Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan. Amendment No. 2 to amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 is related. I suggest, therefore that amendment No. 1, and amendment No. 2 to amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 be taken together. Is that satisfactory?
Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I would not agree to having any of these amendments taken together. Each amendment should be dealt with separately, discussed separately and voted on.
It is merely a suggestion from the Chair, it is a matter for the House.
I agree with Deputy De Rossa.
Yes, that is fine. They will be taken separately.
I have just received from you a ruling the import of which I am considering. You have ruled out some amendments in my name because you said they are not relevant to the provisions of the Bill as read a Second Time. I submit to you, Sir, that the amendments put down by the Minister utterly change the Bill as read a Second Time and, therefore, you cannot use grounds of excluding amendments because they are not relevant to the Bill as read a Second Time.
I have conveyed my decision to you. My decision may not be challenged in this manner in the House.
Why not?
It has been disallowed for very good and cogent reasons. It may not be discussed now.
May I ask——
Deputy Mitchell, you may not pursue the matter.
On a point of order, why not?
I am not obliged to give reasons in matters of this kind.
Is the Deputy not entitled to raise a reasonable point here by way of a point of order or otherwise?
I have given my decision on the matter and the Chair's decision may not be questioned in the House in this fashion, and Deputies know that.
You have said that I may not raise this matter now. This letter from you was handed to me when I arrived in the House just now.
No one knows better than Deputy Mitchell how late amendments came to my desk on this matter.
The amendments were sent to the Bills office yesterday at 7 p.m. and because of——
Your amendments came to my office today, Deputy.
They were sent to the Bills Office at 7 p.m. yesterday. Because of some technical problem there they could not——
I am not prepared to have this matter debated now.
May, I, therefore, ask that the House be adjourned for 15 minutes to allow us to discuss this matter?
Most certainly not. I am proceeding to deal with Committee Stage of this Bill now.
But, Sir——
Deputy Mitchell, I must ask you to resume your seat. I will not permit my rulings on a matter of this kind to be challenged in this fashion. That is the end of the matter.
No, Sir, it is not.
The Deputy must resume his seat or leave the House.
I will be raising points of order until this matter is clarified.
You are challenging the Chair.
I am asking the Chair to adjourn the House for some time to allow——
Most certainly not.
Why then, Sir, was this not communicated to me before now?
Because I received your amendments very late today, Deputy.
The amendments were in your office——
I am proceeding to deal with the amendment in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan. Deputy De Rossa, to move his amendment.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following definition:
" `advertising' shall mean advertising, other than promotional material broadcast by the Authority within its own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting its own commercial activities;".
By way of introducing the amendment may I say that what we are dealing with today is an extraordinary situation. We had a Bill which was published by the Minister subsequent to a public outcry about the nature of the proposals in the Bill. The Minister then brought forward a range of amendments to his own Bill which totally changed the whole concept of the Bill and totally changed the Bill in terms of how the Minister intended to cripple RTE. I sought on 8 January to introduce a Standing Order 30 motion in this House which you ruled as not being eligible on that day. In any event a decision was made on that. The purpose of that motion was to seek the withdrawal of the Bill by the Minister, and to have a new Bill introduced and to have the Minister's new proposals debated on Second Stage.
Paragraph 1 of the explanatory memorandum reads:
The Bill provides that the Minister for Communications, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may pay, in each financial year commencing on 1st January, 1991, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, up to 25 per cent of an amount equivalent to net television licence fee receipts to the Independent Radio and Television Commission, with the remainder being paid to Radio Telefís Éireann.
It goes on to state:
In the case of Radio Telefís Éireann the Bill provides that the total daily times for broadcasting advertisements and the maximum period to be given to advertisements in any one hour shall be determined by the Minister. The Minister may also direct by Order that total revenue to be derived by Radio Telefís Éireann from advertising, sponsorship and commercial promotion in its broadcasts in any year may not exceed an amount determined in such Order. A resolution must be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before an Order under this section of the Bill can take effect.
It is clear therefore that the intentions of the Minister have changed for a variety of reasons. I understand some pressure was mounted on the Minister and the Taoiseach not only by the Progressive Democrats but also by other sections of the community, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and journalists. I also understand that persons in the print media indicated that they were dissatisfied with the Minister's proposals. Nevertheless, the Minister proceeded with the Bill.
I should be grateful if the Deputy would come to the subject matter of his amendment.
I am attempting to explain to the House——
It is time the Deputy got to grips with the amendment.
——the reasons for putting forward our amendments today and the reasons why we feel the Minister has acted incorrectly. He should not hold the Communications portfolio because of the disgraceful way he has treated this House and attempted to ram the legislation through the House.
The Deputy is obviously embarking on a Second Reading speech which is not in order.
This House was prevented from having a Second Stage debate——
This House voted on the matter.
——by the Minister for Communications who acted in a very cynical way.
We are now dealing with the Committee Stage of the Bill.
I am well aware that we are dealing with the Committee Stage of the Bill. I am attempting to point out that the Minister has no right, in moral law at least, whatever about the procedures of this House, to take us through Committee Stage of this Bill——
Rubbish.
——in view of the fact that the amendments he proposes to make will totally change the character of the Bill he introduced initially and go against the principles underlying the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill which indicated what his intentions were.
I would be grateful if the Deputy would now move his amendment.
What I am saying is that the Second Stage debate was guillotined by the Minister in a cynical, opportunistic, sleight-of-hand——
I am afraid this cannot continue.
I am afraid it has to continue as this House is entitled to debate the Bill in full.
This House is entitled to debate the Committee Stage of the Bill which is before us now and the appropriate amendment in the Deputy's name and that of his colleague, Deputy McCartan.
Amendment No. 1 deals with advertising. The Minister's proposals in his new Bill are clearly based on the concept of advertising. What the Minister has introduced by way of an amendment is a Bill which attempts to cripple RTE by restricting the number of minutes of advertising it may sell in any one hour and the amount of advertising revenue it may take in any one year. I argue that in order for us to consider that proposal in its entirely we must have the opportunity to engage in a Second Stage debate and the opportunity to express our views on what the Minister is proposing.
That would be totally irregular and out of order.
I argue that I am not out of order. If I may recall——
I cannot concede that Deputy De Rossa has the right to reopen the Second Stage debate now. That is not in order. It would not be permitted.
On a point of order, Deputy Callely wants to speak.
On a point of order I understand the Government Chief Whip said, when refusing to relodge the Bill at Second Stage, that they would be generous on Committee Stage and we would have a more expansive Committee Stage than normal.
Generous to his friends.
Indeed, the Taoiseach is widely reported as having said that today. As the Taoiseach is in the House, may I ask him if he is going to keep his word on this occasion?
Let us proceed with the Committee Stage.
Will the Taoiseach answer the question? Did he or did he not say that? Is he going back on his word again?
The Deputy is contemptible.
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach is very silent.
As far as the Chair is concerned we are dealing with the Committee Stage of this Bill and it will be proceeded with in the ordinary way. The Chair has been known for liberality in this matter. The Chair will allow a certain amount of liberality but to suggest that we go back into a Second Reading is an affrontery which I shall not accept.
The effrontery comes from the other side of the House who guillotined the Second Stage debate.
Let us at least obey the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
I submit that amendment No. 1 deals with advertising and the definition of advertising. In relation to taking the licence money from RTE and giving it to commercial private stations, the Minister said when introducing the Bill — and I quote from column 1574, volume 399 of the Official Report:
I have, however, been impressed by the more reasoned arguments from those who are concerned about the potential impact this might have on the very concept of the independence of the new services, on the dangers of ending up supporting inefficiencies, on the general undesirability of opening up new areas of public funding, and the example that such a decision might have for other sectors of the economy. I am also influenced by the consideration that to make available public funding to the independent broadcasting sector could be seen as creating a further distortion between the electronic and print media.
I ask the Minister to explain why it was only after nearly two weeks of public debate that he felt his Bill might have this effect. How did he come to the conclusion that he should bring in this Bill in the first place? On what basis did he make his decision? Did he decide on the basis of inspiration or was the Bill drafted by someone outside the Department? Where did the proposals come from seeing that he had to ditch them within days of publishing the Bill? These are questions which might have been answered if the Minister had not guillotined the debate on 7 June——
He did not guillotine the debate.
——when he deprived this House of the opportunity to make an adequate contribution to the debate on the Bill. He did not respond to the Second Stage debate. He stood up for 30 seconds and said he was closing the debate by way of a device which was totally undemocratic in terms of how Parliament should deal with its business. I ask the Minister to indicate how the sections which are now being dropped were arrived at and who he consulted on the matter. Various people I have spoken to in the media have indicated that they were not consulted in that regard. It would be interesting to hear who was consulted. In his speech the Minister said:
This brings me back to the concern I expressed last week that some of this advertising revenue might leak out to external broadcasting services.
This was in relation to the section where he proposed to give himself power, by order, to cap RTE's advertising revenue. The valid argument was made by all sections of the community that this would have the effect of driving advertisers to outside broadcasting stations. For example, UTV was referred to. The fact that no alternative Irish broadcasting station was available to pick up that revenue was not adverted to, except in so far as he stated that it was his hope that TV3 would be up and running at an early date and that this service, combined with other Irish media, would absorb the diverted revenue. He said that in any event the risk of leakage was more acceptable than the diversion of licence fee funds to the private sector. That was an extraordinary statement for the Minister for Communications to make. On the one hand he argued that he wanted to provide an independent broadcasting service which would have an Irish ethos and which would be capable of competing with other broadcasting services who are beaming their signals into the State and on the other hand he argued that it was better that they should pick up the advertising revenue rather than have licence fee funds diverted to the private sector.
In the original Bill he did not advocate one or the other but proposed both to divert the licence fee funds and cap advertising revenue. The Minister should explain why he guillotined the debate on 7 June and why he did not answer the points made by Deputies who spoke at the beginning of the debate.
The Deputy is an experienced Member of the House. I understand the Deputy sought the permission of the House to deal specifically with his amendment and not have it combined with a number of other amendments which were somewhat similar.I thought he did so in the spirit of the Standing Orders which govern debate on Committee Stage where Deputies must confine themselves to what is in the section, not to what might have been in it. I am sure the Deputy appreciates that. The fact that something was omitted or not dealt with on Second Stage does not automatically qualify it for discussion on Committee Stage.
If we were dealing with a normal situation I would agree with the Chair wholeheartedly. I have been in the House for over eight years and the Chair has been here for a lot longer than that. In all the years I have been here I have never dealt with a Bill which was deliberately collapsed by the Minister who introduced it in order to avoid having to respond to points made and to deprive Deputies of an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
We will have to organise this ab initio and have a proper Committee Stage debate. The Deputy as a parliamentarian will appreciate that what he alleges the Minister may have done was not contrary to Standing Orders and the Chair is concerned——
Only in spirit.
On a point of order, by virtue of the fact that the Minister has not moved any amendments, is the House not free to discuss any item in relation to this legislation?
Again the Deputy is an experienced Member of the House. We are discussing amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan. That is the business before the House.
Deputy De Rossa was discussing what might have been. As far as the House is concerned it still is.
The Deputy knows that while he might like that to be the position, it cannot be. We are dealing with an amendment in the name of Deputy De Rossa and the rules that govern a Committee Stage debate will have to apply.
If we are to follow the Chair's advice and confine ourselves to Committee Stage it is germane for the House to ask what it is we are discussing on Committee Stage. We are in an unusual position in that the Minister brought in legislation on Second Stage, changed his mind and announced that he would make amendments. How are we to know if the Minister has further amendments in mind?
The Minister choose not to reply at the end of Second Stage justifying any amendments he had in mind. It is perfectly normal for the House to ask what Bill we are dealing with. Is it the first Bill which suggested interfering with the licence fee and advertising, or the Bill that dropped the attack on the licence fee and moved to advertising, or the Bill that attacked FM2, or the Bill that does not now attack FM2? The onus is on the person who moved the Bill. The decent thing to do would have been for the Minister to bring in a Bill stating his intentions in relation to broadcasting policy but to thrust the House into the realms of abstraction and discuss amendments to Bill A, Bill B, Bill C and Bill D——
Bill PD.
I think the Deputy won that round.
I support Deputy O'Sullivan's point of order.
The Deputy's eloquent support for the point of order does not make it in order. We are dealing with an amendment in the name of Deputy De Rossa to a particular piece of legislation.
I am glad the Chair can identify it because we cannot.
It is legislation which is properly before the House. We will discuss that and the amendments in respect of it. We agreed this morning that we would have a Committee Stage debate and we cannot revert to a Second Stage debate.
This Bill is an unpublished Bill. The Bill that was published is not the Bill we are debating. We are in quite an extraordinary situation where the Minister has cut short a debate on Second Stage of the Bill he published and we are now in the preliminary stages of Committee Stage of a Bill which was not published. It is like something from Gilbert and Sullivan.
It is a metaphysical question.
We are talking about advertising. This Bill falls into two main parts — sections 2, 3 and 4 and the rest of the Bill. The Minister proposes to delete sections 2 and 3 and section 4, which deals with advertising. The amendment in the name of Deputy De Rossa tries to define advertising and I submit that it warrants wide-ranging discussion. Not only is the Minister traipsing in and out of Bills but he is also traipsing in and out of different plans for broadcasting, just like the three little maids from school in The Mikado.
The Bill before me is the Broadcasting Bill, 1990. You have a copy of that.
On a point of order, what we are actually discussing is Committee Stage of the Bill as initiated. The question of amendments in the name of the Minister does not arise until sections 2 and 3. Therefore it is quite legitimate for us to encompass the whole Bill until such time as these amendments are carried, if they are carried.
Deputy O'Sullivan was here earlier when we discussed social welfare legislation. There were many sections to which there were no amendments. Amendments were put to the House and were agreed or not. We then proceeded. There is no precedent for the hypothesis you have established here.
This is not a hypothetical argument. We are acting according to Standing Orders. What I am saying is absolutely correct.
For once you will be incorrect.
It would appear that the second launching of this Bill in the form of a Committee Stage is in some difficulty.We can do things by agreement in the House. Would it be in order if we agreed to allow the Minister to make some introductory remarks regarding the major changes he is proposing, if the Minister consented to do so? Perhaps that would give us some guidance as to the reasons for the substantial changes before us today when compared with the Bill before us two weeks ago.
If there was general agreement in the House at any stage naturally the Chair would agree. The Chair does not see any reason to depart from the established traditions of debate in this House since the House was established. We have before us a piece of legislation and we have an amendment. The normal way of dealing with that is to call out the section and the amendment and the Deputy in whose name the amendment appears. The Deputy is asked to propose his amendment and we proceed with discussion on the content of the amendment.
I accept what you say to a certain extent. I believe we are dealing with quite an extraordinary situation in relation to this Bill. I am not quite sure how you would describe my own time in this House, whether I am longstanding or a parliamentarian of experience or whatever.
Complimentary epithets would fail me. We will say exemplary.
I shall attempt to stay within the confines of that remark. Given the exceptional nature of what has happened in relation to this Bill, we can agree to allow the Minister to make some introductory remarks to try to get Committee Stage launched. Otherwise I do not see it happening.
That is a sensible suggestion for making progress.
I am not preventing anybody from answering. I am endeavouring to deal with the position before us in the normal, traditional way. I have invited Deputy De Rossa to speak on the terms of his amendment referring to the definition of the word "advertising". That is the matter before us.
It does not get to the core of the Bill as proposed to be changed by the Minister. The plot has been changed, as you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, must understand, as a proponent of the dramatic art.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has indicated to the House what the position is. I know it can sound unwelcome, boring, annoying and tantalising but I do not intend repeating it much longer.
On a point of order, the relevance of this amendment depends on the intentions of the Minister with regard to a series of specific sections in the Bill. In the context of teasing out what is meant by "advertising" and the capping or restraint which it is envisaged the Bill will impose, it is of some relevance to know what is happening in regard to other sections and to have some insight into the Minister's thinking. I particularly raised sections 2 and 3 and any interaction with other amendments. There is a curiosity which should be explained to the House. I will conclude by saying——
I was happy to accept that you were about to make a helpful contribution in respect of the amendment. Now you proceed to take unto yourself licence, having established what you regard as a suitable premise, to range into other sections.
The only thing I am raising is the definition section which Deputy De Rossa has placed with us and the invitation to the Minister to explain his thinking. We now have the Minister acting as the Opposition as well as the proponent of the legislation because the Minister has circulated amendments proposing to delete sections 2 and 3. Amendments have been tabled by other Deputies opposing those sections. The Minister appears in the final versions of the amendments to be opposing a series of his own original sections and it would help the House if he would give us some insight into his thinking, what he is opposing and what he is proposing.
The amendment appears in the name of Deputy De Rossa. It is his intention to address himself to that amendment?
If you had permitted me to continue for another minute or so I would have concluded.
I listened patiently to Deputy De Rossa endeavouring to discover the relevence of his contribution to the amendment in his name. At the time when I could not relate it to the amendment I——
He has just found the connecting factor.
I would draw attention to the Official Report of 7 June 1990, column 1749, where the Minister for Communications is reported as stating the following:
As there are no other Members offering I would like to thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate. I would like, in particular, to refute many of the personal accusations made in regard to the particular involvement in the debate. I have taken careful note of what has been said by the various Members and I will reply to them on Committee Stage when we come to deal with it.
In my opening remarks I attempted to offer the Minister an opportunity to explain the points which he failed to explain on Second Stage. He failed to make a concluding speech on Second Stage but offered to do so when we came to Committee Stage.
I presume, Deputy De Rossa, he will reply to whatever contribution you and other people make on the terms of your amendment.
Sir, if you permit me to conclude my remarks we could allow the Minister to stand and make the contribution he failed to make at the concluding stages of the Second Stage debate——
In respect of your wanting to include in definitions a definition for the word "advertising", the Minister would be equally out of order to refer to other matters.
I think you are ignoring totally the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves in this House where a Second Stage debate was collapsed by the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
It is extraordinary——
You should permit——
Here I ask Deputy De Rossa to appreciate the position of the Chair and help the Chair by directing it to any provision that exists in Standing Orders — which are the orders drawn up in agreement with all the Members of this House — which relates to that which he has in mind. There is none, therefore I cannot apply what is not there.
You know, Sir, that the House can overrule Standing Orders by agreement and on this side of the House we are seeking a reasonable agreement for dealing with this legislation. If the Government side were reasonable we would be reasonable. If they are going to be unreasonable we will be unreasonable. This Bill is a shame. It is penalising success in RTE. The Minister does not know what he is doing because he is jumping from one plan to another. He has no plan. He is all "Rambo" action. We are asking you, Sir, to allow the Minister to reply to our reasonable requests from this side of the House. Will the Minister live up to the word given by the Taoiseach and by the Government Chief Whip that more extended Committee State contributions would be allowed? Clearly the Chair has not been told that by the Government, but will you ask the Minister if the Taoiseach said that, if the Chief Whip said that and, if so, can we agree it?
Deputy Mitchell, the Chair does not respond to being told by either the Government or the Opposition in respect of the interpretation of Standing Orders. I want that to be clearly known. I interpret what is there——
We can agree to suspend Standing Orders.
——in line with the Standing Orders that are there. I have no reason to depart from what is there. Finally, I ask Deputy De Rossa if it is his intention to address himself to what is in his amendment? He knows himself how he should apply himself to that. If it is, we can proceed. If it is not, then I can decide what we might do.
In concluding my remarks at this point on this amendment I am inviting the Minister to respond in line with the promise he made on 7 June that he would take up the issues in the Second Stage debate on Committee Stage. I am asking him now to make his response to that shortened debate that he collapsed on 7 June. Let him speak.
If Deputy De Rossa is asking the Minister to reply to submissions made by him in respect of his amendment, the Minister is perfectly in order in doing it. The Minister is no more entitled than anybody else to stray outside Standing Orders.
He is entitled to speak for himself.
He is not entitled to stray outside Standing Orders. If he did, people there would be pointing their finger at the Chair.
My understanding of a Committee Stage debate is that any Member of this House can stand and make a contribution, obviously within the terms of Standing Orders, and the Minister at any time can stand and make a response to that contribution, also obviously within Standing Orders. I have made a request to the Minister to respond to a number of points I have made. It is up to you, Sir, to allow the Minister to stand and make his response and not for you to decide for him whether he should make his response.
Deputy De Rossa, I repeat, on Committee Stage you are entitled to stand up and direct yourself to what is in your amendment or your section and the Minister is constrained in the same fashion. That is Committee Stage debate as you know it to be. I have indicated to you that it is not in order for you to go outside your amendment or the section and it is not in order for the Minister to do it either.
Is the Minister going to respond to the points I made or to any point?
I will give way if the Minister is prepared to address himself——
We have the amendment before us as proposed by Deputy De Rossa. I cannot accept the amendment, firstly, because the meaning of "advertising" is well established in commonsense terms. It has never been necessary to define it in any broadcasting legislation heretofore. Secondly, the definition proposed is discriminatory since it seeks to put the options open to the Authority with respect to the promotion of their own commercial activities on a more favourable plane than the independent broadcasting sector. Finally, the intention of the definition is inimicable to the objective of section 5 of the Bill which is to achieve a harmonised approach to self promotion among all broadcasting services.
As we get to each amendment I will be delighted to tease out the amendments with the Deputies, and this applies to the section. I will be looking forward to a very constructive Committee Stage debate in the normal sense of Committee Stage.
I would like to address myself to this amendment as co-sponsor of it with Deputy De Rossa. The purpose of the amendment is to give a very specific definition to the concept of advertising. I am astounded to learn from the Minister in the very brief and — let me say — somewhat dismissive, if one can interpret or discern dismissiveness in this House, attitude of the Minister towards a very reasoned proposal from our group. The very reason we seek to introduce "advertising" is that the Minister has made it such an issue. He has suggested in his reasons for rejecting it that there has never been such a definition of "advertising" in the legislation to date and for that reason he sees no reason how to contemplate it. That is totally at variance with what the Minister is intending or seeking to intend to do in his legislation.
It is well worth looking for a moment at some of the difficulties we had in trying to address the concept. There is no clause at any stage in the existing legislation. However, when the Minister circulated his Bill and, coupled with it, his explanatory memorandum, he indicated at a number of junctures exactly what he had in mind with regard to the concept of revenue from advertising as far as RTE would be concerned. Section 4 of the Bill as originally circulated and for the moment as it stands, subsection (3) provides and I quote——
I am sorry, Deputy, a proposition was put that, as I indicated, would have given considerable freedom to Deputies to marry what was in section 1 with others and the matter to which you are about to refer. In so far as you refused to accept that you will appreciate it is not in order for you now to speak about it.
May be——
Do I take it then that we are changing?
Bear with me for a moment on a point of order. It may be that you were distracted at the moment people were approaching you and passing as they are leaving the House.
The Chair always keeps his eye on the ball. In so far as you are referring to section 4——
I invite you——
You are referring to section 4 and other sections.
I will be referring as much as I can, borrowed from the Bill, the explanatory memorandum and the Minister's speech to such matters as the concept of advertising, as I need to advance the reasons I am seeking to include a definition of "advertising" in the Bill. Please allow me to proceed.
I will allow you proceed in so far as you will be in order and you will make passing references to other sections which we will meet later on, sections to which other Deputies have amendments.
I got no further in passing than mentioning section 4 (3) when you, Sir, interrupted me. How more passing can I be? Are you to be there sniping at speakers on this side of the House——
Deputy McCartan, the Chair has none of the characteristics you might think it has.
That is not the perception, whatever might be in the realities, over here.
The Chair can have perceptions about Deputies that he keeps to himself.
Not always.
A perception is a perception——
I am sorry, Sir, but unless you are going to be reasonable and allow us to debate——
I will listen to Deputy McCartan in so far as he addresses himself to the amendments and takes with him references to other matters.
On a point of order, it is impossible to address oneself to any amendment without making some reference to other sections of the Bill. The Bill, if it is of any value at all, is an integrated piece of legislation and if we are going to argue any particular amendment clearly we must make references to other sections. That is what Deputy McCartan was doing and I think it was unreasonable of you to interrupt him in the way you did.
I might tell the Deputy how unreasonable he is in so far as we had amendments referring to those sections which would have allowed him and every other Deputy much greater freedom than I must allow because of this specific amendment. The Deputy can examine and cogitate on that and see that he has deprived himself of freedom.
No, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we have preserved our freedom to debate every amendment fully, completely and independently and to vote on each one of them, fully, freely and independently. We have preserved our freedom in this House contrary to the efforts of the Minister for Communications who tried to deny us our freedom to debate this Bill.
The Deputies are free to vote on all amendments separately. Deputy McCartan, without any further interruption.
Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will certainly welcome that. The point I was making related to the central importance of this concept of advertising in the Minister's plans. In the original Bill, as circulated, the Minister had proposed allowing himself to make orders under section 4 (3) directing that the total revenue to be derived by RTE from, and I quote: "advertising, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasts in any year shall not exceed an amount...". This proposal was expanded on in the explanatory memorandum.The Minister, in his amendments, sought to replace section 4 in its entirety and abandoned the mechanism of making orders in this area.
I want to refer to the Minister's concept of advertising. In his Second Stage speech the Minister told us a little more about his intentions in the area of advertising and what he regards as advertising revenue for the purposes of RTE's work. He said, and I quote:
Apart from ensuring that any codes of practice drawn up incorporate various international obligations — such as the extensive provisions on advertising standards in the EC Directive on Broadcasting Activities adopted last October — it would also be my intention to address certain unfair practices — if not abuses — practised by broadcasters in this area, about which the print media in particular have made numerous representations.
Thus, for example, I will be making sure that cross-service promotions — for example promotion by RTE of its radio services on its TV service — count as advertisements for the purpose of complying with the 7.5 per cent advertising time limit. Likewise promotion of commercial activities — such as the RTE Guide or video-cassette compilations — will count as advertising. RTE have a number of current practices in this area which they do not count as advertising for time limit purposes.
I am also concerned about commercial promotion in the form of prizes, etc., made available on programmes which blur the distinction between a programme proper and advertising and to that extent are exploitative of the public. I would envisage addressing such issues in the code of practice to be drawn up.
That is the Minister's concept of advertising and the way in which he wishes to address this whole issue. He has no hesitation whatsoever in making very firm statements and giving clear indications of what he understands by advertising but he has not at any stage attempted to introduce such a concept into the Bill to define advertising. He was afraid to put is views into the Bill in some form which would have enabled us to address the issue and seek, if possible, to amend it.
The notion of advertising in the area of broadcasting contained in our amendment will show that the Minister has departed from all notions of commonsense so far as RTE are concerned. He has attacked us for doing this, which I believe is a further illustration of the contempt in which the Minister holds public broadcasting, this House and the concept of a contribution from the Opposition. In section 5 (3) of the Bill as originally circulated the Minister proposed that he alone should draw up the code of practice. He said, "I will consult with RTE but I will decide". The Minister will decide by his own hand, without any reference, other than consultation with RTE, what advertising will represent from here on in. He will make no reference back to this House. He will decide by the sheer power of the pen at this desk what exactly advertising will mean for RTE as a public broadcasting authority from the enactment of this Bill onwards. In short, the Minister is seeking to regulate RTE, free from any debate in this House or amending legislation, as he is currently obliged to do. That is the commonsense the Minister wishes to introduce to this legislation and to the notion of controlling and directing RTE through the capping of advertising.
It was to head off that heavy handed, undemocratic and totally nonsensical concept of the Minister that we specifically put down amendment No. 1 which states that advertising shall mean "advertising, other than promotional material broadcast by the Authority within its own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting its own commercial activities".In other words, we are seeking to ensure that the Minister will not have the very free and open hand he has always wanted in regard to the future of RTE and their commercial operations.
That desire on the part of the Minister to simply have a free hand and do what he wants with RTE was illustrated here in the debate on the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988, when he proposed deciding on all of the licences and having absolute control on the issuing of licence in the independent sector without any reference to the commission who were contemplated. At least that debate had a good impact in that it brought the Minister back to democratic control. If our amendment is successful, we hope it will have the effect of curtailing substantially the opportunity the Minister will have of having the free hand he has always wanted over the everyday workings of RTE.
The Minister, in his brief and almost matter of fact response to the moving of the amendment by Deputy De Rossa, went on to suggest that it would, as a definition, in some way restrict the hands of the Authority appointed by him. What a ridiculous proposition from a Minister who has kicked the Authority, and RTE management, around like a paper football since he took office. Over the coming days, if not weeks, we will illustrate how the Minister, more than any other Minister in the history of broadcasting, has restricted RTE, and its Authority, in its every-day affairs. What comes to mind is the application by the RTE Authority to extend the broadcasting hours of Cork Local Radio to weekends. Up to two hours before they were to begin their Saturday and Sunday broadcasting they understood that they had the off on that proposal. The Minister does not have any function in that area and did not need to be consulted but he was notified by management as a matter of courtesy. The Minister went to Cork and was, it is said, got at by the independent broadcaster in the area and lo and behold when he returned to Dublin on a Friday the message was sent to RTE that there would be no weekend broadcasting for the Cork station.
I have forgotten how the Deputy is relating this to advertising. Will the Deputy please renew my flagging interest?
I can see the Chair is cleaning his glasses——
I am at my contemplative best when I am doing that and that is why I could not help interrupting the Deputy.
I thought it might help if the Chair kep this eye on the ball.
The Deputy should keep his eye on the amendment or I shall have to continue to interrupt him.
The Minister gave as his second reason for rejecting any concept of defining advertising in the Bill that it might seek to restrict the Authority. I was describing the Minister as one of the most restricting Ministers in the history of broadcasting in this State and I was giving an example of that by referring to the application by 2 FM to split their airwave. They wanted to provide a different service to different locations. It was a simple request to carry a particular service on the FM band and another service on the medium wave band but the Minister, who tells us that we should not restrict the Authority, responded by saying, no dice, no play, no game.
Another argument put forward by the Minister is that our amendment would uneven the pitch yet again between the commercial operators, the print media and RTE. In his speech the Minister said that the print media had made most representations to him in regard to this. I do not necessarily accept that but I will take up their position on the basis that the Minister has put forward that view. The view of the Minister with regard to advertising, and the capping of it, is that he should level the pitch. The print media have their own licence fee, their own cover charge which, on a daily basis, is in excess of that received by RTE; is almost double that of RTE. RTE Radio, on the other hand, does not receive any cover charge, no licence fee. Why are they being drawn into the net of advertising capping? Why is their advertising capacity being restricted when they are not involved in the cover charge?
The Minister wants to separate 2 FM from RTE 1 but if he is in the business of separation he should consider separating TV generally from radio and apply the principles of the even pitch. He should recognise that there is, from his warped point of view, an argument to be made for that. He holds the view that because TV receives income from licence fees and advertising it should in some way be limited in its functions. Those arguments cannot and should not apply to radio. Is the print media subjected in any way to advertising limits? Does the Minister propose introducing any regulations to ensure that the print media carries a certain percentage of contributions on the Irish language, social affairs or news and current affairs? He is seeking to impose those restrictions on radio and television.
It is clear that the print media, if it could have its way, would cover each page with advertisements and forget about providing a news service. There is no doubt that the quality of the print media in regard to news coverage has seriously deteriorated; some are worse than others. There is no level playing pitch when it comes to the issue of capping the revenue from advertising as far as the print media is concerned. There is no intention to introduce any minimum percentage coverage as the Minister is seeking to introduce into the broadcasting area. The Minister should explain why he has one attitude towards one area of the media and a different attitude towards another.
The impact of the Minister's proposals on advertising will be felt in many ways. Many of the proposals will be fundamental to the future performance of RTE. Let us look briefly at what the Minister is suggesting. In his amendment the Minister states that his specific proposal for the limiting of advertising in the future is that the 10 per cent current daily rate available to the public broadcasting authority will be reduced to 7.5 per cent with a consequent reduction in the amount of time in any one hour from seven and a half minutes to four and a half minutes. What will be the impact of that proposal? Clearly, it will increase the cost to advertisers as less time will be available to carry advertisements. That point was made succinctly by the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in their reaction to the Bill. They state that the Bill in its truncated and amended form will be far worse as far as RTE as a public broadcasting body is concerned than the Bill which was circulated originally.
The impact of what the Minister is doing bodes worse for RTE than what was originally circulated. It was a clever piece of footwork on the part of the Minister to attempt to be seen responding to some of the representations made to him. He opposed two of his own fundamental sections and took them out of the Bill. Consequently, his actions were welcomed.However, what is left — and what the Minister seeks to introduce — will have far worse implications for RTE in their commercial and viable operation in future.
Advertising will become far more expensive. In this regard the Confederation of Irish Industry, in their response to the proposals, indicated that in time the cost to the advertiser will be passed on to the consumer and that the goods and services advertised on television will become more expensive because the cost will be passed down the line. They oppose the provisions in the Bill and the Minister's intent.
It is quite clear that the opportunities in the independent commercial sector for the making of films and advertising will be severly restricted. Let us briefly look at the figures in this area. The RTE Authority in their newsletter RTE News tell us that over 50 per cent of their operational costs, or £44.373 million, is spent on “contract, short term and programme participation employment”. They make the point that in the period from 1985 to 1989 the increase in temporary employment contracts from RTE rose by 69 per cent and, inevitably — because this is the greatest variable factor available to the management in RTE — they will suffer drastically as a result of the loss of revenue and the necessary introduction of cutbacks. There will be a loss in the area of the independent commercial operation and RTE oppose this provision and concept of restriction of advertising which the Minister intends to introduce.
There will clearly be a loss of work, revenue and jobs in the advertising sector. There will also be a loss of opportunity to the many charitable organisations who operate often at no cost or who get a very good rate or deal from RTE. One of the points made by 2FM is that Daffodil Day which hopes to raise £1 million will probably have to be dropped because of the Minister's concept in regard to advertising. It will have a draconian effect on the services provided by RTE. For that reason, we must restrict the Minister's concept of advertising and there must be a common-sense approach, not based on a capricious act of a vindictive Minister, but on the commonsense, everyday working of RTE and their practices built up over the years as a result of practice and work in the field in response to what the public want.
RTE have developed all these services, ideas and aids to the community. They include voluntary, charitable, cultural and other areas over the years in response to what has been demanded from them. It is not the kind of service that can be dismantled in a day as a result of a throwaway response from the Minister. The Workers' Party's proposals, in restricting the hand of the Minister by introducing a very definite concept of advertising in the Bill, are trying to preserve the security and future of the services provided by RTE. In the context of defending the services provided, I will look very briefly at the role of 2FM——
Does the Deputy intend to relate his remarks to advertising?
Every word I say will relate to the concept of advertising because it is central to the issue.
Briefly.
When was the last time Deputy Cowen made a speech in the House, briefly or at length?
When was Deputy De Rossa last in the House?
Deputy Cowen should stay quiet.
As I said, 2FM is a unique service in its own right which, like all the other services provided by RTE, has emerged as a response to what the public want. The Minister was quite right in saying that it was originally designed and established to take on the pirates, which it did with gusto. It learned so well that it is now quite clear that 2FM are more than a match for the pirates. Nonetheless, RTE, in setting up 2FM, provided a service to the community which is unrivalled in any other broadcasting nation.
RTE services have been developed peculiarly in a very strong, sponsor-orientated way. The roadcaster service, "Lark in the Park" and the "Beat on the Street" provide on the spot entertainment for those involved, mostly in relation to charity functions. The pop concerts, Dublin City Marathon, the "Beat Box" children's programmes, the Christmas food appeal and Daffodil Day are very costly operations and resulted from a strong relationship between 2FM, their producers and management and sponsorship in the field. The clear, undiluted message coming from 2FM is that all those events will have to be scrapped if the Minister's concept of advertising capping applies to sponsorship.
I must revert to the original Bill as circulated. Section 4 (3) states that the Minister will make orders curtailing total revenue derived from advertising, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion. These matters are not mentioned in the Minister's amendments and we must go back to his Second Stage speech to understand that it is clearly what he has in mind. Indeed, some of the language used by the Minister in this regard is unbelievably insulting to the long years of service and the unbelievable social contribution made by RTE and 2FM. The Minister referred to "unfair practices, if not abuses". That is the language of the Minister for Communications who has maintained a daily — if not hourly — interest in what goes on in RTE since the day he took office. We will illustrate how he sent memos and directives to the management of RTE to tell them how to run their business. He now says that everything he watched over and approved over the last three years is suddenly a potential abuse.
What is the Minister talking about? In response, I challenged him to tell us so that we may understand fully where he is going with his motion of advertising. Is the roadcaster service that visited his constituency and many other locations on many occasions — at the behest of the Minister and his party Members, all of whom with one exception, are missing from this House today — an abuse? Is that unfair practice? Is the "Lark in the Park" that has provided concerts for young people in this city and around the country an abuse or an unfair practice? In the Minister's view, what charity functions are unfair and abusive in practice? What about "Beat Box", the Christmas food appeal, or Daffodil Day? What about the Marathon run by tens of thousands of people around this city annually, one of the single largest participative sporting events with such a beneficial effect throughout the health education programme of the Department of Health and others? Is that an abuse promoted by 2FM? Is that an unfair practice? If so, let us be absolutely clear what the Minister is talking about. Or is the Minister confining that concept to cross-commercialisation?Is the Minister trying to tell me that the Irish Independent does not tell us what will be in the Sunday Independent or that any one of the daily newspapers does not tell us what will appear in their evening editions, or vice versa, what will be appearing in their periodical publications, or, indeed, what goes on throughout the whole network of control that Independent Newspapers have over their provincial operations? Where is the level playing pitch as far as the print media are concerned? Where is the restriction on advertising in the print media in cross-commercial promotion? The Minister's attempts to dress up his proposals as concepts of abuse or unfair practice are outrageous in the extreme.
The Workers' Party are utterly and implicably opposed to the notion that RTE, in trying to promote themselves within the radio and television network, are doing any more than any other component of the media might be expected to do. In fact that is exactly what any one of the commercial radio stations and RTE networks will do when they gain control in general, or in limited form, when the real ownership behind Century Radio came into the open, when we begin to understand the fingers that are in so many pies within the so-called independent sphere of radio and television. Then we will see Century creeping in telling us what TV3 will do, or vice versa. Then we will hear, on Century Radio, what some of the so-called commercial independent radio stations will be doing, and vice versa. Where is there to be found anywhere in this Bill the Minister's proposal to level the pitch of cross-commercialism with regard to the independent stations? It is not included. In the sphere of advertising, as far as this Minister is concerned, the only organisation to be hit, capped or curtailed is the public broadcasting one, which is clearly what is happening.
It is also quite clear that the cutback in revenue to RTE — which we are told will amount to at least £10 million if not up to £12 million in the next year — will have an enormous impact on those persons on contract to the broadcasting Authority. That is why we seek to introduce our amendment with regard to advertising. That is why, in our view, it is essential that such things as promotional material broadcast by the Authority within its services, should not be included within the Minister's concept of advertising. The Minister was going to include it in the original Bill but omitted it. Then he stands up here in the House, with contempt, to inform us that we are defeating commonsense by attempting to introduce a definition. That is playing hot and cold on this issue; it is playing with the lives, the jobs of the people within RTE and with its future viability and cannot be tolerated.
I might give the House some idea of what it means in terms of the future prospects for 2FM. All of their current disc jockeys and presenters are on contract, people like Gerry Ryan. Perhaps the Minister would like to get rid of that particular gentleman——
"Zig and Zag".
Yes, "Zig and Zag", well done, I am glad to note that Deputy Cowen is familiar with 2FM.
On a point of order I would like to ask that the Deputy would withdraw any accusations of my trying to get rid of anybody from RTE or from any other company. There is no suggestion in this Bill in relation to Mr. Ryan or anybody else. In fact I have great admiration for the work Mr. Ryan does on radio.
I feel sure the Deputy will understand the implication of his remarks attributed to the Minister in respect of a person outside the House and will act accordingly.
Of course. I fully take on board the suggestion that perhaps I should not have referred to such a public person as Mr. Ryan. However, I will abide by the ruling of the Chair. But one thing I will not——
Please, Deputy, let us do it manfully.
I have done it manfully.I want to make this point: if the Minister thinks that his proposals will not lead to redundancies, dismissals and termination of contracts in RTE he is fooling himself, he does not know what his Bill is all about.
Let us get back to the amendment in the name of the Deputy and his colleague, Deputy De Rossa.
In doing so, let me explain to the Minister one of the other fundamental reasons The Workers' Party seek to restrict and clearly define the concept of advertising. If the Minister has his way, on his notions of advertising, we will be spelling out the loss of jobs in RTE, we will be dismissing people from their employment, we will be rescinding contracts. That is the direct import of the Minister's concept in this regard.
I might quote briefly from the most recent edition of RTE News, described as being issued by the Public Affairs Division of RTE and which carries the imprimatur of the Authority itself:
To achieve the cutbacks necessary to stay within the proposed revenue budget and continue to meet the fundamental obligations of meeting our costs and providing for capital proposed in the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 it will be necessary to achieve the £10 million cutbacks and, since so much of the expenditure is on employment, then it follows, with regret, that jobs and work opportunities will be lost. No other solution is possible on the basis of the revenue restrictions in the Broadcasting Bill, 1990 as it does not offer RTE any future opportunity of recovering the revenue lost.
Therefore, any Minister who suggests that what he is proposing will not have the effect of leading to job losses, the ending of contracts of people engaged independently by the Authority does not understand his Bill, does not know what he is talking about.
Reverting to 2FM and the impact of the loss of revenue and of commercial viability, the Minister's notion of including sponsorship and self-promotion within the definition of advertising he intends introducing will mean the ending of all those outside operations and community services. Effectively it will also mean the end of all the contracts of disc jockeys and presenters currently employed, which include all of those wellknown, household names I need not mention.I am glad to note that Deputy Cowen knows something of what goes on on 2FM and, in time, will come to their aid. What the Minister is doing will mean the end of the presenter who is the originator of "Zig and Zag". If the Deputy does not understand the implications of that for the thousands of people who daily enjoy the entertainment provided by that programme, like the Minister he knows nothing about broadcasting or of the daily services provided by RTE.
The Deputy accused the Minister of being dismissive.
"Zig and Zag" is probably one of the most educational programmes provided by any broadcasting station, not only in this country but in these isles. Because that programme is the property of an independent contractor employed by RTE and because RTE have no capacity to make up the revenue being lost other than to cut back on jobs, the people in the first line of fire are the independent DJs, contractors and presenters employed by RTE at present. Those are the implications and whether or not the Deputy can live with that remains to be seen during the course of this debate. He should not interject with facetious heckles in the hope that there will be some serious impact on this discussion.
The Deputy is being dismissive.
As regards the impact on revenue in terms of advertising we are seeking in our amendment to address this issue. The revenue position in RTE is not understood by the Minister or by Fianna Fáil. It was understood by the Progressive Democrats but they were not here for the earlier debates on this matter and they are absent from the Chamber today. The income for RTE in 1991 is projected at a maximum of £93.6 million, on the basis that their licence fee revenue is to be realised at £46.81 million. Under the Bill they will be allowed the equivalent of that by way of advertisements and if they earn any more than that they will be penalised in the coming year. Of that £93.6 million, £51.4 million will go towards salaries, unless of course jobs are shed. The cost of operating the station in terms of programmes shown and of bringing in outside contractors is estimated at £44.373 million and other expenses such as VAT, interest charges and so on are estimated at £6.65 million. Therefore their expenditure is estimated at £102 million for the coming year. Immediately they are running at a loss and will have to cut back by £10 million for the coming year. There is no other way out. Of the £44.373 million to which I have referred, 50 per cent or more will go in salaries or in payment of contracts to people employed in outside work. Of the £90 million per annum received by RTE, over £70 million — seven-ninths of the entire revenue — is paid directly towards salaries or contract prices. That helps in some way to show the very narrow base of operation on which RTE have to work.
In 1985 Stokes Kennedy Crowley reported on the cost effectiveness of RTE as a commercial operation and the RTE Authority duly responded. During the period 1985 to 1989, the number of jobs in RTE was cut back drastically to facilitate the demands made on them as a result of the findings in the report. In particular, as I have indicated — I would just draw the attention of the House to this — there was an overall drop in employment of 7 per cent, from 2,247 to 2,107. There was a decrease in permanent staff of 17 per cent, while on the other hand there was a consequent rise in the number of outside contractors. The move was in the direction of bringing in people on a short-term contract service basis, people such as presenters and DJs who work in 2 FM and elsewhere.
The RTE Authority are working well within their budget — and should be allowed do so — and are delivering an excellent service. However, what is being proposed here by the Minister is so draconian that he must be curtailed in regard to his intentions to include promotional material broadcast by the Authority within their own service and, indeed, other sponsorship activities outside the station such as those provided by 2FM, as I have illustrated. A central point made by RTE management is that it is all very well to tell them they must curtail their advertising revenue but they should at least be allowed the opportunity to fight back and in some way make up the loss. If the Minister is going to introduce heavy handed and draconian restrictions — they are unworkable and I am completely opposed to them — he should at least give RTE the capacity to try to redress the loss in another area.
What does the Minister propose in that regard? He told RTE that if they earn over the limit or if they make progress commercially in another field, they will be penalised in the following year by a reduction in the licence fee. From the point of view of the commerciality of RTE, that is disastrous. It means there is no incentive whatever for RTE to develop on what they have been doing successfully since 1985 when Stokes Kennedy Crowley reported, that is running as a commercial operation. What will happen is that An Post will collect the licence fees and RTE will then simply multiply the total figure by two, open up their advertising opportunities, level their charges to that rate and take in the equivalent of the licence fee. At that point they will not earn another penny because if they do, they will be penalised in the coming year. Therefore the Progressive Democrats concept of the commerciality of RTE as a semi-State body is gone entirely. The Minister must recognise that would be disastrous. He is making the operations of RTE much more draconian and divisive by refusing to exclude from advertising and other such operations the self-promotional activities of RTE in terms of their cross-service promotions and their outside operations, such as those I have decribed with regard to 2FM.
The Minister said he intends to include cross-service promotions — that is not some fanciful idea on my part — and he gave the example of RTE promoting their radio and television services. Likewise he talked about the promotion of commercial activities such as the RTE Guide and the video set compilations and is going to insist that they be counted as advertising. The Minister also talked about a number of current practices in this area that do not count as advertising for time limited purposes and intends to include them. He then went on to talk about the whole area of prizes on programmes and said he would ensure that they would be included, for the reason that they are exploitive of the public. I am thinking particularly of the programme “Both Sides Now” on RTE radio, where an attempt is made to address the huge community of people who are living, out of necessity, in Britain and who are given the opportunity, through answering three questions, of winning a ticket home or a ticket to Britain. A very good service is being provided to the displaced community of Irish people living in Britain. Equally, there is a spin-off opportunity for RTE to promote the Irish B & I shipping and passenger company. The Minister said there is something inherently wrong in all of this and that they are exploitive of the public.
I challenge the Minister to illustrate those programmes, on whatever radio station or television programme he is talking about, that are so overbearing that they blur the distinction between a programme proper and advertising. Where are they? There has been a long tradition in advertising of the involvement of the public and the private sector with programmes in RTE. Perhaps the Minister would tell us about them so that we know exactly what he is talking about.
I think the Deputy will agree that he has received wide latitude from the Chair in respect of the contribution he has made. I would now like him to come back specifically to the amendment before us. He has strayed very considerably away from it. That is evident to all of us.
I appreciate that perhaps I am going on at length but I am trying desperately to keep to the issues——
The Deputy has made a very good Second Reading speech. It is not in order on Committee Stage.
You will appreciate my frustration in that I was scheduled to speak on the Tuesday following——
I would like the Deputy to come to finality in the matter.
I do not have much longer to go. I want to deal with this point because it is important. The transmission of the "Eurovision Song Contest" simply could not take place in the future — whenever Ireland wins that competition — without commercial sponsorship involvement. The funds necessary to promote such a function would dry up hours of RTE advertising time if the Minister's concept of advertising is allowed to proceed in the context of what he proposed in his speech and what he intends to do under the powers available to him under section 5.
Please get back to section 1.
We should get clear answer to these questions — general questions in terms of RTE's viability and particular questions in regard to some of the more glowing of programmes, of which the "Eurovision Song Contest" is one of many. It is crucial that we are allowed, by means of this debate, to insert in the legislation a specific provision that advertising, for the purposes of the Minister's intention cannot and should not include those promotional advertisements broadcast by the authority within its own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting its own commercial services. I am sorry if it appears to the Chair that I am moving in a broad way through the services which RTE provide, but I am working in the dark. We invited the Minister to respond to the amendment. He got up and in less than two minutes made three points. He gave us no illustration whatever of the import of what he was talking about. He did not seek to discuss in any way his concepts of advertising, he simply dismissed the issue. We are seeking to raise with the Minister and to draw out of him some idea of his intentions, from his point of view, in regard to the code of practice regarding advertising. This would give us a clearer indication of the urgency with which we should pursue this matter.
Given the Minister's response, which was quick, brief and dismissive I am even more concerned now about the urgency of what we are trying to achieve in this amendment. The Minister's overall proposals represent a huge step backwards in regard to the commercial progress of RTE. That is gone. Because the Minister, by his devices, sought to introduce an artificial financial straitjacket on that organisation that means that at the end of the day RTE will simply revert back to the old days when it simply existed in an unreal world exercising none of the vitality we have come to know in more recent days, which will spell disaster for RTE as a public broadcasting service.
For that reason we are anxious to know what exactly are the Minister's intentions in regard to his concept of advertising. In regard to his initial response, we in The Workers' Party do not accept that what we are proposing is contrary to common sense. The Minister sought to introduce a formula regarding advertising in the original Bill as circulated. We have said to the Minister — and we would make the point again — that it is not open to him to suggest that anyone is being restrictive in regard to the functions of the RTE authority when the Minister has been the most restrictive Minister in the history of broadcasting. We argue that the acceptance of our amendment would go towards his philosophical concept of the level playing pitch because it would allow RTE and their services to do exactly what other areas of the media — particularly the print media — do at present regarding their own promotional activities and their own services. They would be doing no more than any of the independent and commercial stations would do once we establish how deeply the fingers of these people are stuck into the pies of the various outlets of broadcasting in this State. There is no doubt that when the designs of the Independent Newspapers and Mr. O'Reilly come to fruition or when the operations of the Smurfit interest——
The Chair deprecates the reference to persons outside this House. This is a privileged assembly and there should be no tendency to reflect on persons outside the House.
I take the point. When all of that comes home to roost we will have independent commercial networks of control far greater, far more intricate and much more manipulative of media broadcasting in this country than RTE has ever had or would ever hope to have. I do not see anything in the Minister's proposed legislation that would give him power or authority to level that playing pitch at that stage regarding the concept of advertising, cross commercial reference or promotion of its otherwise commercial activities.
In summary The Workers' Party reject the arguments advanced by the Minister that our amendment is not worthy of consideration by him. We urge him, for all the reasons advanced and in the earnest hope that some regard will be paid to the future viability, commerciality and creativity of the broadcasting authority, to reconsider his position and accept what we believe is an eminently, reasonable and acceptable amendment to his disastrous and draconian legislation.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the points made by Deputy De Rossa most of which deserve consideration. However I have to say, and this is central to this debate, that I do not agree with his comments on the newspapers. Those of us in public life depend on the newspapers and have the choice of either being craven, seeking the indulgence of the newspapers, or being honestly critical. Indeed, Deputy McCartan was perhaps fairly or unfairly, somewhat critical of the newspapers. Let me mention in passing that I proposed an amendment to rename the Bill the Broadcasting and Newspapers Bill but this was ruled out of order. The reason I proposed that amendment is that the only merit the Bill may have is that the Minister may genuinely believe, although it is hard to know what exactly the Minister genuinely believes from one day to the next, that the Bill will divert revenue to the newspapers. He would be wrong to do so. There is considerable evidence that what the Minister is proposing would have the effect of completely hampering RTE, which is what the Minister promised he would do during the last general election campaign with the excess revenue being diverted out of the State, which would not be to anybody's benefit.
This is not to say that our newspapers are not confronted with a problem. There is a problem to be addressed and I have said this consistently but before going on to deal with it in detail I wish to point out that we have to acknowledge that the question of advertising cannot be divorced from the question of the licence fee and other earnings. These questions along with the question of competition have to be considered together. RTE are not just competing with Century Radio or the local radio stations but also with mammoth organisations such as ITV, the BBC, Sky Television, Eurosport and many others who have greater resources than RTE. Therefore RTE face both internal and external competition. Likewise, our newspapers who also have to depend on advertising revenue apart from the cover charge, have to compete with newspapers from abroad. That is where the playing pitch needs to be levelled.
Irish newspapers have to charge VAT at a rate of 23 per cent on advertising, while newspapers in the United Kingdom charge a rate of 15 per cent. Irish newspapers also have to pay VAT at a rate of 10 per cent on their cover charge, while newspapers in the United Kingdom do not have to pay any. It is clear therefore that our newspapers are at an enormous disadvantage compared with newspapers based outside the State. We are all aware that many newspapers based in Britain have a significant circulation in this State. We are also aware that they are being sold at prices much lower than those being charged for our newspapers. I submit that my amendment which has been ruled out of order is central to the Bill because the only remaining purpose in introducing this part of the Bill, if it is the purpose, is to divert funds to the newspapers. The newspapers in their editorials on 30 March, the day after the Minister made his levelling-the-playing-pitch speech in Cork, widely welcomed his proposals even though they were not clearly spelled out that day.
I met representatives of the national newspapers of Ireland the following week and told them that they were mistaken, that they were confronted with a problem but that this could not possibly be the way to deal with it. Let us reflect for a moment on what may be the Minister's thinking behind this proposal. We have to bear in mind that the Minister has introduced two broadcasting Bills, the first is the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill — the Bill I drafted — which was enacted without change, while the second is the Sound Broadcasting Bill which became known as the Radio and Television Act, 1988. The day that Bill was published the Minister had to change his mind because of the furore and uproar which ensued about his proposal to grant the licences himself to the commercial radio sector. Before the ink was dry he had to capitulate and promised to bring in amendments on Committee Stage to change the substance of the Bill. We are now witnessing exactly the same performance.
The Minister is not prepared to stand over the Bill as published because he never gave it due consideration to begin with. It also seems that he has paid the revised proposals the same scant attention paid to the first set of proposals. This Bill is called the Broadcasting Bill but what is it? Does it contain anything which would be of help to broadcasting, be it the independent sector or RTE or both? Does the Bill merit the title the Broadcasting Bill? The "Anti-Broadcasting Bill" would be a more appropriate title.
Despite repeated requests, the Minister refused to meet the Association of Advertisers in Ireland, the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and some of the other people in the field who wished to meet him before he drafted the Bill. If he had met them he would not have come up with the first set of draft proposals or the second set of draft proposals because he would have become aware, from what they would have had to tell him, of the implications of his proposals, particularly those relating to advertising. I ask the Minister to indicate why he refused to meet the practitioners in the field of advertising to discuss with them the issues concerned. Why the mad rush? The original intention in introducing the Bill was to save Century Radio, the Minister's own creation, but that has disappeared. There is nothing in the latest set of proposals which could be used to throw a lifebuoy to Century Radio.
This debate started on 12 February in Cork when I disclosed that the Minister had sent his senior officials to RTE, not once but several times, to discuss the proposal to divert funds from RTE to the independent sector. In a one line statement from his Department that day he denied that there was any foundation to what I had said. I ask the Minister to repeat that prior to 12 February none of his officials, acting under his instruction, discussed with RTE proposals to divert money. Does he still stand over his announcement on 12 February that no such proposals were made? Would he let his officials appear before the Committee of Public Acounts?
There should not be any reference to officials. The Minister is responsible. It is wrong that the Deputy should harp back to something which was discussed on a number of occasions and on which the Chair has ruled. A rehash of that event is not in order now. We are dealing with section 1 of the Broadcasting Bill and with the amendment dealing with advertisements put down by The Workers' Party. That is the subject matter before the House and I will not permit a rehash of past events.
I accept the Chair's ruling and I would not attempt to raise matters which are not pertinent to the immediate subject before us. I am asking the Minister in passing if he stands over the denial issued from his Department on the afternoon of 12 February and later repeated in the House on 27 February, that no formal or informal approaches were made to RTE prior to 12 February? Will he allow his officials to appear before committees of the House?
The reference to officials is wrong and disorderly.
I am asking if the Minister would allow his officials——
The Minister is responsible and will reply if and when he thinks fit to do so.
It is no reflection on the officials.
It is quite normal for officials to appear before committees of the House, in particular the Committee of Public Accounts, and answer questions.Will the Minister allow his officials to come in and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about whether he told the truth to the House on 27 February and whether his statement to the Press on 12 February was an accurate one?
The Deputy is completely out of order. I ask him to cease referring to that matter. It is not relevant.
We are talking about advertising.
That is right, and I do not see the relationship between that and what the Deputy is raising.
I asked a question on 27 February which was if any proposals had been made to divert income under any guise from RTE. The Minister said that no proposals, formal or informal, were made. It is extraordinary that, having denied it on 12 February and in the House on 27 February, on 29 March the Minister went to Cork and made an announcement that he was just about to do what I had disclosed he would do and which he denied.
February 12 is a long time ago and I do not see the relevance of that event to this debate.
The Minister has come before the House with further proposals. We are expected to take his word about what he intends to do. The way this House has been shabbily treated by the Minister raises questions as to whether we can accept his word. I am challenging him to allow his officials to go before the Committee of Public Accounts and tell all. He should give them freedom to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
Let us go back to the amendment before us.
Advertising is one source of funding for the media. In the case of broadcasting there is also a licence fee and other earnings and in the case of the print media there is a cover change. The two areas cannot be split because they both depend on the advertising revenue pool. That pool is not something around which a wall can be built because it links into the pool in Northern Ireland and Britain. The whole question of funding is extremely complex. It is like a rubic cube — move one little square and you disturb all the others.
It is clear that the proposals before the House were not clearly thought out. They are a rushed reaction to pressure. Who does the Minister think will benefit as a result of diverting advertising revenue from RTE? On what did the Minister base his reasoning? Did he base it on discussions with the Association of Advertisers in Ireland or the Institute of Advertising Practitioners? He did not, because, like his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, leader of the Progressive Democrats and champion of private enterprise, he refused to meet them. Not once or twice but three times the Government made rushed decisions without the benefit of professional advice. If what I am saying is inaccurate I ask the Minister to say with whom in the advertising world, the university faculty of communications, or such organisations did he discuss these plans and on what advice did he base his proposals?
It is very clear that this Bill like the original Bill in 1987, was a rushed Bill and now as then, as a result of capitulation, we are discussing virtually a new Bill on Committee Stage.
Deputy McCartan commented on newspapers. I do not agree with him that there has been a deterioration in the standard of newspapers. In the few years some excellent newspapers have been published, for example, The Sunday Tribune and the Sunday Business Post compare favourably with newspapers elsewhere. The Irish Independent, The Irish Times and the Cork Examiner are all of a very high standard and cover many issues. Although newspapers coverage in general has increased, coverage of this House has diminished though that may not be the fault of the newspapers.
I have a bar chart, which is an estimate from 1981 to the current year showing the amount of licence fee compared to advertising revenue. We can see at a glance that the relationship between the licence fee and advertising revenue has remained fairly constant. There has not been any dramatic change in the ratio. It is very much as it was ten years ago, with slight aberrations here and there. RTE have to use that income to compete with the BBC and ITV. This is very real competition which will not diminish with the passage of time but will increase because of the increasing penetration of cable, the extension of MMDS and the increasing availability of direct broadcasting satellities.RTE, in order to cope with this increased competition are to have their total income reduced dramatically in a few months in one fell swoop.
Even if the decision to reduce it by that amount was justified, no major business enterprise here or abroad would approach its business in that way. It is reminiscent of the way the Government of this State dealt with CIE every year. We told CIE in the last few days of December every year that their subvention for the following year was to be cut by £20 million. It was totally unrealistic, as CIE and the Department knew. Of course, CIE's deficit went up year after year and the Government did not learn the lesson until 1983. From 1969 to 1982 the CIE deficit went from £2.5 million to £109.5 million, an increase which was seven times the rate of inflation, because of the absurd approach by Government.
In 1983, when I was Minister for Transport and Communications, we persuaded the Government to change the approach to the State Sector. There were to be new five-year corporate plans and budgets to be submitted in advance, subhead by subhead, so that we would know what we were approving and the genuine cost. We could compare every four weeks performance against the budget. We also stopped interfering in the day-to-day affairs of State companies and stopped making political appointments, making political cumainn out of State boards. As a result, by 1987 almost every State company was making a profit, including RTE, while all of them were loss-making in 1982. Here we are back to the bad old days. The RTE Authority, the Independent Radio and Television Authority and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission are loaded with Fianna Fáil nominees.
The amendment deals with advertising.
It is very pertinent because it is to do with performance and the money they need. We are back to political appointments and interference and back to making unrealistic financial demands and setting impossible financial targets for a State company. This will not work for RTE, for the independent broadcasting sector or the newspapers.
In my preparation for debate on this Bill I had discussions with the newspapers, advertising practitioners, the Advertising Standards Association and the Association of Advertisers, among many others. One possible area where the newspapers might pick up a bit of money diverted from RTE is the area of colour advertising. I am reliably told, however, that in many of the newspapers colour advertising space up to next Christmas is already booked out. The newspapers will know whether that is accurate. Where is the money to be diverted to? We have no TV3 to pick it up. The Minister said two years ago he hoped TV3 would be up and running by the end of 1988. Then he said it would be summer 1989, then Christmas of that year. Then he said it would be summer 1990 and in a recent speech he said he expects TV3 to be operating by the end of 1990. I should like the Minister's latest estimate of when TV3 will be up and running. If they were operating there would at least be some electronic medium based in this State who might pick up some of the funds diverted from RTE. I guess it will not be operating this time next year. If it is up and running by Christmas 1991 I will be agreeably surprised.Yet we are to divert all this advertising revenue from RTE and make it impossible for RTE to continue. The revenue cannot go towards colour advertising in the newspapers since the space is booked out and TV3 is not in operation. What is the Minister at? Is his only motivation that which he threatened on the night of the election count, that he would sort RTE personal out? Maybe the Minister would care to deny that he made such a threat off the air to RTE personnel on election night.
Apart from the note from his Department on 12 February last in reply to my speech in Cork in which he denied that there was any such plan, the Minister replied in this House on 27 February to a question tabled by me. It is reported at column 544 in the Official Report of 27 February 1990 as follows:
Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Communications the steps, if any, he has taken to explore possible methods of financial assistance or a financial injection under any guide to any independent radio station.
Mr. Burke: ...Neither I nor my Department have made any proposals, formal or informal, to RTE to divert income to any independent radio station.
On 29 March last at 9.30 a.m. the Minister addressed the Institute of Advertising Practitioners' media conference in Jury's Hotel and said:
I want to thank the Institute for giving me the honour of making the opening address at your conference.
This is the institute which he subsequently refused to meet before the publication of this Bill.
I am glad to be here not least because the loosening of your purse strings in favour of the new independent broadcasting sector would be a significant factor in its future development and I would hope this morning to be able to encourage you to do just that.
I would ask the Minister to explain to me how he proposes to help under this Bill, as he proposes to amend it, the independent broadcasting sector. He went on to say:
It is indeed heartening that much of the agenda for your conference is devoted to recent broadcasting developments and I would expect that, arising out of your deliberations on the subject, you all will be persuaded to look more closely at what the sector has to offer. Collectively advertising agencies have a very substantial spend at their disposal each year. I believe that for the year just ended advertising revenue was of the order of £180 million. Of course, the vast bulk of that amount would pass through advertising agencies, so it is certainly not an understatement to say that you are a pretty powerful group indeed.
Deputy Mitchell will accept that the case he is making now is a very pertinent case but it is relevant to section 4 which deals specifically with the matter to which he is addressing himself. What we are dealing with now is a definition of advertising and an amendment put down.
Yes, I am addressing the question of a definition of advertising.
The new section proposed to be inserted before section 4 deals specifically with the point to which the Deputy is now referring.
Yes, we will come back to it at that stage as well. I want to put on the record of this House the words of the Minister himself given in Cork on 29 March.
Could the Deputy not look forward with greater relish to doing it when it would be more pertinent?
No, because I have more to say on section 4.
The Deputy must get a headline.
A Deputy
It would be more appropriate on Second Stage.
Deputy Mitchell made his contribution on Second Stage. He has the capacity and the knowledge that he can be more relevant on the later section.
Competition going on all right.
If that is what you are saying it is understood.
Deputy Mitchell, without any further such statements.
Here is a speech by the Minister in Cork about advertising and it is very pertinent. A month afterwards he denied in this House that he had any such intention. I know for a fact he already had proposals made to RTE in January and early February. I have already challenged him to allow his officials to appear before the Committee of public Accounts and be cross-examined and give them full freedom to answer questions. If those officials have full freedom to answer questions I feel the Minister will be in a very embarrassing situation indeed.
On 26 March, one month after he denied in this House that there were such plans, six weeks after he originally denied my revelation, he comes now and barefacedly admits after six weeks denying it, inside and outside the House, that he has plans. The Minister has not the courage to come into the House and make a personal statement. He has no clear plans. He is oscillating from one idea to another with no firm foundation for those plans and no firm advice from the people who know about these things. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatever in reading into the record what the Minister said in Cork on 29 March having twice denied in the previous six weeks the very content of that speech.
A Deputy
A breakdown in communications.
A Minister who treats the House in that way deserves to be in the trouble he is in with this legislation. He told these people they were a pretty powerful group — so powerful he would not even see them afterwards to discuss his proposals. He has refused repeated requests to see them, as has the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He went on to say that broadcasting already accounts for 40 per cent of total advertising expenditure in this country. Up to now, of course, broadcasting meant RTE. He said it was hoped that the availability of new independent services and the proposed new TV services would result in a real expansion of the advertising take. He said:
I am particularly proud to have played the central role in having the necessary broadcasting legislation enacted in the Oireachtas. You will all be aware of the troubled history of that legislation as it rose and fell over the ten years from 1978 when it was first mooted until it was passed into law in July 1988.
It was troubled since 1988. Well, it is still troubled and I guess if it passes this House and the other House and if the Minister makes the order provided for under section 4, it will continue to be troubled for a long time to come. The next line is particularly juicy:
Indeed, most of you will also be acutely aware of the uncertainty that existed.
The uncertainty was caused in the advertising world by the turbulence in the radio scene. What has the Minister done with his proposals of the last few weeks? He went on to say on 29 March:
Thankfully, those days are well behind us now and we can, I believe, look forward to a period of sustained growth in the independent sector.
Following the enactment of the legislation the regime provided under the Radio and Television Act, 1988 for the establishment of legal independent broadcasting came fully into effect. Progress has continued apace and within a very short period of time 17 local stations and the new independent national station have come on air. I am hopeful that the independent national service will commence broadcasting before 1990 is out.
We have six months to go. He continued:
By any standards these are significant developments and there is tremendous potential there from the point of view of advertisers. For the first time in this country there is a real alternative to RTE.
Will the Minister not accept that he has reintroduced this uncertainty which, on 29 March, he said he got rid of? He talks about a real alternative to RTE. Will he not accept that there is serious doubt about TV3, at least this year? We all know the serious doubt about Century Radio. By Christmas 1990, to which he referred, how many of the existing independent stations will have closed and how many of them will be helped by what is proposed in the advertising section of this Bill?
Will Deputy Mitchell not agree that he has given us ample notice of what he intends repeating on section 4? If he looks at the amendment I think he will convince himself that he has not been addressing himself directly to the amendment.
You have heard enough about what the Minister had to say, but there is more. I want to turn——
Is it connected with——
I have to——
——not section 4 but the definition?
I want to come to the whole question of advertising and what constitutes advertising. Before I do so I want to give the Minister and the House the benefit of the views of some associations he refused to meet and, therefore, whose views he could not have represented in his Second Stage speech and in his lengthy summing up of the Second Stage contributions.
(Interruptions.)
I met the Association of Advertisers in Ireland Ltd. twice recently. I was amazed when they told me the Minister had not met them and further amazed to learn at my second meeting with them that the Minister for Industry and Commerce had not met them. I would have thought the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister responsible for competition, prices and inflation, would have had a very acute interest in meeting trade associations who have grave concerns and could be gravely affected by what the Minister proposes in relation to the capping of advertisements. They wrote to me and in a letter dated 6 June stated:
Broadcasting Bill, 1990
We enclose a copy of our Press Release relating to the above Bill and hope you will find this of interest to you.
In addition to the points raised in the Release, we are especially concerned at the proposals embodied in Section 4 regarding RTE advertising revenue.
Subsection (1) is particularly dangerous in that any reduction in RTE advertising minutage will have the following effects:—
Deputy Mitchell, you are advertising the fact that you are out of order. You are correctly referring to the section I asked you not to refer to.
I am quoting from a letter which refers to section 4; I am not directly referring to it——
The matter of the letter appears to refer to what is provided for in section 4 (1).
The point I am leading up to is that the definition of advertising which we are now talking about could be crucial to mitigating the disastrous impact of what the Minister proposed in section 4. As you will see from this letter, Sir, they believe subsection (1) of section 4 is particularly dangerous in that any reduction in RTE advertising minutage will have the following effects, and I quote:
(a) a steep inflationary increase in TV advertising rates;
—one would have thought the Minister for Industry and Commerce would have an interest in this if the Minister for Communications did not—
(b) loss of advertising revenue to outside TV channels i.e. UTV, Channel 4, SKY etc.
They continue:
Subsection (3) would be damaging in creating a first year inflationary effect. Capping thereafter would be counterproductive in stifling initiative in RTE to produce programming to attract quality audiences for advertisers.
Even more worrying and of greater concern to me was the telephone call I received in my office today from the Association of Voluntary Charities who are extremely concerned on two fronts. Depending on the definition of advertising it may well be — they certainly believe it will be because of the restriction on advertising to four and a half minutes — that all slot advertising will be eliminated by RTE and these quick shot advertisements which charities, in particular, use will become unavailable. This would mean that charities who do such excellent work will be eliminated from the airwaves and will not be able to advertise.The question is: does the definition of advertising, as defined by the Minister, include or exclude such slot advertising from the four and a half minutes limit? I should like to give you notice, Sir, that if we ever get to Report Stage I intend putting down an amendment which will propose that the definition of advertising in section 4 will not include certain factors — it will certainly not include slot advertising for charities or the items referred to in The Workers' Party amendment.
What else constitutes advertising? Is it as simplistic as our reflective, thoughtful, kind and gentle Minister says it is? Does it include covering a sports event such as a football match with advertising around the field or does that leave a new opening for a creative form of advertising whereby RTE can do a deal with sports associations for extra advertising in a sports field where RTE is covering a match? For instance, "Sunday Night at the Gaiety" may become a very profitable venture with advertising around all those lovely walls so that it can be covered by television and instead of RTE having to pay the Gaiety for hiring the hall they will be delighted to pay RTE for covering the event. Is this included within the definition of advertising?
Will the Smurfit, Goffs and Budweiser advertisements at race meetings at the Curragh or Leopardstown constitute advertising? Will the All Ireland finals constitute advertising events? Will RTE be forced to be extremely adroit in earning revenue from other sources which in reality are not advertising sources? I think you can see, Sir, that the definition of advertising is not a simple one.
The Association of Advertisers in Ireland are not the only professional organisation who are concerned about the cap on advertising and what constitutes advertising. They quantify the inflationary impact, as they see it, of the Minister's proposals. They believe they will push up advertising costs by 30 per cent, ten times the annual national average, cripple the marketing efforts of smaller companies, many of them Irish owned, lead to substantial job losses in RTE, film production companies, facility houses and advertising agencies, reduce work and opportunities for services and supplies and lead to job losses in manufacturing and distribution as smaller companies will lose home market share because of hampered marketing opportunities.In addition they believe their chances of taking advantage of opportunities arising from the Single Market will be greatly reduced.
On whose advice is the Minister acting? On the basis of what research are his proposals put forward, or is he merely proposing something out of vindictive malice, as many people suspect? If he is not, I ask him to tell us the basis of his proposals. Why should he include in the definition of advertising in-house announcements, cross-station announcements, which, as Deputy McCartan said, are normal among newspaper groups who advertise what is coming up in their Sunday, Monday or evening edition quite naturally? Before we leave the definition of advertising we need to hear a much more extensive reply from the Minister. When did he start thinking about this issue? When did he call in the officials of his Department and have a discussion about diverting income from RTE? Was it the day before 29 March, or was it before 12 February when he denied it? How many months consideration has been given to this question? What research was carried out on this? What advice did the Minister seek? What competence exists in his Department to analyse the whole question of funding and advertising? Did the Minister seek advice from outside the Department?
I should like to ask the Minister to tell the House when he circulated the memorandum to other Government Departments. What did the memorandum contain? What additions or subtractions have been made to it since? What preliminary consideration was given by the Cabinet to the Minister's proposals or are we to believe the Minister for Industry and Commerce who told us that certain shortcuts had been taken? What shortcuts was the Minister for Industry and Commerce talking about? If shortcuts were taken I should like to know how the new proposals, issued within three days, could not have been subjected to more shortcuts. What discussions took place with other Departments and for how long did they last?
It seems to me that the Minister does not have a definition of "advertising".
That is one of the problems.
In that event we are depending on the amendment in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan. That amendment seeks to insert a definition but the Minister does not have any definition in section 1. The Bill does not define advertising.
And Deputy Michell does not have a definition.
Is the Chair trying to tell me something he thought I did not know?
The Deputy has been referring to the Minister's definition of advertising and I am telling him that he does not seem to know that there is not such a definition in section 1.
I am asking the Minister to give us a definition of advertising.
No, the Deputy referred to the Minister's definition of advertising and I am drawing the Deputy's attention to the fact that in section 1, which we are discussing, there is no such definition.
I can see that the Chair is trying to be helpful.
The Deputy should not see me in that light. Me think that the Deputy doth compliment too much. I am drawing the Deputy's attention to the fact that there are other Deputies anxious to address the House on this amendment. I must confine the Deputy to what is in the amendment and the section. Passing references to other matters can be tolerated.
The Chair has been very helpful because he has highlighted a glaring omission, that the Minister does not have a definition of advertising. In fact, the Minister has very little definition for anything.
Neither has the Deputy. The Deputy has not tabled an amendment.
Proposals made by the Minister in quick succession have the hallmark of scant consideration. His original Bill had to be amended within 24 hours. What consideration could the Minister have given to a Bill that he had to amend within 24 hours? The Minister has not considered the implications of his restrictions on advertising and he has not produced a definition of advertising.
Where are the Deputy's amendments?
Deputy Cowen will have to contain his impulses and emotions, like everybody else.
Where are his friends; he is a lone soldier.
It is sad to see that the Fianna Fáil backbenchers are absent. I am aware that Deputy Cowen, and his backbench colleagues, want the Bill withdrawn.If one goes to the Members' bar or the restaurant one will hear the views of those Members. They testify to that by their absence this afternoon. Even Deputy Roche is absent today.
It is a pity that Deputy Mitchell does not know as much about what is going on in his own party.
Deputy Cowen need not take Deputy Mitchell's statement as one he should answer. He is not obligated to answer his question.
On a point of clarification, I should like to point out that Deputy Mitchell has criticised the Minister for not having a definition of advertising but the Deputy did not bother to table an amendment to cover that point.
That is not a point of order.
I have already seen the excellent amendment in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan. I could have added my name to it but I chose not to do so.
Their amendments were in on time.
However, in the light of the debate I propose to table a more complete amendment on Report Stage. I would not like to fall out with the Chair yet and, therefore, I will give my colleagues an opportunity to contribute on the section.
If and when that terrible day comes the Chair will not go into mourning.
The Labour Party will be supporting the amendment for a number of reasons. The amendment addresses a very central issue in relation to advertising. The Minister rather dismissively dealt with it in his few brief words of reply and said that the meaning of the word is "well known". Let us be very clear about why it is important to know that advertising, as we are encountering it in the amendment, is not advertising as is "well known". It is advertising that will be defined in terms of its limit by a Minister. We are referring to advertising within a company that has established itself in public service broadcasting as a competitive and profitable company with trade and services. That company will be uniquely set apart by having its advertising controlled. We are talking about advertising in another sense, advertising which the Minister will put a limit on.
The Minister is uniquely taking RTE and making them unable to compete thereby putting into jeopardy a whole series of different commercial activities which RTE were asked to get involved in by concerns such as Stokes, Kennedy and Crowley. There are questions to be answered as to the motivation of politicians who refuse to let innovation and technology by part of RTE's remit. It is important to bear in mind that seven of UTV's top clients are among the top ten advertisers in RTE. The Minister is saying that he will take the statutory power to take advertising from the visual media and he will not bother to ask whether it can be shifted to the aural medium or the print medium. He is saying that he will keep it in reserve just in case TV3 might work.
In the course of his speech the Minister said it was his hope that TV3 will be up and running at an early stage and that this service, combined with other Irish media, will absorb the diverted revenues. In the interim he is endangering the jobs of those who are in the drama department, of those involved in the preparation of advertisements and of those involved in selling commercial services to RTE. He is endangering all the different commercial services which were established under the instructions of the IDA and were, supposedly, favourably viewed by his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
It did not occur to him that the IDA were telling RTE to get involved in setting up a commercial technical division so that they could sell their services. The Minister referred to this extraordinary so-called level playing field, the marketplace that says that a company that made itself competitive must be levelled. What kind of market economics is that? The Minister screeched in and said that he was taking statutory responsibility to limit the station's income so that other people who may come along will have an artificial economic environment.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.