Deputy Michael D. Higgins was in possession before Question Time.
Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on 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.".
—(Deputy McCartan).
May I say first, Sir, that the Minister of State's proposals are acceptable.
I hardly thought it necessary to put it to the House. I presumed the Whips' agreement was a foregone conclusion.
Before Question Time I had been setting out the framework or case for amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan in relation to the functions of the commission. My appeal to Members on all sides of the House was to tease out what might be construed to be broadcasting policy. I might say that these are not my views alone. Previously, I referred to a chapter "Cable, Satellite and the emergence of Private TV in Ireland; from public service to managed monopoly". That is the title given by Professor Desmond Bell and Niall Meehan in their contribution to Media Culture and Society published by Sage in 1989. The curious side of it is that they make direct reference to the issues that we have been discussing and which are appropriate for consideration as to what a commission might in fact establish. For example, in relation to page 108 of that book, the title of which I have referred to, there is a comment which quotes Mr. Vincent Finn, the Director General of RTE. They are quoting from an interview in The Irish Times of 29 May 1987. Mr. Finn has this to say — and they are his words and not mine, not the words of the Opposition. It is interesting that it was in 1987, before the 1988 legislation, that he said that:
Broadcasters like ourselves who are funded by a combination of advertising and licence income will be forced to seek either direct state intervention or an increase in licence fees in order to maintain our level of service. The alternative is to curtail the service and to concentrate on commercial programming to the exclusion of those elements of our output which are designed to achieve cultural, educational and social goals. I think we would be the poorer as a result.
Mr. Finn said that in 1987 before this legislation, before the original proposal that would have taken part of the licence fee from them, before the original proposal that would have changed the nature of 2FM, now particularly, because of what we are left with, as I understand it, should we get as far as the amendment in the name of the Minister. He said it before his advertising was capped. This is not therefore a suggestion by just an Opposition TD; it is, very interestingly, the comment of the Director General of the national television service before the last legislation. It is interesting in that regard.
I said earlier, I felt that among the technical matters that a commission might review would be the Minister's relationship to the use of MMDS as a piece of technology. I was in this House and the Minister and I had some courteous and informative exchanges about broadcasting policy over the last several years. I was here when he promised a paper on MMDS and how it would work out. His thinking has changed since then. Was it that there was a policy change or was it that there was a shift in estimation? It is not of no consequence, Sir, because it did affect the bidding for the TV 3 franchise. Some people bid for it when they thought it was an MMDS system. Now the terms of the contract have entirely changed. There are people saying they would like to come back in and bid again because the goal posts have shifted. The same authors that I have referred say something very interesting in the same text to which I referred but this time at page 110:
The Minister plans to distribute the new service (and up to ten other non-Irish channels) through Multi-point Microwave Distribution Systems (MMDS) to those without cable.
The cable companies will have a "must carry" provision forced on them by the Government in relation to the new "Third" channel. RTE, however, will not have guaranteed access. MMDS equipment will have to possess dual ports permitting switching to a conventional television aerial for off-air reception of RTE. While MMDS has been used in parts of rural Canada the Irish version will be the first national MMDS delivery system.
Taking up the Minister's point that there were no issues to be resolved after 1980, is not a unique use of MMDS for the first time as a national system an issue that arose, and could not the commission, for example, discuss MMDS in combination with other forms of technological broadcasting and so forth? They continued:
The development of the MMDS-delivered third television channel, like that of the cabled satellite channels and DBS plans, seems to be the product less of any identifiable consumer demand than of private enterprise seeking a guaranteed profitable return through state patronage and `managed monopoly'.
I used the phrase "managed monopoly" before Question Time and I said that the choice was not simply, for those people who are involved in this broadcasting debate for some time now, between some kind of old fashioned defence of public service broadcasting versus the market. That is in fact what the Minister is doing. He is using the mechanism of the State, through legislation like this, to create conditions of managed monopoly. He is interfering with the market place. Let those people who are on the right who feel there is something intrinsically wonderful about the market place and so on know that they are not talking about the market defining anything. One of the Minister's remarks was, I presume, a reference to people like me and many others who are very proud to say that we have ideological views. Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan made the very good point back to him to say that he hoped the Minister did not think or suggest that his own views were non-ideological.
The Minister's pursuit, for example, of a set of options to deliver a plurality, as he says, of competition, in which the competitor does not exist yet, that takes the form of attacking a State funded service, is a profoundly ideological position. Let us put it like this. What ideology is, in any sense, is a set of interconnected views and values systematically generated by the socially historical circumstances of time. I happen to be a socialist. Many of us over here are. We have a particular ideology. There are other people who say that we are wrong to regard the economy as an instrument for the attainment of some human purposes, that the economy must be in a stand alone relationship and so on. That is an ideological position. There is nothing wrong with having an ideological position.
I want to emphasise one point, because I will not stray from the amendment, I guarantee you, Sir, so as to make progress. It is that the Minister's position in his sixth intervention is not a neutral position and there is no point in going down that bogus road of suggesting that because one is going to use the State and its legislative process to assist the market place through a set of interventions that this is somehow or another a superior non-ideological position to those who have the courage to say that the modes of production that exist in any system at any particular time in any society determine and produce different views of the world and come through a philosophy in politics and make their way into broadcasting. These are just facts.
There are just a few points more I want to make in relation to why I think the commission is important in many senses. If I were involved in one of the radio stations that are in difficulties I would feel the commission could and should go into the very interesting reasons. Remember that I had before Question Time set up the argument and said that the whole world communications order, the European communications order and this national communications order is one that is involved in a crucial choice. We are, I think at the end of broadcasting as we have known it since the 1920s. I, for example, am not taking the position that we should have the model of broadcasting that we had in the 1920s in its straight public service broadcasting role, given its tremendous contribution. What we are saying is that we need a redefinition of public broadcasting in a mixed system. If it is to be mixed, the problem has not been at the adaptable public broadcasting end of it; the problem has been on the private side. Surely the commission would be entitled to review why it is that the private side has had difficulties. The truth of it is — and I go back to my original assertion — that there are two quite different ethoses from which people come into the new alternatives, as they are called, to RTE. One is an ethos of capital investment and speculation and the other is an ethos of broadcasting. One can have all the money in the world and one can fire it at the public through the aural and visual media, but if one has not an ethos of broadcasting one is not in fact able to secure the people who listen to it and sell advertisements.
I am glad the Minister has given us new figures this afternoon. Although I would quibble with some of them, they are interesting. It would also be interesting to know who would watch the new station. It is a very good question for those of us who are not broadcasters but who are in here as elected representatives. It would be very fascinating if Deputies from all sides of this House were to stand up during this Committee Stage debate and say what people at their clinics told them they want TV3. I wonder how many backbenchers have seen people clamouring into their clinics saying they desperately need a third commercial television channel. Have they said their children are not able to sleep at night worrying about commercial radio? People come to elected representatives and speak about community radio and the importance of choice. They say they want a pluralism of choice, but they want it within an adapted model of public service broadcasting that will be able to accommodate, if necessary, competitors in the marketplace. This again raises the question of the commission. These are the issues the commission could deal with.
There are other problems which are very real, and there is no point thinking they do not exist. Suggestions have been made about the migration of advertising revenue. One side said the capping of advertising will release capacity for the print media and will release capacity which will be more or less held in wait for an alternative to the visual media. I have said there is not a scintilla of evidence that this will happen. Equally, it has been said from this side that there will be migration, in the short term, of advertising revenue, with a knock-on effect on employment; but it has been said on that side that that is not so. A commission, as proposed in this very reasonable amendment, would be able to evaluate the strength or weakness of both sets of assertions. The benefit would be good broadcasting strategy, jobs would be made secure and arguments answered. Why then the haste? Why not answer these questions?
The present hiatus in relation to Teilifís na Gaeltachta is one of assertion and counter-assertion. A report from Údarás na Gaeltachta gave a set of figures and said it would be possible to set up such a station. I presume the Minister for Communications has been in contact with the Minister for the Gaeltacht and said that some questions arise here. The Minister for the Gaeltacht has probably said they cannot make a decision on the matter. This issue must be resolved. There is no point leaving it in the realm of rumour, assertion and counter-assertion. The case I have made already in relation to Teilifís na Gaeltachta is the view not only of myself, as spokesperson on the Irish language, but also that of the Labour Party, a view which was indicated very clearly from the beginning. When I was a member of Comhcoiste na Gaeilge, the committee dealing with the Irish language, counter cases were put forward.
There is another issue that could be considered by the commission, that is the consequences of changing the slots for advertising and the effect on employment. For example, if advertising time is reduced from seven and a half minutes to four and a half minutes, is it true, as the advertising industry had said, that the effect will be that air time will be more expensive and fewer commercials will be shown? Was I right yesterday in saying there will be a positive disincentive to the making of commercials in relation to the Irish language? Would it be possible, in the atmosphere I described before Question Time, in allowing a 10 per cent discount for advertisements with a portion of Irish and over 30 per cent discount for advertisements that are almost completely in Irish, to stay in business and sustain your position under the new conditions of competition, with capped advertising revenue and more limited time? Again, these are issues that can be considered in terms of the progress we make.
I spoke earlier about the big difference between the beginning of the eighties and the nineties and the capturing, as it were, of the process of making advertisements. A question we could reflect on with good purpose is the one of expensively made commercials which are foreign made. As the advertisment is shortened, the live actor is eliminated from the longer slot and as a result the dice is loaded in favour of the animated advertisement, which is dominated by the multinationals. Therefore there would be a net job loss. There is also the question of low cost commercials, the question of time and the question of short-life commercials. It will be very difficult to find air time for those commercials. Quite frankly, many companies will not be able to afford the new rates. There are other matters such as the small facility companies, which will also experience difficulties.
Having developed an expertise in the last eight years, the customer has been battered and therefore we are really talking about the migration of the newly developed skills. That brings me to a point on which there could have been a submission to the commission. It is important to be very frank about this and to say that in relation to the commercial employment impact of this legislation there is no evidence that the Industrial Development Authority had been consulted. Yet the Industrial Development Authority were in direct consultation with many former employees of RTE in setting up "stand alone" projects and also in the development of a new technical services division within RTE. It would be very valuable to have their opinion and see what strength there is to the different arguments.
There are a few other points I wish to make, which I summarised before Question Time. I listed the issues the commission could and should review. An interesting point for any Minister holding the portfolio of Minister for Communications is that what is needed is flexible legislation. In every parliament in Europe the speed of the technological revolution is far outstripping the capacity for legislative response. For example, it is written in the Commission documents of the European Community that there is great difficulty in drafting directives dealing with new technology, which is moving so fast. This commission would not have the effect of delaying matters but they would be able to generate a framework of legislation and would have the capacity to respond quickly to changes that are taking place, both internationally and at European level. They would also, within whatever legislation would emerge, be able to quickly adapt and initiate adaptations in the context of European directives. They would be able to prepare us for the two forthcoming international conferences, one on radio and one on television, and we would be able to define a policy in that regard.
There is an interesting point which that commission could bear in mind in the context of the position in which RTE now find themselves. RTE were given a gift of a concept called market contestability. That is the concept outlined in the Stokes Kennedy Crowley report on RTE. The ethos at the time liked it. Stokes Kennedy Crowley are part of Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co., a company which examined the BBC and came up with a concept for British broadcasting of market contestability. As RTE have shown that they could contest in the market place, why use State legislation to defeat Stokes Kennedy Crowley's market contestability? Deputy Mitchell is not here but I made reference earlier that when Ireland had the capacity in relation to the direct broadcasting satellite in the late serventies it was sold to Atlantic Satellite, who within six months had sold it on to Hughes Corporation, who own 30 per cent of the direct satellite capacity for Japan. The people who are operating the international Hughes communications empire said that their interest was in declining state's communications systems all over the world and that they were interested in linkages to make money out of international communications networks. That argument is for another day. As sure as night follows day, I expect in the lifetime of this Dáil that proposals will come forward for the privatisation of Bord Telecom and the whole issue will fall neatly into place.
It is important to describe what is taking place. It is the same as it was in 1982. We are speaking of the integration of the national domestic communications sector into an international marketplace for culture and for media hardware and software. If we damage the stations' capacity to develop a national broadcasting station, to sustain, change and innovate a national broadcasting ethos, we will have done a great deal of damage. The commission could review those later sections in the Bill that speak of standards.
In relation to dignity, reputation and so on, it is important to have the rights updated so that the citizen should be able to defend his or her name. I am not sure if the concepts used — perhaps the Minister will tell me — exist in any other European legislation. They are so restrictive as to be bordering on setting up an atmosphere of self-censorship on the makers of programmes. I made the assertion before Question Time that I doubt, if this legislation were passed in this way, that programmes such as, for example, "Spitting Image" could be made on television or that a satirical radio programme could be made without people looking over their shoulder. If this is wrong it would have been very interesting to see the working through of the sections that deal with standards and to review how they worked out.
There are a few small points that are important in relation to what it is all about. If the commission were established it would be able to take up a debate that is going on in every other country in Europe and all over the world. I made reference earlier to the McBride report — the full title is the Report of the International Commission for the Study of Communications Problems, published in 1980 by UNESCO. At the beginning of that report there is a statement which reads as follows:
with the coming of a new world communication order, each people must be able to learn from the others, while at the same time conveying to them its own understanding of its own condition and its own view of world affairs. Mankind will then have made a decisive step forward on the path to freedom, democracy and fellowship.
That report made 82 recommendations. It was for the building of an extended form of participatory democracy through radio. How can they induce the State to diminish public sector broadcasting and at the same time reach into the marketplace to distort the conditions of the marketplace so that the competitor does not have to stand alone? How can that be seen as a progressive broadcasting policy? The great advantage, in relation to what is proposed in this amendment, is that we would be able to assess this legislation's contribution to the issues that have to be involved. That is very important.
This is a short amendment and speaks about reporting to this House. I was a Member of the Seanad in 1973. I remember the 1974 Broadcasting Bill being introduced by someone who was then a colleague, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, and we had a debate on broadcasting. While I have been a Member of this House one issue I have never heard debated — which is very interesting — is the print media, reference to which had been made regularly in the Minister's six interventions. It would be very interesting if the Minister told me if he shared my concerns about the existence of monopoly in that media. I happen to be one of those citizens who has looked with deep regret at the conditions of near monopoly that exist in relation to the print media in Ireland and who knows that control in that media is exercised by somebody who does not live in Ireland regularly but who visits here occasionally. Perhaps that is what the people mean by plurality of choice. I know that in the newspaper group to which I referred — this is in relation to the Minister's plurality — on the occasion of the visit of President Reagan a note was pinned up in the office saying: "Nothing negative while the President is here". Which President, one might say? The owner, the president of Heinz?
In relation to conditions of plurality of choice, what we have in relation to the print media is far from satisfactory and we are beyond time in discussing this here. I would like to see legislation that would set up a commission which would review the market conditions and the plurality of choice that exist in relation to the print media. It is perfectly reasonable to say on legislation such as this that there would be a commission that would prepare a report setting out options, assessing the alleged implications, the real consequences, the choice down the road, the context of new decisions that had to be made on the European level and so forth. There is no point in saying that to do this is to think and that thinking involves review groups, commissions and so on and to say that all thought is finished, that the time for action has come.
It has regularly been pointed out in this House that Deputy O'Sullivan and I were the people who had ideological hangups in 1982. I was present at those talks. There were discussions about broadcasting options. I repeat what I said — and it is the only part I have repeated — that when the last of the 14 points went into the Programme for Government, which was agreed by the Labour and Fine Gael parties, it was not a defensive proposal about public service; it was about the orderly development of community radio, using the existing institutional structure we had through public service broadcasting. One party in that Coalition decided to go ahead with what could be seen as an independent commercial partnership and we were simply honouring the principles that had been agreed between our two parties. A great deal of thought has gone into broadcasting in the Labour Party. We were among the first parties in this House to publish a policy document. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate on these options.
I have not made a single personal reference to the Minister. I speak about the Minister of the day in saying that these are options that face a Minister — whoever that Minister may be — at any particular time. I disagree with him in relation to his last intervention — it can hardly be sustained — that there might have been a time for all this at the beginning of the eighties "but I am now going to act and nothing can stop me". It is rather like the old rural Ireland do not hold me back argument. There is a host of implications and there is a whole range of areas and issues, ranging from questions of ownership and control to editorial functions, to access to public responsibility and accountability, the evolution of technology, the relationship between the different parts of the system and so on, that need to be addressed.
Nothing has been published on the question of how a mixed broadcasting system should be financed. In the absence of a strategy or policy on the financing of a mixed system of broadcasting, the first option is go for a licence fee but if this is dropped the next option would be to rely on advertising alone. I want to be as constructive as possible in this debate but to say that by redirecting the attack from the licence fee and 2FM towards advertising, when the effects would be obscured, the Bill has been made palatable is like saying take the market away from a company and it will not be too obvious to the public that jobs are being shed.
Getting the Minister to go from draft one to draft two was not an achievement. I suspect that this was motivated more by the initial public reaction than by a desire to have a thought-out broadcasting policy. The truth is that the second form of this legislation, when thought out in terms of its implications for RTE, is far worse, given its capacity to deal with programming and new communications technology and sustain employment, and much more important, given its capacity to handle creativity and innovation.
Two elements always need to be considered when it comes to drawing up a national broadcasting policy. First, there is the question of ownership — be it a State model, a private commercial model or a mixed model. Broadcasting is about creativity mixed with a capacity to be critical. It is about people being able to look at themselves critically and take control of change rather than be the victims of change as they are in pure market-led commercial broadcasting. What creativity requires is space for the new programme maker, film maker and the person who wishes to make a documentary and so on.
If anyone doubts what I have to say he should look at the literature on American broadcasting which indicates that the time available for news coverage is shortening, that the structure of current affairs on the North American Continent is changing and the way in which it compares with the European model. Equally they may also look at the status of the documentary in both systems. If they do, what they will find is that the greater the commercial pressure the more instant the news has to be and the more controlled the coverage of current affairs has to be, with the result that the documentary occupies less time.
Those are the facts. With respect, I do not accept that these issues have been thought out or that thinking has been exhausted. Our argument and that of The Workers' Party in 1982 was in favour of the establishment of a commission. When we tried to resolve the difficulties between the partners in Government at that time we argued, in order to get the legislation right, that a White Paper on broadcasting setting out all the options should be published. The point I am making to the Minister is there would be nothing undignified about accepting the amendment given that all it seeks to do is allow the legislation, the arguments which have been brought forward and the defences made to be reviewed and looked at.
There are many issues on which there are no divisions between the parties, such as whether the national communications system can be retained within the control of the citizens. The Minister in rejecting the amendment is in effect saying that he has got the legislation so right there is nothing left for him to look at and that he must go ahead. However, the fact is that the Bill, Mark I, is not the same as the Bill Mark II. If the Minister wishes to drop the two sections which attack the licence fee and 2FM, why will he not accept the suggestion from the Opposition that the legislation should be held off until such time as we have an opportunity to examine the implications of the Bill? I suspect reservations would be expressed and positive contributions made on the Government side of the House should the Minister agree to adopt that strategy.
This is the third amendment to come up for consideration since the debate began yesterday morning. When we consider that the debate on the Constitution Bill in 1937 lasted only three days it does not say much for our succinctness that we have only reached the third amendment. Perhaps the reason for this is that the Opposition are trying to filibuster the debate and whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. The amendment before us states that the Bill should not come into effect until such time as the commission have published their report and a motion approving the report has been passed by each of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Subsection (2) of amendment No. 3 sets out the matters the report of the commission should refer to.
On 29 May, in his contribution to the debate on a Private Members' motion, Deputy Mitchell suggested that an independent review group be set up to report within six months, whose terms of reference should include the future funding of RTE and alternative national, local and community radio and television services and the effect on the print media. Since the debate began Deputy Mitchell has been at pains to remind us that the Department was a hive of activity during 1982-87 when he was the Minister for Communications. He also stated that substantial research and preparatory work was carried out on the forerunner of the 1988 Broadcasting Bill. He also remarked that it would be better to do nothing about the blatant flouting of the law at that time. Quite frankly, I find it hard to understand how a former Minister for Communications, who on his own admission initiated research and preparatory work on legislation to deal with that fiasco, should now come forward with the proposal that an independent review groups should be set up at this stage to report within six months.
The Fine Gael Party have failed to say in this debate what their policy is. At present we are discussing the merits and demerits of the Government's policy. At least that much is up for discussion in this debate. My interjections have been for the sole purpose of finding out precisely what is Fine Gael policy. Deputy Mitchell, their spokesman on Communications, in his contribution to this latest phase of the debate has been making all the right sounds and saying all the right things in terms of support for the independent broadcasting sector, but he has failed to grasp the nettle of how it is to be funded. The position of Deputy Higgins, as I understand it, is that one should not speak about competition on the basis that in relation to television we do not yet have a competitor in the market. He speaks about potential competitors and says that one should not interfere with the present State broadcasting service, which is a mixed service funded by licence fee and advertising, until the competitor is in the field and we are in a better position to gauge what aid, if any, is required.
Deputy Higgins, by reason of his presence and contributions on Committee Stage, has enabled us to get away from the vitriolic rhetoric which we heard from the Leader of the Labour Party during the Second Stage debate, of which I have been very critical in terms of its tone and content. It foists up a couple of scenarios which perhaps Members opposite will be able to clear up. It is not my intention to introduce acrimony to this debate, which has been fairly gentlemanly up to now. Deputy Spring used unfortunate language and indicated that this Government and this party are corrupt — that word was used by Deputy Spring — in terms of money being in people's back pockets, in terms of the unwritten and hidden agenda of this party looking after their wealthy friends. I do not know how many wealthy friends Deputy Spring has. I suggest they are as many as I know. Whether they are wealthy or impoverished, one should be very careful when one goes down that road. It has added nothing to the debate and I would contend that the idea behind its introduction was to make whatever political capital he could. There could be no other reason. It is not the language which has been used by Deputy Higgins and Deputy O'Sullivan in putting forward the policy of the Labour Party in relation to broadcasting, which is a completely different matter.
I say this because Deputy Mitchell in his contribution has stated that in his opinion an independent national radio station is not viable. He was in the Department of Communications for five years and that is his considered opinion. I am trying to square that statement with the idea of setting up a regime for the introduction of franchises and licences for the independent radio broadcasting sector, which involves open inquiries and examinations, the submission of tenders and the taking of decisions by the Independent Radio and Television Commission, the independence of which I hope I established in my contribution last night. How does that square with the assertion made by the Labour Leader about looking after wealthy friends when according to the spokesman for Fine Gael it is a non-viable operation from the start?
It is clear that there is not a licence to print money and that there is a very competitive position between the State sector and the commercial sector. It is clear that RTE have met the challenge more than adequately and I fail to understand why that sort of language was used without there being an ulterior motive which has nothing to do with the discussion of broadcasting policy.
Deputy Mitchell referred to the Broadcasting Bill as something like a Rubik Cube — when it is turned one way something goes out of place the other way. He stared at that Rubik Cube from 1982 to 1987 in the hope that it would become a crystal ball and that he might be able to gauge where to go from there. He obviously did not figure it out. There certainly was a mess and a regulatory framework had to be introduced. I agree with Deputy Higgins that we cannot have deregulation in the absolute sense in terms of broadcasting policy because the dominance of broadcasting in disseminating information throughout society is so powerful that the idea of having no regulation as to content and standards would be a negation of responsibility in any parliamentary democracy.
If one agrees with having an independent commercial sector, as Fine Gael say they do, and if one accepts, as Deputy Mitchell does, that there are difficulties in establishing the viability of an independent broadcasting sector, one must tackle the question of how to establish that viability. There is a difference of opinion as to whether one should have an independent broadcasting sector, and at least one can understand the argument coming from the left of the House in regard to broadcasting policy. If, however, one accepts the idea and recognises the difficulty in relation to viability, one must decide how to fund that sector. Given the dominant position of RTE, a position they have worked hard to attain in face of competition from outside the jurisdiction, and given that an independent broadcasting sector should be in existence, one must get them to the field before one can level it and establish their viability in a fair and equitable way so that there is access to the source of funds.
The two sources of funding for the State broadcasting sector are the licence fee and advertising revenue. These constitute 95 per cent of their funding arrangements. The licence fee has been the sole preserve of RTE as the only broadcasting station in this jurisdiction. It was sought from the taxpayer and provided for the broadcasting station on the basis that in order to fulfil its public service obligations imposed on it by parliamentarians under statute such funding arrangements were necessary. I agree such funding arrangements were necessary.
Now we have more participants in the broadcasting sector, again established under statute by parliamentarians in this House.
I fail to understand the idea that seems to prevail still that the licence fee should remain the preserve of RTE who, as part of the broadcasting scene, are no longer the only player in the broadcasting sector. Why in principle should there be some objection, if one is interested in establishing the viability of an independent broadcasting sector, to the consideration of even a small proportion of that licence fee being available to people in the broadcasting sector? If we have an Independent Radio and Television Commission and an independent broadcasting sector which, to comply with the statute which set up those stations, must have a percentage of their programmes devoted to public service broadcasting, why should there not be for public service broadcasting a proportion of the funding which is available totally to RTE at the moment? Is there not a case to be considered that a small diversion of that fee should be available for the purpose of funding public service requirements of the independent broadcasting sector? Why is that anathema?
I believe people are prepared to tolerate an independent broadcasting sector, if we are to have one at all, which would be funded from its own resources and would have to meet public service obligations for which it could expect no support whatever, thus having this plurality of choice people are talking about within our own jurisdiction. Since we have no qualms about plurality of choice coming from outside the jurisdiction, what is the problem with having plurality of choice inside the jurisdiction? That could meet the argument put against the advertising option that there is leakage in the revenues available under the advertising option in terms of people from outside the jurisdiction getting part of that funding. At least there is a case to be put that, if part of the licence fee were diverted, it would all go into the independent broadcasting sector in this jurisdiction. That was not acceptable either.
Now we have the capping of advertising revenue solely to allow the independent broadcasting sector access to the same sources of funding as the present dominant, formerly exclusive member of the Irish broadcasting club had. When one looks at the support that can be got for local stations that are run and managed properly, one fails to see why the viability of those stations should not be welcomed by all sides of the House. Behind the debate at the end of the day is an attempt in legitimate and political terms to create a public political controversy, to give to people, parties and Governments motivation which suits a certain political purpose in terms of garnering political support or increasing it where they feel they have fair support at the moment. That is legitimate in political terms, but it does not answer the questions involved in this broadcasting legislation.
Deputy Mitchell, former Minister for Communications, who has done all the research, commissioned all the reports and knows substantially about all the ins and outs of this problem, is in favour of an independent broadcasting sector. How are you going to fund it? That simple question remains unanswered. Since he has hop-trotted around that question on every occasion on which he has stood up, we come back to the independent review group and the need to look at this again. Whatever we do, let us not make a decision. That seems to be the attitude. Let us get so-called independent people because they will know what to do. It is the classic definition of the abdication of political responsibility — give it to someone else to look at.
It is like the arguments about what we should do about the Irish language. We will commission a report. I recall Liam Ó Murchú on an Irish programme putting up all the reports on the Irish language and I think the pile stood four feet tall and fewer and fewer people were speaking the language. The commissioning of reports does not necessarily indicate the prospect of bringing about a successful policy in whatever area you are discussing. Jim Hacker, Minister for Administrative Affairs, said: "Let us circulate the paper again and see what comes out of it". Regardless of what legislation is decided in this House on this or any other issue, there will be a continuing debate on this area, as there is in regard to economic policy, fiscal policy, agricultural policy or anything else. Nothing is carved in stone, but this legislation proposes that we get on with it and proceed with the proper funding of an independent broadcasting sector to allow them to get into the field and compete properly and meet their obligations under the statute imposed by the people in this House.
This amendment is another excuse for inaction, which the former Minister for Communications, in his capacity as Fine Gael spokesperson on this issue, has been seeking to justify ever since the debate began. He said it was better to do nothing because to do anything would be to do harm. That is not the most positive attitude I have heard from an eminent member of the political community in my political lifetime. We will do nothing because to do anything means there is a prospect that we will do harm. However, that is not the real issue. We will do nothing because if we do something we will offend someone.
There are two sides to the argument and there are different ways of going about this; but you have to pick your horse and get up on the horse. You cannot be leading him around the parade ring and picking up the next fellow when you come to the far side of the parade ring. You have a look at him and change the colours with everyone shouting at you "Which horse is going to win, Jim? Which one are we on?" The spokesman for Communications is looking towards these benches and telling us what we know in our hearts. He said "I know what ye feel in your hearts about this". I often wonder whether his own backbenchers know what they feel in their own hearts. Do they know what their broadcasting policy is? Have no hard decisions yet been taken on it? As Deputy O'Sullivan rightly pointed out, the reason we had no broadcasting decision between 1982 and 1987 was that we had a Coalition Government within which there were very fundamental differences as to how to go about it. Fine Gael have been on their own for the last three years and are finding that out to their considerable disadvantage. They are on their own and they can make up their minds without being worried about what others say but they will need the courage of their convictions to come out and say it.
The Deputy has that problem now.
We have no problem to the extent that this is our policy and it is causing some considerable discussion——
They have pulled the rug from under your feet.
——but what I cannot understand — and Deputy Boylan might explain it to me during his contribution — is whether this new collective leadership in Fine Gael, the new politburo which decides on issues collectively is the right way to go about their business. The leader is on the leash and the man is being held back from veering to the left, for fear he might go right, because he does not know his right from his left. I look forward with glee to the next amendment, if we have time to deal with it, and what a "beaut" it is. Deputy Mitchell is anxious to set up an independent review group which will look into all aspects of the broadcasting policy. I do not care who you put on the commission, nobody would be able to come up with the amendment which is to be discussed next, whereby we would involve the President of Ireland, after consultation with the Council of State, in choosing the broadcasting authority.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I know Deputy Cowen is familiar with the Bard of Avon and I would ask that perhaps we would bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of. Will the Deputy stick with the amendment before us and we will give him the same reasonable latitude that we have given to others? I know the Deputy will not peer too far into the future.
Amendment No. 3 (2) (e) expects the Commission to report on "the maintenance and improvement of broadcasting standards".
However tenuous the connection, which I will try to strengthen, the amendment which involves the President, after consultation with the Council of State, appointing the members to the Authority is presumably an attempt to ensure the maintenance and improvement of broadcasting standards in Irish broadcasting policy. I do not know whether this may be an indication from the Fine Gael Party or a forerunner of the new extended broad role the Presidency will have when that party can find a candidate to go forward for that esteemed office, but it seems to me to indicate that the politburo method of decision-making has run rampant in the Front Bench of the Fine Gael Party and does not exhibit the wisdom that sometimes emanates from individual members of the Front Bench of the Party. The idea that the President would be involved in the appointments to a board, even one as august as the RTE Authority, would possibly involve him in day-to-day political controversies of the magnitude we have here before us, which would not reflect too highly on the dignity of his office. Taken together with the fact that the President derives his functions under the Constitution, which are set out quite clearly in the Constitution, there is a possibility he can be censored by 30 Members of the Oireachtas, so perhaps we could have a situation where the President, having appointed an authority, 30 Members of the Oireachtas could bring forward a charge against him because he happened to have the unfortunate distinction of being next or near the RTE Authority as set up under Deputy Mitchell's amendment. I do not believe the President should be involved in any way with any quango of whatever description or distinction.
Deputy Cowen has the capacity, I know, to relate the reference he has made to a later amendment.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. To involve the President in this matter is bringing the matter to a new length of absurdity. This amendment is so asinine that it could involve us in setting up in the future a board called "Bord na nAsal" and the President, after consultation with the Council of State, would appoint people to Bord na nAsal and I hope it should be open to Members of this House to be members of it——
The Chair is not being evenhanded.
——and perhaps Members could chair "Bord na nAsal". I am making that rather tenuous remark for the purpose of stating that the next amendment is where we are really going to have the fun.
The Broadcasting Bill sets out clearly the Government's policy on broadcasting. We have some idea of the policy of the Labour Party on broadcasting but I have yet to find out what the policy of the Fine Gael Party is in terms of funding the independent broadcasting sector. I look forward to hearing what Deputy Mitchell has to say in that regard.
When Deputy Cowen was speaking I was a bit confused as to the amendment with which we are dealing. I take it we are still dealing with amendment No. 2 to section 2.
If the Deputy had been here earlier to hear the contributions from members of his party he might have experienced the same difficulty. That is only a passing reference——
Deputy Cowen's contribution seemed to relate more to amendment No. 3a to section 2. This is why I thought amendment No. 3a was being dealt with at the same time as amendment No. 2.
The Deputy can make a passing reference to amendment No. 3a. That has been a feature of this debate.
I take it that is what you meant by looking into the future.
Equal treatment for everyone.
The debates which have taken place in this House and the comment on this subject in the media have shown the clear need for much more information on advertising. This should be a function of the commission. There has been total confusion so far as the comments of the Minister on advertising are concerned and the comments of other experts in the field — advertising agencies and so on. The Minister requires much more information on advertising before he makes a decision on how much should go to the print media, how much will go abroad to UTV, Sky, the BBC, etc. This element of confusion has existed right throughout the debate. I think we saw yesterday how sloppily the Bill has been drafted and how it needs to be tightened up from a legal point of view if it is to hold water.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
The Minister has not done his homework and neither he nor Deputy Cowen know what will happen when the Bill is implemented. It is like kicking a long ball and hoping it will end up in the net. This is all right when there are people up front but unfortunately this will not be the position in this case. This is why we need a commission who can inform the House and the Minister about the effects of his proposals.
Many of the people who have spoken about public service broadcasting do not know what it means. They do not know the extent to which a private commercial station will be involved in public sector broadcasting or community broadcasting. Therefore, we need a commission to advise us on such matters as funding, etc. One of the elements such a commission should be discussing is seirbhís Teilifís na Gaeltachta. That has not been considered by the Minister or the Government. I am not blaming the Minister entirely because he is doing a job given to him by the Taoiseach. It appears that the Government, and the Minister, gave no consideration to the question of seirbhís Teilifís na Gaeltachta.
Anois tá feachtas ar siúl ar feadh i bhfad chun Teilifís na Gaeltachta a chur ar bun. Chomh luath agus thosaigh Raidió na Gaeltachta bhí an feachtas sin ar siúl. Ní raibh daoine cinnte go dtí cúpla bliain ó shin, déarfainn, cad é go díreach a bhí a gceist acu. Bhí cuid acu ag caint faoí Theilifís na Gaeltachta, dála Raidió na Gaeltachta i gcomhair na nGaeltachtaí. Ceapann chuile dhuine anois, áfach, nach mbeadh sé sin sásúil, nach féidir leat é sin a dhéanamh. Tá Raidió na Gaeltachta ag déanamh an-jab ar fad sna Gaeltachtaí ach níl mórán maitheasa ansin maidir le lucht labhartha na Gaeilge lasmuigh de na Gaeltachtaí, go mórmhór, abair, sna cathracha mar Bhaile Átha Cliath, Chorcaigh, Luimneach, Ghaillimh, Phort Lairge, Bhéal Feirste. Ní fheileann sé seo do mhuintir na gcathracha.
Tuigtear anois nach leor Teilifís na Gaeltachta i gcomhair na nGaeltachtaí amháin agus bheadh daoine sásta le teilifís náisiúnta na Gaeltachta nó na Gaeilge, is é sin go mbunófaí bealach teilifís a d'fhreastalódh ar phobal na Gaeltachta agus ar lucht labhartha na Gaeilge sa tír ar fad. Sin an sórt ruda atá ag teastáil agus sin an sórt a bhíi gceist ag an Taoiseach, sílim, cúpla bliain ó shin, mí na Samhna, 1988, nuair a d'iarr sé ar Údarás na Gaeltachta tuarascáil a ullmhú ar an gceist seo, ceist na teilifíse, chun a fháil amach an bhféadfaí bealach teilifíse a bhúnú, cén chaoi ab fhearr tabhairt faoina bhunú agus cén costas a bheadh ar a leithéid de sheirbhís. Rinne Údarás na Gaeltachta é sin, le cabhair theicniúil ó RTÉ, agus chuir siad an tuarascáil os comhair an Rialtais, nó thug siad don Taoiseach é, pé scéal é. B'fhéidir nach bhfaca éinne eile é, ach fuair seisean an tuarascáil. Molann tuarascáil an Údaráis go mbunófaí córas teilifíse trí Ghaeilge, agus leagadh amach cén áit a mbunófaí na stiúdeonna, i nGaoth Dobhair, Conamara, Corca Dhuibhne. Chosnódh sé £1.5 mhilliún don chóras craolacháin, £2.5 mhilliún do na stiúideonna agus £1 mhilliún eile chun iad a cheangail le chéile — sin £5 mhílliún ar fad chun an córas iomlán a chur ar bun. Mhol siad go mbeifí ag craoladh ar feadh dhá uair sa lá, 14 uair a chloig in aghaidh na seachtaine, agus dúirt siad sa tuarascáil go gcosnódh sé £9.5 mhilliún san iomlán in aghaidh na bliana.
Ba mhaith liom a chur i gcuimhne duit go ndúirt tú tamaillín ó shin go raibh an Teachta Brian Cowen ag féachaint rófhada roimhe. Tá leasú eile beartaithe agaibh féin agus bheadh sé an-oiriúnach cur síos air sin. Ach tá an cead céanna agat féachaint romhat fad is nach bhfanfaidh tú i bhfad. Tá leasú eile, deir sé, sa ráiteas seo, "Development of Teilifís na Gaeltachta."
Tá mé ag caint faoin sórt ruda ar chóir don choimisiún seo bheith ag iniúchadh, na costais don chóras teilifíse ina iomlán, RTE, TV3, Teilifís na Gaeltachta, má tá sé fós i gceist ag an Rialtas. Is é an rud atá mé ag iarraidh a rá ná go gceapaim ón mBille seo go bhfuil sé seo caite i leataobh ag an Rialtas, nach bhfuil sé ar intinn ag an Rialtas ar chor ar bith go mbeadh córas Teilifíse i nGaeilge i gcomhair na Gaeltachta curtha ar bun go deo. Sin an fáth go bhfuilim ag caint faoi na costais. Cá has a dtiocfaidh an t-airgead seo, an £9 milliún seo sa bhliain chun an bealach teilifíse i nGaeilge do mhuintir na Gaeltachta agus lucht labhartha na Gaeilge a chur ar bun? Sin an rud a d'iarr an Taoiseach ar Údarás na Gaeltachta agus sin an tuarascáil a fuair sé.
Má tá sé leis an airgead seo a aimsiú, níl ach cúpla slí ann ina bhféadfaí an t-airgead a fháil. B'fhéidir go bhfaigheadh sé ó tháillí cheadúnas RTÉ nó b'fhéidir ó ioncam fógraíochta RTÉ. Níl aon rud sa Bhille seo a thaispeánann conas is féidir le córas teilifíse i nGaeilge ioncam fógraíochta a aimsiú. Ba chóir don Aire a fhiafraí den Taoiseach cá háit a bhfaighidh Teilifís na Gaeltachta an t-airgead. An féidir rud éigin a chur sa Bhille seo sula gcuirtear tríd an Dáil amárach é, mar atá beartaithe ag an Aire. Cad is féidir linn a dhéanamh leis an mBille chun £10 milliún sa bhliain a aimsiú. Deir Údarás na Gaeltachta go bhféadfaí an tseirbhís a chur ar fáil ar níos lú airgid, b'fhéidir £5 mhilliún. Pé scéal é, beidh an t-airgead seo ag teastáil má tá rún ag an Taoiseach a leithéid a chur ar bun. Mar sin, cá bhfaighidh sé an t-airgead? Sílim go bhfuil sé an-tábhachtach go mbeimis ag caint faoi seo anois agus go mbeadh rud éigin le rá ag an Aire faoi.
It seems from the Bill that the Minister or the Taoiseach decided that we can forget about Teilifís na Gaeltachta, a television station in Irish for Irish speakers and for the Gaeltacht, because the income available to RTE and TV3 will now be split between them and neither will be able to run a decent television programme. Their standards will be reduced to a lower level than those of any other television station in Western Europe. However, we will have the two of them and they will have to do the best they can with the money available. It is obvious that nothing will be available for Teilifís na Gaeltachta or any Irish television service unless RTE's income is reduced or the advertising revenue divided to ensure that they get £10 million per year to run 14 hours per week. It is a tiny service, but that is what it will cost. It will be of immense value to the Gaeltacht and to the Irish language. The Minister should not allow this Bill to be pushed through without making an effort to have money available to service the Gaeltacht and Irish speakers. It would cost roughtly £5 million to establish and £9.5 million per year to run a small service with limited output. My remarks are relevant to the section and the need for a commission to look into so many things that the Minister, the Government or the Taoiseach have not considered.
The Government commissioned a report from Údarás na Gaeltachta 18 months ago, they tossed it aside and produced this Bill, which does not even mention the possibility of such a station ever being established. They grabbed all the money and divided it between RTE and TV3, etc, totally ignoring the need for the station, even though the Minister has the name of asking for a report on it. I do not blame the Minister, he did not seek such a report and probably does not envisage that such a station will ever be set up. The Taoiseach, who is Minister for the Gaeltacht, must have given some consideration to this and have some idea of how it will be financed. Will it be financed from the national lottery, which finances everything? It now finances the local authority parks departments and will soon be financing half the health service at the rate it is going. The Minister's thinking seems to be that we will allocate a lottery grant, but that sort of thinking is not sufficient as far as an Irish language television station is concerned.
The Minister should leave a loophole in the Bill whereby Teilifís na Gaeltachta can get some of the cream from advertising to run the station without reducing RTE's income even further. The advertising revenue has been split almost in two. Will the Minister further reduce it or will he devise a method for skimming something off TV3 to assist in the establishment of Teilifís na Gaeltachta?
Earlier today in my contribution I endeavoured to make a case for establishing a commission. There is another aspect to this amendment: that the Bill when enacted will not come into effect until such time as the commission have reported.
I should like to refer to the points made by Deputy Cowen, who missed the central point in the Bill. What right has an individual, or individuals, to have access to the State sector funds? This has not been clarified to my satisfaction by the Minister or by anyone in his party. It is unusual, to say the least, to get funds in this manner; indeed, it is immoral. Deputy Cowen asked how we could establish the viability of a station. One way to do it is by giving a massive subvention from State funds as proposed in the Bill. How do you deal with competition? It is very easy to deal with it if you have State back-up. We have not addressed this matter. We mentioned the methods by which the money would be taken from RTE but we will have to ask why we are doing this. Has anybody the right to do it? I do not think that we have any such right.
It was also asked why RTE should have exclusive rights to the licence fee. The reason is that RTE since their foundation have been the recipient of this form of support. It is the only station which has an obligation to the ordinary people and for that reason the State is duty bound to ensure that the station runs smoothly. I referred to the orchestras, repertory companies and the various RTE singers and groups who work in RTE. They have provided a very good service to the State down through the years. The monopoly was not of RTE's choosing; it was determined on the floor of the House. As a result, we are obliged to ensure that they survive.
It is extremely difficult for people on this side of the House to determine Government policy in view of the fact that it changed three times in the last month. When we have established the policy of the Government or the Minister, maybe we will then be able to advance the debate a little further. A case has not been made for any individual, or individuals, having the right to £10 million or £12 million from the State's coffers.
I did not intend to speak on this debate but, as I listened over the last two days to the contributions from the various speakers, I realised I would not be serving my constitutents or the nation if I continued to listen to it on the monitor and did not express an opinion here. I want to comment on the Workers' Party amendment before us. I would be quite amazed, as would be many others, including perhaps Fianna Fáil backbenchers, if at the conclusion of this debate the Minister does not take on board some of the well argued, well thought-out points presented from this side of the House. At this stage the Minister will be aware of the feelings of his backbenchers, many of whom are now expressing not just among themselves, but certainly to members of The Workers' Party, including myself, their reservations about the Bill in its present form. It would be my hope that those reservations will pursuade the Minister to decide that the format of this Bill can be improved substantially by accepting our amendment which would allow him time to look at the overall position afresh, allowing him and his Cabinet colleagues time over the summer recess to re-assess what has been said, equally allowing the commission time to publish their report, which is of such importance to this debate.
In speaking on amendment No. 2 it is important to acknowledge the need for the establishment of a commission on broadcasting in order to review in what direction sound and visual broadcasting and community broadcasts are going. Our amendment calls on the Minister to step back from the brink so that the commission can study the various conflicting demands and opinions being expressed, not just by Members of this House but by the media in general. In fact, men and women on the street are talking about the attack this Bill represents on RTE; and there are opinions being expressed by the various interest groups, not least of whom are workers in RTE, whose employment will be terminated if this Bill is passed in its present unamended form.
The Minister should be aware of the expressed opinions of workers who demonstrated outside this House. When I talked to them I discovered, to my amazement, that, far from their representing Leftie militants, I was speaking to female contract workers accompanied by their children, to independent film-makers, in fact it appeared to me that the majority were not pensionable employees of RTE but people in various walks of life, with various skills, in many different types of employment who were dependent on work emanating through the RTE network.
All Members will remember a service provided by RTE — in the main unrecognised — when all of us had our photographs taken in Buswells Hotel, when two photographers and a lady make-up artist spent in the region of two weeks photographing our faces so that as part of their public service they could use those images on their television screens. It would be interesting to see what would happen if ever this obligation were to be placed on the shoulders of commercial companies engaged in television broadcasting, through I am sure the answer is that very definitely this obligation would not be placed on them. When one looks at the cost of engaging professional photographers and make-up artists, working long hours in Buswells Hotel, then one can appreciate in a strange sort of way one of the least publicised aspects of public service broadcasting. They laid on this service for us politicians so that our images could be projected in a complimentary manner on RTE screens.
When we speak about the commission we should remember we are talking about all of the many forces, not merely RTE workers but the various interest groups and advertising organisations, who fully realise the implications of this Bill being passed in its present form because it will result in higher advertising rates, which in turn will lead to higher prices to the consumer in respect of the goods advertised. Is it not ironic that in the so-called interests of creating a level playing pitch the Minister's Bill, if passed, would not merely put people out of work and lower the standards of broadcasting on radio and television but would also lead to a spiralling of the prices of the goods being advertised?
It will have become quite clear to the Minister that the case has been well made that such displaced advertising will not necessarily be re-absorbed by the print media or the Irish business classes. The case has been well made that much of the advertising that would have gone through RTE henceforth will find its way into the coffers of, say, Sky, UTV, ITV or the other broadcasting organisations. The commission should and would take on board the opinions of advertising organisations. It is the opinion of these advertising agencies, who are now aware, because of the advertising time limiting provisions of this Bill, that such advertising slots will be taken up mainly by the huge corporations with colossal budgets at their disposal, when smaller business companies endeavouring to sell their products on the Irish market will not get a look in.
Here we have a republican party, one well known for its nationalism, who keep singing the praises of the small businessman, with campaigns such as the Ógra Fhianna Fáil "be Irish, Buy Irish" campaign; yet if the Minister will not accept our amendment and this Bill is enacted in its present form, it will be ironic that the very people Fianna Fáil claim to represent most will be the net losers in this battle. So much for Fianna Fáil support of the small businesmen and women when henceforth on the national broadcasting stations they will be unable to compete for advertisement slots with large companies on two grounds — first, because of cost, because the cost of advertisement slots will spiral; and, second, because of the time limitations on advertisements in this Bill.
Our amendment would allow the commission to examine the overall question of broadcasting and funding and the type of broadcasting systems we, as a small island nation, should have and which we can afford. We contend that the commission should be allowed time in which to publish their report before this Bill is passed. We are only on amendment No.2 and to my amazement I heard on a news bulletin — I do not know if it was announced here in the House — that the Minister intends yet again to stymie debate on the Broadcasting Bill, having once achieved this through trickery and conniving with his party colleagues.
I would prefer if the Deputy would not use the word "trickery" in this House. I would ask you to withdraw that word, please.
I am afraid my colleague here, Deputy Higgins, was tricked into believing that a Fianna Fáil speaker was going to take up his allocation of time. Quite frankly, if an agreement was arrived at between Deputies Higgins and Callely and Deputy Callely did not abide by it then I think it is fair to call it a trick.
Acting Chairman
I would prefer if the Deputy did not use the word "trick".
What is wrong with that word?
If it was not a trick, it was a funny agreement between two Deputies.
It is something to do with the fact that there was nobody present from The Workers' Party, Fine Gael or on the Labour benches.
The Workers' Party had made their contribution at that stage through the party president who was present in the House. I can guarantee the Minister that if he does not guillotine the debate he will have the pleasure of listening to all seven of The Workers' Party Deputies.
I was expecting to listen to them that day.
If he feels sorry that he may not have the opportunity, as Minister he has the authority to extend the time for the debate to allow all seven to come in to entertain him, to try to enlighten him and to try to get him to change his mind.
The commission chairman should be allowed to get on with the job of assessing, analysing, debating and taking on board the opinions of the various forces that are at play in the communications area and the advertisers and all those with adverse points of view would be listened to. The commission would then produce their report which would be brought before the House before the Bill is enacted.
A very important role for this commission would be to deal with the question of competing broadcasting agencies, both public and commercial. They would clearly have to look at the question of funding, which is a key issue, along with the duties of the station as regards their obligations to provide a balanced range of programmes.
The Minister has coined the term "level playing pitch" and other people have spoken about that and about how the Minister has been changing the goalposts. I would like to address the question of whether or not there can ever be a level playing pitch. What is this so-called playing pitch to be? It is in fact desirable? Is this level playing pitch as advertised by the Minister and written up in this Bill what the public are demanding? Is it what they want? Does the Minister believe there is a popular demand on the part of the public for this Minister to bring in such a disastrous Bill? Is it just a way to fulfil in a vindictive way threats to the staff of RTE who, it is felt, should not hassle the Minister or, for that matter, the Minister for Tourism and Transport, Deputy Séamus Brennan?
In looking at the so-called playing pitch it is important to try to figure out what the Minister has in mind and why the urgency to rush it through the House and have his fellow speakers, like Deputy Callely, sit down in order to stymie debate. What is going on in the mind of the Minister? Various people have expressed their opinion of what is the intent of the Minister and I have reminded the Minister that it is my belief that the Minister is acting in a vindictive way against what he perceives to be political or other forces at large in Irish society and what he will, once and for all, bring them to task. Could it be that the Minister is motivated by some sort of Workers' Party phobia of the sort which seems to be afflicting the leading article writer of The Sunday Business Post, judging by leading articles in that paper in the recent past. People with phobias need their heads examined and should never be placed in positions of power as leader writers for otherwise reputable newspapers. This Bill has all the hallmarks of a determination to please, to honour political debts, to remind RTE and Cathal Mac Coille that it is remembered that an awkward question was asked of the Minister, Deputy Séamus Brennan, who victimised Aer Lingus by giving Ryanair exclusive rights to Stansted, Liverpool and Munich last year. The simple question that was asked of Minister Brennan then was if Fianna Fáil had received any financial contribution from Guinness Peat Aviation, and the Minister forced RTE to apologise.
Acting Chairman
I think the Deputy is straying from the debate.
If the broadcasting system here and the powers that be that control it, are to be established on a proper democratic footing then we should not have Ministers preparing legislation based on vindictiveness. It is interesting that Tony Ryan later confirmed that he had in fact been a financial subscriber to Fianna Fáil.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy should not use names of people who are not here to defend themselves. It is not the practice of the House.
With respect to the civil servants who have to work alongside the Minister, I have to say that this was not a well-worked out Bill produced by professional civil servants. It seems to have more of a boot boy flavour about it, an attempt at coming to terms with RTE and making sure that those in the commercial radio and television areas are looked after and that political favours are returned.
We want the Minister to accept the amendment before us so that the commission will have time to produce a report in a fair and objective way looking at all the various aspects of broadcasting, including the technical means of transmitting, the pros and cons of the MMDS, reflector, satellite and piped television systems.
I want to go back to the question of the level playing pitch and pose the question again as to what type of level playing pitch it is? Is that what is being demanded by the public? According to the tremendously high ratings of RTE, the public are very happy with RTE, with three-quarters of the listenership in the country listening to RTE programmes. They have a full complement in their symphony orchestra; they have a chamber orchestra, choirs, actors and various very expensive agencies to carry. May I ask the Minister if the commercial stations will be obliged to provide these cultural activities? The symphony orchestra is the backbone of the National Concert Hall where they regularly perform. If these orchestras were to suffer as a result of capping the advertisements of RTE, an aspect of the cultural life of the city and indeed the country would suffer. Have the Minister and the Fianna Fáil backbenchers considered the threat posed in the legislation for worthwhile activities such as these? I am sure the Minister is aware of how much it costs RTE to fund their orchestras. There is the Concert Orchestra, the Symphony Orchestra, the Chamber Orchestra and the famous RTE Players. Would commercial radio or television be obliged to engage such a wide range of talent? Quite clearly the answer is no. Would commercial radio or television be obliged to provide programmes for minority groups? Again, the answer is no. The advertisers would not be interested in investing money at times when programmes for minority groups are being broadcast.
As has been stated today, to a large degree the State carries the burden of broadcasting for the minority. I think it is true that there is not a high listenership to programmes broadcast in Irish. What will become of RTE with the squeezing of their funding? Will these programmes geared for the minority be the first to suffer? The answer is yes. The commercial sector, being interested in making money, will not try to service the needs of the minority. Is a level playing pitch desirable? Should it be our ambition to weaken the strong, successful public broadcasting companies in order to strengthen private companies whose commitment is not to broadcasting but to profit? Will we reduce broadcasting to mundane, cheap radio and television broadcasting? The point has been made very clearly in the last couple of days that the curtailments proposed in this Bill, including the proposals for licence fees and the capping of advertisements, will result in a reduction in the quality of broadcasting.
I would make a comparison at this point with the so-called level playing pitch in the United States of America, of which the Minister is well aware. Anyone who has been to that country will tell you that broadcasting, both on radio and television, is a disaster and a joke. It is amazing the number of people who, only after visiting that country, appreciate the high quality of broadcasting in Ireland. The irony is that the public broadcasting corporations in America, both radio and television, buy the best quality programmes from England, mainly the BBC, and occasionally from Ireland. Anyone who visits America is immediately conscious of the very poor quality of radio and television broadcasting there. Is this where we are heading? Is this the level of so-called entertainment we are going to provide for the nation if this Bill is passed?
There is no popular demand for this gross interference in RTE's operations. I would ask the Minister where is the popular demand for the Bill. Needless to say, the Minister will be reminded that the 1.25 million people who are watching the excellent coverage of the World Cup are not demanding this Bill. I imagine about 1.5 million people will watch the game on RTE Network 2 next Saturday. They are extremely happy with the performance of RTE and are not demanding this Bill. Today's newspapers report on yesterday's comments by the Minister on RTE's coverage of the World Cup. Those comments give an incredible insight into the Minister's mind. On the one hand he attempted to praise RTE for their coverage of the World Cup while on the other hand he had the audacity to say he feels that the Bord Gáis logo is being used too much.
Is the Minister so burning in his distaste for RTE that he cannot sit back and enjoy the incredible spectacle on RTE of the Republic of Ireland team lifting the spirit of the nation by performing so well on the football pitch? Imagine the Minister, as he must have been, with a stop watch taking the time of the Bord Gáis logo. He then comes into the House with this useless information. That gives a great insight into the Minister's mind. He could not be as human as the rest of the country and sit back, appreciate and admire the excellence of the coverage of the World Cup by RTE but rather spent his time with a stop watch counting the seconds the Bord Gáis logo is on the screen. That makes the Minister unique in this House.
I appreciate there is a lot more that can be said on this matter. I would ask Deputies on all sides of the House, particularly the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, to seriously consider The Workers' Party amendment. They should recognise there is no popular demand for this Bill. There is quite a strong reaction to the attempts by the Minister to bring in this Bill that will damage to such an extent——
I am advised that an order was made today that the sitting would be suspended at 6 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
With reference to this section and having regard to the desirability or otherwise of setting up a commission, I see the amendment as being constructive and reasonable. Setting up this commission can do no harm and in fact can do much good. Despite the fact that a number of reports have been commissioned from time to time in relation to various issues, ranging from the Irish language to transport and so on, it is true that many of those reports have gathered dust and a great deal of work has not been done on them afterwards. Nonetheless, in this case the report of a commission or an on-going supervisory body could be of considerable benefit. A couple of years ago if one were to listen to the pundits one would have imagined that broadcasting in the private sector was a bed of roses and that it was only a matter of time before somebody tapped a crock of gold. For the life of me I cannot understand where all that euphoria has gone. For that reason a commission that would be able to evaluate the thrust and direction of broadcasting and its requirements over a period would be a useful exercise to pursue at present.
I should like to correct, if I may, one or two remarks that were made by the speakers opposite and also an interjection by the Minister on the day on which the Second Stage of the Bill collapsed. The Minister in response to Deputy Byrne indicated that there were no speakers on the Opposition side of the House. In actual fact there were speakers on this side of the House. As in many other cases in relation to many other Bills, the majority of the speakers are provided by the Opposition in this House. On that day a speaker on behalf of Fine Gael was making a contribution and at the same time Deputy Michael D. Higgins approached a person — Deputy Callely — on the opposite side who indicated that he intended to speak for some 20 minutes or so.
Deputy Durkan, a rehash of the termination of the Bill on Second Stage is not in order now.
I accept that.
Get back to amendment No. 2.
I am replying to the interjection of the Minister. I will conclude by saying that the one point that emanates from all the discussion that has taken place in relation to the Bill, either on the section or on the principle, is that a breach of faith was made by the Deputy on the opposite side——
That is not so.
—— simply by withdrawing at the request of the Minister.
The Deputy is reverting back again to the Second Reading. We have advanced from that.
I fully accept that.
We are on Committee Stage. Let us get up to date and deal with the business before us.
On the record prior to the sos was a remark from the Minister indicating a contradictory statement to what I have just said. The record needs to be set straight. I accept that everybody has a right to speak and that one must speak to the Bill and to the section in the Bill, which I am attempting to do. I honestly believe, however, that if the Minister or other speakers wander and make references such as that, one should have the right to reply.
In relation to the general thrust of this amendment, I see many good reasons why the commission should be established. For example, they could advise the Minister and the rest of us as to how we could proceed in the future and could identify the strengths and weaknesses of broadcasting. What do we want in terms of broadcasting in Ireland? Do we want a national radio and television network; or, as enunicated in the policies of the Progressive Democrats, perhaps we want to divest ourselves of that and go for something different? The commission could tell us something about that. From past experience and from what we have heard of the policies of the Progressive Democrats, it would appear that they would be in favour of privatisation to a far greater extent than most other parties in this House. Perhaps their intention would be to proceed alone the road of privatisation in respect of our television and radio network; then it may be anticipated that we would not have a national network.
A commission would be useful to determine exactly how we should proceed and who and what interests wish to proceed in a particular fashion. We could compare ourselves with countries such as that across the water where there is a multi-channel land, as we have on the east coast of Ireland, and where there are national broadcasting services and independent broadcasting services. It can be argued, and rightly so, that the merits in favour of competition are obvious, having regard to the large population and a big market. Obviously, a population of that size can command and demand a greater and finer degree of service. From the service provided, which is of a very high quality, it would appear to me, as a casual television viewer, that they have arrived at a very good mix of public and private broadcasting.
Broadcasting is a very sensitive area. Because of its sensitivity the need to have a reasonable blend of public and private broadcasting should be obvious. The next question we should ask ourselves is: to what extent do we have the second system — in other words, the private system? Is it to be at a cost to the public system — RTE — which operates? It would appear to us that that will be the case. I would add that, before the sos, we were ridiculed on this side of the House by Deputy Cowen, on the basis that, in regard to previous broadcasting legislation introduced during the term of office of a previous Government, there did not appear to be agreement between the coalition parties. I would say this: at least we appeared in the House at the same time. Those of us who were around then and thankfully are still around, can testify to that. It is a pity the same cannot be said for the people opposite where they could all come in and justify together exactly what their ambitions and targets were in relation to the future of broadcasting.
I will refer now to the other aspects of the Bill. Reference has already been made to the impact of advertising and so on. If we are to have a dual service surely a commission would be useful in determining in a totally dispassionate way the extent to which one will be superseded or eroded by the other, and giving some indication as to the structures and guidelines within which the two systems would operate. They should also be in a position to give some indication of the structures or guidelines within which the two systems, if we are to have two systems, should operate. I have no doubt that such an independent commission would be invaluable in that they would be able to inform this House and the general public on the correct route to take.
What is very worrying, and I say this with no personal animosity towards any member of the Government, is that the Government very unwisely arbitrarily decided to introduce legislation. We are now discussing section 2 of what is very controversial legislation which seeks to change the broadcasting system. There has been a long discussion on the amendment which seeks to prevent a decision to further change the broadcasting system being taken in future. It goes without saying that our national television and radio service has done the nation proud and there is no reason to believe that this will not continue to be the case. Admittedly, with the passage of time and as the service evolves, changes will be called for and the Government may encourage the service to change their structure but we feel we are being forced to examine the operation of the national broadcasting service and bring about changes which ultimately may have such a detrimental effect on that service that it becomes non-viable. That would not be desirable and for this reason it would be very useful to have a commission to advise us on whether we were taking the right road.
I do not want to get involved in personalities but it could be said that much would depend on who would appoint the members of the commission and on what basis they would be appointed. However I would have to accept that professional people, once appointed to do a job, would carry it out to the best of their ability. I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider accepting this amendment. He has not indicated, as far as I am aware, whether or not he is going to accept it but I ask him to do so on the basis that it would be of as much use to him and the Government as it would to Members on this side of the House and the general public.
Up to now in the broadcasting sector one company has had a monopoly. The service has been paid for by way of the licence fee and so on. It has become more efficient and has begun to make profits. They should be encouraged to do so. We should not respond by saying that the time has come to clip their revenue and to allow further systems to develop. I am quite sure that anyone in politics would readily accept that competition is the life of trade. It is very important that there be competition as it keeps everybody on their toes. It is probable, in the broadcasting sector, that competition between the public and private sectors would be of benefit to both but this does not tie in with the theory which was rampant a few years ago and to which I have referred, that there are vast amounts of money to be made in private broadcasting. It would now appear that no such resources exist. It has been stated that the pirate stations were allowed to operate at will while Members on the other side of the House also criticised the Government of 1982-87 for failing to take action against the pirate stations but I would have to point out that the pirate stations were in existence long before we came into office, that promises had been made but no action had been taken.
We now find ourselves in the position we are in because decisions were taken on foot of wrong information. This highlights the need for the establishment of a commission. If we had the benefit of this information a few years ago we would have been able to point out to somebody somewhere that we should proceed more slowly, that perhaps there was no crock of gold as some people had anticipated and that we should examine the case more fully. That aspect needs to be considered, given that the industry will evolve and the Government will need a body to give them an unbiased view on the developments taking place and on what may be required in the future.
While no one encouraged the setting up of pirate stations, their number increased to fill a need which was not being met. It can be argued that their overheads were low and they did not employ as many people as the national broadcasting service, and that is true in most cases but not all. It is also true that some of these stations provided a useful service and built up a large listenership. When it was announced that they were to be put off the air a considerable amount of pressure was brought to bear upon us and we were lobbied by a large number of people who suggested that they be allowed remain on the air. This would seem to indicate that they had found a niche for themselves in the marketplace.
We brought in legislation which allowed for a more sophisticated system and the introduction of a legalised private broadcasting service, but we did not have sufficient information and sufficient research had not been carried out into what was likely to happen in the light of developments taking place. That applied a couple of years ago and will certainly apply in a few years' time. Some kind of body, such as the commission suggested in this amendment, would provide useful information to legislators and if retained on an on-going basis the commission would be in a position to alert the legislators as to the requirements of the industry in the future.
Broadcasting, like any business, obviously has to change with the times and modern technology has changed it dramatically. The reason we saw the growth of the so-called pirate stations was that technology made it simple and easy for any group at relatively low cost to become involved in the business. The same is likely to happen in the future, particularly in the area of television. What is regarded now as an extremely expensive and tedious operation will, within a few years, have been streamlined through the use of technology to the extent that it will be within the reach of people with a much smaller budget. What will happen then? Do we diversify through the existing national broadcasting system or by way of a mix of public and private broadcasting? Do we decide to go public altogether or to go private altogether? A national network system is essential, having regard to experience in other countries. We should not do anything to undermine broadcasting or to restrict the future development of such a service by attempting to erode its fund raising or commercial capacity or by legislating. We must look to the future on the basis that in five or six years' time, given present and projected developments, it is likely there will be within the reach of those on a reasonably low budget the means of providing services which were heretofore felt to be outside the budget of small working groups.
Given these developments, this question will arise again. There may be legislators here in a few years' time discussing these issues. The proposal contained in the amendment is useful and worthwhile and could save the legislators a great deal of trouble. It could certainly save the industry both trouble and money and enable us to approach the industry with some kind of rationale.
Perhaps the Minister would consider the inclusion of this amendment and clear the path for all of us in determining exactly where the broadcasting service should go in the future. It would also give us an insight into the health of the industry and the likely obstacles in the future. This would alert the industry to possible changes long before having to take dramatic action.
I cannot understand the reason for the introduction of the Bill in the first place. If a report from the commission referred to here had been available to the Minister, we would not be in this position. When a controversial Bill such as this is brought before the House we should not allow the debate on any Stage to degenerate to the extent that this has done. Good relations are important for everybody in this House. A bit of one upmanship is quite all right in non-controversial legislation but when one upmanship is used in the area of controversy it leaves things open for use by everybody in the future. If one side win today, another side in the House will win tomorrow.
That happened in the Seanad, I recall.
As I recall, the Minister concluded in the Seanad despite the fact that there was nobody on the Government benches.
The proceedings of the Seanad should not be discussed in the Dáil.
I did not raise the issue.
That is the position.
I accept fully. I wanted to clear the air on that matter since the Minister had indicated that perhaps the blame lay elsewhere. In fact the blame rests with him and he should not have tried to take out on this House the fact that he was not aware that his own benches were empty on that occasion, just as they are empty now.
The situations are totally dissimilar.
I am quite sure people on this side of the House will be more than willing to offer assistance and contributions which will ensure that there will be no diminution or faltering of the debate.
I take the opportunity to respond to some of the remarks made from the Government side regarding The Workers' Party amendment moved this morning. While there have been a large number of very useful and constructive statements in support from the Opposition side, there have been three interventions from the Government side and I wish to address the points made in the hope that perhaps we are not entirely working at nought and that there is the prospect that the Minister may reflect on the amendment and seize the opportunity to show an enlightened response.
Deputy O'Dea was the first to intervene and made some suggestion at the outset that he had no interest in delaying the Bill, suggesting quite clearly that this was the objective of those of us who were attempting to address the serious issues in the Bill and to pursue serious amendments. It is a poor reflection and it was repeated by Deputy Cowen in his opening remarks when he suggested that we were engaged in a filibuster. I suppose it is to his credit to be the first Deputy in the House in the course of this Committee Stage debate to use the word that no doubt some people on the Government side are thinking of. I regret any suggestion that those of us who are trying to address the issues and propose and pursue amendments in this House are engaged in filibuster. We are not engaged in obstructionism or trying to deny serious debate on important and fundamental issues of legislative proposal on the part of the Government. Regrettably, it was a view repeated by the Government Chief Whip in interview outside this House, and it is proper on the first opportunity available to me as the proposer of the amendment we are debating to categorically reject that suggestion.
In passing I want to refer to the sketch drafted in The Irish Times today of the debate that went on in this House yesterday. It is a slight on Members of all sides in this Chamber, from Government to all Opposition groups who stayed here to the late hour ordered by this House to debate the issues, to suggest that the incentive for them to stay here might well have been the availability of beverages in the Members' bar which was concurrently open. That should not have been said. It was also suggested that Members who participated in the debate were given to nods of sleep and snoring. I want to put on the record that throughout the time I was here, which was all during the day, I did not notice any Member of this House either snoring or sleeping, but noticed the author of the piece in today's The Irish Times himself slipping into sleep.
Is it correct for any Member to reflect in such a manner on the media who cover this House?
There is a convention that we do not refer to personalities outside the Chamber.
We are in the political arena and we are fair game for it, but I do not think it fair to reverse that, much as one might be tempted to do so.
In relation to the point of order raised by the Minister, while we are not interested in naming individuals, let me say that, as somebody who was here all last evening, who has read the piece Deputy McCartan referred to and participated in the debate, Deputy McCartan speaks for me and, I believe, for every Member of this House who is unfairly reflected on in the piece of reporting in question.
I have made my point and I thank Deputy Higgins for his support but I am quite surprised to hear the Minister's refutation and his coming to the aid of the journalist's profession, particularly when we consider the experience of journalists in RTE at his own and other governmental hands.
I want to reiterate my refutation of any point made by Deputy O'Dea or Deputy Cowen that we are seeking to delay this Bill or engage in some parliamentary tactic seeking to deny to this debate any opportunity of full completion. That is the second point I wish to make in this regard.
On the previous amendment I had put a number of questions to the Minister in regard to some issues and points I believed had not been answered, and I took the point from him in his last intervention on that amendment that he would answer those outstanding queries when we arrived at section 5 dealing with the substantive issue of advertising. I accepted that in good faith at the time, I was a fool to have done so because we have been advised today in the schedule of business circulated from the Whips' meeting that the Government propose to impose a Whips' guillotine on the debate at 4 o'clock tomorrow evening on all the remaining amendments on Committee Stage other than those of the Minister. Consequently, the very substantial number of amendments that will remain unaddressed will include those issues that the Minister promised he would address in the course of the debate. It is not the first time promises in regard to the debate on this Bill have been broken by Government. We were promised we would have a full debate on Second Stage. That was not afforded us. We were promised on Committee Stage a degree of latitude so that those deprived of a Second Stage contribution could at least expand on ideas on Committee Stage. We have been told today that will not happen.
Deputy O'Dea's second point was that the only response of Opposition to the fact that the Minister has tackled a mess and had done something about the morass that had been there was simply to object and block and be obstructive. I regret he made that remark because clearly it indicates that he had not listened to some of the points I made in my contribution on the amendment. I recognised fully the progress made by this Minister in the early stages in his attempt to address an unfortunate saga at the conclusion of the eighties with regard to broadcasting and its proper development here. I went on to acknowledge the progress that had been made but to express regret that all of that was now to be kicked out, rendered at nought, and the Minister was heading off in a disastrous direction that reflected in no good way on what had gone before in his term of office.
Deputy O'Dea went on to say that unless the Minister's Bill was allowed into law and not arrested further, "a large part of the commercial transmission area will collapse". I find that statement remarkable in this context. We on this side of the House have been attempting to quantify in some way the extent of the problems the Minister is seeking to address in this legislation. It is acknowledged that in the latter stages of the Bill there are some sections that deal with matters outstanding which should be addressed, such as dealing with transmission reflectors and the MMDS system on the one hand and the appointment of an auditor internal to RTE's purposes on the other, but we cannot understand how three sections of the Bill were drafted and placed before us at the end of May and within days two of them could be abandoned in response to pressures from whatever quarter. If there is this imminent collapse of a large part of the commercial transmission sector as Deputy O'Dea claims, how can a Minister vacillate so dramatically on his proposals to address that impending problem? Deputy O'Dea produced no evidence to support his wild allegations that a large part of the commercial transmission area is under threat and there are companies of high profile who have specific difficulties. There has been no attempt to address those difficulties or analyse why they are there, and there is constant harking back to the notion that there is an unlevel playing pitch to be dealt with and that competition must be made fairer. I ask for evidence from Deputy O'Dea or the Minister to justify the wide and sweeping statement that a large part of commercial transmission will collapse.
Finally, he exhorted us on the Opposition side not to hide our light under a bushel, to come forward if we had ideas. I tell him to address his Minister and ask him to lift the guillotine on this debate and let us progress with the development of ideas and the expansion of the discussion, and good ideas will emerge.
As I indicated this morning, one good idea which has emerged from this debate so far is the proposals advocated and presented yesterday by "Campaign 25" on behalf of the independent film makers in this country. They had proposed a workable formula which will meet the Minister's target of the redistribution of resources. On the other hand, if they are fully investigated they can save and secure those jobs in the public sector that will inevitably be displaced, distributed or destroyed by what has been suggested. Therefore, if they are looking for suggestions we believe they are there, but the real issues that need to be discussed at the moment and need to be investigated are not short-term ambulance operations. They are far more fundamental propositions. The Minister recognised that they were not addressed during the eighties but, as I have already stated, they should have been. The Minister said that that was the time to have debated these issues. I agree that it would have been the better time to have debated them but in making that point the Minister proves my case that there are basic issues of principle which have not been addressed by successive Governments and which were left unexplored and not defined. That being so, the Minister should not simply say the time is not now opportune to discuss these issues. We will never again have the opportunity to take them up. The Minister, in recognising that there has been a lacuna in the debate, should accept the amendment proposed by The Workers' Party and defer the implementation of the legislation, hotchpotched as it is, and look at these fundamental issues again. In the light of the emerging facts, experiences, representations and analyses, he should formulate new legislation which will not be open to criticism by us in this House.
The Minister should deal specifically with the idea of a commission at this stage. I believe he is completely confused about what he is attempting to do in this legislation. The Minister has shifted ground constantly on the fundamental principle of the Bill. In his response he stated that his fundamental and first principle, if I noted his remarks correctly, was to give participants in the broadcasting area an opportunity to compete fairly. That is not in keeping with what the Minister said in his Second Stage speech in this House. He said the need for broadcasting legislation was not simply to address the problem of creating a structure for local radio, it was in equal measure a response to the emerging international broadcasting environment. He went on to say:
Other important elements of the Government's broadcasting policy are: to ensure that Irish broadcasting becomes a growth industry in line with the growth of broadcasting seen in all other countries; ensuring as far as possible that Irish broadcasting remains the mainstream Irish viewers' and listeners' choice; bringing new investment and higher productivity into Irish broadcasting, and creating new secure employment in the sector ...
Further on in his speech he referred to the need to establish a fair competitive environment. He said:
A logical corollary to the process of opening up the broadcasting sector is the need to establish a fair competitive environment in it.
Throughout his speech the Minister referred, in order of priority, to the need for a fair competitive environment. Yet in replying to The Workers' Party amendment he abandoned the basic elements of the Government's broadcasting policy and the two fundamental tasks of his Department — the need to secure a fair and developing broadcasting ethos for local radio and respond to international developments — and said that the first principle was the establishment of a fair competitive environment for participants.
The Minister is confused and is shifting ground on these important issues. This makes my case for the need for the Minister to go back to the basic first principle and review what exactly is going on in the field. Our amendment proposes to give the Minister the opportunity to do this by deferring the enactment of the legislation until he receives the report of the commission proposed in amendment No. 3. This report could be debated fully in both Houses of the Oireachtas in advance of any further steps which might be taken by the Minister.
The Minister referred to the results of the joint national listnership research study which were published today in the media. He quoted extensively from the survey in order to show that there has been a remarkable burgeoning in the independent broadcasting sector. I do not think anybody doubted this success. Reservations were expressed earlier about the extent to which they were succeeding but no-one would in any way deny that good fortune to those in the independent sector who know how to run their business.
I want to ask the Minister a simple question. Given the results of the survey, what is the urgency in introducing this Bill? Why does he feel it necessary to ram through this legislation? I do not believe the Minister has attempted to explain to the House his reasons for doing this. Even though the Minister does not accept our amendment he should at least show us the basic courtesy of imparting information and tell us why and for what purpose he is ramming through the legislation. As I have said, the reasons he put forward in his Second Stage speech for doing this have been abandoned. The facts which have emerged during this debate should impact fundamentally on the perceived urgency of the Minister's activities. Given the healthy picture which is emerging, the Minister should tell us why he feels it is necessary to ram this legislation through both Houses with such speed and vigour. What are the problems and why are we being asked to deal with this legislation so peremptorily?
The final argument the Minister put forward for this legislation was that, having created the conditions to allow the independents into the field, he now wanted to allow them to compete fairly. Is the Minister prepared to tell us in the short moments left in this debate tonight the position in regard to Alsamero Limited, who were asked to compete and entered the competition at a stage when the goalposts were clearly fixed at a certain position on the playing field? Even though the contract has been awarded but not yet signed the Minister proposes in this Bill to fundamentally alter the goalposts from their original position in two very fundamental ways. First, the Minister is now proposing to allow the third television channel to use their own transmission service and not have to be linked exclusively into the MMDS system. Alsamero Limited in their submission to the commission said that that was a fundamental problem, they did not see the MMDS system as satisfying their needs entirely and they had reservations about its workability. They argued that the only basic hope a third television channel had of surviving was by putting a cap on advertising. Even though the Minister indicated at that time that he had no intention of capping advertising he has put forward such a proposal in this legislation.
Alsamero Limited have said that they would be prepared to tender again in a changed environment. However, the Minister has created unfair competition in the independent sector. If he is as strongly motivated as he says he is to achieving fair competition I should like him to tell us if steps will now be taken to direct the commission to reopen the issue of the contract for the third channel. These are important matters which have been advanced by the Minister in an attempt to deny the validity of the arguments put forward by the Opposition in support of what I suggest is an important and opportune amendment to the Bill and I invite his response. I hope we will hear a response to these specific queries and that I will not experience a repeat of what happened in regard to the promises I had that the issues I raised in regard to advertising would be answered, but clearly they never will be in the current debate.
I want to make a very short contribution in support of this amendment.
Deputy Fitzpatrick rose.
I did not observe the Deputy offering. I apologise, because I would have called the Deputy had I realised he was offering.
The debate might collapse.
We will not make the same mistake.
I wish to support this amendment requesting the Minister to put the Bill on the long finger and not bring it forward until some time in the future. This is very good advice and I hope that it will be listened to at the end of the day.
I very much regret the nature of this debate. I have watched and listened from inside this House and I have also listened to comment outside the House about what we have been doing since we started to discuss the Broadcasting Bill, 1990. It grieves me deeply because in almost ten years in the Dáil I have never seen this Chamber descend to such a circus — and I regret that I have to use that word — as I have seen here. There is something seriously wrong when this happens. Admittedly, the Chair is under pressure, but the speakers have been involved in what is a distorted debate. We did not have a Second Stage debate, which was sadly missed, and individuals are trying to make Second Stage speeches during the Committee Stage. I think the best advice is to withdraw this legislation, because it is contentious. I regret that the House has descended to this level of ineffective discussion on very important legislation. This is not the way to deal with legislation and it does not make for effective or lasting statutes. I am really surprised that a Minister of the experience and skill of the Minister opposite has let such a situation develop and I am sure it must be a ministerial nightmare to have to wake up every day to this. I suggest it is not too late to bring reason to bear and postpone the legislation, which would be the most sensible and appropriate thing to do.
I question who is advising the Minister on this issue. I wonder if the Minister has talked to men and women on the street, because he must know the outrage that his proposals have caused out there on the streets. I do not exaggerate when I say that it would be difficult to get anyone who understands, let alone agrees, with this Bill. I wonder if the Minister has consulted — I suspect he has — those who will be deeply affected by this legislation; but, unfortunately, the Minister believes he has the wisdom and understanding to go it alone. However, I assure the Minister that the best advice would be to withdraw the Bill now, let the matter settle down during the summer and, having then consulted with the interest groups, to come back with fresh proposals based on what the Minister has heard so far. I am not suggesting that the Minister should give in to the interest groups — of course, I am not — but he must listen to them and reflect on their views. After such a process the legislation will contain what the Minister wants and — what is important — he will have listened to the contributions and objections from all sides.
There is great anger and concern about the Bill. People are genuinely concerned about jobs. Every single minute the Bill is in this House it is building on and exaggerating that fear. I hope this will not be seen as a case of fighting it out to the last, because I have to say that is a form of macho politics which upsets me since we should be bringing our best intelligence to bear on this Bill. This is not happening and is so far removed from it that it is very distressing.
We all have an interest in the broadcasting service. I have to say, as I probably will not speak again on the Bill, that RTE have a wonderful reputation and provide a broadcasting service second to none no matter where you go in the world. They are doing a wonderful job and we all want to see them grow and develop. We want to see public service broadcasting strengthened and consolidated, but we would also like to see private sector broadcasting developed and protected. Let the Minister not be afraid of losing face. It would be a case of putting the public interest before all the shenanigans and party political point scoring we have had.
I support this amendment. It is eminently sensible. I would love to think that we could come back when we are much cooler and look at this legislation after we have all had a break. What is happening is regrettable.
I wish to make a few points on this Bill.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
My thanks to Deputy Mitchell for calling the quorum because it means that my words of wisdom will not be wasted on the desert air. The Bill is attracting a lot of attention in the House. It is dealing with the media but, unfortunately or fortunately, the representatives of the media cannot be bothered turning up to pay any attention to the proceedings of the House. I have no doubt that they will get their information off the tapes later.
That is a reflection of the opinion polls.
It is a reflection on what is being said in the Chamber.
The Deputy is welcome back. We missed him last night for half an hour.
Members of the Opposition will have noticed last week when they attended the Radio Éireann bash in Molesworth Street that the public were not too interested, although the calibre of the entertainers was quite high. On that occasion we had the licenced national court jesters in attendance.
Fianna Fáil would win the war of words any day against the jesters outside. This is the biggest theatre in town.
I gather The Workers' Party had a few of them in Teilifís Éireann also. I gather that they were very active at the party's recent Ard-Fheis.
Deputy Fennell referred to the public interest. It is very difficult for Members, with their collective wisdom, to know where the public interest lies, even with the best will in the world. The Minister for Communications, like his predecessors, has tried to define public interest and act accordingly. All Ministers have tried to act in the best interest of the public; and Deputy Mitchell will be aware that he got singed, if not by the public, at least by the media.
In his amendment Deputy Mitchell suggests that the President, following consultation with the Council of State, should nominate members of the Authority of the IRTC. The Deputy will be aware of how difficult it was for him to nominate the members when he was Minister. The Minister is answerable to the Dáil and the President is not. The Deputy's amendment is ludicrous and I do not see the point in debating it further.
I should now like to deal with the amendment tabled by the Workers' Party. If one looks at that amendment one will see that their list of nominees for membership of their proposed commission does not include a broadcaster.
We are not dealing with that.
And the Deputy was not dealing with the matter before the House when he was wandering around the Chamber earlier. It is sufficient to point out that The Workers' Party have not included a broadcaster in their proposal. That is an indication of the shallowness of their thinking. My case rests.
The Deputy has suggested that there is not a broadcaster included in our amendment, which suggests who should sit on the commission we have proposed. If the Deputy reads our amendment he will see that the first nominee we suggest should be that of the Minister for Communications. It will be a matter for him to decide whether to choose a broadcaster or not. We suggest that there should be a nominee of the RTE Authority and I cannot understand how any person would suggest that that person would not be a broadcaster. We suggest there should be a nominee of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and it will be a matter for them as to whom they choose.
A broadcaster has not been specified.
We further suggest that there should be a nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and they have many broadcasters within their membership to nominate. We suggest that there should be a nominee of Film Makers Ireland, the independent body for broadcasters and film makers, and a nominee of the National Association of Community Broadcasting.
None of them is a broadcaster. The Deputy's party are guilty of sloppy draftsmanship.
Whatever about our drafting, the Deputy's reading leaves a lot to be desired.
It is clear that this issue will not be given serious consideration. It has developed into an issue about saving the Minister's face and not about broadcasting.
(Wexford): The Deputy should think up a new line. We have been listening to the one he used all day.
The debate is not about the future of broadcasting or about the Programme for National Recovery.
For a man who as Minister did nothing that is an extraordinary thing to say.
Deputy Roche, the ministerial hangman, was sent in as a messenger boy to defend the three versions of the Minister's policy in succession.
I deem the use of the word "hangman" to be most unparliamentary and I must insist on its withdrawal.
I happily withdraw the word "hangman"——
Without qualification.
Without qualification. The reality is that the distinguished Member from Greystones would not have the neck to do that job. I am pleased to note that before The Workers' Party's amendment is put we have in the Chamber one member of the Progressive Democrats, a Minister. I should like to ask that Minister to avail of the opportunity to participate in the debate because to date no member of that party has. The Minister should clarify whether his party's spokesperson on communications speaks for the party. That is a serious matter.
The first one.
On the independently produced television programme, "What's on the Box" screened on RTE 1 on Wednesday 20 June between 10 p.m. and 11.45 p.m. Senator Cullen was interviewed. That interview went as follows——
I have persistently said that there should be no reference in this House to Members of the other House. Senator Cullen's views, or those of any other Member of that House, expressed in that House or abroad, are of no relevance here. They should not be referred to. By tradition such matters are not referred to. Reference to the Seanad, or Members of that House, should not be referred to in this House.
I do not have any wish to fall out with the Chair on this issue but the Progressive Democrats are members of the Government. We have a Progressive Democrats Member present for the first time in the debate.
That is not true.
It is in order to inquire whether that party's spokesperson on communications speaks for the party.
Actions or utterances in the Seanad may not be referred to in this House. That is the tradition of the House and the Chair will uphold it.
I have to accept the ruling of the Chair but I intend to ask the Chair's office for precedents because I am not aware of any. I presume the Chair's office will be able to provide me with those precedents.
The Deputy is entitled to inquire from my office about the issue.
I should like to raise a point of order. The statement referred to by Deputy Mitchell was made outside the other House and I suggest that that gives Deputy Mitchell the right to refer to it.
The Seanad and the Dáil are two separate Houses of the Oireachtas and one does not reflect on the other.
The statement was made outside the House.
That is beside the point.
Is it not the practice in the House to quote statements by persons who are not Members of the House?
The Chair, as far as I am concerned, has always depreciated references to persons outside the House, be they complimentary or otherwise.
I will repeat my question for the sake of clarity. Is it not the case that over the years, right up to the present, people from outside the House have been quoted in respect of all sorts of arguments?
Yes, sometimes, of course. It depends on the terms used, the circumstances and various other factors.
Is there a precedent for Members of the Seanad speaking outside it to be quoted in this House?
I have ruled on the matter appertaining to Members of the other House and I stand by the ruling.
I have already given you notice that I will ask for——
The Deputy has asked for some reference and precedents in the matter. I will refer him to a variety of precedents that references to Senators, by way of praise or blame, should not be made in this House. They are as follows: reference 181159, reference 752538, reference 76112, reference 912534, reference 224866, reference 1218 and many others.
I will not quote, although obviously this restriction will be pursued. Will the Minister for Energy say whether the policy enunciated on television by the spokesperson for communications is party policy? If so, will he be disowned for the sake of ramming through the Bill?
Just watch how I vote.
I was going to accuse the Minister of selling his soul but that presumes he has a soul.
Very humorous.
On the question of the amendment and the commission, it is the most sensible way of approaching future broadcasting. The way this issue has developed and changed makes it impossible for the Minister to do anything except to stick rigidly to what has apparently been agreed as Government policy. The decision could not be considered a well judged one and it could have adverse effects for the future of broadcasting.
There can have been few more foolish debates in the House in the history of Dáil Éireann than the one we have endured for the last two days. There can be no more foolish suggestion than the one that after ten or 12 years we should now consider the appointment of a commission. That suggestion would have had great merit if it had been made, for example, when Deputy Mitchell was Minister. Earlier on he suggested that things had changed very dramatically in radio, communications and information technology in the last three years. With all due respects to Deputy Mitchell, that is simply not true. MMDS was a probability in broadcasting three, four and five years ago and satellite broadcasting had been discussed throughout Europe for the last decade. The biggest reality in broadcasting in Ireland for the last 15 years was that, for ten of them, a piracy illegality reigned supreme. If there was a time for a commission, a White Paper or a discussion document, that was the time for it, not now. There is nothing wrong with engaging in a filibuster here — it is a parliamentary tradition — but the Members who engaged in it should not try to dress up their efforts as if they were a contribution to democracy. All that they have done is to achieve a situation where we have discussed several lines of important legislation in two days of continuous debate. If that is the way they wish to waste time, that is fine, but let them not decry the fact that the Minister and the Government have decided we will make some progress on the issue. There are still some days left to debate this matter and we should get on with it rather than having continuous arguments and the reiteration of points.
I will make a brief point. The suggestion that a commission should be appointed at this stage is not just foolish, it reflects little credit on the people who put this amendment together. If those people were even remotely interested in communications they would have come forward with positive suggestions. The Minister has indicated, and proved, that he is prepared to be flexible. We will be discussing other amendments which the Minister will introduce which will indicate his flexibility and I will be indicating my views on them when the time comes. The amendment we are now discussing is patently foolish and has nothing to recommend it.
As the proposer of the amendment, I obviously cannot let the remarks of the previous speaker, Deputy Roche, pass. I spent time on Committee Stage of this Bill in the House listening to anyone who wished to contribute. Deputies have repeated remarks along the way, but no doubt every Deputy who makes a point which has been made before genuinely believes that he or she can make a better contribution. I did not have any difficulty in listening to the same argument being made in a different way. I do not consider the experience of listening to a debate in this House as an endurance and I resent the suggestion that that is what it is. In regard to the suggestion that the amendment is foolish, will Deputy Roche explain his remark?
I do not wish to delay the debate but I indicated very clearly that the time for discussion documents and for teasing out the issue is well over. Deputy Mitchell certainly reached an historic level as an ex-Minister when he said today in the House that, as a Minister, he decided the best thing he could do was nothing. That is probably the most truthful thing he said in a long time.
Masterly inactivity.
With regard to the specific question the Deputy addressed to me, his suggestion that a commission should be appointed now is foolish and disingenuous because it would simply impede progress and comes far too late in the debate. I thought I made that clear.
I cannot resist the temptation to refer Deputy Roche to his three contributions on the Broadcasting Bill over the past four weeks because each one of them contradicts the other.
Mine?
Yes. He supported the Minister on the first debate; when the Minister changed his mind Deputy Roche again supported the changes; and he is now supporting the third set of changes. What can be more eloquent than the remarks regarding the need to tease out not merely the Minister's changes but the Deputy's convolutions in trying to ingratiate himself with his own Front Bench colleagues?
Silence is the most charitable response.
It would appear that we are coming to the end of the debate on this amendment. As the debate progressed throughout the day I felt my contribution became increasingly relevant. Indeed it became quite clear that the view I held at the time that this amendment merely seeks the deferral of the Bill rather than deals with the substance of any commission is correct and since the time for such a commission has long since expired I remain opposed to the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 74.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- 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.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- 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.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- 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, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- 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.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Byrne and McCartan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"3.—(1) There shall be established a Commission on Broadcasting.
(2) The Commission shall examine and report on all aspects of radio and television broadcasting, including the following matters—
(a) the development of public service broadcasting.
(b) the development of community broadcasting,
(c) the development of Seirbhís Telefís na Gaeltachta,
(d) the funding of broadcasting at national and local level,
(e) the maintenance and improvement of broadcasting standards,
(f) the development of an export market in Irish produced radio and television programmes or services,
and shall publish its report within 12 months.
(3) The membership of the Commission shall consist of—
(a) a nominee of the Minister for Communications,
(b) a nominee of the RTE Authority,
(c) a nominee of the Independent Radio and Television Commission,
(d) a nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions,
(e) a nominee of the Arts Council,
(f) a nominee of Údarás na Gaeltachta,
(g) a nominee of Film Makers Ireland, and
(h) a nominee of the National Association of Community Broadcasting.
(4) At the first meeting of the Commission, which shall be convened by the Minister, the Members shall elect a Chairperson from among their members."
In moving this amendment I hope at least that I can nail the first lie of the Minister when he sought to reject the previous amendment when in his all too familiar peremptory manner he advised us that the more he listened to the debate on the need for a commission the more he was convinced that it was a device to defer the implementation of this legislation. Amendment No. 2 has been defeated by a vote in this House. The establishment of a commission will not now have any impact on the date on which the legislation will be introduced. For that reason any suggestion that this is a device to effect deferral of the implementation of the Bill and its proposals cannot now be made.
Nevertheless, I hope, in the short time I will take to propose and support this amendment, to illustrate to the Minister my enthusiasm for and my belief in the need to establish a commission which is in no way diminished because we have passed on from amendment No. 2. While the legislation will not now be arrested in any way and will become operative from the day it passes through the Dáil and the Seanad, its effects will be immediate, as is apparent from a reading of the Bill, upon the viability and commerciality of RTE. The need to look at the issue of a commission to address fundamental issues affecting broadcasting is just as urgent. Once this legislation is in place and begins to operate in the way that it inevitably will, in the way we have described in the last number of days in debate on Committee and Second Stages, I believe the need for a committee to investigate basic principles and the ground rules for broadcasting, both public and private, and its future development here will become all the more urgent and necessary.
The amendment in the name of The Workers' Party proposes, at this stage, that a commission on broadcasting be established and that it shall examine and report on all aspects of radio and television broadcasting, including the matters mentioned in the amendment. We have set them out in order of importance. The first area which needs urgent review is that of the development of public service broadcasting. The second matter that we believe the commission should be charged with is the development of community broadcasting. The third most important area to be considered, because its future is entirely questioned by what the Minister is now proposing, is the development of Teilifís na Gaeltachta. The fourth is the funding of broadcasting at national and local level, which is obviously a central issue to be investigated and debated. Where will the funding come from? At what levels will it be made available and what controls and distribution mechanisms will be applied to its spending?
The next issue we propose is the maintenance and improvement of broadcasting standards. In this miscellaneous and hotch-potch legislation the Minister is giving himself further powers. There is merely consultation with the RTE Authority in regard to the formulation of standards for the future. That represents a radical departure in the regime with regard to control and policing of RTE and consequently begs the need for a commission to investigate this whole area and report on it.
Finally, we propose consideration of the whole area of expansion of Irish broadcasting, recognising the important role it plays internationally and that it is one of the most successful European broadcasting networks, despite the size of the country and the lack of resources available to it in comparison with its competitors in the European area. Nonetheless, it has the potential of tapping into the export market and realising some of the aspirations the Minister talked about on Second Stage of expanding on the market, increasing productivity and creating greater and more secure employment in the broadcasting sector. These matters could be seriously addressed, based upon fully detailed analysis and report.
However, the amendment sets a time schedule and argues that the report should be available by then, as we believe it can be. As has been pointed out by Deputies on the Opposition side who have held the position of Minister — indeed the Minister also recognises this — a lot of the analysis and investigation has taken place but it has not been drawn together in a coherent and workable fashion by the establishment of a commission, which the Minister admitted should have taken place in the eighties. For that reason we argue that the commission should be set up and the report, once compiled, would be made available to the Houses of the Oireachtas within 12 months of the establishment of the commission.
The next point in the amendment is one that perhaps would not have needed great comment were it not for the intervention of Deputy Fitzpatrick earlier in the debate. In joining in the cacophonous chorus of derision that has been visited on our efforts as parliamentarians by the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, and to some degree contributed to if not emulated by the peremptory attitude of the Minister in attempting to deal with some of the arguments we raised, Deputy Fitzpatrick tried to illustrate that our attempts at drafting amendments are not of a serious nature. That other luminary in the Chamber, Deputy Roche, has been foolish in suggesting that in our proposal for the commission we did not include one broadcaster. Therefore, I will take some time to explain who we envisage should be on the commission.
Our first choice would be a person nominated by the Minister for Communications. If Deputy Fitzpatrick or anyone else on the Government side believes there is a case to be made for a broadcaster, no doubt he will bring his representations to bear on the Minister, who would accept such an enlightened suggestion, and it would be open to him to nominate one of the many broadcasters available and willing to act on his behalf. Our second choice would be a nominee of the RTE Authority. I cannot see how one could describe such a nominee as other than a broadcaster. Our third choice would be a nominee from the Independent Radio and Television Commission, whose sole responsibility under the establishing legislation was to work towards the introduction of the independent sector of broadcasting, both radio and television. To suggest that their nominee would not represent a broadcasting body or organisation would be defying logic in its entirety. Our next choice would be a person nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, whose membership has a vast range of broadcasting experience.
We would have no difficulty, therefore, in meeting the views of Deputy Fitzpatrick if he believes that organisation should appoint a broadcaster. The same can be said of our next choice of nominating body, the Arts Council, and also of Údarás na Gaeltachta, a broadcasting authority. To suggest that the nominee of the authority who broadcast Raidió na Gaeltachta would not be a broadcaster would again be defying logic. Our next choice of organisation is a body who have contributed substantially to the future of broadcasting, that is, the Film Makers Ireland organisation, who have been lobbying strongly for the re-establishment of the independent film-making sector since the abolition of the Film Board. They are, in essence, a film-making and broadcasting organisation. Finally, we would suggest a nominee of the National Association of Community Broadcasting, who are also a voluntary national organisation working towards the promotion of the forgotten area of the 1988 legislation — the establishment of community radio outlets throughout the country. The commission, once assembled, would at their first meeting, as suggested in the amendment, nominate their chairperson.
I hope that in outlining the membership of this commission in such detail it will be appreciated in the House that we have attempted to embrace the widest possible range of organisations and bodies actively involved, and certainly interested, in the future of broadcasting in this country. If the Minister accepts this amendment he will have little or no difficulty in finding from among the suggested nominees a range of experience and depth of view that has never before been assembled to consider the future development of broadcasting. The fact that our previous amendment has been defeated in no way takes from the urgency of the matter. Once the legislation begins to take effect on the very fabric and future existence of RTE as a broadcasting authority, we must urgently look at the way things are going. If we do not take stock of what is happening and try to redress some of the damage that will be done to RTE as a result of this legislation, if we do not have the vehicle in place to do that job then the effectiveness of RTE, as a national broadcasting organisation, in all the ramifications of that concept, will be seriously threatened. I accept that we are not talking about the demise in its entirety of RTE as a broadcasting authority. I have no doubt that they will devise a means and will survive in the market but it will be a limited survival and it will be in the context of an authority that will be inevitably forced to abandon many of their public service cultural and community contributions which they currently provide. I say that because of the extraordinary punitive provisions contained in the Minister's proposals and which we are not now likely to be able to debate because of the unwarranted guillotine to this debate which will be proposed tomorrow.
In the event of RTE exercising any form of commercial muscle, of being inventive or creative in that area, and if they earn an income in excess of the licence revenue yield, they will be automatically penalised in the subsequent year. That represents such a restriction on the future development of RTE that their impact will be profound to the extent that it will of necessity involve a major restructuring and redefinition of the function, role and capacity of RTE to act as a public sector broadcasting authority providing all the cultural, social and community services which are expected of them and which they currently provide. That is the first and important issue that will, of necessity, become even more urgent when one looks at the operation of this legislation when enacted.
We will put at the top of the agenda of this commission's work the need for a review and report of the development of public service broadcasting. Despite the platitudes of the Minister in the course of the debate in this House that he recognises the contribution made by RTE in all areas of public service — he said in his contribution on Second Stage that he wished to reiterate the central role that RTE will continue to play in the whole arena of broadcasting as the primary public sector broadcaster — he is not acting in a manner which will safeguard or enhance that position.
While the Minister talks of advancing, maintaining and developing the role of RTE as a public sector community broadcaster in the primary role, his proposals in the Bill will do the opposite. It is remarkable that this provision should be introduced. A company which the Progressive Democrats side of Government argue should be a progressive organisation is to be penalised whenever they show initiative and capacity to move forward. Consequently there will be a spiral of downward depression. A consequence of that downward spiral and depression in the role and function of RTE will be a shedding of the resources, a loss of revenue, because advertising will inevitably slip away from a depressed RTE television in particular and radio to a lesser degree and will go to the jazzier, more up-to-the-minute, more financially endowed and formidable competition that RTE currently have and will have to a greater degree as Sky Television, the other satellite TVs, the BBC and UTV enhance and prey upon the market. As the revenue decreases there will be a knock-on effect. I have no doubt that the revenue from licences will be reduced and that there will be a reversal of the role and function of RTE because they cannot be maintained as a genuine public service broadcasting outlet unless they are given the opportunity to raise revenue in a serious way or to act in a truly commercial way as advocated by some sections of the Government.
The development of community broadcasting relates directly to the role of RTE in the future. It is an important issue, one that will rank second in importance to that of the development of public service broadcasting. In some respects they are intrinsically linked and one would be dependent on the other.
The area of community radio broadcasting, as has been suggested in the 1988 legislation, has not been given the attention or the priority it deserves. That is a matter the Minister should take time to explain beyond simply saying that the advertisement has appeared in the national media from the independent commission, suggesting that there is movement in this matter as to why the agenda was set for the commission, that they would look to the interests of the private sector to the virtual exclusion of the independent community area. That is an area that must be looked at. I have referred to that earlier and I do not intend going back over that ground again.
The matter of seirbhís Teilifís na Gaeltachta has been dealt with by Deputy Higgins and Deputy Mac Giolla. It is remarkable to hear — if I recall directly — the Minister and one of his aides on the backbenches suggesting that there is no basis for concern or that there is no basis for linking the future televising of Irish language programmes to this debate. It is intrinsically linked to what we are debating here and what is being proposed. Consequently because there is utter and total ambivalence on the part of Government regarding their commitment to seirbhís Teilifís na Gaeltachta, it is essential that a commission, once established, would have the opportunity to investigate the whole area and to report and set down in clear and unambigious terms what needs to be done, what should be done, how it should be done and how soon it should be done. Then we would not have the prevarication that exists in this important area.
Funding is the next issue that must be addressed. It is incredible, as I suggested in the debate on the previous amendment, that the proposals in this legislation were last minute thoughts on the part of the Minister in response to a panic situation presented to him by one of the national independent broadcasting stations. Having proposed one method of alteration of funding in the public sector, the Minister, in a facile fashion, altered his attack on this whole area, took out the first two sections of the Bill and enhanced the power of the Minister to deal with the alternative of capping of advertising. In his Second Stage speech he said that one is as acceptable as the other.
He indicated that the notion of taking away a portion of the licence fee is as simple and straightforward as the idea of capping their advertising revenue. He believes that it is much easier to live with a slippage of revenue out of the country to their competitors abroad than with the so-called unlevel playing pitch but, as we have pointed out, a majority of broadcasters have not complained about this since receiving their licences.
Earlier I asked Deputy O'Dea, who has just come into the House, to outline for us the evidence which leads him to believe that a massive portion of the commercial broadcasting sector will collapse if the Minister does not get his way on this issue. I invite him again to take up that challenge, if he so desires, and to enlighten us on what information he has been fed by the Minister, who in his contributions to this debate has expressed differing views. As well as this, I think he is wrong to take the view that one notion is as simple and straightforward as the other. The Government are also being inconsistent, which is best illustrated by the way in which they can move in and shift out their amendments on the question of funding. I indicated earlier that we now have available to us from independent film makers a set of proposals on the question of funding and the redistribution of resources within the broadcasting sector and again this highlights the need to take a fresh look at the question of funding.
In relation to the maintenance and improvement of broadcasting standards, the position is changing on an almost daily basis. The directives referred to by the Minister, Deputy Higgins and I are clear evidence of this. At present the European Commission is compiling more directives and this would seem to indicate that this is an area where major changes are taking place, and one which needs to be impressively addressed by a commission in evaluating the principles emerging from Europe as laid down in the document of 3 October 1989 which, as I said, has not been debated by the Oireachtas and which highlights the need to continually review this matter and report on it.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to Article 4 which says that once the directive has been put in place there should be a European dimension to the work of broadcasters, while Article 5 emphasises the need to produce films and programmes for transmission. Article 4 states, at paragraph 3, that as and from 3 October 1991 the member states should provide the Commission every two years with a report on the application of Article 4 and Article 5. In an effort to meet that request why do we not agree to put in place a commission to report on this matter? Paragraph 4 of the same Article states that the council will review the implementation of the Article on the basis of a report from the Commission accompanied by any proposals for revision that it may deem appropriate no later than the end of the fifth year from the adoption of the directive.
Therefore it is quite clear that the Commission will continually review the implementation of the Directives and review the working of Article 4 at the five year mark. To this end, the Article states that the report shall, on the basis of the information provided by member states under paragraph 3, take account in particular of developments in the Community market and of the international context. The carrying out of a review on the implementation of the directives on broadcasting is central to the work of the Commission and our domestic commission, once established, could have an input into this. As I said, one of its main tasks is to ensure that standards are maintained. This should also be one of the main tasks of the commission proposed in the amendment.
The need to maintain standards in the advertising sector is dealt with in section 5 which I have no doubt we will not reach, given that the Government propose to guillotine the discussion tomorrow. Under section 5 the Minister will be given a free hand in drafting codes of practice for the advertising sector in relation to sponsorship, commercial promotions and so on. While he will be under an obligation to consult the authority, he has not indicated to what extent he is prepared to be bound by this. If the practices of other members of the Government are anything to go by, the concept of consultation is very thin and flimsy and offers us no hope. This highlights the need to look again at this matter and to include the maintenance and improvement of broadcasting standards as one of the matters to be referred to by the commission on broadcasting in their report.
The Minister has indicated that his primary goals are the securing of employment, an expansion of the market and an improvement in productivity. It should be borne in mind that RTE have achieved each of these aims and have responded positively to any suggestions made by the Ministers or in reports of independent assessors during the past five years. It is important that these standards are applied in the independent sector and, more importantly, the most vulnerable areas in the broadcasting sector must not be forgotten in developing an export market in Irish produced radio and television programmes. Quite frankly, the Minister has not considered this. This morning I drew his attention to the proposals of Campaign 25 which I have no doubt he has examined very carefully and evaluated. Unfortunately, he made no reference to these in any of his contributions to this debate. It would appear therefore that, given his silence, he is bereft of any ideas or suggestions as to how the State sector as well as the independent and private sector can be encouraged to expand. He has failed to respond to any of the worthwhile proposals made. Having regard to the fact that the Minister and his colleagues in Government seem to be bereft of ideas, it is clearly necessary for a commission to refer to this matter in the way suggested.
For all those reasons I commend to the House the suggestion that there is always a time to review broadcasting and its standards. It is all the more urgent and necessary now in view of the radical departures encapsulated in the proposals of the Minister. These depart from the fundamental principles as laid down in the debates on the 1988 legislation and in the Minister's Second Stage speech, which are not adhered to in his proposed amendments or in his arguments against our amendments.
I hope I will hear a little more than an offhand, single line or double sentence dismissal of arguments from this side of the House. The Minister's view that what we are engaged in is nothing more than an attempt to defer the legislation for the sake of deferral has been put to rest. The issue of deferral is gone due to the defeat of the previous amendment. I am convinced that the amendment I am now proposing is relevant and all the more urgent in view of the fact that the proposals of the Minister will have immediate effect on being passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
We are discussing a matter we have debated all day, namely the establishment of a commission. The amendment sets out to establish the form of commission that should be set up, when it should report and the items which should be discussed and examined by the commission. It is basically the same issue on which we voted earlier when the House decided not to proceed with the establishment of the commission.
Deputy McCartan paints a picture in which there is only one broadcaster, RTE. In my view RTE will remain the premier broadcaster but not the only broadcaster in this country. I will refer later to the survey published today relating to listening habits and the plurality of choice.
The effect of this legislation will be merely to return RTE to their approximate level of income in 1988. Nobody is suggesting that the 1988 level of income resulted in bad programming or the lowering of standards. On the contrary, I believe that RTE in 1988 had excellent programming and did an excellent job. All we are talking about is returning them to the 1988 figure. It is not a question of wiping RTE out, as suggested by Deputy McCartan. We have a population of 3.5 million people and the national broadcaster will have roughly £100 million to spend per annum on broadcasting services as a result of this Bill.
I have mentioned the survey carried out into listenership. The survey is based on the months of April and May and covers all adults. It shows that 87 per cent of the population listen to the radio on any day. Of that figure, RTE had 75 per cent. Interestingly, the independent sector, which is only on the air since last September as a result of legislation brought forward in both Houses in 1988, has 40 per cent of the listenership. Much of the independent sector has only been coming on air during the spring and is building up its listenership. There is an obvious need and a desire among the general public to have plurality and alternatives. We want to create an environment which will allow the development of choice. The people have decided to go with RTE and the independents. Deputy Higgins questioned the numbers I gave earlier, but the figures printed in the survey show that over 1,090,000 people are listening to independent radio at some time during the day every day. This is quite a staggering figure and reflects the success of what we are doing in providing people with choice under the 1988 Act. We want to build further on that choice and ensure we have a strong base, while at the same time retaining the premier position of RTE with its income of approximately £100 million to serve the needs of 3.5 million people.
Deputy McCartan spoke about film production. I note what he said about the proposals from the film-makers. I made it clear in 1988 that one of the motivations for the third television channel, apart from considerations of choice and plurality, was to create a stimulus for the Irish audio-visual production sector, for which there is great scope for expansion and development. We clearly have the talent and expertise, as best manifested by the recent success of Noel Pearson and Jim Sheridan with their film "My Left Foot". We also operate in the main in the English language, which is probably the most commercial language for the export of films and television programmes.
In recognition of the importance of this sector, I imposed specific obligations under the 1988 Act on the independent television company in relation to commissioning from the independent production sector. While I would not necessarily be opposed to the idea of imposing a similar obligation on RTE, it is not necessary to do so because of the obligations laid down in the EC Directive which I read into the record yesterday and which provides that 10 per cent of either transmission time or programme budgets must go to the independent production sector. I am very conscious of the role of the independent production sector. I think 10 per cent is the appropriate level to start with. The UK may be proposing a 25 per cent independent quota for their services, but their audio-visual production sector is much more developed than ours and has had the benefit of some ten years of Channel 4, which has been a major catalyst for the development of the independent sector there. I want our independent television channel to become the equivalent of the Channel 4-type operation in calling on the services of the independent production sector. As a result of this legislation and the 1988 Act I see a very healthy future for the independent film production sector.
The Deputy's proposal for a commission is something that could and should have been looked at in the early eighties when a previous administration were in power, but they did not look at it. They decided not to do so. They sat on it. We heard Deputy Mitchell say his decision to do nothing was the best decision of the lot.
Deputy Higgins spoke about the 14th point in their 14 point agreement with the Fine Gael Party for the 1982 Government being the development of community radio and alternative radio to that of the pirates. However, while they talked about it — and they want another talking shop, a commission, here — nothing happened and the pirates continued on the air while they sat and discussed and talked. Deputy Higgins and Deputy O'Sullivan at certain stages in this debate made the point that they could have acted to take the pirates off the air by going back to the 1926 legislation. The fine under the 1926 legislation for piracy on the air was £50. The legislation I passed in this House imposed a fine of £20,000 or two years in jail on indictment for those who broadcast without a licence from the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
In the development of the electronic media sector there is no need at this stage for the commission as outlined by Deputy McCartan, and I have just given my reasons for saying that.
I am not going to speak at any length on this amendment. As with the previous amendment, I support it and I am sorry the Minister does not see his way to accepting it. It is the most constructive way to proceed. To correct any wrong impression the Minister has tried repeatedly to give, let me say I decided to do all I could about broadcasting in keeping with what I thought was proper and correct for the future of broadcasting. I refused to do anything I felt would jeopardise the future of broadcasting. I fear very much the Minister's proposals before the House will not help the future of broadcasting.
Having said that, I agree substantially with the Minister about choice. I fought valiantly to provide a choice and I refused to proceed along lines which would deprive the listener and viewer of choice. I want that choice to be established. To that extent I agree absolutely with the Minister. I disagree with the Minister proceeding in a way that is based on hunch, on a passion for activity and confusing that with action. I fear that is where he is making a mistake.
The Minister has come into the House today to report on the listenership survey. He gains some satisfaction from the fact that the new independent broadcasters have gained a significant listening audience. I am delighted at that and it comes as no surprise to me. The problem is that some of those broadcasters have run up large debts because of certain mistakes made in the early days, teething problems and unanticipated problems of a larger scale than were allowed for. Undoubtedly some of those problems were of their own making, but some were not.
Because of the Minister's passion for activity, it is no secret that Century Radio were pushed on to the air earlier than they wanted to go on the air, and that was a costly mistake. Because they went on sooner than they planned to do they had to proceed on the basis of not being very well geared or not having their plans thoroughly thought out, and they had to settle for a combination of wavelengths on the frequency spectrum that made it impossible for them to market their product across the nation. Those two areas might be taken on board by the State as a mistake on the part of the State. For those two reasons I felt that the situation warranted once-off assistance to help them over their teething problems, of course on the basis that once those teething problems were over there was a viable future for them. We are a long way from proving that there is a viable future for alternative national radio and even more so for alternative national television. That should not prevent us from aspiring to national alternatives for both radio and television. Competition is good for the country, for viewers, for listeners and for RTE.
However, as I have said, many interest groups have a legitimate interest in being protected and they ought to be listened to. There should be some forum from which they can put forward their views and know they are going to be put into the balance and weighed up carefully and fairly. That has not happened. Many people very deeply involved in different aspects of producing programmes have not been given the opportunity of presenting their case and having it heard. That is why I think there is merit in the amendment now before the House in the name of The Workers' Party.
The previous amendment, which was defeated by the House, sought to defer the rest of the provisions of the Bill until such a commission reported. That was defeated, so it would appear that the Minister's proposals are going to become law. Not only that, the Minister himself is going to have no choice especially if this new section 4 is inserted unamended. He will not have discretion. He may wish to reflect between now and Report Stage on whether it is wise, even if he deprives himself of discretion, to be able to pull back later if a mistake has been made in this legislation.
Let us anticipate that the provisions at present proposed or ultimately proposed by the Minister on this Stage and Report Stage are carried. It seems it would be reasonable for the Minister to say that that is his decision for now and it is a good idea to have a dispassionate overview of the situation. That is why I say to the Minister that he should reflect on whether he can accept the amendment before the House. This amendment in no way militates against the other provisions he plans for ultimate addition to this Bill.
It is only nine months since the independent broadcasters got on the air and it is good to hear that they have gained a significant audience. We must hope the audience they have gained ensure for them sufficient income to enable them to continue to provide a vibrant and interesting service and to grow in future. That is important, but to consider plurality as the Minister calls it — competition — purely in the context of the boundaries of this State makes no sense in terms of broadcasting.
We have to consider the future of broadcasting not only in the national context but in the international context. RTE, as the Minister has said, will remain the pre-eminent broadcasting service but they have to battle in news, sports and other programmes with broadcasting institutions in Britain which have enormously greater resources. Yet, with their flair, enterprise and dexterity, I think we would all agree they have provided a service which compares reasonably well with the British services which, as the Minister said, are reckoned to be the best in the world. If they are, the Irish television services run them a very close second and are certainly superior to anything I have seen in North America or Europe. This will not continue if all possibilities of enterprise are stifled in RTE. That is the worst aspect of the Minister's proposals, as I said earlier.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.