Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jul 1968

Vol. 65 No. 21

Broadcasting (Offences) Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

This Bill is concerned with broadcasts which are intended for general reception and are transmitted from unauthorised stations installed or maintained on board ships, aircraft, or any other objects or structures. It has been introduced in furtherance of a Council of Europe Agreement for the prevention of such broadcasts. That Agreement was signed on behalf of Ireland and eleven other countries. Six of these countries, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden, have already passed legislation to implement the Agreement and Finland, though not a member of the Council of Europe, has passed legislation towards the same end.

The Preamble to the Agreement reads as follows:

The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members;

Considering that the Radio Regulations annexed to the International Telecommunication Convention prohibit the establishment and use of broadcasting stations on board ships, aircraft or any other floating or airborne objects outside national territories;

Considering also the desirability of providing for the possibility of preventing the establishment and use of broadcasting stations on objects affixed to or supported by the bed of the sea outside national territories;

Considering the desirability of European collaboration in this matter;

Have agreed as follows:

The Agreement then sets out what each Contracting Party undertakes to do, that is to say, to make punishable as offences, in accordance with its domestic law, the establishment or operation of pirate broadcasting stations, as well as acts of collaboration knowingly performed. These acts are defined as including among other things the provision of any equipment, supplies or services to facilitate pirate broadcasting.

Senators will no doubt be familiar, in a general way at least, with the background to this European Agreement. Broadcasting as we know it would quickly become chaotic and impossible in the absence of orderly allocation and use of the wavelengths available. Since transmissions in one country can cause serious interference with reception in another, the allocation and use of wavelengths is governed by international agreements and regulations. The competent international body in this field is the International Telecommunication Union, which is a specialised agency of the United Nations, comprising over 130 member-states. The Radio Regulations annexed to the International Telecommunication Convention prescribe the procedures which member-countries are required to follow before they use frequencies in those bands of the spectrum used for long distance communication and for broadcasting. These procedures are intended to avoid or at least minimise harmful interference between the radio services of sovereign States. For this purpose it is essential that all radio transmitting stations—whether on land, on a ship or in an aircraft—be either operated or licensed by a Government. They are then subject to Government control and if any of them causes serious interference to services in another country, the matter can be taken up through official channels.

I should like to make it clear at this stage that the radio services and the procedures to which I refer cover much more than the broadcasting services. Radio frequencies are used for point-to-point radio communication, for maritime and air navigation, for life saving services, various mobile services, et cetera, as well as broadcasting to the general public.

So far as the broadcasting services are concerned, there is, as everyone knows, interference in the long and medium wavebands. This is unfortunately unavoidable at this stage owing to historical and other causes which it is not necessary to go into here. But it is important to realise, first, that additional stations cannot improve the general position and, secondly, that additional stations operating on whatever powers and frequencies private owners may choose themselves to use for commercial gain, are a menace, not only to broadcasting services generally but to other radio services, particularly those connected with safety of life.

The operation of broadcasting stations on ships or from aircraft is expressly prohibited by the International Radio Regulations. Broadcasting in this context means the transmission of programmes directly to the general public—not the operation of ordinary ship radio required for communication with other ships and with shore stations, for navigation purposes et cetera.

The irregular broadcasting with which we are now concerned started a few years ago with the appearance of pirate broadcasting stations on ships off the coasts of a number of northern European countries. These stations ignored the international agreements and regulations and appropriated to themselves any wavelengths which suited their purposes. A matter of the gravest concern was the fact that their irregular transmissions affected the distress frequencies used by ships, lighthouses and coast stations. We had some experience of this in our own territory when pirate broadcasting ships were operating off the British coast.

Pirates operating outside territorial waters are not subject to the laws, obligations and restraints applicable to legitimate businesses. I have in mind such provisions as the laws of libel and sedition, performing rights, conditions of employment and contracts. I understand that in their operations pirates tend to regard the property of creative artists and copyright property are theirs for the taking. It is not irrelevant in our particular circumstances that we are anxious to complete the building up of a healthy broadcasting organisation of our own from licence and advertising receipts and we would not welcome unfair and illegal competition for any part of that revenue. Neither do we wish to suffer interference which might seriously impair reception of the Irish programmes.

The Bill before the Seanad will enable the Government to deal effectively with any pirate broadcasting station within our territorial limits or from our waters. Sections 2 and 3 make all such broadcasting unlawful and also broadcasting from Irish registered ships or aircraft operating anywhere. The owner and master of a ship or aircraft and everyone operating or participating in the working of the station can be found guilty of offences. These sections are also aimed at agents or companies on shore that assist or procure such broadcasts.

Power is being taken in section 4 of the Bill to deal with Irish nationals if they operate broadcasting apparatus from any foreign ship or aircraft on or over the high seas or from marine structures or other objects on those seas. It will be an offence for anyone in the State, whatever his nationality, to arrange for any such broadcast.

Sections 5 and 6 list "acts of collaboration" which become offences under the Bill. It will be an offence to aid in any way the setting-up or operation of pirate stations by provisioning them, transporting goods or persons to or from them, or participating in any way in their broadcasting activities. Section 7 deals with the question of penalties. The phrase "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe" is liberally scattered through these sections in relation to these acts and is very relevant. Section 8 is a saver to cover the situations that can arise in which succour and aid become necessary owing to distress, shipwreck or illness, and section 9 is another saving clause for what may be expressly authorised by licence.

As Senators will observe, the provisions of the Bill are so drafted as to be complementary to similar legislation by other countries, without avoidable overlapping. Thus they are aimed at acts including acts of collaboration committed by anyone, irrespective of nationality, within the jurisdiction, that is to say, in our waters or in our ships or aircraft wherever they may be; and also acts committed by Irish citizens on or over the high seas. They are not aimed at acts by anyone, Irish or foreign, that are committed in the jurisdiction of another country.

The pirate stations appear to have attracted a certain amount of misplaced sympathy in certain quarters but it must not be forgotten that the companies and persons responsible for them are motivated by nothing more or less than commercial gain, and that their activities are a serious threat to a number of institutions and rights which are clearly entitled to our protection. These activities appear to be suspended at present and the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they will not be resumed. There is little doubt that, if we did not ratify the European Agreement, ships carrying pirate stations would soon operate off our shores. It is probable that our announcement of our intention to promote this legislation and the subsequent introduction of this Bill have discouraged any attempt to take advantage of the existing legal position.

The Bill is required to honour our obligations under the Council of Europe Agreement, to safeguard the effectiveness of our distress and rescue organisations and emergency communications, to protect the rights of artists, performers, et cetera, and the revenue of our own broadcasting service. It is aimed, not at “pop” or any other kind of programmes, but simply at unregulated broadcasting by people responsible to nobody but themselves.

I therefore recommend the Bill to the House.

The Title of the Bill is a trifle puzzling and, indeed, there are many people who would have thought from it that the Bill is aimed at dealing with offences which our own broadcasting services frequently commit. It turns out that it is not aimed at them but at persons operating in our territorial waters or outside them, and it is quite clear that if there is to be any law or order in relation to wavelengths and the operation of radio stations, a Bill of this kind is necessary. For that reason the Minister is quite right in recommending the Bill to the House and I do not think he will have any difficulty in having it passed through the House, perhaps even all Stages, today——

We should hope so.

——if we are asked for them. I want to make a comment on the appearance of the Bill at this time. This is precisely the kind of Bill which is not very controversial— indeed, not controversial at all—which the Government could well have introduced in this House in the first place. It could well have been disposed of here instead of cluttering up the Order Paper of the House with it at this time of the year. I hope the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will convey that message to the Government—that more Bills of this kind, especially those of a non-controversial character but which may require fairly lengthy examination in Committee—might be introduced here and thus avoid cluttering up the Order Paper at the end of each session.

The Bill, it seems to me, will be perfectly effective for the purpose for which it is intended—to prevent pirate broadcasts from ships on the main outside our territorial waters, but the thing that surprises me—perhaps there is good reason for it—is that there is no provision in the Bill which attacks the source of revenue of these pirate broadcasting stations. I would have thought it advisable in some way to prevent or to make it an offence to give advertisements to these pirate broadcasting stations because it is on advertising revenue that they depend for their existence. I would have thought it should be possible in some way to cut off the source of supply, the source of finance, of these stations.

Apart from that, it seems to me that it is correct to introduce this Bill at this time because there is still a proportion of the country's population who listen to radio programmes rather than television programmes, especially blind people and others of that kind, and it is highly desirable that the official broadcasting stations, whether English or Irish, should not be jammed by these pirate stations. In addition, these pirate stations contribute nothing, as the Minister has said, to broadcasting but at the same time they take advantage of the performances, the works and records, of people who may never get any royalties or revenue from them because they happen to be out of touch with the people whose rights are infringed. Apart from these observations on the Bill, which will implement the Council of Europe Agreement, as far as my Party are concerned we will, if necessary, give the Minister all Stages today.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I also wish to welcome the measure. I do not think any fair-minded person could quarrel with the action this Bill proposes to take. Like Senator O'Quigley, the only comment I have to make is by way of an expression of surprise that this type of Bill was not before this House long before now because it would have been far better for the business of the House as a whole if it had been. We could deal with many measures of this kind and I see no reason why the Order Paper should be cluttered up with them at this time of the season. I endorse Senator: O'Quigley's appeal to the Minister to bring that to the notice of the Government. Apart from that, I do not think there is any note of controversy in the provisions of the Bill. It is obviously designed to try to remedy a glaring injustice which could be perpetrated on many people, many of whom we do not know anything about. The measure, therefore, deserves the commendation and support of all sides and I have no doubt it can be passed in all its Stages today.

I also welcome the Bill. Because we are a party to the Council of Europe, we should bear our responsibilities in matters of this kind. Frankly, though, I am disappointed with the provisions in section 7. To my mind the fines are altogether inadequate, bearing in mind that I recall seeing a television character some weeks ago about whom it was stated that he had something like £50,000 a year as a disc-jockey. Not so long ago, when the Minister's colleague was introducing the Marts Act, the fines imposed for contravention were greatly in excess of the paltry £100 I see here. We should have a little consistency in these matters. If the Minister wishes to make section 7 a deterrent he should treat these people as harshly as his colleague proposed to treat the Irish farmers a few months ago. I should like to avail of this opportunity, if I may, to ask the Minister why his Department have not yet accepted the idea of piped television in the blocks of flats we see going up on all sides of the city.

It is not relevant to the Bill.

I was afraid of that but at the same time I did not have an opportunity of mentioning it on the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill. Reading through this Bill, I found that everything is covered but I am at a loss to know whether an island off the coast is provided for. There are some small uninhabited islands far out which I do not think could be described either as structures on the sea bed or as vessels. For that reason perhaps the Minister would tell the House whether in fact islands or small rocks on which these things could be constructed rightly come under this Bill. In sections 4 and 5, there are lengthy lists of craft, vessels and objects but the Minister has not mentioned islands, and I wonder if it would be permissible for Radio Caroline to set up on some remote small island and continue on as before.

I am interested in a definition, if it is possible at this stage to get such from this Minister, of what "national territories" may be in the context of this Bill. In his statement the Minister used the words "outside national territories".

The Bill itself I gather is to restrict pirates in the area from unloading their message, whatever that might be, on to the innocent Irish public. To me it is an extraordinary situation that all types of pirates—business pirates, banking pirates, property exploiters—are allowed to exploit the Irish community on land but we have a holy a horror of any attempt to beam a message to the Irish people from offshore. I think there is something illogical about the stand of this Minister in this regard and of course the threats contained in the Bill are not within the bounds or within the scope of the Minister's power. He is a rather Walter Mitty character in so far as he hopes to be in a position to prevent, we will say, the utilisation of strategic points offshore or in the air for the purpose of broadcasting to this country. In fact the Minister has no more power in practice and no more opportunity to implement portion of this Bill than he has to fly to the moon.

The argument put forward by the Minister is that we are anxious to abide by the aims of the Council of Europe. This country is more than anxious and I quote the Minister's words: "to achieve a greater unity between its members", that is, the members of the Council of Europe. That brings me to this point: we have six counties which for all practical purpose would appear to be offshore as far as this Minister is concerned. In those six counties, we have a number of broadcasting-stations. We have Independent, UTV and the BBC broadcasting from this offshore territory of the 26 counties. I wonder would the Minister consider those stations to be illegal as far as he is concerned. It is a fact that 50 per cent of the population, at a minimum, of the 26 counties prefer to listen to what is beamed from UTV or BBC, or both, than to listen to what is beamed from our own station here.

I would direct the attention of the Senator to the contents of the Bill.

That is why I opened by asking the Minister to define for me what is an illegal broadcasting station.

The Bill indicates that it deals with ships, aircraft and such like.

Yes, but it could refer to offshore. The question was already asked by Senator McDonald as to whether it could refer to a structure offshore. I am asking the Minister to define for me what is "offshore", as far as the 26 counties are concerned. I support Senator McDonald on this and I suggest that the Minister, if he is anxious to put into operation the wishes of the Council of Europe, that is, to have a greater unity, should start to allow in here to the Irish public transmissions from the BBC and UTV and have those properly recognised here and channelled here either through a piped method or any other technical means that is suitable.

The Minister has stated that the question which disturbs his mind and the minds of many people involved is the danger to rescue services. I think we all agree that the utmost efforts should be made in that regard to ensure that no signals transmitted by any other broadcasting service, legal or illegal, would intervene or interfere with rescue services and services of that kind. However, the Minister referred in his opening statement to the fact that there is at the moment grave interference in this country with the actual broadcasting service itself but he is very careful not to go into detail as to what the problems are in this regard.

At page 4 of his speech, the Minister says:

It is not irrelevant in our particular circumstances that we are anxious to complete the building up of a healthy broadcasting organisation of our own from licence and advertising receipts and we would not welcome unfair and illegal competition for any part of that revenue.

In the light of that, I want again to ask the Minister will he define for me what "unfair and illegal competition" is?

The Minister may not go outside the scope of the Bill.

I am entitled to ask him to define his words "unfair and illegal competition".

The Minister, any more than the Senator, will not be allowed to go outside the scope of the Bill.

I do not know what the Cathaoirleach is referring to. I am asking the Minister a simple question and the Chair, in my opinion, is suffering from some kind of interference.

The Chair is not going to permit this debate to be unduly widened.

Let me quote again from the Minister's opening statement. I presume the Chair is anxious to have this matter properly clarified and not to impose further restrictions here in this House in addition to the one in the Bill. I quote the Minister's statement:

It is not irrelevant in our particular circumstances that we are anxious to complete the building up of a healthy broadcasting organisation of our own from licence and advertising receipts and we would not welcome unfair and illegal competition for any part of that revenue. Neither do we wish to suffer interference which might seriously impair reception of the Irish programmes.

Now we have interference with Irish programmes. I dealt with this matter on a number of occasions before and I am quite satisfied also that as far as the Minister is concerned, deliberate attempts are being made on his part to prevent the Irish public from tuning in to services, particularly to television transmissions from other areas. Excellent services were available to this part of the country up to about five years ago. It is extraordinary the amount of interference that now takes place. Can the Minister explain that?

I must draw the Senator's attention once more to the terms of this Bill.

I expect an answer to that particular query I have put to the Minister. I also expect a definition of what "unfair competition" is. The Chair has suggested that I should not pursue this but I am asking the Minister does he consider transmissions from outside, from offshore, from outside the Twenty-Six Counties, unfair competition?

The Minister must keep to the terms of the Bill. I am asking the Senator also to keep to the terms of the Bill.

I am keeping to the terms of the Bill.

The Chair regrets to say that the Senator is not keeping to the terms of the Bill. Senator McQuillan, to keep to the terms of the Bill.

I am quoting the Minister's statement. If I am going outside the terms of the Bill, then the Minister has also gone outside the terms of the Bill.

It is clear that this Bill has to do with pirate broadcasting.

I am asking the Minister a question. We have 32 counties, 26 of which are within the jurisdiction of this House and in the other six, we have broadcasting services to which 50 per cent of the Irish people prefer to listen. I am asking the Minister does he consider that type of competition to be the unfair competition to which he has referred in his opening statement? I do not expect there is much point in pursuing the matter at this stage, seeing that the Chair has taken that attitude. I would imagine, Sir, reading the impressive Preamble to the Bill itself and the Minister's statement and also the quotation he has from the Preamble to the Agreement which was made by a number of countries which are members of the Council of Europe that he would have given us in greater detail the information to which I have referred.

I hope he will at least clear the air with regard to, firstly, what the definition is here of "unfair competition"; secondly, whether he considers that 50 per cent of the Irish people up to now have been more anxious to listen or tune in to services which are given from outside the State; and, thirdly, whether it is his intention to cause further interference as far as these people are concerned rather than widen the scope, as Senator McDonald has suggested—I do not know whether he intended to widen it as far as I do —by providing better reception from outside the State to 50 per cent of the people who up to now have not been able to get any reception, bar that from Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann.

Will the person responsible for this outburst please leave the Chamber?

That is the first time the Senator got cheers from the Gallery anyway.

It is not the first time.

I thank the Seanad for the favourable reception they have given to this Bill and I take note of Senator O'Quigley's proposal that this Bill may be an example of one that might be initiated in the Seanad. In reply to Senator O'Quigley, in section 6 (3) (e) the Bill covers the prohibition of the giving of advertisements to pirate ships operating in our territorial waters. I do not think I need say very much about what Senator McQuillan referred to because the broadcasting that goes on in the Six Counties or in Great Britain or in Scotland has nothing to do with this Bill at all. I do not propose to interfere with transmissions based on wavelengths which have been approved of by the International Telecommunications Union. The territorial waters as in this Bill defined are specified in the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, as being, for the purposes of that Act within the outer limit of the territorial seas. Quite clearly, the outer limit is stated to be a line three miles from the coast except in certain cases where straight baselines are drawn extending from one peninsula tip to another. A map has been published and everybody knows what our territorial waters constitute. There is no doubt about that.

The purpose of the Bill is to prevent pirate ships operating on wavelengths which have not been approved by the International Telecommunications Organisation, whose activities have been condemned by the Council of Europe and who are engaging in unfair competition because they do not have to pay anybody for anything for the purposes of their broadcasting. They pay no business fees and they frequently fall down in the payment of performers' rights and that is what we mean by "unfair competition". I think the Bill is perfectly clear in its explanation.

A question was raised as to whether fines are sufficient. I have been advised that penalties proposed in the Bill are the fines or imprisonment sentences appropriate to the alternative methods of prosecution provided for, that is, prosecution summarily or on indictment. That more or less covers the position.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share