I am happy to have the opportunity of addressing Seanad Éireann on this Bill, the main purpose of which is to set up a single statutory Authority to control and operate the existing sound broadcasting service and the proposed television service.
Broadcasting in this country is at present governed by the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1926. In Part II of that Act the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is empowered to establish, maintain and operate broadcasting stations, to charge fees for broadcasting certain classes of broadcast matter and to establish a broadcasting advisory committee. It also provides that all expenses in relation to broadcasting shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
That Act made the broadcasting service a branch of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the legal position is that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is still responsible for the control and operation of broadcasting even in detail. Many people, and particularly those who have grown up since 1926, may be under the impression that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and his Department took the initiative in claiming the broadcasting service as one of their proper functions and have since been unwilling to leave the service out of their control. In fact, this is a case in which the Oireachtas placed the entire responsibility for operating a service on a Government Department although initially the Minister concerned recommended otherwise. In the light of more recent events, it is interesting to recall what actually happened before the sound broadcasting service was established.
As early as 1922 approaches were made by commercial interests to the Post Office for licences to set up broadcasting stations and in April, 1923, a public notice was issued inviting applications from persons or firms interested. Later in the year the Minister, who was then called Postmaster-General, submitted a White Paper to the Dáil in which he proposed that the firms interested—five in number—should set up a single broadcasting company but that there should be provision for access to membership by smaller firms. The main features of the scheme were that the company should undertake the provision and operation of a broadcasting service under an arrangement whereby they would receive most of the proceeds of wireless licence revenue together with the exclusive right to import wireless sets and components.
At the beginning of the White Paper the Postmaster-General dealt with the question whether wireless broadcasting should be operated by his Department without argument in a few brief lines. He said:
After careful consideration.... I came to the conclusion that the business of arranging concerts and general entertainment programmes was not one which a State Department ought to undertake.
It falls to me, after the lapse of nearly 37 years to submit that this statement of principle by the first Postmaster-General was well founded.
However, the Dáil did not accept the Postmaster-General's proposition. It set up a Special Parliamentary Committee to consider the White Paper and, early in 1924, the Committee presented its report which was no doubt influenced by special circumstances at the time. Briefly, it recommended that broadcasting should be a State service purely—the installation and the working of it to be solely in the hands of the Postal Ministry. Commenting on the Postmaster-General's reluctance to make the provision of entertainments to the public through broadcasting a function of the State, the Committee stated that it did not regard the Postmaster-General's objection as sound. Here I quote the words of the Committee:
No new principle would be introduced. The State has for a long time subsidised national culture combined with entertainment through its National Library, National Gallery of Painting and Sculpture and National Museum, not to speak of the Tailtean Games, and in the enlightened municipalities on the Continent, the same principle has been applied more directly and extensively to the cultivation of operatic and dramatic art as well.
It was on that recommendation that responsibility for the direct operation of broadcasting was placed upon the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs by the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1926. The service was opened and the broadcasting staff from the start undertook their duties with energy and enthusiasm. When one considers to-day the resources of the organisation which began to give a broadcasting service day-in day-out and the difficulties they had to contend with, the wonder is how such a small staff managed it at all.
Initially the production staff consisted of five persons including the Director; and there was an orchestra of four. The arrangements for administrative and financial control were based on those obtaining in the Civil Service generally and, although the Director of Broadcasting had certain delegated powers they were limited in such a way that he could not really take any important decision without first obtaining the sanction of the Post Office and, in most cases, of the Department of Finance as well. For instance, he was authorised to purchase musical instruments as required but within a limit of £15 for any instrument and provided, of course, that the Subhead of the Vote was not exceeded.
With the passage of time, the more irksome restrictions on the discretion of the Director were relaxed but the first really radical reorganisation of the broadcasting service did not take place until 1953. In that year the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs appointed as Comhairle Radio Éireann five persons from outside the State service in a part-time capacity to advise and assist him in the conduct of the broadcasting service and to be responsible under him for the general control and supervision of the service. The detailed restrictions on broadcasting expenditure were swept away and broadly, subject to certain reservations essential for the purposes of Parliamentary control, Radio Éireann has in practice since been free to manage its own affairs and to spend the moneys allocated for broadcasting purposes.
These changes were, however, made without any new broadcasting legislation. Comhairle Radio Éireann had and have no legal powers. They are, in fact, technically part-time civil servants, though, of course, they exercise important controlling and advisory functions. When the Comhairle were appointed, the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said he intended to entrust them with the day-to-day policy of broadcasting and that he himself intended to intervene only in questions of important policy. Moreover, the Minister appealed to Deputies in the Dáil who had been asking questions about details of day-to-day broadcasting to refrain from doing so and instead to address their enquiries to the Director of Broadcasting.
Although successive Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs have in law continued to be responsible for broadcasting in all its details, both Ministers and Deputies have observed the spirit of the reorganisation which has, indeed, been fully justified by results. Apart therefore from the need for providing for the introduction of television, it is desirable to give statutory sanction to the position of independence which has, in practice, been accorded to the sound broadcasting service in recent years.
I should perhaps mention here that after the establishment of the present Comhairle, the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting provided for in the 1926 Act, which was a purely advisory Committee with no executive powers, was not reconstituted in view of the further changes in organisation which, it was felt, could not be long delayed.
Meanwhile, television had been developing rapidly abroad and it was becoming increasingly clear that it would be only a matter of time before a service was established here. Consideration of the problem of television has to some extent delayed proposals for regularising the position of Radio Eireann because it was obviously necessary to consider carefully what should be the relation between sound and television broadcasting. I believe that this question would not have arisen at all but for the heavy expenditure envisaged in establishing and operating a television service, particularly a service operated on the basis of producing most of the programmes here and depending upon licence fees, as Radio Éireann does now, for the bulk of its revenue.
While the whole issue could perhaps have been shelved for a few years if the matter lay entirely in our own hands, broadcasting has little respect for frontiers, natural or artificial, and shortly after the present Government took office in 1957 the rapid development of British television coupled with increasing purchases of television sets here to receive British programmes made the establishment of an Irish service a matter of urgency. Unfortunately, the financial situation in the country at the time was anything but opportune for heavy State expenditure on a television service. Capital expenditure even on essential services had been temporarily restricted, and funds were not available for a television service without curtailing expenditure on these other—higher priority—services.
Meanwhile, proposals had been received from commercial interests to establish a service without cost to the Exchequer. It was in these circumstances and because any television service to be established here would, in any event, have to look to commercial advertising for a substantial part at least of its revenue, that the Government announced their intention of considering proposals from private interests for a television concession; and that subsequently the Television Commission was set up to consider, among other things, such proposals and the relations between the proposed television service and sound broadcasting. The Commission's terms of reference were on the basis that effective control must be exercised by a public Authority and that there must be no charge on the Exchequer, either on current or capital account.
The Television Commission reported to my predecessor in May last. The Report is a valuable exposition of the problems involved and I should like to pay a tribute to the members who met practically every week and produced the report in such a relatively short time. It was no fault of theirs that their main recommendations have not been accepted by the Government. Their terms of reference were restricted, as I have already stated, to consideration of the establishment of a service that would involve no charge on the Exchequer and all their recommendations must therefore be read in that context. However, the majority of the members indicated clearly their view that if the necessary capital were available there was little or no doubt that television should be established as a public service. They also expressed their misgivings about entrusting the operation of the service to any private organisation.
The majority of the Commission estimated the capital required to establish the service roundly at £1½ million and were of opinion that a service based on a reasonable licence fee and advertising revenue should pay its way within a few years. The Commission did not recommend any of the proposals from private interests as they stood. The majority considered that the contract period for any concession should not exceed ten years and that the concessionaire should not receive directly any portion of licence revenue.
On the relation between sound broadcasting and television, they were of opinion that while, in principle, both services should be under the control of a single Authority, it was necessary and desirable for some years that they should be controlled by separate bodies. Clearly the grant of a television concession to private interests would be hedged with difficulties, not the least of which was how to reconcile such a considerable investment by a private group with a reasonably short term of concession and really effective public control.
After consideration of the Commission's Report, the Government decided against entrusting the operation of the television service to any private group. In taking this decision, they were influenced by a number of factors including the improvement in the capital position, the view of the majority of the Commission that a television service here could be made to pay its own way within a reasonable period, and the difficulty already mentioned of exercising effective public control of any service established, financed and operated by a private group. The Government also decided that the two public broadcasting services—sound and television—should be under the control of one statutory Authority.
Before I deal with the particular provisions of this Bill I should like to make some general observations.
Broadcasting is the most powerful and pervasive medium of mass communication yet devised. It is unsurpassed in speed, range and economy either for disseminating information, news and ideas or for bringing music, plays, variety and discussions to a widely scattered audience. Because of the limitations of the radio spectrum, State control of the technical operation of broadcasting—that is, in regard to such matters as the frequency and the power to be used by each station—has been, and is, an inescapable necessity in every country. Programme control and operation have, however, taken various forms in different parts of the world ranging from directly controlled and operated State monopoly, through various kinds of autonomous public corporations which are common in Western Europe, to commercial broadcasting organisations operated under licence. This latter form has been most widely developed in the Americas.
The degree of State control of programmes varies widely between the extremes mentioned according to circumstances, and each country has no doubt tried to work out the form of organisational structure for broadcasting best suited to its own needs. However, the general tendency in Western European countries has been to establish broadcasting as an autonomous public service with the broadcasting authority acting as trustee for the national interest subject only to such powers of ultimate control as the Government concerned have seen fit to retain.
As I have already indicated, I believe that the first Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was right when he stated that the business of broadcasting ought not to be entrusted to a State Department. I also believe that in our circumstances a monopoly in such an important medium of communication should not be handed over either to private interests. This does not imply any reflection whatever either on civil servants or business as such. It is simply this, that broadcasting is a creative medium concerned with entertainment, information and enlightenment which needs a certain autonomy if it is to give of its best; it cannot do so if it is fettered by the rules and restrictions which are necessary and inherent in a Civil Service organisation.
On the other hand, if the service is to be operated in the best interests of the public, its policy should not be dominated by the profit motive—as any purely or largely commercial organisation must be. In 1926, the Oireachtas did not have before it, as we have to-day, so many examples of the successful development of semi-State enterprise such as the E.S.B., Bord na Móna and Aer Lingus. If it had, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have given sound broadcasting the kind of organisation proposed in this Bill.
All the arguments that can be adduced for operating sound broadcasting as an autonomous public corporation apply with even greater force to television broadcasting. Moreover, the two services must, in our circumstances, be complementary rather than competitive—and a common controlling body is the best means of ensuring co-ordination in the most economical and efficient way. I do not propose to labour this aspect of the matter further because I feel sure there will be agreement on the broad organisational structure for broadcasting proposed in the Bill.
It is important, however, that there should also be the largest possible measure of agreement on what should be the objects of the national broadcasting system—in other words, what we want it to do for ourselves and for our children. Now that television has added sight to sound, its potentialities are indeed, incalculable; already it has altered in many respects the pattern of living in those countries where it has been most developed. The television set has even become a modern household god with more power over its devotees than was ever held by the ancient idols. If this is so elsewhere to-day, what may not be the power of television here in ten or fifteen years' time when there may be a television set in every home? It behoves us, therefore, to ensure that our own broadcasting service is built on solid foundations to enable it to fulfil its purposes.
While one of the primary objects of broadcasting, including television, is to entertain, it would. I believe, be an abuse of a wonderful gift to use the medium simply to add to the many forms of entertainment and escapism we already have. A national broadcasting service must try to do much more than that. It should reflect our people's feelings, their tastes, their varied interests, their customs, their traditions, their Christianity; it should promote the use of the national language and preserve and foster the national culture. It should, as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has interpreted its obligations, be its aim to serve people in all parts of the country, in all walks of life, old and young; to bring broadcasting of pleasure and of value to them; to offer plenty that is diverting and relaxing and also to offer things of beauty and of significance.
The service should stimulate the life of the nation in many ways; by offering opportunities to those with artistic and creative and communicative abilities to develop and to be appreciated in their own land; by giving the people a good chance to laugh at and enjoy the same amusing and pleasant things together; by helping them to know and understand one another and to know other parts of their country better.
However, the achievement of such objectives must be related to hard financial considerations. Ideally, the finances for such a service should come directly from the pockets of the listeners and the viewers. In respect of sound broadcasting, we are, I am glad to say, in sight of the revenue from licence fees and a limited amount of commercial broadcasting covering the expenses of the service, though an increase in the sound broadcasting licence fee, which is, I understand, the lowest in Europe, will be inevitable. It is generally agreed, however, that there is no prospect of a television service being operated here without a large subsidy unless it derives a substantial part of its revenue from commercial advertisements. That being so, a large part of the programmes will have to have a widely popular appeal.
Some people may be concerned that the dependence of the Authority on advertising revenue to any large degree, and the consequent necessity to meet popular demands to a substantial extent, may result in a general degradation in standards, a monotonous similarity of trivial programmes and possibly the excesses of commercialism which have been the subject of much criticism in other countries. I think we need not worry on this account under the scheme proposed in the Bill. The Authority will be a public body with definite statutory responsibilities and having a substantial source of income apart from advertising revenue to enable it to give a balanced service of high quality.
There is no doubt, however, that the Authority will have a difficult task. It will have to build up a new service giving countrywide coverage as soon as practicable. From the moment the service goes on the air it will have to bear comparison with the programmes of two television organisations that between them are able to command the services of the foremost writers and performers and the best technical skills in programme production. To compete with such services with our limited resources of creative talent and money is going to be very difficult, indeed, but not, I believe, impossible.
As a people we have tastes and values of our own and by catering specially for them both in home-produced programmes and by careful selection of imported programmes, I am confident that a service can be given that will appeal to the majority of our own viewers.
So far as home-produced programmes are concerned, the new service will be hungry for worthwhile programmes of Irish interest and an opportunity and a challenge will be presented, not only to the Authority, but to every body and every group who have a worthwhile contribution to make to Irish television. In this regard I have little patience with those who maintain that we cannot provide programmes that will interest and hold Irish audiences because we have not the resources which the British organisations can command. On that reasoning we should attempt nothing in sound, television or in any other comparable field.
Neither do I agree with the disparagement of imported films and tele-recordings—what some have labelled with that rather unpleasant word "canned" programmes. Because of the voracious appetite of television, this kind of programme material is availed of even by the wealthiest television organisations and it is the fact that so much of it is now procurable at reasonable prices that permits the smaller countries to give a number of hours of television programmes every day, something that would clearly be impossible from their own resources not many years ago.
The Authority will be in a position to seek the best and most suitable material it can get from any source including the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and there should be no question of excuse or apology for doing so, either by direct relay or subsequently by films or telerecordings. Many of the programmes produced by these organisations are among the best of their kind and it would be very mistaken policy, indeed, not to avail of them in so far as they are suitable and we can afford them. In short, until the Irish contribution to the service is substantial, the quality of the programmes will largely depend on the judicious selection by the Authority of the best imported programmes available.
So far as the financial prospects of the television service are concerned, it should be remembered that private business interests were confident that the service could be made to pay its way on advertising revenue alone. There is no reason why the Authority should not be able to do likewise with the considerable assistance of a growing income from licences, notwithstanding that their standards and outlook must necessarily be different in many respects from those of a purely commercial organisation.
The sound broadcasting service will, of course, have to gird itself to meet the impact of television but there need be no fear that television will supplant the sound broadcasting service. Experience elsewhere has been that sound broadcasting can and does flourish in parallel with television though television tends to reduce the amount of time spent in listening to sound broadcasts, particularly in the evening when the audience can devote full time to listening and viewing. Moreover, it has been observed— especially in the United States of America—that notwithstanding the great development of television, sound broadcasting is still the universal medium, reaching almost everybody at some time during the day and in the course of the broadcasting week.
Another interesting trend which has been noted in countries where both television and sound broadcasting are extensively developed is the use of the radio in circumstances in which tele-viewing is not practicable such as by the housewife while she is working and by the motorist while driving. The fact is, of course, that each form of broadcasting has certain advantages over the other and there is ample scope for co-ordination between the two. With maximum co-operation here between both services which will be best secured within the one organisation, it will be possible for sound broadcasting to fulfil the task which is foreshadowed for it in all countries that have television, namely, to cater for those who cannot afford a television set or cannot get good reception from a television station; to specialise in things that sound broadcasting can do better than television, such as world news, good music and imaginative plays and features, and to fill those hours of the day when television is not likely to operate.
The use of advertising on television is bound to affect the limited advertising allowed on sound radio but not, I think, to the extent that might on first thoughts be imagined. For one thing, television is not likely to affect radio audiences in the morning or during the day. Secondly, the sound broadcasting service has been limited in respect of advertising to advertising of Irish products and services only but this restriction will hardly be reasonable when the television service accepts, as it must if it is to earn substantial advertising revenue, advertisements from foreign sources as well.
The existing sound broadcasting service still suffers from a number of disabilities. The single Radio Éireann programme cannot be received satisfactorily in many of the outlying areas due to the inherent limitation on the range of a medium wave transmitter and to the mutual interference taking place between the broadcasting stations in Europe because of insufficient wavelength accommodation. As has been stated before, the erection of a separate very high frequency sound network offers the best prospect of improved reception in the outer areas and of giving a better service in all parts of the country.
Radio Éireann has always suffered the disadvantage of having to broadcast from unsuitable studio accommodation adapted from ordinary office rooms and Post Office headquarters staff have had to be accommodated elsewhere to provide space to meet the needs of broadcasting. With the aid of the provision included in the Bill for the capital purposes of sound broadcasting and of increased revenue to meet the annual charges, the Authority will, I hope, be able gradually to remove such deficiencies.
A secondary but important purpose of the Bill is to provide for an extension of the powers held by my Department for the control of harmful interference with the working of wireless telegraphy apparatus on broad lines recommended by the Television Commission. At present the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1926 gives certain powers to deal with such interference caused by apparatus for wireless telegraphy but not by other kinds of electrical equipment, machinery and appliances. These have multiplied in recent years and, as everybody knows, can spoil radio and television reception for the listener or viewer. Such interference can have more harmful effects in relation to radio apparatus used for certain purposes other than broadcasting, such as fire, ambulance and aviation services. Accordingly, the powers proposed in the Bill are quite general in character.
It is intended that the Authority should deal mainly with complaints of interference to radio and television reception by investigating, detecting and endeavouring to secure suppression of such interference and that otherwise the powers should be exercised by my Department. The proposals in the Bill will give ample opportunity to manufacturers, assemblers, importers and users of offending apparatus to co-operate in removing causes of undue interference. No prosecution can be undertaken under the powers proposed except in cases where co-operation cannot be secured after due warning.
I think I have said enough by way of general explanation and comment on the scope and purposes of the Bill. I shall now refer briefly to its more important features.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a statutory Authority whose main function will be to promote a service of national broadcasting in sound and television. It will be under an express obligation to bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture but otherwise—apart from a limited number of powers reserved to me and the Government for the purpose of ultimate control—the Authority will have the widest possible measure of independence. In regard, for instance, to programmes and advertisements in the programmes, it has been considered unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable to try to legislate in any great detail. The approach has been to impose only the minimum statutory obligations and restrictions on the Authority—such as an obligation to preserve impartiality in matters of public controversy—so that it may have the maximum freedom within the broad context of its functions to formulate and implement its own policies.
As regards programme standards, the Bill is silent apart from what is said about the Authority's duty with respect to national aims in Section 17. This is deliberate because it is recognised that phraseology can do nothing to assist the Authority in this field. As custodian of a public trust with a wide measure of independence and corresponding responsibility, the Authority will be expected to set its standards high and, as far as its financial position permits, to ensure a proper balance between programmes that merely entertain and programmes that offer something more.
The Bill deliberately says nothing either about censorship. It is the Government's wish that the Authority should act as its own censor, recognising the absolute importance of safeguarding truth and of preserving intact the moral integrity of our people. It is intended that in this process the Authority will maintain liaison and a common standard with the national film censor. The necessary arrangements towards this end will be made. There is provision for the appointment of advisory committees and advisers.
The Authority will, of course, take over the control and operation of Radio Éireann and will be empowered to recruit staff—normally after public competition in respect of non-specialised posts—and determine their remuneration and conditions of service. Arrangements will be made to preserve the superannuation privileges of officers of the new Authority who have transferred from the existing sound broadcasting service.
Section 24 provides that the Authority shall so conduct its affairs as to become self-supporting at the earliest possible date. In the first five years, it is proposed that, in addition to revenue from licence fees and advertisements, the Authority shall receive non-repayable grants, not exceeding in the aggregate £500,000. In this regard, I should explain that without taking account of interest on capital, depreciation or pension liability, Radio Éireann has been operating at a loss amounting to about £125,000 in 1959/60 in respect of services rendered free by the Post Office and other Government Departments. In future, the costs of these and of all other services received will have to be paid for by the Authority and it will also have to provide for pension liability, depreciation etc. The proposed non-repayable grants will do little more therefore than enable a smooth transition to be made from Ministerial control to the control of the Authority.
No part of the £500,000 proposed in Section 22 (2) as the limit for these non-repayable grants is intended for the television service as it is the intention of the Government that the service should be operated without ultimate cost to the Exchequer.
The funds for the establishment of the television service will come from the repayable advances provided for in Section 23. The amount, £2 million, proposed is intended to cover capital and working capital which the Television Commission estimated at £1½ million. The balance of £½ million is provided for miscellaneous purposes including improvement of national coverage of the sound broadcasting system and provision of new sound studios and administrative offices.
Provision is being made to empower the Authority to issue broadcasting receiving licences and to collect, and to enforce the collection, of radio and television licence fees. This arrangement will not come into operation unless there is agreement with the Authority that it can undertake these functions more efficiently and economically than the Post Office. It is probable, however, that the assistance of the Post Office will be required in any alternative system that may be devised.
Certain powers for compulsory acquisition of land for transmitting and repeater stations are proposed in Section 30. These stations will normally be on particular mountain or hill tops where acquisition in the normal course may be very difficult and protracted.
Section 31 provides that I may direct the authority to broadcast certain official announcements or to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or class of matter. The first-mentioned power hardly calls for explanation. It is intended simply to ensure that time will be made available for notices or announcements by or on behalf of a Minister of State— for example, by the Minister for Finance in connection with a national loan. The second-mentioned power will give me a veto power on broadcasts which may be detrimental to the general public interest. I do not imagine it will be necessary to use this power to prevent the broadcast of morally objectionable programmes and I trust that the occasion will not arise to use this power at all. But circumstances may arise in which it may well be very important; for instance, the broadcast of a particular programme or kind of programme could be very embarrassing in our relations with another country or countries. While it may be argued that a responsible Authority would co-operate in these matters, the final say could not be left entirely to the Authority.
I have already outlined the provisions for the control of interference, which are contained in Section 34 and in Part II of the Third Schedule. I believe the principle of such control is universally acceptable and that there is, indeed, a general desire that the necessary measures should be implemented as soon as possible. It will, however, take some considerable time before the measures proposed are fully effective because of the impossibility of checking on the interference-causing properties of all the electrical devices in use in the country. In the long term it is the proposed control of interference at the source—that is, at the manufacturing, assembling and importing end—that will have the most fruitful and permanent results.
Most of the other provisions of the Bill are of a routine kind and will be subject in any event to close scrutiny on Committee Stage.
You will be already aware that in order to shorten the delay in the opening of a television service certain steps have been taken on behalf of the new authority. Following a recommendation by the Television Commission, arrangements were made for the acquisition of a site for a television transmitter on Kippure and for the provision of an approach road and services. Moreover, with the advice and help of an advisory committee whose members will later be invited with others to be members of the new authority, arrangements are in hand for the provision of the transmitter station and studios for the Dublin area and for the provision of the radio link between them. Sites for four transmitting stations outside Dublin are also being acquired. The costs involved will be recovered from the authority in due course.
I believe that this Bill is soundly based, that it will give the future Authority all the scope and freedom necessary to develop a vigorous national broadcasting service, and I confidently commend it to this House for approval.
