Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987: Instruction to Committee.

Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, that it has the power to make provision in the Bill for the establishment of an Independent Radio and Television Commission having the function of entering into contracts for the provision of sound broadcasting services and a television programme service additional to services provided by Radio Telefís Éireann.

May I at the outset stress that this motion is purely of a procedural nature and is necessary so that this House, in Committee, has the power to make the two substantive changes proposed to the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987. Those changes are: to provide for the establishment of a new independent regulatory commission which will select the franchises for the programme services envisaged under this legislation and to regulate those services, and to allow the commission in question to enter into a contract for the provision of a television programme service and to regulate that service.

I believe that the resolve and determination of this Government to tackle the long-running sore of chaotic and unregulated broadcasting in this country has been greatly welcomed and appreciated. For ten years and more we have had the spectacle of illegal pirate radio stations creating chaos on the airwaves, bringing the law into disrepute and, indeed, at international level bringing the good name of this country in the radio regulatory sphere into disrepute.

The fact that within a relatively short period of assuming office this Government were able to produce their legislative proposals in the broadcasting area is evidence of our commitment to deal with this matter once and for all. We were able, with the co-operation of this House, to get our legislative proposals successfully through Second Stage.

I believe there was a generally positive reaction to my initial proposals when they were published in the sense that their thrust was seen to be sensible, pragmatic and workable. They generated a healthy and constructive debate, both within this House and outside it, which I greatly welcomed and which has been of considerable assistance to me in determining how best to make further progress.

I fully recognise that the major area of concern about my initial proposals related to the absence of an independent authority to determine who should get the franchises for the services envisaged and to provide the degree of regulation which it was felt those services required. I made it very clear from the outset that the absence of such an authority was not based on any issue of principle or ideology. Indeed, in the first set of proposals published in this area by a Fianna Fáil Government in 1981 we had provided for such an authority. However from the work and research done since then, the whole question of the financial viability of a worthwhile authority had been brought into question — apart altogether from the questionable need as to whether radio services actually needed the degree of regulation which would warrant the establishment of a separate State authority.

It is primarily the introduction of the television element into the Bill that both strengthens the case for such an authority in terms of the degree of regulation that is warranted and in terms of securing the financial viability of such an authority.

It is unnecessary for me at this stage to go into the detail of the purpose and nature of the authority — or the commission as we are calling it — which we propose. That will be the purpose of our Committee Stage debate. However, I dare say I will not be accused of prejudging the view of this House by stating that the proposal to establish a commission will be generally welcomed. The reason for the motion before us is that the proposal to establish a commission is a change of substance to the original Bill and, consequently, this House needs to adopt a motion as proposed if it is to have the power to give effect to that proposal in the Bill.

The second aspect of the motion before the House relates to the proposed introduction of the television dimension into the Bill and it would be useful to put this proposal into context.

The whole objective of the legislation now before us is the creation of new opportunities and new choices in the broadcasting sphere. We have had for over 60 years — in practice for the most of that period and theoretically in more recent times — a State monopoly situation in our broadcasting services. Those services, which have been vested in RTE, have undoubtedly served us very well and we have every right to feel proud of them, but times and circumstances change. The people — the public themselves — have shown, first, that they want choice and, secondly, that they want to be involved and that they are quite capable of being involved in providing broadcasting services.

What then is the role of Government in responding to this situation? As I see it, our primary objective must be to create the environment and afford the opportunities in which such involvement can take place and new choices created. I believe there is a consensus in this House about our policy objectives so far as radio broadcasting is concerned and I am equally convinced that the logic of what we are doing in that area applies equally to the television area. Indeed, in the context of the major developments in television broadcasting which are taking place all over Europe there are perhaps even more compelling reasons as to why we should seek to open new opportunities in television at national level.

The trend in television broadcasting is moving very much in a supranational direction with the development of satellite broadcasting services and the major expansion in cable networks all over Europe. The public of the various countries of Europe are going to be more and more exposed to external influences in television. This is not something we should fear — indeed in many respects it is to be welcomed. It presents a great opportunity to improve European cohesion, to expose us to views, perspectives, horizons and aspects of European culture which otherwise would not be available to us. It can help us to better appreciate the diversity of culture that make up the nations of Europe while, at the same time, help us to appreciate even more those elements of our own culture which give us our own unique identity. We for our part are playing our full role at Council of Europe and European Community level to ensure that a properly balanced international legal framework is established in which the developments I refer to can take place.

This then is the context in which the Government are putting forward their proposals to have a third television channel. It is vitally important in this new international broadcasting environment that we strengthen our indigenous broadcasting voice and choice. By establishing another channel in this country we can redress to some extent the imbalance between the number of external services which are and will increasingly continue to be available here and offer our public an extra measure of indigenously based choice.

There are some who say that we are moving too quickly in this area, that we would need more public debate, commissions of inquiry, etc., into the question of establishing a third channel. We are, of course, a great nation of talkers. We have been talking and wrestling with our consciences for over ten years about what to do in the radio sector and I wonder how much wiser we are at the end of that process? Will the radio services which will now emerge be significantly different from those which would have emerged had we taken action earlier to deal with this area? As I have said before, the only people to have gained from inaction are the illegal stations.

The world will not stand still while we in Ireland sit back for a couple of years and debate the question of a third channel in this country. By the end of 1989 the UK will have three new direct satellite broadcasting channels in operation and they are talking also about establishing a fifth terrestrial channel. Luxembourg will have its medium power satellite launched with up to 16 channels. France and Germany, too, will have DBS services in operation. I do not believe that the outcome of an extended debate here will be anything other than that we would be right to create the opportunity in which a third national channel could emerge. The danger of delaying, of course, is that some or all of the external services which I mentioned will have already found a niche with Irish viewers, making it more difficult to get a new national station off the ground. The Government cannot actually make the third channel happen — this is entirely up to those in the community who believe that such a service can be established and can be successful. I believe it is our responsibility to afford that opportunity and to create a flexible framework within which it will work.

As to the nature of the services to be established, I do not want to anticipate the debate we will have on the particular legislative provisions we are proposing beyond saying that they are of a general and flexible nature — indeed, in the main, they are similar to RTE's general mandate. It is important that our approach should be flexible; we should not straitjacket the new service but must leave sufficient scope for the new service to be imaginative and inventive. I believe, for instance, that possible concerns that a lowest-common-denominator type service will emerge are completely unwarranted. That simply will not work because the reality is that there will be plenty of other stations, with probably considerably more resources than a third Irish channel will ever have, who will be better able to provide purely entertainment-orientated services. If this new service is to carve out an identity and an audience niche for itself, it will have to be distinctive and inventive. It will have to set out to capture the Irish audience from the plethora of choice it will have.

RTE have already shown how this can be done, that is, by concentrating on home-produced material and on material with which an Irish audience has a strong affinity and which will never be found on external services. This in my view is the way that a third channel here will be successful. Such a service of course will have subsidiary benefits. For example it will be an important stimulus to the development of the audio-visual production sector in this country and will constitute an important new outlet particularly for the independent production sector.

There have been some expressions of concern also as to whether a third channel in this country is a realistic proposition and suggestions that we should undertake feasibility studies into the prospects of establishing such a service. To my mind that is to misunderstand the role of Government in this area. I have already stressed that our role is to afford the opportunities for this development to happen and to create an environment in which greater choice and competition will emerge. I accept entirely that it would be appropriate to carry out detailed feasibility studies if it was in question that the State was going to finance and provide this new channel. That, of course, is not the case. It will be up to those who wish to provide the service to undertake the feasibility studies.

The situation, I might add, is exactly similar to the position adopted by the previous Government in deciding to offer a franchise for a direct broadcasting satellite service from this country. There were no feasibility studies undertaken by the State into the economics of establishing such a service. That was left to the applicants on foot of the invitation of tenders. The commission proposed under this legislation will be doing likewise. They will offer the franchise by means of public advertisement and assess and award the franchise on the basis of the applications received.

From the representations that have been made to me there is more than ample interest in establishing a third service. This being the case, and bearing in mind the reasons I have outlined for a third channel, we should provide the opportunity to enable the service to become a reality.

As to the effect of RTE, yes, of course it will put them into a competitive environment. I believe that will be a good thing. Indeed I believe RTE will welcome the new challenge which will come as a timely fillip to them to achieve further excellence. I sense a great new air of self-confidence and self-respect in RTE; what I might call the old paranoias which tended to come to the fore whenever the question of breaking their broadcast monopoly was raised are no longer there. The attitude now is: we are ready, willing and able to compete with the best that is thrown at us.

While I am on the subject of RTE, this presents me with the opportunity to announce this morning that I have granted approval for a number of developments in their radio and television services. The details are as follows: an extra two hours a day to enable the RTE 2 television service to commence transmission at 3 p.m. daily; an extra 1,092 hours per annum to enable the Radio na Gaeltachta service to broadcast continuously throughout the day; an extra hour a day for the premier radio service, Radio 1, to enable it to continue broadcasting until 1 a.m. every day; four extra hours a day on the special millennium radio service to enable it to provide improved coverage of millennium events and activities; and an extra 575 hours per annum and an adjustment of the hours of broadcasting of the FM3 radio service.

The effect of that will be that Radio na Gaeltachta, on Mondays to Fridays — instead of their present practice of broadcasting from 8 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. — will be able to broadcast from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. On Saturdays they broadcast at present from 11 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. but in future they will be able to broadcast on Saturdays from 11 a.m. right through to 8 p.m. At present they broadcast on Sundays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Under the new arrangement RTE, in getting this approval, will broadcast a service throughout Sundays. I have also approved a proposal from the RTE Authority to allow the Radio 1 service to carry advertising nightly during the 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. period.

Of the developments just mentioned I would single out as being of particular importance the extension of the Radio na Gaeltachta service which will now be able to broadcast continuously from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on a week-day basis and from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. at weekends. This service has carved out a very important niche in the cultural life of the country. I know that the improved service which the station will be able to offer will be greatly welcomed not just by the people of the Gaeltachtaí but also by the strong and loyal listeners to that service throughout the country to whom the Irish language is of great importance.

I will finish by reverting to the substance of the motion before the House and reiterate that it is primarily a procedural requirement to empower the House, in Committee, to deal with the matters coming before it in the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. R. Bruton

I welcome the Minister's considerable movement demonstrated since he introduced the Second Stage of the Sound Broadcasting Bill. The proposals now before us are so radical as to render the original Bill almost indistinguishable from the new proposals. I can understand the feeling that this debate should be somewhat longer, the legislative proposals being in such confusion procedurally at least in regard to so many sections and amendments.

I should like to devote central attention this morning to the new departure into the television sphere and also to the issue of the radio network we want to see develop. These are the central issues of concern from the point of view of the public. It is out of the network we wish to see develop that the types of amendments we have tabled for the remainder of the day evolved.

The Minister's change in the radio sphere — to have these exploratory hearings before a decision is taken on what stations to license — is welcome. I have argued strongly in this House that the Minister is imposing an excessive straitjacket on the development of radio here by insisting on the 24 county stations. I anticipate that what we will see evolve from that proposal are stations in each county that will be virtually carbon copies of one another. They will be obliged, by the limited advertising revenue available within each county boundary, to pitch at a very middle-of-the-road audience. They will not have sufficient potential listenership to support specialised broadcasting. With that straitjacket of county stations having exclusive control within their counties, I anticipate that commercially such stations will not get off the ground in many counties. From the point of view of the listener, I anticipate that we will end up with 24 stations differing from one another only in the colours they carry on championship day. It would be a pity to see that happen.

While I welcome the Minister's decision to give the commission power to conduct exploratory probes of the nature of the service demanded, I think he is going to completely sink the possibilities offered by that procedure if he insists on continuing with the straitjacket of 24 county stations. We really want to see a commission that has the discretion to look at the best shape of broadcasting to serve broader regions than the county. I would envisage regions of up to one million people, within which there could be a number of stations, some dedicated to specialised interests such as jazz, current affairs or classical music and which would not necessarily have to comply with the 20 per cent news requirement.

While the Minister is going some distance towards a more flexible scenario for the development of radio by putting derogations on the news quota and so on, I think by insisting on 24 county monopolies he may sink the intent of his proposals. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether it would not be more preferable to have broad regions? At that stage whether we have a national station would really be an open question. I am not sure that a national station would really have a niche if we had a proper regional network of stations. As I said on Second Stage, I fear the effect of the national station will be a bit like the pine forest where the tallest tree kills all the growth underneath. This is a danger. I hope the Minister will reconsider the type of network envisaged so that we can give the commission the discretion to be flexible and produce diversity. The Minister has expressed this wish in his statement but I think he is running the danger of puncturing it by his operational proposals.

The major new proposal today is to license independent television. We must go back and consider what effect this will have on existing broadcasting. It is important to be aware of the fact that broadcasting is not a market in the normal sense, as the viewer cannot choose what he wants to watch. He cannot express his preferences in the way he can in a normal market. He cannot express the strength of his interest in a particular type of programming. He can only decide to switch on or to switch off.

Advertising decisions really dictate the shape of the market. In commercial television the operators are selling audiences to the advertisers. This puts an onus on the Dáil when proposing to develop independent television that we must realise there will always be a necessity for Government regulation and intervention. The truth of the matter is that advertising financed television will not produce what the consumer wants, let alone meet the type of programming that will always need public patronage, because of the low audience relative to its cost.

There will always be a need for State involvement. In shaping our legislation we have to push to the fore the need of the commission to sustain quality in broadcasting. We must ensure that stations that make a commitment initially to provide quality broadcasting can be brought to task if they do not live up to their commitments. We will be seeking amendments to ensure that.

In Britain, as we know, the Independent Broadcasting Authority have operated very strong regulations on their stations. The reason they have been able to do that so effectively is that there is a monopoly on the television advertising market in the UK for the IBA franchise holders. That is not the case in Ireland. We differ not only by having RTE and other stations involved in the Irish advertising market for broadcasting but also the national station, RTE, is not 100 per cent funded by the licence fees as is the case in the UK. We have to recognise the potential danger to the quality of broadcasting in Ireland is greater than in the UK. We will not be able to exercise the same degree of regulation over the station because it is in a more competitive market and RTE have also to collect advertising revenue.

It must be recognised there is a danger that in a fierce ratings war quality programmes, such as "Glenroe" etc. are expensive to produce. It costs up to 50 times more to screen an hour of "Glenroe" than one hour of "Dallas". I think in a competitive ratings war those sort of programmes will be under pressure. We cannot ignore that fact. A programme such as "Glenroe" cannot secure 50 times the audience for its station to match its 50 times higher cost than "Dallas". In framing this legislation, we must recognise that there will be such pressure on the quality of broadcasting as a result of the emergence of independent television.

I think it would be a tragedy if, in time, we found that RTE became a sort of Arts Council ghetto where we had just public patronage programming, very worthy programming but not capable of commanding high audiences figures. It will always be necessary that public service broadcasting secures a good balance in its programming. There should be a lot of entertainment capable of informing people and developing their taste and programmes while maintaining their audience. It is important that whatever we do in legislation we ensure that RTE are capable of doing what they have done so successfully to date.

I fully accept the Minister's point on the inevitability of commercial broadcasting. We have seen that technology is bringing stations into Ireland. The vast majority of new stations, satellite and terrestrial that are proposed throughout Europe are commercial. If we turn our backs on the idea of developing commercial television all we will be doing is denying the possibility for an Irish-based commercial interest to develop a television channel. Ireland cannot insulate itself from commercial channels.

While admittedly the penetration of these channels may be low, I think there is no doubt that these European commercial channels will build up quality and penetrate the market precisely because they have the might to command programming of high quality. The Football Association in Britain have now a proposed contract to tie up exclusively the showing of soccer matches on the satellite stations. If commercial European stations can command that sort of programming, there is no way we can block the pressure on RTE and the emergence of a considerable share for commercial broadcasting in Ireland. We have to walk the difficult tightrope between having excessive regulation for the new fledgling commercial stations and, on the other hand, damaging RTE.

We must realise also that the commercial operations will be facing into quite a difficult market. At present the advertising market in Ireland is relatively small, approximately half the size proportionately to other countries such as the UK and European countries. The market is worth £90 million if you exclude the local newspapers. The broadcasting world already has a very high share of that, an unusually high share by international standards. There is no doubt that the new station will be entering into a tough competitive world of advertising revenue.

We have to avoid overloading the station with programme duties while, at the same time, ensuring that we continue to have quality broadcasting that, thankfully, has characterised broadcasting throughout these islands. We are uniquely well served by RTE and the 60 per cent who have access to the UK channels are well served by these good channels which stand well above what is available throughout the rest of Europe. We have to ensure that the development of this new commercial channel will allow that quality to continue.

We have to be careful today to make sure that we evolve television that is genuinely new, that complements what we already have in RTE, something that does not produce the lowest common denominator. This is a danger, unless we properly oversee progress. We should have regulations that will spur the station on to achieve a high quality but that do not sink the station. We have to achieve a very delicate balance. To a large extent that will be the job of the commission rather than of the legislative framework we draw up, because not only so much can be done through legislation. For that reason there should be a clear brief to the commission. The choice of very high calibre people for the commission will be absolutely crucial to the development of broadcasting. We can have no doubt that the task of sustaining quality and producing greater diversity in programming will be difficult for any commission. I hope the Minister in selecting people will recognise the difficult task to be done and will pick people with the calibre to do it.

To secure a television station characterised by quality, diversity and excellence it is important that the Minister does not stick to the idea of a single national channel. Local channels serving communities will be much more complementary to what RTE are putting out as the national station. It is desirable that the new television channel should have a local niche, offering the possibility of greater community involvement in television. This approach is supported by the technology. At the moment we have no national transmission network for the proposed channel but we have well developed cable networks for distributing channels in certain areas. In broadcasting, people would like to see the development of television channels that would have a local flavour and which would serve identified cabled areas. The commission should be willing to entertain any application that is acceptable in quality and is commercially sustainable. For the moment it looks as if that will be just in Dublin and Cork but in time there is the possibility that other areas will want to have a company providing programming with a considerable degree of local flavour. To make this commercially viable, there will have to be a substantial amount of networked programmes common to them all.

In the UK there are some very small franchised companies serving identifiable communities with television. They take networked programmes and also have local programmes. Some of the areas serviced by such companies are as small as the Channel Islands for example, where there is a company which operates on a £2 million advertising take in the year. That is within the reach of relatively small communities in Ireland and we should go in that direction as it would be more complementary to what RTE are already putting out and it would meet the sort of diversity and quality the public want.

It is important to have a high content of home programming in the station. RTE have shown the way in this area. About half of their programming is now home-produced, and since they moved in this area they have been building up their share of viewers and have been becoming more financially viable. Far from depressing RTE, this move has accompanied their greater success in listenership and in meeting their financial targets. This should also be achieved by the independent stations perhaps over a period of five years. Much of the programmes should come from independent producers so that we can open up more opportunities for Irish talent. That approach to television will not only produce what Irish viewers want, and they have shown that they want home-produced material, but it will also mean that there will be genuine economic opportunity for many people of talent emerging with the development of television, and it will be reasonably spread throughout the country.

There must also be fair competition between RTE and the new station. No station should own the system of distribution of the alternatives. It makes no sense in competition terms that RTE should own Cablelink. Cablelink will be the carrier for an alternative station in Dublin. It is the carrier for diversity coming into Dublin. It would be unreasonable to expect RTE to want to seek emerging competition. The Restrictive Practices Commission have already alerted us to the danger of RTE's control of this company and they will return to this issue in 1989 to have another look because of their fears. The Restrictive Practices Commission should not have to return again and again to consider whether RTE are using their position to interfere with competition.

We should tell RTE to dispose of their interest in Cablelink over a period of four to five years. They would be able to do that profitably. We know they are crying out for investment so as to meet the competition and that they have been restricted in their right to invest. If they dispose of that company they will have the capital resources needed to invest. On the other hand, RTE must be freed from the constraints the Minister has imposed heretofore, of requiring permission in relation to their broadcasting hours. Today the Minister announced a relaxation of broadcasting hours. It is ironic that the Minister is announcing this at the same time as we are bringing in stations that will be free to choose their own broadcasting hours. As the Chairman of the RTE Authority said, there must be a level pitch on which RTE can compete. That means giving them the right to determine their own broadcasting hours, their own investment plans and the right to decide who collects the licence fee.

These are the sort of measures which can give RTE a reasonable crack of the whip in what will be a competitive market. Because of the way broadcasting will develop they must have these rights.

Equally I think fair competition will require that there is no excessive interlocking of ownership between different stations, or between the broadcast media and the news media. Not alone is fair competition important for competition reasons but also in the public interest.

That brings me to the point about the kind of regulations that must be made which will give a real spur to these stations to serve the public and provide quality. The way to achieving the right balance between giving them a reasonable opportunity to do commercial planning and obliging them to meet the promises they make when they make their applications is to have, say, a seven year contract within which there would be scope for an annual review. To use a footballing term, these annual reviews should show a "yellow card" to a station which deviates from what it promised to do in the way of programming and ultimately a "red card". If a station deviates from what it said it would do the commission could first warn them and if they failed to heed the warning they could announce the following year that they were going to readvertise the contract and then readvertise it the year after that. Obviously the station would be free to apply again for the contract but this would put continuous pressure on a station to comply with the regulations. If a station is allowed to operate for seven years and is not obliged to say whether it is achieving the required quality, a station which started out with the highest intentions could eventually be tacking and changing and not producing what was intended.

It is also very important that new television stations should not have the freedom to express editorial views. RTE have had a high reputation for their objectivity in dealing with issues. This is because they have not expressed editorial lines and taken sides in controversial issues of the day. It would be a sad day if commercial networks could take sides on issues of the day or take political sides, when the background is that it is a rationed medium and not like the printed press where anyone can get in and compete. There will be, I hope, a number of stations but the Minister is proposing just one station. In any event it will be a restricted medium, and if one operator has control of a franchise and has the freedom to express an editorial line, alternative views will not have the same opportunity to be heard. This commercial station must operate under the same constraints as RTE are under to refrain from expressing editorial views. That does not, as it has not in the case of RTE, make for boring broadcasting. We have had the highest quality of interesting broadcasting from RTE without their breaching that rule and I think that rule should equally apply to the new station.

Many of the issues Members are concerned about will be debated at length later in the day and we have before us a number of very worthy amendments that will improve the Bill. I hope the Minister has the same open mind now as he had at the conclusion of the Second Stage debate on the original radio Bill and that he will entertain constructive changes in the legislation. We have to realise that what we are doing here will set the tone for many years to come. The Minister rightly said that we cannot ignore developments in technology and put excessive constraints on the station but at the same time I believe we must give the commission a clear brief so that they will have the ability to carry out that brief and have the potential to produce the sort of quality and diversity in broadcasting which I believe we all want to see.

Mr. P. O'Malley

The first point I should like to make in relation to the motion is the effect it is going to have on the title of the Bill, which is the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987. I think it could be said that that title is a misnomer because there is now a proposal before us to include an independent commercial television service within the scope of the Bill, and if the Bill is enacted it could give rise to some confusion if the title of the Bill persists.

Mr. R. Burke

There is an amendment down to change that title. It will be known as the Radio and Television Bill, 1987.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I am glad to hear that because the title of the Bill before us is the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987. The original Sound Broadcasting Bill is being substantially amended by the inclusion of the proposal for a commercial television station. That proposal and the other amendments the Minister has brought in are very welcome but they have changed the whole character of the Bill, altered its scope and broadened it considerably. I think there are 78 amendments in the Minister's name and we will be debating these on Committee Stage later on today and tonight. I hope we will have an opportunity to debate all of these amendments because there is a guillotine motion on them which arose on the Order of Business this morning. I understand that there is agreement on the way the sections will be taken but it is important that a major legislative proposal like this should be allowed sufficient time for full debate in this House. The fact that it is being guillotined is not in the best interests of a major issue like this. It has been awaited for a long time and it deserves very full and adequate debate.

I believe the proposed independent television station is being tagged on to the Sound Broadcasting Bill and to some extent this is indicative of the way the Government have approached the issue of broadcasting. Apparently they are willing to allow it to develop in a haphazard way but I should like to see it developing in a much more planned and controlled way. One of the objectives of the Bill to which the Minister referred, is to legalise independent broadcasting services and put the pirates out of business. Of course that is very desirable but there is legislation already on the Statute Book to deal with that situation. It has never been used effectively but it could have been so used. I do not think that aspect of the Bill is the main driving force of what is before us now. The main objective and thrust of the Bill should be to ensure the orderly development of broadcasting services in Ireland, both sound broadcasting and television broadcasting, and to ensure that this is done in a much more planned way. We should be able to go into this in greater detail than we are being allowed to do because of the way the Bill has been introduced in the House.

The previous speaker mentioned that we are undergoing major technological changes and in the light of that it is only right that the fullest consideration should be given to the way broadcasting services will evolve. We do not want to commit ourselves now to making irrevocable decisions which could affect the way broadcasting will develop in the years to come. For example, the Government in the UK have commissioned major reports in this area and the public have had an input into these. We are tagging on to a radio Bill a proposal to introduce a new television channel and while I welcome the development of broadcasting services, the increase in choices for the listening and viewing public and the increased competition in this area, I still think it would be better if we could have had a longer period to consider the television aspect particularly. The Minister mentioned earlier that we in this country are great at talking but not at getting on with things. Because of technological changes and the way things are developing we could be making fundamental decisions at this point which two or three years hence, with the benefit of hindsight might seem to have been mistakes.

Many people suggest that we have too much television already or too much television of the same type, now that we have satellite services available to us. In Dublin, for example, Cablelink will not transmit the French language and Italian language programmes that are available on the Cork system, and these would greatly enhance proficiency in continental languages which is obviously desirable. They are transmitting other satellite programmes and also the UK services and many of these programmes are similar in content as far as the entertainment aspects of the service they provide are concerned.

We have to ask ourselves should there be more of an emphasis on developing localised television services for, say, the Cork and Dublin areas with sustaining services coming in from either RTE or the other stations. Again Deputy Bruton referred to this and it is important. Perhaps we should have that kind of a system in preference to the proposed single national channel which is going to compete directly with RTE 1 and 2, both of the ITN stations, the BBC stations and the satellite services we are receiving. If we had an opportunity to have public discussion on how we want to see the television services developing rather than rushing headlong and going for the option of a single television channel, it might have served us better in the long run.

I would like to refer briefly to the position in which RTE find themselves in relation to this proposal. RTE have provided a very satisfactory service to the Irish public in their public service broadcasting down through the years. They are undoubtedly burdened with additional costs that the commercial stations, both television and radio monopoly, do not have to carry. Because of the public service element of their programming they have to involve themselves in what would be considered to be not necessarily commercially viable programming. I know they are in receipt of a licence fee which is a privilege that the other commercial stations do not have but, at the same time, it is very important that they are allowed to compete on as equal a basis as possible with both the new radio and television stations. The Minister announced some relaxation in broadcasting hours and the amount of time they could allow for advertising but it would be right and proper for RTE to be given authority to decide on these matters themselves because they are now going to come under very strong competition both from radio operators and the new single television channel.

In regard to that single commercial independent television channel, I wonder where is the evidence that it will be commercially viable. I certainly hope that it will be and I accept that there is a commercial risk there, but the Dublin and Cork local stations I referred to earlier possibly would be much more commercially viable and would serve the interests of the public better in that they would complement the services provided by the existing national stations and the other stations that we are receiving.

I also have to ask do we need the proposed MMDS to carry the new television service. In the Estimates debate on the Department of Communications last week I raised this at some length with the Minister. We know there are strong objections to the introduction of this system on grounds that need to be clarified. I have asked before that the Minister would clarify them and I am still awaiting a response from him. There is the whole question of this system's technical suitability for transmitting services in certain parts of the country where the geographical terrain is not suitable for it. There is also the question of the existing illegal operators who are operating a rebeaming system in the UHF spectrum and why the Department cannot legalise that operation. At present they are illegal by virtue of the fact that they do not have a licence.

The Department's view is that in the interests of regulating the frequency spectrum and because of the fact that they are reserving the UHF spectrum for RTE they cannot allow these rebeaming operators to operate in that spectrum even though there is a lot of spare capacity there at the moment. This whole area of the UHF spectrum operation is something that the proposed commission in this Bill should look at closely so that it is not as a sacrosanct immovable situation that exists at the moment in relation to these operators. If we can transmit services by rebeaming them, it would be much more beneficial to do that rather than going to the trouble and expense of introducing the MMDS which, technically, could be defective. There is also the whole question of whether there are any health hazards associated with it. There is a body of opinion building up among eminent people who consider that it has a lot of serious health implications. I asked the Minister last week in the Estimates debate to respond to that.

We also must ask ourselves what are the implications for us of ongoing developments in direct broadcasting by satellite. Is it appropriate that we should be putting in another terrestrial system here because it could become redundant in a few years because of the way developments in the satellite services are progressing. These are the kind of questions we should be asking ourselves in relation to the way broadcasting services should develop.

There are other relevant matters, some of which Deputy Bruton referred to, like the cable area and in particular RTE's control of Cablelink which is carrying services in competition with RTE. We have to ask whether there is conflict of interests there. I agree that RTE should sell off their interests in Cablelink and that the cable relay service should not just be regarded as a relay service for television. It can also compete in its own right in terms of purchasing programming material and in terms of involving itself in advertising. At present it is restricted from doing that. It is a unique situation whereby a State broadcasting service is controlling the media whereby its programmes are transmitted together with those of its competitors.

There are a whole range of questions, particularly in relation to the development of television service, which should be properly examined and evaluated, and I do not think that just adding on the television proposal to a Bill that started out dealing exclusively with sound broadcasting services is the right way to go about it.

The other main change to the Sound Broadcasting Bill which is proposed by the Minister in the amendments he has put down relates to the establishment of an independent radio and television commission having the functions of entering into contracts for independent sound broadcasting services and the new television programme service. This is to be welcomed as it totally changes the system that applied under the original Bill where there was an advisory committee with very limited powers and functions and the Minister, effectively, had control over who got a licence to operate a radio station, and now that will apply to the television station as well.

I notice that the Minister, in a recent press interview after he had circulated his amendments, when asked what the new television station would be called said he had not decided but that it would not be called channel Fianna Fáil, despite what the Progressive Democrats might say. It is obvious that the criticism we made at the time about the lack of an independent licensing authority for radio stations struck home. I acknowledge the changes the Minister has made in that and I welcome these changes. Clearly it is not correct that there should be political influence in this whole matter. I do not think the Bill would have got through the Dáil, and certainly there would have been huge public opposition to it, if the advisory committee had been left in as proposed in the original Bill. The Minister has accepted that and that it is in the public interest. It is important to ensure that no Government can influence or interfere with news or current affairs programmes through political patronage.

The introduction of the Independent Radio and Television Commission through whom the Minister will grant licences to enable contractors to operate broadcasting services is a big step in the right direction for the reasons I have already mentioned. One occasionally reads reports in the press in relation to RTE and recently one of the Minister's colleagues in Government was reported to have called to RTE to seek an explanation as to why a function at which he officiated was not covered by the station. The same Minister is said on another occasion to have brought pressure to bear on the journalists in the RTE newsroom to cover a sod turning ceremony which was taking place in his own constituency. I am making the point that these are the kind of things that must be avoided and that is all the more reason we need an independent body between the Government, politicians generally and broadcasting services. Therefore, the major change which is being made to this Bill is to be welcomed greatly.

The function which the commission have of inviting expressions of interest in securing a sound broadcasting contract is useful because it will enable the commission to make decisions arising out of the discussions they have on the nature and type of service it is intended to provide in any given area. This will enable them to build up a picture of the diversity of services on offer in that area and it will assist the commission in making recommendations to the Minister on what type of service should be facilitated in that area. This gets over the problem which existed in the original Bill where anyone and everyone could make an application for a licence. Under this system, at least, there will be a greater degree of control on how sound broadcasting services should develop.

I note also that the commission are to have regard to several factors determining the suitability of applicants to be awarded a sound broadcasting contract. It is particularly important that the nonprofit making community radio area should be positively encouraged. There are amendments down dealing with this matter which we will have an opportunity to discuss this afternoon. There are several other amendments down to the Minister's amendments which will further improve the Bill. It is not right that any one person or group should have a monopoly on broadcasting services or the media generally. I know there are some provisions in the Bill dealing with that but one of the points I would like to highlight is that full disclosure should be made of the actual shareholding in that company. Wherever there is a nominee shareholding it is important that the beneficial owners of the shares should be disclosed.

There is another good development in the Bill where this whole area will be open to public scrutiny. It will allow interested parties to vet and to get the full information as to who these applicants are. That process will enable people in the community to have an input as a result of having examined a register which will be available publicly and they can make their views known to the commission. All of that is a step in the right direction.

I welcome the main changes which the Minister has brought in with the exception of the reservations I expressed earlier about the suitability of dealing in a rushed way with the introduction of the single national television channel by adding it, almost as an afterthought, to the Sound Broadcasting Bill. The whole question of extending television services, which I support in principle, requires much more detailed examination. I know we have a long day, afternoon and night before us on amendments. I look forward to a constructive and lively debate as the day progresses.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister in his opening remarks made what I would consider to be the greatest understatement in the history of this House when he said that this motion is purely of a procedural nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are having what is supposed to be a Committee Stage debate but what is, in effect, a Second Stage debate on the introduction of commercial television. The Minister should have withdrawn the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, and introduced a new Bill. This would have enabled everybody to contribute to the discussion in a constructive way. What has now been handed to us is far from satisfactory.

Needless to mention I welcome the debate and I hope that at last the Minister will take on the illegal pirate radio operators. I welcome the change of heart by the Minister in agreeing to the independent broadcasting authority. We will be looking for some changes by way of amendment and I hope we will get to that before the day is over. It will be a particularly long day for a communications discussion and I hope some of the amendments that will be put forward by Opposition spokespersons will be considered by the Minister.

While it is right of the Government of the day to bring forward legislation on any matter they consider necessary in the public interest, and while I accept the Government are free to consult whatever parties they so choose inside the House before they bring forward such legislation, there has been a tradition that in matters of public interest and where sensitive matters are dealt with, the Government first produce a statement on their proposals regarding proposed legislation in the form of a White Paper.

Prior to the establishment of the RTE national television service, there was a comprehensive debate in this House and Seanad Éireann on the basis of a report commissioned by the Government on the feasibility of establishing a national television service. The merit of such an approach is that the issue of public accountability, the range of programming and, indeed, the financial cost to the Exchequer or the community can be examined. Issues such as what statutory controls should be placed on broadcasting and the freedom of broadcasters to provide the public with an independent information service and, indeed, what kind of entertainment services should be provided can be dealt with in broad outline and alternative approaches indicated.

The difficulty the Labour Party have with the introduction of a new television service by way of Committee Stage amendment is that the preliminary debate should have taken place around concrete proposals setting out the Government's intentions in relation to the future of broadcasting services and which took account of international developments in satellite broadcasting. These are not available to us when we come to discuss what exactly an alternative television service to RTE can and should provide. What I find particularly distressing is that the prediction which the Labour Party made when we announced our proposals for broadcasting in 1984 is becoming true in the worst possible way. We said then and I quote:

We propose that prior to publication of a Government Bill that a working party on community local radio be established to examine all aspects of local community radio and that the entry of private commercial interests to local broadcasting within the State would create a precedent for a similar approach to television broadcasting.

We went on to state that such development in a country with a population of 3.5 million people was not compatible with the survival of public service broadcasting which served the whole community without sectional or special interest. A two year study of the development of alternative community radio stations to those of RTE led us to conclude that it was possible to develop another tier of broadcasting in the form of community controlled radio stations. We knew that the demand for local broadcasting existed in many areas where pilot RTE local radio experiments had been conducted successfully. We also learned that there was active pirate activity on the airwaves.

Where is the evidence that there is a public demand for an alternative commercial television service in this country? Due to our proximity to the United Kingdom we have already a range of alternative television services which can be received, unfortunately, only in the eastern part of the country. I say "unfortunately" because the Labour Party have never subscribed to the view that a section of the Irish people should be denied access to the British broadcasting media by either direct controls or artificial barriers introduced by an Irish Government.

A fair question to pose is, in whose interest are these proposals being brought forward? It is not simply RTE who provide an excellent national TV service on two channels given the resources available to them; it is not the various cultural groups who have voiced their concern that programmes will not give Irish culture sufficient prominence. What has to be asked here is whether any group of private individuals should be allowed to control what has been acknowledged as the most powerful medium in modern society.

Take the example of the independent broadcasting authority who license franchisees in the UK to provide TV services. You will find that the regulation of the content, the financial structure and the responsibilities of the independent broadcasting authority was made particularly strong in order to counterbalance the possible dangers of private abuse. Indeed, the financial regime that has been introduced provided for considerable statutory payments by the franchisees to the independent broadcasting authority to enable them to carry out their function of ensuring that programming and broadcasting standards were on a par with the BBC and that the overall broadcasting environment would not be dragged down under the pressures of securing the maximum amount of advertising revenue.

I have no doubt that the Minister and Government supporters and those of the Fine Gael and PD Parties who support the concept of private ownership of broadcasting media can point to the almost exclusive ownership by private individuals of the print media. I do not think it is a particularly good example on which to base our approach to either sound or TV broadcasting. We have seen in the UK and the US the growth of concentration on ownership of the print medium and latterly in the US of TV. Given that satellite broadcasting will accelerate its services in the next 20 years, it is totally native to believe that the national interest of this country, or indeed the collective interest of member states of the EC, can be protected by having what the Minister described as a light touch form of regulation broadcast. This form of regulation will lead to less regard to the priorities which various nationalities want to see reflected in TV broadcasting. The reason is quite obvious. Satellite broadcasting is being financed by advertising revenue. It does not have the resources in private hands to produce high quality international programmes and is driven to rely on a diet mainly of sport and out-of-date films in order to generate advertising revenue sufficient just to break even. These unregulated services which can be categorised as commercial television are advancing the American concept of freedom and the provision of information through broadcasting. I suggest this form of broadcasting has not provided the American public with the kind of quality television programming we in Ireland associate with RTE and the BBC. In terms of information and entertainment as it is recognised internationally by citizens throughout the world, including the US, that high quality public service broadcasting is the best form of TV. The recent Eurovision song contest proved that RTE can compete with the best in the world.

No provisions are contained in the Minister's amendments to indicate that the high standard laid down in the legislation establishing RTE will apply in the case of private commercial television in Ireland. I am afraid the reasons do not reflect well on the Government or the main Opposition party. If there is a wish to increase both quantity and quality of independent programmes made in this country there is no reason that we cannot adopt a power structure in public service broadcasting to include such diversity, to allow for separate broadcasting organisations to develop and apportion some of the licence fee and, if necessary, some of the advertising revenue which accrues to RTE to achieve this. We do not need to give a free hand to private commercial TV in order to provide additional programme choices.

We are going ahead with this legislation largely in the dark in regard to its effect on RTE and the long-term impact on the power of any Government or this House to regulate what goes on over the airwaves. There are those who would form the view that there should be little regulation of the airwaves, but in practice I suggest there will be domination by financial and advertising interests of a significant proportion of the output of commercial television. When RTE were established, because the cost to the Exchequer of providing the service was seen as beyond the capacity of the Government at the time, it was conceded that a funding system would have to allow for both advertising and licence fee so that TV would not require a subsidy. There appears to be no consideration in the Minister's approach to the ultimate Exchequer costs which may arise if RTE's services were to be maintained while they suffered substantial loss of advertising revenue to their commercially licensed competitor. In this respect the Minister has been less than honest. We know the effect in practice has to mean curtailment in RTE services which are not provided on a purely self-financing basis, in other words, services to the Irish language, the national orchestras and a wide range of minority tastes that are recognised in the programming of our national TV service.

I would like to refer to a statement by Mr. Colm Kenny, lecturer in broadcasting in the NIHE who initially welcomed the Minister's proposal for sound broadcasting as an honest attempt to put order on what had previously been a legislative mess. In a statement issued on 24 February 1988 he called for the appointment of a non-political commission of inquiry into the future of broadcasting in Ireland who would report within a specific time to a special committee of this House and make their report available to the public so that the recommendations could be made and the Government could act upon them. The issues he wanted such a broadcasting commission to examine were:

(a) The potential market and desirable content of local radio.

(b) The ways in which community radio could be actively fostered.

(d) The implications of international Direct Broadcasting by Satellite for Ireland.

(e) The future of Irish DBS and the uses to which Atlantic Satellites have put their franchise in this area.

(f) The copyright and fee implications of MMDS for existing cable operators.

(g) The continuing control by RTE of Dublin Cablelink.

(h) The effect of broadcasting developments on the national and provincial press.

(i) The future of RTE and its services in the light of potential financial losses arising from new national radio and TV stations.

(j) The question of control of Irish media interests by organisations or persons normally resident outside of the State.

(k) Any other factors which the Commission believes to be relevant.

No reasonable person could argue with this approach being taken prior to a major new legislative measure with regard to the development of TV services. I will not pretend that I grasp fully the implications of the revolution in the media services if satellite broadcasting were introduced. I know, however, that the UK Government, who are strongly in favour of removing regulations by Parliament on broadcasting, threw their weight against any moves by European countries to impose local and in this case national control on international satellite franchise holders. The Council of Europe discussed the possible erosion of national programmes and services being supplied by satellite broadcasters and sought to have a minimum of 10 per cent of programmes include national material.

We are living in a time prior to the implementation of the Single European Act when international combines within and outside the EC will be seeking to consolidate their position in the context of a market of 300 million people. I see in the Minister's approach no real statutory control mechanisms which would prevent the ultimate takeover of the Irish private television service either in part or in whole by private international interests. It is no use for the Minister to give a personal assurance — as I am sure he will. We know from experience that legislation which has weak regulatory teeth is inclined to be ignored and the maximum interpretation is taken by those who stand to gain most from this type of "freedom". The Labour Party were pilloried in the print medium and accused of having a fetish about State ownership of the broadcasting medium when we opposed the proposals by the previous Government — of which I recognise we were part — to private broadcasting services. If the Minister was prepared to recognise that the opening up of the broadcasting medium required more, not less, regulation that applies in the case of RTE, we might have taken a different approach. Let me make quite clear that the Labour Party see State ownership as a means of protecting the public interest and not of hindering the expression of ideas which either we or anybody else disagree with. This is not at all at variance with recognising the legitimate demands of communities or, indeed, film and programme makers that they should have access to the medium of television in this country. We have supported in the past and we would support any move to increase such access provided that any competition in the provision of service is based on quality and not on the pursuit of advertising revenue.

It is naive if not foolish to believe that RTE will not be affected by the introduction of commercial television in Ireland. It will and the major casualty will be quality programming for it does not take much imagination to see that RTE will be forced to compete on the lowest common denominator if that is what the commercial environment dictates for its survival. This represents a cynicism about Irish culture and indeed the provision of information on current affairs which will not serve the future generations that remain in this country.

We will be opposing this section which intends to introduce a commercial television service, though we have put forward a number of amendments which could at least keep the option open, that a public service structure of broadcasting would remain if the Government were prepared to rethink their position. Specifically we have proposed that a majority of share capital should be held by the State in one form or another so that there will be a direct means for ensuring that the services which an independent television company would provide had to reflect the wishes of the Oireachtas and are not allowed to use the many clauses in the legislation whereby the Minister or the commission vary the terms of a licence apparently for any reason whatsoever.

The Minister and those parties who support private commercial television believe this is another example of the Labour Party running up an ideological flag simply for the sake of ideology. I ask them to reflect on the experience of the Independent Broadcasting Authority in Britain in relation to the Breakfast a.m. television service. Recently it has been discovered that the real financial backers of this service are not the shareholders who publicly backed the project. In fact, considerable money from a Middle East country was made available on a covert basis. Even if no considerations other than commercial ones were involved, it is not necessary to spell out the implications if such a development were to take place in Ireland.

We must consider who will be the likely candidates to become partners as financial backers for a commercial television service in Ireland. There have already been discreet inquiries, as far as I am aware, by UK interests and there may be others. In this legislation we are opening a Pandora's Box but there will be no positive benefits to the community in terms of additional quality programmes or alternative choices which cannot be provided by RTE or are not already being provided by the BBC or the IBA.

It is alarming that the Government should vest themselves in a clock of seeming liberalism whose inspiration has come from the most illiberal Government in post-war Britain, that of Mrs. Thatcher. There has been a virtual onslaught on the independence of the BBC and latterly on the IBA because of their refusal to adapt news and current affairs programming to take account of Government objections. The Director General of the BBC was dismissed because he insisted on showing programmes which the British Government found offensive. The British Government support commercialisation of television in order to geld what has become a powerful independent institution, the BBC and their competition, the IBA. It does not advance the cause of freedom one iota that broadcasting should be involved in self-censorship in order to accommodate the Government of the day.

The idea that market forces be allowed full rein is nothing but a thinly disguised attack designed to put television services on the defensive and answerable to the advertising paymaster. I ask the Minister, even at this stage, not to proceed with this section of the Bill and to establish an independent commission which would examine the future of broadcasting services at least in so far as television is concerned. I sincerely hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will give consideration to setting up an independent commission. He recently referred to "talking shops" and I know there is a tendency to go on discussing these matters. Nonetheless, it is of such importance that further consideration should be given to this measure before it is introduced in the way now proposed.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

This is a motion brought in to meet the wishes of all those who are looking for the so-called non-intervention of politics in the operation and control of radio and television stations. It is important, however, to stress that this was obviously never the intention of the Minister.

Mr. Keating

On a point of order, my understanding of the arrangement in regard to speakers is that a spokesperson would be called from each party and that would normally mean that Deputy De Rossa would be called next.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

Before the Ceann Comhairle left he gave me a list of people to be called in rotation. Deputy De Rossa will be speaking after Deputy O'Keeffe.

Mr. Keating

That has implications for further speakers. I know you are going by instructions but there seems to be a mistake. Indeed, I am certain there has been a mistake.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

My contribution will be short.

Mr. Keating

The Deputy is entitled to speak as long as he likes.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

It is important to stress that the Minister had no hang ups about this matter apart from the fact that he was concerned about the cost in terms of running such a commission and the drain that would be put on the resources of the State. The provision in the Bill for an independent television programme service and its regulation ensures the viability of the commission in terms of it not being a so-called drain on State finances.

I commend the Minister's determination in tackling the running sore of chaotic, unregulated broadcasting over the past ten years. The law has been held up to ridicule because of inactivity, malaise and disagreement between Government parties which allowed those who flouted the law to flourish. Disrespect for the law of the land has had a detrimental effect of the attitude of all young people to the functions and application of the law.

There has been a tremendously positive reaction to this pragmatic proposal and there is immense interest in it judging by the reaction from outside groups anxious to get involved in a legitimate way. Indeed, I am heartened by the fact that the Minister had already indicated he intended to give an extension of broadcasting time to Cork local radio. On Second Stage of the Sound Broadcasting Bill I said the possibility of having a private-public arrangement for Cork local radio should be examined and pursued. I am pleased that RTE looked on that favourably and I understand that negotiations are taking place in this regard. I should point out that it is not necessary in this instance to bring it under the commission as it can be dealt with by the RTE Authority.

RTE own a State national resource but it is not in the best interest of the consumer that this monopoly should continue. I recall, almost ten years ago, John Kelleher of Strongbow calling for an independent channel and independent production companies welcome this development with open arms.

The new channel will have in its favour that Irish television audiences are remarkably interested in home-produced programmes. If one examines RTE one will see it has proved that in recent years with what was a deliberate and, on occasions, even a frenzied rush into home production. That in itself paid dividends with the result that independent productions doubled last year.

The independent sector can boast of a growing number of skilled technical know-how. Already there is co-operation between them by way of sharing freelance cameramen, editors and so on. With this new dawn there will be more full-time activity and, consequently, greater expertise and more jobs in that sector. In my view the new independent channel can act as a catalyst for RTE. Already there are indications that RTE are gearing themselves to meet the new challenge and I understand that the idea of changing the name RTE 2 is being considered. That in itself is to be welcomed because the title, without the RTE connotation, would give the station a new vitality and, perhaps, a new emphasis.

Those of us who live outside Dublin welcome the idea now being mooted of a one hour news programme. At long last we will get the coverage we legitimately deserve. The third channel will be able to transmit nationally on the MMDS system and the Minister has told us that it will be incumbent on cable companies with whom RTE are involved to carry the independent channel. The Bill holds possibilities for the new channel to adopt new approaches, whether they are new transmission systems, new studio technology, a new role for independent production companies, or new formulae that may revolutionise programming here.

Proinsias De Rossa

I should like to thank the last speaker for his bretvity and point out that I do not propose to go on at any length on this motion. On Second Stage of the Sound Broadcasting Bill I went into detail on the attitude of my party to the whole question of broadcasting and communications. My remarks will be fairly general and I hope to be able to give other speakers an opportunity to contribute to the debate. Since we had the Second Stage debate on the original radio Bill we have had a bewildering number of amendments introduced by the Minister, thankfully, to some extent, in that he has agreed to set up an Authority for the issuing of contracts. However, the Minister will retain the right to issue licences for the various wavelengths and so on. The Minister has tagged on a provision for new commercial radio stations and a new national television channel. Apart from what has been said in the House in regard to a commercial company named by the last speaker, there is no obvious public indication that there is a demand for a third TV channel. The Minister has said that submissions have been made to his Department but by whom? Who do those people represent? When will we be told who is behind those submissions? What are their interests in the national TV channel?

One must assume, because we are talking about commercial television, that their primary interest will be the profit that can be made from the new station. There is no problem in regard to that but, unfortunately, experience has shown that where profit is the primary aim commercial considerations dominate. The question of the standard of broadcasting, the material broadcast, the way the system will be run, access to the system and a whole range of other issues will take second place to the question of whether the new station is commercially viable or not. In a sense, what we are dealing with here is a very hotch potch approach to the whole question of communications.

New technology has provided us with a wonderful means of communicating with each other. The development of satellites, cable networks, and the new MMDS system has meant that we have a whole range of television stations available to us. We have the capacity to record and make programmes in a much broader and less expensive way than was the case. Smaller crews are required for the making of TV programmes and running radio stations. We have the technology but, unfortunately, I see this technology being used for the purpose of making profit rather than giving people an opportunity to communicate with each other over the airwaves, to debate with each other to generally acquire a sense of community spirit, put forward their ideas, adopt a sense of tolerance of different traditions and so on.

The indications in RTE are that there are commercial pressures on the station to become viable in the strictly profit-making sense. We now can see a development whereby not only do we have advertisements in slots at various times — the Minister today announced an extension of advertising time for radio in the evenings — but we have a development of what could be described as the plug on various programmes on RTE. Presenters, acknowledged to be first class at their job, people who are trusted by the public, are seen to promote products which in their own way may be excellent but which are being promoted in a way which indicates that the person plugging them is giving them their blessing. That is an unfair form of advertising as far as I am concerned. There should be a strict separation of advertising from the programme area. We should not allow this to develop further, whether it is in RTE or in the new commercial TV station or the radio stations proposed in the Bill. We should not allow presenters to promote products on the basis that they are give-aways with their names being plugged regardless of the consequences for competing products. It is an unfair form of advertising and represents an intrustion into the programme.

With regard to the question of independence or the non-editorialising of programmes, there is some suggestion that a new national commercial television station would be in some way independent of the political pressures to which RTE are subject. That would be a naive understanding of the way these things happen. There is no doubt that many of the programmes on RTE give the views of the presenters. There is no problem as long as those views are not brought into the news and current affairs areas. There is an obligation on RTE to provide a balance.

I was slightly amused recently when a Mr. Tony O'Flaherty complained that Gay Byrne had expressed his own personal views with regard to the Enniskillen massacre, views which I feel were held by the vast majority of the citizens of this island. I was amused because that particular individual is well known in the Dublin area as being deeply involved with the Provisionals, who give nobody the right to express a view at all contrary to their own. There is room for programmes to present a particular view or even the personal view of the presenter provided there is a right to reply and the right to have an alternative view broadcast.

I am concerned about commercialism taking over our communications systems and the idea that the only way to generate communication between people is by having profit as the ultimate aim. The Minister has indicated he has no ideological hang-ups and that he has not made decisions from the point of view of ideology. I said earlier in this debate that I am not happy with this implied dismissal of ideology. I am sure the Minister will admit privately, if not publicly, that he has an ideological framework within which he operates, as we all do. It is common practice among the major parties in this House to deny that they have an ideology. It is important to stress that there are ideological considerations to be taken into account in the area of communications.

We are faced with the task of ensuring that access to our communications systems is free to our citizens, that they are not burdened down with a plethora of multinational stations which pump out a diet of pop and patter. They must not be besieged by dozens of stations which do nothing other than promote the various products which the multinational companies try to sell. There is nothing to be gained from that kind of development or by establishing a new commercial television station which simply becomes part of that scene. We should be making our decisions on the basis of how best people can communicate with each other. I do not see that the way in which this Bill is framed or the amendments the Minister proposes necessarily address that problem. It is not a question simply of who owns or controls a station, whether it be RTE, a commercial company or some private individual. Public companies are just as free to pander to the commercial interests which provide them with finance to stay on the air.

This is a much deeper question than that but unfortunately there is no time to develop it or to encourage public debate outside this House. This is one of the reasons I have asked for more time for this debate, so that the public could be afforded an opportunity to learn what is going on, to appreciate the implications and to have an input in our deliberations. None of us has all the wisdom we might like to think we have. If democracy is to work properly there must be a two-way process between us and the people who elected us.

The Minister talked about a State monopoly on broadcasting. That is true in so far as there are no commercial stations operating legally. That is not to say that RTE have not had to face competition.

They have had to face competition for advertising from UTV and Channel Four, as well as competition in programming from BBC1 and BBC2. Now they are in competition with other piped channels such as Sky and presumably more stations will be piped in with which RTE will have to compete. Although there is an apparent State monopoly, it has not ruled out the element of competition.

The Minister talked about the diversity of culture from European stations. I wonder whether the piped channels we have had so far are an indication of the kind of diversity we can expect. Commercialism clearly indicates the pressure for television to go for the mass audience and the bigger the better. We are talking about tens of millions, not the relatively puny audience of 3.5 million in this State. The tendency has been for the commercial interests dominating any radio or television station to go for the lowest common denominator.

It would be an unfortunate fact of life if we allowed commercialism to dominate our broadcasting system. I must put a question mark on the possibility of us getting the best of Europe or a diversity of culture as a result of the developments. That is why I am urging that there should be a much broader debate on this whole question of communications. I am not arguing that we should erect a steel wall around this island — that would be totally nonsensical — but we should be attempting to provide a broadcasting system which would help to generate debate among ourselves, generate understanding of ourselves in the world and generate a better view of what exactly is being pumped at us and the various forces that lie behind the commercialism on the multinational stage.

The other aspect of commercialism which concerns me and which is increasingly evident in television is sponsorship. Rarely can an event be held without sponsorship from some brewery, cigarette company, or sports gear company, generally multinational companies. The whole emphasis in relation to cultural matters, sport, communications, drama, film, and so on, is to some extent dominated by sponsorship from companies of one kind or other. I was in a local hall, not in my own constituency, a few months ago at a sporting event where young people were playing basketball. On the wall was a big advertisement for a particular brand of beer. These 14 year old boys were playing their game of basketball and enjoying themselves. The fact that that hall had to go to a company which was promoting beer to look for money while, at the same time, they were presumably trying to promote a healthy lifestyle for the youth of the area they were serving seemed to me a fairly strong contradiction. That is true of quite a huge range of events which now appear on television. Again, I am raising this question of the dominance of commercialism in relation to communications.

There is no indication that the Minister intends to rule out the pirates who have been thumbing their noses at the law for the past ten years in relation to radio broadcasting. This Bill indicates, as one commentator pointed out in an article recently, that experience will be an asset when applying for licences. One must assume that experience as a pirate will be equally as valid as any other kind of experience. It would be a grave mistake for this House not to take some strong stand against the pirates who, to this day, continue to operate despite the presence in this House of these Bills which, much as I disagree with some of the emphasis in them, are an attempt to deal with the regulation of the use of the airwaves.

I want to raise a question with the Minister, as I did with the Taoiseach this morning, on Item No. 22 on today's Order Paper, the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1987, which reached Committee Stage together with the Sound Broadcasting Bill. That Bill is intended to outlaw those who do not have licences to broadcast. I wonder why it is not being debated in tandem with today's Bill as has been the case up to now. It seems, as I have argued previously, that it would have made more sense and would have indicated a firmness on the part of the Government with regard to piracy if the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill had been brought in and passed first and if it was made quite clear to those operating as pirates that it was not acceptable and if they continued to operate they would be excluded from applying for contracts or licences. That has not happened and I ask the Minister to indicate why they have dealt with these matters in the order in which they have done.

The Minister said it is not the role of the Government to test the feasibility of having a new national commercial television channel. I wonder whether he is being entirely honest in saying that. Perhaps "honest" is a wrong word to use, but is he being entirely straight in dealing with this issue in that way? Already in the Bill it is being proposed that £500,000 of the revenue which would normally go to RTE will be taken from those funds and applied to the commission. There is no doubt that a commercial television channel will, by virtue of the limited nature of the advertising market here, particularly for national advertising, take some of the revenue from RTE also. It is, therefore, at least in the early stages, likely to cause a loss of revenue to RTE.

There is no guarantee, as the Minister knows, that a commercial television station will survive despite whatever feasibility studies show with regard to their viability. A television station could be given a contract, could operate for a year or two, take a considerable amount of resources from RTE in terms of advertising, leave RTE in difficulties and then, because it has not become viable, disappear off the scene. That would not be a very good result for RTE or, indeed, for the people who would have been employed by the new station.

It appears that the Minister has dropped his requirement that any station would have to produce 40 per cent of their programming within the State. I wonder how he proposes, therefore, to ensure that the kind of ethos he spoke about would be maintained by a new commercial television station. I note that he talked about an indigenously based company. As we know, being based in Ireland does not put any obligation on a company to use Irish programmes, to acquire the expertise of Irish staff or any of these things. I wonder whether just being required to be based indigenously in the State is sufficient to ensure the kind of station which he hopes to achieve, that is, a commercial station which would have an Irish ethos. It would be interesting to have a debate on how you would define an Irish ethos, but that is for another day.

In the Minister's announcement this morning with regard to extending times for RTE, he did not refer to RTE Cork's local radio and the extension of time for them. I know that over a period of time they have been arguing very strongly for an extension of their broadcasting times. I find it difficult to understand precisely why the Minister retains that control over broadcasting times. It is not as if other stations are attempting to broadcast on the same wave lengths. It seems that if RTE or, indeed, any of the other stations that we are proposing to establish have the capacity and the willingness to broadcast 24 hours a day, that is what they should be allowed do provided they meet certain standards in terms of production and the quality of what they are producing.

Finally, the Minister's token reference to community radio in the Bill remains entirely inadequate. We will be debating that later today but I still believe it is not entirely adequate simply to require that the commission should take into account the community interest represented by a particular applicant. There is no obligation on them to encourage the development of local co-operatively organised community radio. That is one of the needs for which there is a very clear demand. I will be moving an amendment to cover this on Committee Stage.

Mr. Lawlor

I welcome the major step forward taken by the Minister this morning when he opened what is a very healthy debate on the changes in the communications area which are acceptable and practicable. The setting up of the commission is justified now that the decision has been taken to provide an extra service.

Everybody is at one in wanting to regularise and put local radio, particularly in the Dublin area, on a proper footing. This has been very unsatisfactory for some years. It was interesting to hear Deputy De Rossa speak about ideology. We could put that down as a reason why there has been such slow progress in this area for such a long time. When one gets involved in the area of ideology it is very difficult to get a decisive decision. The outgoing Government had that problem. They could not get agreement among the Coalition parties and the matter was allowed drag on indefinitely. The Minister has taken a couple of giant steps forward and I hope this Bill will pass both Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible and that it will soon be on the Statute Book. The Minister has addressed this issue in very plain language. We are a great nation of talkers but if we could make decisive decisions we could make real progress.

It is interesting to look at the history of communications, especially the original method of communication, namely, newspapers. When the State was founded there was political involvement in newspapers. Our party were involved in setting up a newspaper. Time has passed, changes have come about and the control of our newspapers is in the hands of various holdings. There is no State control. Our newspapers stand on quality, or fail because of a lack of quality, but overall, there is a reasonable balance. There is a certain amount of inaccurate reporting and certain publications sensationalise some aspects of the news but, on balance, newspaper reporting tells us the trends that are emerging in this area.

When creating a new method of communicating, one is naturally ultra-cautious and wants to have a certain amount of control because inaccurate reporting is not acceptable. From experience one may find that controls which were originally imposed were unnecessary but at the time they were seen as safeguards.

In my view setting up the commission to deal with local radio and the possibility of setting up a third TV channel is a good move. The people who believe such a move would be viable should be given an opportunity to present their proposals. Various aspects of the legislation will give the Minister and the commission enough control to ensure that what will be provided is acceptable. I have no doubt the Irish people, with their choice of TV channels and radio stations, will devise their own methods of control. Anybody providing an inadequate service will suffer the commercial consequences. The commission will dictate what is an acceptable quality of service. Today there is great competition attracting television viewers. The Minister referred to the satellite concept which is beginning to percolate into our awareness because viewers will have a very wide choice available via satellites.

All in all, there is probably a need for the third channel to fill a niche in the television communications area. I was a member of the Oireachtas committee who looked at the working of RTE in 1978-79. At that time one felt that because of a lack of flexibility, which probably exists to a lesser extent today, they could not react adequately to changes. The great debate of the day was the acceptability of the use of video cassettes, on-site reporting, recording in Limerick and Cork, showing the reports on the 9 o'clock news, and so on. That new technology was unacceptable to the workforce of RTE. There was a great deal of discussion about this, about demarcation lines, overmanning levels and so on. To put it another way, we could put this debate on a par with the debate on one-man buses. As I said, the RTE workforce said this new technology was unacceptable. Times have changed and these changes are now in place and the matter has been adequately resolved.

We live in a rapidly changing world and we must be able to respond to the various technological changes that are coming forward. The Minister is presenting a workable formula. Under this legislation he wants to delegate an appropriate commission to ensure that the necessary steps can be taken to provide these services. I have no doubt a small well-run TV station could be profitable, viable and workable. I see this as another way to present a good image of this country.

Deputy De Rossa referred to local production, but with the subcontracting concept established, even in RTE, one can show a lot of quality work. This will present our young broadcasters with the opportunity of doing good work and will provide an outlet for that work. The new communicators who are prepared to produce reasonably costed quality work will be able to show the finished product on this channel. I sincerely hope this third channel will provide an outlet for the great work of these young people because at the moment, since RTE is such a large organisation, they have great difficulty in getting their work on the screen. There are programme makers in RTE, in-house staff and teams of people dealing with different aspects of communications — current affairs, art, culture and so on. Outside RTE there are many young capable broadcasters who cannot get a position in RTE although they can produce excellent work. I hope the new channel will provide worthwhile outlet for that sort of production.

The Leader of The Workers' Party probably needs to catch up with the trend on ideology. A country for which he would have a certain admiration, the Soviet Union, is moving to break away from its traditional ideology. I have come back from Iraq, a country which is State-controlled. Early in the year that Government decided to break the State monopoly and go for a combination of State and private enterprise. There is a whole drift across Europe of socialist governments changing dramatically and allowing greater freedom of activity to the people whom they represent. That is what is being done here in this legislation. We are removing the shackles and giving more elbow room to those who are capable of performing and achieving in our society. Understandably, from the beginning we would want the hand of the State on many of these important areas of communication.

Quality and efficiency are the order of the day. If one is not producing quality on a cost efficient basis, survival is not possible. There is an element of the RTE service which we would classify as being in the social arena, in that they are asked to provide a nationwide service, particularly in the area of local radio. It is understandable that that service must continue to be provided. Doubtless, local radio will find it difficult to survive in the rural setting in certain parts of the country. I do not know how the scales can be tipped in the balance to ensure that local communities with low and falling populations will get a local radio service comparable with that in other parts of the country. Removal of the shackles of State over-involvement is a step in the right direction.

Deputy De Rossa made reference to the regulations concerning the various hours of broadcasting. That has given some control of the service but has nothing to do with the quality of the service. The Minister is correct in the changes which he mentioned towards the end of his speech this morning. With regard to the competitive areas of local communication, as one representing what we like to regard as two new satellite towns, I sincerely hope the local radio element will play a key role in creating the community spirit that must be created when one is moving from a village of 1,000 population, to today's population of more than 50,000, with the intention of development into a new satellite city or large town. Local radio facility will be a great vehicle there for bridge-building and bonding together this new community which will need to establish themselves as a cohesive unit. How better to do this than through the local written media and, in particular, local radio. It will give large numbers of groups an opportunity to express their viewpoints. It will facilitate the provision of outlets for the many organisations who have much to say. It will be a tremendous opportunity for those excellent people who give up so much of their leisure time in looking after groups, teenage or otherwise.

In the satellite towns of Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Lucan and Tallaght, local radio will be of major importance. I hope that whatever licensing arrangements are issued by the commission will recognise population growth and the satellite town concept. These areas are at the stage of suffering growing pains. We can be negatively critical, which is a step in the wrong direction. Much has been achieved in the establishment of new communities and the local radio facility will be of great importance here. Like all other Deputies, no doubt, I have had various opinions expressed to me. Yesterday I was approached by a community representative group in the Blanchardstown area who said that they were trying to put forward a proposal and package that would allow them to apply for whatever local radio franchise might be available in that area. Naturally, I encouraged them and asked them to put forward the most competent package and to get what professional advice is available. That type of community involvement should get recognition in the issuing of licences.

In the mid-nineties we will look back on this debate as a giant step forward. I hope the opportunity the commission will afford to those in the community in the area of professional communications will be fully grasped. The combination of satellite lifting of programmes vis-à-vis various franchises will show the competitive edge of communication. This RTE debate so far smacks of the Aer Lingus debate during which we were regularly briefed in Buswell's Hotel on applications for competition in regard to Ryanair and other air carriers. The introduction of competition into the marketplace was the single greatest revenue boost to Aer Lingus for many a year.

We will see the challenge provided to RTE, both radio and television, resulting in an added impetus. RTE will want to show how excellent they are and will have the opportunity to be measured against competition. Across the water, one sees the BBC-ITV relationship. There are different niches but the BBC are recognised as the national broadcasting service in that country with a particular role to play.

We must recognise the various important current affairs programmes of recent times presented to the people of Britain and Ireland which might not have been presented had it not been for competition, with the privately organised outfit feeling that they could take on the Government of the day in presenting current affairs issues that should have been available for viewing in Britain and here also. The people providing services outside State control will do so in a very competitive marketplace. It will give RTE an opportunity to respond to the new challenge.

The communications media of newspapers, radio and television will benefit from this legislation. From the Minister's point of view the appointment of the commission, combined with the extra TV channel, is fully justified and I have no doubt will get the support of the House.

Deputy Keating rose.

Acting Chairman

I am trying to give the Minister an opportunity to reply as briefly as possible. There are, I think, three speakers left in the House and if they could facilitate each other we might get through those three speakers. I am calling now on Deputy Mitchell.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I shall be very brief.

Mr. Keating

On a point of order, I do not accept that ruling. Either my right to speak in this debate is respected, or I shall leave this House in protest. I have been on two occasions in consultation with you and have been told that I was the next speaker. I have been sitting here patiently all morning. Two speakers who came in very recently have got into the debate before me. I consider that to be wrong. It is particularly wrong when we have a debate like this where there is a strict time limit on a major piece of legislation, with no internal time limit on speakers. As of now, this party will not facilitate or co-operate with any such arrangement in future because it militates against the smaller parties in this House. It is clearly unjust.

Acting Chairman

I hope the remaining speakers will facilitate each other.

Mr. Roche

I would be happy to facilitate Deputy Keating by giving him my time.

Acting Chairman

I want to bring in the Minister by at least 1.20 p.m.

Mr. Roche

I shall yield my time to the Deputy and make my points on Committee Stage.

Mr. Keating

I am not asking for that specific facility to be extended to me. I am saying that it is clearly unjust that in a situation where there are 166 Members of this Dáil and two and three-quarter hours are allowed for this Bill, any Deputy can talk for an hour or an hour and a half if he or she so wishes, thereby completely depriving the vast majority of the Members of the House of the right to contribute.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has made his point. I am calling on Deputy Mitchell.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Being the second largest party in this House I do not think it is unreasonable that we should have a second contributor to this debate. I do not want to delay the House but let me make three very brief points. Firstly, I believe the Bill should make provision for the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Dáil. There are those who feel that this should not be covered in legislation of this kind but I believe it should be. In New Zealand a specific radio station was set up to broadcast the proceedings of parliament; this in a country which is of similar size to our own and which has a parliament similar in size to our own.

What happens is that parliament is broadcast on a particular station and it is left on the air all day long. People can tune into this station if they so wish. There may be those who may not wish to do so but for the information of the House let me point out that this station is very popular in New Zealand and that even the staff of the parliament on their days off tune into this particular station.

As RTE have not kept to their contract and, as they are contractually obliged to do, have not rebroadcasted the proceedings of the committees of the House it is not right that RTE should continue to have the right to rebroadcast the proceedings of the Dáil. I believe this right should be taken from RTE and should be given to a team set up within parliament to rebroadcast the proceedings of the Dáil, Seanad and the committees of the House. It is outrageous that a body owned by the State can make contractual arrangements with the Houses of the Oireachtas and not stick to them. They have ignored these arrangements and have not made adequate resources available so as to enable them to cover the proceedings of the Houses. Each time there is a hijack or a major sporting event in some part of the world they are able to despatch a team of reporters to cover the event, yet they cannot find somebody to cover the proceedings of parliament. The proceedings of parliament, particularly the work of the committees, are covered by every other section of the media and I believe because RTE have not kept to the agreement they should not continue to have that facility. Consideration should be given to including in the Bill a provision for the setting up of a broadcasting station to cover the proceedings of parliament.

The second point that I wish to make, and this was touched on earlier in the debate, is that there are many people who are quite happy with the existing Christian broadcasting station. I do not know what its exact name is. I do not think that any one religion should hold a monopoly in broadcasting but there is a demand for a religious station. These stations are quite popular and provision should be made in the Bill for the setting up of a religious station.

Proinsias De Rossa

Christian pirate.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I notice that this suggestion does not go down too well with my friends in the Progressive Democrats following their weekend Ard-Fheis——

Mr. Keating

I knew it was a mistake to give the Deputy three minutes of my time. God is on our side. At least we did not have to consult with the Bishop.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I thought God was a public servant.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I believe that there is a demand for the setting up of a religious station covering religious music, sermons and interviews and provision should be made, and perhaps some encouragement given to the new Authority, to ensure that such a facility is provided.

My final point is that increasingly the written media is being competed with by both radio and television. I feel that we are imposing a set of standards on one section of the media which we are not imposing on another. For instance, let us take the question of balanced reporting on both radio and television. It would be unthinkable if such a requirement did not apply to RTE or to any further radio or television station set up in this country. Yet, in the written media there seems to be no requirement that there be balanced reporting. As we already have in existence an independent RTE Authority, should we not consider the setting up of a press council to which people who feel they have not received fair treatment in the media can complain to and to which a journalist who feels that his independence is being overrun by the marketing requirements of a particular newspaper could have recourse so as to ensure that the standards we apply to one section of the media would also be applicable to all other sections? Those journalists who are being forced to put a particular angle on a story in order that the newspaper may be able to sell more newspapers should have recourse to such a council.

We have now reached the stage where we should look again at the question of whether we should set up a press council not just to protect the public — I am not paranoid in any way about the press — but also journalists. It is a well known fact that journalists are increasingly coming under pressure from their marketing managers to put a particular angle on stories and I do not think this should be the case. Journalists would be quite happy to have a court of appeal to which they could appeal if they feel they are being compromised in their reporting. I hope on Committee Stage to deal with a particular section of the Bill but for now I will sit down and allow Deputy Keating to make a contribution. I do not think it is unreasonable that this party, having 50 Deputies in this House, should have a second contributor to this debate.

Mr. Keating

I concur with the last point which Deputy Mitchell made. I believe that a party should be entitled to put forward as many speakers as they wish. There is an anomaly contained in a arrangement which imposes a strict time limit of two and a half hours to three hours on the discussion of a Bill while putting no time limit on the length of speeches. One or two abusers, and to be fair this did not happen this morning, can use up all the time. The truth of the matter, and I have spoken to Deputies on all sides of the House about this, is that they believe there is no point in coming into the House to make contributions as they know they will not get in. This includes the majority of the back-benchers on the Government side. In accordance with the order before the House, Deputy Roche has the right to speak before me if he so wishes and that is the point we should address, otherwise we will make a shambles out of the proceedings. As there is very little time left I intend to be brief but let me say that we intend to press that point as it does mean that we are making a mockery out of the proceedings and are assuming that the majority of Members will not have an opportunity to participate in this debate. That is wrong.

As our spokesman, Deputy O'Malley, has already outlined, we broadly welcome this Bill and we do not mind contrasting it with the dangerous proposal which emanated from the previous Government. The first line in the explanatory memorandum of their Bill read that the purpose of their Bill was to control broadcasting, an incredible but inciteful comment. I am pleased that this Minister's approach is much more open and democratic. Nevertheless, I believe we have a right to question the assumption behind broadcasting legislation, which is that the State has a right to hold a monopoly and the State has a right to derogate from that right. That right is not vested in them anywhere, either in the Constitution or in law. The State has no such right. The airwaves do not belong to the State. They belong to the people and the degree of control which is exercised by the State should be the minimum necessary to maintain public order and order in broadcasting terms. The debate which has taken place in recent years has been about an incredibly outdated attitude to maximum control and regulation by the State of all broadcasting within this country. At its heart that was about political control and power. Undoubtedly that was the atmosphere that permeated that discussion.

We believe that the discussion referred to this morning — the principle about private or public ownership — misses the whole point. This Bill is designed — though in our view not perfectly so — to withdraw direct State involvement to some degree and allow people to organise their affairs in the broadcasting sphere to the maximum extent. From our point of view that is a good thing. It is also a good thing that there should be the maximum degree of choice, that people should have the right to choose, not just what we think they need — one of the areas in which we believe the Bill is deficient — but rather what people want to view or to listen to. There is a kind of notion that somehow we should establish commissions and committees, that we have, as it were, the right to say to people that the broadcasting service, in broad terms, should present programmes which are, by varying degrees of percentages, presented in such a way as to accord with our view of what we think is in the national interest. That is incredibly arrogant. Ultimately people have a right to express a view about what they want, even if what they want sometimes is not necessarily what you, I, or they themselves would at all times listen to or view.

Fundamentally, therefore, we should challenge the right to a monopoly. I was struck by a reference in a publication called Communications, in an article by Richard Elen, to the following:

One of the basic requirements of a dictatorship or autocracy is a monopoly of the means of communication.

He said many other things also but that does strike the note, that the insecure State, the insecure Government, or the undemocratic Government will be the first to reach for this incredible idea that they must control broadcasting, or that broadcasting somehow is the arm or extension of Government, as it has been claimed was said by a former leader of this country, though I do not know if he ever said it in that context. We challenge that and reject it, because we believe that people have the ultimate right.

I thought the Minister was unduly scathing in his remarks in regard to what have become known as the pirate stations. None of us has any defence of people who break the law. Nonetheless, it is overstating it somewhat to say, as did the Minister:

For ten years and more we have had the spectacle of illegal pirate radio stations creating chaos on the airwaves, bringing the law into disrepute and, indeed, at international level, bringing the good name of this country in the radio regulatory sphere into disrepute.

The truth is that what brought this country into disrepute was the fear, cowardice and craven nature of successive administrations who did nothing about it. When it comes to it, whether or not we like to admit it, whether or not it is popular to say so, the reality is that the vast majority of pirate stations provided an extremely good service, were extremely popular and created no chaos whatever, though there were some who did in a technical sense.

I admire the entrepreneurial flair and spirit of many of the people associated with those stations. I am extremely sorry to see that we have not on the Statute Book at this moment any facility whereby they can apply for a licence; in other words, there is no law with which they can comply. Technically they are certainly in breach of the law and I know, from having spoken to some of them, they have no wish to be so. That applies also to some of the initiatives which could have been taken in recent years had there been a facilitating mechanism for obtaining a licence, which would include the Christian station referred to by Deputy G. Mitchell, or, indeed, various educational stations in which there is a great future if handled properly. Therefore, it is a little harsh to talk about individuals creating chaos when, apparently, no interest was taken in taking a proper regulatory framework on board to deal with that.

The freedom or right to communicate is essential and forms a basic philosophic element in the approach of my party to public order, the right of people to communicate with each other through any means, technological or otherwise, available to them, the role of Government being a minimalist one to protect order in that respect. I am struck by the fact that our Constitution bears that out in Article 40, subparagraph i., where it talks about the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions and develops that at some length. This finds a more detailed echo in the constitutions and laws of other countries that have taken that fundamental freedom very seriously, as for example, in the law in Germany, referred to in a publication under the heading of Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, which had this to say at subparagraph (1):

Everyone has the right freely to express and to propagate his or her opinion in words, writing or images and to inform himself or herself without hindrance from generally accessible sources.

Similarly in Sweden, Canada and in the United States, that very precious, essential freedom is respected in law. It is particularly desirable in a small, island country, with relatively few vehicles of communication, that that freedom would not just be agreed to be important but, wherever possible, would be written into law, perhaps into our Constitution and, in so far as is possible, would be extended also not merely into the television and radio spheres but also to the printed media so that journalists and other investigators — in pursuance of various issues — would have the freedom to be able to discuss, debate and pursue without fear of immediate recrimination or oppressive legislation falling on their backs. That is consistent with the general approach we take in these matters.

The relationship between Government and broadcasting always has been very difficult and will continue to be so. I suppose what we are endeavouring to do here is balance that maximum freedom of the individual with the obligation of Government to at least interpose some degree of order and protect the public in certain areas, for example, to protect young people against exposure to violence, pornography, to protect people against technical interference with the airwaves. There is, therefore, a role for Government and it is a question of the definition of that role that is important.

In large measure the provisions of the Minister's Bill work in the right direction but, in some respects, are overly detailed. I should like to have been able to develop these points further but I shall not do so beyond making one or two further brief points. However, I do regret not having had the opportunity to develop those points as I had hoped.

The proposal to establish an independent commission has been lauded and is generally acceptable. We support it wholeheartedly. However, it is important that we would not, somehow, stigmatise the political process as being the primary or only area from which influence or undue pressure can emanate. Merely because we may have a commission independent of the Minister by no means indicates that we have a commission free from other pressures. I was struck by a publication Government and Broadcasting in France, written by Raymond Kuhn, in which he spoke about the French experience as follows:

The failure of the various reforms introduced since 1969 to settle the problem of the Government's relationship with the broadcasting services does not augur well for the success of the 1974 statute. It is most unlikely that the latest measures will mark the end of broadcasting as a controversial issue in French politics. There are too many groups intent in using radio and television to further their own political ends for this to be the case. Apart from the Government and the parties of the majority, other groups, including business interests, the left-wing opposition and the trade unions, have all shown their readiness to exploit the potential of the broadcasting services.

Merely because we have this easy, ready recourse at every level, to seeing the political system as somehow the repository of all obnoxious elements in our society, because, as an independent commission one distances oneself slightly from that does not necessarily mean that we will not have other influences, perhaps even more perverse, certainly less accountable influences, brought to bear. I am sure that will not happen. I simply raise the point that it is not merely from the political arena, which is at least ultimately accountable to the public, that such pressures and possible insidious influences can emanate.

There were also some points I should have liked to have made about the fear and concern there is over broadcasting standards in the wake of the opening up of broadcasting generally. Certainly it is true to say that a fear of lowered programming standards has been the principal reason for resistance in this area but experience abroad does not bear that out. I look forward to healthy development in this area. I look forward to more choice for people, higher standards, above all the freedom for people, innovators, entrepreneurs, people who are desirous of communicating people who are desirous of providing a service — whether it be through the Irish language a là the Conradh na Gaeilge submission, whether it be through the Christian broadcasting service, through the open University system or tuition on the air in its various forms, through local, regional stations — the essential requirement is that there be a multiplicity of choice catering not just for the passive, music programming desire but also for more stimulating, educational, uplifting, inspirational type of material.

This legislation is a step in the right direction. I do not agree with some of the speakers who said that it should have received more consideration. I am sick and tired of commissions. As the Minister pointed out this thing has been going on for the last ten years. The Minister is on the right track and I commend him on it. I regret that I did not have a little more time to develop some of the points.

Deputy De Rossa raised a point about sponsorship and it is worthy of comment. On balance, the ultimate answer in trying to prevent or discourage people from being overly subject to that is in developing a generation of people who are educated and confident in their assertion of the right to choose, who are able to weigh up the influences around them and make free choices. That is where we stand on these issues. It is better than trying to put one's finger in the dam by stopping sponsorship, outside broadcasts and satellite broadcasts, and trying to pretend that we can exist on an island on our own in a blinkered way. That is simply out of touch with 1988. I want the people to have the maximum choice available and the education and self-confidence to exercise that choice. This Bill goes in that direction and from that point of view we welcome it in broad terms, with the slight reservation that we would have liked to have more time to have said a little more. Perhaps we would not have said anything significantly different, but we would have said it at greater length.

Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

Time is limited but we will have an opportunity in the afternoon and until midnight to discuss in detail on Committee Stage many of the points that have been made in a general way.

I welcome the speeches that have been made in support of this liberalising measure proposed in this motion and proposed in the Bill. Deputy Bruton and other speakers referred to home programmes. I am conscious that in the independent third channel to be established there should be a concentration on home programmes. With that in mind I will introduce an amendment which we will discuss in the afternoon. The amendment will be to section 16 of the Bill and part of it reads as follows:

(4) 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 another Member State of the European Communities by persons other than the contractor, his subsidiary, his parent or existing broadcasting organisation.

In relation to the question of fair competition between RTE and the independent stations, RTE will have a major advantage over the independent stations and the independent radio station because RTE will still be in receipt of licence fees plus advertising, whereas the independent stations will have to depend on advertising alone.

On the question of this level playing pitch in relation to the operations of the independents versus the constraints on RTE, I can advise the House that since last Christmas, following consultations between myself and the RTE Authority, we have established a mechanism for constant contact between the Authority and officials of my Department. It is that type of work that has resulted in the announcement I made today in relation to the extra time for radio and television and the changes in adverting rules that will apply to RTE.

On the question of the editorial view and the freedom to express an editorial view, it is not my intention, and it never was my intention, that the station would have the right to an editorial view. I tried to cover that in the drafting of the Bill within the constraints of advice given to me by the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman, on the basis of what was or was not constitutional. At the moment we cannot control the editorial view of the independent papers, and we would not want to and the argument put by the Attorney General's office is that the same rules would apply, that it would be unconstitutional to control editorial view. That is not a view that I shared. I got back to them and I would have liked to be able to tell the House that my wish, a wish expressed by a number of amendments tabled to the Bill by various parties, would be incorporated in the Bill.

I thank Deputy O'Malley for the points he made and for his welcome for this Bill. The Deputy made a number of points which we can cover on the various amendments to be discussed later. Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the White Paper which was there pre-RTE TV. Things have changed a great deal in communications since the early sixties. We now have satellites and extra stations, cable television and so on. We talked enough about the whole thing and it is now time for action. I accept the point made by Deputy O'Sullivan that other channels should be available to the rural areas as well as to the capital and main cities.

Mr. O'Sullivan

What about RTE in Cork?

Mr. R. Burke

They are welcome to apply. If they apply in joint venture with somebody else, under their own RTE legislation, I am prepared to look at it. They do not have to and would not want to come under independent commissions. An RTE Authority under an independent commission would not work.

In relation to unregulated satellite stations, I can assure the Deputies that the EC and the Council of Europe are conscious of the effectively unregulated situation of satellites, and standards are being drawn up both at EC level and Council of Europe level.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned standards for RTE and for the independent stations. Standards for RTE have been extended further into the operations of the independent stations.

I welcome the support given by Deputies O'Keeffe and Lawlor for the Bill. Deputy De Rossa mentioned the question of personalities plugging products and sponsorship. This is something I took up with RTE at a very early stage in my Ministry. The rules in relation to, for example, prizes being put up on programmes — for instance cars and the personalities involved plugging the cars in a way that could be misinterpreted to give the impression that they were lauding the benefits of those cars or products — are in place. The guidelines have been changed for that type of sponsorship. I agree with the Deputy on the principle of it.

In relation to the diet of pop patter, the intention of the Bill in relation to the 20 per cent rule on radio for news and current affairs, is to stop this wall-to-wall practice that we have had in the pirate stations. A point was made by Deputy Mitchell in relation to Christian broadcasting. There is nothing to stop any group applying for a licence. Broadcasting of the Dáil is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I understand that is being considered following a resolution of the Fine Gael Party.

Independent productions were mentioned by Deputy Lawlor and I answered his point. I thank Deputy Keating for his warm welcome for this measure.

Using the Deputy's criteria of insecurity of Government, if a measure of the security of this Government can be taken from the fact that we are loosening the controls of broadcasting to the extent of this liberal regime which we are promoting here today, the Deputy can be assured that this Government feel totally secure. I look forward to a detailed discussion in the afternoon and into the night on the various amendments.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 12.

Tá

Abbott, Henry.
Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Barrett, Michael.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Matthew.
Brennan, Séamus.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John.
Burke, Ray.
Byrne, Hugh.
Calleary, Seán.
Conaghan, Hugh.
Coughlan, Mary T.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
Doherty, Seán.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Jackie.
Fitzgerald, Liam.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flood, Chris.
Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Hilliard, Colm Michael.
Jacob, Joe.
Kirk, Seámus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Lawlor, Liam.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leyden, Terry.
Lynch, Michael.
Lyons, Denis.
McCarthy, Seán.
McCreevy, Charlie.
MacSharry, Ray.
Mooney, Mary.
Morley, P.J.
Moynihan, Donal.
Nolan, M.J.
Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
O'Dea, William Gerard.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Batt.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Power, Paddy.
Roche, Dick.
Smith, Michael.
Stafford, John.
Swift, Brian.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Wallace, Dan.
Walsh, Joe.
Walsh, Seán.
Wilson, John P.
Wright, G. V.

Níl

Bell, Michael.
Desmond, Barry.
Gregory, Tony.
Higgins, Michael D.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kemmy, Jim.
O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Spring, Dick.
Stagg, Emmet.
Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Stagg.

Question declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 Jun 1988