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).

When we broke for lunch I was making the point that the absence of a definition of "advertising" in the Bill, taken together with the definitions I want to open to the House contained in the English Oxford Dictionary, gave rise to the possibility that the Angelus, the weather forecasts on RTE, indeed the current broadcasting of the World Cup could fall within the context of "advertising" so that, if this Bill becomes law in its present form, it could create major difficulties.

A Cheann Comhairle, there is no quorum in the House. I wish to give you notice that I will continue to call for quorums so long as there are not sufficient Members in the House.

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

To illustrate the difficulties that could arise, I would now like to specifically refer to the definitions given in the Oxford English Dictionary. The word "advertising" is defined on page 138 of the Oxford English Dictionary, 1933 Edition as follows: "To take note, give heed, to consider, to turn one's attention to, to take note of, attend to, notice and observe a thing... to give notice of anything, to notify, indicate or make generally known".

If to make something generally known constitutes an advertisement, to make the weather forecast generally known under the sponsorship of Telecom Éireann seems to fall into the category of advertising.

The Deputy will appreciate that what we are discussing here is a definition of a word as it appears in an amendment.

Yes, we are talking about the world "advertisement".

Are you taking issue with that definition?

I am taking issue with the fact that we do not have a definition of the word "advertisment" in the Bill at all, that the amendment tabled by The Workers' Party gives rise to a form of definition which deals with one aspect of the problem.

We are dealing here with a specific definition.

I am saying that that specific definition is welcome in that it clarifies some aspects of the Bill but it probably does not go far enough.

The Deputy appreciates that on Committee Stage he must confine himself to the amendment and the terms of the amendment gives specific definition for the word "advertising".

I am entitled to say the defination is welcome because it improves what was a defective measure, but I am also entitled to point out omissions in the definition.

Not on Committee Stage.

It seems that if there are omissions in the definition that The Workers' Party tabled that I am entitled to refer to it, to make the point that it is a worthy amendment that should be supported but which may have to be improved on Report Stage.

We accept that we can improve it on Report Stage.

If one means to raise something on Report Stage it is necessary on Committee Stage to explain the reasons. Otherwise one would be told on Report Stage that the matter had not been raised on Committee Stage. I believe I am perfectly in order to raise the issue of the absence of a definition.

Each Deputy can establish his own credo but it must be in accordance with Standing Orders and what we are dealing with here in a specific amendment refers to a specific definition of the world "advertising".Therefore the Deputy will be obliged to apply himself to that. He cannot range to Chambers or other dictionaries bringing in new definitions.

I am trying to stick to the problem of the definition of the word "advertising". I am trying to restrain myself from ranging as broadly over the Bill as previous speakers have done. In the context of The Workers' Party——

On Committee Stage we must apply ourselves to what is in the amendment, and in so far as The Workers' Party amendment refers specifically to a definition of the word "advertising" that they feel would improve the legislation, the Deputy must either accept or reject that definition.

We have to tease out the meaning of The Workers' Party amendment, laudable though it is. That amendment says that advertising shall mean advertising other then promotional material broadcast by the Authority within is own broadcast service for the purpose of promoting——

I do not want to waste the time of the House on this. If the Deputy is indicating that he intends, on Report Stage, introducing a new amendment with a new definition of advertising, it is perfectly in order. If he is not, he knows himself that he is not engaging the attention of the House in the best fashion.

I am really doing two things. I am giving the House notice that a better definition will be tabled on Report Stage and I am also trying to tease out some aspects of the definition that is before the House which says: "advertising shall mean advertising... other than" etc. I am trying to tease out what the word "advertising" actually means according to the definition.

The Deputy also appreciates that we will have an opportunity under section 4, which deals specifically with advertising, to address himself to that.

The problem is that that deals with advertising on the assumption that we know what advertising means and the definition section, as I indicated in the context of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, normally states what a concept means for the purposes of the Bill.

I know that we can look forward to the Deputy's co-operation. We are dealing here with a specific amendment with a specific definition of the word "advertising". In view of the fact that it is Committee Stage I would ask the Deputy to apply himself to that and he can discard the dictionaries in respect of this amendment.

On a point of order, I think your ruling would restrict us on this side of the House in dealing with amendments, particularly with amendments relating to definitions. We have offered a definition of advertising.

Are the Government not obliged to maintain a quorum here for a specified length of time?

No.

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

On a point of order, I was stating that your ruling in relation to offering alternative forms of wording for the kind of amendment we are putting forward would restrict our capacity to adequately deal with this area. The three parties on this side of the House have different views as to how this definition should be incorporated, and the Government have a separate view. Clearly, on that basis a party other than ours must be enabled to express their view of what a better definition of advertising would be. There is a whole range of views as to what constitutes——

There is no question of expressing one's view. I would direct your attention to your own amendment. For reasons best known to yourself, you have used the word "shall", and that, as we have heard many times is rather specific. If we are dealing with your amendment and your definition, it shall be as you have indicated. I take it that unless there is an amendment to your amendment and somebody else has a better definition, we cannot rule beyond your amendment as that amendment has restricted the House to a specific definition.

It only restricts the House to a specific definition when and if it is carried. What we are doing here is debating whether this definition should be carried and what the different views of the Members are. Clearly it must be possible for Members to offer alternatives as to what the wording might be, particularly on Committee Stage where there is a to and fro debate, where various people express their views and it is possible for someone——

There is to and fro debate on that which is regarded as relevant, helpful and enlightening. Unless Deputy De Rossa wants to convince the Chair that he is accepting there is a better definition than the one he has articulated here, he is losing his own case straight away.

I am trying to express the view, as a point of order, that to restrict Deputies solely to debating my definition of "advertising" would restrict the debate to such an extent that it would be pointless, because Deputies would not have the right to express their varying views on the matter, as Deputy Shatter has been attempting to do. It would not be possible for the Minister to express a view——

I do not intend to waste the time of the House. There are varying views but those varying views can only be in accordance with what is required under Standing Orders. Deputy De Rossa is as familiar with that as I am, and accepts that as well as I do. If, in the atmosphere of this Committee Stage Debate, the Deputy yearns for regulations that do not exist, we cannot accommodate that. I must advise the House that a traditional attitude to a Committee Stage debate is as I have indicated, and not as the Deputy would wish.

I would be interested if you would indicate what Standing Order precludes us from offering alternative wording, from whatever side of the House. It is quite common for a Minister, for instance, to respond on Committee Stage by saying: "I do not think your wording is adequate, it goes too far or it does not go far enough, and I will propose on Report Stage to bring in alternative wording." There is then a debate on that alternative wording. That is the common practice in this House.

The Minister has responded. He has advised the House——

The Minister has no more rights in the House than any other Deputy. In the final analysis, he is obliged to comply with Standing Orders as we are.

The Deputy need not be setting targets. I thought the Deputy was indicating he wanted the Minister's view on the matter. I am advising him that the Minister has already given his view on the definition in the amendment.

I agree that is the case but that does not preclude us from having the right to express our views on what is or what should be in the amendment.That is simply the point I am arguing.

If the Deputy had been here all day he would have heard many views. Let us proceed now.

The Deputy has listened with interest to all the contributions.

The point I am making is that we have not been short of contributions.

I am delighted that is the case.

Of course you are, and I hope your delight continues.

On a point of order, this is a matter of some importance. Deputy De Rossa asked if you could tell the House under what Standing Order you seek to restrict the debate on the definition section. If there is nothing to that effect under Standing Orders, is there anything in the Book of Precedents that would so restrict the debate?

There is such a Standing Order. I am surprised Deputy Mitchell, who has enjoyed membership of this House for some time and who has enjoyed the interpretation of that particular Standing Order, rejects it now because he has moved to another side of the House.

I am not sure "enjoy" is the right word in this case.

He is caught up in the childish atmosphere he has created.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Shatter, without interruption. I know Deputy Shatter has imagination that will help him not to go too far down the road he is on, but will keep him in order.

Very late in the evening last week the Minister's attention was drawn to the difficulties this amendment may create for various charities in the context of the lower rates RTE apply to charities for advertising. That matter is not referred to in the amendment tabled by the Workers' Party but it was discussed at some length. The Minister quite correctly responded by saying this is not a problem — I do not want to quote the Minister incorrectly—he thought existed in the context of the Bill, but he was prepared to amend the Bill to deal with charities. This would require a different definition of the concept of advertising, presumably in the context of advertising for charities. It is not unusual on this Stage that we would tease out the meaning of this concept in the context of the definition before us.

The Workers' Party amendment states that advertising, within the capping system envisaged by the Bill, is to exclude promotional material broadcast by the authority within their own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting their own commercial activities. That is obviously designed to ensure that the Authority can advertise concerts they organise as well as forthcoming programmes, cross-advertise television items that will be broadcast on radio andvice versa. Clearly if this amendment is not incorporated in the Bill, any such self-promotion by RTE to attract an audience for their programming will have a detrimental impact on the finances of RTE because it will be regarded as advertising time from which no income can be derived. There is no other broadcasting service of which I am aware that is beaming into this country, be it from the United Kingdom mainland, Northern Ireland or from satellite, which is so restricted. BBC, UTV, Sky Television and the various other television stations are constantly promoting their future programming in an uninhibited way without any time curtailment or without it in any way affecting, in the context of the commercial stations from abroad, their commercial revenue. In the absence of The Workers' Party definition being adopted it seems that RTE are being asked to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. There can be no rational reason for regarding advertising as including the station's own promotion of their own programming. Unfortunately the definition which has been tabled does not tackle the various other problems that need to be tackled. As Deputy Mitchell indicated on behalf of my own party, after we have teased this out in this House it will be necessary, if the Minister intends to proceed to enact this very bad legislation, to provide a far more comprehensive definition of promotions that are excluded from the application of the legislation. Sponsorship of programmes should not be included as being advertising. I instanced —I do not want to repeat myself—Bord Gáis helping to sponsor the World Cup coverage and An Bord Telecom sponsoring the weather forecast. Those things should not fall within the ambit of advertising under the Bill; they do at present and will even if this amendment is accepted. In the context of the definitions of advertising or of advertisements, the Oxford English Dictionary states that an advertisement is something that turns the mind of someone to anything, attracts attention or observation, the action of calling the attention of others, admonishing, warning or instructing.

Jack Charlton would be interested in that.

The point I made is that a religious broadcast, for example the Angelus, could fall within that definition.

(Interruptions.)

There will be a lightning strike if you do not behave yourselves.

Deputy Mitchell could apply that rule to himself.

May I have order in the House? In relation to the specific Standing Order, already the Deputy has referred on at least two occasions to the Angelus, the weather forecast and to the football match. If he advises me now that he is going to go for a hat trick I will have to apply the appropriate Standing Order which does not allow him to do that.

I can assure you I do not intend to mention the Angelus, the weather forecast or the World Cup coverage again. I do not want to score an own goal of the nature the Minister has scored with this Bill. I will mention again one other area very briefly in the context of advertising which, unfortunately, would not be excluded from the application of the Bill in the context of this amendment. I gave the instance of promotional giveaways on the "Late Late Show" and other major programming.

The Deputy has already mentoned that.

It seems that that will be capped under this Bill. It is taking a lot of the fun and the joy out of television programmes from which many people in this country derive a great deal of pleasure.

Ministerial conduct.

It is difficult to see therationale behind the Minister's approach. It is difficult and probably impossible for this legislation to be implemented without us having a proper definition of the word “advertising” and without us having a more extensive definition of exclusions from the concept of advertising than that contained in the very laudable amendment that is before the House and which has allowed us to deal with this issue at this stage. It would be my hope, Sir, that we can tackle this problem and that we can overcome this difficulty created by the Minister for this House.

This Bill has a lot of absurdity in it. When approaching a Bill that is absurd one can put forward propositions that leave people somewhat aghast. In the context of the fall-out from Chernobyl, if RTE had to make public announcements that this was about to hit the country that would be an advertisement under the terms of this legislation. That is the reason this legislation is a nonsense. If the Department of the Environment, as I instanced, can, in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, have a definition of advertisement——

This is the third time now Deputy. I am sorry but having drawn your attention to the fact that you have been out of order in connection with Standing Order No. 55 that will have to be the last time I will advise you. Not alone are you repeating but you are advising the House that you are going to repeat. You know that is not in order even in a Second Stage debate.

I will try not to be repetitive.

I think we should have a quorum for this discussion.

It will not last too long.

Do we not have a quorum in the House at present?

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

At this stage I think I have detailed at some length, the difficulties with the word "advertising". In conclusion, let me say that if the Minister intends to proceed with this legislation I hope he will take seriously the concerns voiced about a number of areas which will fall within the undefined concept of advertising in the Bill and which could do damage in areas where we on this side of the House do not want to see damage done. The Minister indicated last week in the House that he will look again at the position of charities but there is also now a need to look at RTE's self-promotional advertising, public service notices, to assess the impact this Bill will have on the sponsorship of programmes, in terms of the making available of prizes for programme quizzes, and a variety of other areas where this Bill will curtail the activities of RTE in a way that is inimical to public service broadcasting.

If this Bill is enacted in its present form, without advertising being defined it will be a recipe for difficulty and confusion.Apart from the fact that the Bill itself is bad, if the Government intend to push it through this House they have a duty to the House and the public broadcasting service in RTE to ensure that its meaning and application to a variety of different activities which form part of the normal course of broadcasting at present are clear. It seems there is no desire to tackle that problem. Perhaps the new division between the two Government parties, as shown by Senator Martin Cullen's objections to the Bill, expressed on an RTE programme only a few days ago, might now impress on the Government the need to agree to bring about changes.

Let me say at the outset that the wisdom behind introducing this Bill must be questoned. We need to bear in mind that approximately two years ago, in 1988, we passed another Broadcasting Bill. Despite the assurances given to us from time to time by the Minister that that legislation was effective, the fact that he is back here with another Broadcasting Bill would seem to indicate that the Broadcasting Bill introduced in 1988 did not stand the test of time. The cornerstone of our broadcasting legislation, the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, dates back to 1926 while the principal Act in this case has been in existence since 1960. Attempts have also been made to introduce Bills in 1981, 1985, 1987, 1988 and now in 1990. I have already conceded that the Minister has achieved a fair measure of success. He has been successful in getting the pirate stations off the air but he did not have to wait until 1988 before attempting to do that, given that the necessary legislation had been in place since 1926, the only difference being the size of the penalties. For that reason it is regrettable that we find ourselves today discussing this matter.

I make no secret to of the fact that I was one of those who stymied the efforts of Deputy Mitchell, when Minister for Communications, in this area for the very reasons we are now outlining. The position of the Labour Party has not altered since 1979. I think I am entitled to make a few introductory remarks as a preamble to what I have to say.

The Deputy is entitled to anticipate the reminder by the Chair that he knows he is digging a very deep foundation to deal with this specific amendment.

It depends on the weight one wishes to put on the foundation.Perhaps the words will weigh heavily on the House but it is absolutely necessary to lay a good foundation——

If each Deputy were to interpret the profoundity and importance of his own words, each would talk for an hour. Deputy O'Sullivan appreciates that when we are dealing with a Committee Stage section and amendment, after making a very gentle or short introduction, he is expected to apply himself to what is in the amendment.This amendment refers to a definition, put before the House in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan, of the word "advertising". The Deputy is at liberty, and I am sure the House would welcome him doing so, to discuss that particular aspect of the legislation but he is not entitled to make a new Second Stage debate.

On a point of order, I have no intention of delaying the House but as you say we are discussing the first amendment to section 1 of the Broadcasting Bill and what Deputy O'Sullivan is simply doing is making reference to and commenting on the several references which have been made so far on Committee Stage to broadcasting legislation and the changes which have been made to it. What he is seeking to do, by way of locating his comments on this first amendment, is to put the Labour Party perspective. This is required as there have been several references to Deputy O'Sullivan and me as well as to other Labour Party Deputies. It would be very unfair to Deputy O'Sullivan if he was unable to do so.

Deputy Ó hUigín is entitled, naturally, to make the case for his colleague, as is anybody else, but, even in the words of Deputy O'Sullivan himself, he has already made his case. Is the Deputy indicating then that we should continue to apply the time of the House in allowing every Deputy to make again the case he has already made on his own admission, not mine? Deputy Ó hUigín can adjudicate or act as Leas-Cheann Comhairle on that proposition, if he wants to do so, but that is the situation.

We should hear Deputy O'Sullivan.

Not for the second time on the one point surely when he himself has already alerted the Chair that that is what he is doing?

He is able to make his case without repetition.

I got the impression that the Deputy felt he was not and that is why he intervened. Deputy O'Sullivan without further interruption on amendment No. 1.

May I respectfully suggest that the only one interrupting me is the Chair.

The Chair does not interrupt, the Chair intervenes.

I will correct myself, the Chair interjected.

The Chair intervences when a Deputy on his own admission advertises the fact that he is out of order.

It all depends on the way in which one defines advertising.

The Deputy appears to be taking pleasure in it. Deputy O'Sullivan on amendment No. 1.

I find your ruling somewhat strange bearing in mind that you have already put forward the Minister's explanation in reply to Deputy De Rossa which was that the meaning of advertising is well established and is a common sense term.

I have done no such thing.

The record of this House will show otherwise.

I reminded the House that the Minister has already given to the House the information sought by Deputy De Rossa. The record will show that. Would the Deputy address himself in the fashion I know he can, if he wants to——

If I am allowed.

I can assure the Deputy that he will not be allowed to stray from the amendment.

Quite frankly, I regret very much that you should adopt such a line but I do not think you have directed your ruling or fired a warning shot to any other Member of the House apart from myself.

I have indicated the same to Deputy Shatter. The Chair is not going to be intimidated. I would not say that it gives me great pleasure but I am carrying out the duties of this Chair without fear or favour. I indicated to Deputy Shatter that he was out of order. Deputy O'Sullivan has already indicated that he is out of order. If he continues I will apply the rules of this House and ask him to leave.

With all due respect, I have not had the opportunity to put my point. How can you comment on what I have to say when I have not had the opportunity to say it?

I welcome the comment from this pettifogger behind because all we have had from him today is a few grunts and monosyllables. Any contribution will indeed be welcome.

On a point of information, I am entitled to make a point to a colleague if it is relevant. What is the problem?Deputy O'Sullivan interjected continually.

I am in possession.

When he was not in possession.

I will not be shouted down.

If Deputy O'Sullivan decides to use words which I would not regard as typical of him and if then he proceeds to have a dialogue with a colleague, I cannot help it. I will apply to either side the order that is appropriate and that is required by Standing Orders.

If the Chair does not afford me the protection to which I am entitled while I am in possession I have no alternative but to respond and defend myself. There are a few people on that side of the House who would be ill-advised to shoot these barbs at me. This is not an impromptu performance by me. I have been preparing for this and I anticipated what would happen. A few people would be well advised to keep their mouths shut until I have concluded. Anybody who so desires, let him come in.

You can have the assurance that the Chair will not interfere as long as you are relevant and the Chair will look after any other interruptions, if you leave it to the Chair.

We have been endeavouring to get an acceptable agreement on the interpretation of the word "advertising". It has been said that the advertising media consists of any means by which sales messages can be conveyed to potential buyers. The Workers' Party amendment 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. The Minister in a rather simplistic reply claimed that the meaning of advertising is well established in common sense terms. We will endeavour to establish what exactly are common-sense terms. There seems to be a dire absence of common sense in the debate today.

The amendment would minimise the damage to RTE if the Minister's Bill is inflicted on them. The Bill would definitely have an adverse effect on the day-to-day operations of the station. It could very well reduce the standard of broadcasting and lead to substantial job losses within RTE. Private producers who work for RTE under contract will no doubt suffer. Perhaps 500 jobs will be threatened.This highlights the importance of defining "advertising". When we discuss advertising in a later section we will be talking about the future of 500 people.

Deputy Nealon made a very good contribution, one of the finest speeches we have heard in quite a while. He highlighted the point that talent will be lost to RTE. It is extremely important to take this into consideration. In Britain they have defined various types of advertising in trade Acts, but we have not the benefit of this type of legislation here which clearly spells out what advertising means. For that reason we are in this morass. We cannot say with any degree of certainty the effects the Minister's legislation will have on people who are employed in RTE.

This raises the question as to why the Minister insists on pressing on, despite overwhelming disapproval from RTE and from the public at large and particcularly from those working in the advertising industry. They have pointed out that if this legislation goes ahead there will be significant job losses in that area. Equally important is the fact that if RTE are forced to cap their advertising, the people working in firms who depend on advertising to publicise their products to increase market share will also suffer. This will have a long-term effect.

We have here an abuse of power by the Minister. The majority of Irish people are quite happy with RTE as it is. They have offered a good service throughout the years. The only people who are openly supportive of this Bill are those who will benefit from it if passed by both Houses. This would be the most serious body blow every inflicted by a Government on an institution of the State — and for the wrong reasons. It will no doubt undermine democracy. We have had a demonstration of that in recent days.

It is now being suggested that if sufficient progress is not made in this debate to the satisfaction of the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Vincent Brady, he will insist on the application of the guillotine, again no doubt in the interests of democracy. I regret that when the quorum bell rang earlier one of the suggestions made by a Government back bencher was that the guillotine should be applied. I sincerely hope it does not come to that and despite the fact that we will be here for long hours I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill. We were deprived of that opportunity on Second Stage.

The Minister has already indicated that he is not prepared to accept this amendment.He said he would be prepared to tease out amendments as we went through the Bill but the Taoiseach was reported inThe Irish Times as saying at a press conference on Friday last that he rejected suggestions that the Broadcasting Bill might be withdrawn by the Government or significantly amended, despite the concerns of the Opposition Parties and trade unions. He is reported as telling journalists that he had no intention of withdrawing or amending the Bill. He said the Bill was before the Dáil and that the Government had decided on certain amendments to the original proposals and would see that these proposals were put into effect. This would seem to be at variance with what the Minister said last week. He implied they were going to go through it section by section and hoped to reach some agreement at the end of the day. The Taoiseach's intervention has done little to allay the fears about the urgency of these measures. Why do we need them? What is the great hurry? Is the Minister acting under the instruction of the Taoiseach or with the approval of his Cabinet colleagues? Has he the full support of Cabinet? It is important to inform the House because to date the Progressive Democrats' role in this debate has been questionable. Their absence from the House during this debate and the debate on the Labour Party's no confidence motion——

Deputy O'Sullivan, please relate that to the word "advertising" and the definition.

Do you want me to repeat "advertising"?

No, you are not allowed repeat.

I am not allowed repeat?

No. It is contrary to Standing Orders, as I indicated to Deputy Shatter.

To repeat a word?

You are not allowed to repeat.

If I add a prefix to "advertising" is that acceptable? Where is the provision in Standing Orders?

If the Deputy can recollect his last three or four sentences and relate them to the word "advertising" it will be in order. Relate them to the word "advertising" and the amendment before us on section 1.

I will enlarge on that and relate it to the amendment. It is based on the amendment in the name of The Workers' Party. I imagine that is the purpose of the exercise.

Will the Deputy accept that the relationship is very far removed?

No, I do not. I think it is central to this. The word "advertising" is the one we are now harping on. If the Minister is going to be true to his word and allow us tease it out and I will go ahead uninterrupted. I regret to say that for the past 20 minutes I have been subjected to a barrage from the back, from all sides and from the front. I am prepared to accept that but I am not prepared——

The Deputy is not being interrupted by the Chair. Indeed, the Chair is giving the Deputy a certain latitude. He is being reminded that he is not in order on amendment No. 1.

I have to question your ruling. It is on the word "advertising".I have not mentioned advertising out of context at any time during this debate. It is quite relevant to the debate and I should be allowed go ahead with it.

Only in so far as it is relevant to the amendment.

It is relevant. I have not used it out of context.

The Chair is entitled to indicate to the House what is regarded, in the opinion of the Chair, as being relevant. The Chair is doing that with Deputy O'Sullivan now and I hope I will not have to remind him again.

The Minister in his brief response to the amendment said that the meaning of "advertising" is well established in commonsense terms. Is that acceptable?

You have already said that.

It is not without precedent. From the Minister's speech and other speeches I have in my possession I have no doubt that at times it is absolutely necessary torepeat, not with the intention of boring anybody but to emphasise a point. That is being done daily in this House.

That would not make it in order.

I am surprised, Sir, that a man of your experience has not encountered this previously. I do not think I am going off at a tangent in any way. Anything I say bears directly on the amendment in the name of The Workers' Party Deputies De Rossa and McCartan and the Minister's subsequent response with which I am not in agreement.

A geometrical tangent at some stage has to be close to the particular body. I am indicating to you that it is not even a tangent.

In view of the Minister's reply I feel it will be necessary for the House to examine his defination in greater detail as his curt response did little to clarify the matter. Overall his manner has not been extremely helpful in this regard. The day on which we had Second Stage will go down in the history of this House as the greatest day of infamy in the House. He refuses to accept this amendment, unlike myself and my colleagues within the Labour Party and, no doubt, the other Members in Opposition.He sees that something is well established in commonsense terms.

It will also be necessary to address the second point made by the Minister in his response. He said the definition proposed is discriminatory since it seeks to put the options open to the Authority with respect to the promotion of their commercial activities on a more favourable plane than that of the independent broadcasting sector. I fail to see where there is discrimination in the amendment as put forward by Deputy de Rossa and Deputy McCartan or how it can in any way be interpreted as being discriminatory.We have use and abuse of the term"the level playing pitch" but it is a good job Jack Charlton's team were not playing on that pitch. We would not have been very successful.

Some say they played better at Lansdowne Road.

The Deputy, with no interruptions.

A little banter helps the humour, not necessarily in field terms here.

As against that, banter applied to someone else is acceptable but if applied to oneself is abuse, so the Chair has to be quite fair about this. Deputy O'Sullivan, without banter or abuse.

Seeing that I have been subjected to both, at this stage I am immune to them. I would like the Minister in his reply to this discussion on the amendment to be specific regarding the areas of discrimination. I do not think it acceptable that on an amendment which is quite specific the Minister should suggest that some form of discrimination is implied. It is not there in writing or by implication. That he comes to this conclusion is a surprise to me. Other Deputies made a point regarding RTE's own promotions. Deputy Shatter mentioned Board Gáis and their type of advertising.Large numbers of people are dependent on RTE, such as young artists and musicians. It is quite legitimate for orchestras to advertise on RTE. If anything, it is the Minister who is discriminatory.He is adopting the line that attack is the best method of defence.

The third point made by the Minister needs examination because here in some degree he is exposing his real objectives. He is saying in this inference that he intends to enforce control by a blunt instrument in the Act of 1990. He said the intention of the definition is inimical to the objective of section 5 of the Bill which is to achieve a harmonised approach to self-promotion among all broadcasting services. When the Minister says it is inimical what precisely does he mean? He owes the House an explanation, a clear definition of his real intent. I understand "inimical" to mean hostile to or harmful to. Is he suggesting that the Bill is likely to be harmful to the private broadcasting sector?

Much weight has been placed on the fact that RTE have enjoyed a monopoly down through the years. I have said in other discussions regarding RTE that the monopoly they enjoy was brought about simply because there was a void there which had to be filled by the Government of the day. Never yet in this House has a decision been taken on ideological grounds to nationalise any industry, that refers to broadcasting, transport, energy, shipping, you name it. The reason the State became involved was not that The Workers' Party or the Labour Party had sufficient votes to ram through any legislation to nationalise any industry. The State intervened simply because the private sector did not respond to the need of the people and as a result the State had to take up the challenge. By strange coincidence it was the Minister's own party who were instrumental in setting up some of these State agencies, and nobody can accuse the Minister's party of being pro-State in this day and age. May be in the thirties there was some feeling for the people. I regret to say that no longer exists.

The Minister assured the House last Thursday that he would be delighted to tease out the amendments with the Deputies during the debate on what he referred to as a normal Committee Stage. We will have to ask why we are not having a normal Committee Stage debate? It is simply due to the fact that Second Stage debate was aborted on purpose by the Minister and as a result matters that should have been resolved and questions that should have been answered were left hanging and now have to be answered on Committee Stage. That is the reason we are having this acrimonious exchange in the House today.

Deputy, you are now letting the proverbial cat out of the proverbial bag, but that does not entitle you or any other Deputy to offend Standing Orders. What happened in respect of Standing Orders was not out of order; it happened because it happened.

It was not right.

To have a Second Stage debate now in lieu of the Second Stage debate which has finished——

On a point of order, Sir, what you have just suggested is not the intention or suggestion of Deputy O'Sullivan. What Deputy O'Sullivan said——

I am not finished, Sir, and I am entitled to finish my sentence.

Give the Deputy a chance.

It was not a point of order.

Of course it is, but you have not listened to it——

When I finish my sentence.

I remind Deputy Higgins that he intervened before ostensibly, I thought, to help Deputy O'Sullivan clarify a point but presently he said that Deputy O'Sullivan did not need any assistance.

My point is that Deputy O'Sullivan is commenting on what he considers to be the unusually acrimonious nature of Committee Stage debate. My point of order is that Deputy O'Sullivan is perfectly in order in commenting on the atmosphere during Committee Stage. To suggest that he is trying to have a Second debate is to put an unfair construction on what he is saying and what I am hearing. That is my point and it is a point of order.

Will Deputy Higgins resume his seat and I will respond to that? The Official Report——

I know the rules of this House and I know that I must resume my seat before the Chair can reply. I do not have to be told that.

I got the impression that the Deputy was delaying it and I thought I would remind him.

Bully tactics.

Deputy McCartan rose.

If Deputy McCartan wants to rise on a point of order later on I will accept it and deal with it——

We are not sitting in a classroom, and we do not need to be——

The Official Report will indicate what Deputy O'Sullivan has said and if Deputy O'Sullivan has not — as you said — just commented but given the reason that he and other Deputies are abusing the House then I will apologise to Deputy Higgins.

On a point of order, Sir, there is not abuse of the proceedings of this House and I resent that assertion.

If Deputy McCartan does not resume his seat I will ask him to leave. If the Deputy interrupts again I will ask him to leave.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I ask you to count the Members in the House, please?

There were 20 Members present when you asked for the count, Deputy.

There were not.

If the Deputy stays where he is I will count them for him.

The Deputy cannot even count.

There are 17 Members present.

Deputy Mitchell, you would not get honours for arithmetic.

Is the House in session, Sir, or are we carrying out a count?

I was indicating to Deputy Mitchell that he is entitled to ask for a count if we have not got 20 Members present.

The Chair made a very barbed comment which is incorrect. I asked the Chair to count those in the House.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, are we in session or is the quorum bell ringing?

The quorum bell should be ringing.

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

May I rise on a point of order, Sir? I have been sitting through this session and I have not yet contributed but I must say that I am astounded at the comment from the Chair that Members were abusing the House. I have found that for the entire time I was here——

That is not a point of order.

Your style, Sir, in the Chair is obstructing the debate. I will try to be helpful.

Will the Deputy please resume his seat? The Deputy will find out his mistake very shortly. He is not in the Chair.

I am trying to help the debate.

The Deputy is obstructing the Chair and I will ask the Deputy to leave if he continues.

Before comments from other Members, you said something which I found quite objectionable. Being an animal lover and a supporter of the Cork Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for many years it is not my nature or intention to put any feline animal in any bag. An tuigeann tú? The Chair accused me of letting the cat out of the bag, but to let him out I presume I would have had to put him in.

What we now have to establish is if the Minister's offer to tease out the amendments still stands following the Taoiseach's edict on Friday last that no further amendments would be accepted. Once again we have witnessed the negation of democracy by this Government. The task now facing the House is to decide for the definition of advertising in the amendment in the names of the co-sponsors, Deputies De Rossa and McCartan, and that of the Minister who has stated that the meaning of advertising is already well established in commonsense terms. My one regret is that on that occasion the Minister did not elaborate on what he saw as a commonsense term. Had he done so on that occasion, I feel we would have avoided this whole discussion.

It has been said that the word "advertising", which we are now trying to define, is as old as civilisation itself and from the day that man began to produce goods for the purpose of selling them it was the means by which he communicated with the market that his produce was available at some given place and no doubt at a price. It represents part of a process that begins at manufacturing stage and ends with the customer. It may also have been used during the pre-manufacture stage. I am referring to advertising where a person making the goods may have had to advertise to secure the raw materials necessary for him to create a particular product which will eventually find its way into the marketplace.

The one definite thing which can be said about advertising is that it has never remained static and is forever evolving. It can also be said that it has not always been at one with mankind and his environment and at times has acted as a pollutant and has not been, to use the correct term, environment friendly. Advertising has been used with great artistic skill to enhance many towns and cities. This is very much in evidence in cities and towns throughout the country where shopkeepers have shown great interest in restoring their shop fronts by using a more traditional style of advertising. I welcome the growth in the use of Celtic lettering and symbols on shop facia boards as a form of advertising.

In the past advertising took on many forms as it evolved. I am sure some Members of the House will remember the town criers. The last town crier in Macroom used to advertise forthcoming events for a given fee. He was an early form of an advertising contractor——

He is in Cork Corporation now.

I will get around to my colleague later. He did not advertise his own produce but acted as an agent. No doubt he received a fee for the services he provided.

A Deputy

A licence fee.

Up until recently one of my colleagues in Cork Corporation was a latter-day town crier in that he went around the city with a sandwich board. I am sure Members will have seen the young men on Grafton Street who have placards with advertisements on them. This is an acceptable form of advertising. In the past innkeepers and publicans used to display signs outside their premises. Some of these signs are now very much sought after as they are of a very high artistic standard. The names of some of these premises are extremely interesting and helped in no small way to advertise the establishments concerned. As a result of this method of advertising some premises have been immortalised in literature.

Another form of advertising was the use of the symbols of a particular trade. The ones which immediately spring to mind are those of the barber or pawnbroker.I think the barber's pole was to be found in every village throughout the country. The bone of contention in this debate is the RTE logo. If RTE use their logo between programmes it will be regarded as advertising. This is not realistic. Should we suggest to a barber or pawnbroker that he can only display the barber's pole or the pawnbrokers symbol of three balls for so many hours a day? This is an indication of how ridiculous this proposal will be.

The Deputy will make the headlines tomorrow.

If the Deputy is not careful I will turn Deputy Ned O'Keeffe on him.

(Interruptions.)

I am glad the humour has improved.

The Minister should smile.

The symbols used by barbers and pawnbrokers were as recognisable to the would-be customer as some of the advertising jingles we hear today on radio and television and were immediately associated with the product or service which was available.

The next significant phase in the development of advertising came with the growth in industrialisation and the resultant growth in towns and cities when people left the land and moved to urban areas in the pursuit of employment. With the growth in production came a growth in marketing which, in turn, created a demand for advertising. This demand was met by the newspaper industry which was experiencing growth through the use of more efficient means of production. Because newspapers could be produced in greater numbers and at a cheaper rate this led to an increase in readership. This growth in circulation proved attractive to manufacturers who were not slow to tap into this segment of the market through the medium of newspaper advertising. This was a significant milestone in the whole area of advertising. There was an increase in readership as people became more literate.

Revenue from advertising is an important factor in the survival of the newspaper industry today and was one of the reasons given by the Minister for Communications, Deputy Burke, as to why RTE have to be penalised to ensure its survival. There are many things which can be said about newspaper advertising as distinct from television advertising. Newspaper advertising is of a more durable nature, lasts longer and as a result is more valuable. The life span of a newspaper may be only a day, depending on whether it is a daily, evening, morning, weekly or Sunday newspaper, but it can have a longer impact and the capping of RTE advertising has to be measured against the advantages enjoyed by newspapers.Under this Bill RTE advertising will be limited to four and a half minutes every hour. If there is sufficient demand for advertising there is nothing to stop a newspaper from running a supplement. The national dailies usually run a weekly supplement on property.The Cork Examiner runs several supplements, depending on which side of the city or county the readers come from.

I hope we can devote some time during this debate on Committee Stage to the relationship between advertising in newspapers and advertising in the electronic media. I believe this issue has been distorted by the Minister in an effort to fulfil his post election promise to "get RTE". As a result of his vengeful pursuit of RTE and his insistence on protecting the financial investments of his friends, the Minister has completely disrupted the legislative programme of this House by foisting this Bill on the agenda.

During the pre-industrial revolution period advertising appeared in static form outside business premises in order to attract the passing trade. The next significant development in advertising came with the increase in the demand for newspaper space. This enabled advertisers to penetrate further into the market place and further away from home and thus create greater product demand. The next important development in this area was the use of various means of transport, for example, trams, buses and lorries, for advertising. This form of advertising has continued to grow in scope and variety. The Lawrence collection of photographs depicts Ireland in the early years of the century and provides very definite evidence of this type of advertising, stretching back almost 100 years.

The reproduction of pre-Second World War advertising material in the shape of bar mirrors advertising various brands of drinks and cigarettes has given the younger section of the population an insight into the commercial life of 50-60 years ago. This type of advertising of bars, whiskeys, stout, cigarettes, etc., has become fashionable and some of these reproductions adorn the bedrooms of today's teenagers who regard them as things of historical and artistic merit.

Another type of pre-Second World War advertising was the enamelled metal sign which was used extensively by coal merchants, cigarette and tobacco companies and soap manufacturers. These signs did not always blend in with their surroundings and at times clashed with the local environment. At times the location of these signs indicated a lack of sensitivity on the part of the advertisers to the needs of the locality, particularly when they were located in areas of high amenity value or in areas important to the development of tourism. I regret that the same can be said of some of their modern counterparts. It is upsetting when one visits attractive locations like Killarney to see unsightly outdoor advertising signs that do nothing to enhance the appearance of a town or village. Some of those enamel signs can be seen occasionally in antique shops and are popular with collectors who are prepared to pay substantial prices for items of interest.

In regard to modern advertisements it can be said that no industry made the transition to the electronic media like the producers of soap and its by-products. Through their sponsorship of programmes during which they advertised their products in the early days of television in the United Stages the phrase "soap opera" was introduced to the English language. RTE are now very much involved in such productions, "Glenroe" and "Fair City" being examples. It can now be said that the Minister is making his contribution to this type of production in an effort to impose the Bill on the Irish people.

Melodrama.

We have our own type of soap opera today in the House. However, the Minister's actions are likely to have a far more damaging effect on the economy than any of the problems which regularly confront the denizens of "Glenroe" and "Fair City". The Minister's actions will result in the loss of real jobs here. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have said that there will be job losses and the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland have said that there will be job losses. Those organisations have stated that there will be a loss in investment.

The most disturbing aspect of this is that charitable organisations have said that they will lose if the Bill is passed in its present form. The Irish Cancer Society have written to me stating that the Bill will damage continuing research into cancer and when that happens the House should not ignore it. I should like to ask every fair-minded Member to bear that in mind when voting on the Bill. The Minister has chosen to ignore the appeals from all sections of the community. Despite the warnings and the outcry, the Minister insists on pressing ahead to ensure the survival of Century Radio. In that event we should examine what motivates the Minister and why he insists on capping RTE advertising. The public were concerned about the Minister's action to bail out Century Radio but that is not the primary reason for the introduction of the Bill which will have the effect of reducing RTE's advertising revenue.That was the original idea but in my view the Bill is an effort to cover up the blunders made two years ago with the passing of the 1988 Act. On that occasion the Minister chose to ignore all advice regarding the introduction of a third national radio station. He rammed that legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas in a manner that the Opposition had become accustomed to. He told us then that he wanted to rid the airwaves of the pirates. The Opposition knew that that could have been done by updating the 1926 Act. I read through the debate on the 1988 Bill and I discovered that all parties assured the Minister that they would support any amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, which would enable him to take the pirates off the air.

The fact that the House is, two years later, again discussing broadcasting legislation proves beyond doubt that the Miniister blundered in 1988. He is now making a desperate effort to cover up in the interest of self-preservation. That desperation came to the surface during the Second Stage debate when the Minister callously suppressed an attempt by Deputy Callely to contribute to the debate. The refusal of the Minister to accept the definition of "advertising" in the amendment must be carefully examined.The amendment seems to me to be a reasonable attempt by the sponsors to overcome the problems we have encontered since the Bill was introduced. The attitude to it does not do the Minister, or his Department, any credit.

I should like to ask the Minister for greater clarification of what he means by "advertising" in what he described as "well established common sense terms". The House has yet to agree on a definition of "advertising". It will be difficult to make progress in this debate until such time as we can resolve this issue. In an effort to advance the debate I suggest that we examine what other people, and organisations, say about "advertising". The British Institute of Practitoners define it as such:

Advertising presents the most persuasive possible selling message to the right prospects for the product or service at the lowest possible cost.

Another, much simpler, definition is:

Advertising is the means of making known in order to sell.

Do those definition come within what the Minister has described as, "well established common sense terms"? The amendment should be accepted by the House and the Minister should withdraw the Bill for reconsideration.

I listened for some considerable time today to the debate and it might be appropriate if I elaborated at this stage on the brief statement I made on the amendment. I made the point then that I did not think it was necessary to have a definition of "advertising" because it is used in broadcasting legislation in its common sense and well established meaning. In this regard the word "advertisement" or "advrtising" first appears in broadcasting legislation in the Broadcasting Act, 1960, which set out the regime governing advertising on RTE. It arose again in the next important broadcasting legislation, the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976, which made some adjustments to the 1960 regime. Finally, the word was used in the Radio and Television Act, 1988, setting out the regime governing advertising in the independent sector.

In none of that legislation was it deemed necessary to have a defintion. In other words, we had 30 years of broadcasting legislation in which the term "advertising" has been used without any problems of definition arising.

The Minister was not sticking in the boot.

That, to my mind, confirms the view that the meaning of the term is sufficiently well established as not to require a specific definition in the Bill. Leaving the Acts of 1960 and 1988 aside, I should like to point out to the House that no less a person than the former Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, in 1976 introduced legislation and, learned gentleman that he is, he did not consider it necessary to have the word "advertising" defined.

The whole question of a code of practice will be defined in secton 5 in relation to advertising. I accept that there will be grey areas and it is because of that that I have provided for a consultation process with the RTE Authority and the IRTC in the drafting of that code of practice. A certain amount of play was made about sponsorship and the role of sponsorship in broadcasting. Members referred to the fact that RTE's excellent coverage of the World Cup was sponsored by Bord Gáis and that weather forecasts were sponsored by Telecom Éireann. They are not revelations and, certainly, we have no problem with the principles of such sponsorship.It is a pity, however, that the Deputies did not take their research a little further and ask the question, "how are RTE reconciling their practices in this area with existing laws not to talk about the current legislative proposals"?

For instance, if Deputies had done their research a little more thoroughly they would have found a reference to the matter of sponsorship in section 20 (8) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. Reference to advertisments in that Act includes references to advertising matter in sponsored programmes. Now the question arises — I am not going to push it— as to how RTE in the context of their World Cup coverage are reconciling a fairly constant display of the Bord Gáis logo which is, essentially, an advertisment, with the currently operating time limits — not the new ones. It is perhaps a matter of indifference to Deputies that the existing law is being at least bent. Likewise, Deputies might be interested in knowing with the EC Directive on broadcasting, adopted last October and which comes into effect in October 1991, has to say about sponsorship. If I never introduced a Bill we have the EC Directive coming into force.

What does that directive say about advertising?

It provides, among other things, that the name and the logo of the sponsor should be shown only at the beginning or end of the programme. There are, incidentally, a whole range of other requirements relating to advertising, surreptitious advertising, etc. in that directive embracing other issues raised by Deputies, including the matter of prizes on programmes. In that context they will only be permitted to give basic information about a prize in question, in contrast to the current practice where the merits of the product in question are highly extolled by particular broadcasters.

Another point raised was the situation in relation to the independent production sector in the advertising area. On the general broad question of that sector, Article V states that member states shall ensure, where practical and by appropriate means, that broadcasters reserve at least 10 per cent of their transmission time, excluding the time appointed to news, sport events, games, advertising and teletext services, or, alternatively, at the discreation of the member state, at least 10 per cent of their programming budget for European works produced and created by producers who are independent of broadcasters. The role of the independent is not just protected in the 1988 Act, which I introduced, in relation to the independent sector, it is also protected in the directives from the EC.

There was great play here this morning on the word "censorship". It was said that this legislation meant that the Government would censor the output of RTE. however, censorship is more likely to occur when there is a monopoly and the whole object of this legislation — as well as that of 1988 — is to provide a choice, alternative news, current affairs and entertainment from an Irish source as well as the excellent services of RTE 1 and RTE 2 and the RTE output generally on radio and television. We need a strong, alternative, independent sector to counter the many influences coming in on satellite and from elsewhere. It is also important, in the context of the word "censorship", that if we merely featherbed a monopoly that that will, in a sense, be censorship. It is intended in this legislation that not only will we encourage a strong alternative electronic media but that we will also ensure a strong point media to disseminate the news and the criticism of Governments, the Opposition, establishments and others. The question of censorship, in relation to this legislation, does not arise.

I want to speak on the amendment because I do not want to be out of order or to range widely over the subject, like other Members. As far as the definition of "advertising" is concerned, as suggested in the amendment, there have been three Acts since 1960, 30 years of experience, which all refer to advertising and there was no need for a definition in any of them.

I thought, when the Minister rose to intervene for the second time, that he would add something to the debate but, unfortunately, he did not. It is a little ingenuous of the Minister to reject the allegations of other Deputies and to say that there is no possibility or implication of censorship in what he proposes.

Even if the Minister has pristine and pure motives, the powers he is now providing for a Minister who might not be terribly conscientious about freedom of speech or using heavy-handed methods to influence people, mean that he has a very powerful weapon at his disposal in relation, not only to RTE, but to the private sector in broadcasting.

A central remaining purpose of the Bill as proposed to be amended by the Minister is to give the impression to the newspapers that they will benefit from this ill-conceived measure and in that way reduce their critical faculties which, it has to be said, the Minister has largely succeeded in doing. The Independent Group of newspapers, the largest group in the country, have allowed what they see as commercial opportunities and possibilities to supersede their role of independent comment and analysis. In editorials over the last few weeks — and, indeed, the day after the Minister made his original announcement in Cork on 29 March — there were lavish editorials from the Independent Group which do not reflect any credit on them and certainly takes from them the independence which their title seeks to give them. That is where censorship comes in. The Minister has taken unto himself extraordinary powers and if the RTE Authority, the independent radio sector or the newspaper are not nice to him and the Government, they could suffer commercially. That is where the grave danger arises from the Minister's proposals.

It may well be that we could, on Committee or Report Stages, introduce amendements which would ameliorate that possibility while leaving the central proposal in place. We could circumscribe the influence of the Minister and invest the power in an independent Authority or a consultative process. Even if we could do that — and I cannot see how we could — in not defining "advertising" clearly and by the proposals in section 4, the genuinely independent sector have come to the conclusion that it will only divert money from the State. Iregret that when the Minister rose to speak for the second time on the amendment he did not undertake to bring in a definition of "advertising" on Report Stage. Will the Minister accept the principle of the amendment now proposed even if the precise terms are not agreeable to him and to introduce an amendment on Report Stage which would define "advertisement", which would be more flexible in its interpretation than that hitherto proposed by him?

I want to refer to something the Minister said today and also to something he said the last day we debated this matter. He mentioned the excellent coverage by RTE of the World Cup and their sponsorship by Bord Gáis. He invited Members of this House to examine whether RTE are obeying — or bending — the law in providing that coverage. The implication by the Minister is that RTE are at least bending the law or driving a coach and four through it by having sponsored coverage of the World Cup which received unanimous praise.

The fact of the matter is this: regardless of whether RTE are bending the law in their coverage of the World Cup, it is very clear that the next World Cup will not be covered similarly by RTE because the Minister's proposals utterly exclude that possibility. It will be impossible for RTE to have the sort of sponsorship they have now which allows them give such excellent coverage of the World Cup. On account of the additional restrictions on promotions and advertising in addition to sponsorship the Minister proposes it will render such coverage impossible. I invite the Minister to consider that point. It is a self-evident point if the Minister's proposals — as he proposes to amend them — are carried. In future there will be no effective World Cup coverage such as we have experienced this year on account of those proposals.

I am glad to see, for some part of Committee Stage debate, a representative of the Progressive Democrats present.

The Deputy is deeply appreciative of Deputy Mitchell's remarks.

I want to remind the House that a Member of the Progressive Democrats' Parliamentary Party, reputed to be their spokesman on communications, Senator Martin Cullen, said on a television programme in which Deputy Michael Higgins, Deputy De Rossa and I participated — typescript copies of which are available — that the Progressive Democrats still disagree with the Minister in the latest edition of his amended proposals. I offer to yield to Deputy Quill now to allow her explain the Progressive Democrats' position in relation to this. Does the Deputy wish to speak?

Is Deputy Cowen offering?

Is Deputy Quill not going to offer?

Deputy Cowen has been called.

As an aside, before commencing my remarks, I should say that Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan took umbrage at an interjection I made some time ago as to whether what he was about to say would be relevant to the amendment. He described me as a grunt. I am sorry he felt that way about me. There is no acrimony on my part; I do not see why acrimony should form any part of this debate at all. But when one says one regards some contributions as banter and others as abuse obviously one was touching a more sensitive soul than one had thought existed in the first place. In addition, on the last day on which this debate took place, I made an interjection in the course of Deputy McCartan's remarks when his Leader took great umbrage, asking when was the last time I had spoken in the House. I did not realise he took such an interest in the progress of my parliamentary career. For the record, and his information, it was on 12 May last when I was preceded by Deputy McCartan on a Fine Gael Private Members' Bill. Therefore, it will be seen it was not that long ago. I also recall speaking a while ago when Deputy De Rossa was a Member of the House on a full-time basis — before he had other responsibilities — when he gave me full support on the abolition of the dual mandate which support he was unable to continue subsequently.

In relation to the amendment before the House basically what is involved is a question of funding, whether Members on all sides of the House believe we should have an independent, commercial broadcasting sector at all. While I would not agree with it I would respect the view of some Members — whatever about the number of parties who might hold the view — that there should be no independent broadcasting sector at all, that the airwaves are the prerogative of the State or of State organs only. I would rather that those Members opposed to the section or to the Bill would simply state that fact. It was not made clear in the course of their Second Stage contributions that they were opposed in toto to an independent broadcasting sector. They appeared to give the impression that they were but that, for some reason, this Government or Minister were involved in something underhand and sinister, which makes for good political rhetoric in the House but does nothing to serve debating the facts in a coherent, non-acrimonious way which will be my intention for the duration of this debate.

Deputy Spring indicated that the purpose of this Bill was to ensure that no obstacles be placed in the way of there being as lucrative and independent a broadcasting sector as possible. Deputy Spring said he was against subsidising public service obligations to private stations.He advanced that as one of the reasons there should be an attempt to level the playing pitch, contending that because we have an independent radio sector with statutory public service broadcasting obligations, in order to create a more genuinely competitive climate, we must give a subvention — whether by way of licence fee or access to the advertising pool — to enable them to remain viable. The Labour Party's position is that they are against subsidising public service obligations to private stations, that is in accordance with the statement of their leader. However, they have no problem in subsidising the public service obligations of RTE 100 per cent; not only that but allowing that licence fee subvention to be devoted exclusively to their public service obligations but for any other purpose they might want once they have utilised whatever proportion there of they may need for their statutory public service obligations.That is one example of how the same rules are not being applied to both sectors. If one is to be consistent, if one believes in a subvention for public service obligations in the State broadcasting sector there must be a case to be made for those public service obligations to be honoured by the private broadcasting sector; at least consideration should be given to the possibility of a subvention of some kind. Then the argument arises as to how such subvention should be funded.

It appears, as a compromise within the Labour Party's position, that they are prepared to put up with the existence of an independent broadcasting sector once that sector receives no help whatsoever from anybody so that, if it transpires that it is non-viable, they can say: we told you so. Deputy Spring in the course of his contribution said he regarded the full apportionment of central service costs to RTE 2, or the idea that the Minister would be forcing it to stand alone financially as an independent station, as evidence of his intentions to render 2FM non-viable. That was the position enunciated by the leader of the Labour Party in the course of his Second Stage remarks.

I would be grateful if the Deputy would apply his remarks to the section and amendment before us dealing with advertising. I appreciate that there has been a high degree of deviation in this regard. Nefertheless, the Chair must do its duty.

(Interruptions.)

It was the Deputy who used the word "filibuster", not I; I heard it.

The point I wished to make quickly is that, whilst 2FM, on the one hand, was properly praised as being the most popular station of its type in either the State or independent broadcasting sector, we were told that, if it were to stand on its own and apportion its full central service costs to that station alone, such would render it non-viable. That is supposed to be the most successful station. Therefore, how in heaven are we supposed to expect a viable independent broadcasting sector to stand alone if we do not apply ourselves to the question of funding? That is precisely in relation to advertising and this amendment before us. A decision has to be made by the Opposition parties. If they believe in a commercial broadcasting service they must grasp the nettle of how it is to be funded. It can be done either by adverting the licence fee or providing access to an advertising pool that is at present available to the sole agent in that market at the moment, that is RTE, who have a dominant position in the market. Until that is decided the question of whether funding is to be way of advertising or diversion of licence fees is something which can form a coherent part of the proceedings here. If people on the Opposition benches say there can be no question of diverting the licence fee and no question of a cap on advertising, would they kindly let us know if they believe at all in the viability of an independent sector? Is it that they do not want it, and is that the real reason they are opposing the Bill rather than on the merits and demerits of the funding?

I welcome the opportunity to make some response to some of the points made by the Minister in the debate so far. As the proposer of the amendment we have been seeking from the outset to elicit from the Minister the thinking behind his approach. I already explained the difficulties that we on this side of the House are faced with given that the Minister appears to be introducing a radical departure in the whole ordering and administering of the affairs of RTE.

He has gone back over a number of basic pieces of legislation and explained that since 1960 there has not been a need to define "advertisment" in the context of broadcasting legislation and that for that reason there is need to address the issue now in legislation. I would put it to the Minister that since 1960 there has never been a concerted attempt to invade the affairs of RTE in the way the Minister is doing at this stage.

The history of the administration with regard to advertising allowed the RTE Authority as established under the 1960 Act to set up its rules and regulations with regard to advertising and the extent to which RTE, as a broadcaster, could advertise. Those rules, once established, were to be presented to the Minister for his agreement and in that way at least the motivation was from within the broadcasting station to get on with the job. That basic structure was repeated in the 1988 Act where the Commission was given the power to set up the rules and regulations with regard to advertising in the independent sector, again subject to review by the Minister.

This legislation is an entirely new departure. The level of restriction on advertising is probably the lowest ever contemplated, far lower than the levels that exist in comparable broadcasting countries in Europe which are twice the levels the Minister has quoted. The levels are being introduced in a regime where the Minister intends to have the entire absolute say in the matter from now on. Whilst he is laying the ground now for capping at the unbelievably low levels he has stated, he is providing for himself power at the stroke of a pen without having to come back to the House. At least in the original legislation he would have had an obligation to come back to the House with proposals. Now he is under no such obligation. In the original Bill it was a positive resolution. Now it is a negativing provision. While the Minister is doing the unbelievable at this stage he will virtually have a free hand in the future if this legislation passes into law. It is in that context that we are attempting to introduce some clarity as to what is understood by advertising.

The second reason we believe there is a need to address this is because of the remarks the Minister made on Second Stage. I went into them at length when this amendment was first moved. I had hoped that the Minister would have made some effort to explain to the House the views outlined on Second Stage. I put questions to him and I do so again very briefly in an effort to understand exactly what is in the mind of the Minister because it is the Minister who will have the ultimate and virtually unassailable say on these concepts from now on. On second stage the Minister outlined the view that there were currently practices in RTE that were not just unfair but potentially abusive of the market. I asked him if he was able to expand somewhat on that view and say where these problems existed in the practice of RTE. If the Minister had that view, clearly he would be seeking to address them and dispose of them to level things for players on the pitch. If there were abuses one would have thought they would certainly go, and that if there were unfair practices the Minister would be tackling those very quickly.

Having expressed that view, the Minister went on to deal with cross-service promotion and said that he would be making sure that these ideas would be included in the time allocated for advertising purposes with RTE. That is one example, and the Minister is being quite precise there. One could argue that saying one would be making sure is as strong language as one could hope for. The Minister intends to end these practices or if not will certainly ensure that they are included in the time allocated to RTE for advertising purposes. I would like to have that absolutely clearly on the record if that is what is being proposed.

The Minister goes on to say that, likewise, promotion of certain activities such as the "RTE Guide" and video cassette compilations will count as advertising. Is that then an absolute indication that this is another area that will be included? He then goes on to talk about prizes and the impact they have and suggests that they in some way blur the distinction between a programme proper and advertising. It seems that is an area the Minister is going to tackle at an early stage in this whole process. I would like to ask the Minister if he has made any quantification on the current practices in RTE to the extent to which cross-service promotion, commercial activities promotion and the use of prizes amount to programming or advertising time available to RTE at the moment. The Minister is limiting the overall advertising time in a day to 7.5 per cent, with a maximum four and a half minutes per hour. There is every possibility that almost all of that time will go towards commercial advertising, in other words for the potential of raising revenue. I would ask the Minister to indicate his intentions and his views in this area rather than suggesting in short that there are abuses if not unfair practices. He should give an indication of the timescale, in percentages or minutes, that will be consumed by the practices in which he believes RTE are at present engaging and that are not included in his concept of advertising. In that way, RTE, who will be affected, and the public will know exactly where they stand.

The Minister suggested that charities and the promotion and advertising of activities of charities will not be included. That is a concession and is to be welcomed but it cannot just end there. I have received correspondence, prompted no doubt by the Minister's remarks in this area, from the Irish Cancer Society who indicate that the implications are real as far as they are concerned. While they have been well treated by RTE up to now, it is likely that RTE will not be capable of affording a slot to charitable organisations in the future because of the pressure on them to fill the very spare period available to them with prime commercial advertising.

The current practice is that charities do not get a free service from RTE, as the Minister seems to believe they should. The Irish Cancer Society stated in a letter — I hope the Minister has received a copy — dated 19 June:

Presently we spend IR£26,000 p.a. on radio spots promoting our programme of Rehabilitation, Education, Information and Funding. Should the charity rate be abolished the costs of the above advertising would rocket to IR£132,000.

That is what it would cost if they were charged the going commercial rate, which RTE would have to seriously contemplate if they were to capitalise on the time available to them in order to maintain their revenue. Does the Minister intend, as his comments seem to indicate, to require RTE to provide space without charge to charitable functions and will that time be excluded from the time that will be allowed to RTE for the purposes of advertising? Is that how the Minister proposes to deal with the concerns of charities? That needs further explanation.

The matter should not rest there because there are many other activities that may not necessarily be absolutely charitable or originate from a charitable organisation but which nonetheless are vital as regards the public service functions that RTE provide, some of which are sponsored and some self-promotional.The Minister should explain in more detail his views on those functions that are self-promoting — I am talking about ideas such as "Beat on the Street." He has not explained the position adequately enough for us to understand it. He suggested that the problem arises only with regard to broadcasting of services and not with regard to the roadcaster.The Minister seemed to suggest that the "Beat on the Street" function would not constitute advertising for the purposes of his future regime.

When RTE advertise the activities of the roadcaster and tell people where it will be in the country, is that self-promotion?Does the talk about the social or community services provided by radio and TV amount to self-promotion or is self-promotion confined only to the commercial or money-earning activities such as video cassettes or the RTE Guide? I would like the Minister to clarify that matter a little more because it will have a very profound impact on the way in which we as a party, and no doubt other Members in the House, would like to address this whole issue. It is due to the lack of engagement by the Minister in a substantial portion of this debate that we have been pursuing these very important questions to such an extent. Some matters which were to be included in the legislation have been taken out and the Minister said he will deal with them through directives to the Authority consequent on the legislation passing into law.

The Minister said that for 30 years there has been no definition of advertising, and I presume he would suggest that a further 30 years could pass without such a definition. In this legislation, the curtailments and inroads into subsidiaries and related matters are so wide-sweeping that it behoves the Opposition in this House to try to put a brake on what the Minister intends to do. We should clarify, as far as possible, for the consumer and the Authority what exactly is involved.

That is why we were compelled to introduce the definition. As far as the definition goes it is not an embracing or inclusive definition or proposition, it is, in fact, exclusive. It is not attempting to say in a comprehensive way what the concept of advertising is. If one reads it one will see that it is an attempt by us to say what it should not be. To that extent I am acknowledging that it can have, in the best of senses, a commonsense connotation. Because of the Minister's remarks in his Second Stage speech we examined this legislation to see if there was a device available to us where we could confront those remarks. The definition of advertising in the way we have drafted it, helps to allow this House express a view contrary to what the Minister is seeking to promote in his speech but does not include in the legislation proper. We say that advertising shall mean advertising — a horse shall mean a horse — but it should not include the other items that we have sought to mention in our amendment. It will not include promotion of material broadcast by RTE within their own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting their own commercial activities. In other words it is giving RTE the opportunity to use their own resources to self promote. A more basic principle of commercial activity cannot be applied to any enterprise.

In relation to the existing legislation, to which the Minister has referred, including the EC directive I would make the point that the directive has a very interesting provision which the Minister clearly does not want to tell us anything about in regard to advertising times. This aspect should be mentioned here. The amount of advertising shall not exceed 15 per cent in a daily transmission time. That is what the EC directive is allowing for broadcasting generally, public or private, State or independent. What have we in the Bill? Exactly half of that, 7½ per cent. The directive goes on to say that the percentage may be increased to 20 per cent to include forms of advertising such as direct offers to the public for the sale, purchase or rental of products or for the provision of services, provided the amount of spot advertising does not exceed 15 per cent. Those are the figures contained in the directive to which the Minister has referred.

The directive also defines advertising in general broad terms. It is an inclusive definition and tries to embrace all the concepts that one would like to address. The one thing it does not include is cross-commercial or cross-reference advertising.To use the words of the Minister, "cross service promotions", is not included in its definitions. The definitions section, article 1 (b) states:

`television advertising' means any form of announcement broadcast in return for payment or for similar consideration by a public or private undertaking in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services, including immovable property, or rights and obligations, in return for payment.

Our European masters have no difficulty in acknowledging for the purposes of their legislation and laying of directives that there should be a definition of advertising.The Minister is out of step. The directive goes on to talk about a definition not only of advertising but of surreptitious advertising and also a very comprehensive definition of sponsorship for the purposes of the legislation. The 1926 legislation is interesting in terms of how many concepts of common-sense terminologies are given definitions for the purposes of broadcasting. The argument that advertising is a common-sense notion and does not need to be legislatively addressed is unbelievably facile coming from a Minister who claims he is leading the march into the 21st century with regard to advertising. The point that has been acknowledged by legislators down through the decades is that broadcasting is a highly technical phenomenon where what would appear on the surface to be common-sense notions do require very specific definition. Television broadcasting is defined in the EC directive, so also is television advertising, surreptitious advertising and sponsorship. In the 1988 Act which the Minister pushed through this House the motion of "broadcast" is defined for the purposes of the legislation. An apparatus for wireless telegraphy — common-sense concepts — is defined in the 1926 Act. The concept of a television programme service is given legislative definition in the Acts because it recognises that there is a very peculiar need for the definitional basis of each concept that would seem otherwise to be common-sense. In the context of broadcasting generally, there is a need for a very precise definition of the concept of advertising. The fact that we have not had it up to now is because such crucial attention has not been given to this whole area. In the 1926 Act the term "broadcast" and even the word "functions" is defined for the purposes of the legislation.To say that we should exclude a definition in this legislation because it has a well established meaning is facile in the context of article 18 of the directive.

The Minister is being entirely inconsistent.He made the case on his own behalf — with the honourable exception of Deputy Cowen, there was not a great rush of Deputies from his side or from the Progressive Democrats to come to his defence in the early stages of this debate or even at this stage — that he played a significant role in the progress we have made recently in regard to broadcasting. I fully acknowledge that he had a central role to play in tackling the pirates and in steering through the House the long outstanding legislation regarding independent and community broadcasting, although the community side appears to have been forgotten for the time being. However, it is a great pity that that Minister who started out so well is now seeking to do so much damage to the reputation, to the whole fabric of the ethos of advertising. On Second Stage of the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, the Minister, recognising the importance of the European measures being taken and the development of the broadcasting legislation at that level, presented the following as his second reasons for moving the Bill:

Secondly, the earlier concentration in Europe as a whole on structures, controls and regulation to ensure that the limited number of broadcasting services then available catered for all strata of society, is no longer relevant. Accordingly taking account of these two developments I have attempted to devise a regime that will not be an obstacle to the emergence of radio services which the general public clearly wish to see developed.

I am quoting from column 1190 of the Official Report of 8 December, 1987. The Minister went on to say:

The real difficulty we face in preparing this legislation is to strike the right balance between the main objective of getting a variety of new radio services on the air and establishing the means to achieve this objective. There are really two issues here: one, what legal framework should be put in place to oversee the development of the services; and, two, what programming requirements should be imposed on those who wish to establish the new services.

In that debate, when the position at European and national level was reviewed, a profound overview was taken of where broadcasting was going at that stage. What has happened in the two years since then to compel the Minister to introduce these draconian measures which mark a radical departure from the traditional practice and which were not apparent to him when debating the fundamental principles of broadcasting? We were given some insight into the Minister's thinking from his remarks on Second Stage on advertising when he indicated he had received representations from the print media on one aspect of the matter and when he referred to the experiences of the independents established under the 1988 legislation.

I ask the Minister to give some indication of what exactly is going on and what is happening in broadcasting today that compels him to introduce this kind of regime and move in this direction. The Minister said that the real difficulty they faced in preparing the legislation was to strike the right balance between the two objectives. He went on to appeal to Deputies to apply the critical tests of realism, practicality and workability to any views they felt inclined to put forward and to bear in mind that radio broadcasting cost money. I also ask the Minister in this debate to apply the critical tests of realism, practicality and workability to his views on RTE and also to his views on the workings of those independents in the field set up since the legislation was enacted who have got themselves into unbelievable difficulties, not because they did not understand the nature of the playing pitch, their terms of reference or the conditions under which they would have to work, as these were spelled out clearly to them both in the debate on the legislation and at the interview with the Independent Radio and Television Commission, but rather because they did not apply the tests of realism, practicality and workability. Indeed, they overspent and overextended themselves in their promotions, plans and aspirations with the result that they now find themselves in difficulties which they are incapable of overcoming.

Is that the real reason we are being asked to agree to this legislation which profoundly attacks the commerciality of RTE? If it is, the Minister should be frank and honest and indicate why we should be asked to agree to the introduction of such a restriction on RTE. There may well be Deputies in this House who think the independent sector is deserving of this extraordinary attention and saving.

Deputy Cowen challenged the proposers of the amendment and those who support it to indicate whether they believe in an independent radio sector. Let me say in response that we welcome the broadening of choice on the airwaves. On numerous occasions during the course of this debate I and other spokespersons of The Workers' Party have made it absolutely clear that we would not like to see the demise of Century Radio or any of the other existing independents. Just as the Minister was concerned in 1988 about the need to strike a right balance, we wish to ensure that a correct and fair balance is struck in this legislation.

Vote for it.

If certain independent broadcasting stations are in difficulty let us consider imposing a levy on those other successful operators in the field. There are independents who are quite successful and quite happy with the way things are going at present and who do not want a capping of RTE's advertising revenue, who are not looking for a share of the licence fee and who are prepared to get on with the job. These have adopted a more realistic, practical and workable approach to the running and promotion of their operations. In short, they have worked within their budgets.

What is the idea behind the subvention to the public broadcasting service?

Deputy Cowen should not encourage Deputy McCartan to be out of order. Deputy McCartan has been refreshingly relevant and has employed his ingenuity in being relevant to the amendment. I do not think he should stary away from it because if he does he will have to endure the interruptions of the Chair.

Deputy Cowen raised that question. There may well be a perception among commentators that we are all for RTE and nothing for the independents, but that is not the case. In relation to the public service licence, this will be dealt with when we come to subsequent sections when I will readily answer the point made. I hope Deputy Cowen will be in the Chamber to listen to some of the arguments we will make.

It depends on how succinctly they are put.

There are profound issues which need to be clarified, understood and debated here before we pass on from this legislation, because of the extraordinary impact it will have.

The Minister in 1987 dealing with the broadcasting legislation indicated that he would approach broadcasting from a minimalist point of view. His intention was to interfere as little as possible in the working and regulation of radio. It was to be a hands off, stand back approach. Let us try to adopt that principle in dealing with advertising and the right of RTE in this area. The minimum the Minister should do is adopt a broad standard of capping level, according to the EC Directive.That level should be applied across the board to the RTE Authority and the independents. The market would work out its way after that. I do not accept that the Minister should contemplate the invasion of the advertising rights and opportunities of RTE and their revenue raising capacity in the way he has indicated.

During his Second Stage speech the Minister spoke about ensuring that any codes of practice drawn up would incorporate various international obligations, such as the extensive provisions on advertising standards in the EC Directive on advertising activities adopted in October. The Minister recongises that the directive should as far as possible be incorporated and should have an influence on our practice and legislation, yet in the area of advertising he is not doing what the directive requires. We have to be clear in our reservations about what the Minister is proposing because he is taking no regard of the directive handed down on 3 October 1989.

I would urge the Minister to look again at the basic principles he enunciated in the more broadly based debated on broadcasting in December 1987. He extolled the minimalist, non-interventionist approach, allowing the airwaves to regulate and police themselves. I have made the point that radio is not differentiated here, but the Minister has not responded. He said in December 1987:

Finally, with regard to the regulation of the radio services, simplicity is the key. The emphasis under the regime I propose is self-regulation. I do not accept that radio services need the degree of control, of monitoring or of overseeing which would warrant the creation of a new State structure.

Why is the Minister abandoning those principles entirely? Why does he believe that radio advertising needs all the regulation, control and restriction he is proposing?

The Minister referred to raising doubts about the current legality of work in which RTE are engaged relative to the World Cup. My reading of section 20 (8) would not appear to be in accordance with the Minister's. It is an extremely important issue. The Bord Gáis logo is being phased in and out when coverage moves from the studio to an Italian city in which a match is being played or when a commercial break is about to take place. Is the period of time of sponsorship the entire programme of two hours from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and a further two hours from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., or is it the second or two when the logo is displayed? If it is the former, the Authority would have difficulty in justifying their current practices in the context of section 20 (8). It would suggest that the Minister is of the view that the entire programme constitutes a sponsorship slot. That means that RTE would consume their entire advertising capacity in broadcasting one football match per day. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point since it would have a profound impact on the capacity of RTE to function in the commercial area. Section 20 (8) states:

In this section references to advertisements shall be construed as including references to advertising matter in sponsored programmes, that is to say, programmes supplied for advertising purposes by or on behalf of an advertiser.

I am thinking particularly of the old Jacobs programmes on RTE radio.

Frankie Byrne.

This was introduced as a programme compiled for and on behalf of the company in question. Everyone understood it to be Jacobs half-hour. The Glen Abbey Show was another one.

Frank Sinatra.

I beg the forbearance of Deputy Cowen. This is crucial. If the involvement of Bord Gáis as a sponsor in part, with passing visual references throughout the programme, amounts to the entire programme being considered as sponsored or as a programme supplied for advertising purposes by or on behalf of an advertiser, the Minister is correct and the RTE Authority would have difficulty explaning it. What the Minister is obliquely suggesting has a profound impact for the future broadcasting of sport and other major events for example the weather broadcast referred to. I would have thought that would have to go. There would be no possibility of RTE raising the revenue to broadcast agricultural farming commentaries or to televise the Eurovision Song Contest if the opportunity arose again. There force, I am asking the Minister to try to find the goodwill and the capacity to respond to some of the questions we are raising. The more we debate the more questions arise that need to be answered explicitly.

The Minister talked about the directive dealing with independent productions and the protection of jobs in this area under Article 5 whereby there is a 10 per cent reservation for home produced programmes. Can the Minister clarify the position? My understanding is that RTE currently would broadcast for in excess of a 10 per cent slot of home produced programmes. I would have thought we were talking about 30, 40 or 50 per cent or thereabouts, so Article 5 of the directive which provides for only a 10 per cent ceiling offers no hope whatsoever for the independent film makers and broadcasters or of protecting jobs. If we were to adopt the EC Directive in this area as a maximum we would be shedding a huge amount of home produced programme time with the consequent loss. There is no doubt jobs will be lost.

The Minister closed with the view that the potential for censorship would be far greater in a monopoly. I think nobody would disagree with him on that, but to suggest that we were not going to have censorship and were going to have open and free broadcasting in the context of what he is proposing and what he intends is again somewhat disingenuous. We all look for, would welcome and believe in a strong independent sector as an alternative and competing voice in the broadcasting area. Does it require the very heavy-handed actions currently being proposed by the Minister? Does he have to go so far? Any suggestion that up to this there has been a featherbedding of monopoly — the Minister's words — is having no regard to the facts or to the important social function RTE perform and all the very good services they provide.To suggest that they are some form of monopolistic animal that is devouring the best interests of the broadcasting consumer is painting the wrong picture, a picture that might serve the concepts and language of the Minister well in this very divisive legislation but would have to be challenged by any of us who have a far greater understanding of what broadcasting should be all about both in the independent and community areas.

I hope the Minister has been able to glean from the remarks I have made some of the questions that are still worrying me and my group in regard to the potential impact of what is being proposed, and that he will be able to find the time to answer some of the queries and so help us understand the full impact of what we are dealing with.

Much of what Deputy McCartan has raised was a rehearsal of what went on the last day. He quoted at length from Article 18 of the Directive of the EC in relation to the amount of advertising not exceeding 15 per cent of the daily transmission time. He did not then go on to Article 19 which provides: "Member States may lay down stricter rules than those in Article 18 for programming time and the procedures for television broadcasting for television broadcasters under their jurisdiction, so as to reconcile demand for televised advertising with the public interest, taking account in particular of (a) the role of television in providing information, education, culture and entertainment; (b) the protection of pluralism of information and of the media". It is a pity he did not go on to that because Article 19 says quite clearly that member states may lay down stricter rules for the protection of pluralism of information and of the media. The whole principle behind this legislation is the need for pluralism of information and of the media generally and of entertainment within this country coming from Irish sources. I am quoting in relation to advertising.

Most of the points Deputy McCartan made in relation to teasing out what is involved in advertising make my point very well as to why the amendment put down by The Workers' Party should not be accepted. It is clearly laid down in section 5 of the Bill in relation to the codes of practice. The codes of practices will be devised in association and in consultation with the RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission. Many grey areas will have to be teased out in detail, such as sponsorship of football matches that we talked about earlier and the time allocation for, say, Bord Gáis sponsoring the football. By the way, I want to take the opportunity to compliment RTE on the excellent job they are doing on the coverage of the football. It is superb coverage.

It is gone for a Burton next time though.

I will leave it at that. That and other issues raised by Deputy McCartan will be teased out in detail in relation to the code of practice and are not appropriate to hard, black and white interpretations in a statute.

Deputy McCartan indicated at the beginning of his contribution that in some way the Minister of the day, whoever it would be, would have the power by order at the stroke of a pen to decide on time limits etc. The time limits will now be embodied in Statute itself and no Minister will have power to vary them other than by amending legislation itself. There is no such thing as doing it by order with the amendment that has been brought in.

The point is——

I did not interrupt the Deputy. It is Committee Stage and he will have the opportunity to come back in. That is the point I wanted to raise with him. The points he has made very strongly merely reinforce my position in relation to a too rigid interpretation. We have survived without rigidity of interpretation on this word for 30 years and we can go on for some more.

I notice the Minister did not reply to my interjection or to the point I raised earlier. It is clear that what the Minister is proposing to do will end the sort of sponsorship we have seen in the World Cup which he so lavishly praised in the last few moments.

I want to refer to a point made by Deputy Cowen in his brief contribution. I acknowledge that Deputy Cowen is one of the Deputies who makes contributions on Committee Stage and in this case he made very interesting points. He asked whether we, on this side of the House, were in favour of competition in broadcasting.He further asked whether, if we were in favour of it, we were in favour of creating the funding for it by either diverting the licence fee revenue or advertising revenue from RTE. That in a nutshell is what he said, but it gets to the crux of the Minister's broadcasting policy, in so far as he has one. The Minister has repeated that his broadcasting policy was to provide for a plurality of broadcasting. The Minister's own intention, and it was not the result of the advice of the civil servants, was that we should have an alternative national radio service, and an alternative national television service.

That is what we are elected for — to make decisions.

The Minister admits implicitly by his interjection that that is what he was elected for — but it was not. The Minister has confirmed what I said: it is his own proposal. However, the problem is that we cannot create a market if it is not there. The Minister will know, because Century Radio have told him, that the consultants' report on the national radio service — and the Minister has a copy of that report — states that an alternative national radio station cannot survive so long as 2 FM is on the air in its present form. In other words an alternative national radio service can only survive if 2 FM is made into what I call a station of the cross, a drudge station. That, too, is what the consultants told me when I was Minister for Communications at a time when some people thought that a broadcasting licence was a licence to print money.

The Minister has now come in with a proposal which does nothing for Century Radio and holds out no prospects for the long term survival of Century Radio because the Bill, as proposed to be amended, does nothing whatever for Century Radio. We must ask ourselves what it does for TV3. Is Deputy Cowen seriously contending that diverting £10 million or £12 million from RTE will be enough to fund TV3? He is right when he says it will not be enough, but it is enough to penalise and damage RTE very seriously. That is my point and that is why I plead with the Minister to think again on his broadcasting policy.

Within weeks of becoming Minister, Deputy Burke announced off the top of his head——

He had the advice of the independent review group.

——without having a consultants' report and no prepared policy while in Opposition — that his policy was to be an alternative national radio and television service in addition to local and community broadcasting. I, as a former Minister for Communications for four and half years have studied those matters in great detail. Some people would say that I was forced to do so by Deputies O'Sullivan and Higgins and other members of the Labour Party. Indeed the discussions with the Labour Party were very useful from that point of view because nobody could say we did not study it in great detail to see the available options.

The Deputy did nothing about it.

I decided to do nothing about it, Deputy, rather than to do something wrong.

The Deputy is experienced enough to know that he does not have to reply to Deputy Barrett.

Deputy Barrett, like yourself a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is an old friend of mine from Dublin City Council. I know that you represent the same constituency and the same party and that is always a difficult situation, but I thought Deputy Barrett's interjection was worth a reply. Deputy Cowen put his finger on the core subject.

Was it the core of the amendment?

Yes. Deputy Cowen asked a very pertinent question. He asked if we were in favour of alternative broadcasting and, if so, if we were in favour of creating the funding for it by diverting the licence fee revenue or advertising revenue from RTE. This comes very much to the point. I advise Deputy Cowen to go and talk to the Minister privately and ask the Minister to show him and his other colleagues in Fianna Fáil the research on which his policy is based. Do we set up TV3, knowing that within months there will be a threat it will collapse and the Minister will have to get a consultants' report that will say that TV3 can only survive if Network Two is put off the air or becomes a station for opera and other minority interest groups. This is a very serious point because Deputy Cowen in his brief interjection got right to the heart of the matter. The definition of advertising and the extent to which it confines and restricts advertising on RTE gets right to the folly of the Minister's broadcasting policy. The Minister knows there are consultants' reports by Touche Ross available from the last interim radio commission which show there is a limited viability for alternative radio but there has been no study whatever of alternative television broadcasts.

I listened with great interest to what Deputy McCartan had to say about the EC draft directive on broadcasting. What is permitted is more liberal than what the Minister has proposed but the Minister is correct that it is also permitted to have more restricted national circumstances. However, one cannot generalise because just as in transport matters, you have to think about the market and what is good for a market of 60 million people with a single language may not be good in a market of 3.5 million people with a dual language but if you consider the states in the European Communities generally comprising a population of over 55 million speaking a single language, and Britain is in the same position, what is true for them is not true for us. The Minister should be asked for the research that shows that Century Radio can survive even with these amendments. Is there research to show that TV3 can survive even if £10 million is diverted from RTE?

I contend that TV3 can in no way survive on the £10 million or £12 million diverted from RTE and that is assuming that they get all the funds that will be diverted, which they will not. The diversion of this money from RTE will do tremendous damage to them. Taking this sum of money would stop all enterprise and initiative in RTE. Let us remember that the real competition facing RTE and the providers of pluralists views will come from stations outside the State. The BBC News have a budget half as big as RTE's entire budget. ITN News has an even bigger budget but RTE have to compete with these stations with fewer resources.

I am delighted that there are at least two Government backbenchers in the House to listen to my contribution and I ask them to go back to their party meetings and stop this folly.

I shall confine my remarks to what the Minister said in his fourth intervention. I should like him to expand on some of the points to which he has referred. He said that the 1960, 1976 and 1980 Acts did not define advertising.I am afraid that the Minister is not comparing like with like. I am not going to go down the road the Minister did when he referred to the distinguished Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who was in office in 1976. The difference in those cases was, to use the Minister's phrase in his first intervention, that one could have used the commonplace usage of advertising in those Acts or one need not have defined it precisely because advertising was just that, a relationship to the marketplace.

The difference between this legislation and those Acts is that in this case the Minister is just at one remove from being the advertising manager for relevision advertising in the State. No Minister in 1960, 1976 or 1980 would have sought the power to say "the national station shall only have this portion of the advertising market". The Minister switched this around the other way and said, that none of the Ministers who were responsible for those Acts — I hope he has been advised on this — had sought the power to take a certain level of the licence fee and use it to intervene in the marketplace and define the level of the advertising income. No Minister could do that. One cannot say that a Minister using the licence fee to generate a ceiling in the marketplace for a station while at the same time not specifying where the revenue will go is operating in the same way as the Ministers who brought in the 1960, 1976 and 1988 Acts.

It logically follows from that that it is even more absurd for the Minister to not alone define the level but to justify it on the basis that he is destroying a monopoly.How can the Minister, to use his phrase in his fourth intervention — I welcome these interventions because it is the only way in which we can tease out the Bill — say it is his intention to set his face against a monopoly? What deregulation of monopoly is he talking about? Is he talking about the total market for television advertising and its distribution between stations outside and within this country? The Minister is hardly using the word "monopoly" in any literary economic sense when he says: "I am taking the income which is there and keeping it in reserve for what might come into being". Nobody has used the word "monopoly" in that sense and it is an absolute nonsense to be speaking about it. If TV3 and other stations were up and running and a Right wing politician spoke about putting a limit on their advertising ceiling one could justify talking about intervening in those cases. In his first and second interventions the Minister referred — I hope he has not been badly advised on this — to regulation and deregulation.This is exactly as I said it is in the American legislation and no one has used it like that. We are not talking about a State monopoly in relation to advertising in the television medium because no pure market or monopoly exists; we are talking about a mixed market. The State station is a mixture of licence fee income and advertising.

The Minister dealt with a succinct list of questions from Deputy McCartan. The Deputy asked him a number of questions which were strictly in accordance with the text of the Bill and the regulation and relevant to the EC directive. I ask the Minister to reply genuinely to my questions.I think in his third intervention he said we were getting worried about the slot for charities, the fee for charities, the special rate and so on. If someone uses a few words of Irish in an advertisement he will get a 10 per cent discount and if the whole advertisement is in Irish he will get a discount of up to 35 per cent. How could RTE, faced with the Minister's conditions, consider putting on a 10 per cent or 35 per cent adjusted advertisement during peak times? The Minister, as advertising manager, will be able to put a ceiling on them and they will have to decide to which clients they will say yes and to which they will say no. Will they be put in the position of having to say to the person who wants to buy advertising space on RTE "we are sorry, we are near the quota and we are accepting no advertisements after March" or "we are keeping some of the quota back for other advertisers"? How will they handle such situations in the case of advertisements in the Irish language?

It is not good enough for the Minister to say to me — as he said to Deputy McCartan in reply to a related matter — that these matters can be discussed under section 5. I have read section 5 and there is nothing in it which can given me an answer to the question I have put now. Section 5 deals with standards and not with the proportions of the advertising market. The Minister should not mislead us into thinking that we can leave this amendment and section with out answers being given to our questions on the proportions of the advertising market. I agree there is an extension of my question about the Irish language in sections 4 and 6. In order to help the constructive atmosphere of the House I will not elaborate on this point at this stage. I will simply stick to the text of the Minister's last intervention.

There is another problem which arises in relation to the independents. Deputy McCartan asked about the consequences for the independents and the implementation of the most recent EC Directive. The independents will only be able to get around the limit put on the RTE budget by calling themselves European independent film makers and coming in the back door.

The Minister has received the report of Údarás na Gaeltachta about the capacity of RTE to put out Teleifís na Gaeltachta. That report included a commitment in relation to advertising revenue and the licence fee to Teilifís na Gaeltachtal. By putting the advertising cap on RTE one is putting a strain on the capacity of the station to have any resources left over to set up that station. The allocation of one of the four UHF channels to TV3 rather than to Teleifís na Gaeltachta has also made the setting up of this station very difficult. The Minister cannot have it every way. This is why the debate on the word "advertising" is so central to this Bill. We are not talking about a plurality of competition because the competitor is not there; we are talking about somebody making a will and seeking to damage the most obvious beneficiary by saying "even though you have looked after me I am not going to leave the farm to you because I know you too well and there might be somebody else to leave it to." This has more to do with damage to RTE than with any pluralism in the marketplace.

I have a number of comments to make on points raised by the Minister.

Deputy Higgins is aware that we intend giving each other a break at 7 p.m.

I will resume afterwards.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Before the sos I was referring to the difficulties that might arise in relation to advertising through the medium of the Irish language. In the spirit of making progress on the Bill I do not intend to labour the point or be repetitive but I want to spell out the implications of the Bill. I have been referring directly to the latest contribution by the Minister. If there is a 10 per cent discounted rate, and a 30 to 35% discounted rate for advertisements in Irish and if there is pressure on the station through a cap on their advertising, they will have to choose which, in terms of the TAM ratings, of their programmes, they will use in their advertising allocation. That creates a real problem. How will the station, those who take decisions in regard to advertising, and the advertising industry respond to a situation where there is a reduced chance of an advertisement with either the low or the high quotient in Irish appearing? It would mean that if there was a limited amount of advertising per day there would be an inevitable pressure downwards on the making of advertisements in the Irish language.When referring to the Irish language and the Gaeltacht in the House I speak in the Irish language but on this occasion it is important that I should try to get the Minister to understand the principles involved.

Following the passing of the Bill there will be an inevitable effect on the making of advertisements and that in turn will affect those who work on the making of advertisements through the Irish language.I am thinking in particular of the Irish-language-speaking actors in the non-animated advertisements. Those people will be casualties of the Minister's proposals. We could have gone the other way. Suppose the Minister had constructed this the other way and that the first version of the legislation had stated that the licence fee plus whatever was spent by the station on promoting the Irish language would be added to the advertising, we would be doing something positive to encourage the Irish language advertising-making activity. What about the advertising revenue that will be released following the passing of the Bill? We know that the top seven customers of UTV are among the top ten customers of RTE and we know that the money in the short term will flow out of the State to UTV, Channel 4 and so forth. That will mean that the people about whom I am speaking will not find their needs accommodated.

If TV3 goes on the air will they be required to adopt any policy in relation to advertising through the medium of the Irish language?

Faraor, tá sé rí-shoiléir dom féin nach mbeidh ach drochthionchar ag na moltaí seo ar fad ar chumas an aisteora agus cumas na ndaoine a oibríonn i dtionscal na bollscaireachta agus mar sin de trí mheán na Gaeilge. Mar a dúirt mé ar an Dara Céim, beidh deacrachtaí ann i leith Teilifís na Gaeltachta a bhunú mar gheall ar easpa airgid.

The unresolved issue raised by Deputy McCartan is important. It relates to the definition of "promotion". It is not adequate to say that that question is answered in the directive. Deputy McCartan maintains that it is defined accurately in the directive and I do not have a problem about the definition but I have a problem about its implications. I should like to give an example of how this has worked. Published studies in the different advertising journals by international advertising agencies have shown that some sports have changed in format to accommodate the needs of television advertising. In other words, the generic development of the sport might suggest the breaking of times into certain slots but there has been pressure internationally to break up sports to suit television.It is rather like the question facing the person putting on a play, does he put up Coca Cola signs when producing the Cuchulainn saga in the Abbey Theatre, one of our more recent developments, or does he ask the actors to wear Coca Cola on their costumes when on stage? One gets to that absurd level. What are the constituent elements of "promotion"? Is it defined, for example, by the visual images on the screen? Is it defined by the placing of the advertising material? Is it defined in terms of its impact? They are real and practical questions.

I will concede that one or two minor parts of those questions may be answered by section 5. The Minister may say that we will have an opportunity of discussing standards under section 5 but we face a real difficulty earlier because of the curious definition of advertising. We will have to say that it shall only be so much, of such and such proportions and shall have counted within it "promotions". It behoves the Minister to define "promotion" at the outset; that is inescapable. We will discuss the standards, once the proportionflities have been allocated, under section 5. That is the logic of the legislation in so far as I can see any logic in it. The difficulty, therefore, is for example, that the directive makes possible 15 per cent of the proportion for advertising but that the Bill makes provision for 7.5 per cent. You can read from Article VIII of the directive down to Article XVIV and realise that there is the capacity to have a harsher regime and technically that is correct. However, even in the spirit of the Treaty of Accession and in the spirit of the discussion on the transmission of secondary legislation of the European Community, it behoves the Minister to say why he is adopting the harsher strategy instead of the norm which has been established.

If you go back to the directive, it is obvious that there has been a drift towards deregulations in relation to telecommunications in Europe, towards privatisation and towards an anti-State involvement in communications generally.The interesting point is that in the absence of its stated alternative only one conclusion can be drawn, that if we were living in a country which had largely privately owned televisual networks, we would be allowing them 15 per cent without the inheritance of a public service broadcasting ethos. However, because it is RTE, in the absence of private commercial alternatives, we make it 7.5 per cent — that is the level playing field. If I am wrong — we are all sophisticated people willing to listen to each other's arguments — I should like to hear the other interpretation.

I worry about this for many reasons, especially the consequence of reducing a station of the character of RTE to the 7.5 per cent when the 15 per cent was permitted by its directive. One of the enormous developments — I am sticking strictly to new material in response to what the Minister is saying — in information technology is what has given us modern developments in television and, more importantly, in modern international telecommunications, has been MMDS, cable and satellite. The Minister mentioned satellite and one of its effects is that the footprint defined an area or a market and the citizens' relationship to it is that they are the target of the televisual activity. The old inheritance of broadcasting was very different, moving as it did from the print media to radio and television. I said that the definition of public service broadcasting was the target; the citizen was the arrow. In other words, the public service broadcasting was always amenable to what people wanted.

What happened in the Irish case was that the information technology went out of control of the power context. A great number of people imagined that there was a fortunate to be made in it and people who had money — but not broadcasting experience — moved into the area and saw the capacity to define a new kind of Europe of potential consumers, simply the consumer content of the new imprint of the satellite. It is very interesting that the surveys carried out did not show a great public demand for a marketing-led, advertising ridden type of third commercial channel. The surveys showed that people had something foisted on them for which they did not ask. It was certain that they wanted editorial choice within the existing system. It was interesting that they wanted editorial choice because, under the format concept of broadcasting, they could get accountability through the RTE Authority.

To take up Deputy McCartan's point, the interesting thing is that the directive of the European Community, structured at 15 per cent, would have given them a market-led communications system but, because RTE had inherited the public service expectations and ethos, they had to act within what the Minister in his last intervention called a harsher regime, made possible in Article XVIV. You cannot use Article XVIV to defeat Article VIII unless you give the reasons. Why did the Minister go for a permitted allocation?Was it because there were no private operators only the public service station?

The Minister also stated in his last contribution that there would not be any ministerial orders, that time limits would be established by statute. If that is the case, where is there anything in the legislation to take care of the right of a station to give priority to the Irish language? How has the Minister responded to the directive which will come into effect in 1991 to cater for any of the situations I have described?

All this is very important because three scenarios had unfolded. One was that RTE would operate in a sheltered and protected environment enjoying the licence fee and advertising revenue; the second scenario was that if people were unhappy with that the station would decide to become more commercially oriented; the third scenario is that the station will be in competition with the potential third network. What kind of logic justifies stifling what you have for what is not yet in existence?

A former Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, used to speak about the benign and the malign model of history. The malignant model of history in the making is that TV3 might not work, in which case—if you analyse the thinking behind this legislation—the pressure will be for Network 2 to become a commercial station. If that happens programmes for minorities, documentaries and the short Irish film which involves about 90 independent film makers on contract will be affected. The Minister can work out the knock-on effect in regard to employment. Also if Network 2 had to change in character, I am afraid, it would also change so tragically the particular experience of the people in colleges such as Rathmines and elsewhere — the colleges of marketing who knew, when they would emerge, they would have a potential customer in RTE. Now that customer cannot compete, cannot buy from them because the customer has a more limited project and time frame; is limited in income, limited in time, limited in capacity to be forever able to deal with the specific case I am making for the Irish language. It is a very difficult situation.

In terms of our view we, the Labour Party, are perfectly willing to involve ourselves in constructive action with the Minister about the future of broadcasting by responding to some kind of White Paper when we could deal with these definitional issues, these policy issues and so on. I would suggest that the Minister would be very well advised to think very seriously of pulling back somewhat from this legislation to give us a chance to ascertain how we can have a dialogue about broadcasting. If there is a danger in relation to the visual media, in relation to Network 2—which I suspect will come under assault if TV3 does not work— equally the Minister will have an easier job in relation to turning over 2FM to the private commercial sector. What one is then stuck with is an incredible problem: what happens to the two spine stations, in the case of the visual, RTE 1 and, in the case of radio, Radio 1? These are the issues involved.

I am not blaming this Minister at all. People on both sides of the House will acknowledge that I have been involved, with Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan and others, in the argument about broadcasting since about 1981 or 1982. Always the argument we made was that these issues should have been set out in a White Paper. I am not interested in making capital about why such a White Paper was not published, about who did not publish it or whatever. I am simply saying that if the broadcasting framework was there all of these questions being posed would become very much easier to handle.

Again the Minister in his last reply said that some of the issues raised by Deputy McCartan and so on are ones with which we can deal when we come to section 5. When we reach section 5, if ever—when we reach the question of standards— may I say, in anticipation, that the language used there is extraordinary.

The Chair would be very pleased if the Deputy would revert to section 1 and amendment No. 1.

I appreciate the Chair restraining my impulse to depart from section 1. I will save it up.

My main point about it has been that advertising quite simply is not the same as envisaged in the three basic Acts the Minister mentioned in the course of his last intervention — the basic Acts of 1966, 1976 and 1988. There are unresolved questions all over the place in relation to the EC Directive. There is need to specify precisely why we have chosen the lower figure. There is also the need to deal with the questions I raised in relation to advertising using the medium of Irish. We need to answer the questions I posed in relation to the implications for Teilifís na Gaeltachta. There is need to answer the question of the implications of capping, how one decides proportions or apportionment between potential advertisers.

There is a need for the Minister to answer the other points I have been making — in asking this I am asking no more than when the Minister spoke about charities; there is no reason he cannot speak in the same way—about the Irish language. There is the need to answer my point — in respect of which I may or may not be correct — in relation to the position of the independents who supply, on contract, to the station because it has a particular advertising budget; whether they have to place themselves as part of the European or part of the national allocation. I asked a specific question in relation to the directive and the possibilities that will obtain by way of making any kind of provision particularly in relation to the Irish language. When I spoke in Irish — I might say out of courtesy to some Members — I was speaking really about the employment implications not only for actors in general but for Irish-speaking actors in particular whom the advertising agencies would not feel very much like hiring to make advertisements with such a low opportunity of ever being shown.

I am really intrigued by this fundamental question of the definition of "promotion"; the question as to when promotion begins; whether it is defined by time, by the objects worn, by the mode of advertising, by the materials used and so forth. That question simply must be answered as well.

I will end on this: where is there one scintilla of evidence to suggest that, when advertising is capped it moves from one medium to another? One does not have to be a trained advertising executive to know, for example, that the print media dominate the property market; it is easy to advertise a house, a farmer's land and so on in the print media but one rarely sees such things advertised on television; it works the other way; the whole manipulation of subliminal images very often in relation to advertising, those ones on television, do not shift to the printing industry. Where is there any evidence to suggest that anywhere ever in Europe at any time revenue of a capped kind shifted from television to the print media or indeed to the aural media, the radio? How then does one justify this concept of capping, of contending that, at the end of the day it will not be handled by ministerial order, but rather by statute?That poses a real problem.

I would have a certain sympathy with the Minister's contention that nobody wants monopoly. But the main thing about it is that neither do people want cosseted possibilities for future embryonic developments in respect of something one does not like. The fact is that RTE have gone commercial and been successful in a number of ways. Why should one interfere with what is there in endeavouring to make possible something that is not out there?

The spirit of this amendment is a very simple one. It began a debate about the nature of advertising. It is all about advertising.In a way the question with which we are stuck is this: how can the station with which we live, that we are told must change its role, continue to function as a very severely limited functionary in the marketplace? "Monopoly" by definition —no more than oligopoly or whatever— has a very precise meaning in economic theory, which is basically that one breaks up something that is taking an excessive share of the market in competition with other people seeking to sell products in the same marketplace, but the other product is not there?

These are questions on which I would very much appreciate the Minister's response. I look forward to hearing his reply. Perhaps the one about which I am most worried is whether it would ever again be possible to see the regular usage of advertisements in the Irish language. I feel very pleased that the Minister of State at the Department of the Gaeltacht, the man responsible for the Irish language and the Gaeltacht, has joined us. It would be very appropriate for the Minister to reply in his presence.

At a quarter to four I indicated that I wished to make a brief intervention. So much has transpired since then that I feel we are inexorably moving towards a vote on this amendment and that there is little point in repeating the substantive points that have been made.

What I would seek to do, however, is to ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to address the more substantive questions that have been raised. I have listened with fascination since a quarter to four to this debate and I can only join with Deputy Mitchell in appealing to the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, who were here with us occasionally, to go back to their offices and study the record and, for God's sake, to appeal to this Minister to change his direction on this Bill.

A great many points have been made with which many of the Government backbenchers would find sympathy. I listened with particular fascination to Deputies McCartan and Michael Higgins, and if the Minister does nothing else he should do us the courtesy, before there is a vote on this amendment, of addressing the points made by those two Deputies because it is a regrettable dimension of the debate so far that the Minister has not sought, in any serious fashion, to address the arguments made.

The case has now been well established that advertising and the definition of advertising is central to the entire debate. That point has been made and accepted but other than that, the Minister has not chosen to reply to the points made. I will give only two examples in the interest of brevity, one from Deputy McCartan and one from Deputy Michael Higgins.

Deputy McCartan took up the Minister's point in his third intervention. The record will show that the Minister clearly conveyed the impression that if he had never brought this ignominious legislation before the House the impact would be the same in any event because of the impending enforcement here of the EC Directive in 1992. Deputy McCartan drew his attention to the fact that Article 18 of that Directive provides not for the Minister's limits but for an amount of advertising which shall not exceed 15 per cent of daily transmission time and that, however, this percentage may be increased to 20 per cent provided that the amount of spot advertising does not exceed 15 per cent and that subsection (2) provides that the amount of spot advertising within a given period shall not exceed 20 per cent. That is so dramatically and radically different from the impression conveyed by the Minister that even his own backbenchers who were in the House at the time took serious note of the point. In his fourth intervention the Minister chose to deal with that point because he knew it was a telling one. He said that that may well be so but wondered why Deputy McCartan did not go on to read Article 19 which states that member states may lay down stricter rules than those in Article 18 for programming time and the procedures for television broadcasting for television broadcasters under their jurisdiction so as to reconcile demand for television advertising with the public interest taking account in particular of (a) the role of television in providing information, education, culture and entertainment and (b) the protection of pluralism of information and of the media. That clearly is again entirely different from what the Minister sought to imply in his riposte. There is nothing there that obliges the member states to bring in more strict limitations than are laid down in the EC Directive. One would get the impression from the Minister that not only is the directive there but that it is imperative and mandatory on individual Governments to seek to make it more strict. There is no such mandatory implication, and in so far as the facility is there at all it must be reconciled, as the Article states, with the public interest; it must reconcile "the demand for televised advertising with the public interest", and it specifies that. There is a substantive point on which the Minister has sought to give the impression, that I was certainly left with and that his own backbenchers were left with, that there was a major point unanswered.

Deputy Michael Higgins, for example, has blown out of the water the Minister's reliance on the Broadcasting Acts of 1960, 1976 and, indeed, 1988. The Minister sought to make an analogy in that he sought to imply that the same relationship existed between advertising on the one hand and the marketplace on the other as understood in that legislation and the legislation that is before the House, where an entirely artificial ceiling is created in a situation which, as Deputy Higgins said, the competitor does not, at this time, exist.

Even in so far as the Minister is considered to have made a concession to arguments made on Second Stage with regard to the definition of charities, I am completely dissatisfied with how the Minister intends to cause that now to be intruded into the Bill. For example, there has been considerable discussion about the coverage of the World Cup during the course of which a campaign has been run by the presenters of the programme for the purchase of essential equipment for the children's cancer unit of a particular hospital of which the captain of the Irish team, Mick McCarthy, is a patron. Is that a charity? Is the purchase of essential equipment in the health services to be eligible under the definition of charity? Deputy Higgins went on to elaborate on that point and to deal, in a good deal of his own latest intervention, with the question of the Irish language, with the necessity to acknowledge that old techniques and styles of attempting to foster the language or to keep it alive even have changed, that there is a necessity for new techniques, innovative methods to at least foster some kind of love of the language or to keep it alive. For the Fianna Fáil dominant share of the Government that puts the retention of the Irish language on a par with the unification of the country, I would have thought that was a rather important point to address.

Reference has been made during the course of the debate to a large number of organisations who have shown themselves extremely hostile to what they call the absurdity of this legislation. That in itself is intriguing since many of those organisations are very much in tune, in my opinion, with other views of Fianna Fáil or of the Government. It is extraordinary to find them out of kilter on this one and that the Minister proves impervious to any of the points made.

Let me refer to one particular organisation that is not always in tune with the Government, much as the Government would seek to convince some people that it is. That is the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Nothing in this debate highlights better for me the single-minded obsessive preoccupation of the Minister in bringing forward these legislative proposals than his determination to ignore the views expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Quite recently the general secretary of the congress made clear that in his view persistence on the part of the Government in seeking to enact this Bill as it stands could prove an insurmountable obstacle to the negotiation of a new programme for national recovery. In my opinion — I suggest in this respect that it is an informed opinion — next week at the annual conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that view will be reiterated in more trenchant terms. I find it extraordinary——

I hesitate to interrupt you. You have been very relevant in the debate up to now but you are now deviating into an area that is quite irrelevant to the amendment and the section before us. Otherwise you have made a very relevant contribution, for which I thank you.

The amendment before us deals with advertising and the definition of advertising which, as I have said, I think we have agreed, is central to the Bill. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions who are central to an economic cornerstone — I would say the only economic cornerstone — of this Government have come out very strongly against this point for reasons on which they have elaborated, that have on the one hand to do with the retention of jobs in RTE and, on the other hand, with the quality of public service broadcasting. Despite the fact that congress are so central to the continuation of the Government's economic strategy, it appears the Minister and the Government are prepared to ignore the possibility of the continuation of that co-operation because of their single-minded, obsessive determination to enact this Bill. It is relevant to ask why is that the case.

A fleeting reference, but I would be grateful if the Deputy did not elaborate any further on the policy of Congressvis-á-vis Government policy.

I accept your wishes in that matter, but it is a point that was not made in the debate so far and one which highlights the fact that the Minister has other than broadcasting considerations in mind in persisting with this legislation. No doubt at some stage of the debate he will tell us what that motivation is. I would be very happy if he would put on the record of the House some of the views that are being expressed in the bars and outside the confines of the House so that they could be dealt with.

I was happy to be a member of a local authority chaired by the present Minister, but I never joined in the whingeing that went on about his style. I have some admiration for his style, but then of course he does not have his foot on my neck as he has on the neck of RTE — and in this case he is twisting the shoe on it, and we are entitled to an explanation for that. Advertising, as we have been discussing in this debate, cannot be treated as if we were discussing the quota for the national beet output, and treating the public service broadcasting organisation as if they were a sugar beet factory in Thurles or Carlow, which is the import of what the Minister has been seeking to do.

The advertising organisations have come out against this Bill in summary for two reasons. First, they say it will bring about a severely inflationary impact for consumers and, secondly, it will shift a major element of advertising outside of the country. Again, I find that hard to reconcile with the nationalistic and patriotic aspirations of the Minister's party. How, in a country where the pool is so small, would anyone wish to take measures that would cause a part of the sustenance of the national public sector broadcasting organisation to be diverted outside of the country? There should be no doubt, as Deputy Higgins explained, that there is no domestic competitor. The competitors in this case are not national but are based outside the country, and they are the people who will benefit. It is accepted at this stage of the debate that to shift a portion of the available advertising revenue to a different medium is unlikely, and that means that organisations like ITV, Sky and so on will be the major beneficiaries.

As I have said, I had a number of other points to make but I think they have been better made by other speakers. I do not believe this section of the debate has been over-long because when you are dealing with a measure whereby the capping of advertising has been chosen as an instrument of broadcasting policy, the definition of advertising seems, for all the reasons that have been given, to be central to that and therefore deserves the amount of time the House has bestowed on it so far. The disappointing thing is that, with the exception of Deputy Cowen, there has been no participation from Government backbenchers, a good number of whom, if they have studied the issue at all, are in agreement that motives of vindictiveness or whatever are not good bases for broadcasting policy. They have the same apprehensions, reservations and opposition as many on this side of the House to the measures the Minister has threatened to pursue at all costs. It would do justice to the debate that has taken place up to now if the Minister was to address seriously, and show himself to be not completely impervious to the arguments that have been made here.

I do not know who knows what the Minister's broadcasting policy is at this stage. For example, I do not know if his Department know what elements make up his broadcasting policy. It seems to be politically motivated rather than in broadcasting terms or any other considerations.Very serious points have been adduced in this debate — I have referred in particular to the contributions of Deputies McCartan and Higgins. It would be a suitable prelude to the vote on this section if the Minister decided to take more seriously arguments that are fervently held on this side of the House, and tried to rebut them if they are capable of being rebuted.

I wish to ask a couple of brief questions, particularly in regard to the definition of advertising under the 1960 Act and the amending Act of 1976. Section 20 of the 1960 Act refers to advertising but not in the context as envisaged in the amendment by the Workers' Party. Section 14 of the amending Act of 1976 refers to advertising, but again, there is no clear definition. The Minister has misled the House and the matter should be clarified. Under the terms of these two Acts there is no clear definition of advertising as proposed in the amendment in the name of the Workers' Party.

I would like to refer to the whole issue of teasing out the issues. At a press conference on Friday last the Taoiseach said there would be no amendments and the Bill would not be withdrawn. This puts an entirely new light on this whole exercise.It seems it is a rather futile exercise if there is a diktat from the Taoiseach that we have no business discussing this document and he has already instructed the Minister to push it through at all costs. It makes a mockery of the whole system of democracy. Has the Minister in any way investigated the effects, in terms of job losses and job prospects, on RTE of the measures he proposes in this Bill, if carried?

I have listened to the debate, intervened on four occasions and I think my views are well known in relation to most of the points that have been raised during the day. I thought the rationale for my proposals had been set out quite thoroughly in my Second Stage speech, in radio and television interviews and in debates in this House since. The objective is to create a fair competitive environment in the broadcasting sector in relation to the print media. That environment cannot be fair when the main competitor has two sources of funding one of which, the licence fee revenue, is not available to the independent sector or to the print media. My approach in dealing with that situation is to put a limitation on RTE's role in the advertising market and to create some balance between the two sectors.

Deputy Higgins had some difficulty in coming to grips with the idea that to bring about deregulation there was, as a first step, a need for some regulation. This is happening every day of the week as we move towards 1992 within the European Community under the internal market council and every other council as we try to achieve within Europe an open free market. Directives are being passed every day which are doing exactly what I am trying to achieve. The rationale for the 7½ per cent limitation is based on the premise that since approximately 50 per cent of RTE's revenue comes from licence fees it is appropriate, in trying to create a balance between the two sectors, to limit their advertising time to half that of the independent sector. I appreciate that the rationale I have outlined may not be acceptable to some Deputies opposite but that is the background to it.

The whole principle is that we have an alternative radio and television environment in this country. That was decided in the 1988 Act. What I am attempting to do in this legislation is to create the environment to allow that to thrive and to develop. One of Deputy Higgins's queries related to the role of and his concern for those involved in the independent sector. I accept his genuine concern in that area. With further outlets for radio and television services available there will be more scope for their talents to be used. In response to the question of whether they have to declare themselves European, they are European, they are Irish, and there is no such thing as having to declare anything of the sort. The 50 per cent of time which excludes news, current affairs and sports programmes is of European origin, which is also Irish. The 10 per cent limitation under the Directive involved in the independent sector, outside of the direct broadcaster, is of European origin.

A question was raised by Deputy Rabbitte in relation to the World Cup coverage by RTE. I made the point earlier that RTE have done a superb job in relation to the coverage of the World Cup, something of which we can be very proud. Something that seems to be missed in all of this — I am quoted at length by Deputies — is that at all times I have made the point that in my view RTE will continue to be — and rightly so as it is our national station — the premier broadcaster in this country. There is nothing in this legislation that will in any way reduce that role. Deputies have spoken on this amendment as if RTE were to be suddenly stripped of their funding. The reality is that we have a population of 3.5 million people and RTE will have an income of approximately £100 million to cater for those people. That, by anybody's reckoning, is a sizeable sum of money, and is equivalent to their 1988 figures.

Deputy Rabbitte suggested that I was misleading the House. The point I was referring to, and which I specifically answered, was in relation to sponsorship, which had been mentioned by Deputy McCartan, and not to the general overall advertising question to which I was referring.

In relation to charities I assured the House on the last occasion — and I want to reiterate it here — that I am conscious of the position of charities. I believe that RTE, rather than just providing them with a reduced rate, should carry the listed charities' advertising in their public service announcements, as part of their obligation for which they receive almost £47 million of licence fee, and this would not be taken into account in their advertising cap. I did say to the House — and I take the opportunity to say it again now — that I will bring in an amendment clarifying the position of the charities. I am conscious of the work being done there. I congratulate those involved in the RTE World Cup team, and the others involved in raising funds for equipment. If there is a need for clarification — and Deputies apparently think there is — I will clarify it.

Deputy Higgins was concerned about the role of the Irish language. I should like to say to him that there is already a capping involved in RTE. They have a capping of six minutes; it has been extended to seven and a half minutes over the years and it has not affected the amount of Irish advertisements. I share his concern that probably there is not enough of them at present. I share also his concern that probably there are not these advertisements in the future. However, there should be greater scope and demand for the services of the actors involved because of the fact that we will have more channels from an Irish source in the period ahead.

Many other points were made but during Second Stage and at various stages I have answered the various points. As far as I am concerned the particular amendment would be too restrictive in its wording as put down by The Workers' Party and I am not prepared to accept it.

I think we are entitled to a response to his reference to the Principal Act of 1960 and the amending legislation of 1976 regarding the definition of "advertising" in both of these Acts. He did say that advertising was amply covered in these Acts. That is not the case. I would like to hear his comments on the issue.

The Minister has some neck. He has just said that he has answered the questions raised in this debate both now and on Second Stage. The Minister's Second Stage reply lasted about 30 seconds.

My Second Stage speech.

I ask the Minister now to answer my question. On what research is his policy based to provide alternative national radio and national television, and if there is research will he publish it? May I have an answer to that question please?

If the Minister is not accepting the amendment from The Workers' Party I want to have it put.

There will be another amendment on the subject on Report Stage.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 73.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny.)
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Byrne and McCartain; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.

We move on to amendment No. 1a in the name of Deputy Mitchell. Amendment No. 1a is consequential on amendment No. 3a and amendment No. 13a is related.

There is agreement in the House that we take each amendmentseriatim.

Has the House already agreed on that?

At the outset of the debate.

The House can always have a second look at something. Deputies might look at amendment No. 1a. It would seem that there is every reason to take it with amendment No. 3a and that we should not isolate amendment No. 1a.

Amendment No. 1a is not consequential on amendment No. 3a and should be taken separately.

If that is the view of the House, so be it.

I move amendment No. 1a:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following definition:

"`the I.R.T.C.' means the Independent Radio and Television Commission;".

Apart from the House having this view at the outset of the debate, throughout the Bill there is reference to the Authority and it is defined in the definition section to mean the RTE Authority, yet any time in a section or an amendment where we refer to the Independent Radio and Television Commission we have to use that lengthy phrase. It would facilitate brevity if we inserted in the definition section that "IRTC" means the Independent Radio and Television Commission.

You will be aware, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the Independent Radio and Television Commission was created by the Radio and Television Act, 1988, but the circumstances in which it was created are almost directly parallel to the circumstances of the Bill before us. The Bill as published by the Minister at the time was called the Sound Broadcasting Bill and had no provision for an Independent Radio and Television Commission.The Minister wanted to control the giving out of licences himself and because of the furore on this side of the House from all parties he was forced to change his mind and had to bring in major amendments on Committee Stage to set up the Independent Radio and Television Commission. The reality at the end of the day is that the Minister really got his way because he was able to appoint the commission, the vast majority of whose members are active supporters of his own party. That defies the spirit of all broadcasting legislation which requires the commission, like the RTE Authority, to be balanced. How can they be balanced if they are politically slanted from the very word "go"?

It is important that the definition of the Independent Radio and Television Commission be inserted here. We cannot use the definition at "the commission" as meaning the Independent Radio and Television Commission because there is a second commission called the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. For that reason some other abbreviation has to be found. That is why I propose we use the initials IRTC.

The commission have a very important role which is to oversee and lay down the guidelines for the independent broadcasting sector, the alternative sector. The present commission are the successors of the former Interim Local Radio Commission, the former commission having been chaired by Professor Colm Ó hEocha, President of University College, Galway, and previously Chairman of the New Ireland Forum. The entire debate on this Bill, never mind the definition section, is forcused on the question of funding and the role of the commission we are here defining in the definition section is greatly unfluenced by the amount of funding available to them and to the independent broadcasters under them.

The Minister in one of his replies confirmed that the central purpose of the legislation now before us is to try to ensure the continuation of alternative broadcasting.

It is very clear that the Minister ignored any research available to him. As I said, a forerunner of the present commission were the Interim Local Radio Commission, who commissioned an independent consultant's report from Touche Ross & Co. and that is the only research done under the auspices of the Department of Communications in relation to the viability of alternative broadcasting. I have that report synopsised in my notes here. It shows very clearly that the number of local stations to operate under the IRTC that could be viable is very restricted indeed. It quantifies its findings in facts, figures and analyses of the advertising pool and it says that in the consultant's opinion at most about seven commercial stations would be viable, two in Dublin, one in Cork, one in Limerick, one in Waterford and perhaps one in Galway. If that is the case, on what basis did the Minister unilaterally decide, without the advice of his Department or any research, to impose the alternative national radio on the commission which we seek here to define?

The Minister admitted implicitly in one of the exchanges in this debate that it was a political decision, in breach of all Civil Service advice. He said, "That is what we are elected for, to take these political decisions". It was political, and it was also political to get alternative national radio, Century Radio, on the air before they were ready to broadcast. Here we are, nine months later, and after the Minister's famous speech launching Century when he said, "It is great to be in Government to make things happen", Century is on the ropes. They thought legislation was coming forward to save them. That was the original intention and the original reason for the urgency of this Bill. What is now proposed as an amendment to this Bill scuppers any hope of salvation, aid or assistance for Century, yet, despite the difficulties Century are having in staying alive and maintaining themselves as an alternative national radio service under the Independent Radio and Television Commission, the Minister proceeds with his plan to try to divert some income from RTE ostensibly to allow a third television channel to set up, commence and survive.

In the debate on the last amendment I asked the Minister, not once but twice, to tell the House what research he had available to him that would show that an alternative radio service, let alone an alternative national service, could be viable when I know the only research available shows it is not viable and it is certainly not going to be made viable by diverting £12 million from RTE.

The airport was not going too well either.

According to you.

No, wrong. Sligo airport, Galway airport, Waterford airport were all built by our Government for £1.3 million, one-tenth of the cost of Knock airport which was started by the Deputy's Government. Would he pay £70 for a pint of Guinness?

They borrowed——

Would he pay £70 for a pint of Guinness?

You go by everything in export terms.

That is what they did for Knock airport. The Minister did not even seek expert advice. It was top of the head decision making, just as his Bill introducing independent local radio was top of the head decision making and he was forced to change it within 24 hours of its publication. Think of the parallels.

Promises do not make——

This is the second Broadcasting Bill brought in by this Minister for Communications and he was forced to change both substantially within 24 hours.

They justified——

Deputy Mitchell, if you address Deputy Cowen you might be inadvertently encouraging him to interrupt you. I ask you to direct your attention to your own amenment which says that IRTC means the Independent Radio and Television Commission which is a definition.

You can appreciate that later on when we are talking about the roles and functions or anything connected with them we can elaborate. In so far as we are on the matter of defining them, it would seem to me, and I think the Deputy will accept, that in respect of that it must be limited to what is there, and the only point Deputy Mitchell would have to defend would be an indication from some other Deputy present that IRTC refers to something other than what is referred to in the amendment. That is the logic of what is in that amendment. Subsequently, when you are dealing with other matters I can appreciate an elaboration and movement back into history and so on, but on that one I appeal to the good sense of the Deputy to let us treat that for what it is and proceed to matters of greater profundity.Now we have to stay with what is there. Only in circumstances where somebody wants to prove otherwise, that IRTC means something else, will the House accept it is relevant, otherwise, no.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I thank you for clarifying the matter. The amendment before us is definitional rather than just a drafting amendment. It allows us to reflect, Sir, on the circumstances which led to the setting up of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and it helps us to recall that the Minister was forced to amend his own legislation to create this commission, when he originally sought to control the granting of licences. Now he wants to control advertising. There is a consistent thread——

The Deputy has introduced legislation in this House and he knows that when we deal with definitions we do not deal with other matters, especially when in subsequent sections the Deputy can roam at will over things to which he is referring now. Could we not have a degree of sanity about this? Let us look at all the other words defined in the Bill, definitions are about definitions.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you seem to want to treat this as if it were an ordinary debate.

There is nothing extraordinary about it as far as Standing Orders are concerned.

Do you really consider there is nothing extraordinary about it? May I ask you, Sir, if you know of any Minister, in your long experience in this House, who had to amend his own legislation twice within 24 hours of both Bills being introduced? Is there a precedent for a Minister having to substantially amend his own Bill within 24 hours of its introduction on two occasions in a row?

I do not like answering a question by asking another, but can the Deputy demonstrate if there is anywhere in Standing Orders that allows him or any other Deputy to move away from what is prescribed in Standing Orders? That is the sole function of the Chair. There will be fair scope in the sections that follow for Deputy Mitchell to wade in to his heart's content but it is manifestly clear that the definition means what it means and nobody else is contending that it means anything else. What are we talking about?

Nobody else has contended anything, because nobody else has spoken, but we must not anticipate the debate.

Surely the Deputy will not argue that the IRTC means something else.

Given the extraordinary background to the introduction of the broadcasting legislation and the fact that the Minister has been consistently forced to change the Bill within 24 hours of its publication, it would be remiss of us as the Opposition not to highlight the extraordinary record of this Minister for Communications.

The Bill begs the question of what preparation and what consideration any Minister could have given to the issue under consideration, if on each occasion he introduces legislation he is forced to change it substantially within 24 hours, even before we get to the Committee Stage. That speaks volumes about the Minister's attitude and approach.

Unless the Deputy is contending that he has fears or evidence that the Minister might change the IRTC to mean something else, there is no basis for discussing this.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, see all those doubting faces on the backbenches. They need to know the Minister's record.

I know what the Minister means.

(Interruptions.)

The Progresive Democrats are back — I have Senator Martin Cullen's transcript, which I will quote from later, but he is not supporting the Minister's Bill, and he is their spokesman.

What has this got to do with you?

Deputy Quill and the Progressive Democrat Whip are back and I ask whether they are supporting this Bill. I have the extract from "What is in the Box" television programme on 20 June 1990. Where Senator Martin Cullen in reply to——

You did not get in very often in that debate if I recall. Deputy, from looking at the video afterwards.

Let us not stray from the debate. I suggest that we dispense with this acrimony. We can then move on, Deputy Mitchell, and there is plenty of scope in what follows for a man of your imagination.

It is only reality that the Deputy has difficulty with and not imagination.

An outbreak of wit from the Government benches, which is not unwelcome at this hour and is better than the crossness and agitation we had a few hours ago.

The man who called 11 quorums talking about agitation.

I will not stretch Standing Orders at this stage to quote to Deputy Quill and the Progressive Democrat Whip, Deputy Clohessy, what Senator Cullen said on television.

This is not even good farce, it is very poor.

That is an awful thing for Deputy Quill to say about Senator Cullen in his absence.

It is embarrassing.

It must be embarrassing for you Deputy that Senator Cullen said after the Minister's amendments were announced that he was not happy with the Bill. I will read it for you.

Will the Deputy please keep it up his sleeve?

I hope Senator Quill will be here to hear it. I will yield to her now but are the Progressive Democrats supporting the Bill and the amendments proposed by the Minister?

Unless the Deputy does not agree with your lettering and your definition she cannot intervene now.

Will the Deputy answer my question? The legislation will not pass without the support of the Progressive Democrats. Are they supporting the Bill? Senator Cullen has said he does not support it.

We are talking about the amendments.

The Minister was shown about five times on the programme, but he would not appear in studio as requested to confront the Opposition spokesperson.

Were you supporting Deputy Dukes when he went to the Taoiseach without you? Was he supporting you?

Deputy Quill, you will have an opportunity later. Caithfidh tú tú féin a iompar níos fearr ná sin.

Gabh mo leithscéal.

Does Deputy Quill want to ask me any questions or answer the questions that I have asked her?

She is not allowed to answer.

Are the Progressive Democrats supporting this legislation or are they not?

Let us get back to the amendment.

The Independent Radio and Television Commission which was forced on the Minister by the furore and pressure from this side of the House have been given an impossible task because all the data available to them shows that the number of alternative radio stations that are viable is very limited indeed. Yet when announcing the IRTC, the Minister announced there was to be an independent radio station for every county together with a national alternative radio and television service. Now the Minister realises that not alone is the viability of the national radio and television service highly questionable having started off with the ambition of taking urgent steps to maintain the national alternative in being — that is Century Radio — but because of the furore and sharp reaction the Minister has been blown off course and the Bill has not only lost its urgency but its real purpose. This unfortunate commission which we seek to define in this section have to preside over the independent sector of broadcasting which has been created, not without research but in total breach of the research available to the Minister.

Deputy Quill should look at the original Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1988, and the debates on it. She should also look at the words of wisdom spoken by the then Deputy Cullen in that debate, the same words of wisdom he spoke on television.

The Bill before us seeks to retrospectively justify the Minister's decision to set up alternative radio and television. He put forward this proposal against the advice of his Department — the advice he got would have been consistent with the advice I got — and in breach of all the research available to him. The Minister dismissed the interim local radio commission, a non-political commission, and appointed his own commission who now have an extremely difficult job to do. The Minister can be forgiven a certain amount for rushing his fences given the difficulty experienced by me as Minister and the previous Fianna Fáil Government from 1979-88 in resolving the problems in the broadcasting area. The difference between the Minister and I is that I had a plan but could get no action while the Minister is all action and no plan. Having started off well——

The Deputy is all words and no direction to his amendment. I appeal to Deputy Mitchell, in the interests of the standards of debate which are honoured here and of which we are proud, to direct himself to the words of his amendment. The Deputy may have lingering thoughts, or subconscious feelings, about what happened in the past but unfortunately that does not make proper what he proposes to say now in respect of the amendment he put down on Committee Stage. It is no joy for me to have to remind him of this, but I have to do what is required of me or of anyone who sits in this Chair.

Thank you——

We can-move on to other amendments and sections.There will be a relevance in what the Deputy is saying to those amendments and sections, but it is not relevant to this amendment.

When you made similar uncomplimentary remarks about Deputy O'Sullivan earlier it greatly vexed him and nearly caused a row in the House. I called a quorum to defuse the situation. Unfortunately I am not——

If the Deputy is indicating that he did that in my interest I should point out that I did not ask him to do anything of the kind, because I can defend myself. I am defending the rules and orders of this House and I did not ask anyone to defend me. Deputy O'Sullivan can defend himself too.

On a point of order, my name has been used by Deputy Mitchell— I am not questioning the context in which he mentioned it, but I should like to assure the Chair that he has no reason to fear any threat from me or my behaviour in this House. The Chair will have no need to defend himself against me. I will obey the rules of the House.

As I said earlier when moving my amendment, the Chair seems to think that this debate is taking place in normal circumstances but it is not. The commission we are seeking to define here were forced on the Minister even before the Second Stage was debated. The parallels are there and I want to use this definition to amplify the Minister's record and recklessness in bringing forward legislation in this House. There is——

Deputy Mitchell knows that the origins, pedigree or period of gestation of the Bill has nothing to do with the fact that we presume to define something in it. We must deal with the definition and later the Deputy will have an opportunity to refer to those matters. I ask the Deputy to finally accept that he has taken and been given certain freedoms in respect of the amendment in his name. I appeal to him to allow us to dispose of the amendment one way or another and to move to other amendments where his contribution will be more relevant.

I would draw your attention a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to the fact that both the Government Chief Whip and the Taoiseach, given the circumstances in which the Second Stage of this Bill was truncated, on more than one occasion publicly undertook that we would have a broader Committee Stage debate than is normal.

Neither the Chief Whip nor the Taoiseach is Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I do what is required of me here.

Surely the practice of the Chair is to carry out the wishes of the House.

The wishes of the House are articulated in Standing Orders and I will not explain myself at any greater length.

It is the wish of the Government and this side of the House that we have ample time to tease out the policy of the Government, if it can be dignified with that title, on Committee Stage——

If the Government and the Opposition want to change the Standing Orders there is a prescribed fashion under which they can do so, but the Deputy cannot do it by standing up here and talking off the top of his head on such matters.

You know very well, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that many things are done notwithstanding Standing Orders but with the agreement of both sides of the House. It is never agreed that the Chair should involve himself in political remarks. I am going to retire from the debate now but I will return to the subject when other Members have spoken.

The definition before us is relevant only in the context of amendment No. 3a in the name of Deputy Mitchell which provides for a procedure whereby the President, following consultation with the Council of State, would be responsible for appointing the members of the RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission.I do not want to open up the debate again——

We are not discussing amendment No. 3a.

I accept that but I just wanted to make that point.

On the specific amendment to the definition, it is not necessary so far as my proposals are concerned, to define the IRTC because any time they are referred to in my proposals they are given their full title.

Deputy Mitchell suggested the creation of a new method for appointing bodies. I do not want to go into this in too much detail, but I feel it incumbent on me to defend the integrity of the members of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. I reject the suggestion made by the Deputy that the members are appointed merely on the basis of political affiliation and I consider it a gross insult to the people who give selflessly of their time and expertise in the service of this country for very little remuneration. I find his remarks particularly strange when one considers that the chairman of the commission is the distinguished former Supreme Court Justice Henchy.

Deputy Mitchell spoke at great length about me having changed my mind about legislation and referred to the viability of stations. I want to remind him that he brought a Bill into this House on which there was a half day's Second Stage debate and it never saw the light of day again. If I am going to be criticised for being democratic and changing my mind about issues——

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister——

Like Deputy Mitchell I will return to that. It will give me great pleasure to refer to the fact that the man was incapable of putting anything through the House. As far as my proposals are concerned it is not necessary to define the IRTC. Any time they are referred to in my proposals, the commission are given their full title and will be given their full title. The integrity of the membership will be protected at all times.

I suspect that the mover of the amendment is trying to establish if the IRTC are an independent body. It has been stated that the amendment is superfluous but I do not think that is the case. There are good grounds for not having full confidence in the commission as presently constituted, with the one honourable exception, Mr. Justice Henchy.

I do not think that should be allowed.

The Deputy will appreciate that when the Minister took a view about Deputy Mitchell being out of order, having been reminded by me, I indicated to him that it would be better that he take the advice I tendered to Deputy Mitchell and postpone references to matters not provided for in the amendment until the appropriate section or amendment is reached. If Deputy O'Sullivan heard me saying that he will appreciate that I must say the same to him. We are dealing with the statement in the amendment to which Deputy Mitchell has his name, that four letters mean what is stated in the amendment.The Deputy can elaborate on the functions and the role of the commission on other sections. He may also refer to the membership of the commission at a later stage but he cannot do so on the amendment. If the House does not accept that, I will have to throw the debate into an irregular state that no Member would wish at the end of the day, and that would be against my better judgment. I should like to ask Deputy O'Sullivan to be as brief as he can on the amendment and to feel free on subsequent sections or amendments to be relevant. He will not be interrupted.

I imagine the Chair is trying to avoid a 13 hour semantic discussion which we had on the interpretation of "advertising". We have here the potential for a similar debate to the power of four. I intended to brief in my contribution without any prompting from the Chair but I am not going to be provoked or led down a road in the belief that I can only go a certain distance. The points I was anxious to make are relevant to the amendment. Deputy Mitchell is trying to emphasise that the commission are not independent, with the honourable exception——

Deputy O'Sullivan is interpreting what Deputy Mitchell may have in his mind but that does not allow him to stray beyond the terms of the amendment. Deputy Mitchell has made his contribution and indicated that he intends to speak again.

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

We should give Deputy Jim Mitchell time to count.

I should like to tell Deputy O'Keeffe that he is not allowed address the House from the position he is in. Interruptions are bad enough but when made from an unauthorised position they are doubly so.

We wanted to give Deputy Mitchell time to count.

That is not a helpful contribution.

In the course of my statement on 23 May 1988 regarding the role of the commission the Minister said that they would have responsibility for advertising the various franchises to be offered, and selecting the franchiser's from the various applications.

We are not discussing the role of the commission. Unless the Deputy can indicate that the Minister meant that the four letters referred to the GAA or something other than what they are presumed to mean, he is not relevant.

I do not think the Chair has any right to presume anything. The Chair is bound by Standing Orders. I am within my rights in making my contribution and the Chair, not for the first time today, is trying to deprive me of my rights.

I am interpreting the rules of the House and the Deputy will, however reluctantly, have to accept that what I say is in perfect accord with the responsibility of the Chair.

That is open to interpretation. We are discussing the Independent Radio and Television Commission.

What are we discussing?

We are discussing a definition.

I was quoting the Minister's definition of the commission and the Chair is not permitting me to do so.

That is not in Deputy Mitchell's amendment.

I am pointing out that Deputy Mitchell has one interpretation of the commission and the Minister has another.

We are discussing the interpretation of four letters and the Deputy should look at the amendment.

I said something earlier that could have been misconstrued about various symbols, and four is a dangerous number to mention.

It could be dangerous for the Deputy if he does not apply himself to the amendment.

Like the Chair I will not be intimidated or threatened in any way.

If the Deputy cannot proceed in order I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

I am not being allowed to proceed.

The Deputy will be allowed to proceed if he is in order.

I am in order. It appears there is a vendetta against me. The Chair is pursuing a vendetta and some day I may get to the bottom of it.

The Chair does not pursue a vendetta against any Member.

Up to today I would have believed that.

I will be asking the Deputy to resume his seat if he cannot apply himself to what is in the amendment.

I will endeavour to do so. Deputy Mitchell wishes to define the commission. Staff were recruited with out an advertisement being placed in the paper, nobody knows how they were recruited and who was responsible for recruiting them. In the 1988 Act the Minister gave the commission a very definite role; the most important matter was the advertising of franchises. My information is that at present there are many applications with the commission from local community broadcasting organisations which have yet to be processed. I raised this matter during the no confidence motion and since then there was an announcement to the effect that the commission were now examining the application.

The Minister should tell us whether the commission have taken a decision to grant broadcasting licences to the various community broadcasting organisations through the country because that was one of the reasons Members of this House accepted the amendments of the Minister to the 1988 Broadcasting Bill. For some reason best known to the Minister, the licences — with one exception in the Minister's constituency — have not been granted. There is a case to be answered in this regard. I have yet to be convinced that the commission are impartial. I support Deputy Mitchell's amendment and I will listen to other Members. I may comment on their contributions later.

I want to take up something which the Minister said. This is not the first time he has resorted to the ruse he used tonight. In reply to what I said earlier on this amendment, the Minister quoted the distinguished chairman of the IRTC, Mr. Justice Henchy, as exempting them from my main charge, that the overwhelming membership of the IRTC are active supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party. Will the Minister deny this? Mr. Justice Henchy, a distinguished former Supreme Court judge, cannot decide anything on his own, decisions can only be made by the IRTC who, in common with the new RTE Authority, are overwhelmingly composed of members of the Government parties. How can the commission and the Authority discharge their duties in a balanced way when that is the case? We sought to get away from that nonsense in the appointment of the local radio commission and the RTE authority which were in office until recently. We did the same in regard to appointing people to State boards. We did not regard it as a substitute honours list and although some of these people may be worthy in their own right, they may know little about the business and, partly because of this, the State sector was in a mess in 1982; every single company were losing money. We tried to change that in the 1982-87 period of Government. I appointed Mr. Paul Kavanagh, one of the leading Fianna Fáil fund raisers, to Telecom Éireann because of his business expertise.

The Chair would prefer if we did not indulge in personalities, especially those outside the House. This is a privileged Assembly and I am concerned lest we cast aspersions on people outside the House. I would prefer if the Minister — instead of officials or personalities — was blamed.

Far from casting aspersions on an individual, I should like to point out that the person I named was a worthy individual.

The Chair takes the view that neither praise nor blame should be attached to any person as one Deputy may praise while another may blame.

That ruling is reminiscent of Franz Josef of Habsburg.

It is a well known rule in this House and all my predecessors invoked it from time to time.

Occasionally we are allowed a little word of praise and I am sure that will be the case in relation to Mr. Jack Charlton and his team. Even you, a Cheann Comhairle, will not object.

There may be a contrary point of view, I do not know.

The commission have a very difficult job in presiding over an independent sector which is more expansive than the market can bear. The Minister knows that, as he had access to the independent report of the consultants, Touche Ross, which was paid for by his Department when I was Minister. The salient point is that the cornerstone of the Minister's broadcasting policy belies the facts spelt out in the report, which is the only report on the viability of alternative broadcasting. It was undertaken because there was a view in certain parts of the community that independent radio licences would be licences to print money. It was a strongly held and genuine view by a number of people and I encouraged the interim local radio commission to obtain a report. It showed that the number of local viable stations was very limited but the Minister superimposed his will to add an alternative national radio and television service. I want to repeat, in the presence of a number of Government backbenchers——

The Deputy has forgotten about the amendment.

The Minister set up Century Radio nine months ago and it is already in trouble.

Speak to the amendment.

Century Radio and TV3 are under the Independent Radio and Television Commission which is defined in the amendment. We will have the same trouble with TV3 as we had with Century. Century Radio got their own consultants' report recently and showed it to the Minister. It said that they cannot survive unless 2FM is taken off the air or turned into — what I call — a drudge station.

Let us come back to the amendment which is very confined and restricted.

Hear, hear.

Mark my words, the same thing will happen to TV3 if it is ever set up. There will be a report within months of it being set up to say that it cannot survive unless Network 2 is taken off the air. We heard the furore when the Minister tried to do what the consultants' report suggested, to close down 2FM, but public opinion prevented it.

What about the Deputy's leader on his knees in Grafton Street?

The Deputy is straying from his amendment.

Is the Minister getting agitated?

No, the Deputy could not say anything that would make my blood pressure rise.

The Minister is here by his decision and choice and I am sorry if his blood pressure is rising because of the facts, especially when we have managed to force so many of his backbenchers into the House to hear them. I have given the facts and I defy the Minister to contradict me. He took his action in breach of all the research and now he is trying to salvage something by imposing one change on top of another. They all have one thing in common — they are as ill-considered as the original proposals.

I repeat that the commission I am endeavouring to have defined in my amendment was not incorporated in the Minister's Bill but he was forced to have it within 24 hours of the Bills publication, not on Committee Stage but before Second Stage. The same Minister is here before us and that is what has Deputies opposite in trouble.

I am awaiting until problems develop, although I hope they do not——

The Deputy seems to be in trouble; he is beyond recall at this stage.

It is nice to note that Deputy O'Donoghue from Kerry has joined us for this debate.

I am always delighted to be here.

The fact of the matter is that this commission is now in place despite the Minister; he was forced to capitulate then as now. The Deputies opposite are being forced by their Whip to be here so that the quorum bells will stop ringing, to support a Bill which they know to be wrong, which they must know is wrong. They must know that the Minister's record in introducing broadcasting legislation is woeful.

The Deputy's is non-existent.

I asked the Leas-Cheann Comhairle earlier if he could recall in his long time in this House any previous Minister who, twice in a row, substantially changed the legislation he introduced before reaching Second Stage. This commission — which I endeavour to define in my amendment — was forced on the Minister, just as the overall changes in the Bill were forced on him. I say to the backbench members of the Government parties to stand by the words of Senator Cullen of the Progressive Democrats. Senator Cullen is right and the Minister is wrong. Change the legislation even further; it has no base——

There should be no reference to Members of the other House in this place.

Hear, hear. The Deputy is trying to take up the time because he knows there is no sense in what he is saying.

If Deputy Wallace wants to make his maiden speech I will gladly yield to him.

I would gladly but for the sense the Deputy is making.

Let us get back to this amendment and definition.

Deputy Wallace has been in this House at least five years and I do not ever recall his speaking on anything.

Let us not indulge in personalities, please, Deputies.

The Deputy knows nothing else but personalities.

I seek to insert a definition of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. First of all it is inconsistent that throughout this Bill and in other legislation the RTE Authority are constantly referred to as the Authority whereas the Independent Radio and Television Commission are constantly referred to as the Independent Radio and Television Commission. It leads to unnecessary repetition in section after section of broadcasting legislation, whereas, if the abbreviation was accepted, it would considerably reduce the amount of lines taken up by its long title. It appears to be a reasonable amendment which the Minister should accept. The Minister sought to relate it to the next amendment in my name. To some extent it is pertinent to that amendment is quite different. We will deal with it when we come to it. It is regrettable that the Minister does not have the grace to accept a drafting amendment of this kind even if it does allow us to highlight his appalling record in being forced to change legislation, thereby drawing attention to the negligence of his approach to legislation being introduced in this House.

I will get to Deputy Mitchell in a moment.

I might point out to the Minister that Deputy Jim Higgins was offering. Should we hear him first?

No, I do not think so, a Cheann Comhairle. If it is all right I would like to respond to a couple of points. Before getting to Deputy Mitchell I might reply to a charge which has been levelled here for the second time in regard to a hospital radio in St. Ita's Hospital in Portrane in my constituency, an allegation made by Deputy O'Sullivan as though, in some way, there was something improper about that hospital radio being on the air, or that it was in some way receiving very favourable treatment. First of all, I would have no apology to make to anybody if I was in a position to give it favourable treatment because it is doing an excellent job in relation to the staff, patients, their needs and the general work being done in the Portrane-Donabate area. I genuinely do not understand why the Labour Party continue to attack it. If Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan was familiar with the legislation with which he was involved in debating in this House in 1988, he would know that the reality of the position is that there is in that Act a specific section, section 8, the sidenote of which reads: "Contracts for temporary or institutional sound broadcasting services."Section 8 (2) of the Radio and Television Act 1988 reads:

The Commission may enter into a sound broadcasting contract with an applicant therefore for the provision of a low-power sound broadcasting service which is intended to serve only such single educational institution, hospital, or other similar establishment as may be specified in the contract.

Then section 8 (4) reads:

Sections 5 and 6 shall not apply in the case of a contract applied for, or awarded, for the provision of a sound broadcasting service under this section.

I might add that sections 5 and 6 deal with applications for sound broadcasting contracts and determination of applications for award of sound broadcasting contracts. It is dealt with in a totally different way. I must say that since St. Ita's Hospital got its licence in accordance with that legislation — which provision was specifically written in for hospitals and other educational institutions — they have been doing an excellent job of looking after the needs, interests and caring for the general wellbeing of the hospital and the staff in its environs. I just do not understand why the Labour Party seem to have such a grudge against that hospital having its radio when it is doing such an excellent job.

As far as the general question of community radio is concerned, my understanding is that the commission have now invited indications of interest from community groups around the country in particular areas which they wish to serve. Like Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan I am a keen supporter of community radio and would like to see it developed in this country as soon as possible. I emphasised that in the course of the debate in 1988. I want to reiterate it now.

To revert to St. Ita's Hospital radio, I should say the provision is specifically written in here that hospitals, educational institutions or others can make application outside of the normal type of advertising or recommended criteria with which somebody must comply when applying for a licence for a town, county or other station.

Deputy Jim Mitchell seemed to raise the whole question of creating a new method of appointing bodies. He went on to talk about the President doing it. I believe the existing arrangements are satisfactory and are parallel with the method of appointments to most State boards and bodies, as distinct from Deputy Mitchell's suggestion.

The Minister would say that, would he not?

If Deputy Mitchell was so concerned about the method of appointment of persons to State bodies he had ample opportunity to do something about it while in Government. After all he was responsible for the legislation establishing the two bodies currently under my aegis.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle——

Deputy, this is a Committee Stage. Deputies should realise they will be afforded every opportunity of contributing.

A Cheann Comhairle, at the outset of this discussion it was agreed——

Therefore is there a necessity for points of order, as such, on a Committee Stage debate?

When I made my contribution on amendment No. 1a I did not address——

I am hearing the Deputy on a point of order.

——amendment No. 3a which is being taken separately. The Minister is now addressing amendment No. 3a.

To my knowledge, there has been an absence of relevance.

In relation to balance surely I am entitled to defend accusations about the appointment of boards. One can only judge the Deputy who makes the accusation on his record. For example, two bodies were set up when he was Minister, Telecom Éireann and An Post, and I did notice any great anxiety on his part to provide for the elaborate and unusual arrangements he is proposing here. Likewise in his time in the Department of Transport, there was a very large number of bodies in existence and again I am not aware that the Deputy made such changes as he is now proposing for the numerous State boards in question.Nobody questioned the integrity of those people. At least in the case of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, for which I am responsible, the legislation sets out the categories and the range of people who may be appointed and there will be additional safeguards in regard to their independence, which apply equally to RTE whereby the members cannot be removed without the express approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

As a matter of fact, in the Schedule to the Bill the criteria set out in relation to the membership are the same as those which were set out in Deputy Mitchell's ill-fated Bill. It provides that a person shall not be appointed to be a member of the commission unless he has had experience of or shown capacity in media or commercial affairs, radio communications engineering, administration, social, cultural, education or community activities. I went one step further and extended that to include also interest in trade union affairs. It ill-becomes Deputy Mitchell to question the integrity of people and I reject completely the suggestion that the members of these bodies are appointed on the basis of political affiliation. I consider that suggestion a gross insult to the people who give selflessly of their time and expertise in the service of the country for very little remuneration.

It is interesting also that the same Deputy is so out of touch that last week he adverted to the membership of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission — he has an amendment down on it as well — in such a derogatory fashion. He seemed to be completely unaware that all but one of the members of that broadcasting complaints commission were appointed by none other than himself. I repeat that I believe the existing arrangements for such appointments are satisfactory.They have stood the test of time and I see no reason to depart from them now.

Deputy Mitchell seems to have some problem with the fact that we live in a democracy where legislation is introduced and can be altered. It is part of our democratic system that a Government listens to its people, to the general view as expressed through various interest groups and can, on balance, decide to alter legislation, and that has been done in regard to previous legislation. Let me say, however, the legislation was passed in 1988 and brought about a situation where we had about 20 stations around the country together with a national station, and it allows for other television stations. Compare that record of achievement which is being refined now in this legislation to that of Deputy Mitchell. It is fine that he asked for the Touche Ross report and that he said he would do the devil and all and remove the pirates.

I remember on one occasion Deputy Mitchell was going to take Chris Carey's station up in Rathfarnham off the air. There were protests out on the streets, children out on the streets and Deputy Mitchell ran away from the protests. He then introduced his ill-fated legislation and if I am not mistaken — if I am wronging the Deputy he will excuse me — it was Deputy O'Sullivan's speech on Second Stage that torpedoed that Bill, never to be seen again during the lifetime of Deputy Mitchell. While the Labour Party were part of that Government and were supporting that Government, pirates were allowed free rein and brought the law into disrepute. When my party came into Government we had a situation where there were about 70 pirate stations, and Deputy Mitchell has the gall to lecture me about changing my mind on legislation. I make no apologies to Deputy Mitchell or anybody else for the fact that we live in a democracy, that the Government are prepared to listen to the views of the people and change if something is seen to be unacceptable.

Finally, I want to say that I totally reject his accusations against the integrity of people who have given of their time to serve on boards. Much play was made by Deputy Mitchell about boards and the RTE Authority. In 1982, on 1 June, an Authority of nine people was appointed. We come to the Authority of 1985 when a new authority was appointed by the Government and only one of the previous members of the authority was retained; there were three women as distinct from the two that were there before. Let the Deputy not talk to me about party affiliations when I look at the names of those on the Authority. I do not want to mention names across this House.

I challenge you to mention names.

Frank Flannery.

As I said earlier, I would prefer that we should not indulge in personalities. Deputy Jim Higgins offered earlier. I will call him now.

One of the implications being made on the other side of the House is that Deputy Mitchell put down this motion for flippant reasons and that asking for a definition of the IRTC is in some way superflous. I do not think it is. We can take the RTC out of it. What Deputy Mitchell is trying to do is to focus on the opening initial and to ensure that it is put in there in block letters. Independence is the whole essence of the commission and there should be absolutely no doubt whatever about it. The whole thing hinges on the absolute integrity of the commission which should be above and beyond question of compromise or bias and above any allegation, suspicion or taint of partiality. This is reasonable and should be written into this section of the Bill. This should be done because of the very sensitivity of the role of the commission itself, because of the vast powers that will be devolved on even small radio stations throughout the length and breadth of the country and because, human nature being what it is, there is every possibility that power will be abused because in local stations decisions will be taken by people, by personalities, and there is a possibility that such people might, from time to time, be subjected to pressure. Therefore, it is vital that we have a truly independent television and radio commission. Not alone should the commission be truly independent but the stations themselves should be absolutely independent.

In this regard I would like to ask the Minister what steps are being taken on an ongoing basis to ensure that in the programme agenda the balance is correct, that the treatment of topics is correct and there is ongoing monitoring of the embryonic development of the radio stations. Are stations from time to time asked to submit to the commission sample agendas and sample programmes, and are recordings taken from time to time to see how those stations are carrying out their duties? I would also ask the Minister whether or not there have been any complaints to the commission about bias, lack of balance or lack of impartiality?

All of this helps to amplify what Deputy Mitchell is trying to achieve in this amendment to the Bill. Let me say that I happen to be extremely fortunate in living in Mayo where we have an exceptionally good independent community radio station, indeed, the most successful in the country, in WRFM. Deputies Morley, Calleary and I can testify to the fact that they discharge their remit with a tremendous amount of verve and imagination and there is no hint of partiality on the part of the people who manage this station. Would that this could be the guaranteed situation throughout the length and breadth of the country. This is what is vitally important. This is what Deputy Mitchell is trying to ensure by this amendment.

A remit given to them by the commission, on which some doubt has been cast.

I will be brief in dealing with this amendment. I understand there is only one meaning of the IRTC; "I" stands for Independent, "R" stands for Radio, "T" stands for Television and "C" stands for Commission. Therefore, the IRTC is the Independent Radio and Television Commission. I thought that would be the most common-sense approach to take to the amendment but unfortunately we flew off at a tangent and ended up on some satellite. I did not realise it was possible to put all Deputy Mitchell's contribution into the very simple statement that the IRTC means the Independent Radio and Television Commission. I agree it does not mean the Institute for Recycling Telegraphic Confusion. I think there is fairly broad agreement on what it means.

There is one aspect of Deputy Mitchell's contribution which I must counteract, in the same way as the Minister has done, and I do not wish to duplicate his performance in that respect. I would emphasise that it is my intention, as soon as everybody is ready, to get down to the basic disagreements that exist between various sides of the House as to how this matter is to be dealt with. While awaiting that moment, I am not prepared to listen to innuendo — it ill becomes a politician to make this statement inside or outside the House — that anybody who actively supports any political party isipso facto incapable of being a member of an independent board and acting honourably and with the utmost integrity. No Member of this House should state that a person who actively supports a political organisation should be deprived of serving on a semi-State body, to which he has the privilege to be appointed by a person who is democratically accountable to the people, that is a Minister. It particularly ill-behoves a former Minister of an Irish Government to make such a statement, given the fact that he exercised the right to appoint such people. I do not doubt for one moment that he exercised that right with the same propriety as his predecessors or his successors. It ill-behoves a politician of considerable experience, particularly inside this House where one has privilege, to state that anyone who actively supports a political organisation is incapable of acting with independence and integrity in the performance of their duties on any board.

I would go further and bring to Deputy Mitchell's attention that there is a Member on this side of the House, an active supporter of the party and a very dear colleague of mine who, having been appointed to the RTE Authority by a Fianna Fáil Minister, resigned that position when he was elected to this House. That person's independence and political support for the organisation he supported all his life was not compromised by joining that Authority. It is time politicians stopped putting out the idea that people who support me and you, who help us get into this House and serve the country are incapable of sitting on a board and performing with the utmost integrity.

I would like to dismiss the myth put out in an attempt to make political capital — this side of the House is as culpable as the far side — that people who are independent and have no political view, who do not support any political party, should be members of State boards, that these are the people who are non-active, who are passive, and on whom the monopoly of integrity or honour rests. That is a myth and we know it. I reiterate that it ill-behoves any Member to pursue an argument along those lines. It does no credit to himself, his party, or more importantly, the profession to which we all belong — and I do not say that in a sanctimonious way. We all know honourable people, even from Opposition parties, and I respect them for it, who are well capable of sitting on any board appointed by any Minister.

In relation to the Independent Radio and Television Commission, it was stated on Second Stage by the Leader of the Labour Party, with whom I was most surprised, and by the spokesman from Fine Gael that with the exception of the chairman — we would not dare accuse an eminent and accomplished former Irish Justice of being non-independent — everyone on the commission is tainted with some sort of political bias. As has been outlined by the Minister, there is provision in the legislation regarding the personnel who would be on the commission.Since that commission were set up everything has been done in the open and is subject to public inquiry. It goes without saying that the chairman of the commission is independent. In all cases it is the commission as a whole who make the decisions. If you smear one member, you smear them all. The commission make decisions in the same way as this Government make decisions. If we can proceed with the implementation of this legislation on that basis, we can make progress. We can have a coherent and proper debate on which there will be genuine disagreement, as outlined by the Tánaiste in the no confidence motion.

If people proceed with the idea that there are active supporters waiting to do things at the behest of the Minister or anyone else, we are trivialising this debate to a very poor L & H debate in UCD. It ill-behoves any Member to proceed on that basis, particularly when no evidence has been put forward of any wrong-doing by the commission. The only thing that could be said is that people, prior to their appointment to the commission, were active political supporters.I do not know whether that is the case but it does not matter once they do their job competently. Regardless of their political affiliations, there should be no insinuation by any Member of this House that such political affiliation prevents them from acting honourably and with integrity in the performance of their duties. I reiterate that there is a Member on this side of the House who was a more active supporter of this party down the years than anyone on any commission and when he was appointed to the RTE Authority his honour and integrity were maintained as I would expect.

I would like to respond briefly to the Minister and Deputy Cowen in regard to the role and functions of the commission. It is well known that there have been a number of applications in the office of the commission for a considerable time, which to date have not been processed. I do not seek the abolition of the radio station in north County Dublin but equality of treatment to which all the applicants are entitled. If I have any criticism regarding the commission it is their inactivity in this area. It was an integral part of the Broadcasting Bill in 1988. In another section of the Bill I will be spelling out precisely what the Minister said on that occasion. By 1990 there was supposed to be 100 frequencies available throughout the country but this has not happened. Regardless of the integrity of the commission, their ability must be called into question. How is it that the other applications have not been processed? That is a fair question. I am not attacking any one in particular but for some unknown reason this has not been done.

In relation to another point raised by the Minister and by Deputy Mitchell, the Deputy and I had many heated arguments, even more so than I am having with the Minister, regarding broadcasting legislation. He had a point of view and the Labour Party had a point of view. I felt my point was valid and it was part of the agreement by which we entered into government. We could not reconcile our differences on that occasion and that is the reason the legislation was not passed.

I fail to see how the Minister can criticise Deputy Mitchell for not taking action on the pirate broadcasting stations. In the lead up to this discussion today I went back over some of the speeches made during the 1988 period prior to the introduction of this legislation. When I pleaded with the Minister, Deputy Burke, to introduce the Wireless and Telegraphy Bill in advance of the Broadcasting Bill he refused until he got both in tandem. With all due respect he is not in any position to throw stones at anybody in this regard. He mentioned the rent-a-crowd we had on the streets of Dubline when Deputy Mitchell attempted to take the pirates off the air. Equally it could be said about the Minister that he too jibbed on that occasion; that he would not go unless he was armed with the second piece of legislation to ensure that he had the commercial local stations in position. The only criticism I have to offer on the commission is the fact that they have not yet made available to the applicants the licence which they require to go on air.

We are entitled to an answer. This is negligence on the part of the commission who have not done their job in this area.

I have allowed the debate to go off in a tangent and into many other areas in an atmosphere of liberality in allowing Members to push a point of view, a contrary point of view if necessary. We must not forget the fact that we have deviated in a very substantial and serious way from the simple amendment before us in respect of the words IRTC — meaning Independent Radio and Television Commission. This should not give rise to a wide debate of the kind we are embarking on. The Chair will have to intervene pretty rigidly and say this cannot go on. It is a very minor amendment. If we were to permit a wide ranging debate on it, the mind boggles as to what could happen in respect of a more substantial amendment.

On a point of order, in the course of the Minister's wide ranging response I did not pick up the one point he might have been expected to make. I did not hear him say whether he is accepting this amendment.

The Chair will not restrict Members in the expression of their views on this Committee Stage but expresses the ardent hope that these will be much more relevant from now on.

I very much understand your ruling and I tried to guide you in that direction earlier. However, I should reply to the points made. Deputy Cowen is always worth listening to in this House. He has again made a very pertinent contribution. Of course he is right when he says that it would be utterly wrong to exclude people who are supporters of political parties from appointments to State bodies etc. That would be absurd. It would be a built in reason for people not to join and support political parties. That is manifest and I fully accept it. In anything I have said I did not seek to reflect on the integrity of any individual member of a State board even though Deputy Cowen and the Minister used that expression. I can understand that in their defence they will seek to muddy the waters. The Minister made the point that when I was Minister I presided over a number of State bodies and made many appointments to An Post, Telecom Éireann etc. That is true. I can honestly say with my hand on my heart that those appointments were made irrespective of party political affiliation. People of political affiliation were not excluded on that basis. Indeed, I did appoint people who were Fine Gael and Labour supporters but I appointed also people who were Finna Fáil supporters. That extended from the time of my first ministerial appointment as Minister for Justice with the appointment of the prison committees.When I became Minister they were all members of Fianna Fáil.

How can the Deputy justify that?

When I appointed the new committees, I left half of the membership in place.

I have not asked the Deputy to justify it here.

The point is the Deputy raised it.

What about the sheriffs commission?

When it comes to appointments to State boards there is a very special dimension regarding the media——

That is big talk.

——because of their influence over public opinion. Is it not the stock-in-trade of the Fianna Fáil Party to be continually complaining about the influence of those they call the "stickies" in RTE. When I became Minister there was in position in RTE, appointed by the previous Fianna Fáil Minister, an RTE Authority which was overwhelmingly Fianna Fáil. One conscientious member came to me to say that he had been lobbied by the then Leader of the Opposition — now the Taoiseach — to appoint a certain person to be Director General of RTE.

On a point of order what has this got to do with the definition of IRTC? We are into hearsay at this stage within the protections that this House provides and as was so eloquently described by Deputy Cowen in his magnificent contribution.

Everything——

The Chair has consistently sought to bring Members back to the subject matter of the amendment.I have asked Deputy Mitchell to come back to that amendment. He indicated to me in his earlier remarks that he would. I must now insist that he deals with the amendment and desists from going down the road of personalities and reflections, either pro or con, on people outside the House.

I am not reflecting——

Please let us get back of the amendment.

I have replied to the debate on my amendment as raised by the Minister and by Deputy Cowen and you may not want to hear the truth.

What is the position?

Let me postulate a position. If, say, the previous Authority has been about to appoint a Director General and Deputy Dukes went lobbying them to have them appoint——

This is all hearsay.

Is the Minister denying it?

This is political anecdote.

This is political fact.

Let us get back to the amendment without further ado.

We are proceeding here to dismiss——

What about Gemma's diaries?

This is obviously hurting.

Deputy Cowen made the very valid point that it would be absurd to exclude the supporters of political parties from being appointed to State bodies——

Stick to the amendment.

——but it would also be absurd to make appointments exclusively on that basis. This would be especially dangerous when we come to either the IRTC, which we seek to define here or the RTE Authority, given that political parties, either in Government or in Opposition, would seek to use those supporters to subvert their purpose for being there, which is to maintain balance.

That is innuendo.

It is not. It is a fact.

It is not.

When I was Minister a member of the Authority informed me that they had been lobbied and pressurised by the then Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Charles Haughey, now Taoiseach. He named the person and that person was——

On a point of order, the amendment before us, which was submitted very late — I gather there was a row in Fine Gael about it — reads:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following definition:

" `The I.R.T.C.' means the Independent Radio and Television Commision;".

I do not see anything in that amendment which would give the Deputy a licence to engage in personal abuse, innuendo, muck raking and smears which Deputy Mitchell wrongly considers to be a contribution to this debate.

The Chair has persistently appealed to Members to be relevant. What more can the Chair do?

I am merely responding to the points raised by the Minister. I drew your attention to the fact that he was straying. Deputy Cowen also strayed.

We did not raise any point to that effect.

The Deputy raised the question of political appointments to these bodies and I am highlighting the record of Fianna Fáil in this respect and the danger in making them.

This is a disgrace.

Unfortunately, the Minister was allowed to go on on this amendment and I now have to reply to it.

The Deputy was the first to go off at a tangent.

The fact of the matter is this——

Deputy Mitchell, I must insist that you come to finality on this amendment. You are straying considerably from it.

I have not strayed beyond what the Minister and Deputy Cowen were allowed speak about.

I have allowed Deputies some latitude. Perhaps, I am guilty in that respect myself.

Perhaps I would be allowed the same latitude.

You have had that fulsomely, Deputy Mitchell, from the Chair.

If Deputy Calleary doubts the truth of what I am saying——

The Deputy is wasting time.

——I will invite him to meet certain members of the Authority who will tell him that the Leader of the Opposition acted improperly——

Please let us not get involved in personalities again.

That is the third time he said that.

I must insist that we do not indulge in personalities any further.

The purpose of this——

Deputy Cowen says come back to the legislation.

I would like to call for a quorum.

Any credibility the Deputy had is now gone.

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

The definition we seek to insert in the Bill is that the IRTC means the Independent Radio and Television Commission. Not only is it important that we insert that definition it is also important that we take the opportunity to reiterate that both the Authority and the commission should be truly independent.While I have no objection to the point made by Deputy Cowen that persons who support political parties can be appointed to authorities as well as boards it is utterly wrong, especially in this case, that the preponderance should come from one party. That would be wrong and defies the spirit of the legislation.

What about the sheriffs?

I do not know anything about them. The Deputy will have to ask somebody else about them.

The Deputy should.

The Deputies would know far more about the sheriffs than we would.

The Deputies were fond enough of them.

It is always nice to have an audience. I hope the House can agree to insert this definition.

That was a fine contribution.

Entirely on the amendment as listed——

Go raibh mile maith agat, a Theachta.

I sympathise with those who see in the amendment before the House a desire to move from an acronym, IRTC, to the words Independent Radio and Television Commission. A certain argument can be made in favour of doing so. I find it a remarkably rewarding artistic exercise to put myself in the position of a Minister, given the remoteness of this chance in the immediate short-term, but if I was in the Minister's position I would accept Deputy Mitchell's amendment because it addresses what I feel is a piece of bad drafting in the legislation. It is very bad in legislation to use an acronym, as I said, instead of the substantive title of the commission referred to.

If one were to make the transition from these capitals to the four words, Independent Radio and Television Commission, one could spend a great deal of time debating what is meant by the word "independent". I have sympathy for the point of view being expressed by people, on this side of the House. However I take the point being made by other Members that some following amendments come to the heart of the matter. I am thinking here of the amendments which would allow the commission to discuss and establish a broadcasting policy but the point I wish to make is that I am not convinced that the Minister could not have accepted this amendment without accepting Deputy Mitchell's mechanism for appointing the commission. Let me say on behalf of the Labour Party that while we can support this amendment which proposes that we change IRTC to Independent Radio and Television Commission — I am speaking entirely to the amendment as listed — we do not accept the mechanism for establishing that commission suggested by Deputy Mitchell. We believe it would raise a number of constitutional and practical issues. My reason for rising is to indicate the Labour Party's position and to ask the Minister why he will not accept the amendment if he holds the view that it is a minimalist drafting amendment.

A very valuable point has been made by Deputy Cowen in which he contrasts people who are involved in politics with those who feel it is a merit not to be involved in politics. I have never regarded it as a particularly good thing that one could get a round to applause by saying one was not political. It is a mark of the good citizen to be political. I support much that Deputy Cowen says about people becoming involved in politics, whatever their political point may be. Would he please use his influence with the Minister for Education to make sure that his children and mine will be able to study political and social studies in school so that we can get the involvement he speaks of?

I also agree with much that Deputy Cowen and, except that I do not agree with the highminded position he ascribed to the Fianna Fáil Party indicating that they had some high-minded notions on the issue of appointments.

I did not say that.

That was certainly the implication. The fact is that the Fianna Fáil Party are as ruthless as the Fine Gael Party when it comes to appointments, removals and so on.

The Labour Party are not bad themselves.

I have some minor personal experience of that. I have never complained about it before but I was stung by the comments of Deputy Cowen. It is inappropriate for Deputy Cowen to raise the Fianna Fáil Party to a pinnacle as though they were whiter than white. They are far from it.

I had hoped we would get away from personalities.

I was responding to a point made by Deputy Cowen and I thought it was appropriate to do so. To come to the generality of the discussion on this issue some casual observer listening to the exchanges between the Minister and Deputy Mitchell might think there was some major ideological difference, some clash of views, in the basic intent and thrust of this Bill as between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The truth is that on what matters in this Bill they aread idem. They both subscribe to the view that it is right and proper that RTE should have their wings clipped. They both support the idea of commercial independents and believe they should be assisted at the expense of the State sector. That is the reality. That is why when Deputy Mitchell was Minister progress was not made. The identical position was taken up then as now by the Fine Gael Party.

We are again getting back to the area of generalities. The amendment before me is very precise and very limited in scope, designed to provide the "IRTC" shall mean the Independent Radio Television Commission. That is the substance of the amendment. It has given rise to a wide ranging debate that should not have happened. The Chair is not blameless in that regard.

It would not have happened if the normal procedures of the House on Second Stage had been observed.

(Interruptions.)

Having had a general debate in which every Member who has contributed has been accorded liberality and a degree of flexibility on the issue, I fail to see why I should be the one singled out to be restricted within its narrow confines.

The Chair has done his best in respect of all Members.

It is because the Deputy has a persecution complex.

I suffer enough of a persecution complex to allow that to be thrust upon me.

Probably it is the hour of the night.

It escapes me why the Minister did not stand up before the debate began and accept the amendment. It would be in accordance with good draftsmanship to use a shortened form for the commission and this whole debate could have been sidetracked. That would have been the appropriate and sensible thing to do. There is a lot of good sense in the amendment and in the general context of draftsmanship one should make it as simple, clear and concise as possible. Where it is possible to devise a definition by description, that should be done. That is the purpose of a definition section. There is a long list of items where simplifications are used for definition purposes.I do not know why there should be a difficulty about accepting this one. References to the Independent Radio and Television Commission appear a number of times in the Bill and the Minister should have accepted the amendment at the beginning.

The essence of the matter is that I want to nail this myth, this nonsense, this ruse and illusion that there is any difference in the ideological structure of what is being attempted in the Bill between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fine Gael Party. If the Tallaght Strategy were still in place, as it could have been if the circumstances of the election had been different, the response of Deputy Mitchell and the Fine Gael Party on these issues would have been very different. This upfront, aggressive type of opposition which has no meaning in relation to the thrust of this Bill would not be there and there would be the same kind of shifting abstentions on votes on crucial issues that took place when the Tallaght strategy was in position. The Fine Gael Party ought to upfront enough and honest enough to admit——

Is this relevant?

Deputy Taylor will admit that his is a rather novel and, as far as I am concerned, unwelcome treatment of the Tallaght strategy. I would ask him not to pursue that any further. It is not relevant to the amendment.

It maybe unusual and unwelcome, but it is my view and that of the Labour Party and I am entitled to express it. I am a Labour Party speaker and that is our position. We are as entitled to put our position as the Government side or the Fine Gael side and to point out what the Fine Gael Party are attempting by putting in amendments like this and having them debated for hours on end. In the days of the Tallaght Strategy this kind of ruse would not have been put forward or argued at length in that way and when voting time came up the response of the Fine Gael Party would have been to abstain on it as they did then.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Taylor, resume your seat, please. I am surprised at Deputy Taylor and I would be more surprised and disappointed if Deputy Mitchell feels he should reply.

I want to say I have concluded my contribution at the moment on this issue.

I do not want to be flippant but I would like to know when you started the relevant one. Deputy Mitchell, I advise you that you will be out of order if you are so foolish or ill-advised as to attempt to reply to Deputy Taylor. It will not be relevant.

To quote Deputy Michael D. Higgins, I will be very brief.

The Deputy should be careful not to fall into my trap.

The Deputy's example would have resulted in Deputy Taylor being——

I will be very brief on this definition and reply only briefly to Deputy Taylor. It is no secret that the Labour Party and Fine Gael have very different approaches to this subject. I respect their point of view and I hope they respect mine. It is no secret that the present Minister's approach was based largely on the approach I laid down when I was Minister. We brought in the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill and word for word it was enacted by this House under the Tallaght strategy.

Deputy Mitchell, this unseemly washing of party——

It is very interesting.

It is not going to be accepted whether it is interesting or not. Deputy Mitchell, I am not going to listen any further——

Allow me two sentences to conclude.

I will allow you three if they are relevant.

We are very proud of our position.

Anois gach duine agus a chiall féin aige. Deputy Mitchell, now starting on his three sentences.

To repeat what I said, the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill introduced was word for word the one I had prepared. It got rid of the powers. The Bill setting up local radio which the Minister introduced initially was very different from the one I had prepared, but the Minister himself admitted in his earlier contribution that he was forced to reimport into this Bill the Independent Radio and Television Commission and he was good enough to say it was along the lines laid down by me with some additions by himself, so it is relevant. For Deputy Taylor's information, let me say that was achieved by the Tallaght strategy. We got the Minister to change his last Broadcasting Bill under the Tallaght strategy and we forced on him an independent radio and television commission.

Under the Tallaght strategy?

Had the Minister's Government got a majority to pass the legislation? Was that not why he had to change it?

Under the Tallaght strategy?

The little intimacies are out of order.

Did he get the legislation through the House with his own majority or with whose support when he adopted the changes we forced on him? What was the change we forced on him? The Independent Radio and Television Commission. Hence this definition. Why——

Deputy Mitchell, you made a promise and I agreed to it. You have already gone three very long sentences.

In conclusion, that is why Deputy Taylor's divisive contribution was particularly apt and allowed me to explain the achievements of the Tallaght strategy in relation to broadcasting.

(Interruptions.)

Sir, before you put the question——

Why all of a sudden is the Deputy voting against the Minister's policy if it was good?

It had gone too far.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy McCartan will have to wait until an tAire is finished.

In relation to what on the surface appears to be a reasonable amendment to change "Independent Radio and Television Commission" in the definition to "IRTC", it is just not necessary.As far as my proposals with the amendments that are coming through are concerned, the "Independent Radio and Television Commission" appear only three times in the whole Bill. It is not necessary to change it and I oppose it.

I rise on behalf of The Workers' Party lest the record of our silence on this amendment indicates for some reason that we were absent from the House. I sat through the entire debate and I find it impossible to find one thing to say one way or the other on it. However, in the interests of unity in the Opposition and in view of our fundamental opposition to the Bill, we will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 73.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Creed; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Workers' Party do not agree to the inclusion of section 1 as it is currently drafted. The Workers' Party are opposed to the Minister's proposal to cap RTE advertising and our amendment sought to restrict his attack on the promotional material resources used by RTE to promote their commercial activities. We have had a long and detailed debate on the attempts made by the Opposition to inject some reality into what the Minister is proposing in regard to the future commerciality and viability of RTE.

The efforts of Fine Gael to introduce a simple and staightforward drafting amendment did not attract a favourable response from the Minister. We have not had a good introduction to the Committee Stage debate because the Minister is unresponsive. Efforts were made by Opposition Members to try to understand the Minister's intentions in regard to this issue. I am referring in particular to future funding that will be affected by the advertising capacity of RTE once the Bill has been passed. I should like to repeat the questions I put in relation to advertising.

Why is the Deputy anxious to repeat what has been stated and adjudicated upon?

In the hope that the Minister will give an indication of his intentions.

The Deputy will appreciate that there has been acceptance by both sides of the House that the House ranged too wide in regard to the amendments we disposed of. Is the Deputy suggesting that we should proceed to do the same again?

I would be surprised if the Deputy was suggesting that. I should like to ask him to confine his remarks to section 1 which refers to definitions. We will be happy to listen to him on that section but we do not want a rehash of something that has been rejected and, as admitted by both sides, did not appeal to anybody. The Deputy should let us have something new and relevant to definitions.

Obviously, the Chair has missed my point. I was attempting to indicate the reason The Workers' Party will be opposing section 1. The section does not contain the definition of the concept of advertising which we sought to include. The decision of the House was that the section should not include the definiation and it is clear that that decision came from the lead of the Minister who considered it inappropriate. The Minister said that the reason he would not be prepared to include a definiation of "advertising", why he would like to keep matters fluid, was that there were so many issues to be teased out. He said that this would be done in section 5 (3) which states that the Minister shall consult the Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission when drawing up or amending a code relating to such matters as advertising. Will the Minister indicate his concept of consultation?To what extent will the Minister be guided by the views of the commission or the Authority?

There was great play some years ago on whether a previous Government had given an undertaking to a national organisation representing tenants to negotiate or consult with them. We were given a good lesson in the House on the substantial difference between the idea of negotiating on the one hand and consulting on the other hand. I would like an indication from the Minister of the extent to which the concept of consultation will apply. Will the Minister adopt the attitude that he will not be bound by or guided by the views of the Independent Radio and Television Commission or the Authority in regard to advertising?

During the course of the debate I raised a question with the Minister in regard to sponsorship. The Minister will recall our discussion on a particular programme about the impact and importance of section 20 (8) of the 1960 Act. I asked for guidance on the extent to which an activity or a programme that would carry reference to its sponsor would be in its entirety an act of sponsorship or whether those segments within the programme that acknowledged sponsorship would be the time computed for the purposes of advertising. That question has not been answered.

In regard to cross-service promotions, I asked the Minister why he announced on Second Stage that he intended to deal with this matter and why should the Authority be denied the right to use in an unfettered way their own resources to promote their own services. The point was made that the print media had canvassed the Minister on this. In fact, the prind media actively engage in cross-services promotion and enjoys the licence fee——

To which part of section 1 is the Deputy referring?

I am putting forward the reasons I will not be supporting section 1.

The Deputy must do that in accordance with what is contained in the section.

Surely I am entitled to address what is not in the section?

That is what is commonly called Second Stage.

I am not seeking to be obstructive or to be unduly argumentative with the Chair, but I should like the Chair to point to the relevant Standing Order.

I will be happy to give it in the hope that it will be taken as given. On Second Stage any Member is entitled to refer to what is in the Bill or what, in his or her opinion should be in it but on Committee Stage a Deputy is entitled to refer only to what is in the Bill. Taking the Committee Stage formally we should proceed through the section line by line and that is stated in Standing Orders.

I accept your interpretation and direction in regard to Standing Ordersvis-à-vis a particular amendment. Will that regime be applied when the general question is being debated as to whether a section stands part of a Bill?

The two amendments have been disposed of and are no longer part of the Bill. While the Deputy may, understandably, have regrets in that regard, he must accept the decision of the House and he must now apply himself to the section.

I find this——

You would not want to be a new Deputy or one who found it hard to understand things to know that. Otherwise, we would be here until the cows come home.

I am not prepared to take any form of disparaging remark from the Chair.

I did not make a disparaging remark.

You are being disparaging.

Unfortunately, the truth has to be told. Deputy McCartan sought my advice, I have given it and he will take it or suffer the consequences.

I have a very brief supplementary to ask——

(Interruptions.)

I am glad that some people are being entertained; I do not find it entertaining. I understood that when we are debating the general proposition that the section stand part of the Bill we are entitled to address the provisions in the section or matters excluded which we believed should have been in it.

No, that is not the case.

I cannot accept your ruling in that respect. I want to know where that is said in Standing Orders. I am asking for your guidance.

The appropriate Standing Order says that a Committee Stage debate refers to what is in the section and that it shall be taken line by line.

With the greatest respect, that cannot exclude the right of a Deputy to address the inadequacies of the section or the general proposition that a section stands part of the Bill.

The inadequacies should have been confined to the lack of definition——

We have already decided in respect of two presumed deficiencies and we now proceed to the section.

I accept that. We are now looking at the section in its totality and addressing the issue of whether it should stand part of the Bill. I am merely indicating that I am disappointed in regard to its deficiency in addressing a particular aspect and I do not propose to support it. It is to that end I am speaking.

The Deputy has already given that distinct impression and he does not have to labour it. The Chair will insist that he speaks to the section. He has some knowledge of legislation, section 1 refers to interpretation and definition of what is in the section and the Deputy will address himself to that only.

I am disappointed and unhappy with the section as it now stands because it does not adequately deal with what is required of the legislation in regard to the section in the general sense which I indicated. I am also dissatisfied with the section because fundamental questions on important areas of the legislation were not answered by the Minister. For that reason, the need for the insertions in the section is stronger. Because the debate and the Minister's responses have been so unclear and do not help me to understand the legislation in depth, I am not happy to support section 1. However, I will leave it for the moment.

The Fine Gael Party are opposed to this section because of its obvious major defects. The section outlines in some detail a number of issues ranging from the 1926 Act and the Principal Act of 1960 to the subsequent Acts in relation to broadcasting. However, the section lacks a clear definition in relation to advertising in particular and we have had a detailed debate in the House in that regard. There have been positive and constructive contributions but, unfortunately, the Minister's response has been very inadequate. He talked about leaving it to commonsense. Whose commonsense?Is it that of the Minister, the Department, departmental officials, the Broadcasting Authority or the Commission?So much has been left unsaid that the Bill is very unsatisfactory. Section 20 (8) of the 1960 Act is interesting, it says that "advertisements" shall be construed as including references to advertising matter and sponsored programmes. This is significant as it goes on to refer to programmes supplied for advertising purposes by or on behalf of an advertiser. There has been no clear definition of "advertising" from the Minister.We are expected to accept that, as a matter of common sense, someone will interpret the various Acts which have preceded this Bill but that is not satisfactory.

Various solid proposals were put before the House by a number of speakers and I hope that the Minister is in a position to give an indication to the House that he will put down amendments on Report Stage in line with those tabled on Committee Stage in relation to advertising and the IRTC. The Minister cannot ignore the points put before the House in relation to both these amendments as they are relevant and important. The public in general are concerned about this matter and the Minister should respond to this on Report Stage.

It is unfortunate that the Minister has adopted such a stemrolling attitude to the amendments because they are in the interests of unbiased broadcasting and the general public. It is very important in a democratic State to have an independent radio and television commission which can monitor our broadcasting system. The Government's response has been inappropriate and dogmatic and should be condemned by the House. Fine Gael cannot support this section and I again ask the Minister to introduce amendments along these lines on Report Stage.

If necessary, I will mention the various Acts cited in the section. The purpose of this Bill is the first question the House will have to address. The most striking feature of the Bill is the Minister's admission that there are major flaws in it. The fact that there are so many amendments in the Minister's name which pre-dated any discussion on the Bill proves beyond doubt that the Minister had erred in a major way.

I will now refer to the Radio and Television Act, 1988. The question I should like to ask is why was it necessary to introduce this Bill since it was the same Minister who, in 1988, introduced the Radio and Television Act and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act of that year.

I have already acknowledged that the Minister was successful in taking the pirate radio stations off the air, which was done under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988. It should be stated that the same result could have been achieved under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, had the Minister so desired. But the Minister needed the Radio and Television Act of 1988 to provide for the replacement of the pirate stations which was done through the granting of licences to local commercial stations. Again I am referring to the 1988 Act——

Would the Deputy please refer to section 1?

Within section 1 there is reference, between lines 5 and 12, to the various Acts to which I am referring. Therefore I think I am within the confines of the section.

The Deputy knows that, in so far as reference is made to it, it helps the Deputy to indicate that to which he is referring but he is not entitled to interpret that Act at this stage on section 1.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this is to help the House. We are in the process of making laws. If I may be allowed, in concluding, I will refer to the explanatory and financial memoranda. The community care included in the legislation has largely been ignored despite the fact that so many community broadcasting organisations have made application to the commission. Again I refer to the Radio and Television Act, 1988, referred to in section 1. In recent days I read that at long last the commission will process these applications. Therefore, perhaps my remarks in the course of the no confidence debate in the Minister had some effect after all. At every given opportunity the Minister has informed the House of what he achieved in 1988, how he brought order into broadcasting, how efficiently it was running. That contention is indeed open to question. If that were the case one might well ask why is it necessary to introduce another Broadcasting Bill two years later? Who was the capitalist in this instance? I would suggest that the Minister, having created a monster in 1988, then proceeded to try to cover up his tracks with an instrument that has proved to be faulty already, the Bill now before the House.

I am afraid Deputy O'Sullivan will have to refer to section 1 of the present Bill.

I am referring to section 1, lines 5 to 12, where all of the legislation to which I am referring is mentioned.They are also mentioned further down. If we are to go down, line by line——

Deputy O'Sullivan, I am sorry, but the fact that there is reference to those in the interpretation section does not give the Deputy licence — as he and every other Deputy knows — to embark on criticisms of a particular Act or, indeed, criticism of the Minister in respect of any such Act. There will be later sections on which that may be appropriate but it is not appropriate on this section. Again I ask Deputy O'Sullivan why can he not retain what he is understandably anxious to say and make it relevant to sections we will meet presently when he will not have the frustration of having the Chair remind him that he is not in order. That is the proposition that the Chair puts to the Deputy.

Regarding holding such comment I have to make for a later stage, I can assure you, Sir, there is no shortage of material to justify discussions on later sections or amendments to the 1. I Bill. I am now referring to section 1. I would consider that I am within Standing Orders and should be allowed to continue.

The Deputy must make relevant reference to section 1. The Chair decides, and I am now deciding, that the references the Deputy is making are irrelevant and he cannot continue making them.

With your permission, Sir, the Bill commences by saying:

An Act to make further provision in relation to broadcasting and wireless telegraphy and for this purpose to amend the Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 to 1979...

The key phrase there is "to make further provision" and anything we would suggest, say or do would be in furtherance of the Bill before the House. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest——

Deputy, later on there will be a reference to the Title. Then you can refer to what is in the Title. But at this stage, under section 1 and I am not going to remind you any more, you cannot drag in the irrelevant matter you have been doing to date.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order, in relation to the Standing Orders of this House, in so far as they refer to a Committee Stage of a Bill, at this stage the issue to be decided — amendments having been disposed of — is the question of the adequacy of section 1 which contains the major definitions. The issue that this House has to be free to consider and discuss is the adequacy of the definition section of the Bill in view of the fact that the succeeding sections are dependent on it. Therefore, it seems to me that the notion that one could, for example, have to be confined to the text of section 1 is a very narrow interpretation of the Standing Order in relation to the handling of the Bill.

The Deputy is an intelligent Deputy. He has a copy of the Bill and of section 1. If in his opinion — having examined and studied the section — it was inadequate he had ample time to apply himself to that correction. In so far as, for whatever reason, he did not do it he cannot take that licence unto himself now.

I do not intend to, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

On a point of order, I would submit this to you, with all due respect, that when a Deputy stands up in this House and tells the House that he has come to a very serious decision and is going to oppose a section — in this case section 1 — the Deputy, under Standing Orders and in common sense, is entitled to explain to the House for what reason he is opposing the section. One cannot just stand up and say I am opposing it. One has to say why one is opposing it, what is the matter with it — it falls short, there is something in it one does not like, or there should be something in it which is not included. That is completely relatable to subsequent sections of the Bill. That is the essence of a definition section. It is meaningless standing alone. It takes on any relevance or meaning only when connected to those words, which are in the definition section, which appear throughout the entire length of the Bill.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Deputies' "hear, hear" does not change the situation. The Chair will interpret what is relevant and what is not.

But with the greatest respect, the Chair——

Please Deputy Higgins, resume your seat——

I am going to.

Please resume your seat——

But the evaluation of Deputy Higgins's intelligence is not a matter for the Chair.

——and you will not interrupt. I will ask Deputy Higgins to remove himself from the Chamber if he persists.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I call a quorum?

I would say to Deputy Mitchell, good man, he can be relied on.

There are 20 Deputies here.

If you are satisfied that there are, Sir, very well, but I would ask you to check.

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

On a point of order, when the last quorum was called there were 21 Deputies in this House, and I am not including Deputy Howlin who was part way in and part way out at the time the quorum was actually called. Is it in order for Deputies to call a quorum and then for 12 of them to actually scurry out of the House? It strikes me as a grave abuse the idea of a quorum to do so.

(Interruptions.)

Sit down.

It is your job to keep the House.

Sit down.

It is a good job you are sitting down or we would see you.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Roche was in possession.

I am not allowed to speak by the little upstart from Wexford.

(Interruptions.)

Withdraw that remark.

I did not hear what he said.

He called Deputy Howlin a little upstart.

Deputy Roche was perfectly in order in inquiring——

Was he in order in calling Deputy Howlin a little upstart from Wexford?

——as to the Standing Order that governed——

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

Deputy Ferris, would you please desist and resume your seat?

I am trying to respect the Chair.

Deputy Ferris, resume your seat.

Is there any respect for the Chair?

Deputy Roche has the floor.

On a point of order——

The Deputy should sit down while the Chair is speaking. Do what you are told, Deputy Roche.

Deputy Stagg, whether you believe it or not, Deputy Roche was perfectly in order in inquiring as to the Standing Order——

He is standing while you are speaking. The Deputy is on his feet.

I draw to your attention that the Deputy is on his feet.

If the Chair was taking it that Deputy Roche was interrupted while he was perfectly in order in making a point of order——

Is Deputy Roche entitled to stay on his feet while you are speaking?

Can we all stand?

If there is concern about Deputy Roche, we will ask him to rise again.

You have put manners on him at last.

I did not. Deputy Roche is entitled to rise again on a point of order.

Are you saying that you have not yet put manners on him?

Deputies should not abuse Members of this House with impunity.

It might be no harm if we could all hear ourselves. It might be no harm if the people of Ireland could hear us.

As my wife would say, it is not the company it is the hour.

Deputy Roche was perfectly in order and maybe, in so far as we have had a few of them, the House should know that any Deputy is entitled to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that in his or her counting of Deputies present there would not seem to be a quorum of 20. It is assumed that the Deputy has done that in accordance with the Standing Order which would require that 20 Members be present. If the Deputy does that in circumstances when there is in excess of the number, then it would not be proper for him. We will assume that his intentions were the best but that he was in error in respect of the Standing Order.

On a point of order——

On a point of order——

I am quite entitled to ask you whether there is a quorum.

On a point of order——

Deputy Roche was interrupted in his point of order.

On a point of order——

Deputy Roche first, and then we will take Deputy Stagg.

The point I was making, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is that immediately the quorum was called six Deputies scurried out of this House. I regard that as a grave abuse.

(Interruptions.)

Let me finish.

You have made your point.

In regard to some words I said regarding Deputy Howlin——

You have made your point, now suí síos anois.

In regard to some words I said about Deputy Howlin which seems to have caused him offence——

(Interruptions.)

On a point of order, Deputy Roche called Deputy Howlin an upstart.

He withdrew it.

Is it in order?

You must not have been listening. If you were you must not want to hear——

As you were listening to Deputy Roche I assumed you would order him to withdraw the remark.

I could not listen while Deputy Stagg was baying.

You are very selective.

Deputy Roche has already, without any invitation from me, apologised to Deputy Howlin and if that disappoints Deputy Stagg I cannot help it.

I did not think an apology was required. I assumed the upstart he was talking about was himself, born and reared in Wexford, but thankfully moved on to a different county which he now represents.

Deputy O'Sullivan, on a matter of Standing Orders and decisions, I would draw your attention to the fact that Deputies were at a loss and anxious to know if there was anything beyond what was specifically provided in Standing Orders. I will draw to the attention of the House now that there is a decision accepted here and I quote "on interpretation section only, the mere interpretation of the terms arise".

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from decisions made by illustrious holders of this Chair which were accepted by the House and which are now accepted as orders.

I asked because I was going up and down this book of Standing Orders trying to find the Standing Order you were allegedly relying on before.

On a point of order——

It was quoted to me earlier when I was interrupted that there was something in Standing Orders. I just wanted to point out that there is nothing whatever. I accept the ruling of the Chair.

We take this section by section and traditionally we take it line by line, and I have given now a decision of this House, and having given it I will apply it. Deputy O'Sullivan on the interpretation section making mere interpretation of terms that arise.

On that point, I take it that you are quoting from the Standing Orders of the House?

And decisions of the Chair.

I would respectfully suggest, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the book you are referring to has not the same status as the Standing Orders of this House. It is there as a guide; it is a set of precedents which have been recorded and which I would suggest are completely out of order. There is but one set of Standing Orders, a copy of which I do not have in my possession at the moment.

On the matter of relevance, I will interpret it, and I have told you how I intend doing so. You know that now and you can act as you think advisable. I will interpret the matter and there will be no mistake about it.

Could I ask to which Standing Order you are referring?

I am referring to the Standing Order which gives me permission——

No. 52, in conjunction with the decision of a holder of this Chair, which is accepted by the House.

You have no function under that Standing Order. It is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is Ceann Comhairle while he sits here, except in specified orders.

Would you allow me to read the Standing Order in my own defence? It states: "A member who persists in irrelevance or repetition in debate, or who, in the opinion of the Ceann Comhairle, is speaking for the purpose of obstructing business, may be directed by the Ceann Comhairle to discontinue his speech after the attention of the Dáil or of the Committee has been called to his conduct". I do not think what I am saying is irrelevant, it is not repetitious, I am not disrupting debate and you are not the Ceann Comhairle.

Put it to the test. I am telling you that you will direct yourself to section 1 of the legislation before the House or you will suffer the consequences.

Had you afforded me the opportunity, I would have concluded ten minutes ago.

That does not arise. You will be relevant or you will leave the House.

That is a threat.

I do not think you have any right to anticipate what I am going to say.

This is outrageous. It is not a school class.

I am judging on what I have already heard.

You are anticipating what I am going to say. You are trying to intimidate me. Will you please allow me to continue? I assure you I will be quite relevant.

Allow the Deputy to make his contribution.

Are you depriving me of the right——

If Deputy O'Sullivan assures me his contribution is going to be relevant to what is in section 1 of the legislation, I will be happy to listen to him, but I must advise him that if, having given me that assurance, he does not abide by it, I will not advise him any more.

If you are asking me to promise that I will be a good boy, I am not prepared to give you that promise. What I will do is contribute within the guidelines as laid down in the rules of this House, namely, the Standing Orders. The Standing Order dealing with Committee Stage is No. 96 which states: "In Committee, a Bill must be considered section by section". This is section 1 of the Bill, and I think I should be allowed consider it.

That is irrelevant.

I agree, the document is completely irrelevant. The Standing Order goes on to state:"It shall be in order, however, before consideration of a section or sections is entered upon, to move the postponement ...". That is my protection. I was of the understanding that the primary function of the position which you hold as Ceann Comhairle, who can also be called Speaker, is to protect the Members of the House and represent our interests. That is why you hold the title of Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle or Speaker of the House. The first duty of the Speaker is to defend the rights of individual Members and I am being deprived of my right here tonight.

It is also his duty to protect the rest of the House.

You have nothing to fear. By any standard, two years is a very short period——

Deputy O'Sullivan, I am not allowing you to proceed unless you tell me you are going to address yourself to section 1.

What I am doing, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

I am going to ask you to resume your seat.

This is outrageous.

It is absolutely outrageous.If this is the manner——

If Deputy O'Sullivan does not want to resume his seat, I will deal with that.

On a point of order, what you are doing in effect is asking a Member of this House to give an undertaking in advance that what he will say is within parameters as laid down by the Chair. There is no precedent or basis in any of your books for that. It may be that if a Deputy makes a point that is not relevant or within the Standing Orders, it is open to the Ceann Comhairle or the Chair to say that what he has said is not within those parameters, but to call for a commitment or an undertaking in advance is, with respect, exceeding your authority under Standing Orders of this House.

It is gross abuse of procedures.

I am telling you and the House that I have already listened long enough to Deputy O'Sullivan to know he is not——

You know what he is going to say.

(Interruptions.)

Cuckoo-like interruptions are not welcome. I know what he has said and I am telling him he has been totally irrelevant. He has indicated that he intends to persist, but the Chair is not going to accept that. If Deputy O'Sullivan does not leave the House I will then send for the Ceann Comhairle and ask that Deputy O'Sullivan be named.

You are seeking to edit the debate rather than Chair it.

In the presence of 27 Fianna Fáil Deputies, one Progressive Democrats Deputy and about 20 Opposition Deputies, at this hour of the night would it not be better——

(Interruptions.)

I want to apologise to the backbenchers for the Minister keeping them here until this hour of the night. Would it not facilitate the speedier passage of this section if Deputies were allowed to continue uninterrupted? Would Deputy O'Sullivan not be finished at this stage?

The Chair is not concerned with speed but with what is correct.

Deputy Mitchell has already interrupted 13 times today.

My point of order is very simple. In the time I have been in this House the procedure has usually been that when a Deputy from either side of the House departs from the Standing Orders and precedent of the House, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Ceann Comhairle or chairman in possession at the time indicates such to the Deputy. As somebody who respects the Chair of the House, I have been frequently in that position. The Standing Orders and precedents you quote — and you are entitled to quote them—require the Deputy to comply with the orders of the Chair at that time, but what one cannot do is to say that from the history of the Deputy's previous contribution one can anticipate what he or she is going to say. It is not envisaged in the Standing Orders or in precedent that the Chair should address a Deputy before he or she speaks and say: "I need an assurance before I allow you to continue".

I have heard enough from Deputy Higgins.

Yes, because what he is saying is an embarrassment to you and to the procedures of this House.

Deputy McCartan, it is not the practice, nor is it accepted by occupants of the Chair, that any Member points the finger at the Chair. I would say to Deputy McCartan that if he is uncomfortable he has the remedy in his two feet: he can leave the House. The Deputy will not talk me out of this Chair. I will ask you to leave.

I think it would be helpful if we returned to the precedent that has been established of accepting rulings at the time and of the normal discourse that exists between Members. With the greatest respect, Sir, may I say it is not helped by remarks that one has heard enough or by saying, for example, that a Deputy is an intelligent Deputy — I respect the intelligence of every Members of this House — neither is it helped by drawing distinctions between new Deputies and long-established Deputies. Every Deputy is sent in here by the electorate. I suggest we go back to the procedures and that is what I am asking you to agree to.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

If Deputy Óh Uigín feels that the Chair is insulting some Deputy by calling him intelligent and if he feels that some Deputy——

I did not say that.

——has a monopoly of intelligence I cannot help that.

I did not say that.

Well, you implied it.

I would ask you to withdraw it because you know I did not say it. I asked you not to draw distinctions that were meaningless.

Let the Ceann Comhairle take the Chair.

I know what I said and I take responsibility for it.

Let the Ceann Comhairle take the Chair.

Deputy ÓhUigín is no different from any other. He is as good as the next at——

(Interruptions.)

I said all Deputies were equal. The distinction between new and long established Deputies was yours, Sir, and the compliments as to whether a Deputy was intelligent were your words, not mine. Do not attribute them to me.

In so far as I use them and if Deputy ÓhUigín——

Let the Cheann Comhairle take the Chair. Is a new precedent being set by keeping the Ceann Comhairle waiting for five minutes to take the Chair?

Deputy Stagg is not going to give me any lessons in what is courteous or not.

I am asking you to let the Ceann Comhairle take the Chair.

No. Deputy Stagg knows well that what he is saying now is unhelpful

We need a cooling off period of five minutes.

If everybody here had the same respect for the Ceann Comhairle as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has there would not be any difficulty. I have already indicated to Deputy O'Sullivan that he can proceed to deal with section 1 only by making the merest references to the interpretations and the definitions contained in it and in so far as he had persisted in disregarding that I was asking him to leave the House.

On a point of order, may I suggest that your position in the Chair for the last hour or so has been unhelpful to the debate?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

With the greatest respect, Sir, I suggest that the consensus view — certainly on this side of the House — would be that the debate would be facilitated for the 55 minutes left if the Ceann Comhairle took over.

The Chair is not going to be as personal as the Deputy and make any reference to how his presence may have improved or disimproved the Chamber. That is a matter for himself.

You commented on everybody else.

I am indicating now to Deputy O'Sullivan——

On a point of order, I think we should return to what we are trying to do and stop barracking one another. Certainly it is our opinion that Deputy O'Sullivan was not allowed to make his contribution so you could not have either misrepresented it or presumed it. I propose, if it is in order with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that Deputy O'Sullivan be allowed to continue in as best a manner as he possibly can.

A Deputy

Without interruption.

We will then see how he is performing. At the moment I would have a lot to say about the interpretation but I do not want to prejudge what Deputy O'Sullivan may wish to say.

That is not a point or order. Deputy O'Sullivan has indicated to me that his contribution was not relevant to section 1 and I have asked him to resume his seat.

He has done that. Why do you not now ask him to resume his speech?

I want to make sure that Deputy O'Sullivan has resumed his seat.

A Deputy

Deputy O'Sullivan get out, leave the House.

We have already gone through this with the High Court once.

Why do you not leave?

Deputy McCartan, the Chair is not going to take any advice from you.

Of course the Chair will not leave. The record will show that you have obstructed the debate on the Opposition side.

Deputy McCartan's interruption is not regarded as helpful as he had intended it to be. Deputy O'Sullivan, I am asking you to resume your seat.

May I raise a point on Standing Orders in relation to section 96?

You have been irrelevant to the point that I have asked you to resume your seat.

What I have observed has been unseemly and disorderly and brings no credit on this House. I want, henceforth, for the duration of the night before us that we behave in an orderly fashion and that we shall have due regard to the dignity and the decorum of this House. I do not know how proceedings in any democratic assembly can continue without, firstly, respect for the Chair. Deputy O'Sullivan to resume the debate and, I trust, knowing you so well, that you will be relevant, obedient and uphold the dignity of this House.

First and foremost I should like on a very personal note to say that we as colleagues shared the one office for a number of years. I do not think at any time——

A Deputy

That is not in the section.

——that I tried to be disruptive or ever planned to be disruptive.Under Standing Orders I feel that what I was saying on section 96 was in order.

That matter is behind us, Deputy O'Sullivan. Let us now proceed to deal with section 1, that section 1 stand part of this Bill. That is what is before us now.

I will proceed. By any standard two years is a very short period in the lifetime of any piece of legislation compared with the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, which is mentioned in section 1, which has stood the test of time, and still remains the cornerstone on which all subsequent broadcasting legislation was based; likewise the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, which is also referred to in section 1 and referred to in this Bill as the Principal Act. It could be said that both have stood the test of time, they have worn well. Compare the Minister's creation of the 1988 Bill with the Acts of 1926 and 1960 and you have a fair measure of how effective this man has been as Minister for Communications.If you need further evidence of the Minister's performance in communications let us examine the Broadcasting Bill, 1990, and section 1, which we are now discussing.

This document was presented by the Minister on 30 May 1990 and already has been extensively amended by the Minister in less than one month. The contents of these amendments were known to the Members before this Bill was actually circulated. The proper course that should have been adopted was to redraft the Bill before its circulation but the Minister refused to do this. The result is that we have a hodge-podge which we are now trying to put into some form or shape.

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy O'Sullivan, but it seems to me, quite clearly, that what he is making is tantamount to a Second Reading speech with little or no reference to the section before us. The Chair will be liberal and has been liberal with all Deputies, especially on Committee Stage, but this is stretching the imagination a bit too much.

I accept your ruling.

Thank you, I knew you would.

I would like now to refer to the explanatory memorandum which is central to this discussion. This debate has received extensive media coverage, some good, some informed and some biased, but for me the most telling observation was made on Saturday last by Dick Walsh in theIrish Press. In one sentence he sized up what the objectives of the Bill are. He stated that “It is about technological development, the control of communications such as the microwave transmission systems now in their infancy and the power which such control will vest in those who wield it”. That is the most significant statement made about broadcasting in the nine years I have been a Member of this House. That is the long-term objective and, with all due respect, all other considerations are of little importance. I will refer to that later in the debate as I have no doubt I will have an opportunity to do so on the many sections yet to be discussed.

Indeed, there will be.

Section 1, at line 15, states that "the Act of 1926" means the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926; at line 16, that "the Act of 1966" means the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1966 and that "the Act of 1976" means the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976. It would seem there is an obvious need to bring forward a consolidation Act. The section states, at line 20, that "the Authority" means Radio Telefís Éireann. Listening to this debate and the Minister trying to defend what he has done one may think "the Authority" means Mr. Burke's Authority or the Fianna Fáil Authority.

The Minister for Justice and Communications, Deputy Ray Burke.

Section 1, at line 26, states that "the Minister" means the Minister for Communications. Does it means the Minister for Communications, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Justice and Communications or the Minister for Communications and Justice?

It means what it says.

What does it mean?

The Minister for Communications.

We have to interpret what the section means. I know that the Minister is the Minister for Justice and Communications.The Minister for Communications and Justice who recently appointed the Authority, which according to section 1 means Radio Telefís Éireann, has indicated that he will recommend to the Authority that they do certain things. This would seem to suggest that the Authority will do what he wants them to do. It is my understanding that it is the function of Radio Telefís Éireann to broadcast the programmes as laid down and not programmes the Minister may ask the Authority to broadcast. It is quite difficult to interpret this section in the way the Minister expects us to interpret it. I respectfully suggest that a consolidation Act be brought forward to avoid confusion. I am totally confused by the way in which this section is drafted.

(Interruptions.)

It is quite obvious that for a change we have a quorum. That leads me on to another point which I will not make as I would be ruled out of order but it is a matter for the Government to ensure there is a quorum and not for the Opposition.

I can assure you, Sir, that you will have my co-operation, which you requested from all the Members of the House. I very much share your concern about what took place earlier this evening, which was entirely avoidable. I do not want to go over old ground now but it is deeply regrettable and I will leave it to the public and the commentators when they read the record to decide on the source.

In relation to line 20, there appears to be a real difficulty with definitions. The section states, at line 20, that "the Authority" means Radio Telefís Éireann. The question which arises is whether this means the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority, Radio Telefís Éireann as a corporate entity or Radio Telefís Éireann in terms of its staff and their activities. I will be amenable to the House if the Minister says, for example, that he will clarify this matter on Report Stage. One of the references he might make is that, given the references to the Acts of 1926, 1966 and 1976, this matter is taken care of but that would not deal with the question adequately. For example, section 1 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 states that "the Authority" has the meaning specified in section 3 (1) which states:

There shall, by virtue of this section, be established on the establishment day an authority to be known as Radio Éireann (in this Act referred to as the Authority).

Subsection (2) of that section reads:

The Authority shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to acquire, hold and dispose of land.

Section 4 of that Act deals with the members of the Authority. On the question of definition, even in its very narrow sense, we are encountering once again looseness in drafting which would seem to indicate that the Bill was hastily prepared, with the result that one is left with the Acts of 1926, 1966 and 1976 and an unspecified term, even in relation to the principal victim of the legislation, Radio Telefís Éireann.

There are a number of other pieces of language in the section that one could easily refer to. For example, subsection (2) reads:

A reference in this Act to a section is a reference to a section of this Act, unless it is indicated that a reference to some other enactment is intended.

I do not want to make life difficult for you, Ceann Comhairle, but I have to say when the Bill was introduced the definition section referred to the Bill as initiated. It could not have anticipated the Minister changing the text. Therefore the question that must be asked is how adequate is the section as an introduction to the sections which succeed and how adequate are the terms used in section 1?

We should make progress on important amendments. The Labour Party are opposed to the section because of its total inadequacy. The amendment to define "broadcasting", which we supported, has now been decided. What comes before the House for decision is whether we should accept this section. We will oppose it because of the failure to define "advertising" which is at the heart of the debate and because of the sheer sloppiness of the drafting of the terms and the failure to relate adequately to the legislation which has been referred to.

I have already given notice that the section is inadequate and deficient in certain definitions that should be added to it. I hope that will be taken note of, if and when we come to Report Stage and I table amendments. There is need for clarity.

Apart from the substance of the Bill, there is poor drafting and in normal circumstances the Committee Stage would be used to improve it. Both amendments would have improved the drafting. There should be far more extensive definitions and parts of other sections could have been better drafted if definitions of phrases had been used.

Earlier I raised specific questions with the Minister because of the absence from this section of any definition of "advertising". I have two very brief questions. The Minister will recall speaking on Second Stage about unfair practices, if not abuses, in RTE. For the information of this House and of RTE, we should know exactly what is being talked about and I ask for some indication.

The final issue related to the outdoor activities, particularly of 2FM. I refer for example to Roadcaster or the Dublin marathon. Do they come within the Minister's concept of sponsorship? Would their duration be taken into account for time purposes within the limits of advertising?The Minister correctly drew our attention to the fact that section 20 (8) of the Principal Act would seem to suggest that sponsorship of that nature can be part of the definition of advertising. Perhaps the Minister will address those remaining points in the ensuing debate. I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity of raising these points.

I will be brief and relevant to the section. Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an méid a dúirt an Teachta Michael D. Higgins faoin Údarás. The Authority means Raidió Teilifís Éireann. Má Chuirtear i nGaeilge é, agus dá mbeadh leagan Gaeilge againn ar an mBille seo, bheimis ag rá gurb é an tÚdarás Raidió Teilifís Éireann, ach is é an t-ainm atá ar an Údarás ná Údarás Raidió Teilifís Éireann. The Authority means Raidió Teilifís Éireann Authority.

It is stated that "The Authority" means Radio Telefís Éireann. It is quite important that the Minister takes this on board and amend on Report Stage. Legally it is a very inaccurate definition which would not be appropriate in this Bill.

The definition of "licensee" is explained in detail but the word "owner" is not defined. We are told that it is the same definition as in the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraph Act, 1988. I do not have that Act and I am not a good interpreter of legal documents. I should like to have the Minister's interpretation of "owner" and "premises", which also is not defined here but which is defined in the other Act. This will be coming up in sections 10 and 11. It is important that these words be clearly defined at an early stage. We should know whether "owner" means the ground rent owner or the beneficial owner. Could an open space or a handball alley be a premises? It is possible to operate from open spaces that may not be defined as premises. The Minister should explain in detail what he means by both words. I would ask him to take note of the point about the Authority.The definition is not adequate.

Section 1 calls into question the words or expressions selected by the parliamentary draftsman to be specifically defined. One wonders on what basis this is done. Does it relate to the number of times the word appears in the body of the Bill? If the word "Minister" appeared only once it would not warrant a special interpretation such as we have in section 1. The number of times a word appears is clearly an important factor. When we were debating Deputy Mitchell's amendment, the Minister said it did not warrant a specific interpretation because he said the expression "Independent Radio and Television Commission" appears only three times.

It is more than that at the moment but in its amended form it will appear only three times.

It appears in four places on page 4 of the Bill.

I clarified that.

The Minister is anticipating what may happen to later sections. It is not correct to say the expression appears only three times. The Independent Radio and Television Commission are given a clear expression in the Bill without an interpretation provision having been applied. Surely section 1 must be defective by reason of the fact that the Bill is using an abbreviation for the Independent Radio and Television Commission without dealing with it in section 1. To be specific, I refer to page 4, line 29, where the Independent Radio Television Commission are referred to as "the Commission". I presume that when the Bill mentions "the Commission" it means the Independent Radio and Television Commission. The word "Commission" appears at line 44 on the same page and at line 9 on page 5. The Bill uses the expression "the Commission" at least three times.

Would it not be appropriate, essential and necessary to have within the interpretation section the provision that the expression "the Commission" means the Independent Radio and Television Commission if that is what it means. Some clarification on that point is called for. Either we have interpretation provisions or we do not. I find it strange that the Minister was at pains to point out, on Deputy Mitchell's amendment that it was necessary to put in any interpretation clause for the Independent Radio and Television Commission, yet in the Bill itself on at least three occasions an abbreviation is used. Why is he using an abbreviation if he feels an abbreviation is not necessary at all?

It has always puzzled me that the first section of many Bills contains this interpretation clause in which many expressions are set out and interpreted, yet later on in a Bill one finds that an expression which logically ought to be in section 1 is taken out of context completely and put into a different section altogether. For example, in this Bill we find that on page 10, section 16 (3), an interpretation is provided where the term "encrypted programme transmission" is given a special definition. For the life of me I do not understand why that definition is not included with all the rest in section 1. Why is one definition taken out and put into a different section altogether?There ought to be a logic about these things.

Following from the point Deputy Taylor made, I pointed out when discussing the amendment I tabled that there are two commissions in the broadcasting field. There is the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Independent Radio and Television Commission and referring to "the Commission" can be confusing especially when in subsequent amendments another commission is proposed by The Workers' Party, a commission to look into the future of broadcasting. It becomes very confusing.

This Bill is, as indicated in the Title to the Bill, a Bill to amend, among other things, the Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 to 1979. Section 4 of the 1976 Act provides that the following section shall be inserted:

18.A — (1) Not later than the 31st day of March, 1977 there shall be established by the Government, on the request of the Minister, a body to be known as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and which is in this Act referred to as the Commission.

It highlights the sloppiness of the way the legislation has been drafted by the Minister. There is a requirement to elaborate on this definition section on Report Stage to distinguish between the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the Independent Radio and Television Commission and any other commission who may be set up to look into the future of broadcasting.

I will be brief and try to relevant to the Bill. There has been a long debate on the definition section, which is the first section of the Bill, and many Deputies might find it unusual that the definition section, which often in Bills is passed on the nod, is assumed to be all-encompassing.That is not always the case. We had a very long debate on the Child Care Bill on the definition section, such is the importance of definitions for the whole import of the Bill. The contributions you, Sir, have heard over the last hour have highlighted in very great detail the importance of the definition section, first, seeking that all the terms that may be ambiguous and may need clarity or might be confusing would be spelled out in clear detail at the beginning of the Bill. Many Deputies have found ranges of anomalies where phrases, words and sentences have occured later on in the Bill that are not defined and would simply be a cause of confusion should the Bill be enacted as it is drafted currently. The other difficulty with definitions is in relation to the omissions from the definition section. Phrases that occur are simply omitted altogether from it.

For both those reasons the case has been strongly and irrefutably made that the definition section as drafted and as before us could not be supported. The Minister must accept those ponts at this stage and I ask him to say if he is going to insist on pushing the Bill tonight that at least it will come back on Report Stage with his own amendments to encompass definitions of phrases that are omitted and give clarity to phrases that are included but are obviously ambiguous.

The very first definition included refers to the Act of 1926. One is struck by the fact that so many years have elapsed yet this legislation has been found worthy of that passage of time without serious amendment, except for the Radio and Television Act, 1988.

Surely in 1960 there was revision.

The comparison between the longevity of the original Act and the short-lived——

It is not bad.

Is the Minister allowed to barrack Members who are trying to make a contribution on a very important definition section?

The Chair will retain order for the Deputy. The Deputy was in error in accusing the Minister.

Sorry, I was talking about the Minister for Energy, not the definition of the Minister as defined in the Bill.

An tAire le fuin-neamh.

It is a matter of interpretation.

True. I am drawing a comparison between the longevity of the original Act of 1926 and the short-lived Act of 1988, which needed amendment so recently. I do not want to be repetitive. I want to lend weight and support to two Deputies who have referred so far to the difficulty in relation to the fourth definition, the definition of "the Authority" meaning Radio Telefis Éireann. Deputy Mac Giolla explained as Gaeilge the difficulties that would arise had there been a leagan Gaeilge of the legislation and under-scored and underlined clearly that there is a need for an improvement in this section lest there be a misunderstanding subsequently. I do not want to touch on the many points that have been made, but for all those reasons there is a very clear and cogent case made for the Opposition to take an opposing line on this section.

Let me say just a few sentences in elaboration of the point introduced by myself and extended by Deputy Mac Giolla. I will be perfectly satisfied if the Minister indicates this can be clarified on Report Stage. There is an additional difficulty in relation to the use of "the Authority" in this section where reference is made to the 1960 Act. The 1960 Act has been succeeded by the establishment of, let us say, Údarás Raidió na Gaeltachta who are the Raidió na Gaeltachta Authority. There are several problems involved in relation to the question of drafting this Bill. When this Bill is translated into Irish it will be the definitive legal document. We have been down this road before now. In the Rape Bill the word "rape" was translated inadequately as acts of violence against women, the assumption being that you could not have rape other than against the female sex. I am not interested in that but I am interested in this question of "the Authority". It is absolutely important that the Bill specify in the later porvisions upon whom the burden of responsibility for managing or for the capped advertising will fall? If the Bill is left as it is, things will be very vague.

My simple question is whether it refers to those persons referred to and defined in the 1960 Act. For example, does it refer to section 4 of the 1960 Act, which specifies the method and procedure of appointment of members of the Authority?Does the burden of this proposed legislation fall on the members whose method of membership, whose form of holding office and whose method of removal from office are specified in the 1960 legislation? Does it fall in some other way on RTE as a body of workers or does it fall on an individual decision-maker?

In the basic Act establishing RTE this question is not addressed and there is no provision in that Act for the devolution of responsibility, and there is no such linkage established either in the Act of 1976. The linkage between the 1960 Act and the 1976 Act does not afford the Minister an answer to the question that is being put.

Most of the issues that were raised, particularly the questions raised by Deputy McCartan, fall for consideration in a later section, in particular sections 4 and 5, and I will endeavour to answer the queries raised on those issues when we come to the sections in question.

I am happy with that.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Mac Giolla on the definition of owner, "owner" is defined in the 1988 Act as:

(a) a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who, whether in his own right or as a trustee or agent for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the premises or, where the premises are not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if they were so let, whether the interest of the person is held solely jointly or severally, or

(b) a lessee or occupier, whether the lease is held or the occupier is in occupation solely, jointly or severally;

"Owner" has the same meaning-definition for this Bill.

In relation to the general drafting of the legislation, I do not accept the Deputies' points on the drafting and they can be assured that my officials have fully satisfied themselves on the appropriateness of the various references with the legal advisers of the Attorney General's Office in the normal way and we have stamped copies of the legislation. In relation to the use of the word "Commission" as an abbreviation, it is used where it is clear from the context in which it is being referred to, as is the case here.

In relation to the point made by Deputy Higgins and again by Deputy Mac Giolla on the Authority Radio Telefís Éireann, I am assured that in the 1966 Act both of these terms are interchangeable, but I would prefer to come back to the point and clarify it for the Deputies at a later stage.

That is perfectly satisfactory.

I want to take the Minister to task on one aspect of his reply. He said that the legislation had been carefully considered by the parliamentary draftsman but we know from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that short cuts were taken and that the Bill was not circulated in the normal way. Is the Minister denying what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said?

We are getting away from the interpretative section.

We are. The Chair says so Deputy. Please let us have no argument about this.

Is that an infallible ruling, Sir?

That is enough of that. We have had quite a lot of that all evening and we are not going to have any more now. If the Deputy is going to speak he will speak on the section.

I am speaking on the section, Sir. There has been far too much interruption from the Chair throughout the day and it is about time the Chair was even-handed in the handling of the debate.

Please, Deputy, do not reflect on the Chair in that fashion. I will not take it from you or anybody else.

Sir, you can check the record for yourself.

Deputy Mitchell I resent deeply your imputation——

I resent deeply that this side of the House has been hassled.

I will take no more insolence from the Deputy in the matter.

I was replying to the Minister. The Minister claimed during his recent contribution — which was not interrupted — that this Bill had been carefully drafted by the parliamentary draftsman when we know that not even the normal rules of circulation were observed; there was no memorandum to Government in the normal way, and the Minister for Energy can confirm this. They were sold a pup.

Casting a reflection on the work of the parliamentary draftsman is disgraceful.

I am asking the Minister to confirm that this Bill was not circulated in the normal way.

What was your excuse that you never saw it?

(Limerick East): He will be back in Fianna Fáil shortly.

There is no need to stir up disorder again. I ask Deputy Mitchell to be good enough to apply his mind to the section before us.

The omissions in section 1, the definition section, have all the hallmarks of the rushed job that the Bill is. Several definitions are omitted and there is repetition throughout the Bill, which is sloppy draftsmanship, but that is no reflection on the parliamentary draftsmen because, if they are asked to produce Bills in a matter of hours and without proper consultation or proper cross checking, that is not their fault. It is the fault of the Minister who tries to rush his fences and fool his colleagues in Government and make a mess of it. This is not the first time he has done this. We had a similar situation when he introduced a Bill in 1988.

On Report Stage we will be tabling further amendments seeking to clarify the meaning of the word "commission" and to distinguish between the IRTC and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and also to distinguish between the Raidió na Gaeltachta Authority and the RTE Authority, and a further definition of the word "advertising".

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 68.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Howlin.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Questions declared carried.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—This Act (other than section 3) shall not come into effect until such time as the Commission (established by that section) has published its report, and a motion approving of the report has been passed by each of the Houses of the Oireachtas.".

Top
Share