At the outset I would like to indicate to the Chair that I intend sharing my time with Deputy M. Higgins.
Private Members' Business. - Confidence in Minister for Justice and Minister for Communications: Motion.
Deputy Mitchell may wish to note that there is nobody on the Fine Gael benches.
He might.
Deputy Mitchell, your benches are empty now.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann has no confidence in the Minister for Justice and Communications.
The speech made by the Minister for Justice and Communications in the debate which he so cleverly succeeded in truncating last week had a number of interesting features. One of the most interesting was that the Broadcasting Bill, 1990, was boiled down to its bare essentials in the course of this speech. The Bill had started life as a panic measure aimed at saving Century Radio from the consequences of its own mismanagement. It had attempted to secure support for this crude and corrupt approach by offering largesse, in smaller amounts, to every commercial station.
As we have seen these tactics backfired. What had started life as a brazen attempt by the Minister to save political friends and supporters of his party from losing their investment quickly turned into a fiasco for the whole Government. In short order, we discovered that the Cabinet had not been consulted about a number of the items in the Bill, and that the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility had been thrown out the window. As events unfolded, we learned that the leader of the Opposition had been more thoroughly consulted than some key members of the Government.
So, several meetings and helicopter rides later, a compromise was apparently agreed between the two party Leaders in the Coalition. That compromise led, among other things, to a speech at the weekend by the Chairman of the Progressive Democrats, who obviously feels that since he is not even a member of this Dáil, the issue of collective responsibility need not worry him unduly.
Speaking for the Progressive Democrats, their chairman is not only willing to defend the legislation as it stands, but is insisting on claiming all the credit for it. I can only conclude that the Progressive Democrats political judgment has grown in direct proportion to their number of seats, and that they have decided that now they are in bed with the very people whose integrity they lambasted on issues like these a couple of years ago, they had better make the most of a bad job. Either that, or the Progressive Democrats are willing to join the political conspiracy that this Bill represents.
There is some evidence that that in fact is the position. I would welcome a categoric assurance from the Leader of the Progressive Democrats in this House that he did not agree to suspend his reservations about the sale of Cablelink shares as part of the "compromise" he worked out with the Taoiseach. In the absence of such an assurance, I believe that there is more than coincidence in the timing of the announcement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the matter, and I intend to say more about that shortly.
I referred a moment ago to a conspiracy, and to the fact that the Broadcasting Bill has now been pared down to its essentials. I believe that most Members of this House, on all sides, know in their hearts that this Bill represents nothing other than an attempt by Fianna Fáil to destroy our national broadcasting company, and to pave the way for commercial television by destroying the ability of RTE to compete effectively.
In the Bill that he is now proposing to this House, this Minister for Justice and Communications is abrogating to himself the power to ordain whether RTE lives or dies. Not only is he placing a limit on the revenue that RTE can earn through advertising, but he is fixing that limit by reference to RTE's licence income. He is taking £6 million from RTE's income this year, and up to £20 million next year. Thereafter, he can play around with RTE's ability to plan and develop as he likes, whenever he likes and by whatever decision he might make about the licence fee.
If at some stage in the future he decided that it was politically popular to knock, say, a sum of £10 from the licence fee — and there is no doubt that that would be popular in the short term — the effect of that would be to take about £10 million from RTE's revenue. But, as a result of the capping mechanism he is now proposing — and which the Progressive Democrats are claiming credit for — such a move would also take a further £10 million from RTE's advertising revenue. In this way, the Minister, if he succeeds in having this legislation as outlined last week passed, can play God with RTE's future.
In the course of this debate we will be hearing a great deal about the job losses that will flow from this legislation. Job losses will occur in RTE itself, and they will occur among the many independent film-makers who provide a range of valuable programmes to RTE. There will be job losses, too, in the advertising industry. My colleague Deputy Higgins will be spelling out some of the impacts that this legislation will have on jobs.
But perhaps in the long term the even more serious repercussion of this Bill will be on the confidence of one of our most valuable creative assets in Ireland.
Without television, people power would never have taken off in the Philippines. It was television that made the breakthrough that led to the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel. It was television that led the way to a deepening conviction on both sides of the Irish Sea about the innocence of the Birmingham Six. It was television that moved millions throughout the world last November when the Berlin Wall began to crack and fall. No one who saw it, thanks to television, will ever forget the sight of Nelson Mandela walking out of captivity, and into a possible new dawn of democracy in South Africa. Against this background, no one can dispute the power of television for good.
Nobody would stand here in front of this House and say that RTE has never made a mistake, or has always been fair, or that we agree with every decision that RTE has ever made. I would not stand here and say that I have always found television friendly. However, I would argue that RTE have served the national interest well and that they have at all times upheld and protected high standards of public service broadcasting. More than that, RTE news and current affairs have played a major role in ensuring that the people of Ireland have always been able to play a significant part in our democratic process. It is poor reward that, in return for that contribution, RTE are now going to be destroyed as a viable institution at the whim of the Fianna Fáil Party, and at the hands of a Minister with a very poor record.
As I said earlier, I believe the main purpose of this infamous Broadcasting Bill is the destruction of RTE as a viable entity and to pave the way for the introduction of commercial television. The irony is that the Bill will not work. Commercial television will not work in Ireland unless it attracts an adequate audience. I know that the Minister's purpose, in seeking to divert revenue from RTE and to force RTE to provide nationwide transmission facilities for their competition, is to make as much room for the entrepreneurs as possible, but that competition can only succeed if it stands on its own feet and produces quality programming. Surely, if no other lesson can be learned from the Century misadventure, that much must be learned.
Speaking in the curtailed debate on the Minister's Broadcasting Bill last week, I detailed some of the history of that misadventure. I tried to demonstrate to the House, by reference to the Minister's own speeches, that in 1987, the Minister believed in a non-interventionist approach where commercial radio was concerned, at least on the surface. The reason, I said, was simple. The Minister's friends and supporters were at that time advising him that all he had to do was to give the green light for commercial radio, create the right sort of commercial climate in the community at large, and it would become a licence to print money with, no doubt, great spin-off benefits for everyone involved.
As we all know now, of course, the reality was that the Minister's friends turned out to be much better at advising him about politics than they were at running a radio station. Century Radio was started with highly professional and committed staff who were prepared to work long hours to make a success of their venture. The news service provided by Century in particular quickly gathered a reputation as being highly professional. I know, for example, that their main news bulletin in the middle of the day is listened to avidly by the RTE Newsroom. It probably is not possible to pay a higher compliment to the professionalism of Century's staff than that, but unfortunately from the very beginning, the station was under-capitalised and badly marketed by its proprietors. The station got off to a bad start as a result of the row involving its transmission facilities, and the management appeared to be unable to determine what audience they should be aiming for. It was a station without any particular role or niche in the marketplace.
Inevitably, the Minister's friends had to go back to him to tell him that they were unable to make a go of the station. He was probably very surprised — after all, he had already intervened with RTE to force RTE to charge a lower than economic fee for transmission facilities, and had generally kept the RTE Authority very busy responding to his instructions and demands. For example, he had refused to allow RTE Local Radio in Cork to broadcast around the clock, as they had requested, and insisted that the station sell a substantial proportion of its shares in Cablelink, thereby affecting RTE's cash flow and potential surplus for years into the future. I will return to some of these issues later on.
Whatever else may be said about the Minister, it has to be said that he is loyal to his friends and political supporters. He, therefore, set about putting together the package which he unveiled in this House two weeks ago. It did not appear to matter to him or to the Taoiseach that that package flew in the face of both logic and fairness. The bottom line for the Minister and the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat Government is that their friends must be looked after.
Among the friends and supporters of these two parties, of course, are those commercial interests that are fascinated by the prospects of privatisation. The attack on RTE conducted by the Minister has an underlying current which is intimately bound up with the privatisation argument, an argument spelled out in all its nakedness last week by the present chairman of Bord Telecom soon, I imagine, to be reappointed.
Bord Telecom have bought most of Cablelink from RTE and a minority partner. That sale was ordered by the Minister —it would not have happened otherwise. I have no objection in principle to this transfer of ownership between two State companies, but I strongly object to the motivation behind it. The purpose of this transfer, I believe, was twofold.
First, it was part of the continuing process of weakening RTE. RTE were forced by the Minister to sell their shares for far less than their commercial value. The immediate effect will be a further loss of £2 million to £3 million in revenue for RTE, coupled with the loss of very considerable potential earnings in the future. To compound the situation, the Minister for Communications has already determined that any capital windfall accruing to RTE from the sale of these shares will be taken back by the Exchequer, thereby ensuring that RTE get no benefit down the road.
But just as significant is the fact that this sale will make Telecom Éireann an even more attractive proposition for private speculators. I have no doubt whatever that the "privatisers" in the Cabinet, led by Deputy O'Malley, are already preparing for the sell-off of the State's telecommunications company. Equally I have no doubt that there are many wealthy speculators, with close links to Fianna Fáil, who are now preparing their bids. It would not surprise me in the least to discover that the financial problems of the two Government parties, caused by the fall off in membership and in collections, will be more than eased by the political outfall of this decision.
The political ramifications of the announcement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, last Friday should not be ignored. It seems obvious that he was given concessions on the Broadcasting Bill — concessions that can clearly be seen to be spurious — in return for getting out of the way of the sale of Cablelink shares. He has thus clearly decided to align himself totally with Fianna Fáil in their attack on RTE, and will no doubt be willing to come to the defence of the Minister now under attack. I look forward with interest to his contribution to the debate, and I trust that when he speaks he will outline for us all the Cabinet procedures that were followed in the course of the Minister's adventuring.
To sum up this aspect of the matter: the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, has, I believe, forfeited the confidence of this House because of an unprecedented attack on a major State company for naked political reasons. He has sought to divert public money for the benefit of private speculators, and has sought to do so despite the damage that will cause for jobs and development in our national broadcasting service. In his attempts to do so, he has employed sharp practice in the Dáil, but much more important than that, he has endeavoured to pervert the principle of collective responsibility by ignoring tried and trusted Cabinet procedures.
These are not the only aspects of this matter to which I wish to refer. I do not believe that the actions of the Minister for Justice and Communications would have been possible were it not for the full-blooded support of the Taoiseach. Indeed, in the debate on the Broadcasting Bill last week, I made the point that the Minister was only carrying out the Taoiseach's bidding. As long as he does so, and is seen to deliver, it appears that his career will prosper. He may not always have been on the same side as the Taoiseach in some of the internal Fianna Fáil battles that have gone on in the past, but he has nevertheless always managed to hold down senior positions of trust. When things go badly wrong, as they clearly have on this occasion, the Taoiseach lets him be hung out to dry in this House.
If the Minister for Justice and Communications has been to some extent a puppet in this affair, what can we say of the puppet-master? It is quite clear that the Taoiseach has long harboured a deep antipathy to RTE. It is well known that he holds RTE responsible for having the audacity to report on the deep and widespread anger in the community over health cuts in the course of the last election campaign. In a classic piece of political self-delusion, he appears to believe that it was the reporting rather than the anger that cost him an overall majority in the general election. He has as much interest in securing advantage for political friends as the Minister Deputy Burke has, if not indeed more. For that reason, it ought to be very clear that this motion is every bit as much a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach as it is in the Minister.
I stood in this House for many weeks in 1983, as we debated the Local Government Bill of that year. The purpose of that Bill, for which I was responsible, was to reconstitute An Bord Pleanála in order to remove from it the political taint with which it was by then indelibly associated. I can still remember the venomous way in which Fianna Fáil responded to that measure and the determination with which they sought to cling to the power to treat the physical planning process as the gift of politicians.
The present Minister for Justice and Communications was at the centre of that debate. It was in the main his responsibility that An Bord Pleanála had among their members some persons whose only qualification for the job was their political allegiance to the Fianna Fáil Party, and particularly to him. Indeed, his own constituency adviser was one of the people that he appointed to An Bord Pleanála in the last few days of his tenure as Minister for the Environment.
The same Minister has more recently appointed an Independent Radio and Television Commission, independent only in name, with the vast majority of their members appointed as a result of their Fianna Fáil affiliations. His recent appointment of an RTE Authority contained a clear majority of Fianna Fáil names, too, seasoned of course on this occasion by a couple of members of the Progressive Democrats.
One of the most serious questions that must be asked, both about this administration and the last one, is this: "Why has Deputy Ray Burke been given such a stranglehold on the Communications portfolio? Why has the Leader of both of those administrations, the Taoiseach, seen fit to exercise his prerogative to ensure that we have had a Minister for Energy and Communications, followed by a Minister for Industry and Commerce and Communications, followed by a Minister for Justice and Communications?
After the last election, in particular, there was some speculation by political commentators that the then Minister for Industry and Commerce and Communications could be one of those who would suffer in any necessary reshuffle of the Cabinet. He was, it is generally felt, among those who, had given very bad advice to the Taoiseach in urging him to dissolve the Dáil after being beaten on a Labour Party motion on haemophilia, and he had failed to hold two seats in his Dublin North constituency. For these reasons and others it was generally felt at that time that his political star was on the wane.
However, when the new Government were announced, Deputy Burke's critics were yet again confounded. Not only had he not lost his place around the Cabinet table, he had been given one of the most sensitive portfolios imaginable, a position of enormous trust, with access to a great deal of sensitive information, and responsibility for supervising important investigative work by the Garda Síochána. As time went by, it became clear that this Minister was trusted a great deal by his Taoiseach — for example, he began to play a key role in Anglo-Irish affairs, often being sent to the Anglo-Irish Conference when much bluster and tough talk was required.
Every Member of this House, I believe, knows — or should know — the sensitivity of the Justice portfolio — it was, after all, one of Deputy Burke's recent predecessors who managed to bring his entire party into disrepute through his abuse of the job. The effective management of the Garda Síochána, the prison service, the parole service, the courts, the Land Registry, the civil legal aid service, the huge workload in law reform, difficulties associated with extradition, and other matters — all of these are tasks enough for any member of a Government to carry alone. When they are added to the ultra-sensitive management of intelligence, membership of the Security Committee of the Cabinet, and involvement in the Anglo-Irish process, and when, added to all that, is the personal strain associated with physical security in the job, there is little wonder that it has long been the case that the Justice portfolio is seen as one of the most difficult and burdensome jobs in Irish politics. For many years now, it has been inconceivable that any one person could be expected to carry this portfolio as well as another portfolio. It was, therefore, no surprise that the appointment of Deputy Burke to both jobs was greeted with some astonishment and not a little comment.
This comment was occasioned not only by the huge workload involved, but also by the fact that in the past, it had been easy to see that Deputy Burke had signally failed to carry both of them effectively. He had been a part-time Minister for Energy, at a time when the country was demanding — and he was promising — legal action against the British in respect of Sellafield. Hardly a week went by during his tenure of that portfolio without threats of legal action, but in the end, unfortunately, nothing happened.
When he was part-time Minister for Industry and Commerce he presided over that Department while a great deal of funny business went on in the area of export credit insurance. I understand that Deputy O'Malley still spends sleepless nights as he worries about cleaning up the mess.
It would be putting it at its kindest to say that Deputy Burke has been a part-time Minister for Justice. He has presided over the virtual collapse of the free legal aid system, making promises to this House in the matter that were never kept. He is sitting on a potentially explosive situation in our prisons, arising from his own failure to address issues of overcrowding and health care. He is in overall charge of the Fraud Squad which, for reasons of lack of resources and necessary skills, have been unable to conduct a proper investigation of fraud for years, despite ample evidence that there is a great deal of business fraud to be uncovered.
In the recent past, for example, the State entered a defence in a claim for damages by a major beef processing company. The essence of the State's defence was that the original claim was fraudulent. Notwithstanding that defence, the claim was settled out of court, with the State agreeing to pay over more than a million pounds in settlement. Where was the Minister for Justice while this was going on? Why was he not ensuring that the State's claim of fraudulent activity was investigated by the Garda? Are we to assume that that sort of thing simply never happens with a Fianna Fáil Minister for Justice?
Within the last couple of weeks, Deputy Burke's colleague, the Minister for the Environment, did not demur when Deputy Ruairí Quinn stated in this House that Fianna Fáil councillors in Dublin had been corruptly interfered with. Deputy Burke has overall responsibility for the Garda investigation into those allegations. Are we to assume that he sees it as his task to ensure that that investigation never sees the light of day, as the results would undoubtedly be damaging to his party?
Why has there been no properly resourced investigation into the allegations surrounding the collapse of the Gallagher banking empire? We have all read recently that because the Fraud Squad have been unable to conduct a proper investigation into these matters, it is now extremely likely that no prosecution will ever take place, and this is despite the admission by the Minister for Finance in this House recently, under questioning by Deputy Mervyn Taylor, that the collapse of that Bank involved extensive wrong-doing. We all know that the principal involved in that bank has been prosecuted, and convicted, in the North of Ireland, for activities that all stemmed from Dublin, yet our Minister for Justice will be unable to come in here and tell us that a properly-completed file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions to enable a prosecution to commence in this jurisdiction. In the meantime, this great friend to the Fianna Fáil Party has already paid a half-million pounds in fines in the North, without any apparent difficulty, and is busy transacting business in London as we debate this issue here in the Dáil, and all the while the Taoiseach steadfastly refuses to initiate a debate in the House on all of the issues involved in that scandal. The only conclusion possible is that such a debate would be extremely embarrassing for Fianna Fáil and their friends and supporters.
These are some of the areas in which this Minister for Justice has been responsible for what can only be described as extraordinarily poor management of his portfolio. I believe that it is necessary to go further than that. I believe that this Deputy has been placed in these two sensitive and delicate jobs in order to ensure that Fianna Fáil's interests are protected where it counts. As they see it, their interests lie in ensuring that political friends and supporters are looked after when it comes to commerce, and protected when it comes to justice.
In putting those interests first, the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, has ignored the national interest. I commend this motion to the House.
I would like to deal in particular with the aspects of education for which the Minister has responsibility. Let me begin with the use of two words, not mine. The words I refer to are "cutting corners". They were the words used on television by the Minister's colleague in Cabinet, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, who in answer to a question said, "On this Bill I suppose corners were cut." Last week we had more corners cut in relation to Parliament. I believe that in moving this motion we are reflecting the right of the House to be the ultimate place where there is responsibility for policy, practice and procedures within ministerial portfolios. What we have just listened to, what the world knows, is that there was a scandalous short-circuiting of normal Cabinet procedures being reported in the public Press and that the Bill itself which was introduced last week was not presented to Cabinet in a manner in which it could be discussed. Perhaps people who deny this will say others are running away from the Bill. "Cutting corners" is Deputy O'Malley's phrase.
I do not intend to dwell on the parliamentary procedures that were followed, but I will say communications policy is important for this country and an end must be put to what is taking place now. If the Minister insists on coming into this House with a Bill which he has been told by his Cabinet colleagues, consulted or unconsulted, is flawed, if he will insist on that Bill being on the Floor of the House, if he will refuse to stand up on Second Stage and reply to the suggestion that interests are being benefited by this flawed Bill, if he will say to this House, "It requires no more than two minutes", then it is time for the Minister to go.
In relation to what is happening and the interests involved I have not very much time this evening but I will spend a great deal of time going in some detail into this area on Committee Stage of the Broadcasting Bill. The Minister was preceded by certain decisions in his portfolio. It has often been said that Deputy O'Sullivan, I and others have an ideological position in relation to broadcasting. That is true, but what we object to is the sell-off of a public asset to people who are unaccountable. An example of that took place when the World Administrative Radio Conference allocated Ireland its orbital position at 31º W. On that occasion a Minister decided to award a DBS concession to a private consortium, Atlantic Satellites. Very shortly afterwards it transpired they were just an Irish front for the US Hughes Communications.
What is the relevance of this? When Deputies in this House say there are interests that are standing behind the changes in communications policy there is only one place to give the names or the denial of those interests and that is in this House. The debacle that took place last week began with a concern for Century but it quickly turned into, under influence of the Progressive Democrats we are told, a concern for the future of TV3.
Is it not appropriate in this House to hear what plans are involved for TV3? Perhaps people feel it is not of relevance politically who will own communications. It is interesting that in the negotiations regarding innovations through the use of satellites, the Irish Government's applications for frequencies specified bands in the part of the spectrum reserved for telecommunications rather than conventional television programmes. In other words they were setting up the whole run of this policy which was never stated in this House. TV3 is being set up in an atmosphere where it will fit neatly with the privatised Bord Telecom.
There is a reference in the Bill to dignity. A broadcaster is not supposed to reflect on the dignity and reputation of people being interviewed. How was this House treated with dignity when the Minister said he would not reply to suggestions made about interests involved in broadcasting? He says he need not do that and will just go on, after cutting corners in Cabinet, by cutting a few more corners in the Dáil as well. Of course, he has not done so. He has drawn this debate on him and a Committee Stage where people will be able to go into every matter in detail which concerns broadcasting.
Another suggestion which has not received a reply relates to the peculiar vindictiveness directed against the State broadcasting service. There are people in this House who sometimes speak about a consensus in favour of neo-liberal economics. What was proposed was not neo-liberal economics. It was based on the belief that one must mutilate one person in the competitive arena to give a prospective person in the arena an automatic advantage. This means that if TV3 gets up and running, the people who have turned losses into profits will be mutilated, in case it is needed for the sake of TV3. That is the kind of anti-national thrust that was behind the Bill.
The Minister began by suggesting something which was perhaps illegal or unconstitutional, telling people who pay a licence fee, which is a tax, that they will now be paying it not for public service broadcasting but to generate a little fund for the people who are coming home to Mammy when it becomes tough in the commercial sector. In addition there was a suggestion that advertising would be capped, reaching into the commercial practices of a company. Then there was the outrageous suggestion of telling one aspect of broadcasting that it could not continue with its content.
The Progressive Democrats, who might or might not have read the Bill and later spoke about it, suggested that they had got him off the licence fee, as if that is some great parliamentary game. The second version of what the Minister was at was very interesting. The man who controls the licence fee now wants to control the ceiling on advertising in the State broadcasting company. One man could refuse an increase in the licence fee or could reduce it and thereby stifle the capacity of that body to compete in the market place. What an unusual power to seek. In addition he included for good measure advertisements for their own programmes broadcast by RTE. The National Symphony Orchestra has recently been restored to full strength but if RTE announce that they are to give a concert in the National Concert Hall, that will be part of their advertising allocation. Advertisements for any programmes will form part of their advertising allocation. This is from the free market Minister. It is not as if his embryonic TV3 would ever provide videos on health or education, orchestras or even a trio at any stage of their existence.
He then dealt with the question of the licence fee. It will be the ceiling. For whose benefit will it be the ceiling? Is he not under an obligation to say in this House for whose benefit it will be? Then there is the question of this Minister's legacy. He will acknowledge that I am one of the few Deputies who have sat through every one of his speeches on broadcasting since 1982. I heard him talk about MMDS. He was to be in charge of the revolutionary technology of MMDS, but it went wrong for the commercial interests in TV3. What does one do then? The people who have got the contract for TV3 are told that they need no longer be confined to MMDS and that they will use a transmission system which is beyond that.
Then the Minister wanted to interfere in Cablelink. His absence of policy was reflected in the inability to publish a policy in relation to communications or any aspect of it. He said that TV3 could use a UHF process but it did not occur to him that one of the principal transmitters is a VHF one. That would not bother the Minister who says, "I make it up as I go along and maybe I might tell the Cabinet. Sure, who would want to tell them anyhow? We will have a chat about it afterwards." He sat there day after day after the principal puppet master was swanning around the Gaeltacht saying that Teilefís Ghaeltachta would be on offer. Whatever happened to that? The Minister would not tell this House that the transmission capacity that would have enabled Teilefís Ghaeltachta to go on air was being given to TV3. If the MMDS system was unsuitable for TV3, would it not be unsuitable for Teilefís Ghaeltachta? The old bankrupt republicans ditched the Irish language a long time ago when they appointed an absentee landlord Minister for the Gaeltacht who will not even speak a word of Irish in this House.
One reason why he should go from office is the destruction of between 300 and 500 jobs in RTE. It will be the end of the documentary and the end of the independently commissioned film. About 90 independent film makers each hiring between six and ten people provide films on contract to RTE. It will be the end of educational programmes. Those who are the most disgracefully treated, the artists, the people who are in Equity, the people whom the emperor of all the Europeans likes to patronise rather than make provision for, will lose their jobs.
The reduction in the length of the advertisement will affect jobs in advertising. What will happen to all these jobs? The advertising which would sustain jobs in RTE has to be knocked off in case the friends need it, but in the meantime the jobs will go to UTV and Channel Four. In addition the people who prepare the advertisements will get jobs, the creative people. It is a recipe for destroying jobs in one of the most creative and sensitive areas. Until very recently a great number of the television commercials shown here were made abroad. That position has been reversed. At present most of them are made here. The Minister is now reversing the trend and sending that activity and those jobs abroad.
We come to the nub of the matter. Does this House have responsibility for a communications policy and is there a policy in the thing of bits and pieces that the Minister has presided over? Does this House stand for accountability in relation to interests who will benefit commercially, who will make money but who might know nothing about broadcasting in the aural or visual media? This is the place to debate these issues but the Minister has defied all those criteria — he will not announce a communications policy and he will not come into the House to reply to questions as to who stands behind the proposals. His activities in the Department of Communications have been anti-national and anti-worker and above all yesterday they smacked of William Martin Murphy — the idea of going out to people and asking why they were not at their desk? Why was the Minister and his officials not at their desks preparing a communications policy? It is much easier to sit at the desk and wait for your friends to come in and ask for bits and pieces, saying, "there might be money in radio but I am sorry it did not work out and we must make sure the same does not happen to TV3".
It is this Minister who is creating the situation where not alone will we not own our own communications system but our general telecommunications system, on which taxpayers have spent £1.6 billion, will be robbed from the public and handed over to the private sector. That is what the sale to Telecom and its fattening is about. I want to ask the Progressive Democrats why, in their helicopter flight, did they not ask for the Bill to be withdrawn. Why did many of the Minister's party who disagree with this legislation not ask for it to be with-drawn——
The time has come to call another speaker.
In the absence of it not being withdrawn there is no solution other than for this resolution to be passed by the House.
I wish to share my 30 minutes with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
We have just listened to a hysterical outburst and, to use Deputy Higgins's words, one of peculiar vindictiveness.
Those are not my words.
I have not heard anything to equal it in this House for some time. If the Deputy wants to achieve some distinction in that direction he is welcome to it but this motion is being taken seriously by those of us on this side of the House; indeed the Leader of the Deputy's party, Deputy Spring, who spoke before him did nothing to add to the seriousness of the motion. His speech was a classical smear speech, coloured by assertions such as "everybody knows" and other defamatory allegations and assertions. Who is "everybody" in that context? His speech was a classical smear tactic. Both Deputy Higgins and Deputy Spring have done nothing to add to the stature of this House. They have debased the House and debased parliamentary debate by their contributions.
I want to try to restore some level of coherence to what should be a coherent debate.
(Interruptions.)
This is a motion of no confidence in a Minister of the Government, Deputy Ray Burke, the Minister for Justice and Minister for Communications.
(Interruptions.)
We listened to you.
Order, please.
In our system of collective Cabinet responsibility that motion is a motion of no confidence in me, in every one of my colleagues in Government and in the Taoiseach. It is a motion of no confidence in the Government because every one of us stands, collectively and individually behind Deputy Ray Burke as Minister for Communications and Minister for Justice in every single matter which has arisen. In regard to the allegations made in this House by Deputy Spring and Deputy Higgins just now——
Collective responsibility——
All 15 members of the Cabinet stand collectively and individually behind him——
Have you cleared that with Deputy O'Malley?
Deputy Howlin, the previous two speakers were heard without interruption.
I am speaking for the 15 members of the Cabinet when I make that statement. We stand collectively behind Deputy Burke not in any negative sense but by reason of his excellence as Minister for Communications and Minister for Justice in this House——
The whole country——
That is another example of a smear approach. If it is not "everybody" it is "the whole country", or "somebody said, somewhere, somehow someway that something is wrong or something is going on and that there are friends of Fianna Fáil lurking around, seeking to do this and that to our system of communications and justice". That is not true; that is smear tactics and smear politics which we do not stand for when we are in Government in this Parliament.
Deal with the changes.
This motion of no confidence is rejected absolutely by the Government. We share the view held by many people, outside the people of peculiar vindictiveness, that Deputy Burke, in managing the affairs of the Department of Justice and the Department of Communications is reflecting the outstanding approach of this Government in getting things done.
When we came into Government we inherited a situation where nothing had been done in regard to broadcasting by the most dilatory administration in this country's history. From 1983 to 1987, along with neglecting a long range of legitimate Government activities there was non-participation, counter-participation — we saw this adumbrated in great length in a book published recently by a former Minister of that Government — and a long period of indecision by that administration, and in no area was that indecision more apparent than in the area of broadcasting. Rampaging pirates were broadcasting all sorts of unregulated matters on the airwaves to the disgrace and detriment of the administration of broadcasting and, in particular, of RTE. If that situation had been allowed to continue unrestricted, as it was let go unrestricted by the Government who were in office from 1983-87, RTE would have been driven into bankruptcy. We decided collectively as a Government that this disgraceful record in public broadcasting and allowing pirate buccaneer broadcasting to prosper — the conservatives and the socialists favoured the buccaneers who were running pirate broadcasting and allowed them to broadcast on the airwaves unhindered and unrestricted — had to be stopped and some order and regulation, administered by legislation of this House and Government through Government bodies, should be initiated to ensure that a properly licensed, regulated and controlled system of broadcasting would be established.
It was the Minister for Communications, Deputy Ray Burke, who took a very historic jump in that respect, with the full support of the Government, and said that the nonsense of the previous four years had to stop. He brought in what I would regard as the historic broadcasting Bill which set up the broadcasting commission and enabled private and co-operative broadcasting to be properly regulated on a local and national basis throughout the country. That proceeded very successfully under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. Justice Henchy, who had retired from the Irish Supreme Court.
You had to take him on board.
I presume he is also included in Deputy Higgins's terminology——
I am able to speak for myself.
Only when you are in the House.
——and Deputy Spring's terminology as one of the Minister's political friends——
(Interruptions.)
There was an implied attack on a distinguished Irish jurist in what Deputy Spring and Deputy Higgins said.
There was no such thing. Now the hysteria is coming from the Tánaiste.
As President of the Broadcasting Commission, established to allocate the various franchises for radio and broadcasting, and which will be there to allocate future franchises in regard to TV broadcasting, Mr. Justice Henchy in his usual unimpeachable and absolutely independent manner allocated these franchises in a logical and sensible way after a full hearing of submissions, due consideration and ultimate determination of where the franchises should be allocated.
If you had had a majority in this House you would have acted differently.
It was an excellent job done by an excellent judge presiding over an excellent, dispassionate, independent commission and discharged well under legislation passed by a Fianna Fáil Government in place of the chaotic broadcasting situation which they inherited and which was allowed by the Labour Party and Fine Gael to fester between 1983 and 1987. These are facts. In parliamentary terms confidence means confidence in the achievement or non-achievement of the Government, not smear campaigns, personalities or alleged political friends. We are talking about taking action in the public interest when necessary after full consideration of the facts with Government backing of the Minister chosen by that party to do the job. Our record in regard to broadcasting is unparallelled.
Quite true, unparallelled.
We rescued RTE from bankruptcy, set in train a series of radio stations throughout the country and eliminated the pirate stations. That is now on the record. Having achieved a mix of public broadcasting through RTE and private broadcasting through independent radio stations, the Government's next duty was to ensure that equity prevailed in a free and fair market within which the stations operate so that RTE and the private independent operators that had been established could flourish. That was the motivation behind the introduction of the Broadcasting Bill before this House.
In the pursuance of that, various options had to be examined. Points of view were expressed by people who are genuinely interested in broadcasting and suggestions made as to how this could be achieved. We have now come to the conclusion that the best way to achieve this is to have a balance of advertising within that pool as between RTE and the private independent broadcasting operators. How this can be done is a matter of pragmatism.
Pragmatism on a weekly basis.
If the principle of equality between the operators of RTE and those of the independent radio operators is accepted, this can be achieved. There is room for differences of opinion in how that can be achieved. We considered that the way to ensure equality between RTE and the independent broadcasting firms was to put a ceiling on advertising by RTE equal to the extent of revenue from their dues. We considered that this would also mean fair play for people involved in advertising in the print media who should also be considered for equality of treatment. RTE had two sources of revenue, their dues and advertising revenue and we are limiting the advertising revenue to the level of the dues. That ensures a fairer playing field for the print media, the newspapers both national and provincial, and for the various private and co-operative firms engaged in radio broadcasting at the moment and who will be engaged in television broadcasting in the future.
The Bill is a constructive effort to create as equitable an environment as possible, doing as little damage and as much good as possible to the constituent operators in this area. That is what the Government are trying to do. Let us have a debate on whether this is the best way to go about it, but let us not reduce a discussion on this highly important matter to the level of smear politics.
(Interruptions.)
Let us not reduce the level of the debate to a peculiar vindictiveness coming from very strange people indeed. This peculiar vindictiveness has emerged from certain quarters——
Some of us have much straighter backgrounds than yourself if you want to go down that road.
(Interruptions.)
This peculiar vindictiveness has emerged from certain quarters and I am not at all surprised by that description, or why it so aptly springs to certain lips to throw so idly about this House. We are not in the business of engaging in peculiar vindictiveness or in smear campaigns. We are in the business of looking in a positive and constructive way at the Bill before us.
That was last week.
We are looking in a constructive way at the Minister for Communications and Justice who brought in this Bill and the foundation Bill in the early months of our Government to ensure that there would be a properly controlled arena for broadcasting and communications. We stand by the Minister in pursuing that philosophy of the 1987 Government now carried on by the present Government backing that Minister.
I could go on at considerable length about other areas in regard to the positive aspects of what Minister Burke has contributed to the advancement of this and the previous Government. I could mention the progress that has been made by Telecom Éireann which, under his direction, has become one of the big progressive bodies. When Telecom Éireann was established some six years ago it was on very weak ground having inherited telecommunications services and equipment which has been totally dismantled largely by the Minister who has pursued a policy of liberalising terminal equipment which will be completed this year. He has announced a decision to open competition in the area of value-added services and that will open up a whole new range of services for Irish businesses and consumers based on a national telecommunications network.
In parallel with this liberalisation, Telecom Éireann have gone from strength to strength. Part of the success story of the Government, and their predecessor, is that the most recent accounts show that the company achieved profits after tax of £75 million under Deputy Burke's aegis in the year to March 1990. They have wiped out their accumulated losses and will pay a dividend of £30 million to the Exchequer in the coming year. Do we have confidence in a Minister responsible for such an organisation? We have total confidence in him and that should be the attitude of the House.
Telecom Éireann is the type of company that Cablelink should be associated with. There is nothing wrong with that. A company of that magnitude, making such improvements in their services and engaging in progressive capitalisation, making a profit of £75 million and a contribution of £30 million to the Exchequer is the type of company that should be absorbing Cablelink for the greater communications good of the country. That is good business, good administration and good government. We are proud of Deputy Burke as our agent in the pursuance of that objective.
The Government should hold on to Telecom.
The Tánaiste should tell us about the sub-post offices the Minister is closing.
I should like to refer to a matter that carries an amount of appeal to the House and to get away from this sort of muck-raking. The latter does not do any Member or any party any good. I never engaged in it myself and I do not propose to do so. It is not right that the Opposition should engage in it tonight and they should remember that the Irish public consider that it is not good enough.
I suggest that the Tánaiste should read the Official Report of the Dáil proceedings.
Deputies Spring and Higgins have grossly debased the standard of Dáil Éireann by the type of speeches they have made. We should be dealing with the many Bills that are on the Order Paper. It is no harm to remind the House that the Order Paper is largely dominated by the Minister referred to in the Labour Party's motion. Very important criminal law and criminal justice measures are being debated in both Houses and the Minister is also involved in the Broadcasting Bill under the Communications heading.
The Government, and the Minister, are responsible for progressive legislation in the area of criminal justice, criminal law reform and broadcasting. That is what we should be attuning ourselves to. I accept that there may be legitimate differences on how to approach the various reforms initiated by the Minister but we should do so in the proper spirit and not be referring to allegedly nefarious political undercurrents that do not exist, except in the peculiar imaginations of the Opposition Members, particularly in the minds of some members of the Labour Party.
I feel a particular duty to oppose the motion before us and to pay a tribute, a justified tribute, to the achievements and personal commitment of the Minister for Communications and Justice, Deputy Burke. I rise to speak tonight out of a sense of appreciation and respect for a person who never spares himself with the zeal and effort he puts into the job at hand. I appreciate and respect a colleague who has committed himself to the service of the Government in two areas of critical importance and great sensitivity for the country, and I appreciate and respect the Government who have fearlessly confronted the challenges and met the demands in every area of our national policy making.
I should like to begin by saying a few words about the procedure that has been adopted tonight. To put down a motion of no confidence in a Minister in relation to matters contained in a Bill that is before the House for discussion is to my mind a misuse of parliamentary procedure. The different Stages of a Bill provide ample scope for every possible point to be made, and if Deputies missed the bus last Thursday they can board it further down the line. If the indignation and concern were as genuine as is made out, it is curious that there were no Opposition Deputies in the House to listen to or carry on the Second Stage debate. The reason for the motion is surely that the Opposition feel a little foolish, that after all their bluster the Second Stage debate finished prematurely because they could not keep one Deputy in the House.
That is not true and the Minister knows it.
(Interruptions.)
We should not have interruptions or signals that are not welcome. They cannot be tolerated. The Minister should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
A motion of no confidence in individuals in the House is, I believe, an unpleasant procedure which should be used as sparingly as possible. The different sides of the House disagree on issues and that is normal in a democracy. However, we do not need to personalise our disagreements. I am saddened to hear the smear and vilification in the contributions by Deputies Spring and Higgins. This is the second motion of no confidence in a Minister in six months, both tabled by the Labour Party. It is a procedure that was used only once by Fianna Fáil in more than four years of Opposition and, to the best of my recollection, when the "black hole" in the balance of payments was suddenly revealed.
I recall on a number of occasions when the Labour Party Leader, Deputy Spring, stressed that his party preferred to debate issues and not personalities. I wonder, looking back over the record, whether that is the case. There seems to be a good deal of personal abuse and venom directed against members of the Government, with constant attribution of unworthy motives or worse. Most impartial observers would consider that the Ministers of the Government, and their Fianna Fáil predecessors since 1987, have performed extremely creditably and would contrast their performance favourably with that of the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government prior to 1987.
There is one other preliminary remark I should like to make. I would have thought that the Labour Party would have felt a certain sense of shame bringing forward a motion of no confidence in relation to this subject, given their record when they were in Government. For more than four years they blocked the sensible development of a commercial independent broadcasting sector and, in the process, made a shambles of the Government because of their attachment to the dogma of a State broadcasting monopoly and because of their deep ideological aversion to private commercial profit-making activity.
This amounts to the selling off of national interests; the selling off of what we own.
In the process, they allowed the black economy in the shape of private radio stations to flourish. The people of Cork, Limerick, Tipperary, Clare and any other areas that now enjoy legal local radio stations did not want or need the State, and still less RTE, to have a controlling interest in their operations.
It is not my purpose to go into the details of broadcasting policy while addressing this motion because that is not what the motion is about. Rather, the motion seeks to suggest that Deputy Burke should no longer hold the offices of Minister for Communications and Justice. The Tánaiste has given reasons why such a move is unjustified bearing in mind Deputy Burke's obligation as far as the Department of Communications is concerned.
I should like to refer to Deputy Burke's period as Minister for Justice. As a former Minister for Justice who served in that difficult office for many years, I have a particular understanding of the problems confronting Deputy Burke. I must also say that I have a certain affection and concern for that office. Deputy Burke's zeal and common sense, as well as his genuine concern for people, are ideally suited to that most difficult of Cabinet responsibilities. I do, of course, continue to work closely with Deputy Burke in the Anglo-Irish Conference. In that area, the Minister for Justice carries a very heavy burden in respect of cross-Border security co-operation and the implementation of security aspects of Anglo-Irish policy. In facing the threat from those who would seek to subvert the institutions of the State and kill and maim our fellow Irishmen and women, Deputy Burke has shown himself to be a man of extreme courage.
In the last nine months the Minister, Deputy Burke, has contributed much to our work and deliberations in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and his measured — but direct — approach to the most serious issue of policing, to the effective operation of security policy and to public confidence in the security forces is valued on all sides in moments of crisis. At a time of opportunity and hope for political progress, as is the case at present, the Minister has been a source of strength and wise counsel. It is not a contribution for which he has sought public recognition but we all gladly recognise it. It has been suggested that the portfolio of Communications should not be combined with any other position in Government and that the Minister does not work full-time in that portfolio. However, the last time we had a full-time Minister for Posts and Telegraphs — not combined with another portfolio — was in the Labour-Fine Gael Coalition of 1973-77, when Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien was Minister. There are still people in the House who remember that his only aim at that time was to ensure that Network 2 would merely rebroadcast BBC 1.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Since that time the ministry of Communications has been combined with Transport, Energy and Justice and I am satisfied that, the Minister, Deputy Burke, is doing quite a good job in this regard.
I again remind the House that the Minister has given unstintingly of himself in the service of the nation. If he has a fault it is one of over-generosity with his time and effort. Of that he may stand guilty but on all other grounds he certainly does not.
I call Deputy Richard Bruton.
With the permission of the House I propose to share my time with Deputy Nealon and Deputy Dukes.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister for Communications made a hames of broadcasting policy since the very start. In 1987 he presented a Bill in this House in which he proposed that he would decide who the new broadcasters would be and that he would operate public control over them. There would not be an independent radio commission, of which the Tánaiste spoke so glowingly, under the Minister's proposals. This crude attempt was successfully blocked by the Opposition because the Government were in a minority. However, it is now clear that the Minister has not changed his spots, he is still determined to bring broadcasting under his control and it is only now, with the help of the hapless Progressive Democrats Party, that he is in a position to do what he sought to do in the past.
Confidence in the Minister has seriously crumbled, not only in his handling of Communications policy, but in the whole cohesion of Government which has resulted from this move. The idea of collective responsibility has collapsed, with the Progressive Democrats saying that their colleagues had cut corners and that they had taken their eye off the ball. So much for collective responsibility for decision-making. In respect of this House, backbenchers were removed so that the Minister could cause the debate to collapse and very shortly afterwards they bobbed up in the media to express their concerns and unease about the proposals. So much for political debate and democracy in regard to the Minister's plan.
The new controls which the Minister is introducing on RTE are far worse than those which preceded them. They mean that RTE will not be able to get one ounce of benefit from their success in winning an audience. If they succeed in getting 100 per cent audience they will not get one penny more into their budget. So much for fair competition. The restrictions on the budget which they will receive will mean that they will be in a worse position than any civil servant. Not only will they have to go to the Minister for an extra penny to spend on broadcasting and programmes but they will also be locked into an earmarked tax, a user charge not based on ability to pay. How many of us believe that our public services would develop in education and social welfare if they were confined to presenting a user charge each year? We all know that they would not survive for one day if that was the case. The new formula is a recipe for the slow strangulation of RTE. They will be locked into a budget which will be cut by £20 million next year and frozen thereafter. The Minister was very quick to say that there would not be an increase in the licence fee, he was merely pandering to political popularity, but the fruit of that move is that quality broadcasting, as we have come to know it, will die. RTE's revenue is being assaulted by the Minister. He was charged in this House with bringing in a new broadcasting policy which would meet public demand, be independent, have quality and be diverse. What has he produced? Regardless of public demand, he seeks to destroy 2FM; as far as independence is concerned, he seeks to bring RTE firmly under his own political control in regard to every penny they will spend; in regard to quality, he seeks to destroy the revenue base of RTE from which they have made programmes of which we can be proud. As for diversity he has reneged on his promise to develop community local broadcasting in tandem with commercial ratio. That was one of his great cries in the House but it has disappeared.
What about his move in regard to Cablelink? How can we have confidence in a Minister who has no idea of the proper framework for public policy in deciding to sell off Cablelink? He allowed RTE to hold a competition but when the results were out and they selected someone who they considered would be successful the Minister decided to change the ground rules. He used crude political intervention to block RTE's decision and insisted that it would go to his selected candidate. This arbitrary intervention undermines confidence in the operation of a communications policy, and that has been the hallmark of this Minister since the very beginning.
We will see very practical consequences from the Minister's move against RTE. As other speakers said, advertisements will go overseas and they will not benefit the print media, although they seem to think they will. People do not advertise to the same extent in print media as they do in television. The consequences for RTE will be that 300 or 500 jobs will be scrapped and, far worse, the private production sector, which the Minister said on numerous occasions he sought to develop, will be the first to feel the pinch. RTE have already said that the independent production capacity will be cut back first. It means that the 900 people now involved in independent production of film material will find that their base has collapsed. The only gains will be for overseas firms and there will be a decline in the broadcasting network of which we have been proud for many years.
The Minister does not deserve the confidence of this House. In the past he made solemn declarations that he had no intention of diverting revenue from RTE but those declarations crumbled and the Minister brought in a Bill which would take 25 per cent of the fee from RTE. So much for the Minister's solemn declaration. We will have the worst of all worlds in relation to broadcasting policy. The commercial station went in with their eyes open, they got a franchise which the Minister rightly said was a scarce natural resource and now he seeks to change the ground rules. Many stations which successfully operated under this scheme will now face changed rules and, as the Minister admitted, the inefficient will be supported and the efficient will have to survive on their own resources.
We can no longer have confidence in a Minister who left us with a broadcasting sector which will hobble along and gradually deteriorate over the coming years. Broadcasting of the kind that comes through on satellite channels will become more and more commonplace. Along with the other parties in this House I believe confidence in the Minister has disappeared.
I propose first to deal with the announcement by the Minister for Communications two weeks ago that he was killing off 2FM radio. I will deal with this first because, of all the outrageous decisions taken by the Minister since he began playing what I might describe as Ray's Roulette with RTE, this was the most outrageous. The Minister did not come to the House and say: I am closing down 2FM. Nor did he say: I am instructing my new, tame RTE Authority to pull the plug, which would have been a relatively decent thing to do, when 2FM might have continued to become a sort of martyr of the airwaves. Instead the Minister decided he would undertake the task by way of slow strangulation. He assumed to himself the roles of Programme Controller, and Editor-in-Chief, totally flouting the letter and spirit of all broadcasting Acts and practices. He then outlined his proposed autumn schedule for the new station. Apparently the Minister's 2FM would be heavy on public service broadcasting which would feature educational programmes, continental languages, the Irish language, programmes on farming affairs, business and trade union matters and music, provided it was of a specialist nature.
These were not casual pronouncements by the Minister off the top of his head. The Minister told us that these were Government decisions, that the Government had decided to ask the new RTE Authority, as a matter of priority, to develop plans for alternative use of the 2FM network more in keeping with the public service mandate of RTE. Then he informed us of his schedule. What he omitted to tell us was that the kind of RTE Authority — of which we had no knowledge at that point — he was about to appoint would not need to be asked twice.
Quite frankly, on the evidence available to us I do not think the Minister gives a damn about the mission of 2FM in promoting the Irish language, continental languages and the other elements of his public service schedule. Otherwise he would never have produced them as part of his plot for the planned strangulation of 2FM. Anyone with the slightest regard for the Irish language, farming or any of the other features would be revolted by their use in a cynical exercise of deliberately driving listeners away from the station.
The killing off of 2FM was only the Minister's first spin against RTE. On the same day there was the announcement of his assault on the licence fee revenue at a rate of £6 million a year; advertising would be capped but not yet. Two days later — when the actual Bill arrived — the licence fee bleed-off had risen to £12 million. Another seven days passed and the playing pitch, goalposts and all had changed again. Gone was the licence fee rake-off; in its place at least a £12 million diversion of RTE advertising revenue which would be effected immediately.
What confidence can this House or anyone have in a Minister who makes such bewildering gyrations on issues of such fundamental importance to the whole future of broadcasting in this country, public and independent? Having changed fundamental issues three times within the space of a fortnight we were told the Government were operating a set of clear-cut, coherent objectives and policies. Sadly, the only clear-cut objective I can recognise in all of this is the desire of the Minister and the Government to "sock it" to RTE. The simplest and clearest way I can describe it is to use the words of a prominent Minister to a prominent RTE person on the night of the last general election count: we will get you for this.
Assuming the Minister has dropped his crazy plans for 2FM — and we have no guarantee that it will not be attempted again — the decision with which we are confronted is the Minister's proposal to divert at least £12 million from RTE advertising, and other measures, equally objectionable, to stifle their enterprise. The purpose of all of this would appear to be to facilitate the arrival and survival of TV3, the Minister's personal creation.
In passing, I might say that I regret the Minister seems to have abandoned Century Radio. I would go along with a once-off Fóir Teoranta-type package to assist the station as part of the alternative broadcasting for which it would appear there is a general desire.
We must ask ourselves certain questions about the Minister's proposed TV3 channel and the way he is going about its establishment. We must ask ourselves: is there a place for it? Has this country the resources to finance three television channels? The Minister says it has but all of the evidence — some outlined by myself and my colleagues, including representatives of the Labour Party — would suggest that we cannot trust the Minister's judgment. We must remember that, on average, television production costs approximately £11,000 an hour. An hour of good drama costs approximately £100,000. Whether there are 1,000, a million or 50 million viewers, the production costs are the same. Assuming the new TV3 station received all of the revenue being diverted from RTE advertising that would pay for approximately three hours television a day.
We are a sovereign nation and need a strong broadcasting service. We need a strong voice in news and current affairs coverage of international events. The days are long gone when we could rely on agency material. If the place to be is on the Berlin Wall, then our services must be there too. Before the proposed diversion of advertising revenue, RTE had approximately £5 million for news services. Sky Television, a direct competitor only commencing but making great inroads, have a budget of £45 million annually for news alone. The BBC have £120 million annually for news and current affairs services, more than the entire budget of RTE for news, current affairs, radio, television, the lot. They are our direct competitors and unless we can compete with them the zappers will be at work and we will lose our viewers and listeners. With regard to service, what we receive boils down very much to a question of cash. All of the stations have the necessary talent to make and produce programmes. Under the Minister's proposals we may end up with two helpings of mediocrity with a consequent loss of viewers and listeners to other stations. Competition in itself — which the Minister contended — does not automatically improve standards; anybody can look to the British tabloids for proof of that.
I know that Private Members' time is not a very suitable slot for a motion of no confidence in the Minister or to discuss the fundamental issues of broadcasting here. Nonetheless it underlines the need for an independent review body, such as that suggested by my colleague, Deputy Jim Mitchell, rather than be left to the whim of a Minister who changes the pitch from day to day.
The motion before the House deals specifically with the Minister for Communications which I regret to a certain extent because what has happened over the past fortnight — leading to the tabling of this motion — involved the whole of the Government, including the Progressive Democrats. Not only were Progressive Democrats Ministers at the Cabinet table when the decisions were sanctioned, we were told they were enthusiastic supporters of them. Since then, predictably, they have reverted to their now familiar role of political zappers. Once they discovered that the programme they were backing was not proving popular the Progressive Democrats Ministers handed over to their remote control boys. We were told that corners were cut but we know that when those decisions were being taken around the Cabinet table they were there cornering with the best of them.
Thus, over the past fortnight, the Minister for Communications has presided over what I described earlier as a bewildering array of fast-changing, wildly contradictory plans for RTE and broadcasting generally in this country, public and private. I know he disputes it but all the evidence available to me would suggest that he misled the House with regard to his intentions. He has been guilty of gross interference in his attempted running of 2FM by way of ministerial diktat. His new RTE Authority have been described as a Montrose Fianna Fáil Cumann. The Minister's proposals could irreparably damage RTE's ability to compete with increasing competition and will result in the loss of approximately 300 jobs. There will also be immediate victims in the private sector, the private independent production sector, which the Minister rightly encouraged in the past and who should be encouraged by us all.
The Minister claims that he has taken decisive action. The same could be said of Steve McMahon in Cagliari last evening when he kicked the ball in the wrong direction. I regret very much that we can have no confidence that the Minister will not do the same thing. We are dealing with a matter of fundamental importance for the future of broadcasting, and the decisions we make during the current period will dictate what stations people will be watching in future years when competitive stations from all over will be available. It is my belief that if the Minister drains RTE of their money and enterprise — as he now proposes to do — people will be zapping to the foreign stations.
Debate adjourned.