of which we feel the Minister should agree to grant licences."

As the Bill is now framed the commission do not appear to be able to make recommendations for the appropriate licences. Rather will it be the Minister, having looked at the report, would look into his heart and say what those areas would be. The reason I am anxious about that provision is that the Minister seems to be so wedded to the idea of these county exclusive boundary-type stations.

Turning to amendment No. 11, I should say I certainly did not have the intention that the Minister interpreted, as putting barriers on RTE extending their hours in Cork. As I said this morning, I think RTE should be allowed to extend their broadcasting hours to any extent they choose and should not have to seek ministerial agreement.

However, I contend there must be some interconnection between the two bodies. For example, if at some stage the commission decide that they will introduce a number of stations in some area and, simultaneously, RTE decide they will do the same, all I was endeavouring to provide was that there would be some consultation before the Minister would go ahead with his proposals that might directly cut across the alternative proposal being considered by the commission. As the provisions stand the commission will be vetting, I hope requiring, the publication of applicants, having a detailed oversight, vetting applicants and examining their suitability. If the Minister was going to proceed with some new local broadcasting service run by RTE I thought it would be only appropriate that at least there should be some public knowledge of what is intended. That is why I proposed the provision that an order setting this up would be laid before the House, and be subject to the 21-day rule, before coming into force. That is not to block the possibility of this occurring at some stage; it is to force it into the public arena so that there is some public knowledge of what is going on here. It is not an idea to try to constrain RTE in extending broadcasting hours or to put any imposition on RTE. It is just so that we have the same sort of information requirement about the development of local broadcasting if it comes from RTE as is appropriate if it comes from the independent stations licensed by the commission.

Mr. Cooney

I welcome the general attitude of the Minister in relation to community broadcasting. From what the Minister is saying I get the impression that a move in that direction would find favour with him. I concur wholeheartedly with the Minister's attitude in that regard. I have a thing against natural phenomena being used for private profit. The airwaves should never be the subject of private profit. They should be for the community either through a State-owned or community-owned broadcasting system. Consequently, I am pleased to see the emphasis which the Minister is putting on the desirability of having the community involved. I have met some community interests and I have been impressed by their dedication, their professionalism and their commercial approach in the formulation of their plans. They are as aware as we that their local station will have to survive commercially in a harsh business world.

Deputy Bruton made a very valid point when he painted a future scenario of the counties being served by community radio, necessarily middle of the road radio, not dealing with minority interests, that there should be some arrangement by the Minister whereby under the aegis of the community who will have the overall control provision should be made for speciality broadcasting for the speciality market that exists. There is a great danger that if we do not do that, we will provoke pirates into existence again, because that is how pirates originally came into operation, to serve a particular market need. There is merit in what Deputy Bruton says in that the Minister would want to be aware of having the new broadcasting system too middle of the road with not enough flexibility to cater for specific tastes and lobbies.

I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept my amendment No. 15. The Minister has indicated that he disapproves of pirates and that there is a nudge of disapproval contained in the criteria set out. That is not enough. It is a matter of grave embarrassment for all of us here in this House, more particularly for those of us who served in the executive, expecially those who served in a particular office of the executive, even if only for a short time, that we did not tackle this problem. One could always say, in hindsight, that one could have gone to the stake if there was not a collective decision to tackle this problem. To tackle that would have expressed a degree of bravery not given to politicians to fulfill.

Mr. R. Burke

Nobody ever questioned yours.

Mr. Cooney

This time, I am afraid that I am as vulnerable as you are.

Mr. R. Burke

I am not vulnerable on this one.

Mr. Cooney

My antipathy to pirates, while I cannot express it with the total lack of embarrassment with which I would like to express it, is there nevertheless. They have broken the law for the last decade with impunity and they have contributed a great deal to a reduction in respect for the rule of law since the State condoned them. But it is not too late at this stage to give a firm public message that cheeky breaches of the law are finished. The way to give that message is to take power in this Bill to exclude them from contracts under the new regime. I appreciate that there is one very respectable person in the midlands whose services are being used as a precedent, by many of the putative community groups, but I am afraid that they too have to bite the dust because they broke the law. The fact that they were community-based and broadcasting very desirable-type services does not excuse them.

I would urge the Minister to reconsider my amendment. I do not see that it is going too far to ask that the Minister ensures that people who broke the law should be excluded from consideration under the new licensing or contracting regime. I cannot see any objection in principle or in logic to what I propose, but if the Minister does not want to go that far, I would like him to tell me why he thinks he should not go that far and if he convinces me or himself about it, I would ask him to adopt some stronger criteria than those already indicated to us. For the sake of the rule of law and the common good and all the rest of it a clear signal should be given from this House that those who break the law cannot do so with impunity forever and that their sins must catch up with them, and here is an opportunity to catch them.

Proinsias De Rossa

On amendment No. 11 I am not happy with the terms being put forward by Deputy Bruton. The proposal here is a rather onerous imposition on RTE specifically and a further restriction of their services. As the Deputy has explained that that was not his intention, I do not know what he proposes to do in relation to it and whether he proposes to press it. I would not like to see it being pressed in its present form.

I have an amendment similar to amendment No. 15 and it seeks to do much the same thing as Deputy Cooney seeks but with the exclusion of those who were involved in community-based non-commercial services. There is a qualitative difference, if nothing else, between those who saw a gap in the law and made as much as they could as quickly as they could out of it, and those who saw a gap as an opportunity to provide a community service. There is no doubt that many of the pirates were renowned not for the quality of their service but for low wages and the poverty of their service. Indeed, the treatment they meted out and perhaps continue to mete out to those who work for them is nothing less than Victorian. I have no sorrow at all for any of the entrepreneurs who exploited the gap in the law, or the unwillingness of the law enforcement agencies to employ the law.

Perhaps a way out for the Minister would be for him to indicate that he would not be happy with people who were involved in this kind of activity for the last two or three years, so as to in some way apply some sanction on those who were involved in this way. I know that the Minister referred to the section which provides that the commission will have regard to the character of those who will apply, and perhaps under that section the Minister can make recommendations to the commission as to how they decide on the character of the person or persons involved. I would not like to see a sanction being applied against those who worked for pirates because given the state of things at the moment, if a young person can get a job anywhere, he will take it. To some extent Deputy Cooney's amendment is too all-embracing and it could read that anyone who is involved with a pirate would be excluded whether it was those who owned it or those who were simply working in it for a pittance in many cases.

That is about all I have to say on that matter. The Minister should consider it as we will be coming to it at a later stage on amendment No. 16. Perhaps the Minister would consider applying some sanction by way of excluding the promoters of pirates for a couple of years at least.

Mr. O'Sullivan

In relation to the Minister's own amendment, amendment No. 10, would the Minister explain subsection (3):

The Minister, having regard to the report furnished by the Commission under subsection (2) and having regard to the availability of radio frequencies for sound broadcasting, may limit the number of areas which he may specify under that subsection.

I think the Minister mentioned that there may not be frequences available in all parts of the country. That is why I listened here with a certain amount of envy to people from the Dublin area where there is no problem of this nature. I am envious of the fact that it is now being considered that the Minister will be able to give frequencies to various communities in Dublin — Ballymun, Finglas and other parts of the city — and if that is the case I am not objecting. What I am saying is that the same facilities should be made available to all communities throughout the country regardless of how remote such communities may be. If there was liaison between RTE and the commission — RTE have already a number of relay stations throughout the country — these stations could be utilised. They are not being utilised to the full extent at present. I hope these rules will be applied evenhandedly and that preferential treatment will not be given to one section such as we have on the east coast at present where people can receive signals from Britain and where people on the west have to settle for two stations.

I support Deputy Cooney's amendment. It is wrong that people who have flouted the law should now be interpreted as having expertise, as has been said here today. They have acquired that expertise illegally. It is as though somebody who engages in safe cracking or burglary should be a good candidate to be a locksman. It is the same type of thinking. Anyone who is breach of the law should be excluded from holding a licence. For too long we have been tolerant of people who have said: "We do not mind what you think, we will continue to operate". We cannot differentiate as suggested by Deputy De Rossa. I appreciate the problem with teenagers who are anxious to make a breakthrough in broadcasting. The only answer to that is through the pirate stations and they were exploited to a large degree.

I was concerned recently when it was revealed that a certain newspaper in my own city had been engaged in negotiations and discussions with a pirate radio station. I believe no contracts were signed but the fact is that people who it would be expected would show the way to members of the community were themselves actively involved in having discussions with this illegal operator. Perhaps it would be in my own best interest to ignore another aspect of this illegal activity. We had one particular union — and as a member of the Labour Party I do not say this lightly — the National Union of Journalists, who condoned their members behaving illegally. It would be like my own union, the Post Office Workers' Union, condoning the theft of mail. There are double standards. For too long we have gone along and said, "All right, there are good reasons". There is no reason a person should go along and flout the law in this matter. In relation to the Cork radio station, with all due respects I think the Minister is taking me a little out of context. He was trying to turn it back on to myself——

Mr. R. Burke

It was not you, it was Deputy Bruton I was talking about.

Mr. R. Bruton

It is OK to take me out of context.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I would ask the Minister to apply the suggestion which was put forward by Deputy Bruton and allow RTE to expand their broadcasting hours.

Mr. R. Burke

So far as Deputy Bruton's points in relation to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is not the intention to put the commission into a strait-jacket. On the contrary, I believe that the system and the method I am proposing will bring forward this trawl to see what interest is in stations countrywide. This trawl will be very beneficial and it may turn out that there will be county stations, and in some cases a number of counties might come together. We should not put the commission into a strait-jacket which I think is what the Deputy was suggesting here. Whatever is most appropriate is what we should do. It is for the commission to advise and, where possible, we can agree to different stations. In regard to many of the speciality stations and interest groups referred to by the Deputy and by Deputy Cooney, their interests and their needs will be met, as in Downtown Radio in Belfast, which is the nearest legal independent regime we have in operation in radio. They cater for speciality interest after 7 o'clock; for example, one evening would be devoted to jazz, another evening country and western music, and community workshops on another evening. The speciality and interest groups are catered for in those listening hours that are not so great as radio is mainly a daytime medium.

There is no reason why the commission cannot propose some speciality or minority interest for particular stations.

On the question of why the Minister should have any role, which was asked by Deputy O'Sullivan, the situation is that it is the Minister who has responsibility for frequency assignment and who is answerable at international level, on behalf of the State, for ensuring that the frequencies are assigned in accordance with international frequency plans which have the force of treaty. While the commission could well conclude that it would be desirable to franchise a radio station in a particular geographic area, the Minister might have to refuse to authorise such a franchise because there is no suitable frequency assignment available for such an area at an international level. To avoid problems of this nature, it is left to the Minister to specify the areas to be franchised but, as mentioned, he must do so only after consideration of the findings of the commission and after consultation with the commission.

The type of regional stations which have been referred to by Deputy Bruton may come up out of this type of trawl. I am not rigid on it. I would like to see what will come as a result of this initial advertisement which the commission will put in asking for proposals from areas. However, I believe with the interest that is out there and which has been indicated through representations to the Department there is sufficient interest in most counties to have a station of their own. That is understandable. Counties like their own identification. They like their own local newspapers. They like their own particular colours of teams as mentioned by Deputy Bruton and, as an initial step, many of them will go and there will be enough interest in counties, or in groups of counties, to have an application put forward.

So far as amendment No. 11 is concerned, I made the point already that while the intention of Deputy Bruton is to lift constraints off RTE, the practical effect of his amendment — I know this may not be what he wants — from its day-to-day operation would be to further constrain RTE. I have instituted a regime to try to remove constraints from the operations of RTE that have developed over the years and this is an ongoing process. Many of the announcements I have made today resulted from the committees that were established to try to remove these constraints.

Yes, I agree with Deputy Cooney in relation to community broadcasting. It should be encouraged. I have indicated my view in subsection (2) (h) of amendment No. 16 that there should be development of community broadcasting, but sometimes in the narrow sense of neighbourhood broadcasting a couple of hours a week is probably all that would be viable in some of the neighbourhood stations where it would not be possible to have a full 12 hour day or 24 hour day station. Neighbourhood stations could be run by communities totally on a voluntary basis for maybe a couple of hours on Friday, Saturday or Sunday or however it will work.

As far as pirates are concerned, Deputy Cooney's amendment provides:

Provided, however, that no licence may be granted to any person, group of persons or company where that person or any member of that group of persons or that company or any member of that company had been involved in providing a sound broadcasting service without being licensed to do so.

In the sense that we as legislators have failed over the last ten years to bring in a legal regime for alternative radio, during that period many community groups and others who have a keen interest in radio started up where they would not know where they could apply for a licence. I have no sympathy with the commercial-type pirates as I have tried to indicate in the criteria laid down that the commission must use in determining who gets a licence. I have already read it into the record here. I wanted it to be seen that the Government's view and my view are that we give a high priority to having regard to "the character of the applicant or, if the applicant is a body corporate, the character of the body and its directors, manager, secretary or other similar officer and, if considered relevant, its members and shareholders;".

That is a fairly substantial nudge to the commission as to the Government's view in relation to them. I do not believe it is practical after ten years of a vacuum where we as legislators have not provided a legal regime to debar those who have been involved, but the criteria are laid down under section 6 (2) and the vast majority of the present pirates could in no way meet the various criteria laid down there and——

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is legislation which dates back to 1926.

Mr. R. Burke

——they should go. As far as the legislation to put them off the air is concerned, I hope we can discuss it next week on Report Stage or whenever it is agreed between the Whips that we take Report Stage. I suggest that as well as taking Report Stage we take steps to bring the two Bills together, this Bill and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill which is geared to put these pirates off the air. We cannot have the law brought into further disrepute with the legal regime on radio and pirates still on the air. We must put them off the air and the penalties in the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill are such that they will go off the air. They cannot survive because there are penalties in there for those involved in advertising on illegal radio and for the operators of that radio. BTE have to disconnect their telephones and the ESB have to disconnect them, so it is quite a rigid regime which will put them off the air and I assure this House that that regime will be rigidly and determinedly enforced by me and the Department of Communications.

Deputy De Rossa made a point in relation to community but not pirates. I think I have answered that. I have answered the question Deputy O'Sullivan asked regarding specific areas and specifying areas.

As far as RTE Cork are concerned, I have spoken to them about the possibility of their coming in themselves or in partnership with some other operators and putting a proposal to me under their own legislation in relation to a station or extended hours for them in the Cork operation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I remind the House, Deputy De Rossa, that we are still dealing with a quarter of the new Bill and we might move on.

Proinsias De Rossa

I appreciate that and I do not propose to delay the House. I have a question in relation to subsection (2) (a) in amendment No. 16 regarding "the character of the applicant or, if the applicant is a body corporate, the character of the body and its directors, manager, secretary or other similar officer...". How do the commission propose to investigate the character of the applicants? We cannot expect the seven or ten members of the commission to know personally all applicants who present themselves to them by way of looking for a contract. Would it be proposed that the commission would advertise the proposals that come before them and the principals involved in the proposal? Would they advertise the fact that they are sending their submission to the Minister with regard to whom they propose to give the contract to so that the public could have an input into whether their proposals are persons of good character?

Mr. R. Burke

The commission will not be just a body of voluntary individuals. They will have a chief executive working to them together with personnel working to them. I am not going to lay down how the commission do their business, but it will be up to the commission to meet the criteria laid down there. I assume, having looked at the applications and deciding on one, their executive would then find out the exact background of the individual or shareholders and partners in an operation and see that they have not been involved in certain practices in the past — not just in pirate radio; there are other practices they could have been involved in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are touching there on amendment No. 16. I thought maybe we would deal with and move away from amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 15.

Mr. R. Bruton

I intend to withdraw amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 10 and amendment No. 11. On amendment No. 11, obviously the difficulty here is that we have not the RTE legislation before us but I would like to see RTE removed from constraints and that there would be some public knowledge of intention to proceed with new stations. In withdrawing the amendments to amendment No. 10 I still ask the Minister to consider perhaps for Report Stage whether the way in which he has drafted his subsections (2) and (3) gives the impression he is going to consider only one contract within a given area. It is provided that he will specify the area in relation to its applications for a contract. It gives the impression he is considering only one contract for the area and that will rule out the area of speciality stations.

Mr. R. Burke

I will look at it again.

Mr. Cooney

I have two brief comments. One relates to the community nature of broadcasting which I hope will be predominant in the new system when it comes into being. One area that was worried by the advent of local broadcasting was the provincial newspaper industry. I am probably right in saying that provincial newspapers are being involved in many of the proposals for community broadcasting and that is only right, but in case the regime should ever emerge where they would not be included it would be very important for their continued health, and the health of the broadcasting system, that they would be involved.

I should like to suggest to the Minister that he look at the drafting of the criteria — strictly speaking we have not reached that yet — to see if it will be possible to be more specific in relation to giving a right to provincial newspapers to become involved, if they so wish, in local broadcasting. In regard to amendment No. 15, I take the point that as drafted it would exclude innocent people who were compelled, for commercial reasons mentioned by Deputy De Rossa, to become involved in illegal broadcasting and that it would be unfair to penalise them. I also take the point made by Deputy De Rossa about pirates who were non-commercial. They can be distinguished.

The Minister made a point about criterion (a), that the commission would have to have regard to the character of the applicant and that that is a nudge on the commission to exclude pirates. In my view it is a bit vague. If the commission interpret the Act according to the normal canons of interpretation and look at the words of the Act without reading the debate, there is nothing to suggest that the reference to character there could include having been a participant in illegal broadcasting.

Will the Minister look at the drafting of that criterion in relation to character and introduce into it at least an allusion so that the words of the statute would nudge the commission towards excluding pirates and that they would not just have to rely on what the Minister has said in the course of the debates. They might feel that it would be improper for them to do so, that they would be constrained by the words of the statute.

Mr. R. Burke

As far as local newspapers are concerned I should like to tell the Deputy that this is the first of the Bills published by my Government, the Government of which Deputy Cooney was a member, and the various Private Members Bills, that contains criteria to allow local newspapers apply for a licence. In the past they were debarred from applying but now they are allowed to apply under criterion (2) (f) in amendment No. 16 for the simple reason that I believe this will have an effect on their advertising revenue. It would be wrong to debar them because they have played a very honourable and important role in the development of rural Ireland and its culture. It is important that they should continue to have a role to play in the media in their area. Their interests should be protected. However, there should not be a monopoly, as referred to by Deputy De Rossa, and that is also covered in the criteria.

With regard to the question of character, one of the first criteria in character is law-breaking and whether one has been respecting the laws of the land. The provision was drafted in consultation with the Attorney General. However, I will have a look at this but I do not want to make a promise to Deputy Cooney.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cooney, conviction is not as enthusiastic as it was at the outset.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 10 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are now moving to amendment No. 16 in the name of the Minister but first we will take amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 16.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 16:

1. Before subsection (2), to insert the following subsection:

"(2) No contract shall be issued to any person or company, where that person had been directly involved in providing a sound broadcasting service without being licensed to do so, save where it was a community based, non-commercial service.".

I have rarely been involved in the processing of a piece of legislation that is as complicated as this Committee Stage. We have tabled three amendments to amendment No. 16. I will not dwell on our first amendment because it was dealt with, to some extent, in Deputy Cooney's amendment. One thing I would like to do in regard to people who may apply for contracts, those who are at present or have recently been involved in pirate stations, is to ensure that where they have gone out of business recently, or as a result of the legislation we are proposing to introduce next week to put them out of business, they will not be eligible for the contract unless all the liabilities under PAYE, PRSI and VAT have been met. One of the problems Governments have faced in recent times is the capacity for companies to wrap up their affairs and head off into the sunset owing huge sums of money in VAT, PRSI and PAYE. In many cases employees are left in a bad state because they cannot get benefits as a result of their former employers failing to return their PRSI and, in some cases, their PAYE. I would like to see that included as a reason for not giving a contract to an applicant.

As an aside on the whole question of pirate stations and how they operate, and the reference by Deputy O'Sullivan to the NUJ organising the employees of pirate stations, I should like to state that I have no problem with regard to them organising employees, as I am sure Deputy O'Sullivan has not. What struck me as odd was the fact that in many cases the NUJ organised the employees of the pirate stations while at the same time blacking anybody, particularly political people, who were interviewed on the pirate stations from appearing on RTE. To my knowledge the only political individuals who were blacked were members of The Workers Party. That throws another sidelight on the fiction that in some way The Workers Party control RTE.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy should not tempt me.

Proinsias De Rossa

I can recall what occurred at a Press conference which we organised at the time of the general election in 1981 — it may have been the election in 1982 — at which, through no fault of ours, a reporter from one of the pirate stations appeared. When the RTE employees discovered that a representative of a pirate station was present they refused to broadcast the interviews they had carried out or a report of the Press conference. That was in compliance with the instructions they had from their NUJ branch. Presumably, they did not have any option, but there were anomalies there and the only people to fall foul of that ruling were representatives of The Workers Party.

In amendment No. 1 we are seeking to apply some restrictions on those who have been involved in pirate radio stations, excluding those who were involved in community-based non-commercial services. Our amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 16 relates to paragraph (d) of the Minister's amendment which states:

(d) the extent to which programmes in the Irish language or programmes relating to Irish culture are to be provided;

We are seeking to have that replaced by the following:

In subsection (2), to delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following:

"(d) the quantity, quality, range and type of programmes in the Irish language and the extent of programmes relating to Irish culture proposed to be provided;".

It may seem to be a relatively minor amendment but the section as it stands seems to imply that only the extent or quantity of programmes relating to Irish language and culture is to be considered. It would be no great difficulty for radio stations to throw on any quantity of Irish programmes, say, very late at night. Far more important in assisting the usage of the language would be the quality, range and type of programme provided. The Minister might accept an amendment along those lines.

Our amendment No. 5 proposes to insert before paragraph (h) a provision which would require the commission to take regard of the extent to which the applicant is representative of the community in the area proposed to be served. We are not happy with the formulation of paragraph (h) as it stands, whereby the commission are obliged to take into account the extent to which the service proposed serves recognisable local communities and is supported by the various interests in the community. We feel it is important to include the extent to which the proposer, whether it be a community group or a non-profit making company, is itself representative of the community. I would ask the Minister to take those views into account.

Mr. R. Bruton

Deputy De Rossa's amendment No. 1 highlights the issue of non-payment of PAYE and VAT. I am somewhat nervous about a more general ban of the sort which has been discussed here. The law took no action. If action had been taken the person would have been convicted in court and a penalty imposed. Presumably in some cases that did happen. It would not be usual to say that somebody who committed an offence should ever after be banned from carrying out a legitimate activity. The problem is that due process was not applied and it is very hard to say that we will now apply due process retrospectively and apply a penalty without having brought these people to court.

Deputy De Rossa is on stronger ground when he points out that a person who set up a company and did not pay PAYE or VAT has shown poor character. Obviously we will hear the Minister's thoughts on these matters on Report Stage.

If the authority are entertaining applications, it is only reasonable that the public should have access to some minimal details without infringing on the confidentiality of how a financial proposal is being put together. They should have some details as to the type of programming proposed when a contract is being advertised. The Bill makes no provision for such public knowledge. Admittedly the Minister is enabling the public to put in some general comments to the commission about the sort of stations they would like to see evolve, but the likelihood is they will not do so until they see the colour of the eyes of the people looking for contracts. Some minimal indication of the type of programme mix proposed by applicants for a contract should be disclosed. In the case of planning permissions voluminous detail is given but that has never been proved to interfere with commercial independence. I am not looking for that sort of detail, but some minimal publicity should be given to the number of applicants so that the commission can see what public opinion is. This public knowledge should be available at the very outset so that it would be known what applications were beaten by the successful applicant. That would be an additional pressure on the successful applicant to live up to what he said at the time of application. The public would know that he succeeded over and above others who were worthy and would feel all the more aggrieved if he failed to honour his promises.

There is a certain discontent with paragraph (h) in amendment No. 16. The idea of serving communities or being supported by various interests in the community is a very loose one. In view of the fact that the Minister has not acceded to the earlier proposals that the commission should support community involvement, it is desirable to tighten up this provision. I have suggested my paragraph (j) as an additional paragraph rather than a substitute.

If the Minister decided to allow the setting up of speciality stations dealing with jazz or classical music, for example, they should not necessarily have to conform with the news quota. I am not sure that a news quota should be inserted at all. I accept that the Minister is attempting to meet that point with the combination of his derogation and his agreement to consider these speciality stations.

I should like to have seen an explicit statement regarding the desirability of promoting opportunities for Irish talent. This should certainly be in the criteria. With regard to television, I should like to have seen a quota for home-produced programmes. I am disappointed at this omission, although the Minister speaks about an amount of independently produced programmes.

Mr. R. Burke

A reasonable proportion.

Mr. R. Bruton

Paragraph (1) would meet that need.

Mr. P. O'Malley

My amendment No. 3 relates to the disclosure of applicants' interests in companies. There is a section in the Minister's amendment where he draws attention to the desirability of the commission having regard to the fact that a monopoly should not develop in broadcasting or in the media generally. Under paragraphs (f) and (g) of his amendment he points out that this would be an undesirable occurrence. My amendment is designed to further strengthen that. The names of shareholders in an applicant company should be disclosed, particularly where shareholdings are held by nominee shareholders. In other words, the beneficial owners of the shares would have to be disclosed. If that is not the case it is highly possible that somebody who has an interest in becoming dominant in the whole broadcasting area could acquire interest in companies which would be making applications for a broadcasting contract under perhaps different names. Under the device of nominee shareholding they could build up quite a spread of interests right across the board and that is entirely undesirable. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment. It is a reasonable amendment and does not in any way inhibit the way the system would work. I cannot see that it would inhibit any applicant company from making an application. It is only right and proper that the shareholding should be disclosed. That basically means that the beneficial shareholders should disclose who they are, particularly in cases where they are held as nominees.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I support Deputy Bruton in his amendment No. 8 to amendment No. 16 in regard to the opportunities for Irish talent. I would like the Minister to clarify whether he can legislate to include a programme content that would ensure that a certain percentage of the broadcasting time is given to native artists. I think there is some legal obstacle in the way but perhaps the Minister will clarify that for me.

Mr. R. Burke

In relation to Deputy De Rossa's amendment No. 1 about pirates, I believe they should be entitled to apply for a licence and I am not prepared to accept that amendment. As far as amendment No. 4 in his name is concerned, this is the formulation of the criteria relating to the Irish language programme and programmes relating to Irish culture. This is unnecessary because the element which the amendment introduces relating to the quality, range and type of such programmes is embraced by the preceding criteria. Nonetheless, in view of the commitment of all sides of the House to the encouragement of the language and culture, I am prepared to accept the amendment as put forward by Deputy De Rossa. We will include it on Report Stage. As far as amendment No. 5 is concerned, I have gone as far as I am prepared to go on this matter and I cannot accept the amendment. I have given a clear indication in relation to the community services and interest groups. I cannot accept amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 2 proposes that details of applications for franchises be made public in advance of the commission making their selection. The public franchising approach which I have taken is satisfactory and accords with the standard procedure for awarding public contracts. I can foresee all sorts of difficulties arising if Deputy Bruton's amendment is adopted. It would, for instance, discourage some applications because nobody wants to be associated with an unsuccessful application. It could lead to a constant upping of the ante as applications seek to out-bid each other in promises which would ultimately be unfulfillable. I believe that the degree of transparency which I have already proposed for this legislation is almost unprecedented, in particular the full disclosure of licences and contracts. To go any further would make the task of the commission quite impossible and I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

As far as Deputy O'Malley's amendment No. 3, is concerned, this reformulation of the terminology which I had proposed relating to shareholders of an applicant company is acceptable and I am happy to accept that amendment. It is an improvement on the wording that I had proposed. As far as amendment No. 7 is concerned, this is already covered through the mandate imposed on the commission relating to the provision of a diversity of services, the range, quality and type of programming proposed and the news and current affairs obligations that will be on all stations. I am quite happy to accept in principle the thrust of amendment No. 8. I would respectfully point out to the Deputy that there seems to be a problem in the drafting of the amendment because there is a reference to entertainment opportunities for Irish which, in the context of the previous clause, I simply do not understand. We could have a look at a better formulation of words and may be we will embody it on Report Stage.

Deputy O'Sullivan raised the point in relation to quotas for Irish music. I am not anxious that there should be quotas which provide for a certain amount of Irish music. What is Irish music? Is it traditional music, bogus Tennessee music or folk music? The best way around it would be to encourage Irish artists.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I suggest that the Minister consult with his colleague, Senator Donie Cassidy, who is the expert in that area.

Mr. R. Burke

I would prefer to go along on the basis of encouraging Irish artists.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That does not answer my question. I asked if the Minister can legislate for a programme content which will guarantee material produced at home or abroad by Irish artists.

Mr. R. Burke

That is included in Part IV of the Bill in relation to television. It reads: "For the purpose of ensuring compliance with subsection (3), the commission shall ensure that a reasonable proportion of the programme service is devoted to original programme material produced in the State or in other member states of the European Communities by persons other than the contractor, a subsidiary or its parent or existing broadcasting organisations...."

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is only an aspiration.

Mr. R. Burke

It is merely aspirational. A form of wording which I had in mind in relation to Deputy Bruton's point was that the commission "shall have regard to the extent to which the applicant will promote and create within the sound broadcasting service proposed new opportunities for Irish talent, music, drama and entertainment." I am not saying that that is the right wording but I will get a form of wording and we can discuss it on Report Stage. I think it would be the view of the House that we should have a form of wording such as that to encourage Irish artists and Irish entertainment industry generally. It is a question of finding the right form of wording. I agree with the principle of the amendment but I would ask the Deputy to withdraw it at this stage and we will find a form of wording before coming to Report Stage.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 16:

To delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) The Authority shall publish the name and address of each applicant and other details of the application, including the services proposed to be provided but excluding commercial details that should be kept private.".

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 16:

In subsection (2) (a), to delete "if considered relevant, its members and shareholders" and substitute "its members and the persons entitled to the beneficial ownership of its shares".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 16:

In subsection (2), to delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following:

"(d) the quantity, quality, range and type of programmes in the Irish language and the extent of programmes relating to Irish culture proposed to be provided;".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 5 to amendment No. 16:

In subsection (2), before paragraph (h), to insert the following paragraph:

"(h) the extent to which the applicant is representative of the community in the area proposed to be served;".

Amendment to amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 6 to amendment No. 16:

After subsection (2) (i), to insert the following paragraph:

"(j) the desirability of non-profit co-operatively run stations providing services with considerable community access;".

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 7 to amendment No. 16:

After subsection (2) (i), to insert the following paragraph:

"(k) the desirability of providing a broad range of news, information and education programming attuned to the area served;".

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 8 to amendment No. 16:

After subsection (2) (i), to insert the following paragraph:

"(1) the desirability that new opportunities for Irish talent in music, drama and entertainment opportunities for Irish be available on the new stations.".

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to the amendment proper in the name of the Minister, amendment No. 16.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

(1) The Commission shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, consider every application for a sound broadcasting contract received by it pursuant to a notice under section 5 for the purpose of determining the most suitable applicant, if any, to be awarded a sound broadcasting contract.

(2) In the consideration of applications received by it and in determining the most suitable applicant to be awarded a sound broadcasting contract, the Commission shall have regard to—

(a) the character of the applicant or, if the applicant is a body corporate, the character of the body and its directors, manager, secretary or other similar officer and, if considered relevant, its members and shareholders;

(b) the adequacy of the expertise and experience and of the financial resources that will be available to each applicant and the extent to which the application accords with good economic principles;

(c) the quality, range and type of the programmes proposed to be provided by each applicant or, if there is only one applicant, by that applicant;

(d) the extent to which programmes in the Irish language or programmes relating to Irish culture are to be provided;

(e) the desirability of having a diversity of services in the area specified in the notice under section 5 (5) catering for a wide range of tastes including those of minority interests;

(f) the desirability of allowing any person, or group of persons, to have control of, or substantial interests in, an undue number of sound broadcasting services in respect of which a sound broadcasting contract has been awarded under this Act;

(g) the desirability of allowing any person, or group of persons, to have control of, or substantial interests in, an undue amount of the communications media in the area specified in the notice under section 5 (5);

(h) the extent to which the service proposed—

(i) serves recognisably local communities and is supported by the various interests in the Community, or

(ii) serves communities of interest, and

(i) any other matters which the Commission considers to be necessary to secure the orderly development of sound broadcasting services.

(3) In considering the suitability of any applicant for the award of a sound broadcasting contract to provide a sound broadcasting service in respect of an area which includes a Gaeltacht area, the Commission shall have particular regard to the preservation as a spoken language of the Irish language.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 18:

In subsection (2), to delete paragraph (c).

This amendment asks what exactly "if it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so" means. The Minister is taking on himself the power to vary the licence terms for a sound broadcasting transmitter, and he specifies a number of conditions under which he might find it appropriate to do so. Then he adds the catch all phrase "if it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so". I cannot see the reason for that when he has set up a commission to look at the contract terms and to police them. They are the people who are acting in the public interest. As far as frequency management is concerned, the Minister has stated explicitly that he will consider these as grounds for varying the terms in special circumstances. I do not understand why he has taken on this extra decision to interpret the public interest.

Mr. R. Burke

Might I suggest that there is an unnecessary air of suspicion, or perhaps misunderstanding, about this section. Let me again stress that the licences which the Minister issues are solely technical documents relating to his frequency management functions and obligations. I also issue such licences for every transmitting station which RTE operate and if Deputies want to see what they actually look like, they are all available in the Library here. They comprise a plethora of data relating to frequencies, power limits, site co-ordinates, spurious emission levels and other technical data which I would not even pretend to understand.

With regard to amendment No. 1, the proposed deletion of the criterion that the Minister may vary a technical licence if he considers it in the public interest to do so, may I say this to the Deputy? It is true that most of the foreseeable circumstances in which the Minister might have to vary a licence are covered in the two preceding clauses, that is on grounds of good frequency management or because of requirements under some new international treaty. To that extent, I admit criterion (c) is a "catch-all" provision. I and my Department are concerned that there may be some unforeseen circumstance not covered by the preceding clauses in which it is imperative that a change be made in the technical parameters of a licence. It is nothing more than that. If the Deputy fears that this power may be abused in some fashion, may I point out that any Minister who sought to act unreasonably could be very easily brought before the courts to justify his actions. In the circumstances I ask the Deputy not to press this amendment.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 18:

In subsection (2), to delete paragraphs (d), (e) and (f).

Mr. R. Burke

This amendment proposes the deletion of clauses (d), (e) and (f) from amendment No. 18. Let us take clause (d). This enables the Minister to vary the terms of a licence — which means either a frequency or the power of the transmitter on some similar technical adjustment — if it is necessary to do so in the interests of the safety or security of premises. Let us assume that a radio station is interfering with an instrument landing system at an airport. This is not a theoretical presumption; it actually happened. Deputy O'Sullivan, as a consequence of his amendment if adopted, would prevent the Minister from taking immediate action to get the radio station to change its transmissions. I cannot accept that amendment.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 18:

In subsection (3) (a), after "inform the Commission of his intention and" to insert "the full and detailed particulars".

This amendment relates to the Minister's power to vary the terms of a licence. If the Minister varies the terms, a broadcaster is entitled to know the reasons. The purpose of my amendment is to make the wording even stronger than "reason" because the Minister's reason might be that it was not in the public interest and this might not be very satisfactory as far as the broadcasting contractor was concerned. I have asked that "the full and detailed particulars" be given as to why there was a variation made in the licence. I accept from what the Minister has said that these amendments are of a technical nature and I will not be pressing this amendment. However, I am sure he will take on board the purpose of my amendment because I think a broadcaster is entitled to have a full explanation in the event of an alteration in the terms of a licence being made.

Mr. R. Burke

What will happen, in practice, is that if a broadcaster is interfering with an airport or emergency service or something like that, it would be suggested that they vary or tone down or make a technical change and I have no doubt responsible contractors would do that. It is only in the event of the broadcaster not doing this that these measures will be implemented. As I said, this is a technical measure to meet frequency rules and regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 18 not moved.

NEW SECTION

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 8, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

7. —(1) The Minister may, if it seems necessary to him so to do for any of the reasons specified in subsection (2), vary any term or condition of a licence issued pursuant to section 4 (3).

(2) The Minister may vary any term or condition of a licence issued pursuant to section 4 (3)—

(a) if it appears to him to be necessary so to do in the interest of good radio frequency management;

(b) for the purpose of giving effect to any international agreement to which the State is a party and which has been ratified by the State and which relates to sound broadcasting;

(c) if it appears to him to be in the public interest so to do;

(d) if it appears to him to be necessary for the safety or security of persons or property so to do;

(e) on request from the Commission after consultation with any affected sound broadcasting contractor;

(f) on request from the Commission on behalf of a sound broadcasting contractor.

(3) (a) If the Minister, for any reason specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) proposes to vary, pursuant to this section, any term or condition of a licence issued pursuant to section 4 (3), he shall, by notice in writing, inform the Commission of his intention and of the reasons therefor and the Commission shall, within 7 days of receiving that notification, give notice to the sound broadcasting contractor accordingly.

(b) The sound broadcasting contractor shall have the right to make representations in writing to the Commission in respect of the Minister's intentions, within 21 days after the service of the notice by the Commission.

(c) The Commission shall transmit any such representations to the Minister within a further 7 days and the Minister, having considered the representations, may make such decision thereon as seems to him to be appropriate.

(4) (a) If, having considered the representations (if any) which have been notified to him by the Commission by or on behalf of a sound broadcasting contractor, the Minister decides to vary any term or condition of a licence, he shall, by notice in writing, inform the Commission of his decision.

(b) The Commission shall, within 7 days of receipt of the Minister's decision by notice in writing inform the sound broadcasting contractor of that decision.

(c) On and from the day following service on the contractor of notice of the Minister's decision the licence shall have effect subject to the variation thereof by that decision.

(5) A notice under subsection (3) or (4) may be served on the Commission and by the Commission on a sound broadcasting contractor, by leaving it at, or sending it by prepaid post to, the Commission's address and the sound broadcasting contractor's last known address respectively or if, in the latter case, the sound broadcasting contractor is a company, by leaving it at, or sending it by prepaid post to, the registered office of the company.".

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 9, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

8.—(1) The Commission may, in any period of twelve months, enter into a sound broadcasting contract with an applicant therefor for the provision in such area as may be specified in the contract of a sound broadcasting service for a period of not more than fourteen days (whether consecutive days or otherwise) in that period of twelve months.

(2) The Commission may enter into a sound broadcasting contract with an applicant therefor for the provision of a low-power sound broadcasting service which is intended to serve only such single educational institution, hospital, or other similar establishment as may be specified in the contract.

(3) Section 9 (1) (c) shall not apply to a contract awarded for the provision of a sound broadcasting service under this section.

(4) Section 5 and 6 shall not apply in the case of a contract applied for, or awarded, for the provision of a sound broadcasting service under this section.".

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 20, to delete "licensee" and substitute "sound broadcasting contractor".

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 21 to 27, 30 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 30.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 9, lines 21 and 22, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) all news broadcasts by him is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the contractor's views,".

Mr. R. Burke

I will speak to my own amendments and refer to the Opposition amendments. Do any of the Opposition wish to comment first because it might be better if I were to deal with this at 8.30 p.m. when my comments would be fresh in Deputies' minds rather than reading the notes I have before me now? I am proposing this for the benefit of the Opposition.

Mr. R. Bruton

Amendment No. 24 in my name proposes that these stations should be under the same obligation as RTE to refrain from expressing editorial views of their own. This is important because, unlike newspapers, there will not be freedom of establishment and we are talking about a rationed medium when we are licensing broadcasters. It would be very wrong if anyone were able to pursue a consistent line, particularly a television station which would be the only one broadcasting in its franchise area and it would be very wrong if a commercial interest took a particular line on the controversial issues of the day because there would be very little right of reply. RTE have a very good reputation for impartiality because they have observed this requirement. They report impartially and do not express their own views.

They have honoured that requirement and we have had the benefit of it in our broadcasting environment. It goes without saying that this commands the support of the House. Every party represented on the Opposition benches has put down a similar amendment.

Mr. R. Burke

I indicated earlier that I agree with the tone of this amendment. It is a question of the wording, but we can talk about that later. I can report considerable progress.

An Ceann Comhairle

Good progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.