While I appreciate Senator Yeats's work on this Bill— he has done a great deal to improve it in my opinion—I am not in a position to accept his amendment here, because in my view simultaneity is central to the concept of rebroadcasting. Deletion of the word "simultaneous" from the definition of "rebroadcast" in section 1 would involve introducing a new interpretation of "rebroadcasting" which would be at variance with the generally accepted meaning of the word. The definition of rebroadcasting in this Bill is on exactly the same lines as that contained in our own Performers Protection Act, 1968. It is also almost identical with the definition of "rebroadcasting" contained in the 1961 Convention, that is, the International Convention concerning the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasters.
As regards the question raised by Senator Robinson, first of all, I apologise for my own intervention, which I appreciate may have been considered irrelevant and I am sure there was no intention, either on the part of Senator Robinson or myself, of conspiracy against the Chair. The point she raised is relevant to simultaneous rebroadcasting and she has, I think, rightly raised it briefly here. She asked whether I am confident that I can do this thing. Yes I am, provided that the people in the single-channel area, in particular the people generally, really want this, and make their wishes known.
It is true that since the Seanad considered this Bill in Committee, the BBC have indicated in public statements that they would not be prepared, in the words of one spokesman, "to ride roughshod over the Irish unions" and that in effect so long as certain major unions, notably the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, oppose live rebroadcasting of BBC 1, the BBC could not conclude an agreement for such rebroadcasting. I am aware that that is the position of the BBC.
I fully agree that the BBC cannot be expected to ride roughshod over the Irish unions—and indeed it could not do so even if it wished—neither has this Government any intention of acting in such a manner. It follows that if the trade unions decide to do so they can in effect exert a veto over the live rebroadcasting of BBC 1 from Northern Ireland or of any other outside channel.
It has been suggested that, in view of this situation, the whole issue is a dead one since rebroadcasting is impossible. That would be the case on the assumption that there are no possible circumstances which could induce the trade unions to reconsider their position. I do not accept that this assumption is necessarily valid. I believe that if it became clear that there was a strong preference in the single-channel area for direct access to BBC 1, or UTV, or other outside channels, then our trade unions, a substantial part of whose members live in that area, and some of them sit in this House, would necessarily, for good democratic reasons, review their position. That would be the sensible thing for them to do and I believe they would do it. At the recent Conference of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union at Wexford it was quite clear that there was a considerable amount of support among the delegates present in favour of access to BBC1. I was aware of that from responses to my own statement to the union and I have seen transcripts of contributions made to the debate later in which a number of delegates spoke quite strongly in favour of their concept.
It remains therefore important to consult with the people, especially in the single-channel area, to lay the issues before them, to let them hear and consider all points of view and to find out what they want. When what they want becomes clear I do not think any significant organised group is likely to stand in its way. I have already made clear that if viewers in the single-channel area are clearly convinced by RTE's advocacy of a second channel under its control, then I shall be happy to proceed along those lines. Similarly I believe that if a clear preference for access to BBC 1 or other simultaneous live channel should emerge, neither the trade unions nor RTE would be likely to adopt an intransigent position. I believe that has already been said on behalf of RTE, I think by Mr. Louis MacRedmond.
The trade unions would of course have to be satisfied that live rebroadcasting would not be likely to have adverse effects on the livelihoods of their members. I have already quoted in the Seanad from the statement which I made at Wexford in this matter outlining the reasons why rebroadcasting should have less effect on the livelihoods of broadcasting workers than the advent of the cable television systems which many of them now enjoy. Apart from the security of employment aspect there is, however, the question of what kind of television choice is advocated by broadcasting workers.
Obviously broadcasting workers will have strong views, and they have been energetically putting them across, as they have the right to do and as I have encouraged them to do. But do they wish to exert the power, which they undoubtedly have, to decide this issue for the people of the single-channel area?
Mr. John Carroll, Vice-President of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, on Friday the 20th June, faced up to some of these two issues when he spoke at the Seminar which Senator Robinson referred to, run by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, entitled "Towards a Broadcasting Policy". He then rightly said, and I quote:
no section of the Irish community denies or challenges the right of the employees of RTE to protect their jobs and their livelihood, more especially in times of economic depression, and there is surely nobody in our community who would expect RTE employees to sit back and refrain from asking essential questions about the effects of the terms of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill 1975 on their employment.
I fully agree with that. Mr. Carroll also said:
There is no question of any clique within RTE wanting to impose a style of broadcasting on the public at large. Any effort in that regard would be doomed to failure and we, representing not alone RTE employees but 150,000 workers throughout the country, who are also listeners and viewers, would strongly oppose such an effort. But RTE employees have an advantage over the rest of us, in that they are more appreciative of the technical and financial issues involved in broadcasting policy and they can help all of us, by articulating points of view, to come to more objective conclusions about the future of our broadcasting service.
Here again I agree. I think the major unions will want to abide by the wishes of the single-channel area in this matter, provided they have had the chance to put their arguments across and provided the interests of their members are safeguarded.
I would like trade unionists to share the platform with me and Members of the Opposition at a meeting in Limerick on this subject, which is being planned for early July and at which I hope the Mayor will take the chair. At this meeting and at others, which I hope will follow, RTE, the unions and the Opposition can put forward their concept of how an RTE 2, selecting the best programmes, could be more attractive than the rebroadcasting of BBC 1 live and in full. It is not enough to expect RTE 2 to be chosen by default, if the only obstacle to BBC 1 (Northern Ireland) is a say-so of a major Irish trade union. That say-so would be decisive, but it might not be the best augury for the future of the second channel. The people of the single-channel area will have to be convinced of the positive programming advantages which a selection of the best British, American, Canadian and Australian programmes would have over the direct relay of what broadcasters themselves see as a very popular channel, whose programmes they see described every day in their newspapers. That is the answer to the Senator. I am confident that this can happen and if the people of the single-channel area in particular clearly indicate that it is their wish I do not believe then that anyone will stand in their way.
I apologise once more to the Chair for having dealt with this now, but I felt that it would be helpful to the Seanad and to the public to answer the question which the Senator raised.