Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1988

Vol. 381 No. 8

Radio and Television Bill, 1987: Report Stage.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 26, after "Commission" to insert the following:

"to promote the development of a community sound broadcasting service which is democratically owned and controlled by the community, has a cooperative or other non-profit distributing structure and is used as a means of community development and".

We put down this amendment on Committee Stage. We re-entered it on Report Stage because on further consideration of the functions of the commission and the criteria they are obliged to consider for the allocation of licences, we are not satisfied that the commission are sufficiently obliged to promote community broadcasting, particularly community radio broadcasting. The wording of the amendment adds a further obligation on the commission in section 4 in that it shall be the function of the commission:

to promote the development of a community sound broadcasting service which is democratically owned and controlled by the Community, has a co-operative or other non-profit distributing structure and is used as a means of community development.

The reason we have re-entered this amendment is that we are not satisfied that the functions given to the commission under section 4 sufficiently enable them to take on the role of promoting community radio. On Committee Stage the Minister claimed that section 6 (2) (h) gives adequate coverage for community radio. It states:

(h) the extent to which the service proposed——

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

(ii) Serves communities of interest, and

It is clear those two criteria could be met by any commercial station and that it is not adequate to enable community stations to have a reasonable chance of getting licences from the commission. In view of the importance of community broadcasting in the development of local cohesion in the community, it is important that our amendment be accepted.

On Committee Stage I gave examples of areas which urgently needed the kind of communication which a local broadcasting station could provide. It is also important that adequate access is available to the means of communicating with each other in order to have a healthy democracy. There should be communication not only from the point of view of leisure pursuits such as music and drama but from the point of view of communicating information relating to what is going on in an area and in relation to discussing issues that arise in an area. It is only through a community broadcasting station that this kind of communication can take place adequately. The commission should have the right and the power to promote community stations.

Commercial interests will have the wherewithal to promote their own interests and to present a well-packaged proposal to the commission. They will have the resources to indicate how they will provide the various systems and infrastructure required for local radio, whereas a community which will depend entirely on voluntary effort will more than likely not have available to it the same kind of expertise and support. Therefore, we argue that there should be an obligation on the commission to promote the development of community sound broadcasing on the basis that these community stations would be democratically owned and controlled by the community. The section which the Minister regards as adequate in this regard, section 6 (2) (h) is not adequate and would, by and large, mainly assist those who have a commercial orientation.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I am in general sympathy with the amendment put down by The Workers' Party in that community broadcasting is something that everybody in the House is keen to see developed and fostered. Deputy De Rossa has spent some time outlining the form of community broadcasting he would like to see coming on stream. I do not disagree with him and I would like to see it encouraged, but will the Minister tell me, if he believes this is catered for already in the Bill, under what section it is catered for? I know Deputy De Rossa referred to section 6 (2) (h) which just gives an indication of the intention of the Bill, but is there a duty on the commission, particularly when they invite applications from interested parties, to involve themselves in broadcsting contracts? Will the commission be obliged to distinguish between what is a genuine community broadcasting intention and will they be obliged to give full consideration to all genuine community broadcasting interests that are brought to their attention at the time when they do the initial trawl, when they invite applications for broadcasting contracts?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I support Deputy De Rossa's amendment. We have to recognise that when the title of the Bill was changed, any hope of introducing community radio was jettisoned. The original Bill suggested that community broadcasting would be democratically controlled and that has been my party's position for the past ten years. I regret that neither the Minister nor his predecessor was favourably disposed towards our draft. I would like to see greater community involvement. The Bill as presented will not cater for that. There is no compulsion on the commission to ensure that there is proper community broadcasting. The Bill largely ignores the educational role of broadcasting. There was correspondence between the Minister and the National Association of Adult Education regarding the use of broadcasting for educational purposes but things were not resolved to the satisfaction of the National Association of Adult Education. They were not happy with the communications they had with the Minister's Department.

Last week reservation was expressed as to whether the full news complement could be maintained in local broadcasting. I ask the Minister to consider the suggestion that some of the time intended for news coverge should be used for educational purposes. Many of the stations will be hard-pressed to provide a news slot as provided in the Bill. As an alternative, there could be a news and education slot and some of the time that was supposed to be spent on news coverage could be given over to educational requirements. In doing that we would be providing a service. This is something that deserves consideration. It would help many people who did not have the opportunity of progressing beyond first or second level education and who may be confined to the home for one reason or another and who may not be able to partake of second level education. I give the example of people who are handicapped and who would not have access to a school or people who are in receipt of social welfare and who are now debarred from taking courses in education on the basis that they are not available for work.

I would like to see the radio system used for this purpose and I would like to ask the Minister if something could be done in this area. It would also entail getting agreement from the other parties as to whether it could be changed at this late stage. I feel it would go a long way towards involving the community. I will be supporting the amendment put forward by Deputy De Rossa.

Mr. R. Bruton

This amendment was one which was discussed on Committee Stage in a number of contexts. I put down a similar amendment. We also discussed the whole issue of the functions of the commission and whether we should attempt to give the commission functions that would set out, in general terms, what we would like to see achieved. At the time the Minister felt that this was redundant, that these were rather pious statements of intent and that everything was already contained in his criteria. The criteria are limited to an extent in that it is only if proposals are forthcoming of a certain nature that the commission can consider this element in them. If no proposals come forward of that nature that item becomes redundant.

What many of us had in mind when we raised this issue was that there will probably be a need for the commission who will over time become the centre of a great deal of knowledge and expertise in the area of broadcasting. There will be a need for that commission to support community groups in some small way by way of information being available to them, to meet them and discuss how they would set about putting together a package. That is why all on this side of the House felt there was a need for a more explicit statement of obligation or duty on the commission to do that.

The reason there is so much concern is that at the early stage when the Minister discussed his proposals, while he clearly acknowledged the desirability of the development of community broadcasting and he provided for neighbourhood and town stations which were geared more towards community than commercial interests perhaps, it was stated in his announcement that these would be subject to their not interfering with the commercial viability of the larger stations which were being established. That creates a doubt in my mind as to how successful this Bill will be in pushing for community involvement in broadcasting if they are going to be at a second round. I am aware that subsequently the Minister indicated that they would not be at a second round.

There is still an issue to be addressed. The Minister, even if he does not accept an amendment, should at the very least offer the commission some guidance because they have the right under their obligations to consider other matters or to lay down other matters that they would feel appropriate when advertising stations. They have the right to trawl for information. In some way or other, the House should express its desire that community initiative in broadcasting should become a significant feature in the new broadcasting world that emerges when these Bills are passed.

Mr. R. Burke

This amendment advocates a particular development or promotional role for the commission in relation to community broadcasting. We had a long debate on this matter last week and I indicated then that I believe it is important that the commission be given as much flexibility as possible to develop its policies in relation to all potential forms of broadcasting and should not be constrained into focusing on one particular framework. Furthermore, I think the function proposed is inappropriate to and out of character with the nature of the commission we are proposing in the legislation. It is not being constructed as a promotional body per se. It is intended to be an objective selector of franchises and a regulator of the services it selects. The real impetus for community broadcasting will come from within the community itself and through the organising and advisory capabilities of bodies such as the NACB, not from the top by a State agency. In this context the best way of ensuring a community dimension to broadcasting is by including that element as one of the criteria to be used by the commission in making its selections. This will ensure that potential applicants will have to seek to embrace this element in their applications while the commission itself will have to take it into account.

Furthermore, I am satisfied that the criteria I have specified, that is, the extent to which a service serves recognisably local communities and is supported by various interests in the community captures the essence of what community broadcasting is about. Having a co-operative or non-profit distributing structure is not an imperative element for community broadcasting. For example, many genuinely community provided and run facilities such as local sports complexes adopt a limited liability company form of structure purely in the interests of protecting the community. Likewise, if a community run station makes a profit we should not deprive that community of using those profits in whatever way it chooses, for example, to support other community developments. In all the circumstances, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment proposed.

On Committee Stage I took a major step forward in encouraging the community aspect under the criteria which must be taken into account by the commission in determining applications for sound broadcasting contracts. On Committee Stage I introduced in section 6 (2) (h) a provision which was accepted by the House as follows:

The extent to which the service proposed—

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

(ii) serves communities of interest,

So far as the point made by Deputy O'Malley is concerned, the criteria in section 6 (2) (h) cover that particular genuine community involvement. As I told the House last week, I was in discussion with the NACB on this issue. So far as Deputy O'Sullivan's point is concerned regarding the educational aspect, this item comes up under amendment No. 10 and we will then have an opportunity to speak about that aspect when we get to that amendment. On the point made by Deputy Bruton in relation to his suggestion that we could arrive at a situation where no proposals come forward for community broadcasting and, therefore, the whole idea of community broadcasting itself would become redundant, in reality that will be very far from what will happen.

The procedure which I have proposed in the legislation allows for what we now call the trawl. At the first stage when the commission is appointed one of its functions will be to advertise and to ask in a general way, without actually looking for applications, who in the community is interested in establishing a station, in what areas, in what structures and to cover what districts. I believe that trawl will bring forward considerable indications of interest from community groups in society who will be interested in applying for licences either for counties, regions, towns or neighbourhoods.

There is a desire to encourage community broadcasting — that is my desire — but I want to make it clear that it is not the only form of broadcasting I want to see happening. There is, and should be, for commercial broadcasting. In some of the types of stations, national, regional or whatever way they are going to work, there can be community involvement but they will not operate on community line alone, there will be a commercial element. We should not tie the hands of the commission. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept this amendment. Since the introduction of the legislation I have tried as far as possible to take on board suggestions of Members on all sides of the House for improvement of the legislation. I have gone quite a distance in regard to acceptance of amendments and I believe the Bill on Report Stage is generally accepted as a fair balance of all interests in society.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am sorry the Minister has not seen fit to accept or indicate he would take on board the ideas in amendment No. 1 in my name and the names of Deputy Mac Giolla, Deputy Sherlock and Deputy McCartan. This discussion highlights the dividing line, so to speak between the approach we have to broadcasting and the approach the Minister is promoting in this Bill. The Minister has said he is anxious to indicate that, while he is keen that community broadcasting should develop, there should be commercial broadcasting.

There is little doubt that anybody reading the Bill, even with the amendments the Minister accepted on Committee Stage, would find the thrust is towards commercial broadcasting. There is a nod in the direction of community involvement — not community broadcasting per se in section 6 (2) under which the commission are obliged in determining applications for award of sound broadcasting contracts to take a list of items into account. They have to take into account the character of the applicant, the adequacy of the expertise and experience, financial resources and the extent to which the application accords with good economic principles, the quality, range and type of programmes proposed, the quantity, quality, range and type of programmes in the Irish language, the desirability of having a diversity of services and a number of other items regarding the desirability of allowing control of the broadcasting into a person's or group of persons' hands and, at the end, the extent to which the service serves recognisably local communities and is supported by various interests in the community or serves community interests, etc.

That is just a nod in the direction of community broadcasting. It is by no means a commitment to the development of community broadcasting. On reading all the criteria the commission have to take into account it is clear that the bulk of broadcasting will be by commercial proposers, people who have proposals with regard to profitable broadcasting services.

At an earlier stage in this debate I indicated I was not at all happy with the dominance of commercialism in broadcasting and I felt there was too much emphasis on the question of advertising, plugs and the whole ethos created by the idea of broadcasting being a product which can be sold itself or through which you can sell other products. I was anxious to emphasise that it should be seen as a means of communication within a community, be it the small local community, the larger county area or the national community and that commercialism should be put in second place. That, effectively, is what we are proposing in this amendment. We would put the onus on the commission to promote the development of community sound broadcasting which is democratically owned and controlled by the community and has a co-operative or other non-profit distributing structure.

The Minister takes issue with the form of the amendment, saying that co-operatives are not necessarily the best way of promoting community radio. I am not arguing that they are. He says maybe in certain circumstances a limited liability company will be necessary. That is true but, as I understand it, co-operatives are limited liability companies and there is nothing to stop other forms of limited liability company here. There is limited liability by guarantee where quite a number of community organisations form themselves into limited companies for the sake of protecting their committees from claims of one kind or another as a result of accidents and so forth. Therefore, no limitation is implied in the format which I put forward here.

The question of it being a non-profit distributing structure was intended to apply where a commercial organisation would distribute profits to their shareholders. This amendment is intended to prevent that kind of thing happening in a community situation and would be a means of identifying a community structured broadcasting system. It would be quite inappropriate for a community broadcasting station to make money from its functions and then distribute the funds made to its own members when claiming to be a community station. That would not prevent it from using the funds made for other community development functions. The amendment provides that the broadcasting service would be used as a means of community development.

I am not satisfied that the Minister has addressed himself to the points I have made or to the argument made on the need to promote community stations as distinct from commercial stations. I have made the point that the commercial elements will already have the power, through their funding, through the resources they will have available to them, to promote themselves and cover all the areas the commission will be obliged to consider before they grant a licence, whereas the community organisation will not necessarily have that kind of expertise available to them. Some of them may, but in the vast majority of cases they will need a great deal of expertise and assistance. It is unfortunate that all the Minister is prepared to do is ensure that the commercial services which will be put forward will have some element of community involvement. I do not regard that as adequate. Therefore, I propose to press the amendment.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 72.

Tá

• Bell, Michael.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• McCartan, Pat.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Níl

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

Tellers: Tá, Deputies McCartan and Sherlock; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related. I suggest therefore that we debate them together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No.2:

In page 4, line 29, to delete "one television programme service" and substitute "television programme services".

On Committee Stage the Minister indicated a willingness to have a look at this whole area. I was disappointed that he had not included this in his amendments. The intent of the amendment is to look at the way in which television is to develop. The Minister seems to be wedded to the idea that there should be just one commercial national station. At present there is no national network. On technology grounds alone, if a new television station was to operate in Ireland tomorrow it would have to be on the cable networks that exist in Cork, Dublin and other smaller towns such as Waterford and Galway. The technology, to a large extent, dictates that stations will be local in transmission at least. It would be very sensible that we follow the technology and have all stations local in content. If that were done the stations that would emerge would be more complementary to RTE's existing national service.

The meaning of the trawl which the Minister is providing for in section 5 of the Bill, which will also apply to television, would be almost senseless if he does not consider that there should be the possibility of localised stations. In the long term, as broadcasting evolves in the next ten to 15 years, it is almost certain that technology will make broadcasting cheaper in the television area as it has done in the radio area. Ten years ago it would have been almost unthinkable that there would be a number of stations and that small community co-ops would get involved in broadcasting. We are in a position where we could have small stations in areas such as Cork. In time, technology will provide that much smaller areas could accommodate television stations.

This legislation is drafted in a unduly restrictive fashion in envisaging only one national station. If we look to the UK where there are television franchises in different regions we will see that some of those regions are extraordinarily small. The smallest one is in the Channel Islands where there is an independent contractor who works on the basis of an advertising revenue of under £2 million a year and provides local programming.

On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that he would envisage an opt out from the national commercial station with perhaps programming in the Cork region or in other regions. There is a significant difference between the opt out being at the behest of the national commercial operator and at the behest of the commission. If, for example, there was a body in Cork willing to provide X number of hours transmission and use the balance of the network from the Dublin operation, it would be preferable that that application be heard by the commission rather than by the national commercial programmer who might not see the desirability of having local content in his broadcasting package. On technological gounds, on the grounds that this is the way television broadcasting will emerge in the future, the Minister is making a mistake in confining himself to one television station. He knows that he does not yet have the network to distribute it nationally. There is some scepticism as to whether his proposed MMDS system will get national coverage. I share a certain amount of that scepticism as regards the areas that currently have off-air on up to six channels at present, without paying for any new MMDS system.

In amendment No. 3 paragraph (b) I have stated there should be more than one television service and that the television contractor should have the duty to provide his service as the television programme service contract specifies. This provision was included in the case of the sound broadcaster but, mysteriously, this was left out when it came to the television service contract. The Minister suggested that that was simply an oversight. I do not see why it was included for the sound broadcaster and not for the television broadcaster.

They are the reasons I believe the Minister should look favourably on these amendmednts.

Mr. P. O'Malley

Amendment No. 2 in my name reads:

In page 4, line 29, to delete "one television programme service" and substitute "television programme services".

On Committee Stage the Minister said he would consider this matter before Report Stage. I do not know what his intentions are in relation to this amendment, but I hope he recognises the points Deputy Bruton has just made and will make it possible to provide local television stations as distinct from one national service which the commission are confined to examining if the Bill goes through as worded.

If it is the function of the commission to look at the development of sound and television broadcasting and to determine from the initial examination what is in the best interests of the development of broadcasting, why have they freedom on the sound broadcasting side to come to decisions on what is appropriate and how stations should develop, but on the television side they are confined to considerations that apply to one National television station only? On Second Stage I queried whether that is the appropriate type of additional television service we need.

Apart from RTE 1 and 2 we have cross-Channel stations, which are received generally throughout the country, and satellite stations. I would have thought it more appropriate and more in line with what people want if we were to develop regional or city stations in, say, Dublin and Cork, where the programming would be much more complementary to the services already available nationally.

I fail to understand why the Minister did not address this point in the amended Bill before us. It is very important that he should do so. As I said, I do not understand why he has allowed the commission to consider all the proposals in the area of sound broadcasting but confined them in terms of the further and future development of television broadcasting. The technology is there to accommodate a Dublin station and a Cork station. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and to make changes so that the commission will not be confined to just looking at a national station but will have to totally disregard any proposals from promoters of a service in regional or city areas. That restriction should be lifted and, in the best interests of overseeing the orderly development of broadcasting, they should be allowed to consider such proposals that are brought to their notice.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I will be opposing this amendment because from what both Deputies have suggested, we are already deciding who will get the franchise for Cork and Dublin. That is contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Deputy O'Malley suggested we already have a company in Dublin and in Cork.

Mr. R. Bruton

No, we have a distribution system.

Mr. P. O'Malley

They were only examples.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I hoped we would have Channel 3. If I were living in Dublin I would have cable television reception for £60.90 per annum and in Cork I would pay £140 per annum. I do not want to see further growth in this area. There is a suggestion from the cable company in Cork that were they to provide a movie channel a further payment would be expected.

The Minister said the difference between the commercial stations and RTE was that the commercial station would not have a licence and would be dependent solely on advertising. If the cable company cannot provide an off-air signal similar to that provided by RTE 1 and 2, then we could be creating a monopoly. At present this is costing approximately £130 per year, a substantial sum, and the Minister has not covered this point in the Bill. For instance, if the company operating in the Cork area were to get the franchise they could have a monopoly. At present they have a device known as a black box which scrambles the signal. If you want to watch RTE 1 and record a programme on RTE 2 at the same time you cannot do it. The people in Dublin and Cork would be at the mercy of the commercial operators. I will oppose this amendment because it will lead to the exclusion of many people from a television service. Every person in the State must have the option of getting an off-air signal and, if we were to accept the Deputies amendments, many people would be excluded.

MMDS is a separate argument and there is a great deal of confusion about it. The Department have asked for tenders from people interested in MMDS. There is a great deal of confusion because the powers provided have not been specified and the area to be covered by a particular signal has been suggested. However, this will have to be argued at another time. As I said, I am opposing the amendment, which will lead to a monopoly because the commercial operators will exclude many people who will not be able to afford the extra channel.

Mr. P. O'Malley

It is in addition to the national service.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister referred to Channel 3, and for the purpose of this discussion let us call it Channel 3. Everybody must have the opportunity to receive Channel 3, but if we go down the road suggested by the Deputies, there is a danger this will not happen.

Mr. R. Burke

We discussed this at great length on Committee Stage and I promised to have a look at it. I have given this a lot of consideration. I am satisfied that the idea which lies behind it can be accommodated without making the change in question. The approach I propose for the development of a television service is a more constructive and coherent one.

Our primary objective is to have a third channel established which will essentially be national in nature. However, it does not preclude the type of regional services mentioned. People can opt out as was mentioned earlier. I believe we should go that road. I also believe what the Deputies want is, and can be, included in the Bill as drafted.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Bruton, concluding on his amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

I should like to answer some of the points made. Deputy O'Sullivan is mistaken with regard to the intention of the amendment. He suggests that the cost of cable in Cork might rise because of a new channel being carried on it. There is no reason in the wide world that this should happen.

Mr. O'Sullivan

On a point of order, Deputy Bruton is misquoting me. Acceptance of his amendment might lead to a monopoly.

Mr. R. Bruton

I was coming to that point. I thought he had raised the issue of cost. The Cork network will have to carry a channel, willy-nilly. The Minister will oblige it to do so. It really is an issue as to whether it will be a channel with a significant local content in it, or one that is purely national. I recognise the point that Deputy O'Sullivan is making about the danger of any cable company running a station and also controlling the network by which the channel is distributed. I believe strongly that the commission should not give a licence to any company both to run a television station and to own the pitch, so to speak, on which all the other players have to play. That would be wrong. It is the sort of situation we have at present with Cablelink, to a large extent, where RTE own the network.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It would be half the price.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Deputy is correct in saying there would be a danger of monopoly control if you had in Cork, or indeed anywhere else, a company distributing the signal and owning one of the channels to be distributed. They would have the opportunity of giving favourable treatment to their channel and preventing the emergence of other packages. On the issue of whether everybody in the State should have access, I think they should have. I have nothing against the development of a national network. Whether there is provision for localised contractors or not, there will be a national network. That is the system in the United Kingdom, where there are localised network contractors and still a national ITV. It is a similar sort of structure that I would have in mind, that there would be network programmes for all areas and a contractor in particular areas providing programmes for particular hours.

I was disappointed the Minister in his response did not answer the point I made regarding the desirability that it be the commission that would oversee the development of a local element in television programmes rather than the national commercial contractor. If the Minister gives that role to the national commercial contractor, unless that contractor sees money in it for him to develop stations that would serve local interests in local regions and in that way be complementary to what we have from RTE, it will not happen. Quite viable proposals could emerge in areas that a national broadcaster would not be interested in considering. It would be far preferable that the commission would be the body that should decide whether we should see the emergence of programming in Cork or other areas.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Pat O'Malley, replying to his amendment.

Mr. P. O'Malley

First, Deputy O'Sullivan is under the impression that what we are advocating under this amendment is that the national channel should not proceed and that we should develop some form of regional television service. That is not the intention. The national channel as outlined in the Bill could still proceed. With regard to the change of wording, we propose the deletion of the words "one television programme service" and substitution of "television programme services". It is implicit in that that what we really want to see catered for here is the possibility of development of regional television services whereas, as the Bill is at present drafted and if the amendment is not accepted, that type of development will not be allowed to happen, particularly in the way in which I want to see it happen, that is, as a result of the commission having had representations made to them about promotion of such stations and being in a position to give those representations consideration and to come to some decision on them.

If the Bill goes through as at present before us, the commission effectively will be prevented from doing that, which is unfortunate. It would be much more appropriate if the commission could take on board all advice, recommendations, or representations made to them.

Deputy O'Sullivan also mentioned briefly the MMDS system. It is now coming on stream because it is the system which will be used to distribute nationally this third television channel. I made the point on another occasion to the Minister — and, indeed, another Deputy has reminded him of it this afternoon — that there are many reservations in regard to that transmission system. I would remind the Minister that he undertook to issue a statement about MMDS——

Mr. R. Burke

That is right.

Mr. P. O'Malley

——in view of the concern being expressed publicly, particularly in relation to the health aspect, apart from other technical considerations. I shall be looking forward to an early statement on that matter from the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is amendment No. 2 being pressed?

Mr. R. Bruton

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall put the amendment. On amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies Richard Bruton and Pat O'Malley, the question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I ask how stands amendment No. 3 which was debated with amendment No. 2?

Mr. R. Bruton

They stand or fall together. I shall not press the amendment.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now proceed to amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Richard Bruton. Amendment No. 5 is related, so I suggest that we debate amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"(1) In developing a network of stations, the Commission shall consider broad regions within which there should be several competing stations and which, in particular, would be capable of sustaining special interest stations.".

This, again, was discussed on Committee Stage. The essential intention here is that in doing its trawl, as we are now describing what the commission is to do in advance of deciding on areas to be licensed, it should consider broad regions with a possibility of a number of stations operating within them, rather than being confined to a system where there would be a single holder of a franchise within a restricted county boundary, although there could be other stations with a smaller area within that. The notion of county boundaries for the type of station we should see evolve and that there would be a single countywide station within that area is likely to stifle the sort of broadcasting that we see evolving.

On Committee Stage the Minister recognised the desirability of seeing special interest stations evolve. He also recognised that those stations could not survive unless they had a broader than single county area. If you are talking about a classical music station that would be confined to, perhaps, Tipperary South — although I suppose that there is a special case because there might be a following there — it could easily be that the area would be too small for that station to survive. It might only survive in a broader region where it could pick up a wider listenership. That is why I believe we should not straitjacket the geographical areas and get away from the idea of granting a franchise to only one station in each county. The Minister may have decided that he is not going to proceed in that way but I have not heard him say as yet in so many words that that is not the way he intends to proceed.

Let me now turn to amendment No. 5. The wording of the present section is strange in that the commission will prepare a report but there is no reference to the way in which the commission could make known its views on how it would like to see broadcasting evolve in, say, the north west region and what licences they believe should be issued by the Minister. While the Minister will not be a party to all of the discussions which will take place, it appears that it is he who will make the final decisions on what licences should be applied for. Of course, the Minister should have the right to decide on what licences should be issued as he is responsible for running the frequencies. That is why I have proposed a change in the wording which would allow for the commission to make recommendations and for the Minister to then issue licences having considered those recommendations. This would seem to be the more sensible approach and more in keeping with what I thought the Minister intended doing.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I support Deputy Bruton in his efforts to achieve flexibility on what stations will emerge following the passage of this legislation. I am not aware that there is a rigid requirement that licences be issued only to county stations or town stations. I think it is good that the commission will take an overview of the requirements and will give due consideration following the receipt of submissions to community broadcasting, which we discussed earlier, to special interest stations and commercial stations. They should then be in a position to recommend what mixture of services should be provided in any given location. These should not be confined to within county boundaries or other such rigid structures.

Mr. R. Burke

What Deputy Bruton is trying to achieve is already covered in the Bill. If I were to accept amendments Nos. 4 and 5 we would direct the commission in one particular direction. The Deputy's concern seems to arise from my preference of allowing the opportunity for county-type stations to emerge in the first instance but I have written nothing into the Bill which would constrain the commission to focus solely on this direction. Indeed, I have built in a provision, which the Deputy has acknowledged, which would allow the commission to undertake a trawl of expressions of interest as to the nature and extent of the kind of services which are likely to emerge, including the extent of interest in specialist or general stations, particularly music stations. It would have the opportunity from this process to determine the most suitable geographic configurations for radio stations — it could be regional.

At the end of the day any geographic configuration determined would have to marry in with the radio frequency assignments available to the country, and that is where my own role in regard to radio frequencies and international obligations comes in. The frequency assignments of medium power level available to this country are in fact based on a county configuration. There are lower power assignments for town stations and even lower power assignments again for neighbourhood stations. Regional-type broadcasting is of course feasible but only by networking county transmissions. This means if one chooses this road one is foregoing the possibility of a county level station. It is for this reason that my preferred approach is to go for county stations at the outset. I have no doubt that some of these stations will not prove ultimately to be viable and might find themselves integrating into or networking with other county stations to form one regional service. This, however, is a purely personal view based inter alia on the technical realities of what is possible, but as I have said I am not going to restrain the commission by writing my views into the Bill. I have not done this because I believe this is something which should be left to the commission. By allowing the commission to undertake a trawl of expressions of interest we may come up with the regional configuration the Deputy speaks about.

In regard to amendment No. 5, I see no substantive difference between the current provisions in the Bill and those proposed by the Deputy. In the circumstances I am not disposed to accept the amendments. If I were to accept these amendments I believe we would do the reverse of what the Deputy intends. The Deputy wants it left to the commission to decide on the configurations, and so do I. While I have my personal views in regard to county-type stations, I believe by allowing the commission to undertake a trawl of expressions of interest we may come up with various configurations.

Mr. R. Bruton

That is fair enough.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 6.

In page 7, line 18, to delete "section 5' and substitute "section 5 (5)".

The purpose of this amendment is to correct a cross-reference to subsections which was missed on Committee Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to deal with amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Richard Bruton. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are alternatives. I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, to delete lines 21 to 51, and in page 8, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:

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

The international trend in inviting applications for licences is that the public should have a right to know the alternatives open to them. On Committee Stage the Minister outlined that there could be a danger that those who were refused licences would not want to have their names made public and I think the commission would respect their desire for privacy in that respect. Obviously, they would need to have some type of name but more importantly they would have to make public their programming intentions. That is what the public would have an interest in. While the commission could protect the desire for privacy on the part of applicants where they think it is appropriate to do so, it is only reasonable that it make known to the public the different types of stations which are on offer at application stage and that in the final adjudication it be in a position to get a response from the public as to their preferences. I am aware that in the Bill the Minister puts forward the idea of a trawl, but experience shows that those who respond to advertisements in the newspapers are those who have a very strong interest in applying. The ordinary member of the public will not apply and will not express to the commission their views on the sort of station they would like to see emerge.

The way in which the commission can get some feeling of what is needed in the area would be by means of publishing some details of the type of programming applications that are being received for stations in respect of which they have chosen to offer contracts. The Minister is taking an unduly restrictive view, concerning himself with the danger of revealing commercial details that people will want to maintain private or with the danger of stations outbidding one another. If, by outbidding one another, it means that an improved application is received, that would be very welcome. If the procedure of making public the type of programming on offer ends up in a better offer coming on to the table — in the course of the commission considering the allocation of a contract — that is all to the good. Indeed that was one of the arguments advanced by the Minister on Committee Stage, and is the reason I have tabled this amendment for the Minister's consideration at this stage. If there is public knowledge of what is going on it will help to ensure that the best type of broadcasting evolves.

Proinsias De Rossa

I have not yet ascertained exactly what Deputy Richard Bruton is endeavouring to do in relation to the placement of section 6 with his amendment. It would appear to me — and perhaps it can be confirmed whether I am correct — that he is proposing to delete all of the criteria by which the commission will determine an application and have them replaced simply by the publication of details of applications without giving the commercial details. That would not appear to me to be an appropriate amendment.

Amendment No. 8 is in the name of The Workers' Party and takes us back to the discussion we had on Committee Stage, that is the debate concerning the extent, if any, to which people who have been involved in pirate broadcasting should be allowed to get licences and enter into contracts with the commission for the provision of services. It is our view that there should be strict scrutiny of applications for contracts to provide a service. Indeed, in responding on Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that section 6(2) (a) which required that the commission had to have regard to the character of the applicant was adequate. The Minister said he was not keen for a variety of reasons to specifically exclude pirates. It is my view that simply having a provision that the commission should have regard to the character of an applicant does not necessarily direct the attention of the commission to the questions we raised with regard to pirates, in particular the issue I raised on Committee Stage of ensuring that at least where pirates, or former pirates, apply for broadcasting licences and contracts, all of their accounts should be up-to-date and filed with the Revenue Commissioners. That requirement should obtain. It appears to me that an amendment similar to what I propose here — that the extent to which an applicant has been directly involved in providing a sound broadcasting service without having been licensed to do so — should be taken into account.

I made the point previously with regard to community-based, non-commercial services. It has been suggested to me that some services described themselves as community services whereas in fact they were thinly disguised commercial operations. That is true. However, we must have some confidence in the competence of the commission to differentiate between a community-based, a non-commercial service and the type of commercial pirate who may have misused the term "community".

Therefore I would ask the Minister to take this amendment on board, which seeks to extend the provisions of section 6 (2) (a).

The other amendment in the name of The Workers' Party is No. 10 and relates to the extent to which educational programmes are to be provided. It is proposed that additional criteria be inserted among those to be taken into account by the commission in determining applications. I am sure the Minister and Members present will be aware of the strong representations made by Aontas, the adult education group that there be a specific reference in the Bill to the need for an educational service. In the course of their correspondence — which I am sure all Deputies have received — they say they are not satisfied with the assurance from the Minister's Department that it is expected that educational programmes will be included among those which promoters will provide. They argue that there is no provision in the Bill enabling the Minister or the commission to ensure that, if no applications for the provision of educational services are received, such educational services will be provided. I should like to ask the Minister to inform the House whether he thinks — as appears to be implied in a letter from his Department — that the matter is covered already under the provisions of section 17 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, as amended by the provisions of section 13 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976, or, if not covered by the provisions of those sections, he will indicate whether he will take this amendment on board, placing an obligation on the commission to take into account the extent to which educational services will be provided.

Mr. R. Bruton

On a point of order, I think Deputy De Rossa adverted to this fact — the intention, in amendment No. 7, was that it would be to add that subsection rather than substitute it. It reads wrongly on the amendment sheet. My intention was that the following should be added:

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

Proinsias De Rossa

It reads to delete.

Mr. R. Bruton

Yes, I know that — my apologies.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I am somewhat confused about some of the sections. Is there not provision in the Bill whereby the commission are obliged to maintain a register of applicants for broadcasting contracts? As I understand Deputy Bruton's proposal, what he wants to do is to have details of all applicants published. My question is: is that information not already available on a public register anyway for anybody who is interested in ascertaining such information?

Mr. R. Bruton

In relation to successful contractors only.

Mr. P. O'Malley

In other words, after the decision has been taken, but, prior to that decision being taken, the public are not given an opportunity, by way of information in a public register, to ascertain details of applications forthcoming. There is much merit in Deputy Bruton's amendment. It may be possible for groups of applicants to come together and provide a service. At least there should be the facility by which they can become aware of what is taking place in terms of applications to the commission before decisions are taken because, once decisions are taken, it may well be too late. I had thought that Deputy Bruton's point was that this material should be published, that the public should be made aware of it on that basis. However, I had understood incorrectly that that information was available to the public anyway if they cared to visit a designated place where the information would be available on a public register.

There was an amendment the Minister accepted on Committee Stage about disclosure of the beneficial ownership of shares — that that should be the case where shares are held by nominees. I am pleased to note that the Minister has taken that suggestion into account.

Mr. O'Sullivan

We must be conscious that amendment No. 8 provides a general amnesty to private operators. For that reason I would support Deputy De Rossa. It is wrong that licences should be granted to people who have violated the law, perhaps not paying their PAYE or PRSI contributions, people who have violated planning laws, as has been the case in many instances in my county, people generally who have disrupted our communications network, who have effectively put lives at risk through interference with the airwaves at, say, Dublin Airport, police and ambulance wavelengths and so forth. It is wrong to take applications from people who were guilty of such crimes under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1936. It is not good enough for them to say "We are going to wipe the slate clean and start afresh". The question of accountability has to be considered and, for that reason, I will be supporting Deputy De Rossa.

I welcome amendment No. 9 in the name of the Minister. It gets us over the problem of the content clause which the Irish music industry and I requested be inserted in the legislation. This proposal has to be welcomed by everybody who is involved in Irish music, drama and entertainment. Irish artistes who record abroad should also be borne in mind. Other stations such as the BBC and Radio Luxembourg blatantly push their artistes. I believe it is about time we gave our artistes the support they deserve. We have been negligent in this regard in the past. I am a little disappointed with some radio music programmes because there is very little content in the programmes which could be described as being of Irish origin. I believe the Minister's amendment will help to reverse this trend.

With regard to amendment No. 10 I mentioned earlier in the debate that there is a need for educational programmes. It is a bit unrealistic to expect too much to be dedicated to news items. I believe smaller stations will be hard-pressed to have the amount of news time necessary to comply with the Act. It would be a good idea if some of this time could be used for educational programmes.

Mr. R. Burke

Amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Bruton proposes the publication of the details of the application before the commission grant a franchise. We discussed this at great length last week and for the reasons I explained then this amendment is not acceptable. In particular, I want to stress that the purpose of establishing the commission was that they could take decisions on behalf of the public, and take them in trust. I want to emphasise that there is a degree of transparency already built into the Bill which is almost unprecedented in legislation coming before this House and to go any further would make the task of the commission impossible. The transparency aspect written into the Bill is that the details of a contract between a successful applicant and the commission will be available on a register and copies of it can be secured from the commission. Like any other normal tendering procedure, the only tenders that will be published will be the successful tenders; the unsuccessful tenders will not be published. A tender for a local authority housing estate, sewerage scheme or road will be published only if it is successful.

Mr. R. Bruton

This is not an issue of price.

Mr. R. Burke

With regard to the unsuccessful tenders, Deputy O'Malley made the point that if ten applications were in for a particular area licence it might be possible at some stage for two or three applicants to see what their competitors have in, and to withdraw their applications and amalgamate their proposals to the commission. That would be a totally unfair form of tendering and I would not be in favour of it. I do not think it would be right and proper if a person who had tendered could see what his competitors have tendered so that he could take out his tender and jiggle it around to try to beat somebody else's tender.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I hope the Minister does not believe I would make an improper suggestion like that. My suggestion was designed to be helpful. It was not as the Minister interpreted it.

Mr. R. Burke

That is as I interpreted it and if I made a mistake I am sorry. The question of people tendering for particular licences is a very sensitive issue. If the commission find that there is more than one application for a Dublin licence the intention is that there could be two Dublin regional licences. If somebody wants to apply for a licence he may get a consortium of electronics media people together and their application will be made in confidence to the commission. Their intention would be that if the application is unsuccessful they would retain their jobs in the present electronics media, in other words RTE, but if they were successful they would hand in their resignation to RTE. If they are unsuccesful and do not get the licence they will want to retain their position with RTE and stay there. If we publish the details of the application we would be breaking the confidentiality aspect of the application and there would be a possibility that the type and range of personalities and individuals who apply for the licences would not be the ones I want to apply. I believe we should trust the commission and leave it to them to decide on the applications. A call was made in this House for a commission to decide these matters. I believe we have to put our faith in the commission.

I believe I have met in the fullest way possible any doubts a successful applicant may have in relation to the transparency question. I have covered this question to make sure that not only is the right thing being done but that it is also seen to be done. However, if any successful applicant wants to publish the details of his or her application afterwards it will be up to them to do so and nothing will debar them from doing so. This tender will be like any other tender and I do not think we should tie our hands on it.

Amendment No. 9 deals with the prohibition of those who have been involved in illegal broadcasting from being considered for franchises, with the exception of those involved in "community broadcasting".

We had a detailed comprehensive discussion on this matter last week. I am satisfied that this would be a inappropriate road to go down. The discrimination which the amendment seeks to make between community and non-community pirates would probably be challenged on a legal basis, apart altogether from the practical difficulties involved in making the distinction in question.

Amendment No. 9 in my name is similar to that put down by Deputy Bruton on Committee Stage. At that time I undertook to come back with an amendment and this is the preferred wording. I believe it will meet the point made by Deputy Bruton on Committee Stage and it will improve the Bill considerably. It will also confirm the point made by Deputy O'Sullivan in that it will encourage Irish talent in music, drama and entertainment. That is a very good thing indeed.

In relation to amendment No. 8, I assure Deputy O'Sullivan that it is not the intention of this legislation that the slate be wiped clean in relation to those who have been involved in pirate broadcasting. Under section 6 there are criteria in relation to the character of the applicant and that covers this aspect.

In relation to amendment No. 10 relating to educational programmes, I am satisfied that this is covered sufficiently well in the provisions of the Bill, specifically the mandate on the commission relating to the provision of a diversity of services, to the range, quality and type of programmes proposed and the news and current affairs obligations that will be on the stations. In addition, there is a separate specific provision in section 8 to provide for a simple mechanism for granting contracts to educational institutions. In relation to broadcasting, there is no legal obligation on RTE, for example, to carry purely educational broadcasting. If RTE carry purely educational programmes they insist that the Department of Education pay for the programmes. As far as educational type programmes are concerned, the diversity of service and the range, quality and type of programme proposed under the news and current affairs obligations will cover education as broadly as possible.

Mr. R. Bruton

I did not acknowledge earlier that I welcome amendment No. 9 which is on the lines I proposed on Committee Stage. On amendment No. 8, I presume the Minister's reference to character would require that people would have clear tax affairs and things like that. That element of what Deputy De Rossa said would have to be met. I presume the Government rule that applies to contractors that they would have clear tax records would in this case apply automatically without this amendment. In relation to amendment No. 7 in my name, I can see the point in what the Minister is saying if the programming details include the names of personalities who would rather not see their names there. There could be difficulty if the commission were publishing the names of presenters. There should be a possibility of the commission making some soundings of the public and perhaps my amendment is too rigid a way of doing it. I will not press my amendment, although I still feel that this should not be done entirely in camera and that protecting commercial privacy is one thing but denying the public knowledge of the types of programming, is going too far. Without the rigid obligation in my amendment which could give rise to the dangers adverted to by the Minister, I hope that the commission will see it as being appropriate to publish details of different applicants so that they could sound out local feeling about it.

Proinsias De Rossa

When we agreed to take amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 together, it was on the understanding that amendment No. 7 was an alternative to the whole section, and that the rest were alternatives to that. As a result we are discussing together a block of four amendments.

In relation to amendment No. 8, I regard it as unfortunate that the Minister cannot include in the Bill a specific reference to those who have for the past ten years or so been in breach of the law, not just of the law in relation to the Telegraphy Act but in breach of a whole range of other laws referred to by Deputy O'Sullivan.

In relation to amendment No. 10 the Minister says that there is no obligation on RTE to provide a service. I would draw the Minister's attention to a letter which Aontas received from the Department, dated 25 May 1988, which said that the position at present as regards educational programming in RTE is that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy De Rossa bear with me for a second. I do not know what the House might have decided earlier on, but my understanding is that the House agreed to take amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 together.

Proinsias De Rossa

We agreed to discuss them together.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes. I would remind the House that we are on Report Stage and Report Stage specifies that only the Deputy who moves the amendment is entitled to reply. They are the constraints of Report Stage. I would remind the House that I do not know whether the House agreed earlier on to waive anything in respect of this.

Mr. R. Burke

We did not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Without these constraints we would go back again into another Committee Stage debate.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am replying to amendments Nos. 7 and 10 which I moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No, Deputy De Rossa, there cannot at any stage be more than one amendment before the House. Only one amendment can be moved.

Proinsias De Rossa

I will withhold my comments then until amendment No. 7 is disposed of.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

But, the House agreed to discuss the four amendments together. In agreeing to that, the Deputy has already deprived himself of the right he is now claiming.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not intend to get into a dispute with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy appreciates that we are on Report Stage and it is specified in Standing Orders that on Report Stage only a Deputy who moves an amendment has the right to reply. The Deputy has not moved any amendment at all.

Proinsias De Rossa

I did. When I rose to speak previously, following Deputy Bruton's moving of amendment No. 7, I rose and moved amendments Nos. 8 and 10.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might have thought he did that, but he would not be in order doing that seeing that there was already one amendment before the House which was being discussed.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not want to delay the House in a dispute. I have made my points in relation to the amendment. I think there is some confusion with regard to the reply which Aontas got from the Department. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position at a later stage.

Mr. R. Burke

Sure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Do we take it that amendment No. 8 is not being pressed?

Mr. O'Sullivan

Can I just confirm something? We agreed to take the four amendments together but it was not the intention that we would composite the four amendments and that the mover of amendment No. 7 would speak on behalf of the group. That was not the intention, was it?

Mr. P. O'Malley

It was not our understanding of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The fact that the agreement was made — and I inherited that decision — does not mean that there would be a composite decision on amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 will be put separately.

Mr. R. Bruton

Who has the right to reply?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I do not have an amendment down, as such, but lest we should set a precedent here, it is important that we get it right. Although we agreed to take the four amendments together, I do not think it was anybody's understanding that we take a composite amendment here. I appreciate that the Chair inherited the decision, and I do not want it to be a burden on the Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not until you become slimmer.

Mr. O'Sullivan

If the Chair's interpretation is to be taken as a precedent on some other occasion I think we would be doing a disservice to the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 7 having been withdrawn we then move on to the question on amendment No. 8. It will be as we are dealing with it now. We will do the same with amendments Nos. 9 and 10 in respect of the question.

Proinsias De Rossa

Will there be a response to each amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is how I would see it and that is how you must see it too. If it is laid down, that is what I must advise the House on.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, line 28, after the word "shares;" to insert the following:

"and in particular the extent to which the applicant has been directly involved in providing a sound broadcasting service without being licensed to do so, save where it was a community based non-commercial service".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"(e) the extent to which the applicant will create within the proposed sound broadcasting service new opportunities for Irish talent in music, drama and entertainment;".

Amendment agreed to.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"(e) the extent to which educational programmes are proposed to be provided".

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 11 is in the names of Deputies De Rossa, Mac Giolla, Sherlock and McCartan. Amendment No. 12 is an alternative and amendment No. 13 is related. I take it that Deputy De Rossa is moving amendment No. 11. Is there agreement that the three amendments be taken together?

Proinsias De Rossa

Amendment No. 11 is similar to the Minister's amendment No. 12 and therefore there is no need for it.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 36, after "manner", to insert "and without any expression of his own views".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 9, line 41, after "manner", to insert "and without any expression of his own views".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 10, line 16, to delete "may draw up" and substitute "shall draw up".

This amendment is to cover a commitment I made on Committee Stage in relation to the fact that the Commission will compulsorily draw up codes of practice relating to programme obligations and meets the general views which were expressed on the issue last week. I promised that I would do it and it is now done.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, line 8, to delete "may" and substitute "will".

Essentially there seems to be some confusion in the Bill at present as to what precise complaint procedures exist if someone is not satisfied with the way the station has treated a complaint. The Bill provides that the commission can request the information for inspection but it does not say anything about the commission exercising any power to recommend or to say that a person was treated wrongly and that the station should broadcast a retraction. Subsection (3) states that the Minister may, by regulation, enact the powers of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission; the alternative is to provide that the commission will enact the procedure of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. That is the purpose of amendment No. 15. I am not clear at the moment as to what happens if someone feels they have been badly done by, by a station, makes a complaint and still feels they did not get satisfaction. It seems that unless the Minister has decided, in general terms, to implement the provision of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission that that complaint might have nowhere to go. Obviously, it could be a long time before the Minister might get around to deciding that he would activate these complaint procedures. It would be more sensible for the Minister to provide, as of now, that there will be recourse to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission in the same way as with RTE. If someone feels grieved by the way in which he has been treated by RTE he has the right to go to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The Minister may advert to the fact that the commission in this legislation has all sorts of disciplinary powers against the stations and that is undoubtedly true, but if you examine the records of the complaints they were not ones in which the Broadcasting Complaints Commission would consider putting RTE off the air or anything of that nature; they are much more minor or mundane complaints. There should be some place where people can go to have those complaints heard. I do not think this is met by the very formidable powers which the commission has in the last analysis to bring a station to heel.

Mr. R. Burke

This amendment proposes to make it compulsory to extend the ambit of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to cover the services proposed in the Bill. It believe its adoption would be a grave error of judgment and would be tantamount to an expression of no confidence in the ability of the Independent Radio and Television Commission to regulate the services. As I explained last week, there is a twofold process for dealing with complaints set out in the Bill which is even more strict than that applying for instance, to RTE.

In the first instance we are imposing fairly rigorous statutory obligations on broadcasters themselves to treat complaints fairly and satisfactorily, to maintain records of how they treat them, the action they take on foot of them and to open those records for inspection by the commission. Second, there is the de facto reality that complaints will inevitably come to the commission who will then have to investigate the complaint and respond to it. There is the first step of complaints to the station and then a complaint to the commission. It is only in the absolute last resort, in other words if in the light of experience it is found that the mechanisms which we are proposing in the Bill fail, that I would consider resorting to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I hope and indeed expect never to have to use the powers in question. To have to do so from the outset, apart altogether from other considerations, would create significant logistical difficulties in terms of increasing staffing levels and other facilities of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission all of which would be unnecessary duplication of the resources which the Independent Radio and Television Commission will have. I believe that if the IRTC are doing their job properly, as set down in the Bill and if the stations are meeting the obligations laid down under this legislation, it would be absolutely as a last resort that we would resort to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission procedures. I would prefer to leave it, let us see the operation with the IRTC and if, as the very last resort it is required, the Minister of the day may bring in the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. But I would rather the flexibility of the word “may” than “shall” as is proposed in the amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am happy to hear the Minister say he would rather not invoke the Broadcasting Complaints Commission but, on Committee Stage, I had an amendment which proposed that the Authority would look at the complaints. If you read subsection (2) the commission has the power to look at the records kept but it does not seem to have the power to ask the station to issue a retraction or to make any recommendation on what it finds. That is what strikes me as surprising. We neither have a Broadcasting Complaints Commission to hear the complaint nor does subsection (2) suggest that the commission will do anything about it if it hears a complaint. That is the reason I am confused. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that subsection (2) means more than just perusing material and doing nothing about it.

Mr. R. Burke

It does of course. It means that they follow it as well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 13, between lines 2 and 4, to insert the following:

"(2) The Commission shall 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.".

On Committee Stage the Minister, in rejecting the idea that the commission should set guidelines, felt that in the amendment which I tabled at that stage the involvement of the Fair Trade Commission was an excessive burden in this legislation. That may be so. I have resubmitted for the Minister's consideration an amendment dropping the idea that the commission should have to consult with the Fair Trade Commission.

I draw this issue to the Minister's attention again on the grounds that most other countries drawing up legislation of this sort found that they imposed quotas on interlocking ownership between different stations in some cases or between different sections of the media, and this has been in the public interest. I feel that in time this will emerge here and we will see it is in the public interest that you do not have a high degree of interlocking ownership between stations for obvious reasons. I submit to the Minister again that perhaps at the outset, before we become involved in a great many stations being set up and the commission perhaps having retrospectively to backpedal and say they want to instal guidelines having regard to the international experience and so on, we would alert them to the fact that this is the trend, that we recognise this trend and can see certain merit in having guidelines established. It would be hard to say for every condition what the guidelines would be here and it would take some time to look and ascertain what would be appropriate. Over time, this should be the way we are going on this issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before the Minister replies, let me direct Deputy Bruton's attention to that amendment. It says: "In page 13, between lines 2 and 4, to insert the following": It seems to me that it should be "between lines 3 and 4".

Mr. R. Bruton

I did not put that down. I am sure you are right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It could be a typing error. We get the spirit of it.

Mr. R. Burke

I am satisfied the Deputy's concern is covered adequately through criteria laid down in section 6 (2) (f) and (g), which are:

(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);

I have no doubt that the Deputy's concerns are met there and that there would have to be full disclosure of the background of applicants for franchise, particularly since the adoption of the useful amendment made last week requiring identification of persons entitled to the beneficial ownership of stations in a company seeking a franchise. The danger of unforeseen interlocking relationships emerging in this context is negligible. In these circumstances I see no case for imposing an obligation on the commission to draw up guidelines for a problem that is not likely to emerge. Apart altogether from the practical considerations, I am advised by the company law experts that the term "interlocking ownership" has not substantive meaning in legal terms.

Mr. R. Bruton

Inevitably we will see willy-nilly that the commission will have to do something, but they can probably do it under their existing powers of the criteria they will be examining. I think something of this nature will emerge one way or the other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 14, line 16, to delete "in whole or".

Again this is a repeat of an amendment submitted on Committee Stage and withdrawn then. The amendment deals with the section which allows for a derogation from the requirements to provide news and current affairs programmes on radio. Section 15, to which the amendment relates, gives the commission the power to provide a derogation from the requirement in question "in whole or in part". We are arguing in this amendment that the wording "in whole" should be deleted — in other words, the commission should be enabled to provide a derogation only in part on the requirement to provide news and current affairs programmes. We are concerned that this kind of amendment should be included and that the obligation should be retained on all the radio stations. Whether they be commercial radio stations of town, city, county or community broadcasting stations, there should be an obligation on them to provide news and current affairs programmes to some extent. To provide for a derogation in whole, in our view, would be a mistake. The provision will operate only if the committee are 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; but that seems to provide a licence for other stations to seek derogations on the basis that their competitors are already providing these services, therefore there is no need for them to do so. On the basis of the wording of the section here it would seem that the commission would have no cause open to them other than to agree. For argument sake, RTE, provide a regular news service headlines on the hour and a whole plethora of current affairs programmes. Where those programmes are being received in an area the local stations could argue that because this service is being provided there is no need for them to do so. That would be a mistake. At the very least each station should be obliged to carry news headlines on a regular basis. I went into some detail on that on Committee Stage. The Minister knows my views on it. I ask him to take the amendment on board at this stage.

Mr. R. Burke

I have some empathy with the idea behind this proposal. However, since the primary objective of this provision is to accommodate special interest stations and since it can be granted only if the commission are satisfied that there is already a reasonable plurality of news and current affairs programming available to the public in an area where using the derogation clause is contemplated, we should allow the commission the flexibility to determine for themselves the extent of the derogation to be granted. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 15, to delete lines 25 to 28, and substitute:

"programme service—

(a) is produced in the State or in another Member State of the European Communities, and

(b) is devoted to original programme material produced therein by persons other than the contractor, his subsidiary, his parent or existing broadcasting organisations.".

Members of the House will recall that we had quite a valuable discussion on what is now section 18 (4) of the Bill, which deals with the Irish and EC produced programming to be included in the TV service. We sought to achieve two objectives through this provision (1) in the totality of the TV service a reasonable proportion of the programme material should be of Irish or EC origin (2) of that proportion a further proportion should be original programme material produced by independent programme producers in Ireland or the EC. The original provision was somewhat deficient in this regard and amendment No. 18 addresses the two elements I had in mind at the time.

Mr. R. Bruton

I raised this on Committee Stage. The terms were obscure.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy is satisfied this time.

Mr. R. Bruton

This meets the requirement.

Mr. Nealon

The original wording was deficient or inadequate and, while I accept that the Minister has clarified the matter to some extent, I do not think he is getting across what he intends. The governing words are "reasonable proportion", and I understand they were used by the EC and the Council of Europe. When this amendment is adopted the section will be to the effect that the commission shall ensure that a reasonable proportion of the programme service is produced in the State or in another member state of the European Communities. The same governing words, "reasonable proportion" apply to paragraph (b) which states:

(b) is devoted to original programme material produced therein by persons other than the contractor...

It appears that what the Minister has in mind is that a reasonable proportion should be produced in the State or member states and that a reasonable proportion of that reasonable proportion should not be produced by the contractor, his subsidiary, his parent or existing broadcasting organisations. If the Minister has that in mind it is not reflected in his amendment. I suggest that the Minister have another look at this, perhaps when the Bill is going through the Seanad, to see if he can deal with the difficulty. Governing subsection (a) are the words "reasonable proportion" and that means a certain percentage. The same words are used in relation to paragraph (b). In my view that means that a contractor might not be able to produce any programmes except in a non-viable area.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am concerned about paragraph (b), which states that "the contractor, the subsidiary, his parent or existing broadcasting organisations" are excluded from providing the material referred to. I consider that to be unduly restrictive on existing broadcasting organisations. I take it that the amendment refers to broadcasting organisations in the State and outside it. The amendment refers to "existing broadcasting organisations". I should like the Minister to tell the House whether that means any broadcasting organisation that comes into existence subsequent to the Bill being passed. Will they be excluded under this section from providing material?

Mr. R. Burke

This is to encourage independent producers. Existing ones, or those in the future, would be excluded. I should like to tell Deputy Nealon that the wording in the amendment was produced by the parliamentary draftsman to cover the points discussed at length on the last occasion. I am assured that it meets the objectives we all have. I will be adhering to those words.

Proinsias De Rossa

I take the Minister's point about encouraging independent producers, but the wording states "existing broadcasting organisations". I should like to know if that excludes broadcasting organisations that may come into existence in this State, or in Britain, subsequent to the Bill being passed.

Mr. R. Burke

When they come into existence they will be in existence. In that way it excludes them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On that note of profundity I take it that the amendment is agreed to?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 16, line 18, after "engineering," to insert "trade union affairs,".

I undertook last week to introduce an amendment to include experience and expertise in trade union affairs as qualifying criteria for appointment to the proposed independent radio and television service. The amendment proposes the change in question.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 18, to delete lines 5 and 6, and substitute the following:

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

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

This deals with the question of a quorum. We discussed this matter last week. In the Bill as drafted the quorum for a meeting of the commission was three but the amendment proposes to increase that number to five. I checked with RTE since we debated this and I was informed that, while in their rules three is the number for a quorum, in practice the Authority have decided that they must have five present for a discussion. I have no difficulty with the amendment.

Proinsias De Rossa

I should like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for taking this amendment and amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 19 on board. I should like to thank him for accepting amendment No. 16 on Committee Stage which related to the extent, quality and so on of Irish language programmes. That is an indication of the Minister's willingness to take on board points made on Committee Stage and I should like to thank him for that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 19, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(5) In this paragraph—

`the Act of 1977' means the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977;

`the Act of 1984' means the European Assembly Elections Act, 1984.".

This amendment is purely of an editorial nature. We referred in paragraph 10 of the Schedule to Acts of 1977 and 1984 without specifying what Acts they were. This amendment corrects that omission.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As we move from Report Stage I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister and Deputies for the way they dealt with that Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

I should like to thank Members for their contributions to all Stages. We have had a very constructive debate on all Stages and the Bill we are passing, as amended on Committee and Report Stages, will stand the test of time. I have no doubt it will mean that we will have a truly independent radio and television service. I hope we will all be proud of it in the future.

Question put and agreed to.