Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1990

Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on 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;".
—(Proinsias De Rossa.)

Deputy Michael D. Higgins is in possession.

On a point of order, that Deputy is not in possession.

Before you call Deputy Nealon, who is in possession, I would like to bring to your attention the way in which the amendments were circulated.It is customary to circulate a composite list of amendments but that has not happened on this occasion despite the fact that we were assured on Friday last that a composite list would be circulated today. As far as I am aware there is no precedent for this and it is most unsatisfactory.

I will look into that matter, Deputy, and facilitate Deputies in every way possible in that regard. Deputy Nealon, I apologise if I called another Deputy inadvertently. I am proud to call you, Deputy.

My colleague, Deputy Higgins, was in possession for quite a long time, to very good effect. However I was the Deputy in possession when the Dáil reported progress. At that time I was dealing with amendment No. 1 to section 1 or, more correctly, the lack of a definition of "advertising" in the Bill. The Workers' Party amendment proposes 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". It is very fortunate that this is the amendment, or some similar amendment, we are dealing with at the beginning of the Committee Stage——

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

It is very important and very valuable that at this early stage we should be dealing with the definition of "advertising". This goes to the essentials of this Bill relating to the capping of advertising.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

This initiative on the capping of RTE advertising was not part of the Minister's first thoughts with regard to RTE. His first thought was the now infamous proposal to kill off 2FM. In fairness to the Minister, he told us it was a Government decision that the entire programming of 2FM should be changed with a view to making it no longer a popular station. At the same time that the Minister announced his intention to kill off 2FM, he brought in the now discredited idea of taking £6 million from the licence fee and making it available to the Independent Radio and Television Commission. This proposal still stands in the Bill, but the Minister has told us of his intention to change it. After all this we have the capping of advertising. With all these wild changes and gyrations in the space of two weeks, is it any wonder that people on this side of the House would mistrust the Minister's intentions? We are seeking an accurate and total definition of advertising in this definition section, which usually gives rise to very little discussion or debate. This amendment, or one on the same lines drafted by the Minister, is absolutely essential.

Our indications are that the Minister, with his concept of advertising, intends to take in a very broad canvas. He also tells us that there is no need to define the word "advertising" since it is a well-known concept. It is anything but. It is an area where great change has taken place from one year to another. It is to a great extent the land of fantasy peopled by men of great imagination. Because of this and because of changes in media technology, advertising is changing very much. Thirty years ago in Dublin all we had in respect of advertising were the print media, and maybe the Bovril sign in College Green, David Allen hoardings and the occasional auctioneer's poster hung outside a firm offered for sale. That was the totality of advertising then. Now we have vast changes, especially the major change generated by television.

Massive sums of money are put into sponsorship of people and of events. Various people are paid lots of money for wearing highly identifiable products. Who would have thought 30 years ago that people would be paid for wearing football boots? Everyone taking part in the World Cup is paid a small fortune or a large fortune, depending on where he comes from, for wearing highly marked football boots. The same applies, perhaps in a more sophisticated manner, at Wimbledon where mega bucks are being paid for a similar type of advertising. Players in the World Cup competition may gain our sympathy if we think they are injured but perhaps they are taking a dive, waiting for the camera to focus on the soles of their well-sponsored boots. The same thing is happening in many sports. Who could have imagined 30 years ago that a horse at the RDS would be named after a cigarette or a pound of butter? There is also subliminal advertising. Who knows what the future will bring in advertising?

It is absolutely essential that there should be a clear cut definition of what we mean by "advertising" in this Bill. The Minister says there is no need for it and presumably he is acting on the advice of his parliamentary draftsmen, yet the same parliamentary draftsmen who are responsible for this Bill have also produced the Control of Horses Bill which arrived on our desks this morning. They find it necessary in the latter Bill to define what a horse is. If anyone has a clear concept of anything, surely it must be of a horse. The smallest child in the biggest city must know what a horse is from the earliest moment of perception. Yet the parliamentary draftsmen who tell the Minister there is no need to define "advertising" define a horse. Most people would presume that a horse is a horse. Caligula's horse, after getting his nomination to the senate on one of the emperor's 11 at the time still would be recognisable as a horse even walking through the corridors of power, but, to prove beyond all doubt that we should have a definition of advertising, I will refer to the definition of a horse as given by the parliamentary draftsmen in the Control of Horses Bill which we got this morning. Herein, according to the parliamentary draftsmen, a horse means any mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly or stallion. Also a horse means any ass, mule or jennet or any other equine animal. Therefore, a horse can mean an ass as far as this Bill is concerned. Surely if we have that kind of thing in that Bill there is definition for what is a far less clear concept, the very quickly changing area of advertising. This is the purpose of the amendment we are discussing now.

It seems the Minister's intention, in addition to capping advertising as we know it in the popular concept of advertising, is also to cap sponsorship and, if he proceeds along that line, the whole area of promotional activities within RTE.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

May I raise a point of order? Will the Chair take the initiative in ensuring that a quorum is maintained in the House for the rest of the sitting in view of the tactics of the Government, or will the Chair allow injury time, added time, for all the time it has taken Government Deputies to come down to this House? We have wasted five minutes waiting for Government Deputies on this occasion and we will do so again if this continues.

(Interruptions.)

Could we have less of the baying? Deputy Mitchell, if there are Deputies who want to make a mockery of what is provided for in the quorum the Chair cannot control that.

Without this amendment to the Bill what we are talking of here would be the total freezing of RTE revenue as it is at this time, the blocking off of all new outlets of potential income for the station. The Minister may say the licence fee would be increased in due course. What will the public reaction be to that, the public who now know that RTE if they so wish can make far more money than they will be allowed to make? How will they react to an increase in the licence fee? We should be seeking to hold the licence fee as it is now or perhaps to decrease it for certain categories of people or to phase it out altogether. Instead, obviously the mechanism that will be used in future in order to give RTE some limited increase in their resources will be an increase in the licence fee. Of course, that in turn will give the Government of the day an inordinate hold over the entire operation of the station, so they would know that to be viable they would have to have the goodwill of the Government. It is an area RTE feared in the past when they did not have so much money for advertising, and I am afraid they will be re-entering that area now if this Bill goes through especially if it goes through without this or some similar amendment to it.

I am particularly concerned about the Minister's idea that he would not allow promotion of RTE commercial enterprises outside the quota time. What is wrong with RTE trying to make extra money in that fashion and use it for the good of the station? The lifeline of all their commercial enterprises, their total life-blood, is that they should be able to promote outside the ordinary quota. People involved in publications or broadcasting of any sort, be it on TV, radio, in the print media or even down to the sedate printing houses, all use their own publications and programmes to promote commercial enterprises by themselves. It is extremely important that this be retained by RTE. The result of this practice has been all around benefit to the station in their income and to whole areas, particularly in the field of culture. Take, for example, the symphony orchestra and attendance at the National Concert Hall. These are very popular because they are very vigorously promoted by RTE in their ex-quota advertising time and we see the result of that in terms of benefit to the whole country and in particular to the cultural area. At least it compensates RTE in some small way for having been asked to take on what is basically a national duty — that of running the national orchestra. If the Minister goes down the line with this action, I would, at least, expect that he would make provision for RTE to promote their commercial enterprises so as to allow them to offset the obligations they have had to take on, such as the National Symphony Orchestra and other activities. I hope the Minister will drop the idea of curtailing the commercial enterprises of RTE — indeed I hope he will drop the whole Bill, which is the purpose of our opposition to it, because we think it is faulty.

I have already said that RTE are engaged in many potentially unprofitable areas. Let us consider theRTE Guide, the house magazine, which is profitable at present and is one of the most popular magazines sold in this country. I believe that without the ability of RTE to promote this magazine in their ex-quota time the RTE Guide would die a death within two years, if perhaps not a year, or if it did not die it would become a nonprofitable, loss-making magazine, as it was in the past. The RTE Guide, in turn, helps RTE and encourages people to view RTE rather than the opposition channels, which are coming in from all over the place. At present the RTE Guide is a profitable enterprise and brings in extra money to RTE but if they were not able to use their ex-quota advertising time for promoting their activities, then the RTE Guide, the National Symphony Orchestra and the National Concert Hall would certainly be in trouble.

The effects of the Bill will be to kill off initiative and enterprise. If RTE cannot make any more money, what will they do? They may simply put a girl at the end of the telephone to take in advertisements at rates which will be jacked up until they hit the ceiling. We are stultifying enterprise of a very valuable nature if we proceed along the lines the Minister is proposing in this Bill.

While I can see the purpose of diverting potential advertising from RTE — although I do not agree with it — to prop up the incoming TV3 channel, I find it very hard to see any real purpose for the attack on RTE's commercial enterprises. If the Minister persists with this line, one must conclude that it is his intention not only to curtail RTE but to impoverish them. There have been allegations that the Minister is pursuing a personal vendetta against RTE. I do not see why he should be worried about them and I find it hard to believe this is the case. It is not right to assume that people are huddled in corners in the corridors of RTE figuring out how they can get at the Government in one way or another, yet sometimes the Government or the Establishment have that idea. It is also incorrect to think that the corridors of RTE are peopled by The Workers' Party members' as is often alleged. The Workers' Party members are not an unknown species, but they do not people the entire organisation of RTE. There is a strong body of Fianna Fáil supporters and members — indeed one needs to go no further than the RTE Authority to look for them.

There is no question of anyone in RTE at any stage seeking to get at the Government and to get at the Establishment. RTE like to be adversarial — that is the concept of how the job should be done and that is to the benefit of the people who are being interviewed or taking part in programmes. Indeed, I remember a public person commenting on me when I worked in RTE that I was equally offensive to all sides and I took that as a compliment at that time. I see no reason the Minister should pursue a vendetta — if there is a vendetta — against RTE. If the Minister does not accept this amendment which has the effect of curtailing future capping of RTE advertising, I will be left with no alternative but to believe the Minister is pursuing a personal vendetta. Why should the Minister seek to stop RTE promoting their commercial enterprises in an area that is not interfering with anyone? This amendment is extraordinarily important and I appeal to the Minister and all those concerned to ensure that a definition like the one in this amendment, if not that one, is drafted by an imaginative parliamentary draftsman.

If RTE are capped — unless they can gain some money for themselves through new commercial enterprises — it is my firm belief they will not be able to compete in the competitive world of new, highly sophisticated satellite stations with vast resources. At present a very good example of the difficulties RTE face is that their total budget for news on both radio and television is £5 million whereas the BBC have a budget of between £120 million and £130 million for their news and current affairs programmes, which is more than the entire budget RTE have for all their programming on RTE 1, RTE 2, Radio 1 and FM2. We are in direct competition with the BBC and other channels. The Sky channel have a budget of £45 million for their new service and they are also in direct competition with RTE. We cannot dictate to the public what station they will watch because they will watch whatever is the best and most immediate, but RTE has to compete against all stations. In addition, we will also be able to receive the new British satellite station which, because of the resources available will probably be better than SKY, which is an excellent news station. These are the people with whom we have to compete and this is why RTE need the resources they get from advertising. If the money RTE get from advertising is to be capped — I do not agree with this proposal — then "advertising" must be properly defined, as proposed in this amendment, to enable them to get revenue from other areas.

If we cap RTE's advertising it is possible, but not certain, that TV3 will be a success — there may not be enough advertising to fund a new channel but it may get off the ground and succeed. However, if RTE have to operate on reduced resources and TV3 have to operate on limited resources, we will have two helpings of mediocrity. Competition does not necessarily mean that we will have better or more home produced programmes — there may be more popular programmes — and if we go on numbers alone we can see what competition can lead to, for example the type of stories the British tabloids publish.

As a sovereign nation we need a strong national broadcasting service. We must ensure that our national station is not sidelined in all this competition. If RTE are not extremely well endowed as far as resources are concerned, they could well become sidelined and irrelevant.

At present television is very much about funding. There is talent in TV stations but it is only those stations which have the necessary resources who can buy this talent. If we proceed along the lines proposed in the Bill I am afraid that we will stifle initiative. This Bill has already had a devastating effect on the morale of RTE staff and, as we know, it will lead to a loss of jobs in the station. For example, if we curtail commercial enterprises — a small section — it will lead to the loss of 100 jobs. At 7.30 this morning I met a man at Elm Park Golf Club who was about to set up — with expertise and resources from outside the country — to make commercials. However, he has had to put this proposal on hold pending the outcome of the debate on this Bill. That is the kind of thing that is happening at present. Many prominent people within RTE have said that if this Bill is enacted it will lead to the loss of between 300 and 400 jobs. In any event, it will inevitably lead to job losses on a massive scale. It will also lead to a loss of talent because these people will go where the money is and RTE will be impoverished as a result.

As the Minister knows, we are totally against the Bill. We agree that it is necessary to look at the operations of RTE but we do not agree with the hurried fashion in which this was done. When matters did not meet with popular support or with the support of the Progressive Democrats, they were changed. Obviously these proposals have not been thought out; many of them in my opinion, did not originate within the Department of Communications; and many of them reflect the Minister's ideas — obviously he has changed his ideas very quickly. There is a need to set up a review body to look into the operations of RTE in the interests of broadcasting generally and I would advise the Minister to withdraw this Bill until such a review is carried out.

I strongly support this amendment.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

We are dealing with an amendment concerning the definition of "advertising". It is highly appropriate that we are dealing with it because the revised Bill is all about advertising. The Government, for the moment, appear to have abandoned their wish to transfer the licence fee but now seek to achieve the same end by capping RTE's advertising and, effectively, transferring advertising revenue. The Minister, in his statement, estimates that in a full year the capping of advertising for RTE, simply by reducing the amount of time that RTE can advertise for, will cost the station £12 million. It has been stated by management, trade unions and others that that move will cost in the order of 500 jobs.

This morning the Minister for Energy came to the defence of his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whom he said was in Japan trying to encourage industries to establish there in order to create employment. It is interesting to note the efforts being made to try to attract employment to this country and they are efforts that all Members, by and large, support while at the same time through the Bill and the capping of RTE's advertising 500 secure and well paid jobs are being put at risk. In addition, the employment of people on contract to RTE, those who contract services to RTE for a variety of reasons — in many cases it is in the area of advertising and I am referring to actors, film makers and so on who contract their services to RTE — are having their employment put at risk.

We have a habit of exporting our best talent. We often point to the fact that on many occasions some of the best people go abroad and we wonder how it is that Irish people when abroad seem to do so much better than when at home. We no doubt will wonder in future years why it is that there are so many Irish film makers, broadcasters and professional people in the broadcasting area doing so well in broadcasting stations abroad rather than at home. The answer is simply; every time initiative is shown here it is killed off by Government action of one kind or another. Every time, for example, people in the broadcasting services in the last 30 years built up a record of initiative and enterprise it was killed off or driven out to other countries. Deputy Nealon's point about mediocrity is a valid one because what we are getting is a recipe for mediocrity.

In the course of the debate the Minister gave two replies, one more pathetic than the other. In the first reply, after he was invited by a number of Members to avail of the opportunity of the amendment to respond to the shortened Second Stage debate and the points raised during it, not only did he reject that offer but he read into the record a reply which was pathetic and failed to address the substance of the amendment before us. His second intervention was on the arrangements for advertising by charitable organisations, and I shall deal with that later. The best the Minister could say in his first reply on advertising was that there was no need for a definition of advertising, that everybody knew what an advertisement was, that people would be able to work it out by common sense.

We are talking about the possible loss of £12 million, on the Minister's admission, for RTE by virtue of the capping of advertising revenue. On top of that we are talking about further losses because out of the four-and-a-half minutes per hour will now come, according to the Minister's statement, any cross-service promotions done by RTE and, possibly, any programme which involves any kind of commercial promotion. This should not be left to some loose definition of "common sense" particularly when the exercise of the common sense will be carried out by the Minister when making regulations under the Bill. It is interesting to note that when it came to the definition of "advertising" the Minister was not prepared to leave it loose or something that could be defined by common sense.

It is clear from the Minister's statement on Second Stage that he has a clear idea as to what constitutes advertising. In the course of his Second Stage speech he said:

Thus for example I will be making sure that cross-service promotions — for example promotion by RTE of their radio services on their 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 theRTE Guide or video-cassettle 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.

What is the Minister doing? He is writing himself a blank cheque. In the Bill he states that it is his intention to limit the amount of advertising RTE can carry but, secondly, he states that he is going to reserve to himself the right to make regulations under the Bill to define what constitutes an advertisement. At some future strage that may be used as a further limitation on the advertising that RTE can carry.

Why is the Minister doing this? He is doing it because what the Bill is ultimately about, and why the Government are in such a rush to get it through, is an attempt to impose a form of censorship on the Irish media that has not existed in the history of the State and that is intolerable in any democratic society. A censorship which does not rely on the making of straightforward statements of censorship or legislation but relies on the exercise of controlling advertising money is what we have here. RTE, on the one hand, will be frightened because of the loss of revenue that will occur. There will also be the further threat that if they do not behave themselves in the future further measures will be taken because the Minister will have the right to define what constitutes an advertisement. Ultimately, this is about censoring RTE and making the private broadcasting media in some way beholden to the Minister. The belief is that if RTE lose advertising revenue somebody else has to gain it. It will be a unique situation whereby the Government will, effectively, disburse advertising revenue to whoever plays the game the way the Government want. Ultimately that will kill not just the home productions to which previous speakers referred but what remains of independent news and current affairs broadcasting.

The Minister also fails to understand what RTE have been attempting to do over the past number of years, to build up certain packages, not just engaging in broadcasting activity, but trying to use their enterprise and talents to promote certain packages which will not just be broadcast on the airwaves but which could subsequently be sold. They have shown the kind of enterprise about which we hear so much and which we are often led to believe does not exist in semi-State companies or in State organisations. I am talking about the enterprise that looks at the kind of activity in which they are engaged and asks how it can be expanded to other areas, for example, making a programme in order to make a video or record which can then be sold to contribute to the revenue of the organisation concerned.

Orchestras have been identified as a prestige part of the RTE service broadcasting brief and which cost a considerable amount of money to keep going. The music department in RTE — and the orchestras themselves — over the years have been attempting to try to bring about a situation where they could get revenue into the station. It was not a question of performing concerts or simply being broadcast on the station, they produced products which could be sold, increasing the revenue to RTE and to their own well-being. For example, a concert in the National Concert Hall is advertised by RTE to encourage people to attend to fill the hall; it would then be broadcast by RTE, made into a record which would sell and of course RTE would expect to have the right to promote it on their airwaves.

Not long ago RTE made a video "Christmas at St. Patrick's Cathedral", a joint venture with an American distribution company. The Minister is saying that if the RTE orchestras engage in that kind of activity in the future and if RTE decide to announce that their orchestras are playing in the National Concert Hall, they will have to drop an advertisement for Heinz beans to accommodate that. The Minister is also saying that RTE cannot announce that a record has been made and where it is available unless such an announcement is paid for from the normal advertising revenue. This amendment seeks to address that and to close that option to the Minister.

RTE are covering the World Cup; the advertisement they are using in relation to the video they made about the qualifying series will have to come from the normal advertising time, in other words, it will cost RTE money to advertise the videos they make. It will mean that RTE will not make any more videos of that kind and the whole buildup of enterprise in RTE over the past number of years where these kind of products have been promoted will be dropped. The programme in relation to the national entertainment awards is a public service which tries to bring together the whole entertainment scene each year and RTE's advertisements in that regard will also have to be dropped.

Will the Minister address the question of political events? During an election if RTE announce a "Today Tonight" debate between leaders of political parties, will it count as an advertisement and be taken out of advertising time? That is the logic of the Minister's position. If it is announced during a radio programme that the proceedings of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis can be seen on television, does it count as an advertisement? If there is an announcement that there will be a special "Today Tonight" programme on the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, will that count as an advertisement? According to the Minister, the cross-service promotion of programmes will not be allowed.

What about community events? On the previous day the Minister said he was making a concession to charities. It did not sound so to me as it was subsequently represented because in reality the Minister found another way of penalising RTE. From his point of view it would be great if RTE could be made to advertise charities on a no cost basis because they would incur another penalty. That is the way the Minister's statement came across, not as an altruistic gesture by the Minister to allow charities additional facilities.

Let us take the question of charities. What is the logic of the Minister's new position in relation to them? How does it affect the Telethon? Does it mean that if RTE advertise it it will not come out of the normal advertising time? What about coverage of events like the "Live Aid" concert? Will those events — and others organised by 2FM — be affected? What about the position of community radio? There was much emphasis here on the private radio service and the transfer of revenue to them to allow them to become commercially viable. What about the events very often associated with community radio which RTE promote?For the past number of years RTE — for the period of a week — organised very successful community radio in my constituency. If RTE announce on their normal RTE 1 or RTE 2 service that there is a community radio in Dún Laoghaire, Clonmel or somewhere else, will it count as an advertisement of one of RTE's products and come out of advertising revenue? The same would apply to Raidió na Gaeltachta or to Teilifís na Gaeltachta, if that ever sees the light of day.

We then come to dealing with the common-sense definition of an advertisement. If we apply such a definition, do we mean an advertisement at some stage in an interval within a programme or between two programmes? Is it an advertisement when the presenter of a programme announces a commercial break? Where would that leave the announcing of events within programmes themselves? Let us take the Minister's statement about cross-service promotions. For example, Gay Byrne regularly on his radio programme refers to his television programme "The Late Late Show"; he might announce how much has been collected for a charity promoted on "The Late Late Show"; make some reference to some guest on his "The Late Late Show" or make some announcement in relation to a future "The Late Late Show". On his radio programme coming up to Christmas, for example, he might announce that on the following Friday evening, the toy show would be the subject of "The Late Late Show". Does that constitute an advertisement; does it count as cross-service promotion as defined by the common-sense approach being taken by the Minister?

Let me come to the question of the types of packages that have been developed by RTE under which RTE have produced programmes but have also developed certain commercial projects around those programmes. Take the example of a cookery programme — Darina Allen's cookery programme on RTE in association with which there was a book produced. RTE promoted that book in two ways, first, by having a straightforward advertisement on it and, second, by also having announcements during the course of those programmes. When Darina Allen completes her recipe, the meal is portrayed on the television screens for all of us to see, and she announces that the recipe for that meal can be had from the book available to bookshops for whatever price. Does that count as an advertisement? We need to know this because, if the Minister's position is to be carried through, we will have a Bill which deals with advertising but which does not define "advertising". That being the case, the only way we will know what constitutes an advertisement is through the exercise of the Minister's common sense. I should like to know where stands the Minister's common sense on the kind of examples I have given. I am sure RTE would want to know where the Minister's common sense stands in these areas because they are the kind of areas which could cost the station a lot of money.

There has been reference to the levelling of the playing pitch. In relation to advertising now the expectation is that the advertising which will be cut from RTE will be picked up by other brodcasting organisations, not necessarily based in this State, and by the print media. I should like to tease out the level playing pitch question somewhat further. If the Minister's logic were to be carried into the print media it would mean thatThe Sunday Independent could not advertise what was going to appear in the Irish Independent the following week or, alternatively, it would have to be charged as an advertisement, one against the other. Furthermore, if legislation was introduced in this House seeking to limit the rights of the print media, for example, in the same manner as there is now a Bill before the House seeking to limit the rights of RTE, I have no doubt that serious questions would be raised about its constitutionality. Very possibly we would have the Minister himself, or Members of his party, telling us that this was in defiance of the constitutional position or private property, that one could not limit the right of a private organisation or seek to restrict their rights in the manner in which the Minister now seeks to restrict the rights of RTE. It would raise the question of where the constitutional position on property stands in relation to public property or public organisations. That may well be something that will have to be teased out elsewhere.

The amendment before the House seeks to exclude from the definition of "advertising" any promotional material broadcast by RTE within their services for the purpose of promoting their commercial activities. It is not an unreasonable amendment. It causes me great worry that the Minister has not accepted that amendment. It suggests to me that the Minister is holding in reserve further draconian measures against RTE which he may or may not use depending on how well he is pleased or displeased with RTE particularly in their news and current affairs broadcasting. Ultimately this legislation is about censorship. What we are now attempting to do is in some way qualify the severe measures the Government intend taking. This Bill constitutes one of the ways of doing so. So far the Minister has not given any serious response to the amendment before the House. Bearing in mind particularly the long debate we are having on this amendment, a serious response on the part of the Minister is required,

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the discussion so far has been taken up with the problems associated with the word "advertisement" or "advertise". A number of previous speakers have adverted to the problem and to the need to insert in the legislation a definition of the word. The Minister has indicated that everyone knows the meaning of the word "advertise" and that, therefore, it is not necessary to have a definition in the section.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

The discussion has been about the fact that the word "advertise" is not defined in the relevant legislation. The Minister said that everyone knows the meaning of the word and that, therefore, it is not necessary to define it despite the particular difficulties this legislation will create for RTE in the context of advertising. It should be drawn to the Minister's attention that in the context of legislation where advertising has been relevant, other Ministers in other Departments have found the need to define the word. For example, for the purpose of planning legislation under section 2 (1) of the Local Government Planning and Development Act, 1963, advertising is said to mean "any word, letter, model, balloon, kite, poster, notice, device or representation employed for the purpose of advertisement, announcement or direction". I do not know what particular balloons the Minister might have in mind in regard to RTE, but it seems that in the absence of a definition, if a row arose about it, the Minister, the RTE Authority or possibly some legal counsel at some stage may have to revert to the 1963 Planning Act to get the meaning of the word "advertisement".The point I want to make is that in an area much less controversial it was found necessary to define "advertisement".Indeed it has been found necessary in English legislation to define it.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House by going through the different applications of the word "advertisement" in English legislation but there is a reference in section 23 of the Theft Act, 1968 to the effect that advertisements offering a reward for the return of stolen property and promising that no questions would be asked constitute an offence, and the word "advertisement" is defined. It is a difficult word. It appears to be such a difficult word that some three or four columns of the Oxford Dictionary Volume I are taken up with trying to define it. It could be suggested that the fact that the television programme, "Garda Patrol" which deals with problems of crimes committed in particular locations on occasions puts on screen photographs of household items, jewellery or paintings that have been stolen, constitutes an advertisement because it is bringing a matter to the notice of the general public. If time is allowed by RTE for the programme "Garda Patrol" to continue as a public service programme, as a programme that Garda get benefit from, for example, by asking on occasions whether people would come forward with information in relation to a particular offence, it would see in the context of the definition of the word "advertisement" in the English Oxford Dictionary if "Garda Patrol", lasted for the requisite period laid down in the legislation, without any shadow of a doubt, it would fall within the scope of the legislation.What else would fall within it?

Again I will refer to the definition in the English Oxford Dictionary. It may come as a surprise to the Minister that, in the context of that definition the Angelus would fall within the category of an advertisement. Is it the Minister's intention to curtail the Angelus? Is there to be a reduction of a minute — the length of time of the Angelus — in the marketable advertising time available to the authority?That would be extraordinary but I suspect that is not his intention. I equally suspect that in the context of this hastily drafted and ill-conceived legislation, the Minister has not to any great extent addressed the complexities of the terminology of "advertisement" and of the amount of time RTE can devote to particular types of public service or religious broadcasting and the time they can devote to their money-raising function in the area of commercial advertising. I wonder whether the term "commercial advertising" should be contained in the Bill. I disagree with the Minister's intentions but, if we take them at face value, perhaps there should be a reference to commercial advertising as opposed to advertisingsimpliciter and there should be, within the context of the definition section, not just a definition of “advertising” or “advertisement” but of the more complicated concept of commercial advertising.

In the last two and a half weeks we have celebrated the success of the Irish soccer team in Italy. You may ask, Sir, what relevance has the Irish soccer team in Italy to this Bill. The overwhelming majority of people who have not been able to go to Italy have been sitting in front of their television screens watching what can only be described as the superb broadcast and television presentation by RTE Network 2 on a daily basis, with Bill O'Herlihy and the other members of the panel, Johnny Giles and Eamon Dunphy, whom some people like and some hate but who certainly adds a great deal of interest to the programmes.

Has the Minister considered the problems the Bill would create for RTE in continuing to broadcast this type of programme in the future? If the Minister had got his way and this Bill had been pushed through all stages in the House last week, RTE's World Cup broadcasting would have had to come to a halt. Has anyone noticed that every time the programme is interrupted to go into what are recognised as the real commercials, every time the programme commences or there is a to-ing and fro-ing between the various broadcasts, a little Bord Gáis logo appears on the screen? An Bord Gáis are sponsoring and contributing to the financing by RTE of this superb programme, a programme which in its presentation, approach and panel far excels any programme from the competing channels either across the water or by satellite.

Is it the Minister's intention to prevent bodies such as An Bord Gáis from sponsoring such events in the future? Is it the Minister's intention, not merely perhaps to take the Angelus off our screens but the weather forecast as well? Do people notice that nowadays the weather forecast is sponsored by Bord Telecom Éireann? Every time there is a television weather forecast, the Telecom sponsorship logo appears on screen. It can take two or three minutes to broadcast a weather forecast or, on a particularly stormy day, it may take three of four minutes. Is that time to be counted as the advertising time within any particular hour? Is this type of sponsorship of programmes, which allows RTE to excel in a number of areas while ensuring at the same time that it is not necessary to increase the licence fee, to be brought to an end? If this sort of programme could not be sponsored through advertising by An Bord Gáis and Telecom Éireann, it would inevitably be taken off our screen or the quality would be diminished. Alternatively it would be a substitute for advertising proper. I do not believe this is the Minister's intention. I do not believe this matter has been thought out. I do not believe the Minister wants to take the World Cup off our screens. If everyone on the Opposition side——

Gabh mo leith scéal, would the Deputy accept that maybe he has indicated his concern to such an extent for An Bord Gáis, the Angelus and weather forecasting that the Minister could assure him it is not soundly based? He is saying that himself, so what is the point in pursuing it?

It may not be the Minister's intention to interfere with all these things. I may be guessing wrongly and it may be his intention but I hope not. My point is in the context of the word "advertising".

In so far as you might be guessing wrongly twice, you are then in the area of repetition and you might avoid that.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, your interruption of Deputy Shatter allows me an opportunity to call a quorum.

Whether or not I interrupted Deputy Shatter, Deputy Mitchell is perfectly entitled to call quorums to his heart's content.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

On a point of order, can the Leas-Cheann Comhairle explain to me, a new Deputy, why, for voting purposes, as soon as one is inside the door one is regarded as present but for a quorum, if one is inside the door, one is not regarded as present. Can the Leas-Cheann Comhairle define the difference for me?

I hope I do not spend as much time on that definition as we are spending on the definition of "advertising".

I have no foreign dictionary at my disposal and I cannot elaborate any further.

As far as the Chair is concerned, anything that happens outside the Chamber during a debate is not in order. Therefore, people who are standing outside the Chamber for the quorum are not in order. That is my interpretation, and my definition.

If we vote outside the Chamber, is that vote not in order?

Sin ceist eile. I understand that the point you raise is one that might be agitating your mind and the minds of other Deputies.

Lest there be any thoughts of agitation, we will just sit and wait.

If we were to extend the simile a little further and talk about playing pitches, we could make the case that managers are not allowed to come on to the playing pitch.

Neither are chairpersons.

If Deputy McCartan has a point of order, I will deal with it. Deputy Shatter, without interruption.

In the contribution I was making I was adverting to the various problems raised with advertising. This Bill needs to distinguish between the sponsorship of programmes and advertising.It is clear from the examples I have given of the weather forecast and the World Cup coverage that there should be a distinct difference between sponsorship of that nature and advertising but, of course, the two are interlinked. Whatever the Minister's intentions may be, the Bill as currently drafted curtails those activities. It includes the Angelus within the area of advertising, it includes the World Cup coverage as sponsored by An Bord Gáis in the area of advertising and it includes the weather forecast. It tries to do something else — and this is what I would describe as the miserable element of the Bill — it tries to take the fun out of public service broadcasting by RTE.

How many people in Ireland sit and watch the "Late Late Show" regularly and participate in quizzes where a major motor manufacturer has given the prize of a motor car which can, result in hundreds of thousands of people sending replies to those quizzes? If Toyota, Fiat, Ford, Mitsubishi or any of the other motor manufacturers donate a car for a quiz, they do so because they think it is a worth while advertisement on a widely watched television programme. The viewers participate in a quiz from which they may benefit if they are lucky enough to win. It seems clear that the type of "Late Late Show" quizzes that have been run as a result of such sponsorship — the mix of advertising and public service broadcasting — by the provision of a product to the winner come within the concept of advertising.

As it is now 1.26 p.m. I want to call a quorum and draw your attention to the three minute requirement in Standing Orders.

I am not strictly aware of anything that is in Standing Orders. We will have a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

In deference to the order of the House, the House stands adjourned.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share