I seek clarification in respect of two motions, the first of which is in the name of Deputy Jim Mitchell and the second in the names of Deputies O'Sullivan and Higgins. Does the Deputy intend moving that motion?
Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Report Stage.
I do.
Motion No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Jim Mitchell.
I am not with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I do not intend to move my motion just yet.
The Deputy must move it.
I do not wish to move it just yet. I understand, under Standing Order 102, I am free to move the motion at any stage before before Fifth Stage.
The Deputy is reserving his right to move it.
I did not quite hear what you said. Did you mention my name?
There is a motion in your name, motion No. 2.
It is on the Order Paper.
We reserve our right to move it.
I have been advised, Deputy Mitchell, that your motion would require a recommittal of the whole Bill. Therefore it would have to be disposed of now if it were your intention to do so.
I seek clarification. Standing Order 102 reads:
A motion may be made to recommit a Bill either wholly or in respect of certain sections or amendments. The motion may be made at any time before the order for the Fifth Stage shall have been made.
The Deputy appreciates where it is proposed to recommit something in its totality it would be rather late in the day to do so——
It all depends on how forthcoming the Minister is and whether he accepts amendments to the Bill as we proceed. This will dictate whether my party wish to move in my name under Standing Order 102.
The Deputy will appreciate that we do not have many precedents for matters of this kind. This is the first occasion I can recollect where a motion which would require the recommittal of a Bill is being proposed. I could understand it in respect of a part thereof but it does seem rather strange and impractical as well as——
These are very strange circumstances.
These are very strange amendments.
We have consulted the Ceann Comhairle's office and the Bills office and have been advised that we can move such a motion at any stage before Fifth Stage and any number of times.
If that is the advice given to Deputy Mitchell I am not going to counter it. We will now proceed with the Report Stage, amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan.
I seek clarification on one point before we proceed to avoid friction later on and in the coming days. We have been told that we may have a Committee Stage debate on Report Stage. Perhaps, the Government Chief Whip or the Minister could clarify the matter for us.
The Minister cannot clarify what is in Standing Orders. The Chair is the competent authority for that. Report Stage is Report Stage and nothing has happened that should alter what is required of Report Stage. On Report Stage the Deputy in whose name the amendment appears will move it and address himself to it and only he or she has the right to reply. That is in essence the Standing Order that governs Report Stage debate.
May I take it therefore that the statements made by the Government that we would have a Committee Stage debate on Report Stage have no substance?
We never said that.
The Deputy appreciates that the Government are not empowered to change Standing Orders to their own liking, if that were so. The Government or indeed anybody could not presume to alter Standing Orders in that fashion.
I seek clarification. It was generally accepted, given the controversy surrounding the Bill, that Members would be given more scope to discuss the various amendments and sections on Report Stage.
I am not privy to the source of such assurance or comment. I can quote what I am obliged to give as the essence of the Standing Order governing Report Stage debate. It is as I have indicated to the Deputy. I thought the Deputy perhaps was going to ask in that regard whether, if two amendments were being taken together, the Deputy in whose name the second amendment stood would automatically lose his right to reply, which strictly according to Standing Orders he or she does. We will proceed now with the debate in the fashion I have indicated to the Deputy. The Deputy who moves the amendment is the only Deputy entitled to reply or make a second contribution.
On a point of order, a list of suggested groupings of amendments has just been circulated. I note that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 7 are grouped together. I cannot see any logical connection between amendment No. 7 and Nos. 1 and 2. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 refer to the Title whereas amendment No. 7 refers to totally different material.
Deputy Higgins appreciates in respect of Committee Stage debate where exhortations or suggestions are made from the Chair in respect of groupings, each Deputy reserves the right to reject what is recommended. If there is an illogicality in the combination proposed, Deputies can reject it.
On a point of order, there seems to be a contradition between the suggested groupings and a letter I received from the Ceann Comhairle. Amendment No. 7 in my name has been rejected by the Ceann Comhairle in a letter to me. Let me also state that no less than five of my amendments have been rejected. I do not think this is in keeping with the spirit of the resolution we passed this morning, item No. 9, that there would be a bit of give and take and a broad view would be taken. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is well aware of the circumstances in which the Committee Stage of the Bill was taken. The Committee Stage of the Bill was not dealt with in the normal way because of the way in which the Second Stage was dealt with. I appeal to the House to allow these amendments to stand. They are all relevant although they have been rejected.
Deputy Garland, the circumstances may change temporamutantur, they do not change in respect of Standing Orders — unless the House has changed Standing Orders — and that unfortunately is the position the Chair must maintain. The Chair is not responsible for nuances or circumstances outside the responsibility of the Chair. The Chair is obligated to carry out the duties of the Chair in the fashion I have indicated. Every day of the week Deputies have regrets that what they would wish for is not included but if the Standing Order does not allow it, that is it. It is as short and as brutal as that. Can we proceed——
On a point of order, as the Chief Whip from the Government is here, I think the House could agree if it was so disposed. Deputy Garland has a number of amendments tabled in his name. While they did not feature on Committee Stage, I understand an element of latitude is to be adopted. If there is agreement in the House we should allow Deputy Garland——
Deputy McCartan, I do not think I should even allow the Chief Whip as he does not make the orders for the Chair.
I accept that.
I am sorry.
Can the House not agree to a proposition which may not be fully square with Standing Orders, and notwithstanding what has been agreed and what is in Standing Orders——
The House cannot agree to have a Committee Stage when Report Stage is ordered.
I am not suggesting that.
Amendments on Report Stage must be amendments that, arise out of Committee Stage proceedings. Deputy Garland's amendments do not fulfill that requirement. That is all there is to be said about it.
Earlier we agreed that any amendments that were not moved on Committee Stage could be recommitted on Report Stage and debated under the rules of Report procedure. I am merely suggesting, in ease of Deputy Garland, if there is agreement in the House, and if it is in order that we allow him to move his amendments. That is all.
It is not in order to move amendments that do not arise out of Committee Stage proceedings. We have enough to do to deal with what is in order without trying to introduce what is not in order. Deputy McCartan knows that motion No. 9 provided for amendments that might have been dealt with but it does not include amendments in the name of Deputy Garland. That is unfortunate but that is the position.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for that. I was merely asking, through you, of the parties in the House, if we could extend motion No. 9 to facilitate the Deputy. He has some good points that should be allowed, that should be heard. I am rising in ease of a lone voice from the Independent benches.
Deputy McCartan is a man who by his training and his competence can stand here on other occasions full of the propriety and the need and the necessity for our upholding order in the House. He is now suggesting that we should include something which is out of order. Can we proceed to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan.
I wish to raise a point of order before I go on to amendment No. 1 and again I seek your guidance. I suggest that under Standing Order No. 105 the Minister has introduced amendment No. 33 in his name, which did not appear on Committee Stage, which is entirely out of order, which puts an extra charge on RTE and which is contrary to Standing Order No. 105.
Deputy O'Sullivan, anything that appears here now has been regarded as being in order by the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle is the judge, the arbiter, on what is in order.
Deputy Garland's amendment appears here.
In relation to amendment No. 33——
I have already dealt with Deputy Garland's amendments which were not correctly arising out of Committee Stage proceedings and Deputy Garland has been so advised. The matter to which Deputy O'Sullivan refers now is a matter which appears before us and which, in the judgement of the Ceann Comhairle, is in order. If that is the opinion it is in order.
I would suggest that it is in breach of Standing Orders and with your permission I will read Standing Order No. 105:
On the Fourth Stage, no new section or other amendment may be proposed which creates a charge on the public revenue or upon the people but the Bill may be recommitted in respect of any such section or amendment.
I would respectfully suggest to you that the Minister's amendment No. 33 is out of order in as much as it puts an extra charge on RTE by virtue of the fact that he is insisting that they would take from the private sector and from the independent producers the same level of programming as they did in 1989; it is capping by another name. It is by far the most sinister move to date on this whole debate.
The amendment to which you are referring is not amendment No. 1 to which I asked you to address yourself. The point you make is in relation to a charge on the funds of RTE which is not a charge on Revenue.
It is a response to a long argument in this House to protect the interests of the independent producers.
Why can we not apply ourselves to what is correctly before us and get on with the business?
This is a very important point.
I have called on you to move amendment No. 1, that is the first amendment on the order of today, so that we can get on with the business.
I will have an opportunity again to raise this issue when we reach amendment No. 33.
I have no objection, if there is agreement, to taking amendment No. 2 with amendment No. 1 for the purposes of debate.
Amendment No. 71 is also regarded as consequential. In so far as the three are related, there is scope for ranging over the essence of all three and it is suggested, therefore, that they be taken together for the purpose of discussion, with separate questions being put if necessary.
The suggested grouping in the list circulated says amendment No. 7, not No. 71.
I am sorry, it is amendment No. 71.
It is a rather silly error.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 6, after "telegraphy" to insert "and to enable the Minister for Communications to restrict by statute the revenue available to RTE, for the purposes of securing additional revenue for independent, privately-owned, radio and television stations.".
The effect or the intent of the legislation is precisely to restrict by law the capacity of RTE to increase their premiums. The Minister has already the power to control an increase in the licence fee and he has already indicated to the House that he will not allow RTE to increase their licence fee. I have no doubt that that has certain political implications and for that reason he is not prepared to incur the wrath once again of the public in this regard.
Secondly, the declared intent of looting RTE's revenue from any advertising is to benefit the new third television channel, without any strings attached. What is even more important is the likely effect — this has been the subject of very lengthy and at times acrimonious debate in this House — of what the Minister is trying to achieve. Something which must also be taken into account and which in the long-term might be far more damaging is the effect this will have on the introduction of a further programme for national recovery. It is essential, as we face 1992, that there is another programme. I would see this as being potentially very dangerous by virtue of the fact that the Minister has now embarked on a situation where he will make people within RTE redundant. It is being done under the provisions of the law by the Minister using his voting strength in the House. Despite the outcry from the Opposition speakers he has insisted on going down that road and not heeding the warning shots that were fired at him across the Floor. I would imagine this will be something akin to the rod licence dispute, it will be protracted and the long-term effects will be much more damaging. For that reason we feel compelled to move this amendment which is a statement of fact as to what the Minister is trying to achieve.
I should like to speak on the amendment in my name on behalf of The Workers' Party, that is, that the title of this Bill should be altered in substance. On the face of it, it may appear to be a somewhat trite argument to be engaging in, that the Title of a Bill should be at issue at any stage in the debate.
Having regard to the history of this Bill, in particular the fact that, in its original draft form, drawn to our attentiontion in April last in advance of the commencement of this session when we were circulated with a list of schedules, and when it was referred to as a miscellaneous provisions Bill, the Title as drafted by the Minister was, I suppose, apt.
I made the point on Committee Stage that I had no doubt that the Bill, as originally intended by the Minister, would be substantially the Bill currently circulated running from section 5 onwards; that sections 2 to 4, inclusive, constituted issues that arose at a very late stage in this session, precipitated by alarm bells ringing in certain quarters in the independent private radio broadcasting sector backed-up by echoes of arguments the Minister had heard over his years in office from the print media, fortified by his particular hopes of an early birth of TV3. For all of those reasons sections 2 to 4, inclusive, were cobbled together and tagged on to the Bill when it was just about to be published. That is my view of the history of this Bill. I simply make the point again, acknowledging that that version has not been contradicted by the Minister at any stage and I believe it to be correct for all to see.
In reciting that short history for what it is worth I should say that apparently the Minister overlooked extending the Title of the Bill because its Title, as it stands at present, in its primary statement is:
An Act to make further provision in relation to broadcasting and wireless telegraphy and for this purpose...
It then goes on to recite the amendment of the other Acts passed by this House, those of 1960 to 1979, 1988 and 1926 to 1988. I understand the purpose of a Title of a Bill to be to reflect its essence, what it is about. I contend this Bill is far more than simply effecting additional miscellaneous additions to previous Acts. It is for that reason I believe its Title should be extended to reflect its true import and intent, as eventually launched by the Minister. My amendment proposes, in line 10, after "1988," to insert the following:
To provide for a restriction on the capacity of Radio Telefís Éireann to raise revenue from advertising with a view to promoting the interests of privately owned broadcasting stations".
Then to finish the Title by adding the words:
And to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
It would be grossly misleading for the Minister to ask this House to pass this Bill as simply a miscellaneous provisions Bill which is presented as something additional, tagged on to existing primary legislation, containing nothing new of primary instance.
The concept of the capping of advertising is an entirely new one. The Bill, as circulated originally, which talked about the restriction on the rights of RTE, as a broadcaster is an entirely new departure on the part of the Minister. Furthermore its third, most pertenent aspect, the notion of positive discrimination in favour of the private, independent radio and television broadcasting sector is also a wholly new departure. Because these features represent such a fundamental and wholly new departure in the history of broadcasting legislation, it is essential that its Title be amended to recite and acknowledge those facts.
In saying what I have I am happy to support the amendment of the Title, as suggested by Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan on behalf of The Labour Party. I should say The Workers' Party will be supporting that amendment, since it will be the first question to be put. Equally we acknowledge Deputy Today O'Sullivan's attention to detail in his amendment No. 71, recommending that, in its short Title, the Bill should when enacted reflect the public view and be cited henceforth — and I contend it will be whether or not we change its Title — not simply as the Broadcasting Act, 1990 as is suggested in amendment No. 71 but as the Restriction of Public Broadcasting Act, 1990. In essence that is what the Bill is about and will be if passed in its present form.
There are two precedents to which I might refer in terms of how the Title of a Bill should be drafted. I have to hand the Radio and Television Act, 1988, which was the legislation introduced in this House to establish the Independent Radio and Television Commission, to give it its powers, functions and ancillary authority. It recites the various different Acts that are to be amended and added to. Its title states at the outset:
An Act to provide for the establishment of an Independent Radio and Television Commission, having the functions of entering into contracts for the provision of sound broadcasting services and television programmes.
It then went on to talk about the Acts that would be amended. The Title clearly states what that Act was about, the establishment of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. The Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, establishing the RTE Authority stated in its Title:
An Act to enable an authority to be established for the purpose of providing a national television and sound broadcasting service...
And then went on to recite various Acts passed before then needing to be amended.
Therefore I contend that the Title of this Bill — if it is to properly reflect what it is all about — should now contain a statement of what the Bill is doing in essence, incorporating the new feature it introduces, that of positively discriminating in favour of the private independent sector, and then go on to miscellaneously add to and amend existing legislation.
If the Minister wants to introduce his own phrase, of pitch levelling or whatever else he likes to suggest, inelegantly, the Bill is all about, I have no objection. He has no such amendment tabled. Therefore I would invite him to accept the amendment in the name of The Workers' Party or indeed that of the Labour Party either of which would meet the primary principles involved.
I will not be supporting amendments Nos. 1 or 2 because I contend that the second part of both is misleading. The second part of amendment No. 1. reads:
...for the purposes of securing additional revenue for independent, privately-owned, radio and television stations.
I contend that the Bill, if enacted in its present state, will benefit nobody in this State. Certainly, it will not benefit independent radio and television stations.
The Title says that.
It clearly implies that. While I have no difficulty whatever with the short title proposed by Deputy O'Sullivan, I think that the second part of the additional long title proposed is misleading. The fact of the matter, and it is worth repeating, is that the Minister has got himself into a major bind on this issue which will come back to haunt him and his Government within months. It not only removes from RTE all incentive for enterprise but all discretion from the Minister to moderate things in the light of experience. It is clear that in the absence of an alternative Irish TV channel, advertising leakage will be out of the State to stations based in Belfast and London and satellite stations based in London and elsewhere. That is a central criticism of this Bill and of the Minister's intention.
I take this opportunity, in this first contribution on Report Stage, to urge the Minister to go back a little more than he has and at least take discretion so that if he does make a hames of it, at least he has reserved authority to moderate the worst excesses of what he is proposing. The removal of all discretion from the Minister makes no sense. That act alone will ensure that advertising will pour out to UTV, Channel Four, Harlech, Sky, Eurosport, Super etc. It will also mean that many of the advertisements currently created in Dublin by Irish artists and film makers will be made elsewhere.
To that extent the title as proposed to be amended by the Labour Party and The Workers' Party does not accurately reflect what will be the effect of this Bill if it is enacted unless further significant amendments are introduced by the Minister during the course of this debate. I have no difficulty in amending the long title to enable the Minister for Communications to restrict, by statute, the revenue available to RTE. That accurately describes what the Bill proposes to do. The second part of the amendment would be inaccurate and it would be wrong of this House to pass it with that title.
I would like to add my voice to the protests at the effective downgrading of a very effective independent public service broadcasting station which is being done in a very arrogant, dogmatic way by the Government. I hope the steps now being taken by the Government will not jeopardise the Programme for National Recovery when discussions take place later this year.
I am very surprised that the usually very vocal pressure groups in this country are relatively muted in their response to this Bill. I met some members of the RTE unions recently and left them under no illusions that I felt that the response of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and other sectors within our community such as the IFA and teachers' unions who have an interest in the protection of an effective broadcasting station was very muted compared with their response to other legislation introduced in the past. It is a sad day for the democratic process when the Opposition is left on its own to protect the rights of a public service broadcasting station. I wonder that the members of these organisations have not questioned the fact that their leaders have not been very vociferous in the protection of a vital service for the public. In the past they have been very vocal on issues that did not even affect them, but on an issue that affects every sector of our community we are getting relative silence.
I think there was a misprint in regard to the amendments to be grouped together.
I quite agree. It has only just now come to my notice. I apologise. The grouping is Nos. 1, 2 and 7.
My colleague, our spokesperson for communications, will indicate in a moment the view we have in the Labour Party which is that we do not feel much use is to be served by the grouping suggested, but we can come to that in a moment.
At the moment I am speaking on No. 1. On No. 1 and No. 2 which has been moved by Deputy McCartan, once again I would say that either of the formulations suggested by way of change of title to the Bill would be of great benefit. Let me say, purely from a very conservative viewpoint, that there is, from the point of view of draughtsmanship, an absolute responsibility for a Bill to describe in its title what the main provisions of the Bill are. As outlined by Deputy McCartan, in the case of the Broadcasting Act and also in relation to the Act which established the IRTC in so far as they were new matters envisaged in the legislation which could not be reasonably derived from the legislation that was referred to in the title, it was felt that it was appropriate both for the sake of clarity and of respecting the integrity of the legislation involved, that the clear intention of the Bill be established.
Let us be perfectly clear on this. If this Bill goes through with the title that it has it will be departing from established practice in relation to the existing broadcasting legislation that exists at present. Let me illustrate what I am saying. In relation to the title as it is circulated in the Bill on Report Stage it is described:
An Act to make further provision in relation to broadcasting and wireless telegraphy and for this purpose to amend the Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 to 1979, the Radio and Television Act, 1988, and the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, of 1926 to 1988, and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
Clearly what is proposed in the legislation before us cannot, under any interpretation, be regarded as making further provision in terms of the concepts that are the base of the Broadcasting Authority Acts 1960 to 1979 or of the Radio and Television Act, 1988. For example, one could not make fit adequately either of these legislative instruments the concept of revenue capping, the concept of moving revenue to the independent sector, or the original proposals which were to seek a limit on an editorial function, or yet again the question which was proposed again in the Bill, mark 1, to interfere with the licence fee. If it is not a further provision in relation to the bones of any of those enabling pieces of legislation one must then rely on the last few words which are "provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid".
There is not reference in the legislation which has been quoted by me and by Deputy McCartan which would justify the principal measures that are being taken in this Bill. None of the legislation referred to made any provision for the capping of advertising revenue. I will not now go into whether in fact this entire enterprise is legal or constitutional. I suspect that it is certainly in breach of the principles of the Constitution, a matter we intend to take up later. What we are talking about in amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is the adequacy of the title. The Labour Party amendment states: "to enable the Minister for Communications to restrict by statute the revenue available to RTE,". That is what the legislation does. It is the core of the Bill. The amendment continues: "for the purpose of securing additional revenue for independent, privately-owned, radio and television stations." That is indeed where the revenue which will be prohibited to RTE will be directed.
Equally, The Workers' Party amendment, which I have no difficulty with, stresses the restriction on RTE to raise revenue from advertising, with a view to promoting the interests of privatelyowned broadcasting stations. It is more than just being coy and simply being evasive, it is not merely being in any sense academic or pedantic that the Minister, in doing this, has not stated his intentions in the title of the Bill, as his predecessors did in regard to broadcasting. He has not the courage to do so. When the IRTC and the RTE Authority were established the Minister stated his intentions. Why conceal in antique wrapping paper what is a most sinister intention? I have no doubt that this is disreputable for the House. It is cosmetic and is wrapping in an antiquated form something that has an immediate and definite effect.
Before I stood up to speak I had an opportunity of looking across the road at members of Actors Equity, now members of SIPTU, elderly people who are very likely be fired from their jobs in RTE because of the capping of advertising. As if that is not bad enough, the Minister is seeking to do this by a legislative instrument in which he has not the courage to state his intentions. This unique legislation, not only in terms of its consequences, does not even merit description of the Minister's primary intention. When you consider all the sections, the sting is in section 2 in regard to advertising. Most of the debate in this House was about the concept of advertising and the nature of the capping of advertising revenue. Now that the Minister has, in a very macho way, decided that nobody shall budge him, irrespective of the consequences, his courage should extend to declaring his intentions in the Title, as any honest legislator would do.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am concerned that we are spending so long on this part of the Bill we will forget to deal with the real meat of it. While this matter is very important, I accept what my colleague Deputy Mitchell, has said, that the second part of the amendment certainly does not cover UTV or any of the other stations that will benefit from the capping of advertising, which is the core of the Bill. I will give good example by not spending any longer on this amendment. I hope some agreement will be reached. In the long run it may be very important from a technical point of view but will not do much for RTE.
I am quite satisfied that the long and short titles which were prepared by the legal experts in the Attorney General's office adequately meet the requirements of the Bill and therefore I do not intend to accept the proposed amendments.
I regret very much the Minister's response, but at this stage we have become accustomed to that type of evasiveness and curt response which has been associated with him. The Minister insists on portraying himself as the quintessential tough man of this House, and as a result the legislation has suffered and broadcasting will suffer in the long run. Once again the Minister is showing his complete contempt for the parliamentary procedures of this House.
I welcome the comments of those who participated in the debate. I thank Deputy McCartan for his support. He said he has no difficulty in accepting our amendment. While Deputy Mitchell is prepared to accept the amendment as far as "RTE", I fail to see why he cannot accept it in full. We are trying to pinpoint the purpose of the legislation. It is a blatant attempt by the Minister to hive off funds from RTE in the interests of the independent broadcasting companies. Effectively what has happened is that the Minister has been caught with his hand in the RTE till, and it is absolutely necessary to put on the record of this House that we do not want any part in it.
Deputy Browne said he is concerned that we are spending so much time on the title. The reason we are insisting on debating the title at some length is, to use an old adage, we are calling a spade a spade. This Bill is an effort by the Minister to hijack the funds of RTE, and that has to be highlighted.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Séan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- 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.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- 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.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and McCartan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
I wish to inform the House that, by agreement of the Whips, there shall be a sos from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed. We now come to amendment No. 2 which was discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 10, after "1988," to insert "To provide for a restriction on the capacity of Radio Telefís Éireann to raise revenue from advertising with a view to promoting the interests of privately-owned broadcasting stations".
I wish the question to be put in respect of my amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Jim Mitchell. I have a rather large number of amendments which I was going to suggest we could discuss together.
I want to clarify the position in regard to amendment No. 71 in the name of Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan. This amendment was initially included with amendments Nos. 1 and 2. However, we reserve the right to move amendment No. 71, and we are not taking it as having been included in that grouping of amendments.
That is fine, Deputy. If Members disagree with the suggestions of the Chair in relation to dealing with amendments, that is okay by me. I merely suggest this and my office is satisfied that the amendments are alternatives, related or cognate. This is done and suggested solely to facilitate Members and to ensure efficiency in dealing with our business in this House.
I appreciate that.
If there was any prospect that we could get something other than a curt, dismissive response from the Minister on each occasion, we would certainly be inclined to facilitate the House in this regard. However, the Minister has kicked off in a very poor way. For that reason I am not agreeable to the ordering of the amendments in this way and I ask that they be taken seriatim.
The reality is that the Deputy refused to take them earlier on. This has been discussed with the Whips——
This is the first we saw of them.
If the House is not satisfied to take the amendments on the white paper as indicated by me I have alternative proposals of a lesser number of amendments which could be taken together. Perhaps the Deputies will look at them and decide if they will agree to this.
We are anxious to facilitate you, a Cheann Comhairle.
Thank you, Deputy.
We are all anxious to co-operate with you, a Cheann Comhairle, if at all possible, but for the reasons given by Deputy McCartan we are left with no choice other than to deal with each amendment individually.
That seems to be the feeling of the House. We will proceed to deal with amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"advertisement' means a purchased radio insert or a purchased moving television insert but does not include any of the following:
(i) promotional material broadcast by the Authority within its own broadcasting service, for the purpose of promoting its own commercial activities,
(ii) promotional material for charitable, philanthropic or voluntary bodies charged for at a special rate,
(iii) passing references to a sponsor of a programme within programmes or programme interludes,
(iv) any coverage of a sporting or other public event where promotional hoardings are a feature of the event.
(v) giveaway gifts or prizes which are donated and which in any particular case are not a frequent occurrence in the same programme;".
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are similar. Amendment No. 3 proposes the inclusion of a defintion of the word "advertisement" in the Bill. This is no mere ruse; it is important that a definition of "advertisement" is included in the Bill. If the Minister has any intention of providing RTE with any bit of leeway he may very well accept the definition proposed in my amendment.
My amendment proposes the exclusion from the definition of the word "advertisement" any promotional material or announcements regarding programmes or services provided or to be provided by the Authority. In other words an announcement by the Authority in relation to the programmes on Network 2, an article in the RTE Guide or programmes on any of their broadcasting services or any other service provided by them, would not be regarded as an advertisement.
Secondly, the amendment proposes the exemption from the limit on minutage proposed by the Minister any advertisements by charitable, philanthropic or voluntary agencies which are charged at the special rate which applies to charities. Thirdly, it proposes the exemption of passing references to a sponsor of a programme within programmes or programme interludes, for example, the magnificent coverage of the World Cup which the Minister also praised. As the House knows the commercial breaks during that coverage commenced and finished with a shot of the Italia 90 mascot together with the name of Bord Gáis who were the main sponsors. I believe shots of that kind should be exempt from the limits on advertising. It is ridiculous to think that such momentary slots could be totted up and included within the very tight and rigid limit which the Minister is seeking to impose.
We seek to ensure that in the coverage of sporting and other public events advertising hoardings or balloons which are now featured at many matches in Landowne Road will not be included in the definition of "advertisement". Will the coverage of the Carroll's Irish Open Golf Tournament be taken as an advertisement? Will the repeated mention of the title of the event and the film shot of Portmarnock showing Carroll's advertisements be included in the Minister's limitations on sponsorship? I am seeking to ensure that it could not possibly be included. There is a danger as the Bill stands — and as the present intention of the Minister stands — that the coverage of such sponsored events will be precluded or very severely restricted. That would make an even bigger hames of broadcasting than the Minister is already proposing. Will he clarify the position about sporting and other public events sponsored by companies?
Of course this is not confined to sport. A sponsored ballet performance could be televised live by RTE and other cultural events, for instance, at the Guinness Hop Store, are sponsored by the Bank of Ireland or Allied Irish Banks. Will coverage of such sponsored events be precluded or restricted by the Minister's proposals in this Bill? Section 3 deals with codes of practice to be laid down by the Minister relating to advertising and other commercial promotions. It is very important that the House — and indeed the Minister — know his intentions, and it would be wise to accept a definition along the lines I proposed which would ensure that the World Cup coverage, which was recently praised by all sides of the House, can again be provided. This also applies to the Olympics, the European Championships and other sporting events. I know the Minister is a keen cricket supporter and very often major cricket test matches are sponsored. It would be a terrible pity if the Minister deprived himself of the nice pastime of watching cricket on television merely because it was sponsored.
It would be a gesture by the Minister to the House if he accepted a definition of "advertisement" along the lines of proposed. I have no objection to a similar amendment proposed by Deputy McCartan although it does not cover all the points included in mine. In subparagraph (v) of the amendment, I asked the Minister not to completely exclude donated gifts which sometimes make a programme more attractive provided they are not a regular part of it. I do not see any harm in Urney sending a box of Easter egges for an audience even if there is one for every member present. It is not wrong, occasionally, to mark an event covered by the Late Late Show or the Pat Kenny Show by having a donated prize raffled or given to the audience. It would be a killjoy if sports and other sponsored cultural events are restricted in future, which seems to be what is envisaged in the Bill. Programmes should not be banned from having an occasional donated prize for a quiz or other competition.
I hope the Minister will accept that a definition along these lines is warranted. I should also like him to extensively define his intentions in relation to the codes of practice which are referred to later in the Bill.
I am not enamoured of this amendment but perhaps it would slightly improve matters. The problem about it is in relation to what is included in it by way of description and what is omitted from it. I am not in any sense taking from the arguments in favour of the definition of "advertisement" made on Committee Stage, but they have not been adequately responded to.
There is a real difficulty about the phrase "a purchased moving television insert". One of the more serious problems with the amendment is its omission of "promotional material broadcast by the Authority within its own broadcasting service, for the purpose of promoting its own cultural activities". For example, "commercial activities" are included but "cultural activities" which would include——
Deputy Higgins is wrong.
I mentioned "cultural activities" because if you want to take, for example, the promotion of video cassettes which have been made in relation to a cultural project by the station out of the quota of advertising, it really needs to be included here because the definition will apply to later sections of the Bill.
The same question arises in relation to the inclusion of "commercial" and the non-inclusion of "activities in relation to the Irish language" which is handled in later amendments on the manipulation of the quota. Section 5 presents a difficulty as regards the implementation of the amendment. However, if I am wrong I should like to hear how you would define "a frequent occurrence". I will not quote the obvious parallel — in relation to giveaway prizes or gifts which are donated and which in any particular case are not a frequent occurrence in the same programme — about what some people think is frequent and what others regard as infrequent. There is a problem in that regard in relation to drafting.
We are inclined towards the spirit of what Deputy Mitchell intends to do and we see it as an attempt being made against a stone wall of obduracy on the part of the Minister. In disposing of amendment No. 1, there has already been a lack of flexibility in including any reference to "advertising" in even the Title of the Bill. It is the manipulation of the freedom to secure advertising and to secure revenue from it. That is the core of the Bill. In general I am inclined to support the principle of those who want to seek a definition of "advertising", but I have very strong reservations about both the structure of this amendment and the adequacy of some of the terms and particularly what I see to be the omissions.
Let me say, lest there be any confusion about it, that what I mean by the advertising of cultural activities is not the announcement of them. I am talking about video and radio cassettes — for example, of the "Going West" series — which are being marketed. At the moment, under the Minister's proposals, all these activities on RTE will come out of their quota. It is very interesting and I will speak at length about it later.
Despite all the hypocritical blathering on about the Irish language from the main party in Government, there has been not a single concession in relation to the Irish language. We will discuss that in a later amendment. Even retaining the Minister's overall destructive vision for public service broadcasting, if you wanted to make any allowance for material in Irish you could have added on the advertising revenue plus what they got for Irish advertising plus what they got for promotional material in the Irish language and so forth. Needless to say, that was not included. It would be the very last thing that would occur in relation to many concessions.
The Labour Party are giving what Deputy Mitchell will understand as critical support for his amendment in this instance.
I wish to indicate, in general, agreement and support for the amendment tabled by Deputy Mitchell. As he has indicated, it is in broad keeping with amendment No. 4 in my name, which we will debate shortly, and it follows on from a very useful debate we had in this House on Committee Stage in an attempt to address the question of what is or is not advertising for the purposes of the Minister's proposals with regard to the future funding of RTE and in particular to the capping of advertising or the arbitrary limiting of the time RTE, as a commercial operation, can give over to advertising and to raising money as a result.
While there is an element of serenity present in the Chamber today as opposed to the very spirited debates that occurred on Committee Stage over the last couple of weeks and while there is a modicum of agreement reached in terms of the amount of time that might be available for Report Stage of the Bill, inadequate though it be, one has to recall that the amount of time we have was won after hard-fought positions taken by Opposition in the Chamber——
Let us not waste it now; let us apply ourselves to Deputy Mitchell's amendment.
While all those features exist, nonetheless they should not at all be taken as suggesting that the Minister has in any substantial way improved on his legislation or met in any serious way the representations made by us as Deputies of the Opposition on Committee Stage or representations from whatever quarter which may have been made to him in the period that has elapsed between Committee Stage and Report Stage. There have been many of those, well-researched, well-reasoned and well-founded. Capping of advertising still remains the overall import of what the Minister intends will be as drastic and profound in its effects——
Deputy McCartan will apply himself to what is proposed in the amendment before us, which has been proposed and spoken to by the Deputy in whose name it is there. Will he follow the example set by the proposer of the amendment who directed himself to what was in his amendment? As the Deputy has indicated, time is scarce, there is a long road to travel and we must confine ourselves to what is in the amendment.
As I have been on my feet for two minutes I think I am allowed——
You have been on them for five and you have not yet spoken to the amendment. I am asking you to do so.
I am coming to it if you will allow me the courtesy of making my point.
The Chair does not lack courtesy when it is required. I am asking you to direct yourself to the amendment. You are pontificating. Address yourself to the amendment, please.
I take no such remark from you, Sir, as to whether I pontificate or otherwise. I am making a contribution to an amendment and simply asking of the Chair the opportunity to do so without unnecessary interruption.
The Chair will give ample latitude to any Deputy who is addressing himself to the amendment and will interrupt anybody who is not so doing.
As long as you want to interrupt you will continue to do so.
I will not do it at any great length. I will ask the Deputy to resume his seat if he is not prepared to address himself to what is in the amendment.
If you give me just one reasonable moment, Sir, I am coming to my point in respect of the amendment.
Please do.
As I said, all the essential features of this legislation exist as they were originally addressed by us here on Committee Stage. For that reason we are forced to come back to dealing with this question of a definition of "advertising" or "advertisement". On Committee Stage the Deputies in Opposition illustrated at length to the Minister the complications that would inevitably arise for the future operation of RTE as an essential public broadcasting authority if his proposals, as contained in the Bill as originally circulated and even as amended by him in his own intentions, went unaddressed or unrefined. The very essential feature of RTE as a public service broadcasting organisation would simply be eroded, would not be capable of being sustained, and their central importance as an independent public broadcasting unit would be undermined. For that reason, on Committee Stage I proposed a very concise amendment to provide for the definition of "advertising", just to remind the Minister and the House——
Deputy McCartan, you have asked for a moment which I have given you. You are now referring to an amendment in your own name which is not relevant. If you do not address yourself to the amendment before us I will ask you to resume your seat.
The amendment before us deals with the definition of "advertisement."
And it deals with the elaboration in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). Please address yourself to those.
That is correct, and I am doing so, Sir, but for some reason you do not appear either to want to listen or to have any regard to what I am saying and seem to be bent on interrupting me whenever I am in flight with a point.
If the Deputy does not address himself to the amendment I will ask him to resume his seat.
The essence of this issue is the question of whether we should have a definition in the legislation of the concept of advertising or advertisement.
The essence of an amendment on Report Stage is that you address yourself to the amendment.
That is so, and this amendment is dealing with whether we introduce a definition. I am simply trying, as briefly as I can, to establish my case as to why we should have a definition.
The definition as suggested by Deputy Mitchell is what we are dealing with now. The Deputy has an amendment in his own name later on and he can address himself then to his own amendment.
It is clear that you did not listen. I am attempting to address the case for a definition in the first instance. I am entitled to do that, with respect.
You are entitled to address yourself to that which is proposed in this amendment.
What is in essence proposed is (1) we should have a definition and (2) what the definition should be. The first of those propositions is needed for a definition in the first instance.
Deputy McCartan, you can bow your head and shake your head. I will ask you——
I am exasperated by your unnecessary interferences that are not having the slightest regard——
My interferences are, I am sure, in deference to the wishes of every Member of the House that we proceed with the business in an orderly fashion and no Deputy takes on to himself the right to depart from what is required by Standing Orders. We address ourselves on Report Stage to what is in the amendment that is before us. Deputy, please read it and see what is in it and then address yourself to it.
I have read the amendment. I am addressing the amendment and I do not take from you, Sir, or anyone who assumes the Chair, any disparaging remark to the effect that I have not read what I am purporting to address here. I would like to ask you for a direction. In addressing an amendment on Report Stage is there anything in Standing Orders that suggests that I cannot address the need for the proposition contained in the amendment and then deal with the precise wording of the amendment?
It depends. The Deputy has spent ten minutes in endeavouring to do that which he claims is his right to do, but he has not yet referred to anything in Deputy Mitchell's amendment.
Is there anything in Standing Orders that suggests that so long as I am being relevant to the issue there is any delineation on the time available to me?
I happen to agree, but the Deputy has not yet addressed himself to what is in Deputy Mitchell's amendment.
I have argued with you or, sorry, I have suggested——
You have, yes.
Fair enough, I have argued with you.
Deputy Mitchell's amendment is before the House. I will listen for another minute to Deputy McCartan to enable him to prove to me that he is addressing himself to the amendment that is before us, and if he cannot I will ask him to resume his seat.
You are to be the arbiter?
Absolutely. That is what I am paid for.
I would ask the Chair then, to have regard to what I am saying because, with respect, the Chair's interruptions do not appear in any way to take cognisance of what is being said.
My interruptions give me less pleasure than they do you, but they are forced upon me.
I can see that you are in severe agony. The proposition I am attempting to address is the proposition in the first instance relating to the need to have a definition of "advertisement" in this section. I am making that proposition because the Bill has not changed in essence since the Minister attempted to amend it in response to some representations and since we debated it on Committee Stage. The scene has not changed. The scenario for RTE is as it was outlined on Committee Stage. There is a need for us to include a definition of "advertisement" in this Bill or to address the concept of advertising and how we understand it.
On Committee Stage the Minister said there was no need for such a definition, that the concept of "advertisement" was commonly known and required no definition in the legislation. I would remind the Minister that on Committee Stage he suggested, in part concession, that he would consider by Report Stage an amendment in his own name to address the position of charitable promotions in broadcasting, in response to a case made by many of us in the House and probably made in submissions to the Minister by reputable well regarded charitable organisations. These organisations said that if the Minister's proposal went ahead their position, privileged as it was in RTE, would be eroded and that they would find themselves in extreme difficulty in meeting what was of necessity required of them by the budgetary reorganisation within RTE. The Minister said he would come back to us on that on Report Stage, but he has not done so. Therefore the first portion of Deputy Mitchell's amendment is crucial. That is that a definition of "advertisement" should include promotional material for charitable, philantrophic or voluntary bodies or that they be charged at a special rate if they are to be included in the definition or concept. I understood that the Minister had accepted that argument on Committee Stage. The Minister certainly gave us all to understand that he had, but perhaps he was simply playing to a wider audience and responding to the pressure of the other many representations made on this whole issue.
I stayed in my seat to allow the Minister an opportunity to explain — and this is something that I may be able to come back to when dealing with my amendment No. 4 — but the Minister has not explained why he believes there is not a necessity to clarify the legislation. I recall that when the Minister addressed this issue he did not fully understand what was going on in RTE. Perhaps through a misunderstanding the Minister went further than many of us were arguing for, because the Minister expressed the view that charity should have a zero rate of charge, that they should be given a free rate of access and that he was certain that their position would be guaranteed once this legislation was in place. In fact, the charities pay a very generous preferential rate and they are happy to continue to do so, as long as RTE are not forced into a budgetary arrangement that would require them to use up every available minute of their advertising time at the maximum premium rates so that they could maintain their revenue and, by definition, their social broadcasting functions. I need to know why the Minister has not introduced an amendment to protect their position.
During Committee Stage debate on this issue I raised a number of questions relating to services being supplied by RTE in discharge of their public broadcasting role. Because Committee Stage allowed, I went back time and again to the Minister on these questions because they are of fundamental importance. The Minister agreed that when we would arrive at the sections dealing with advertising he would answer these questions. I was not here to remind the Minister, nor were the questions answered by the Minister although he had the floor exclusively to himself. Deputy Mitchell's definition section is very welcome and opportune because it affords me and others an opportunity to raise the same questions and to invite the Minister to give us some assurance as to where the future of many of the promotional and sponsoring activities of RTE stand once this Bill is passed into law and once he begins to introduce the capping in the way he intends.
The issues are covered in Deputy Mitchell's amendment which deals with the question of a passing reference to a sponsor. On Committee Stage we referred to the transmission of the World Cup and asked whether the passing reference to the sponsor would render the entire programme an act of sponsorship, or amount to an advertisement. We asked if the portion of the programme that carried a brief reference to the sponsor would be taken into consideration when considering the restrictions on time. The same question arises in regard to the sponsor of the weather forecast. There are many instances of such sponsorship, more so on radio than on TV, and it is important that the position in regard to it and advertising is clarified.
The coverage of sporting and other public events was referred to by Deputy Mitchell and we put a number of questions to the Minister in regard to them on Committee Stage but we did not receive a satisfactory response. It is important that we should consider the question of giveaway gifts and prizes so that we can understand where RTE are going and what their potential will be. I should like to remind the Minister of the services known as the "Roadcaster" and ask if it will be considered as advertising within his meaning of the definition. What will be the position if the radio station refers to the location of the "Roadcaster" and the functions it will be serving? What will be the position of events like "The Lark in the Park", "Beat on the Street", the Dublin City Marathon, "Beat Box", the Christmas food appeal, Daffodil Day and so on? What will be the position of the educational programme, "Zig and Zag"? I refer to that programme for the benefit of Deputy Cowen who found my comments on it amusing on Committee Stage.
As I understand it Zig and Zag are the property of an independent company and not the creation of RTE. The company are contracted through their proprietor who appears with Zig and Zag on television. How can the Minister differentiate between that type of contract work and promotional advertising of the activities of Zig and Zag? We must remember that Zig and Zag are involved in a lot of work outside of RTE and their proprietor/owner appears with them around the country. Will that contract work be considered as advertising?
The problem is that in the Bill there is no definition of "advertising" and the Minister proposes to curtail that activity in an arbitrary fashion. It is important that we should know the scope of the common sense notion he says does not deserve any attention from him in the drafting of the Bill. It should be remembered that in the course of his speech on Second Stage the Minister said he was attempting to fit in with the international movement and directives emanating from the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission. We have pointed out to him that the directives of the Council recognise the peculiarity of the concept of advertisement and advertising and attempted to define them for their purposes. However, the Minister did not do so, with the result that we are left with questions being put to us by those who work in RTE as managers or technicians and those in the community who rely on RTE. The latter are concerned for the future of that organisation because any changes in their structure will have a direct impact on them. It is important that the Bill includes a definition similar to that suggested by Deputy Mitchell.
On Second Stage the Minister referred to practices existing in the Broadcasting Authority which he considered to be unfair and, in some instances, amounting to abuses. I have asked him to outline the practices that amount to unfairness or abuse in regard to advertising but he has failed to respond. When a statement as strident and as broad as that is made, particularly by the Minister responsible for the Bill, we should be given examples of what he is talking about. The Minister should not allow such an accusation hang in the air, particularly if he is suggesting that there have been abuses. Deputy Mitchell's attempt at defining the word "advertisement" is to be welcomed and the Minister should accept all or part of his amendment. I support Deputy Mitchell's amendment.
On Committee Stage we spent approximately 13 hours trying to get the Minister to define the word "advertising" but he remained seated for most of that time and did not address the problem. That was an indictment of him. I support Deputy Mitchell's amendment part of which states:
(ii) promotional material for charitable, philanthropic or voluntary bodies charged for at a special rate,
The Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped, to which 45 groups are affiliated, sent a circular to all Members trying to elicit support for maintaining the charity rate that prevails. The cut and thrust in a debate on the Bill tends to be technical and there is a danger that those who stand to lose most under its provisions will be ignored. I am thinking in particular of those who receive charitable donations arising from advertisements on television and radio. On Committee Stage the Minister indicated that he would give consideration to this issue but there is no evidence that he intends changing the provisions. I was of the opinion that the Minister would introduce changes but on 29 June the Taoiseach at a press conference announced that there would be no amendments to the Bill. That is not an indication that we have a caring Government. They are prepared to put a Bill through the House that will hurt those who depend on charity for their existence. I have no doubt that all Members support the work of the 45 groups and for that reason I cannot understand why the Minister does not include them in the Bill.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.