We are resuming the debate on amendments Nos. 21 to 27, inclusive, amendment No. 30 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 30.
Estimates, 1988. - Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 21:
In page 9, lines 21 and 22, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) all news broadcasts by him is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the contractor's views,".
—Deputy De Rossa.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to include in the Minister's formulation the words "and without any expression of the contractor's views,". Earlier today I indicated that a case could be made for the expression of views on the part of presenters in programmes other than news programmes. In dealing with the broadcasting and presentation of news I think that a rigid approach has to be adopted. I agree that it is almost impossible to have news presented in a totally neutral form. It is a fact of life that words have different meanings for different people and many of the terms that we use in relation to Northern Ireland have different meanings for people in Northern Ireland. Therefore it is almost impossible to have a completely neutral presentation of news.
What this amendment seeks to achieve is that there would be no expression of the contractor's views in the presentation of the news. It is quite common for newspapers to carry editorials giving their own version of events. Pressure can be put on journalists to report a story in a certain way for a variety of commercial reasons, the weight of advertisers of other interests perhaps. It can be said that RTE have avoided this problem. We have all been able to complain from time to time about the way in which stories in relation to our own parties were carried but but on investigation I think it will generally be found that there were good reasons for this as pressure of time. Generally RTE have avoided presenting their own views in the presentation of news. This approach should be carried over into commercial and community radio stations and the proposed new commercial television channel. It is important that such an approach be adopted, particularly given what I said earlier in that producers of programmes come under strong pressure to present stories in a certain way. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take on board this amendment in order to ensure that the news programmes carried on the various stations will be presented in an unbiased manner.
Amendments Nos. 21, 24 and 25 —
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but Deputy O'Sullivan is anxious to contribute.
Amendment No. 25 is practically identical to the amendment which has been moved by Deputy De Rossa and sets out to seek the same objective — that news programmes be transmitted in an impartial manner. It is quite common for newspapers to pursue an editorial policy which reflects the views of the proprietor. I believe those who operate broadcasting stations should not have the opportunity to engage in such a practice. There is need for restraint in this area. My amendment No. 22, seeks to insert two words, "and presented". Earlier today I referred to the fact that many radio stations do not identify their sources. I believe that the operator should accept full responsibility for the news programmes which are broadcast on his station. It was quite common for some radio stations to quote their sources as being AP, UPI or INA. There is the question of accountability and the proprietor of the station should accept full responsibility for the news programmes which are broadcast on his station.
Amendments Nos. 21, 24 and 25 are quite similar and seek to insert an obligation to broadcast news in an objective and impartial manner. It is proposed to insert the words "without any expression of the contractor's views". Let me say that in principle I have no difficulty with the proposals in question. The only reason that such an obligation did not appear in the Bill which I have put before the House is that when the matter was raised with the Attorney General's office initially we were advised that such a provision would be contrary to the freedom of expression provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution. The analogy was given that it would be tantamount to preventing newspapers from carrying editorials.
It was appreciated that there was an equivalent provision in the Broadcasting Authority Act prohibiting the RTE Authority from expressing its views but this was deemed to be more justifiable on the grounds that the RTE Authority represented the people and it would be inappropriate for it to voice sectoral views. However, in the light of the unanimity of views in the House on this question I had further consultations with the Attorney General's office on this question and while the view still remains that there could be a risk that the provision in question is unconstitutional it is considered that the risk is very small indeed. Accordingly, I am prepared to accept the amendment in principle and subject to checking further on the terminology proposed I can give an undertaking to come back on Report State with a proposal for a similar provision.
In respect of which amendment?
In respect of amendments Nos. 21, 24 and 25. I believe also that a similar provision should attach to subsection 1 (b) dealing with the treatment of current affairs as it does in the case of RTE's Broadcasting Authority Acts and if the House is agreeable I will deal with this matter also on Report Stage. Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment, amendment No. 22, is similar to amendment No. 21 and I assume that he is also willing to withdraw his amendment. One amendment should cover the whole lot.
What about the presentation of views?
That is already covered.
Before Deputy O'Malley proceeds, may I ask in the light of what the Minister has said, if amendment No. 21 in the name of Deputy De Rossa and his colleagues is withdrawn?
It is withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 9, subsection (1) (a), line 21, after "reported" to insert "and presented".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 9, subsection (1), lines 32 to 40, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) a minimum of—
(i) not less than 20 per cent of the broadcasting time, and
(ii) if the sound broadcasting service is provided for more than 12 hours in any one day, two hours of broadcasting time between 07.00 hours and 19.00 hours, is devoted to the broadcasting of news and current affairs programmes; provided a derogation from this provision is not authorised by the Commission under section 15,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 9, subsection (1), lines 32 to 40, to delete paragraph (c).
At the outset let me say that I was delighted with the Minister's response to the last batch of amendments. It was very fair and reasonable and I thank him for that response.
Let me say in relation to amendment No. 27 — which proposes to delete paragraph (c) which the Minister proposes to insert in lieu of section 10 (1) (c) in the Bill — the reason I propose its deletion and its substitution by some smaller proportion of broadcasting time to be devoted to the broadcasting of news and current affairs is that I think 20 per cent is far too much. It would be very difficult to run a local or regional station on the basis that 20 per cent of one's broadcasting time be devoted to news and current affairs. My fear would be that they would be dragging up the most banal and parochial matters in an endeavour to fill their broadcasting time. I do not think it would do anything to help standards.
It must be borne in mind, when one is legislating for local radio like this, that one must take into account the level and standard of national broadcasting of news and current affairs. We are unusually fortunate in this country in that we have an exceptionally high standard and volume of news and current affairs emanating from RTE, both radio and television. For that reason I question the necessity for a period as long as 20 per cent, or two hours between 7 a.m. and 1900 hours, if the service is provided for more than 12 hours in a day. I believe it would create a lot of difficulty. It is also my belief that it will be impossible for people to avoid a lot of repetition of what is essentially RTE news, which is available directly from RTE, and there may be copyright problems about that. If they have to get such news from their own sources it will be very expensive. While I am all for it, I contend it is too high a proportion and I would ask the Minister to re-examine it. I repeat that it is too high particularly in the context of the exceptionally good coverage of both news and current affairs on RTE, much better than that provided in most other countries, in terms of volume and equality.
Amendment No. 51 is related to this. I note that amendment No. 51 partly meets this point in that it allows the commission to authorise a derogation from the obligation of a station to broadcast or devote 20 per cent of their broadcasting time to news and current affairs. It affords a derogation from the requirement in question — and I quote —"in whole or in part in the case of sound broadcasting services". It is perhaps too much to allow a total derogation. If the provisions of amendment No. 51 are implemented and strong applications are made to the commission, in some circumstances, one could end up with almost no news coverage. I wonder could the two of these — subsection (1) (c) and the proposed section 15, be rewritten in a different way that would allow the commission discretion to prescribe a percentage or amount of time rather than have this requirement that there be a minimum of 20 per cent and, on the other hand, under the provisions of another section, a right to derogate entirely from that requirement. It may have to vary from place to place and from station to station — I acknowledge that. But the two of these amendments seem to me to be somewhat contradictory in that one imposes, in section 10, a heavy minimum requirement of news and current affairs while there is, in section 15, as proposed the right to derogate entirely from that requirement, or the right of the commission to authorise a derogation entirely from that requirement. It may well mean that we will end up in some stations, without a derogation, with 20 per cent news coverage and in others, with a derogation, with none. Taking both amendments together it might be better to have some provision giving the commission discretion, subject to its insistence on a reasonable amount of news and current affairs from each station.
My amendment is similar to that proposed by Deputy Desmond O'Malley. Along the same lines as Deputy O'Malley I would contend that this is a residue of the old Bill the Minister originally circulated in which he provided for no oversight of stations, no real test of performance after the initial licence had been granted. It was understandable that the Minister should be anxious to see some quota of educational, current affairs and such material in that context. We have now moved on considerably. We have all welcomed the Minister's agreement to move on. We are now providing for a commission being in a position to exact more demanding standards from stations and to oversee their performance in relation to what they promise at the time of contracting.
Earlier, in response to Deputy O'Sullivan, the Minister said that he did not favour quotas on Irish music, Irish performers, that he did not favour this sort of quota approach. I contend he should continue and apply that approach in this area. The commission will be there to use their discretion. As we said earlier, hopefully there will be stations that will evolve and will serve specialised interests. This requirement would be a particularly onerous burden on those stations. While there is provision for a derogation, clearly the legislation is saying there is a presumption that one should be achieving 20 per cent of news in all cases and that it would be something of an exception that one would not do so. I do not think that that necessarily should be the case. It would be more sensible to allow the commission examine this and the balance of programming. Otherwise the next thing one will be doing is defining what constitutes current affairs.
This should be examined in a less rigid and legislative fashion. I contend we should go along with the view the Minister has been taking consistently, that the commission should examine this in a flexible manner and judge what will best serve the quality of broadcasting in this area.
Mr. Nealon rose.
Is the Minister yielding to Deputy Ted Nealon?
Perhaps I may put my views on the record and then perhaps the Deputy can have his say.
In regard to the points advanced so far in relation to this by Deputies Desmond O'Malley and Richard Bruton, I should say I am not prepared to accept the amendments in regard to the elimination of the 20 per cent rule. Bearing in mind the Second Stage debate and the points made then by Deputy Bruton in relation to stations of specialised interest — be they, say, jazz or others — I have tabled an amendment, No. 51, which provides for a derogation from the requirements relating to news and current affairs programming and which reads:
Notwithstanding section 9 (1) (c), the Commission may authorise a derogation from the requirement in question in whole or in part in the case of sound broadcasting services which it contracts to provide in any area to meet specific special interests, provided it is satisfied that there is a reasonable plurality of sources of news and current affairs programming available to the public in question from other sound broadcasting services.
That meets any reasonable point in relation to specialised services and the argument that this 20 per cent rule would impede the development of specialised radio. But I am not prepared to remove the 20 per cent rule. I do not believe that the stations themselves — if properly running their services — would feel that two hours within the day is too much to ask. If they are really representing the areas or regions for which they are supposed to cater — be that in Dublin, Sligo, Cork, Limerick or elsewhere — obviously it will be in their interests to be in touch with their people, to be representative of them, to provide a news and current affairs service in relation to their region and a national current affairs service also to their listenership. I believe that a station not doing so will not be successful. Also I am not prepared to permit of circumstances in which, if one does not have this provision, one is liable to have a station with — and here I might use a phrase I have used many times — a wall-to-wall music feature which reduces the whole aspect of radio to the lowest common denominator. We had enough of that in the past. In passing this legislation we should be careful to make sure that we do not have wall to wall music stations, that the 20 per cent rule is there and that it should stay. I will be asking the House to support my view and I cannot accept the amendment.
I am sorry that the Minister is going to insist on quantifying the amount. It should not be done at all. One is straight away into a "never mind the quality, feel the width" situation. It will involve many of the local radio stations and perhaps the commission in defining current affairs. They will have sufficient problems before they go into that. Could one regard a 10 minute discussion on how well U2 were faring in the US in a tour, as current affairs, prior to running a half hour of their music? That is the kind of area into which we will go. The stations, for their own good, will include what the Minister is asking for, and perhaps much more than that, of news and current affairs, because that is what will give individuality to the stations and what will separate them from the mass of stations that will be available. It is much better to let this settle, in the initial stages at least, rather than inserting it in the Bill. As Deputy O'Malley said, we could perhaps do it by regulation later on as things settle in. It is better to let this thing find its own level from the start.
Down along the line, a major weapon lies in the hands of the commission and that is the question of the renewal of the licence in due course. The licence need not be renewed if a station is abusing privilege and is not performing in the manner outlined in the Bill. More than that, there is the judgment of the people who will be listening to the station. The local and community stations will be seeking to get maximum listenership. Their individuality will come from their news and current affairs programmes and that is what will get them maximum listenership.
It would be grossly unfair to impose on specialised Irish music and classical music stations an obligation to conform to the requirement for news and current affairs because they do not set out to get a listenership of that nature and there will not be a demand from their listeners for that service. It would be fatal for that kind of station to have to interrupt its primary purpose, to provide classical or specialised Irish music in order to give current affairs programmes. I appeal to the Minister to rethink this. It could be done by way of regulation rather than by inserting it as a permanent feature into the Bill. This provision will stultify the stations because at times it will result in totally unsatisfactory material going on the air. Will the Minister explain whether the quota has to be fulfilled in each week, on each day or over a period? If a quota is to be filled in a limited period like a week, there may not be suitable current affairs material. Does the Minister intend it to be scheduled into the programmes in order to make up the time factor?
On this matter, I take a view opposite to that of both Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Nealon. I have an amendment down to section 15 which would delete the question of derogation. If we eliminate the requirement on the stations to provide news and current affairs, there is a grave risk that we will end up with tabloid type broadcasting which will provide virtually nothing other than a diet of patter and pop. While there is a market for that kind of broadcasting we should at least try to inform people, whatever their tastes, of the daily events of the world other than in the pop or classical areas. That would apply to stations who may specialise in drama or in any other area. I do not see a great problem for the stations in fulfilling the requirement.
As Deputy O'Malley says, RTE provide a very excellent service in current affairs and news and there is no reason the stations cannot buy in to or link in with the various news services of RTE and with the current affairs programmes of RTE, where they do not have resources to provide that kind of service themselves. Community stations simply would not have the resources to make their own programmes on a regular basis. There is an opportunity for RTE to market their services on a network basis to these stations. Amendment No. 30 deals with the question of standards in relation to news and current affairs but I will leave that until we reach it.
The Minister has not met the points that I have made and I would have thought they were valid. The Minister seems to imply that if there is not news and current affairs the rest of the output is likely to be wall to wall music and he is opposed to that, as am I. There are a lot of other things one can have other than news and current affairs, which is not wall-to-wall music. The commission should be given a greater discretion than is allowed to it here, a different type of discretion, to take account of local circumstances and so on. If a station were to broadcast for 20 hours a day that would require four hours of news and current affairs, and that would be very difficult for them to provide out of their own resources. One cannot just plug into RTE and replay it. RTE have copyright in regard to what they broadcast. While local stations can buy from RTE they may not, particularly in their early years, be in a position to do that. I do not know the charges because I am sure none has been fixed as yet, but the charges could be beyond the resources of local stations. It is surprising that I am arguing against too much news and current affairs, but the proportion in the Bill is too high. A very good service could be provided with a smaller proportion of the overall time for news and current affairs. This proportion might be justifiable if RTE were themselves a kind of wall-to-wall station but they are not.
Listen to Radio 2.
If you want news and current affairs you can listen to Radio 1 and at least once an hour on Radio 2, whatever other shortcomings it has, it gives news headlines and that is a valuable and useful service. For that reason I ask the Minister not to close his mind in relation to this matter. The problem could be overcome without getting into the Radio 2 type situation.
Deputy Nealon talked about stultifying. My view is that without this type of rule we will end up with a stultifying situation of just wall-to-wall music. The Deputy asked me how this 20 per cent would be worked. Amendment No. 26 reads:
In page 9, subsection (1), lines 32 to 40, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) a minimum of—
(i) not less than 20 per cent of the broadcasting time, and
(ii) if the sound broadcasting service is provided for more than 12 hours in any one day, two hours of broadcasting time between 07.00 hours and 19.00 hours, is devoted to the broadcasting of news and current affairs programmes; provided a derogation from this provision is not authorised by the Commission under section 15,".
The derogation is brought in to meet the points made in relation to specialised stations, classical music stations and other types of stations. Deputy De Rossa mentioned that he has an amendment down to my amendment No. 51 on the basis that he does not want the whole of the news programmes to be removed. For that type of specialised station which is being talked about, the commission could have the flexibility to move in whole or in part. That is as far as I am prepared to go. I regret we have reached this situation. I tried all day, and in the preparation of the amendments which have been submitted, to be as flexible as I possibly could on behalf of the Government both in the amendments I have submitted and in relation to acceptance of certain amendments put forward by the other side. I want to say to Members of the House that this is one point on which I cannot move.
That is in respect of amendment No. 27 in the names of Deputy Richard Bruton and Deputy Pat O'Malley. Is the amendment being pressed?
No.
Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28.
In page 9, subsection (2), line 48, to delete "licensee" and substitute "sound broadcasting contractor".
This is a consequential amendment to delete "licensee" and substitute "sound broadcasting contractor".
Amendment agreed to.
On a point of order are we debating all the amendments from No. 21 to 34 together?
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 10, subsection (2), line 1, to delete "licensee" and substitute "sound broadcasting contractor".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 30:
In the first line of subsection (3), to delete "may draw up" and substitute "shall draw up".
In relation to this amendment what we are seeking is to change the position that the commission "may draw up" standards and practice to that they "shall draw up" standards and practice in relation to subsections (1) and (2). This is the area we have been discussing regarding the broadcasting of news, the treatment of current affairs, the question of decency, good taste, party political broadcasts and so forth. It would be better if the House made it clear to the commission that we wanted them to draw up standards of practice in relation to how these matters should be dealt with.
So far as I know, and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, RTE already have standards of practice in relation to how these matters may be dealt with and, taking one case with another, they work reasonably well. As I said earlier in relation to the proposal not to have a specific amount of news and current affairs on a particular station, one could end up with a tabloid-type presentation of events. If there are not particular standards for presentation which would apply across the board to all stations, RTE, the new commercial television station, the various commercial radio stations including the community stations, there could be very differing interpretations of the guidelines in the Bill regarding what is good taste, decency and what is a fair presentation of the news and so on.
We should put an obligation on the commission to draw up standards or a code of practice in relation to these matters from the start so that we do not have to urge them, at a later stage, when some difficulty has arisen because of a particular presentation of an item which is found to be unacceptable and when we may then be in the middle of a row, to try to have a code of practice established. So far as I know, such a code of practice is in existence within RTE and it may well be that the same code could be applied across the board to the other stations.
I will accept that and I agree to change "may" to "shall".
Is the amendment agreed to for Report Stage? There are procedural difficulties in agreeing to it now.
That was the procedure suggested earlier and we can take it that it will be tidied up on Report Stage.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 10, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsections:
"(3) The Commission may draw up, and may, from time to time as occasion requires, revise a code governing standards and practice (hereinafter referred to as a code of practice) in relation to any matter specified in subsections (1) and (2).
(4) Whenever the Commission draws up pursuant to subsection (3) a code of practice relating to the matter in question every sound broadcasting contractor shall comply with such code and any revision thereof.".
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 10, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "licence" and substitute "contract".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 10, lines 7 to 13, to delete subsections (2) and (3), and substitute the following: "(2) The Commission shall draw up, from time to time as it thinks proper, a code governing standards and practice in advertising and every sound broadcasting contractor shall comply with the code in respect of advertisements broadcast by it.
(3) No advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards any religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 10, subsection (4), line 16, to delete "licence" and substitute "contract".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 10, subsection (4), line 16, to delete all words after "shall not exceed" down to the end of the subsection and substitute "the times for broadcasting advertisements permitted to Radio Telefís Éireann".
My amendment seeks to put the new stations on the same footing with regard to the length of time they may allocate in any hour or in any day to the broadcasting of advertisements. At present I understand that RTE is confined to seven and a half minutes per hour. Under the proposal before us here the commercial television station, and presumably the commercial radio stations as well, will be allowed to broadcast for up to ten minutes per hour of advertising time. I am not suggesting we should apply the ten minutes across the board to RTE because from the point of view of watching and listening there is enough advertising on both RTE radio and television but, in the current phrase, there should be a level pitch applied to both the commercial stations and RTE. The amendment should read that the same times for broadcasting advertisements should be permitted to the commercial stations as apply to RTE. It is a reasonable proposal. I hope the Minister is in a position to accept it. In the past when this matter was raised he indicated that he felt RTE already had the edge because of finance they could get from the licence fees, and presumably money they were getting from the Cablelink business.
Let me make two points in relation to that. First, the Minister is now effectively taking £0.5 million from money which in the normal course would go to RTE in order to set up the commission. Secondly, the money from the licence fees generally goes to maintain a whole range of services which I cannot see the commercial stations maintaining. I am thinking in particular of the repertory company they maintain, the orchestra, and there are other things. They also provide a range of public service programmes on a whole range of things like farming. I was going to say "minority interests" but I could not regard farming as a minority interest, in this House anyhow. They deal with other areas for which they provide services which by any stretch of the imagination could not be regarded as being watched or listened to by a large audience. For that reason I feel there should be the same application of advertising time available to both the commercial and the public stations.
I think we are taking amendments Nos. 34 to 38 together.
That is right.
My amendment No. 35 provides that the Authority would have flexibility within the overall maximum of 15 per cent provided by the Bill to prescribe lower rates for certain stations. The commission may come across circumstances where they would feel, in the light of the sort of programming undertaking the station is entering into, that it was not appropriate to allow them to range up to the full quota of advertising. They might feel this in respect of some community services or of stations to which they had given derogation from the current affairs requirement or whatever. In tune with giving the commission discretion in the way they conduct their business I feel this is more correct. Bearing in mind what Deputy De Rossa says, that RTE are restricted to a lower level, there may be certain cases where the commission would feel that another station should be restricted to a similar level. I feel the commission should have discretion. I can understand why the Minister would feel that the maximum level should be higher than the maximum level for RTE in the light of the licence fee availability, but that might not apply in all cases. I submit that what I have offered by way of amendment No. 35 strikes a balance between Deputy De Rossa's amendment and what is in the Bill.
May I take it that Deputy O'Sullivan is now rising to move his amendment No. 36?
Amendments Nos. 36 and 38. I am trying to achieve, essentially going on the same lines as Deputy De Rossa, that RTE would not have to operate in a climate less favourable than that of the commercial sector. I would prefer to pin it back to seven and a half minutes in the hour as in RTE, but I do not think the Minister would accept that amendment. I have no doubt that the feeling is that to be commercially viable it would be necessary to have a ten minute advertising slot, despite what Deputy Kelly said during presentation of the Communications Estimates last week regarding broadcasting. RTE are now faced with a tremendous challenge if the commercial operators are to be allowed two and a half minutes extra in the hour. I am not making a case for extra advertising for them, but if RTE are at a disadvantage in this regard we are signalling the demise of RTE because commercially they would not be able to compete. This is a substantial amount of time. It may seem small, but taken over a week it is a great deal of advertising time, bearing in mind the duration of some of these advertisements. I ask the Minister to try to bring some equality here so that at least RTE and the commercial operators are on the starting line together.
Amendment No. 38 refers to prizes. At the moment RTE present prizes but they exercise control on them and the Minister may, if he so desires, impose controls on the extent to which the prizes are given. It is reasonable to assume that initially when commercial radio and television are introduced there will be quite an amount of competition and repetition of what is happening in the newspapers where incentives of cash prizes and various other enticements will be given to attract a listenership. If there is not equality here and if RTE have to contest for listeners that would be detrimental to the future of RTE. I ask the Minister to make the commission responsible for seeing that any prizes that would be given on the commercial stations would be determined by the commission. They would impose an upper limit on the amount. Equality should obtain right across the board in this regard with RTE and the commercial stations.
I support the amendment put down by my colleague, Deputy Bruton, providing that within the general criteria there should be flexibility. It is very difficult for the Minister to produce a uniform rule for the entire country which would be unfair to every area because the catchment areas with which the variety of stations would be dealing vary greatly. For instance, the larger stations in Dublin, Cork and Limerick would have large potential and large organisations would advertise through them. Smaller areas, like my areas of Sligo-Leitrim, would not have the potential to encourage people to take expensive advertising, therefore the station would have to use time and gather in an amount of less expensive advertising in order to pay their way. Let me say that how one can expect to put the one station in Sligo-Leitrim with 170 miles between the end of one county and the end of the other I do not know. A general uniform rule for the entire country might prove unwieldly as a method of attaining what the Minister is seeking. It would be a good idea to introduce flexibility, as suggested in Deputy Bruton's amendment.
Neither the Minister nor I would cry for the future of RTE. They can charge enormous prices for their advertising. They have the entire country and they can — and I am sure will — regionalise their advertising when the new stations are introduced. They have many ways of fighting their own corner and will be able to do it within the present constraints. As far as the local stations are concerned this degree of flexibility would be advisable because of the different types of catchment areas those stations would be catering for.
When I drafted this section in relation to the advertising I consciously allowed the proposed new services the extra increment of advertising time over that currently available to RTE because the new stations will not have the licence fee that RTE are in receipt of. They will depend for their survival and development on advertising alone. Consequently, I believe they are entitled to that extra increment. The figure of 15 per cent is very much in line with the figure being considered by the Council of Europe and the EC. Discussions are taking place there in regard to broadcasting and agreement will be reached and directives issued in regard to a limit of 20 per cent of total broadcasting time.
I accept, as Deputy De Rossa said, that RTE are responsible for the orchestras and a repertory company. The licence fee, which amounts to about 45 per cent of their income, will help the station carry them. That is one of the reasons why they get the licence fee. It was put to me that RTE were carrying farming programmes as if they were providing a public service. In my view quite a large proportion of the station's advertising revenue is for products with unpronounceable names used in the treatment of liver fluke and so on.
The advertisements are broadcast at tea time.
Naturally. The level of 15 per cent and ten minutes in any one hour has been decided on and with the 20 per cent rule on current affairs, I am not prepared to move on them. In his amendment Deputy Bruton wants the commission to be able to specify lower limits than those proposed but in my view the broadcasters will determine the amount they will carry up to the limit proposed. Indeed, if the commission specified a lower limit for one station as compared to another they could be accused of discrimination. It is better to write those conditions into the Bill. They will be written into EC directives.
Deputy O'Sullivan raised a point about games and prizes and I should like to point out to him that all radio stations are subject to the Gaming and Lotteries Acts. Those Acts will have more effect than any commission rules or regulations.
I would like to hear the Minister elaborate on Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. I can see a certain element of danger in this. I am not very familiar with the Italian scene but I understand that the development of broadcasting there has been on the basis of very attractive prizes. That has become the foundation of their broadcasting to the exclusion of more worthy material. Will the Minister tell us the provision of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts that contains such restrictions because there is a danger that stations that concentrate solely on a gaming type of approach to broadcasting could win very high audiences? I do not think that is what the House intends. I can accept what the Minister has said in respect of amendment No. 35. However, where the commission decide to give derogations with respect to the current affairs obligation they might feel that could be matched by some lower level of advertising. That might not be a bad thing for the type of stations involved but I do not think I would go to the stake about this issue.
I should like to respond to Deputy Nealon's comments on amendment No. 36. Deputy De Rossa was correct in pointing out that RTE have a concert orchestra and a symphony orchestra, a repertory company and the RTE singers. I do not think anybody would deny that they have made a magnificent contribution to our cultural lives. It appears that they are in danger because they will be asked to compete from a most disadvantageous position. Effectively, the Minister is signing their death warrants. It has been said that RTE do not behave as though they were a public service broadcasting authority.
It was only in relation to the farming aspect. The point was made that farming was a minority interest and the only reason they carried such programmes was as a public service but the Deputy withdrew that as he went on. RTE is a public service organisation.
In respect of farming, RTE, since their inception, showed urban dwellers what was involved in the agricultural sector and in my view greater cohesion between the two communities resulted. Many people in the cities did not know what happened on farms until RTE produced farming programmes. My former colleague, Justin Keating, produced some tremendous farming programmes on television. RTE have done much to promote our national games and culture. The fact that RTE have the income from licence fees to fund their operations has been over-emphasised. We must remember that they have a responsibility to maintain the network and operations like Raidió na Gaeltachta. I do not see anybody rushing to suggest that we should have special provisions for Raidió na Gaeltachta. Many programmes broadcast by RTE will not be produced by the new commercial stations and for that reason RTE are entitled to a fair stake. I regret to say that they are not getting it.
The point has to be made that while the income from licence fees accounts for 45 per cent of RTE's income an increase in licence fees is an extremely sensitive political issue. There has always been a reluctance to increase the licence fee. When the commercial stations are established under the Bill the question of the licence fee will become a more politically sensitive issue because we will have people asking why they should pay a licence fee when they do not look at RTE. In my view there will be a strong movement not necessarily to do away with the licence fee but to restrict it in many ways, or have it applied to the other stations. Licence fees may provide 45 per cent of the income of RTE but I do not believe it is a source of revenue that will continue to the same degree for any great length of time. I hope I am wrong but that would seem to be a fair scenario to paint.
In relation to minority programmes, I mentioned farming in a jocose way. There are perhaps 150,000 farms, big and small, around the State. While obviously farming is a fairly large industry in terms of output and exports, in actual numbers of viewers I would imagine it is not that significant. In many cases until recently the only stations which could be received by many people in rural areas were RTE 1 and RTE 2. I am not claiming it as a minority interest but nevertheless it is not a major one. Presumably the main interest of the advertisers is to reach those people who listen to RTE radio and watch RTE television. RTE also provide minority interest religious programmes, youth programmes and language programmes. To some extent politics and current affairs could be classified as a minority interest. The broadcasting of the proceedings of this House and the Seanad would be similarily classified as catering for a minority interest. RTE cater for minority sports, music, drama, adult education, the blind, the physically handicapped etc. Obviously, they provide a wide range of minority interest programmes. I do not expect that the commercial television station will be anxious to provide these kinds of services to the same extent. Certainly localised radio stations will not be keen on it. Whatever about the minority status of many of these interests on a national basis, on a local basis the audience for these programmes would be tiny in many cases and they are likely to be completely ignored.
There is a need to look at this matter fairly. RTE should not be put at a disadvantage. I mentioned earlier the risk that a commercial station operating nationally might seem on paper to be viable from a commercial point of view and win a significant proportion of RTE's advertising revenue, perhaps forcing one of the RTE channels to close or restrict services. Then the commercial station might not remain in operation. It is a black scene to paint but it is a possibility. I have heard reasonable people argue that the advertising revenue available is not great enough to maintain three national television stations. RTE have provide an excellent service and acquired a high degree of expertise and professionalism. I do not think anyone could fault their presentation of the Eurovision song contest which demonstrated that professionalism. This House has a responsibility to be fair to that station. I am not speaking about the Authority but about the people who work in the station and who, in many cases, have given their lives to it. I urge the Minister to reconsider his approach to advertising slots for RTE and the commercial stations.
Deputy O'Sullivan praised RTE for the manner in which they present Gaelic games and such things. They present Gaelic games because that is what the people want to watch. The same applies to the international football match they showed tonight. They cater for minority interests at suitable times, sometimes on RTE 2.
As far as income for RTE is concerned, whole new areas are opening up to them such as the cable network where they almost have a monopoly. This could become a major source of income in the future. There is also the television licence. With regard to advertising, we should be worrying not about RTE but about the effect on the newspapers, particularly local newspapers. There is a theory that more advertising will be generated and that everyone will benefit. The local newspapers are at risk because of the advertising on local and community stations. The Minister might explain the position regarding RTE's time limit. Is this to be by way of legislation or by regulation of the Minister or is it to be agreed between the RTE Authority and the Minister? Is there a possibility of a similar arrangement in this case, if legislation is not involved?
It is up to the newspaper proprietor to devote as much space to advertising as he desires. There is nothing to prevent him having three or four pages devoted solely to advertising. This is not the case with RTE. The newspaper proprietor can determine his own charges. These vary between one newspaper and another.
That is no good if he cannot get the advertising.
The Deputy is opting for the market. I would have been quite happy to continue with a State broadcasting system. If we are to give people the opportunity to become involved, we should not take away from RTE the right to survive. This is what will happen by this measure.
It can be said that sports broadcasting grew from the thirties when Mícheál O'Hehir started broadcasting commentaries on football and hurling matches. He has contributed in no small way. Regarding folklore, there are young people who would not know anything about the Irish folklore tradition were it not for Donagh McDonagh, Séamus Ennis and Ciarán Mac Mathúna. In our headlong rush for commercialisation, are we to forget all the work done in the past? All I am asking is that RTE should be allowed to survive and continue to offer the service they have provided through the years.
I have to admit to Deputy Bruton that I have not the full details of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts in my brief but I am assured there are very tight rules and regulations in the Acts and they apply to the level of prizes offered in competitions. RTE have run into trouble in this matter which is specifically covered by the Gaming and Lotteries Acts. I will get the details for Deputies Bruton and O'Sullivan.
The licence fee payable to RTE is not a paltry sum but represents an income of over £42 million and it is well spent. They are doing an excellent job, as I have already said publicly on many occasions. The Deputy referred to the Eurovision Song Contest. They did an excellent job in that regard. Not only would we have to be proud of what was achieved in relation to its presentation but they used technology which was at the cutting edge of advances on the world stage. They portrayed this country in its very best light with the various postcards promoting tourism in Ireland which they showed between the songs. It showed Ireland at its very best in contrast to the frequent image of the bombs and the bullets and what is euphemistically referred to as the troubles.
The RTE Orchestra have been doing an excellent job and will continue to do an excellent job and I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan on that. They have enhanced the cultural life of this country and we are very proud of them. I have the opportunity on a regular basis of attending the National Concert Hall and listening to them. There is no suggestion whatsoever in this measure that RTE will be damaged. On the contrary, only this morning I announced extra broadcasting hours and extra advertising in line with what the Authority want. We will continue to encourage and to develop RTE. They are not an organisation with their back to the wall fighting off all comers. They are a proud organisation, self-confident and self-reliant. The paranoia that existed in the past whenever there was mention of interference with their monopoly has disappeared. The RTE organisation today, with their board, Authority, management and staff, are ready to fight any competition because they are confident in what they are doing. They are confident in their level of broadcasting as far as home-produced programmes are concerned and they are not afraid of competition.
I agree fully with Deputy O'Sullivan in relation to the contribution made by Mícheál O'Hehir to the development of our national games. We all, as children, remember sitting on Sunday afternoons listening to Mícheál O'Hehir's voice as he portrayed a picture which we could see in our minds. I could imagine every kick of a ball in Croke Park, Sunday after Sunday, during the summers of my childhood. He continued to do so with the advent of television, as did Ciarán Mac Mathúna, the late Séamus Ennis and many others. Many more people are coming through the system and further generations will be equally proud of them. There is nothing in this legislation that will in any way damage RTE.
What we are trying to do is to establish a regime for alternative radio. We cannot close our eyes to the facts that we have had ten years of illegal alternative radio where totally unregulated pirates — up to 70 of them — were on the air, bringing the law into disrepute. Surely it is better to have a regulated, legal television and radio regime which will be under the control of legislation passed through this House. We have to be practical about this matter. There is no way that stations can survive solely on the level of advertising that RTE have. There is no way that RTE could survive on that alone. They need the extra boost of the licence fee which amounts to about £42 million. If we are going to establish these stations we will have to give them some opportunity to survive and to thrive and that is what the 15 per cent rule is all about.
I was asked by Deputy Nealon as to what the situation is in RTE as regards advertising. They apply a limit of 10 per cent of total broadcasting time, subject to seven and a half minutes or 12½ per cent in any hour. It is determined in the first instance by the Authority and that is subject to the consent of the Minister of the day. I want to put on the record of this House that rather than this legislation being in any way damaging to RTE I see it very much along the lines of Ryanair — Aer Lingus. It has already put a new fire and self-confidence into RTE. They are determined to fight all competition. It is very encouraging to see the level of home-produced programmes they are now carrying. They realise that these are the programmes the people want. That is where they are getting the extra advertising and the high rates they are getting for much of their advertising.
I share Deputy Nealon's concern about the position of the newspapers, local and national. I have had discussions with the national newspapers of Ireland in relation to the future position. In turn, they have had discussions with the RTE Authority in regard to the promotional programme we talked about earlier, of cars being offered as prizes and so on. That has all stopped now because of the approaches I have made to RTE about the position of the national newspapers of Ireland and the local newspapers. It was because of my concern for their continuing role that I included in the Bill, for the first time in any legislation dealing with broadcasting, a provision to allow the newspapers to apply for licences. That was not included in any legislation from the previous Administration, previous Fianna Fáil Bills or Private Members' Bills. No provision was made for the newspapers to apply for licences. That provision now exists, subject, of course, to the monopoly provision that was mentioned and that was a matter of concern for Deputy De Rossa earlier in the day when we were discussing this measure.
The Minister mentioned the question of private radios being on the air for approximately ten years. I hope we will be discussing that matter next week in the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill. That is entirely different legislation and I fail to see why it has to be introduced here at all at this stage. The Minister has an assurance from all sides of the House that he will not be obstructed in any way in introducing this measure. He has said that RTE are prepared to fight. They are entitled to be armed to the same extent as their competitors. At present no application has been received from any wouldbe commercial radio station. They will have the advantage of carrying out a study as to what it will cost to run a station. RTE already have standards which we expect them to uphold. They have administrative and technical staff who have to be paid. I fail to see why the Minister, who has been quite receptive to some of the suggestions made here today, is digging in his heels on this measure. It is one of the most crucial elements in the whole Bill. We are putting RTE in a disadvantaged position. I would ask him to examine this matter before we come to Report Stage.
I accept what the Minister is saying with regard to RTE getting themselves into shape to fight off competition. In relation to this amendment we want to try to ensure that where they do face competition they will face it on equal terms with that competition. From the wording of the Bill it appears they will be at a disadvantage because the competition will be able to offer for sale — whether they will be able to sell it is another question — up to ten minutes per hour advertising whereas RTE are restricted to selling seven and a half minutes per hour advertising. I am not an advocate of greater advertising on television or radio. I would be quite happy to see RTE maintain the seven and a half minutes advertising per hour but what I am seeking is that the competition be restrained in the same way. In our amendment we seek to have advertising restricted to the same level that applies to RTE. It may be that in future the advertising time will be restricted further for RTE, or it may even be extended, depending on the market and economic conditions.
We have been getting along quite well with this Bill. We did not get all we wanted but the Minister has been quite generous in accepting reasonable amendments, and I think this is a reasonable amendment. I do not have the costings before me, nor have I seen them, of what it would mean in financial terms for the commercial companies to have ten minutes advertising as against seven and a half minutes for RTE, and I do not know how this would compare with the money RTE get from licence fees. The point I made earlier about licence fees is valid. Once the commercial stations get going, there will be pressure to at least hold the licence fees at the present level, or perhaps reduce them, or share them with the commercial stations, depending on how well the commercial stations are doing. I am urging the Minister to take my suggestion on board. I do not propose to pursue the matter any further.
I want to deal briefly with the points raised by Deputy De Rossa and Deputy O'Sullivan. Deputy De Rossa made the point that RTE were facing competition on equal terms. The RTE radio station has been in existence for 60 years and the television station has been in existence for 25 years. They are the people with the edge as far as competition is concerned. They have the advantage because they have a range of services in place, they have their network and transmission towers in place and they get the licence fees.
Deputy O'Sullivan asked why I am digging in at this stage since this is a crucial element. The level of advertising proposed is a crucial element if we are serious about this legislation and about establishing independent television and radio stations, expecting them to be viable and providing a proper quality of service. They cannot survive on less than 15 per cent advertising time. That is not just my view. That is the view of people involved in radio and television all over Europe. These advertising figures have been spoken about in Council of Europe regulations and EC directives. In my view, independent stations cannot survive on less than the 15 per cent advertising time and I doubt that many of these stations will even reach the maximum of 15 per cent because of competition from RTE and elsewhere. It is essential that they have this figure of 15 per cent otherwise it will be difficult for them to survive. We could talk about this all night, but I am not prepared to alter that figure.
Could I get the co-operation of the House? In respect of amendment No. 34, is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 10, subsection (4), line 18, after "minutes" to insert "and that this provision shall also extend to RTE sound broadcasting services".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) it shall be the duty of the Commission to ensure that sound broadcasting contractors comply with the requirements of subsections (2), (3) and (4).",
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 10, before section 12 to insert the following new section:
"12.—(1) Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Commission either by way of advertisement or not which offers a prize or prizes in excess of an amount which has been approved by the Commission for the particular programme.
(2) Games, competitions and tests shall be covered by the terms of subsection (1).".
I will accept the Minister's explanation that the lotteries Act covers this aspect of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We come now to amendment No. 51.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 12, before section 15, to insert the following new section:
"15.—Notwithstanding section 9 (1) (c), the Commission may authorise a derogation from the requirement in question in whole or in part in the case of sound broadcasting services which it contracts to provide in any area to meet specific special interests, provided it is satisfied that there is a reasonable plurality of sources of news and current affairs programming available to the public in question from other sound broadcasting services."
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 51:
In the second line, to delete the words "in whole or",
We dealt with this to a large extent on an earlier amendment. Section 15 is to allow derogation from the obligation to provide news and current affairs programmes in whole or in part. My amendment suggests that there should not be provision for total derogation from providing news and current affairs programming for the reasons the Minister argued, that is, we do not want stations providing wall to wall music. There should be an obligation on stations to provide a minimum amount of news and current affairs. With my amendment there would still be the right to give some derogation and in my earlier contribution I explained that there was nothing to prevent a station, whether they be community, commercial or national stations, from buying their news and current affairs content from RTE or other organisations set up to provide that kind of programme. I can perceive companies being established to provide this kind of service. For that reason it would be important in all cases to maintain the obligation on the stations to provide at least some element of news and current affairs programmes. I ask the Minister to take on board what is, in essence, a fairly minor amendment.
We have already discussed this at great length. I believe the wording I propose in the new section 15 covers the derogation question and I would ask Deputy De Rossa to accept my proposal. As I said, we discussed this at great length earlier.
Yes, we did, and I do not propose to delay the House because we still have a number of amendments to deal with. Would the Minister put on record his anxiety that the commission would encourage stations not to avoid providing news and current affairs programmes and that they would be urged to use very sparingly their right to grant total derogation?
The derogation clause will be given only for very specialised programmes. The main thrust is that the 20 per cent rule will apply. The new section 15 includes the words "in whole or in part". The intention is that it will be very sparingly used, because we do not want the situation which we have had in the past of just continuous pop music, with no break whatsoever. I can give the Deputy that assurance.
Is Deputy De Rossa comfortable with that assurance?
I am not pressing the amendment.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 51 agreed to.
We now move to the next category, amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 45. Amendments Nos. 42 and 45 are Government amendments.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 10, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Authority shall accept complaints made by a member of the public, who is unhappy with the response of the station to a complaint. The Authority shall make a recommendation on the complaint. In cases where the complaint involves a breach of the Authority's codes of practice or of the station's licence terms, this recommendation shall be binding.".
This deals with the complaints procedure to apply in the case of the new stations. Essentially, my concern in moving amendment No. 43 is that we do not have, as the Bill now stands, any automatic complaints procedure coming into force. The Minister is retaining for himself the discretion subsequently to extend the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to the new stations. As of now, unless the Minister makes regulations there will be no Broadcasting Complaints Commission applying.
To my mind, previous legislation moved in this House took the view that the Authority should hear complaints in the first instance and make recommendations. That is what I have in my amendment No. 43. Alternatively, the Minister could satisfy me, anyhow, if he said that he would automatically make the Broadcasting Complaints Commission apply in the case of the new stations. There should be one or other automatically enforced so that people who have a grievance against some station which has been established could, from the outset, have recourse to an independent group to hear their complaints, as is the case with RTE at present. I would urge the Minister either to accept my amendment No. 43 or in subsection (3) of section 12 of the Bill to provide that the broadcasting complaints procedure would come into force automatically.
I do not consider this amendment necessary. The commission have a statutory duty to ensure compliance with the Bill and will, no doubt, automatically receive complaints from the public and act on them. As to the issuing of binding regulations in relation to breaches of codes of practice or contract terms, they have a statutory duty to ensure compliance and must therefore take action against the broadcaster who is breaching them. They have this statutory duty already, so it is not necessary to include it in the form proposed here.
With respect, what we are talking about here are complaints where somebody might feel aggrieved by the way in which he was treated in a particular programme that went out. It might not necessarily occur that that was in breach of either a contract term or a term of any other code of practice. I do not think that anywhere in the Bill the Minister mentions that the Authority would be hearing complaints from the public about items such as that. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission have been satisfactory in relation to RTE, perhaps a bit slow in finally making deliberations so that the horse has truly bolted by the time they make a decision, but that is in the nature of the provision. I thought perhaps the Authority might be the more appropriate body because they would probably be able to report more quickly. I do not think that the Bill provides elsewhere for the hearing of grievances that people might have about the way in which they were treated in a particular programme.
Deputy Bruton makes the point that people might feel badly done by on a programme and that they should have the right to make a complaint to the commission. It is written into the Bill that not only have they the right to complain but that the broadcasting contractor, the actual station, must, for fair and proper balance, if somebody is injured, give an equal amount of time on the following day or within the subsequent couple of days. They must give equal right of redress and the right of a second point of view. That has been written in.
I do not want to labour the point, but my impression is the considerable number of objections that have gone to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission would not be ones that would be likely to be investigated under the present proposals of the Minister and any recommendations issued upon them by the commission as now constituted.
I have nothing further to say.
Is the Deputy not pressing his amendment?
The Minister is not agreeing.
That is right.
I shall not press the amendment, but the Minister should bear in mind that RTE are subjected to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission provisions. The aggrieved person has the right to go to them. I do not honestly see why it should not be so in the case of this group. Perhaps the Minister would bear that in mind in considering his powers under subsection (3).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 10, lines 30 to 33, to delete subsection (2), and substitute the following subsection:
"(2) A sound broadcasting contractor shall, if requested by the Commission make available for inspection by the Commission all records kept by him pursuant to subsection (1).".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 10, between lines 47 and 48, to insert the following:
"(ii) a reference in section 18 B (7) (as so inserted) to the Authority shall be construed as referring to the sound broadcasting contractor concerned and to the Commission established by this Act;".
Amendment agreed to.
We come to the next category, amendment No. 49 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 49.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 11, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
"14.—(1) The Commission may, for any of the reasons in subsection (2), conduct an investigation into the operational, programming, financial, technical or other affairs of a sound broadcasting contractor and the sound broadcasting contractor concerned shall co-operate in any such investigation.
(2) The Commission may conduct, or appoint any other person to conduct, an investigation under this section—
(a) if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the sound broadcasting contractor is not providing a sound broadcasting service in accordance with the terms of his contract; or
(b) if, because of the manner in which the sound broadcasting service is being operated—
(i) there is interference with the working of any apparatus for wireless telegraphy in respect of which a licence has been granted under this or any other Act and is in force, or with any apparatus for wireless telegraphy which is lawfully maintained and worked without such a licence, or
(ii) any apparatus for wireless telegraphy referred to in subparagraph (1) is thereby injuriously affected.
(3) All expenses reasonably incurred in relation to an investigation under this section conducted by the Commission or by any person appointed under subsection (2) shall be borne by the sound broadcasting contractor concerned.
(4) (a) If the Commission considers it necessary or desirable so to do, it may require a sound broadcasting contractor to carry out a market research survey (such market research survey to be carried out by a person approved of by the Commission).
(b) A market research survey carried out pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be of such scope as appears to the Commission to be reasonable, having regard to the extent and nature of the sound broadcasting service being provided by the sound broadcasting contractor.
(c) A market research survey carried out pursuant to a requirement of the Commission under this subsection shall be a survey of the audience reaction to the broadcasting service provided by the sound broadcasting contractor concerned or any particular aspect thereof.
(d) A sound broadcasting contractor shall furnish the Commission with the results of any market research survey carried out in compliance with a requirement of the Commission under this subsection.".
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 49:
In subsection (2) (a), after "contract" to insert "or with the codes of conduct from time to time set by the Commission".
My amendments to amendment No. 49 deals with the investigations. I have two points. One is fairly automatic, that if the commission feel that there has been a breach of the codes of conduct that we have set out, they would have power to investigate such a breach.
The other point is that, with reference to my amendment No. 2, I do not quite understand the fairness of a procedure under which the cost of an investigation should fall willynilly on the station being investigated, regardless of whether the apparent complaint being investigated is found to be sustained or not. It would be quite strange justice that the costs would apply even if you were not culpable in a court of law. I can see the justification in the case of the Ombudsman, that there you could have somebody being investigated contributing to the cost.
Let us not get back to him at this hour of the night.
In case the Minister might consider that this is very inconsistent, they are very different cases. You are here talking about a judicial investigation, not a system of upholding fairness to a huge range of consumers who are being served by the station and that it would be only reasonable for them to be bearing the cost. These are investigations essentially with a view to discipline, or suspension, or such other measure against the station. If the station is found by the commission at the end of the day not to have been culpable, there should not be an automatic imposition of costs.
Briefly, Deputy Bruton's point in his amendment No. 2 is unnecessary because it will inevitably be a provision in any contract that the terms of the Bill shall be complied with, which automatically includes any codes of practice established by the commission. In the second grounds where an investigation may be conducted as, for instance, where a station is causing interference to other radio communications services and such services are thereby injuriously affected, it is not the intention that the commission would resort to using this power with any frequency. There will be constant dialogue between the commission and the station operators and if it is felt that a station operator is going off the road with respect to his obligations the commission would, through dialogue, encouragement and support seek to get the operator back on the road. I cannot accept either of these amendments.
The Minister has said that this provision will not be used very often but hoping that this provision will not be used is not a strong argument. What is the logic behind the suggestion that a station, whether it is culpable or not, should have to carry the cost of an investigation? Certainly I do not think the commission would use this power in a bloody-minded way and have their officials trampling all over stations simply to run up an expense account. I would like the Minister to outline what is the logic behind the suggestion that there be an automatic imposition of the cost of an investigation on the station whether it is culpable or not.
The intention is that the commission would proceed by way of dialogue, encouragement and support in an effort to get the operator to work within the terms of his contract. It is only when a contractor is being bloody-minded that this provision would be used. This provision would only be used as a last resort when dialogue has failed to secure a remedy. The commission would require a broadcasting contractor to carry out a market research survey of audience reaction to a radio service and to furnish the results to the commission. The commission would have a say in the appointment of the person who would conduct such a survey in an effort to ensure that proper professional standards and independence would prevail. I do not consider that this is an unduly onerous obligation to impose on contractors. The likelihood is that many of these station operators would have to carry out surveys on audience ratings anyway in an effort to persuade advertisers to buy advertising time from time. The provision in question would enable the commission to ensure that aspects of concern to it relating to broadcast services are embraced in such surveys. Therefore, I do not see the provision as being a major imposition on the companies.
Let me ask the Minister a question. The section states that the commission may conduct, or appoint any other person to conduct, an investigation. Can the Minister tell us who he has in mind? Is it intended that some staff member——
Consultants.
Would the Minister consider imposing a limit on the expenditure which may be incurred by the commission in the carrying out of these investigations? I can see the argument that if you do not apply the cost to the broadcaster then the commission would be reluctant to get involved in the carrying out of investigations because they would have to carry the cost themselves. The reverse would also be true in that the commission may get involved in the carrying out of investigations too quickly and incur costs way beyond the value of the investigation if there was no restriction on the expenditure which could be incurred in the carrying out of an investigation.
The principle all along has been that the commission would have a light touch in regard to regulations and that is why I have avoided inserting too many statutory obligations or rules and regulations. The role of the commission would be to encourage and give advice to operators in an effort to bring them along in the best way possible and not to chase them up every day of the week in regard to frivolous and spurious complaints which may be made by members of the public. At the end of the day if the carrots do not work the commission should be able to resort to the use of the stick. In this legislation I am providing them with that stick in an effort to make sure that contractors meet their obligations. I know I speak for everybody in this House when I say it is essential that every company, every individual and every community association who applies for and receives a contract and makes commitments in regard to that contract should meet their obligations and if they do not meet those obligations the commission should be able to resort to the use of the stick in an effort to ensure that they stay in line.
This is not the first time that the Minister used the expression that the commission would have a light touch in regard to regulations and I think the Minister should admit that this approach has not worked in countries which have introduced commercial radio and television services. I feel that unless very strict regulations are laid down many contractors will not adhere to their contracts. The case will be made that it is not possible to adhere to the rules in regard to news content for a thousand and one reasons, such as the station being too small or that it is a speciality station. This has been the experience in Britain in particular where contractors have endeavoured to circumvent the law simply by completely ignoring it and in the process behaving like legalised pirates. Some have reverted back to their original style, the playing of wall to wall pop music. I believe that the use of the light touch may be the undoing of this legislation.
I believe that enough safeguards and protections are written into the Bill to make sure that they do not imitate the illegal operators which exist at present. That is one of the reasons why the 20 per cent rule has been inserted. I believe that a stick should be provided in the legislation as well as the various carrots.
Amendment to amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 49 not moved.
Amendment No. 49 agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 50, amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, to amendment No. 50 and amendments Nos. 53 and 56.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 12, before section 15, to insert the following new section:
"15.—(1) Every sound broadcasting contract may contain such terms and conditions as the Commission thinks appropriate and specifies in the contract.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Commission may specify in a sound broadcasting contract all or any of the following terms or conditions:
(a) the period during which the contract shall continue in force;
(b) whether the contract may be renewed and, if so, the manner in which, the terms on which, and the period for which, the contract may be so renewed;
(c) a condition prohibiting the assignment of the contract or of any interest therein;
(d) if the sound broadcasting contractor be a company, a condition prohibiting any alteration in the Memorandum or Articles of Association of the company or in so much of that Memorandum or of those Articles as may be specified or prohibiting any material change in the ownership of the company;
(e) a condition requiring the sound broadcasting contractor to provide the quality, range and type of programmes which he proposed to offer in his application for the award of the contract.
(3) If a sound broadcasting contract does not contain a condition of the type specified in paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (2), the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) a sound broadcasting contract, or any interest in a sound broadcasting contract, shall not be assignable, nor shall any alteration be made in the Memorandum or Articles of Association of any company which is a sound broadcasting contractor, nor shall there be any material change in the ownership of such a company, without the previous consent in writing of the Commission, and the Commission may, if it considers it reasonable so to do, refuse such consent;
(b) in considering whether to grant its consent to an assignment of a sound broadcasting contract, a change in the Memorandum or Articles of Association of a company which is a sound broadcasting contractor, or a material change in the ownership of such a company, the Commission shall have regard to the criteria specified in section 6 (2) and, where applicable, section 6 (3).
(4) Every sound broadcasting contract shall—
(a) provide that the Commission may, at its discretion, suspend or terminate the contract—
(i) if any false or misleading information was given to the Commission by or on his behalf of the sound broadcasting contractor prior to the making of the contract,
(ii) if the sound broadcasting contractor has, in the opinion of the Commission, committed serious or repeated breaches of his obligations under the sound broadcasting contract or under this Act;
(b) provide that a sound broadcasting contractor shall pay to the Commission the fees, shares of profits or royalties specified therein;
(c) provide that the sound broadcasting contractor shall provide such information (including copies of his accounts) which the Commission considers it requires in order to enable it carry out its functions under this Act.
(5) Every sound broadcasting contract shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the Commission's registered office and the Commission shall, on request made by any person and on payment of such sum (if any) as the Commission may reasonably require, furnish to that person a copy of that contract.".
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 50:
Before subsection (2), to insert the following:
"(2) The Commission shall develop guidelines in consultation with the Fair Trading Commission to safeguard against a degree of interlocking ownership between stations or with other sections of the media, that would be against the public interest.".
The first of my amendments refers to the degree of interlocking ownership between stations. I note that the guidelines for selecting stations have been laid down but the experience of other countries shows that as time has gone by they found that there was a need to introduce guidelines on the extent of interlocking ownership. In Britain they are now talking about restricting the newspaper share in a licence to a certain level and in Australia they have found that the prevention of crossing as between the different media is desirable. There is a danger that it might militate against the public interest to have an undue concentration of ownership. Perhaps the way to move forward is for the commission to develop guidelines in consultation with the Fair Trade Commission in an effort to ensure that a reasonable code was being adhered to in regard to the extent to which stations were being controlled by other stations and in regard to the extent to which newspapers controlled stations. It seems to me that this would be desirable that, instead of a case-by-case individual merits proposition the commission would envisage general guidelines to be observed in this area.
The provisions of my amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 50 essentially are along the lines the Minister has been speaking about all day, that is the need for a light touch but, at the same time, decisive power on the part of the commission to ensure that broadcasting contractors comply with their various obligations. As the provisions stand the length of the contract has not been specified. It is only in extremis that the commission will have the power to step in against a station they feel is failing to honour its commitments. The likelihood is that there could easily be slippage of standards confident in the knowledge that the commission are unlikely to act very strongly against a station until the end of its licensing period, at which stage it could begin to pull up its socks.
I felt the type of procedure that would be more sensible would be the one I have outlined here, inserting a provision for annual reviews of stations and their performance on the part of the commission, if they so wish. In the course of such reviews they could issue a warning, a yellow card, to any station to the effect that it was not complying with its obligations. The station would then have a year within which to improve or face the likelihood that the commission would announce the readvertising of its contract. That procedure strikes a balance between, on the one hand, setting the contract period so short that it would not be commercially viable for the station to put together a proposal and, on the other, setting the contract period so long that the commission were not afforded an opportunity to ascertain how a station was performing over a long period until its contract came up for renewal. I put forward this proposal as a happy medium that would give the sort of light touch the Minister envisages but, at the same time, exert decisive pressure on a station to live up to the programming promises made at the time of licence application.
What motivated me into tabling amendment No. 4 was that I understand that the National Association of Community Broadcasters have codes of conduct, charters and so on, under which they register community-run stations and ensure that their standards are observed. If we are in circumstances in which there may be up to 200 community stations operating nationwide, it would seem sensible to me that if the NACB are providing a reasonable code and overseeing the activities of these community-run, cooperative stations in a reasonable manner, the commission would be able to recognise the NACB's self-regulatory system. Perhaps the Minister would see the merit of that suggestion as a way of keeping down costs on the part of the commission while, at the same time, fulfilling their needs in this area.
My amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 50 reads:
After subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) It shall be a condition of every broadcasting contract issued under this section that 51 per cent of the ordinary share capital in any company shall be vested in the Minister for Finance or shall be held by any company or group of companies in which the Minister for Finance has a majority shareholding or other publicly-owned bodies.".
I might make a number of points here. Deputy Bruton's amendment No. 1 seeks to require the commission to develop guidelines to safeguard against a degree of interlocking ownership between stations or with other sections of the media that would be against the public interest. I should say that the Deputy's amendment is fully covered in the new section which I have introduced, by way of amendment No. 16, paragraphs (2) (f) and (g) which specify criteria which must be taken into account by the commission in determining the most suitable applicant for a contract. I might read the relevant paragraphs:
(f) the desirability of allowing any person, or group of persons, to have control of, or substantial interests in, an undue number of sound broadcasting services in respect of which a sound broadcasting contract has been awarded under this Act;
(g) the desirability of allowing any person, or group of persons, to have control of, or substantial interests in, an undue amount of the communications media in the area specified in the notice under section 5 (5).
Those provisions would meet the general objectives of Deputy Bruton's amendment.
In relation to amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 50, I should say that it provides for a procedure for annual review under which a warning could be issued to a contractor, if there is no improvement in performance, that the contract could be re-advertised. We must be reasonable and recognise that a contract necessarily will be for a number of years in order that investment can be made in a proper level of services. However, under the provisions of subparagraph (4) of amendment No. 50 every sound broadcasting contract must provide that the commission may, at its discretion, suspend or terminate the contract, first, if any false or misleading information is given to the commission or, secondly, if the contractor has, in the opinion of the commission, committed serious or repeated breaches of his obligations under the sound broadcasting contract. This is a very full provision which encompasses the amendments sought by the Deputy.
In relation to amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 50, I should say that this is a condition that would envisage 51 per cent of the ordinary share capital in any company being vested in the Minister for Finance. This amendment goes against the whole thrust of the legislation and is not a feasible proposition. I contend it would sound the death-knell of the services emerging under the provisions of this Bill and I am not prepared to accept it.
In relation to amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 50, I can understand why the Deputy says that the community broadcasting groups have their codes of conduct and practice. I find it a contradiction that all day we have been talking about the commission, their role and the fact that they will be overseeing the operations of the various contractors and radio operators while, at the same time, certain numbers of these stations will not be under the control of the commission but rather operate under a voluntary code of conduct. I do not think that can work; everybody licensed must come under the control of the commission.
In regard to amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 50 in the name of Deputy Richard Bruton, there is always the possibility — as the Minister will recognise — that, despite the greatest care on the part of the commission, some contractors may be appointed who will produce sub-standard service for their community, not necessarily in breach of any of the regulations or of the conditions of their contract, but still of a sub-standard and undesirable nature. Of course, this could be disastrous if the Minister had awarded any such contractor a long contract——
If the commission had awarded them a long contract.
——yes, if the commission had awarded them a contract of considerable duration. Therefore, the amendment in the name of Deputy Bruton would represent a valuable source of control in that respect. If the Minister is unable to accept that amendment, he might consider a mechanism of awarding short contracts, with roll-over effect, in which contractors who are performing well — taking the positive approach — would have their contracts automatically extended but the possibility of sanction would exist in respect of the type of contractor about which I am speaking. I would visualise great difficulty arising only if the terms of contract envisaged were of long duration. There would be great encouragement in the initial years for a contractor to perform rather badly, to save money by producing cheap material in order to maximise his profit. Then he would gradually improve so that he would be acceptable when the renewal time came along. If Deputy Bruton's suggestion in amendment No. 2 is unacceptable I would strongly advocate shortterm contracts with the possibility of rollon for people serving very well.
If we are to have proper quality of service we must have proper investment in these stations at the start up time. The only way to justify a proper level of investment is if there is a guarantee on the basis of tenders submitted, on the basis of commitments made by the contractor, on the basis that the contractor will honour those commitments, that he will be allowed a reasonable length of time, be it five or seven years. Going the other road of the roll-over, and I accept Deputy Nealon's point that he wants to see a proper standard, is the wrong road. A proper standard is covered in the way I am going about it in the amendments I propose.
If a contractor gets a licence subject to renewal after two years, there is no way in which that contractor can afford to raise the sort of money necessary to set up a proper station with proper quality equipment and studios, and invest the sums of money necessary to give the type of quality service we want from these stations. It is better that they get the longer contract and establish themselves correctly and then the commission, with their overseeing role, if they are not honouring their commitment in relation to their contracts with the commission, would take action against him. That is the more viable way of approaching this.
I seek further clarification. In relation to amendment No. 2 the Minister says that investment will not be forthcoming if contractors did not get a reasonable period within which to operate, according to the commitments made. What I have proposed does not cut across that. It is purely a procedure whereby the commission can issue a formal warning to a station that it is not, in the eyes of the commission, meeting its commitments. The Minister refers to the fact that in subsection (2) (a) they can withdraw the contract in cases where serious or repeated breaches of obligation are being committed. It is only sensible to provide something short of that draconian move and this would be by way of a formal warning that the contractor now had a year within which to improve or he would be facing the scenario envisaged in subsection (2) (a).
On amendment No. 1 the Minister refers to the commission deciding about undue amounts of control between different sections of the media. I am interested to know what he feels is undue, in the meaning of this term. Does the Minister envisage situations where a national station should also have shares in regional stations? Would the Minister suggest guidelines, or who will suggest to the commission what might constitute unreasonable control and would the Minister not think that the Fair Trade Commission, whose job it is to look at competition, is the sort of body who would know what constitutes undue control of the media?
In relation to amendment No. 2, the points made by Deputy Bruton are covered under subsection (4) of amendment No. 50. Rather than having the annual review which the Deputy was considering, there is an investigation power there all the time so that in the event of the commission not being satisfied with anything, rather than having to wait for an annual review they could investigate at any time.
Undue control is a matter for the commission to decide. In relation to the involvement of the Fair Trade Commission in this legislation, we already have one commission and I do not see that we should involve another commission in the legislation.
Does Deputy Bruton accept the Minister's explanation?
I do.
Amendment to amendment No. 50, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 50 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 50:
After subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) It shall be a condition of every broadcasting contract issued under this section that 51 per cent of the ordinary share capital in any company shall be vested in the Minister for Finance or shall be held by any company or group of companies in which the Minister for Finance has a majority shareholding or other publicly-owned bodies.".
I take it that Deputy O'Sullivan is not pressing amendment No. 3?
I would ask the Chair to put the question.
Amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 50 put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 50 not moved.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 12, before section 15, to insert the following new section:
"—(1) Every contract concluded between the Commission and a programme contractor shall, where the programme contractor is a body corporate, contain all such provisions as the Commission thinks necessary or expedient to ensure that if at any time there are newspaper shareholdings in the programme contractor, and it appears to the Commission that the existence of those shareholdings has led or is leading to results which are contrary to the public interest, the Commission may, with the consent of the Minister by notice in writing to the programme contractor, taking effect forthwith or on a date specified in the notice, determine or suspend for such period as may be so specified or until a further notice is given, the Commission obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by the programme contractor.
(2) Without prejudice to any such provision as aforesaid in a contract between the Commission and a programme contractor, if at any time there are newspaper shareholdings in the programme contractor, and it appears to the Minister that the existence of those shareholdings has led or is leading to results which are contrary to the public interest, he may, after consultation with the Commission by order made by statutory instrument—
(a) determine on a date specified in the order the Commission's obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by the programme contractor; or
(b) suspend that obligation for such period as may be so specified, or during a period beginning with a date so specified and continuing so long as the order remains in force; and
(c) whether or not the order provides for the determination or suspension of the said obligation, direct that, while the order remains in force, the Commission shall not enter into any further contract with the programme contractor for the supply of programmes.
An order under this subsection may be revoked by a subsequent order thereunder.
(3) Before making any order under subsection (2) of this section the Minister shall lay a draft thereof before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not make the order until a resolution has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas approving the draft:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an order the sole purpose of which is to rescind, postpone commencement of, or terminate a period of suspension or cancel a direction.
(4) The determination or suspension in accordance with this section of the Commission's obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by the programme contractor, whether effected by a notice or by an order shall not affect the programme contractor's obligation as to the supply of programmes up to the date when the determination or suspension takes effect; and where such a determination or suspension takes effect, the programme contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation from the Commission or to any refund of any sum previously paid by the programme contractor or to any relief from any liability which has accrued at the date when the determination or suspension takes effect for any sums payable by the programme contractor to the Commission.
(5) For the purpose of this section there are newspaper shareholdings in a body corporate if shares in that body corporate are held by any individual or body corporate being either—
(a) the proprietor of any newspaper, whether national or local; or
(b) a person who has control over any body corporate which is a proprietor of such a newspaper.".
The Deputy here is concerned about newspaper shareholdings in contracts being contrary to the public interest. I am satisfied that the Deputy's concerns have been taken into account in section 3 (2) (g), amendment No. 16, which says that the commission must take into account the following criteria when selecting persons for contracts:
the desirability of allowing any persons, or group of persons, to have control of substantial interests in an undue amount of the communications media in the area specified...
The Deputy's amendment is covered there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 12, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"All contractors shall be required to make payments as follows to the Commission at the following rates for an accounting period of 12 months:
For the first £50,000 of advertising receipts — Zero
For the next £50,000 of advertising receipts — 10%
For the next £400,000 of advertising receipts — 20%
For the balance above £500,000 — 25%.".
The purpose of this is to provide revenue for the commission. What I am asking is not unreasonable, inasmuch as the first £50,000 of advertising receipts are free of any charge but from the next £50,000 of advertising receipts I am asking for a 10 per cent take. That is not an unreasonable amount. It is best to have in existence a statutory and visible levy rather than an unknown levy which the Minister may from time to time request the commission to impose. This would be a means of providing the necessary income to ensure the continuance of the commission.
It is not for me to decide on any levies. It is a matter for the commission. The commission should be left flexible in this area rather than that we should be writing specifics into the legislation. We are entering into a whole new arena here of licensed alternative radio and television. We are going to establish a commission under this legislation and we should leave its operations to itself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We will now move on to the next category, commencing with amendments Nos. 7, 54 and 55.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
" `television programme service' means a service which comprises a compilation of audio-visual programme material of any description and is transmitted or relayed by means of wireless telegraphy directly or indirectly for reception by the general public.".
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 12, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
"PART IV
TELEVISION PROGRAMME SERVICE
16.—The Commission shall, on being directed to do so by the Minister, invite applications for a television programme service contract for the provision of a television programme service which shall be distributed using channel capacity on wired broadcast relay systems and television programme retransmission systems licensed under regulations made under section 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926.".
Amendment No. 54 concerns the applications for television programmes contracts. The amendment says:
The Commission shall, on being directed to do so by the Minister, invite applications for a television programme service contract for the provision of a television programme service...
Will the Minister explain exactly what is meant by that? Why must the Minister direct the commission to invite applications? I understood that the procedure was that there would be a public invitation for proposers to make submissions to the commission and that the commission would go through these and seek licences from the Minister with regard to the frequencies, channels and so forth, which would be required to fulfil the requests which they considered to be valid and viable. I am mystified as to why the Minister should take the power to direct the commission to invite applications.
This legislation is enabling legislation. The decision as to whether there should be third channel is a matter to be determined by the Government and they have made that decision. It is appropriate therefore that the commission should only seek to establish such a service on being directed by the Minister. The trawl that we mentioned earlier on was in relation to a trawl of those interested in the radio licences, and where the radio licences are concerned that is the reality of it. This is just a direction to the commission to advertise for a third channel, Channel 3, so that is what will happen.
The reason we have the legislation before us in relation to the third television channel is that the Government have decided in their wisdom, or otherwise, that there is room for a third channel.
Do not start that at 11 o'clock at night.
I am still not clear as to why we have in the Bill that the commission "shall on being directed to do so by the Minister" invite applications. Assuming that the Government have already decided they want a third channel which will be a commercial channel, why then must the commission be directed by the Minister?
As I already said, the Government have taken the decision. This is the form of the wording used which was drafted by the parliamentary draftsman and there is no great deal about it one way or the other.
Could the Minister change his mind?
I could not.
I would like clarification on what the Minister has said about the trawl envisaged in section 5. Under amendment No. 55 — which we will reach shortly — that is not one of the sections excluded from the application to a television station. I presumed, and it follows on from our discussion earlier, that the Minister would be envisaging a similar entertainment of interests. The way television should develop in this country would be on the basis of particular localities with some programming network between them and the Minister was agreeable to look again at that. I would have thought it was more consistent with the view that section 5 of the Bill applies to television also. Is it by accident or design that under section 4 (2) (b) there is a different provision entered into regarding the contract for television than the contract for sound broadcasting? In the case of sound broadcasting he said the sound broadcaster would have to provide the service as the sound broadcasting contract might specify but no similar provision is entered into under section 2 (b). It would seem to me to be quite normal that the television station should be equally bound by the contract. I cannot understand what is going on there. Is it an accident in drafting or is there some purpose behind it?
I am assured that there is no significance to it. So far as the question of the trawl is concerned, the Government have decided that there will be an independent national television service. As far as the involvement of the regional services are concerned, to which the Deputy referred and which I said I would consider, the consideration of it will be on the basis of opt-out arrangements being made for particular hours of the day, for example, an hour a day or a half an hour a day as already exists in Cork communications where they opt out for a half-hour on a number of days in the week when it would be possible to have the national station. In the case of BBC, Northern Ireland opts out for about 20 minutes, before the national news. There could be an opt-out arrangement, as in Cork, for 20 minutes or half an hour. There could be an opt-out arrangement for half an hour through the cable system within the Dublin region. That can be allowed. That is what I am looking at and that is what I said I would come back with on Report Stage.
When we discussed this matter this morning I made my position and that of the Government quite clear. I am being practical about it when I say that undoubtedly the trawl will indicate a number of people who are anxious to provide a national service. The Government shall direct the commission at that stage to provide that national service.
Is it envisaged under this legislation should we find, for instance, that Galway wanted to enter into an agreement to have so many hours of its own television broadcasting that a ministerial direction would again be required or would the commission have it within their power to provide for that.
The commission would have the power.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 12, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
"16.—(1) The provisions of Part III of this Act, other than sections 7, 8 and 15, relating to the powers, duties, functions, obligations and responsibilities of the Minister, the Commission and sound broadcasting contractors respectively, shall apply with respect to the television programme service contract entered into by the Commission and the television programme service provided under this Part, and any reference in Part III of this Act to a sound broadcasting contractor shall for the purposes of this Part be construed as a reference to the television programme service contractor.
(2) Notwithstanding the generality of subsection (1), section 9 (1) (c) shall not apply in the case of the television programme service provided under the television programme service contract.
(3) The Commission shall ensure that the television programme service provided under this Act shall in its programming—
(a) be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland, ensure that the programmes reflect the varied elements which make up the culture of the people of the whole island of Ireland, and have special regard for the elements which distinguish that culture and in particular for the Irish language;
(b) uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Consituation, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression;
(c) have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of countries other than the State, including in particular those of such countries which are members of the European Community; and
(d) includes a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs programes;
and the television programme service contractor shall comply with any requirements of the Commission in respect of such matters.
(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 organisations.".
Subsection (4) states that the commission shall ensure that a reasonable proportion of the programme service is by persons other than the contractor and that it would originate in the State or some other member state of the EC. As I understood it, the Minister envisaged that a certain proportion of the total output of the station would be home-produced and within that quota a certain proportion would be produced by independent producers and not by the station itself. This seems to provide only for the latter part. There does not seem to be any suggestion that the station should be achieving a certain quota of home-produced material, be it produced in-house or out of house. I would like the commission to ensure that a reasonable proportion would be home-produced; 50 per cent in the case of RTE has been a very successful recipe for them to step up viewership and to improve their commercial performance. What we should be talking about is a reasonable proportion being home-produced and within that a reasonable proportion being produced by contractors outside the station.
I may have to look at that wording again as the Deputy mentioned that point. The intention is that there would be a reasonable proportion of home-produced material or, because of European rules, I had to put in "or of EC member states". "Reasonable proportion" is the phrase used in the directives prepared in the EC and at Council of Europe level. We have a thriving independent production capacity here at present and we have the potential for an even more successful independent production sector. I intend to encourage independent production and that is the intention in the amendment before us. I may have to look at it again in relation to doing the double proportion. I am not sure that I can.
In relation to RTE building themselves up to between 45 per cent and 50 per cent of home production, it took them 25 years to achieve that. I believe they would have been a much more successful station had they got there earlier. In the light of the threat of competition they have brought themselves to this level. This is the road that any competition, the independent station, will have to follow also because if they are to be successful and if they are to get the viewership and the advertising which will depend on their viewership figures, they must provide what the public want. The public have made it clear that what they want is a reasonable proportion of home-produced programmes.
I asked a similar question at an earlier stage regarding what is now being described as a "reasonable proportion". Would the Minister confirm on Report Stage whether he can specify in percentage terms how many would constitute a reasonable proportion? I feel he cannot do that and that is as close as he could possibly go legally. As I said, it is an aspiration that people would include home produced material but I think there is some legal obstacle in the way of the Minister specifying precisely how much can be included.
I want to ask the Minister some questions in relation to this. When we were discussing section 9 in relation to the broadcasting service the Minister was very strong — and I supported him — with regard to the minimum requirement of 20 per cent of broadcasting time for news and current affairs for local stations. Now we are proposing in this section to establish a national television station and we are providing in this Bill under amendment No. 55, section 16 (2) that "...subsection (1), section 9 (1) (c) shall not apply in the case of the television programme service provided under the television programme service contract". We are letting them opt out there completely. Further on in the amendment we find that "(3) The Commission shall ensure that the television programme service provided under this Act shall in its programming ...(d) include a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs programmes; and the television programme service contractor shall comply with any requirements of the Commission in respect of such matters".
It seems contradictory for the Minister to take a strong view, on which I supported him, that there should be a minimum of 20 per cent of broadcasting time on radio and now come to deal with a national TV station where we are doing away with that requirement and providing that it need be only a "reasonable proportion". I am not sure what obligation is on RTE with regard to the provision of news and current affairs, but I am reasonably sure that the requirement on them is more than simply providing a reasonable proportion. I ask the Minister to clarify that and why he feels we should oblige the radio station to provide 20 per cent and not apply a similar criterion to TV, which is generally acknowledged to be a far more powerful medium of communication.
Amendment No. 55, section 16 (4), deals with a reasonable proportion of the programme service devoted to original programme material, and the Minister said he may have to look at that. He mentioned that there was here a flourishing independent production centre — which there is — producing excellent material at the moment but it is of very recent origin and still has not grown up into a strong entity and at present relies on the goodwill and general policy of RTE. If RTE decide to go back into total production of all the material they wish of home originated material, that would deal a fatal blow to the independent producers. RTE have been very good in encouraging these producers, so this represents major new possibilities for the independent sector where they can grow and flourish. It represents alternative outlets for them and can ensure that we will be producing material which will subsequently sell at an international level. That can be very important for strengthening the base of our film industry. The Minister is to look again at the wording of this section, which appears cumbersome at the moment. I suggest that any changes made should strengthen the position of the contractors producing home material here.
The whole object of the exercise is to ensure we have reasonable proportion of home produced programmes on the independent channel and that a reasonable proportion of that in turn will be of independent production outside the control of the contractor. Therefore, there is a double reasonable proportion which I may have to put in. I am not sure about that but I will look at it. At the moment there is an independent production facility here who are doing well but there is potential for a great deal better. They are getting a good deal of business from RTE who have taken a very enlightened view on it in agreement with their unions, their staff generally and management. They have been sending out more and more independent productions. This is a healthy move. It is good for the station as has been proved in the TAM ratings they have been getting for the independent production material. This new independent TV channel will give a further boost to the independent production sector and they will welcome it.
Deputy De Rossa asked about a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs in this regard and 20 per cent on radio. You are dealing with a totally different medium between TV and radio and that is why I have used the phrase "reasonable proportion" here as distinct from a specific proportion. The Deputy asked what were the obligations under which RTE were operating. RTE have no obligations whatsoever written into their legislation in relation to a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs and it is essential for the new Channel 3 that there should be a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs, so I have written it in. What it means in percentage terms is a matter for the commission and I am leaving it to them.
Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the legal constraints on "reasonable proportion". This is what is going to come out legally binding as a directive from the EC. That is why I am using the wording "reasonable proportion". It will be legally binding.
Will the Minister clarify that?
I am clarifying it for the Deputy now. I will say it again on Report Stage. A legally binding directive is in course of preparation and nearly finalised in the EC in relation to the whole question of TV and radio, mainly television, trans-frontier TV, satellite etc., and "reasonable proportion" is the phrase used within that directive. It is used here because we wanted our legislation to fit in.
Can the Minister specify whether it will be 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent?
Did the EC not specify 60 per cent in the directive?
The EC are looking for quotas but we are into reasonable proportion. That is the compromise that will be accepted. I was at a Council of Europe meeting in Vienna about two months ago with all the Communications Ministers from around Europe and we had a long discussion on this quota as distinct from reasonable proportion. "Reasonable proportion" was the phrase accepted as distinct from "quota". I assure Deputy O'Sullivan and the House that the intention is that the independent channel will strive to reach that goal at 40 per cent minimum of the home produced programmes. If Channel 3 are to be successful, for the reasons I specified they will have to have a high proportion of home produced programmes otherwise they will not get the audience and if they do not get the audience they will not get the advertising. If the station does not get the advertising they will not survive. It is in their own interest to ensure that there is a high level of good quality home-produced programmes.
The more I read subsection (4) the more I wonder about it. It states:
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 organisations.
Will the Minister explain what is meant by that subsection? It seems to imply — I may be misreading it — that the contractor would be obliged to have a reasonable proportion of his programming done outside his or her organisation and that it may not be done by existing broadcasting organisations. Presumably that means that RTE will be excluded from providing programmes for the third channel.
The intention is to encourage independent production capacity here. RTE have been encouraging home independent production operators. They have been farming out more and more of their work to independents rather than producing at Montrose. It is the Government's desire to encourage the talent we have here as much as possible. We want the promoters of Channel 3 rather than doing all the programmes themselves to send out a reasonable proportion to independent producers. It seems unreasonable to expect Channel 3 to ask RTE to produce programmes on their behalf. I am anxious that we should develop the independent production capacity here. We have a great potential for exports in this area.
We should consider the number of new channels that will be introduced in Europe and America. There will be three new satellite stations in the UK by 1989 and new stations in Luxembourg, Germany and additional satellite stations in the US. They will need more programmes to keep their schedules filled on the 12 or 24-hour basis they will be operating. Those stations will have to buy in programmes and we are trying to encourage the independent producing sector, and RTE, to avail of every opportunity to sell programmes to them. There is potential in the short and long-term for Channel 3, RTE and the independents to form a consortium to sell Irish television programmes worldwide. That is one area where there could be great co-operation between the new independent channel and RTE. There should be a joint marketing operation to sell their programmes worldwide. The programmes produced here are of a high quality and, therefore are marketable. We should be doing everything to encourage our independent producers and that is what I have in mind in this provision.
I am raising the question not to imply that I am objecting to the development of independent programme makers because in my view they have a role to play. As the Minister said, they have assisted RTE in reaching high viewer figures. At present RTE sell their programmes to other broadcasting operations. For example, they sell an edited version of "The Late Late Show" to Channel 4 and I am sure they market other programmes. It is not unreasonable to expect that on occasions the new third channel will want to buy programmes shown by RTE, just as RTE 1 and RTE 2 repeat programmes.
The "I Love Lucy" programme that has been going for the past 50 years.
No. We do not want repeats of that type. However, on occasions the third channel may want to buy from RTE or RTE may want to buy from the third channel.
That is not forbidden.
I do not see that that would in any way inhibit the development of other independent programme makers. The section appears to indicate that that type of buying and selling between the broadcasting stations is not counted in the reasonable proportion of home-produced material they are obliged to carry. The subsection states:
...in another Member State of the European Communities by persons other than the contractor, his subsidiary, his parent or existing broadcasting organisations.
Does the Minister expect that that will be part of the directive he referred to earlier? Will there be an obligation in the directive not to buy material from existing broadcasting organisations?
There will be a section in the directive dealing with independent production but it will not be in that form. I should like to assure the Deputy that there is nothing in the section that will debar Channel 3 from buying some of the old RTE programmes or some of their specials. In other words, they can do business with RTE.
Will it be counted as home-produced material?
It will be counted.
Amendment agreed to.
We now move to amendment No. 52 in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 52 in the name of Deputy Richard Bruton.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 12, before section 15, to insert the following new section:
"15.—(1) The Minister may, at the request of the Commission and after consultation with Radio Telefís Éireann, require the latter to co-operate with sound broadcasting contractors in the use of any mast, tower, site or other installation or facility needed in connection with the provision of transmission facilities for sound broadcasting services to be established under this Act.
(2) A sound broadcasting contractor shall make to Radio Telefís Éireann such periodical or other payments in respect of any facilities provided in pursuance of subsection (1) as the Minister, after consultation with Radio Telefís Éireann and the Commission, directs."
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 52:
In subsection (2), to delete all words after "subsection (1)" down to the end of the subsection and substitute the following:
"as is necessary to compensate RTE on a commercial basis, where there is disagreement on the sum involved, arbitration shall be arranged."
I want the commission in deciding the rate of compensation to RTE to pay RTE on a commercial basis. I do not think RTE should be expected to dip into their own resources in order to provide facilities to independent sound broadcasters. The compensation should be on commercial basis and where there is agreement on the sum involved arbitration should be arranged. In my view that is only fair. We have been talking all day about reasonable treatment for everybody involved and if RTE are to bear the cost of maintaining these facilities they should be allowed to charge on a commercial basis.
I can assure the Deputy that the thrust of the amendment is that there will be this type of co-operation, but any such co-operation shall be rendered on a commercial basis. The expectation is that an operator who seeks a facility will work out directly with RTE the terms on which it will be made available and that arrangement will simply be given an imprimatur by the Minister. If agreement on terms cannot be reached, the Minister, after consultation with RTE and the commission who will be acting on behalf of the contractor, determines the appropriate amount to be paid. It should be noted that while legally the Minister would be the arbiter there would be nothing to prevent the Minister of the day from appointing and taking advice from a professional arbitrator. The Deputy's concern is covered in my amendment. There is no intention that the commission will go in with the backing of the Minister to take over the facilities of RTE. This will be done on the basis of commercial criteria.
It should also be possible under the section to extend this facility to the training of student broadcasters. RTE have acquired a lot of expertise which should be used to the best advantage. It could be done on a commercial basis. Any independent station who would want to train technicians, broadcasters and producers should be allowed to do so. RTE should be allowed to market their services. It would be a means of generating further revenue.
I have no objection whatsoever. That can be done under RTE's legislation. I see no objection to RTE training apprentices. Aer Lingus run such training courses all the time. RTE could train people for channel 3 and other stations around the world. Amendment No. 52 and the further amendment from Deputy Bruton refer to the facilities of RTE — masts, towers, etc. They do not relate to people. The suggestion by Deputy O'Sullivan has much merit and if RTE come to me with such a proposal I will be delighted to encourage them. They do not need my approval.
How does the Minister perceive this matter arising? It seems we are inserting an obligation on RTE to co-operate with other sound broadcasting organisations. It does not apply to television. We are not putting a similar obligation on other broadcasting organisations to do likewise for RTE if they are seeking to use a facility, site, mast or tower which another organisation have. How does the Minister justify putting an obligation on RTE and not on other organisations? How does he see the matter being referred to him?
RTE because of their history have the prime sites around the country. International arrangements which are binding under treaty not only specify the frequency but in many cases the siting of the masts. They have been sited by RTE in the positions arranged under the international frequency agreements to which we subscribe. We are bound by these treaties and if we want to use these frequencies we must use the positions RTE already have. RTE have developed these facilities over the 60 years of their existence. The possibility of reciprocal arrangements does not arise. It will be one-way traffic towards RTE, but not at RTE's expense. They will have to be compensated on a commercial basis for their co-operation with the commission and the services they will be providing.
It would only come to the Minister in the case of dispute.
Yes. It would normally be organised between the promoter, the contractor, RTE and the commission. Only in the event of a dispute would it come near the Minister of the day.
I refer to the Minister's amendment regarding the use by private contractors of towers or masts belonging to RTE. This is a very significant amendment which has major implications in regard to the capital cost of setting up independent stations and also in regard to the quality of reception. There is also an environmental aspect. None of us wants a proliferation of unnecessary masts and towers around the country. I can see major conflicts arising. I do not believe the Minister's amendment is worded sufficiently tightly. It refers to any mast, tower, site or other installation or facility needed. Who is to define whether it is needed or not? What are the criteria? I do not think it is a question of the frequency. Is it a question of reception area or does the question of costcutting come into it? I can see conflict arising in a variety of areas. The independent broadcaster could possibly start off in a cheap way by using an expensive RTE mast. I can also see RTE for one reason or another putting up major objections to this. While the Minister has built in a type of arbitration as far as the cost is concerned, he should seek to build in some sort of arbitration or decision-making mechanism as to whether the site of the mast or tower is needed. Otherwise I can see major problems of conflict.
This is written in on the basis of the commission and RTE, not the contractor. I believe there will be co-operation between RTE and the commission and I have no doubt they will work closely together. We are living in a small island with only 3.5 million people and I do not see that level of controversy developing.
There is a very significant time consideration here. A local station may get going immediately if they are able to use part of a mast or tower covering a wide area. There could be delaying tactics. These people represent opposition to RTE and I do not suppose RTE will go out of their way to facilitate them. The Minister, by building in some sort of arbitration system, would avoid many difficulties for the commission.
I observe we are debating the Minister's amendment No. 52. I should much prefer to dispose of Deputy Richard Bruton's amendment to that amendment. How stands that amendment?
It is withdrawn.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 13, before section 19, to insert the following new section:
"19.—(1) The Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may in respect of each of the two consecutive financial years beginning with that in which the establishment day occurs, pay to the Commission such amount as he considers reasonable in respect of its initial expenses.
(2) The total of the amounts paid pursuant to subsection (1) shall not exceed £500,000.
(3) The amounts paid to the Commission pursuant to subsection (1) in respect of a year to which that subsection relates shall be deducted from the receipts in that year in respect of wired broadcast relay licence fees and section 8 (b) of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976, which provides for payment of money out of such receipts to Radio Telefís Éireann, shall be modified accordingly.".
In subsection (3) of this amendment the Minister is providing that the levy on cable companies should go to the commission. Heretofore it has been going to RTE. I cannot understand why we should persist with this levy. The Restrictive Practices Commission referred to this when they looked at the cable system in Dublin and they indicated it was anomalous to have this levy. I do not see why the subscribers to the cable system should have to pay a licence fee and an additional levy. I do not see why that levy should be there, whether it be payable to RTE or to this commission. I felt the Minister's thinking in the past was that this levy should go and I am somewhat puzzled at his decision to sustain the levy on cable subscribers and to use it in this way.
My amendment to amendment No. 1 was ruled out of order. I was seeking to delete subsection (3) not for the same reasons as Deputy Bruton is proposing, although our names are included on the same amendment, but on the basis that it was raiding the RTE coffers in order to set up competition against themselves. It was ruled out of order because it implied a charge on the State.
That is so.
Therefore I cannot move the amendment but I would still like to put on record my opposition to this proposal.
Amendment agreed to.
We now revert back to amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1), to delete lines 16 and 17 and substitute the following:
" `broadcast' means the transmission, relaying or distribution by wireless telegraphy of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not;".
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
"PART I
Preliminary
1.—This Act may be cited as the Radio and Television Act, 1988.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), to delete line 13.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 3, line 5, to delete "GRANTING OF SOUND BROADCASTING LICENCES FOR THE PROVISION OF SOUND BROADCASTING SERVICES IN SPECIFIED AREAS" and substitute the following:
"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".
Amendment agreed to.
I am now putting the question formally. The Question is: "That in respect of section 1, sections 10 to 13, inclusive, and sections 18 and 19 of the Bill, the section or as appropriate the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to and that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and that the Committee reports that it has gone through the Bill and has made amendments thereto and has amended the title to read as follows: An Act to provide 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 the services provided by Radio Telefís Éireann, to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid." Is that agreed?
No.
I am putting the question accordingly.
Question put and declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Wednesday, subject to agreement with the Whips.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 8 June 1988.