Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jun 1975

Vol. 81 No. 14

Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975: Report Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 28.

In page 7, line 25, to delete "in its entirety".

—(Senator Lenihan).

Mrs. Robinson

I support this amendment to remove the words "in its entirety" from section 6 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill. I know the reasoning behind it is the reasoning behind many of the amendments submitted on Committee Stage and now on Report Stage. I support the amendment because I am not satisfied that the Minister has been able to allay the fears raised on the Second Reading about the constitutional implications of rebroadcasting a foreign service in its entirety through the national transmission network.

I tried to read the full debate on Committee Stage. I may have missed a passage where he possibly dealt with this, but I have not seen any satisfactory answer to the constitutional requirement as set out in Article 40, section 6, subsection 1º, relating to the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions and providing that the education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

I would submit that directing the rebroadcasting in its entirety of a broadcasting service from outside the State without any possibility of control and, indeed, with specific provisions in this Bill preventing the possibility of any control, or the extension of various strict requirements and standards which apply to the national service to a service rebroadcast simultaneously from outside the country, is an abdication of the constitutional provision here.

The wording of the passage of the Constitution that I read out—"the State shall endeavour to ensure"— casts a burden on the State not to use the national television network, and the resources of the State, and the taxes paid by television licence holders, to evade entirely their responsibility. It is very clear that there could be no possible duty or obligation on the BBC, if that is to be the foreign service which it is proposed to have rebroadcast here, to avoid undermining public order or morality here, or in particular, the authority of the State. It is quite possible that certain programmes broadcast by the BBC could, in fact, undermine the authority of the State. We would have no control over this. It would be rebroadcast by the facility of the network and paid for by the taxpayers' money. I would welcome elaboration by the Minister as to whether he is satisfied that the constitutional standard is met by the present wording of section 6 and, if not, whether he is prepared to revise the wording of section 6, or more simply at this stage in the debate, to accept the amendment put forward.

Mr. Deasy

I wish to oppose the amendment and to support the Minister's proposal that we should have complete rebroadcasting in its entirety of either BBC 1 or ITV. The people who have supported the amendment have hammered out the same old clichés we have been listening to for 50 years and which have been a detriment to the advancement of the way of life in this island.

People such as Senator Yeats have alleged that by rebroadcasting such services as is proposed we would be swamped by an alien culture. Last night Senator Lenihan told us we would become a race of West Britons—I think Little Englanders was the expression he used. As an Irishman I resent these types of statements and the type of insinuation that goes with them. If there is anything which has inhibited our attaining nationhood as we should have attained it at this stage, it is our narrow-minded, small-minded way of approaching national problems relating to national identity. Senator Yeats, Senator Ryan and Senator Lenihan spoke in the same vein.

The people want the rebroadcasting of this second service from either BBC 1 or ITV in its entirety. They want it and we as public representatives know they want it, and this is the place to have it decided once and for all. The public in general are not prepared to have their viewing completely influenced by bodies which they do not believe will select the programmes on an impartial basis. Too much of the programming which has gone on in RTE 1 since its inception has been at the behest of minority groups whose influence is far beyond the number of people they represent. This is the place to see that does not continue or will not be perpetuated any further by minority groups, all types of minority groups, every crank organisation in the country. I do not believe that people who advocate the putting on of an Irish language programme at peak periods in the evening can honestly be classified as having the general interests of the public at heart.

Mr. Yeats

What kind of minority groups?

Mr. Deasy

All types. I believe this is pressurising the majority to watch what they would rather not see at those periods. The rebroadcasting in its entirety of BBC 1 or UTV will give the minority groups who want to see their own special programmes broadcast the opportunity to see them without interfering with the rights of the majority. It will allow them to be seen because they will have a choice. If we allow the authority to control RTE 1 and RTE 2 there is no definite guarantee that we will have a reasonable choice. It is quite likely that our choice will be restricted to a cultural programme on one channel, and a cultural programme on another channel, and that there will be no real choice. We want to see that the public are guaranteed a reasonable choice of programmes.

The people want the best. BBC 1 are probably the best television service in the world. ITV are not far behind. The notion that RTE 2 would pick the best from all services in theory could possibly be correct, but I doubt that in practice that would be so. RTE 2 might include as many programmes from Yugoslavia as from BBC 1. I am very doubtful about the ability or otherwise of the people who will make the choice. It was stated previously that we will be swamped by this so-called alien culture. The people of this country, since the inception of radio, since the people on the eastern seaboard and the northern part of the country could receive television, have been subjected to BBC on radio and BBC on television. Has it had any deterimental effects on these people? None whatsoever, I would say.

There is another influence. Senator E. Ryan expressed the opinion last night that television is a major source of influence on what people think, and so on. It is. But newspapers also have a terribly important bearing on how people think. Daily we read British newspapers. A very considerable quantity of the newspaper reports we read in our national papers come from outside sources. Are these not a major influence of foreign origin? Do they have a deterimental effect upon the culture of the people of this island? I doubt it.

Mr. Yeats

Would the Senator sell half the Irish newspapers to foreigners?

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Deasy

I totally resent the insinuation that we become a lesser people and a lesser nation if we are subjected to this type of television influence. In fact it will do our country and our people a considerable amount of good. What they want first and foremost is a first-class television service. They will get that from either BBC 1 or ITV. We will have the alternative in RTE 1 as we know it at the moment. That should suffice. That is what the people want.

Cáit Bean Uí Eachthéirn

I did not intend to speak but I was provoked by Senator Deasy. Of the people I met since this argument started about rebroadcasting BBC 1 I have not met one yet who wants the rebroadcasting of BBC 1. We said here on the Second Stage that only the best is good enough. We still support that. Many of the Independent Senators believe the same. It is a very dangerous precedent that we should hand over the airwaves of our country to a foreign station. It appears that Senator Deasy is prepared to trust the Sasanach much better than he is prepared to trust Irishmen. I resent that. It is an indictment of our RTE Authority. The council or whatever authority will be in charge of our second channel will have freedom to select the best from all programmes be they BBC 1, BBC 2 or ITV, or any other channel, European or American.

As Senator Robinson said, it is a very dangerous precedent to hand over our airwaves to a station with no interest in the ethics of our country and everything we hold dear. We are not afraid of a blast of foreign influence. I know that we can withstand that. We have withstood the bombardment of an alien culture for 700 years. Anybody who has the interest of our country at heart should oppose BBC 1 as a second channel here.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

In order to put the position regarding this amendment into perspective, it might be useful to elaborate on what Senator O'Higgins said about the background to this section. Section 6 of the Bill, as introduced, provided enabling power to the Minister to direct RTE to rebroadcast programmes broadcast from any source other than the Authority. The explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill made it clear that the purpose of the section was to provide enabling power to implement the open broadcasting concept here.

Before the Bill was introduced into the Seanad RTE drew my attention to the fact that the section as drafted was ambiguous and might be open to the interpretation that it conferred power on the Minister to issue a direction to the Authority to rebroadcast a particular programme or series of programmes. They asked that it be amended to make it quite clear that the power being conferred on the Minister was to direct the Authority to rebroadcast a programme service in its entirety.

In my opening speech when introducing the Bill, as reported at column 772, Volume 79 of the Official Report of 12th March, 1975, I explained that when I referred to programmes in section 6 I meant the whole service and not any individual item. Senator Robinson referred to this in the debate on Second Stage and said she presumed there would be an amendment to make it clear that what was involved was a programme service. In the light of that I am a little surprised at her supporting this particular amendment. That is at column 942, Volume 79, of the Official Report of 19th March, 1975.

I introduced Government amendment No. 60 accordingly on Committee Stage inserting "in its entirety a service of programmes" in the section to remove any possible ambiguity. There was a fairly protracted debate on the amendment before it was put and declared carried as reported at columns 687 to 706, Volume 81, of the Official Report of 5th June, 1975. Subsequently I accepted amendments put forward by Senator Horgan providing that every direction made by a Minister under the section would be laid before each House of the Oireachtas with provision for annulment by resolution of either House within 21 sitting days. During the course of the debate on Senator Horgan's amendment I said that once the amendment became law the Minister would be obliged not to finalise arrangements until the 21 sitting days had passed, giving an opportunity for a full debate in the Oireachtas on the basis of the actual arrangements proposed regarding a rebroadcast programme service. That is reported at column 714, Volume 81, of the Official Report of 5th June, 1975.

To recapitulate, the position is that the purpose of inserting the words "in its entirety" was to make it quite clear that the enabling power of the Minister to issue directions under section 6 was confined to the rebroadcast in its entirety of a service of programmes such as BBC 1, UTV and so on. If these words were deleted, the section could be interpreted as empowering the Minister to issue a direction to the RTE Authority to rebroadcast a particular programme or programmes. This would clearly be undesirable. The RTE Authority have made clear their views that it is undesirable and I agree that it is undesirable. It would constitute a serious breach of the autonomy which the Authority should have. When there has been a Government amendment to include these words, if they were then struck down by the Seanad in the knowledge that this interpretation could be placed on the deletion, the consequences could be quite serious. Therefore, this is quite a strange Opposition amendment in the sense that it is an amendment which would tend to give unnecessary and excessive power of encroachment to a Minister in the field of programming.

Retention of "in its entirety" in the section does not close any doors regarding the type of second television service to be provided. If it is decided to provide this by way of a selection of BBC, UTV and other external programmes under the control of RTE or some other Irish body, the Act as it stands contains the necessary powers. Under section 16 (2L) of the 1960 Act the Authority already have the statutory power "to arrange with other broadcasting authorities for the distribution, receipt, exchange and relay of programmes whether live or recorded", so that the retention of these words does not preclude any solution of this matter.

Senator Lenihan who spoke at great length on this subject last night suggested repeatedly that the retention of these words was an indication of my lack of sincerity when I said I had an open mind about what might be provided and that I was, in fact, willing to be guided on that by the people and, in particular, by the people in the single-channel area. That interpretation of Senator Lenihan does not hold. It is clearly untrue. This Bill, as it stands, and as the Government wish it to stand, leaves both options clearly open and provides statutory mechanisms whereby either one will be fulfilled. I am sorry Senator Lenihan impugned my sincerity on that matter. Indeed, I am rather sorry he used the word "sincerity" at all in the light of his speech here last night in which he talked about little Britons and people singing God Save the Queen if they were exposed to the BBC and so on.

But whether I was or was not sincere, let this be clear: the choice will ultimately lie in the hands of the people and particularly the people of the single-channel area. If the people of the single-channel area indicate that they want, that they prefer, a service under the control of RTE, or another Irish body such as has been outlined to them in a somewhat different form by RTE and by Fianna Fáil, whatever my personal views might be I could not possibly oblige them to accept a rebroadcast BBC service. There is no question of that. Let me be equally clear: if the people of the single-channel area make clear that what they want is a programme service like BBC 1 rebroadcast live and simultaneously in its entirety, then the Fianna Fáil Party will not be able to stand between them and what they want and will have to modify their present stand. I believe that, being a flexible and on the whole a rational party, they would modify it. The choice is in the people's hands.

Senator Robinson raised a point which I omitted to answer. She raised the question of the constitutional requirement. I am not a lawyer; Senator Robinson is. I would therefore not be in any position to debate this matter with her or other legal Members of this House. I am obliged to take the best legal advice available to the Government. There is excellent legal advice available to the Government, I have taken it and I am advised that there appears to be no constitutional bar to the provisions included in this Bill. Of course, as we all know, it would ultimately be for the Supreme Court to say what is constitutional and what is not, and not for any of us. I am moving in the way I am moving after taking legal advice and in conformity with that advice.

Mr. Yeats

Senator O'Higgins and Senator Deasy and the Minister said, as indeed the Minister has said on a number of occasions, that really section 6 does nothing at all of a definite nature, that it is merely an enabling section which gives the power to bring in the BBC. Senator Russell also made the same general point. In the case of Senator Russell and Senator O'Higgins, I suspect that this is in the nature of wishful thinking. While I have no doubt they would deny it, the drift of their speeches conveyed the impression to me, at any rate, that they would like to think that it was only an enabling section and it would never really happen. May I assure them that from its very existence in the Bill it appears to me—and I am not in any way discussing matters of sincerity or anything like that—that the Minister, at least at the time when he drafted the Bill, whatever about now, was determined that the BBC would be brought in, in the manner suggested in section 6.

If all that was required was to give authority to bring in the BBC, section 6 is not needed. The RTE Authority under existing legislation in the Principal Act have ample power to bring in the BBC, UTV, or any other service in part or in its entirety. The Minister has conceded this point in earlier discussions. Section 6 gives the Minister power, by direction, to overrule the wishes of the Authority and to instruct the Authority whether they want it or not to bring in the service of the BBC in its entirety, or UTV or whichever other service the Minister chooses to take.

One is justified in suggesting that the Minister, when drafting this Bill, was determined to bring in the BBC. After all, as I mentioned yesterday, the Minister invented this idea. Of the 120 various representations in written and oral form made to the broadcasting review body only one referred to the possibility of bringing in BBC 1. The broadcasting review body in two reports specifically turned this idea down and recommended the formation of a second Irish channel. The Authority turned down any such proposal and sought to have the creation of a second Irish channel. Nonetheless, the Minister, perhaps within months or weeks of his becoming Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, launched this eccentric idea on a bemused Irish public. He was in fact the only begetter of this idea and, as such, it is reasonable to suggest that at the time he framed this Bill he was an advocate and an ardent supporter of this proposal. He would naturally like to feel that it was also worth votes to him but certainly, as a theoretical exercise, he was entirely in favour of bringing in the BBC. Of course he launched this in a different and more insidious form and one perhaps more inclined to appeal to people who really did not consider the matter too deeply; he launched this in a form of open broadcasting. Even now in his speech which he just concluded he referred to this as an enabling power to implement open broadcasting. He launched it as a proposal to bring in open broadcasting; the Irish television service would be broadcast in Northern Ireland and maybe, in return, the various programmes in Northern Ireland would be broadcast over the whole of the Republic of Ireland.

This concept collapsed at a very early stage, but the Minister has continued in a very one-sided way with the proposition that we should import these outside programmes without any kind of quid pro quo, without any effort to even site transmitters near the Border so that our own service could be transmitted throughout or in part of Northern Ireland. The Minister, therefore, was the originator of this idea. He is the person who thought it up, and it is a little ingenuous of him to try to convey the impression now that he will find out by some esoteric means known only to himself what the people of the single-channel area think and go along with that; he himself is not particularly committed to one form of second channel or another. It is absolutely clear from the whole record and his performance over the past two years and more that he is in fact an ardent advocate of the proposition that we ought to use this second channel for the propagation of outside programmes in their entirety. As far as I know, he has never suggested in any way, directly or indirectly, that the Irish television service ought to be under the control of Irish people, that it should originate in Ireland or be put on by Irish people. He has never suggested that it ought to be in any way slanted in an Irish way, that it should be Irish rather than foreign; on the contrary, in all his statements, in so far as he has expressed any preference, it has been in favour of British rather than Irish television for the Irish people.

He says, as he has said so often both here and outside in the past couple of months, that the choice is with the people of the single-channel area. But he has not explained now, any more than he has explained on earlier occasions, how this choice was to be expressed, how an assessment was to be made as to what people in the single-channel area think as opposed to the lobbies. Senator Deasy referred to crank groups. I asked him to name them but he, with perhaps politic caution, refrained from doing so. I would put it the other way. Senator Deasy and the Minister should not pay too much attention to crank groups who are putting themselves across as lobbies purporting to express what the views of those in the single-channel areas are. They should look deeper than the——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Would the Senator name the crank groups?

Mr. Yeats

Certainly—various lobbies lobbying in favour of the importation of British television.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Would the Senator name them?

Mr. Yeats

I am very doubtful as to the extent to which they are representative of Irish public opinion anywhere or of Irish public opinion in the single-channel areas. They may be, but I think it is doubtful. The evidence is increasing that, now that they are becoming aware of the situation, the people of the single-channel area are not going along with the frothy front-running members of the various television lobbies and it is increasingly doubtful whether they represent the people of the single-channel areas.

How one can assess this is a matter which escapes me. The Minister has not explained this to us. Neither is it easy to see how people who, per se, because they live in single-channel areas have not had an extended opportunity of watching BBC 1 and never seen a second Irish channel, can give an accurate assessment of the merits or demerits of one as against the other.

The Minister at an early stage said that people travelled. Of course, they do. People have relations and friends. Many, but by no means all, of the people in what would be the second channel area have been to the east coast, to Dublin and elsewhere, and have seen BBC 1. Many have never seen it. Others have seen it on occasions. I wonder how many people either in these lobbies or outside have had the extended opportunities of seeing BBC 1 which would enable them to give a really accurate assessment of its merits. Certainly nobody either in the single-channel or the multi-channel areas has for obvious reasons ever seen the Irish second channel, which has not even started and, if the Minister has his way, may never start.

The Minister is summoning up what he describes as a democratic process which seems impossible of accomplishment. One feels that possibly the situation would be that the Minister could say, on the one hand, he felt the majority were in favour of British television and, on the other hand, other people might well say that, in their view, the majority were in favour of Irish television. How they can be finally assessed I do not know and the Minister has done nothing to help us in this matter.

Senator Deasy referred to newspapers. I asked the Senator whether he would approve of a piece of legislation which gave a Minister power to hand over half the newspapers in the country to be printed in England, compiled by English reporters, while still perhaps maintaining the same name, edited entirely for English consumption and then put on the Irish market in competition with any remaining Irish newspapers. Would he agree with that proposition? It is precisely on all-fours with what this Bill does with regard to television. When this Irish television service becomes available with these new transmitters in operation more than half the available Irish television time will be handed over holus-bolus to a British corporation. The position is precisely the same as if he were to hand over half the newspapers of the country.

Mr. Russell

That is not the idea.

Mr. Deasy

Not necessarily to any one race of people.

Mr. Yeats

I do not know what the Senator means. We could hand it over to the Russians, I suppose.

Mr. Deasy

That is too stupid for words. In these islands we all speak the same language.

Mr. Yeats

Did Senator Deasy say it was too stupid for words? He mentioned newspapers. I did not. And the parallel is an exact one.

Mr. E. Ryan

It is just as silly as the Minister's proposal.

Mr. Yeats

We will have, at the taxpayers' expense, two Irish television programmes one of which will be handed over to the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is precisely the same as handing over The Limerick Leader—

Mr. Russell

No it is not.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Yeats

——and half the other newspapers in the country to British concerns to operate them from England.

Mr. Russell

Explain the handing over.

Mr. Yeats

By legislation. This Minister, or some other Minister, hands them over by an Act of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Russell

Childish!

Mr. Yeats

It will be childish.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Yeats should not enjoy interruptions quite so much.

Mr. Russell

He enjoys provocation.

Mr. Yeats

It is too stupid for words. I agree with Senator Russell that this is too stupid for words.

Mr. Russell

Childish!

Mr. Yeats

I did not bring it up, but I agree with Senator Russell that it would be childish. I did not bring up the subject of newspapers; it was Senator Deasy who did that. Fortunately they are still controlled by Irish people. The Limerick Leader has expressed views on this whole idiotic proposal.

Mr. Russell

They are entitled to.

Mr. Yeats

Now the Minister has said that these words "in its entirety" were introduced by him because the Authority asked him to insert them. I only wish the Minister paid as much heed to what the Authority would like him to do. I suggest that in this respect the Authority would dearly like to see a second Irish television channel under Irish control and the Minister should pay heed to that. However, he said he brought this provision at the behest of the Authority.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I did not say behest.

Mr. Yeats

I am sorry. I withdraw "behest" and I will substitute "request". I did not intend it in quite that way. At column 692 of Volume 81 of the Official Report of the Seanad the Minister stated:

All this amendment does is to remove a possible reading of the section as it stood and under which the Minister would have the power to say to the Authority: "Oh, I saw a show I rather liked the other night: you put that on", and the Authority would have to put it on. That would really be usurping the power of the Authority.

The Minister, in section 1, has given a definition of rebroadcasting which is the simultaneous rebroadcasting and, therefore, how can he possibly say to the Authority: "I saw a nice programme last week?" It does not make sense. That, as an explanation of this amendment, really will not wash. One would find it entertaining if the whole situation was not essentially so tragic. What could be entertaining in other circumstances is the Minister's final statement: "That would really be usurping the power of the Authority." That is a concept I find difficult to accept. If you tell the Authority to put on one programme that is usurping the power of the Authority. If you say to the Authority: "We are taking your entire second channel away from the Irish people and giving it, at the Irish taxpayers' expense, to the British", that is not usurping the power of the Authority apparently.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It is not their second channel.

Mr. Yeats

Ah, all right, it is the Irish second channel. I like to think of this second channel, the running of which will be paid for by the Irish taxpayer who owns a television set, as ours. It may not belong to the RTE Authority; I do not care who runs it provided they are Irish and it is run in Ireland. That seems to me to be a technical point which in no way violates the principle. Section 6 usurps the power of the Authority and the rights of the Irish people in a dictatorial way that would not be tolerated in any other country. I have talked to both English people and people of other nationalities about this and their reaction has been one of amazement. "Is that really what this Bill does?" they ask.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am sure after the Senator explained it to them they were amazed.

Mr. Yeats

No. I am always fair. I am unwilling to go into too many intricate absorbing details about Irish local politics. I have simply said that I have to go back to discuss a Bill which provides that the Minister shall have power to hand over our second television channel to the BBC.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is a distortion already. There is nothing about handing over anything.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister is a specialist in words and a well-known writer of words and a specialist in the intricate meanings of words.

Mr. Russell

The Senator is not too bad himself.

An Cathaoirleach

I am not sure the Senator is in entirety. The House should be directing its attention to the words "in its entirety".

Mr. Yeats

Yes, but the definition that we are on at the moment is an interesting one. It is whether we are in fact handing over a television service in its entirety to the BBC.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The section does not say so.

Mr. Russell

That is a detail.

Mr. Yeats

One does not lift a television channel in one's hand and give it into the hands of the Director General of the BBC. It is not a matter of lifting up something solid. It is abstract as a performance.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Direct rebroadcasting may be what the Senator is looking for.

Mr. Yeats

That to me is handing over.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Better use the language of the Bill.

Mr. Yeats

It would be wrong to hand it over. I am not quite sure of the point. Is it that the words "handing over" is a pejorative term?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Would the Senator yield?

Mr. Yeats

Of course.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The point I am making is a little more than a quibble. Control over the second channel remains and is intended permanently to remain in the hands of the Irish State which can use the said channel for rebroadcast of an outside service as long as it wishes to do that and will stop it when it wishes to do so and not when an outside body may wish to stop or go on. That is why it is not correctly described as handing over and that is why I interrupted—and I apologise for interrupting the Senator as I did, I am afraid, more than once.

Mr. Yeats

Essentially what the Minister says is that he is handing over to a foreign service but retains the power to take back. If I rent my house on a month-to-month basis and, assuming the law is such that I can determine the tenancy after a certain amount of notice —I take it there would be some notice involved in this, three months notice, or whatever it is—if I hand over my house to a tenant on a month-to-month basis I can, of course, end the tenancy but, while this tenant is in the house, I no longer have control over it. He could expel me.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If you rent a house on a month-to-month basis you need not go into the house if you do not want to. That would be much closer parallel.

Mr. Yeats

I would not be allowed. He could take an action for trespass if I went in.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Will we all get out of this house into the open air?

Mr. Yeats

The point I am making is that, if I rent a house, I no longer have any control over the house as long as the tenant is there, behaving himself and so on. But of course I can determine the tenancy. The Minister is allowing, shall we say, the BBC to operate our second channel. He has no control at all over the programmes. None of the provisions in this Bill relating to invasion of the privacy, impartiality, incitement to crime and so on can be applied, and he has been very strong on this: we have tried at various times in this Bill to suggest that something ought to be done to keep an eye on what the BBC are doing and the Minister has always said "No, it is impossible. How can I say to the BBC they are to be impartial? How can I say to the BBC they must not incite to crime and so on?" He has no control and he has deliberately worded this Bill in such a way as to ensure that he has no control over what is put on by the BBC. Of course, he can say to them ultimately as from such and such a date you will have to stop broadcasting. But while they are broadcasting he has no control over them at all. I did not intend the matter in a pejorative way. Whether it be one, two, three or five years, during the period that the BBC is transmitting over RTE's second channel, he is handing over control over that channel for that period. This is what the Minister is doing and it involves, in particular, the words "in its entirety"; the whole programme from start to finish must be broadcast. You start off with the test card so that you can adjust your set. Then you have the schools' programmes. The Minister appeared to look on these with some approval. I do not know whether he envisages that Irish schools would give up some of their class time in order to allow the English educational process to apply here also. You go right on to the last programme of the day. He took some umbrage, I think, at this particular matter being referred to by Senator Lenihan. I am not sure why. The last programme of the day has the British Queen sitting in full uniform on her white horse with the Union Jack flapping behind. The tune of that well-known ditty rings forth every night: "God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen, Send her victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us, God save the Queen."

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We can report to Senator Lenihan that we have heard one of his colleagues now singing God Save the Queen.

Mr. Yeats

It is an entertaining little ditty but its relevance to present-day conditions in Ireland is somewhat doubtful. I am not suggesting to the Minister that this is going to corrupt the youth of Ireland or, indeed, the more elderly people of Ireland. But I am suggesting that I do not want this particular song broadcast nightly on my screen, with the Queen of England sitting on her white horse and the Union Jack flapping behind. I am suggesting to the Minister that I do not think anybody else wants this, and I do not think the people of the single-channel area want this, not even the front runners of the lobbies would like this. And I do not think that Senators opposite want this. But this is what they are going to get by insisting on the words which I seek to delete "in its entirety". I am not suggesting that hearing that little ditty poured forth by the Grenadier Guards Band, or whatever it is does it, on our own television screen night after night is going to corrupt our patriotism or anything like that but I am suggesting that it is a bloody insult to the Irish people to do this night after night. I would resent it deeply and I think the Irish people would resent it deeply. This is the kind of thing which will result from the insertion of the words "in its entirety".

No other country would dream of doing such a thing. Certainly no other country under any circumstances has given any individual Minister this power. The Minister keeps on talking about the Government, but it is not the Government; one single Minister can give this direction. I know Ministers do not like doing things without getting Government sanction but, nonetheless, it is not the Government that is inserted even in this section—it is the Minister. No country in the world would ever even consider allowing the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, or any other Minister, to direct the national television authority to behave in this fashion. The Minister has constantly talked of Italy, which is a special case because of the linguistic problems and so on, but the basic difference between the Italian situation and our situation is that the national Italian television service goes on uninterrupted. There is no question of the Italian people saying their second channel is to be handed over to the Austrians, the Swiss or the Germans. The Italian television service remains unchanged.

I would say to the Minister, if he wishes, for whatever reason, to introduce the BBC into Ireland at the Irish taxpayers' expense, then he should not do so at the expense of the Irish television service. He keeps on saying there is no second channel; that is mainly more playing with words. At this moment television transmitters are being built at the expense of the taxpayer in order to carry this second service.

Section 10 of the Bill provides for a considerable increase from £4 million to £15 million in the amount of capital available to RTE mainly for the purpose of building these television transmitters. As from approximately the end of next year it will be physically possible to transmit a second television channel throughout Ireland. We have by international agreement the various necessary frequencies on which to do this. As from the end of next year, there will be a second channel available to the Irish people. One is only playing with words to suggest that there is not a second channel. There is, or there will be next year. The question is, what will we do with it? We say it should be used for the propagation of a television programme under the control of Irish people. We have said all along that we would expect, and want indeed, that a considerable proportion of this second programme would be taken from abroad. It has been suggested by the Minister and one or two of the Senators opposite that the introduction of BBC 1 will give the people of the single-channel area the kind of choice that is available to those happy people—that is the phrase that has been used—who live in the multi-channel area.

I should stress now, as I stressed a couple of weeks ago to the Minister, and he accepted my point, that there is no such thing as a multi-channel area, in the sense that the word is often used. The impression being conveyed to the people of the single-channel area is that everyone in the so-called multi-channel area has a number of channels freely and easily available and giving excellent reception. That is not so. The only way one can be sure of getting really good reception from outside transmitters, except in very limited areas, perhaps along the Border and in one or two specially favoured parts of Dublin, is by cable. Even in Dublin, which is the easiest place to deal with, only a quarter of television sets are linked to cable. The general picture in Dublin is, with one or two exceptions, Killiney and Howth, that reception of BBC or UTV is bad unless you are linked to cable. Even with cable, I have seen sets where reception was very, very, poor indeed. In other words there is no such thing as excellent reception of several channels in the so-called multi-channel area. The effect of bringing BBC 1 in as far as the multi-channel areas are concerned would be that there would be an enormous improvement for about 80 per cent of the population of the multi-channel area in the standard of reception of BBC 1.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is very interesting.

Mr. Yeats

It is a fact.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It is an interesting point.

Mr. Yeats

I never quite know exactly what the Minister's phraseology means.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It should be more widely understood.

Mr. Yeats

The generality of television viewers on the east coast are accustomed to looking at BBC and UTV and so on through a glass darkly. The programmes are not always decipherable except with some difficulty. The effect of bringing in BBC even in the multi-channel area would be that the competition with RTE would be considerably extended. Cable television is quite expensive and requires a very heavily built-up area. Even in Dublin, I do not imagine the time will ever come when more than 50 per cent of the population will be connected with it, and once one goes outside the big cities, it will not apply.

One of the problems that faces the Minister in trying to put through this enabling provision is that, whatever about this metaphysical concept of the wishes of the people of the single-channel areas, those who actually expressed their views do not seem to favour the Minister. The Broadcasting Review Body, in two reports, turned down the Minister's scheme. The RTE Authority——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has already made this point on this amendment.

Mr. Yeats

——has turned down the Minister's scheme. In this debate the only support the Minister had was from some hardy souls on his own side who have attempted from time to time to justify his proceedings. The six Independent Senators have all, to varying degrees, opposed the proposition of bringing in the BBC in this fashion. On the basic vote on section 6, only 16 in fact supported the Minister. There are now 15 members of Fianna Fáil—the Minister, I imagine looks upon us as lost souls who are irrevocably opposed to what he does and therefore does not expect any help from us—and you, Sir, who, for practical reasons, are unable to vote on these matters, making 16. There are 44 Senators left. Out of a potential vote of 44, the Minister got 16, which is not a very substantial amount of support, even from people he might expect to support his proposals.

One of these, Senator Boland, while he voted for section 6, did so quite clearly out of a very laudable sense of loyalty. While he voted for the section, his comments during the debate hardly went along with his vote. If I may quote——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is going very wide of the amendment. We are dealing with a particular amendment. If the Senator is attempting to say that the amendment is so much part of the section that he can wander all over the section, then he is condemning himself out of his mouth by referring to the fact that the section was carried by a division. The Senator should confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Yeats

Even though I think the Minister might find it very interesting to be reminded of it, I will refrain from quoting Senator Boland, except for one sentence which is directly related to this amendment. At column 818 of the Official Report, Senator Boland said:

I do not think the way to satisfy choice to the people of any one country is to take one of the broadcasting channels of another country and broadcast it in its entirety. In my opinion that is not the solution.

Nor indeed in our opinion. My point is that even the very small number who supported the Minister in this House, at least in certain cases, did so through loyalty rather than conviction. The Minister and certain Government Senators have failed to understand that BBC 1 broadcast in its entirety could not under any circumstances be an adequate substitute for the happy condition many of them seem to think we in the multi-channel area are in. The words "multi-channel" imply that there are a number of channels. Yet, the proposition is that only one of these, with RTE, should be broadcast in the single-channel areas. Our proposal, which is also the proposal of the RTE Authority, is that the new second programme should provide the best of several channels. To that extent it would be far more adaptable to the actual demand, which we accept exists, in the single-channel areas for more variety of television programmes. They will not get anything like the amount of variety they wish by being given only one other channel.

One cannot help feeling that the Minister's attitude to this whole concept of open broadcasting has been slipshod. One wonders whom he has consulted on this matter. I do not know whether he has ever officially consulted, as opposed to having informal discussions with, the Irish television unions. He certainly has not listened to what they have to say. Did he ever consult the BBC unions? Did he consult on the various legal problems about which he has been very coy? Did he consult the Society of Authors about the legal problems of copyright? Did he consult the Performing Rights Society, or the agency dealing with mechanical rights? Who has he been negotiating with in the BBC and how far has he got? Can he not tell us something about the nature of these negotiations? To what extent has the British Government been brought into this matter? After all, the BBC is essentially a Government station.

The whole thing is extraordinarily vague, particularly so when one remembers that the Minister recently denied that RTE have been brought into the matter. They apparently do not seem to have anything to do with these negotiations. There does not seem to be much prospect of the Minister accepting this amendment, but in my opinion he ought to accept it because his own concept of section 6 is so contrary to the needs of the Irish people, and also because he commits himself by putting in "in its entirety" to ensuring that no control shall ever be exercised over this second channel while it is running in so far as the activities of the BBC are concerned. We will have the BBC from early morning until late at night—test card and all. I can only urge the Minister at this late stage to think again about this and to accept this amendment.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 13.

Tá

• Blennerhassett, John.
• Burton, Philip.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Codd, Patrick.
• Connolly, Roderic.
• Daly, Jack.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Jack.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Harte, John.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• McGrath, Patrick W.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Owens, Evelyn.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Russell George Edward.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Walsh, Mary.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Brosnahan, Seán.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Killilea, Mark.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Robinson, Mary.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 29. Amendment No. 30 is consequential on amendment No. 29 and accordingly they should be taken together.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 7, lines 28 to 34, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) Whenever a direction is proposed to be made under this section, a draft of the proposed direction shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the direction shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas."

This amendment arises out of the very welcome amendment that the Minister agreed to from Senator Horgan during Committee Stage debate, the effect of the amendment being that every direction made under section 6 by the Minister should be laid before each House, and, if a resolution annulling the direction is passed within 21 sitting days, then the direction is annulled accordingly, and so on.

It was pointed out on Committee Stage that this could mean that the Minister could give the direction, and it would be a good direction until such time as it might be annulled, and, of course, ipso facto the Minister, being the Minister, must have a majority in each House. The Minister dealt with this matter at columns 712, 713 and 714, of Volume 81 No. 7 of the Seanad Official Report. At column 712 he said:

It is clear that with this proviso no final arrangements can be made with any outside corporation before the matter has been discussed here and indeed approved here. If I am negotiating with the BBC and we are getting up to a final stage I have to say—they will know anyway: "This has to be approved by the Oireachtas and therefore, it does not become final." Then the direction I give to RTE is in a sense, until approved here, of the status of a draft direction and nothing can be final. That is the substance of the matter.

At column 713 he said:

The financial commitment will not be finalised—any Minister would be very foolish to finalise such a commitment—before the Oireachtas approval which is required is secured.

Finally, at column 714 the Minister said:

Once that becomes law the Minister will be obliged to tell his partners that he cannot finalise any arrangements before this is through.

As a matter of law that is not so. I do not think that is an argument. In law the direction is a good direction as soon as it is made in the requisite form, and only ceasing to be a direction if either House annuals it within 21 sitting days.

The Minister seems quite clear that it would not be possible for him to make any final arrangements until the matter has been discussed by the House. The problem he has not adverted to is that the matter might not be discussed by the House. If that happens, is he going to wait until the 21 sitting days are up? Consider the case of the Seanad. Since the Dáil adjourns, usually sometime in July, and does not come back until the end of October, and even then tends to deal with Estimates and does not have much legislation, the likelihood is that as far as the Seanad is concerned, from the end of July to, perhaps, the following April or May you would not have had 21 sitting days. If the Minister's direction is made in July, he has to wait until the 21 days are up to see whether the Seanad is going to annul his direction, which could be in the following March or April. There could be an inordinate and quite excessive delay which would make it impossible, in practice, to do anything. The Minister would not be in a position to make any final arrangement with anybody until this had happened. I am proposing that it be turned round. The amendment reads:

Whenever a direction is proposed to be made under this section a draft of the proposed direction shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the direction shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I would like to assure the Minister that while I have strong views on the section as a whole, I am genuinely trying to improve the situation. From the Minister's point of view the effect would be that since he will have a majority in each House, all he needs to do is arrange for a debate in Government time in each House. As soon as each House has given the requisite majority in favour of the direction, then he can go ahead with his business. Otherwise, he would have to wait until 21 sitting days were up in the Dáil and 21 sitting days were up in the Seanad, which could be a considerable time, before he was able to act on the direction. I would suggest, in everybody's interest, that he accept this amendment. It would not delay him; in fact, it would speed up things considerably. From the point of view of the good working of the parliamentary process in a matter of this importance, it is desirable that the question be discussed in Parliament before such a direction is made. This is one of the few cases where the advantages of good parliamentary practice and the practical advantages of ministerial administration, coincide.

Mrs. Robinson

I would like to support this amendment for the reasons set out so clearly by Senator Yeats. I had been impressed by the same point and, like him, I do not agree with the Minister's intepretation of the effect of this amendment which was inserted on Committee Stage. I do not think the Minister would, in any legal sense, have to wait until the 21 sitting days in both Houses had passed, lest there might have been a resolution annulling the direction before he finalised matters and for the practical reasons so clearly set out by Senator Yeats I do not think he would do it. In my view, we have to consider the present text of section 6 (2) and this amendment in that light.

From the Minister's attitude to the amendment, and from what was said in the debate, it is his intention to give a genuine parliamentary role in this. I would like to urge him to create the situation which he appears to be prepared to concede, that this is a matter of very real public interest and concern, and there should be a parliamentary voice.

I submit that subsection (2) of section 6 as it stands at the moment is unreal, that the direction will be made by the Minister, that the Authority will take steps to act on that direction and that neither the Minister nor the Authority is in law bound nor will in practice be able to await the possibility that over a period of months there might be in either House a resolution proposing to annul this direction. We all know that where a resolution is framed in this way, where the direction is already legally in operation pending the possibility of a resolution being tabled in either House, is quite a rare occurrence. It requires to be done in Private Members' Time or to be done in time conceded under certain pressure by the Government.

From the point of view of parliamentary control and involvement in a decision of this importance, it is highly desirable that the formula in the present amendment be accepted. The direction should be laid in draft form before both Houses. This is the essential requirement if there is to be a genuine parliamentary role. It would be in the interest of the Government to find time speedily for debate in both Houses and for the direction to be approved by both Houses. It would then be a valid, legal direction to the Authority which would not be subject to the possibility of an annulment afterwards. There could only be value to the whole process of parliamentary democracy, of involvement, of public discussion. It would emphasise the educational role of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I read part of the Committee Stage debate in this House at which, unfortunately, I was not able to be present, and it seemed to me that the Minister was prepared to concede the usefulness and the importance of having a parliamentary control over the possibility of abuse. I would urge him to make a reality of the idea behind this amendment, which I think is a very valuable one, to accept that the formula at present in section 6, subsection (2) will not achieve any great improvement, that it will create an unnecessary practical uncertainty when a direction has been given under section 6 for a considerable period afterwards, which I do not think is good for any sort of legal certainty. There are enough uncertainties behind this Bill in any case as to whether we are having a wake with no body. In the genuine interest of improving the text of the Bill—although I am not in favour of the principle in section 6—it would be most desirable that whatever would be the use made and whatever would be the content of a direction which would issue from the Minister for the time being it would be debated in draft form during time set aside by the Government because of the necessity of having the draft approved. Both Houses could debate the views and have a representative opinion and this would be of very great value and it would not be a dangerous loss of authority by the Government. The Government in any case have a majority in both Houses. Their action would be a reinforcement of parliamentary democracy. I would like very strongly to support this amendment and I hope it will be acceptable to the Minister.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Subsection (2), which this amendment would delete, was inserted in the Bill following my acceptance of amendment No. 61, proposed by Senator Horgan at the Committee Stage. I consider that this subsection as it now stands provides adequate control by the Oireachtas and certainly what Senator Robinson calls a parliamentary voice in the event of the Government deciding that a choice of television programmes should be provided by rebroadcast of BBC or IBA programmes in their entirety. I already explained my position on this at the Committee Stage on 5th June—Volume 81, No. 7, column 712 of the Official Report refers. I am not prepared to accept this further amendment.

Mr. Yeats

I am a little surprised that the Minister has brushed off this amendment in a rather cavalier fashion, particularly in the light of his reiterated reference to what he said at column 712 of the Official Report which I have already quoted. The point to which he referred us is essentially that nothing could be done either by RTE or the BBC to deal with such a direction until the matter had been considered by each House of the Oireachtas.

This second channel will become possible with the coming into operation of the transmitters at the end of 1976. Presumably it will be necessary to bring in the direction provided for in section 6 at least six months or so before that time and June or July next year would probably be about the latest date by which the Minister could reasonably bring in this. Supposing he does bring in a direction in June, by the following March or April the Seanad may still not have met for 21 days. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the coming into force of the second channel would be held up until the Seanad has debated this matter? That does not seem to me to be a practical possibility. Yet the Minister has been quite clear on it in column 712 of the Official Report. If he is negotiating with the BBC he has to say that it will have to be approved by the Oireachtas. The negotiations cannot be finalised and the direction to be given to RTE has to be approved here. It is only a draft direction and nothing can be declared final.

That is the substance of the matter and on that basis the chances are pretty good that we are not going to have any second channel, either BBC or otherwise, next year if the Minister is really going to wait until the 21 sitting days are up. It is not 21 calendar days; the Seanad will have to sit on 21 separate days before the time for dealing with such a direction has elapsed. Since the Seanad, as a general rule, meets only to deal with legislation, and since the Dáil is in adjournment during the summer and does not usually give us much legislation during the autumn, the chances are that there could be a nine-month period without 21 sitting days. This time of year, as we know only too well, we meet far more frequently— three and four times a week for the last few months. In such a situation we get through 21 sitting days quite rapidly but at other times of the year that is not so. We all know we languished in happy indolence all last autumn with no legislation coming from the Dáil. Over a six-month period I do not think we had more than about one or two sitting days, if we had as many as that. If the Minister is sticking to the point he made on Committee Stage about not being able to do anything about his direction until it had been considered by both Houses, I urge him in his own interests, if not in ours, to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 30 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 are related and may be taken together.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 7, line 55, after "making" to insert "or retaining".

This is a matter which I raised on Committee Stage. Section 7 provides that recordings of all radio and television broadcasts must be made sound recordings in order to make them available as required to the broadcasting complaints commission. Subsection (2) of section 7 states:

Recordings made in compliance with subsection (1) of this section shall be retained by the Authority for at least sixty days or for such other period as shall be agreed by the Authority and the Commission...

Subsection (3) of the same section states:

The making of a recording in compliance with subsection (1) of this section shall not be a contravention of section 2 (1) of section 3 (1) of the Performers' Protection Act, 1968, or an infringement of copyright, and nothing contained in the Copyright Act, 1963, shall be construed as prohibiting or restricting the making of such a recording.

The point of my amendment is that there appears to be a technical defect in the wording of this subsection. The sections of the Performers' Protection Act, 1968, are referred to as being exempted from the terminology of this section. The sections are mainly section 2 (1) and section 3 (1) of that Act.

The point is that section 2 (4) and section 3 (4) of the same Act provide a six-month limit for certain recordings. They lay down a general rule with regard to the situation where a television or radio programme is recorded as a matter of course; they do not refer to a case, where, by specific arrangements with the performer a recording is made for certain purposes. They deal with the ordinary situation where, as is usually the case, programmes are recorded. Under these circumstances these subsections of the Performers' Protection Act lay down rules that, except in certain historical cases which need not concern us, all recordings must be destroyed after six months unless there is the actual agreement of the performers concerned. It seems to me that these subsections ought to be added to those which are exempted from the verbiage of section 7. Otherwise there is a disagreement between two Acts. On the one hand there is section 7 (2) of this Bill, which says that the Authority can keep recordings for as long as they like in agreement with the commission and, on the other hand, there is the absolute prohibition in the Performers' Protection Act of keeping them longer than six months. The matter can be dealt with very conveniently by my amendment which provides simply that retaining is needed because it is a matter of keeping the recordings. Retaining of the recording in compliance with this section shall not be a contravention of these named subsections or the Performers' Protection Act. I think it is a necessary if small point; otherwise, the Authority and the commission could run into legal problems. They might be liable to legal action by performers in cases where the recordings were kept for longer than six months.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I have been advised that these three amendments raise issues which would need to be considered in greater detail than the time available. The points at issue in the Senator's amendments are being considered further and if, following this consideration, legal advice is that amendments are necessary to ensure that nothing in the Performers' Protection Act or the Copyright Act, 1963, would prevent retention of recordings under section 7 of this Bill for as long as they are needed, I will introduce amendments accordingly on the Committee Stage in the Dáil.

While I am grateful to the Senator for drawing attention to this question as well as to other problems in the Bill, I am legally advised that his amendments as they stand would not in any event be entirely acceptable and, accordingly, I cannot agree with them at this stage. There is, however, no disagreement about what it is desired to achieve by section 7 and by the Senator's amendments, namely that nothing in the Performers' Protection and Copyright Acts should prevent the retention for as long as it is needed of a recording of a broadcast in respect of which a complaint has been received and has been considered by the commission.

Mr. Yeats

I thank the Minister. The whole question of copyright is so incredibly complicated that I would hate to ask him to hasten on a matter of this kind. I must say that I myself, in a cowardly way, evaded the question of the Copyright Act. I left that aside and dealt only with the much simpler Performers' Protection Act. Obviously it is desirable that both these Acts be scrutinised. I am happy on that basis to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 8, line 3, after "functions" to insert "in respect of the carrying out of subsidiary activities".

This amendment is of somewhat more substance. Section 8 provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service, by order assign to the Authority such additional functions as those laid out by section 16 of the Principal Act. I suggested on Committee Stage that this was a rather drastic type of power to be giving to a Minister by order. The Minister says, and I accept it, that all he wants to do is to be in a position, if necessary, to give the Authority power to set up certain subsidiary bodies and activities and so on, that he has not in mind the giving of any sense of power. In view of the fact that his intentions are of such a limited nature, it seems unnecessary to widen the scope of his power to such an extent.

The Minister said on Committee Stage that he had been advised by the parliamentary draftsman that it is an appropriate way of doing it. I am quite sure that is true. Any parliamentary draftsman would think appropriate a procedure which gave powers to a Minister, which covered every conceivable eventuality which could ever come up. Those things are very handy. But one of the problems of members of a parliamentary body is to try to cut down these matters when they arise to what is reasonably required for the matter on hand. What is reasonably required for this matter would appear to be that the Minister should be given the power that he seeks to allow the Authority to indulge in subsidiary activities. I propose in this amendment to insert after "functions" the words "in respect of the carrying out of subsidiary activities". This I understand is, in fact, what the Minister wants to do.

To leave the section as it stands would mean that the Minister could give any power under the sun to the Authority. Even though I accept that he has no intention of doing so, nonetheless he would have that power by order and even if not he, then some future Minister, five, ten or 15 years from now could, by order, add any powers that he might care to think of to the Authority. Very extensive powers could be given without any reference to the Oireachtas.

After all, the functions already laid out in the Principal Act were agreed to by the Oireachtas as part of a legislative process. They were laid out in detail in the Act. This Bill gives certain other functions, about which we have had various disagreements, to be added to the list in section 16. Then we have the provision that from now on there need never be legislation of this kind in order to give additional functions and powers to the Authority. It can be done by ministerial order. This seems entirely undesirable. For that reason I propose in this amendment to limit it to what the Minister wants—to give to the Authority such functions in respect of the carrying out of subsidiary activities as the Minister may set out in the order. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

While I have a certain sympathy with the intent of the Senator's amendment, I do not consider it necessary to limit the enabling power provided for in this section as suggested. It might be a different matter if the Bill did not contain the safeguard provided for in subsection (3) of section 8. Under that subsection, if it was proposed to assign additional functions to the Authority, a draft of the order would have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and if either House passed a resolution disapproving of the draft within 21 days the order could not be made. This seems to me to provide adequate protection against abuse of the section. I do not see any real problem here. Accordingly, I am sorry that I do not agree with the amendment which, according to my advice, would in any event not be acceptable from a legal point of view as it is now framed.

Mr. Yeats

Taking the Minister's last point first, I was well aware of the fact that it might not be acceptable from a legal point of view since I was not entirely clear as to the precise nature of the activities which the Minister wanted to allot to the Authority. Obviously to carry out a procedure like this correctly the draftsman would have to be told precisely what the Minister had in mind and then word it in the correct form. If the Minister were willing to accept the principle it would be quite possible for him to get it put into proper form and introduce it in the Dáil.

The matter of principle is one which the Minister finds he is not willing to accept. He quotes the provisions of the subsection that provides that when an order will be made it be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Ministers in all Governments through the generations have waved this type of subsection as a sign that all is well with the parliamentary process. It seems to me that there is a difference between bringing a Bill before the House and having it debated in detail, subject to amendment, and having an order of this kind. Hundreds of such orders are made every year. How many are debated in either House? Two or perhaps three.

Subsections of this kind are not any safeguard. If the politicians had more time they could dig through the multitude of ministerial orders that issue each year and ask for them to be debated. Even then there is the question that the Government of the day have to give time for the debate. Ultimately time will be given but the time limit of 21 sitting days can drag on into months and by that time the whole issue is a dead duck. It is not any adequate alternative to the legislation which until now has been required in order to add any additional functions to those already possessed by the RTE Authority. I am sorry that the Minister, who spent a considerable time in Opposition, has so rapidly learned the ways of the parliamentary draftsman and the easier ways of legislation, the simplest methods of by-passing the legislative process. It seems inevitable that all Ministers from whatever side of the political spectrum ultimately are seduced by this easy way of doing things.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 35:

In page 9, to delete lines 8 and 9 and substitute the following:

"(b) Subsection (3) of section 7 of the Perpetual Funds (Registration) Act, 1933, shall in relation to an application under the said section 7 by a trustee of a scheme".

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

This is a purely technical amendment designed to clarify the subsection. It has no other significance and does not involve any change in the meaning or the purpose of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 36 has been discussed with amendment No. 28.

Government amendment No. 36:

In page 9, to delete "a programme" and substitute "in its entirety a service of programmes" in line 21.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 9, lines 40 to 43, to delete all words after "Ireland and" and substitute "shall aim to provide a broadcasting service that is essentially Irish in content and character and which in particular encourages and fosters the Irish language".

This arises out of a fairly extensive discussion we had on the Committee Stage. I tabled a much more extensive amendment which I still think would have been a better substitute for the Minister's own version. However, the Minister was not prepared to agree with it and I have tried in this amendment to narrow down the elements of disagreement as much as possible. I have met almost all the Minister's own version of the general duty to be laid upon the Authority. I am taking out merely the last part of paragraph (a) which states that the Authority:

...shall have special regard to the elements which distinguish that culture and in particular for the Irish language...

I think this is too neutral, impersonal and lacking in real meaning. I propose that the words "that the Authority shall aim to provide a broadcasting service that is essentially Irish in content and character and which in particular encourages and fosters the Irish language" I think this is a reasonable form of words that ought to obtain general agreement. If this amendment is accepted it leaves in section 14 all the Minister has specifically sought to include. It provides that the Authority shall:

be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island, ensure that the programmes reflect the varied elements which make up the culture of the people of the whole island of Ireland,

It further states that it should:

(b) uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, and

(c) have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of countries other than the State, including in particular those of such countries which are members of the European Economic Community.

It is not stated that the Authority should provide a service that would be Irish as opposed to being cosmopolitan or international. An Irish television service putting out an Irish television programme should be essentially Irish in content. Because of the wording of this section as a whole, it is quite clear when one says "Irish in content" this means Irish North and South, covering all kinds of Irish people. From the general context in which the word would appear there can be no question about that.

For constitutional reasons it should encourage and foster the Irish language. There is nothing here of the phraseology which the Minister objected to in the original Principal Act about the national aim of restoring the Irish language. It is not referred to. It is not going too far to suggest to the Authority that they should encourage and foster the Irish language. This is not laying any obligation on them to broadcast constantly in Irish. With the much stronger wording of the Principal Act no one could suggest that our Irish television service has an undue amount of Irish in it. Two per cent is the recognised figure.

I certainly would not like to see a very large number of Irish language programmes which perhaps, would, not be to the liking of people who would otherwise be in favour of the Irish language but who do not particularly wish to see a lot of programmes they might not wholly understand. It is a reasonable suggestion that the Irish language which, after all, is the language of many of our People today, the language of our forefathers, and the first national language in the Constitution, should be encouraged and fostered instead of the very neutral wording in the Minister's version, that they should have special regard in particular for the Irish language. I prefer my own phraseology and I hope the Minister will also. I deliberately left the vast bulk of what the Minister asked for and merely put in the wording set out in the section "shall aim to provide a broadcasting service that is essentially Irish in content and character and which in particular encourages and fosters the Irish language". This is the minimum one ought to ask for from any Irish television service so I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Dolan

Ba mhaith liomsa cúpla focal a rá anseo. Sa chéad dul síos caithfidh mé a admháil go n-aontaím go h-iomlán leis an leasú atá molta ag an Seanadóir Yeats anseo. Sílim go bhfuil an leasú seo anathábhachtach ar fad. Is riachtanach go mbeadh ar an radio agus ar an telefís dearcadh Gaelach agus béim ana-láidir ar fad ar an nGaeilge. Measaim gurb í an Ghaeilge agus labhairt na Gaeilge bunúsach don náisiúntacht. Gan an teanga ní dóigh liom go mbeidh náisiún ar bith againn. Ní hionann sin agus a rá go gceapaim gur cóir agus gur cheart go mbeadh sé de dhualgas ar Radio Telefís Éireann a lán cláracha a craoladh i nGaeilge. Mar sin féin measaim gur cheart go mbeadh sé riachtanach orthu cuid mhaith dena cláracha a craoladh i nGaeilge. Sílim nach ndéanann Radio Telefís Éireann é sin i láthair na huaire. Ní dóigh liom gur leór é sin. De bhárr an teagasc atá déanta sna scoileanna le 50 blian anuas tá an Ghaeilge ag gach duine, beagnach, atá faoi bhun 50 bliain d'aois. Ar an ábhar sin bheadh siad ábalta na cláracha Gaeilge a thuiscint.

Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil ana-mheas ag a lán daoine sa tír seo ar an Ghaeilge, fiú amháin daoine nach bhfuil Gaeilge ar bith acu. Ní orthu féin atá an locht sin. Ní dóigh liom go mbeadh na daoine sin sásta go ndéanfadh Radio Telefís Éireann nó duine ar bith eile faillí i leith na Gaeilge. Tuigeann an tAire féin fosta go bhfuil ana-suim ag na daoine sna Sé Chontae —a lán acu—sa Ghaeilge agus cuireann sé áthas orthu an Ghaeilge a chloisteáil. Ní h-iad na daoine ar a dtugtar náisiúnaí orthu atá meas acu ar an Ghaeilge ach na daoine atá dílis do Shasana b'fhéidir. Tá ana-mheas acu ar an Ghaeilge freisin. Tá a fhios agam féin ó scríbhinní a thagann chugam ón Ulster Folkschool agus daoine mar sin go bhfuil siad ana-bhródúil gur cuid de mhuintir na hÉireann iad.

Ar an ábhar sin measaim gur cóir don Aire glacadh leis an leasú seo. Sílim go bhfuil sé ana-thábhachtach. Cabhróidh sé go mór le cúis na Gaeilge agus leis na rudaí atá muid ag iarraidh a dhéanamh —dearcadh náisiúnta a thabhairt don telefís anseo gan a bheith ag brú ró láidir ar daoine.

Mr. Daly

My heart bleeds for the people on the other side of the House with their hypocritical talk about West Britons and Little Englanders. We will probably hear of shoneens before it is over. I would prefer any day to hear my children coming home in the evening singing God Save the Queen than to see them coming home blind drunk as a result of the power of RTE with their drink advertisements, something nobody has spoken about. I do not drink. I have no objection to people drinking. I have no objection to the use of drink but I have a decided objection to the abuse of drink. Early last year we had a serious impost put on this country when the oil producers put up their prices. It cost the nation £100 million. People were perturbed and rightly so. The drink bill for the same period was £200 million. There is not a word about that. Peculiarly enough, Senator Garrett got very annoyed and very emotional here yesterday when the subject of God Save the Queen came up. Is it not strange that in England, an allegedly pagan country, they recognise God in their National Anthem but the word “God” does not appear in our National Anthem from start to finish? Senator Ahern said she resented what Senator Deasy had said and that she did not hear any demand for BBC 1.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will have to try to relate his remarks more to amendment No. 37.

Mr. Daly

Amendment No. 37 proposed to delete all words after "Ireland and" and substitute "shall aim to provide a broadcasting service that is essentially Irish in content and character...". I am speaking about the Irish programmes we already have from RTE. The people of this country do not want a repeat of that. They do not want to see these advertisements. BBC 1 would provide a programme with no advertising. A certain amount of advertising is necessary to keep RTE going, but not the kind of advertising we are getting. Two advertisements which drive me around the bend are the fellow giving two packets of soap power for one and the RTE spongers. People were getting television in this country long before RTE were set up and they did not have to pay any licence. I went to a lot of trouble, both in North Kerry and South Kerry, to ascertain people's views and the channel they want is BBC 1.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not debating that topic again. We are on amendment No. 37.

Mr. Daly

Coming back to amendment No. 37, the people want BBC 1, one of the reasons being that there is no advertising. Senator Dolan said we have a majority in this House and this Bill will go through the House. That is why Government amendments will go through automatically. It will be a different story when they go to the other House. The people in the other House have to go to the people for their votes to elect them to that House but the people in this House do not have to go to the people because it is an indirect election. I oppose this amendment.

Cáit Bean Uí Eachthéirn

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an leasú seo mar ní dóigh liom go bhfuil cothrom na féinne á fháil ag an Ghaeilge i láthair na huaire ar Radio Telefís Éireann. Mar a dúirt an Seanadóir Dolan, níl ach 2 faoin gcéad dena clárach i nGaeilge. Is dóigh liom má theastaíonn uainn an Ghaeilge a chaomhnú agus a athbheochain gur cheart breis ama a thabhairt don teanga ar an teilifís go mór mhór ó tugadh céim síos don teanga sna scrúdúcháin don Státseirbhís agus sna scrúdúcháin iarbhunscoile. Mar sin ba cheart i bhfad níos mó ama a thabhairt don teanga má táimíd i ndáiríre í a athbheochain.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Few would quarrel with the sentiments in this amendment if there were a widely accepted intepretation in this island of what words like "essentially Irish" mean. I do not know if it is in order for me to quote from the Committee Stage of the debate, what I said on that point. As reported at column 1035, Volume 81 of the Official Report I said:

Senator Yeats's amendment puts more emphasis on the concept of Irish identity and less emphasis on the cultural variety that exists in Ireland. I consider the latter emphasis the more realistic because when we use phrases like "essentially Irish"

—and that appears in the amendment as it stands—

and "Irish identity". We are in some danger of setting up a graven image which we would be hard put to define. For example, Senator Yeats said, and I would agree with him, that what he has in mind is the whole people of Ireland, including, of course, 1 million Ulster Protestants whose allegiance and outlook are in significant ways different from the remaining inhabitants of the island. We are not talking about the population of the Republic, we are not talking about just one element in the country, we are talking about all the people of Ireland. I take it that is what Senator Yeats means—

In his statement here just now he has made it clear that that is what he does mean.

What exactly is the identity shared here? What do we mean by "Irish identity" in this context and what do those concerned mean by the expression? Putting it in programme terms, supposing we ask RTE to put on a programme about, say, Mr. William Craig and Bishop Lucey of Cork establishing the Irish identity which they share, and allowing them both to participate in that and to speak, I think the identity that would come through would be a rather attenuated one, so attenuated that it would be difficult to use it as a central axis around which programming was supposed to turn. We have to ask such questions as, what do Ulster Loyalists and Southern Nationalists have in common that they do not have in common with other people, such as Scots, Welsh, English, Canadians and Americans?

It is not the easiest question in the world to answer, and I have not heard anybody answer it in the course of this debate. I do not know whether Senator Yeats when replying on this amendment will answer it.

The question is further complicated. For example, Senator Dolan referred to an dearcadh Gaelach and to an dearcadh náisiúnta. To be "essentially Irish", do you have to have an dearcadh Gaelach? Do you have to have an dearcadh náisiúnta? If you have to have those things, in spite of odd exceptions here and there, you are ruling out most of those Ulster Protestants who, for other purposes, Senator Yeats and others would like to include in. There is another reason for refusing to set up what I call the "graven image" of essential Irishness, that is, that a group of people here—let me be plain about it, the Republicans, including for this purpose all shades of Republicans, including the Fianna Fáil Party—have set themselves up historically and over many years as the judges of what is and who is essentially Irish: I hear no denials of that. They have and they accept that fact, but others of us refuse those judges. I know, for example, Senator Dolan regards me as being much less "essentially Irish" than he is. I refuse to him the right to make such a judgment. I would refuse the right by statute to any group of Irishmen to set themselves up in judgment as to which of their compatriots are sufficiently Irish and which are not. We have had enough of that. Many people would agree with me that we have had enough of that.

This amendment has been moved by Senator Yeats, as one would expect, in moderate language but lurking in it are concepts which have been expressed in very far from moderate language in the course of this and other debates, where there were references to "Little Britons" and to the 800 years—we are still carrying on the same old war as we were in the 12th century. Nothing has changed and there are some good people who are still carrying on that war. Senator Yeats does not say that nor does he, and I do not blame him, rebuke some of his colleagues who have said it, or said things like it, Senator Dolan and Senator Garrett. We cannot always be butting in on these things but there is a puzzle and I would like Senator Yeats in his reply to try to answer some of those questions, not other questions that I have not put but the ones I have put. I would ask him to consider, for example, the problem of someone like Ian Paisley. Most people here, if they were asked the question: "Is Ian Paisley essentially Irish?" would say "Yes" or "well, yes". They would not be likely to say "No" because that would smack of the two nations theory which is very bad juju. They could be asked: "Well, all right, Ian Paisley is essentially Irish. Are the things he says essentially Irish? When he talks about the Pope, about Irish unity, about Britain, are the things he says essentially Irish?" So we come to the conclusion that he is an essentially Irish man who says essentially un-Irish and, indeed, essentially anti-Irish things. What are you to make of that for the purposes of programming? I do not think you can make anything of it for the purposes of programming and, therefore, I would not use this ambiguous language. Senator Yeats referred earlier to the idea of what the people in the single-channel area want as a metaphysical concept. It is not. What the people in the single-channel area want, whatever it may be, is something capable of being ascertained by empirical methods. The technique of setting it up may be difficult but it is within the sphere of rational inquiry.

Mr. Yeats

We are not getting back to section 6, are we?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We are not. The relevance of what I am saying will become clear in a moment. What I am saying is that the point he made in relation to section 6, and which I am not making here, about a metaphysical concept was not relevant then but it is relevant now. This idea of "essential Irishness" is a metaphysical concept. It is a metaphysical concept with which I am not going to burden the unfortunate programmers.

I have gone to some trouble, in framing this section, to make a statutory statement of the general duties of the Authority which should be expressed as unambiguously and, indeed, as unpretentiously as possible and allowing for the actual variety of the people of this country which you cannot jam together into a handbag of essential Irishness which you could not define. I am, therefore, leaving it open to programmers to reflect the variety that is in this country and, through the expression of that variety, we may find our way, at a higher and metaphysical level, to the total expression of this essential Irishness at which the Senator would aim. To include that as an expression in the legislation is to my mind not wise. I would much prefer the wording of the section as it stands in the Bill. I am glad the Senator also prefers some such wording to the original expression of the national aims which stood in the 1960 Bill and which I would have thought Senator Dolan, for one, might have defended here, but he did not do that. Those are the reasons why I prefer the section of the Bill as it stands to the amendment which has been urged on us.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister dealt entirely with the first part of my amendment. Has he any objection to the last line which says "in particular encourages and fosters the Irish language"?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The wording of my own section has special regard for the elements which distinguish that culture and, in particular, for the Irish language and meets that point, to my mind, better than the Senator's wording. I hope the Senator will not blame me for adhering to my own wording. I know he adheres to his wording.

Mr. Yeats

I will blame the Minister for adhering to his wording.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Blame away.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister was at pains to say, and was most bland, agreeable, amenable and co-operative on the Second Stage, in regard to the then section 13 that it was merely a suggestion, that he was open to suggestions and that he would be happy to hear suggestions during the course of the debate, and that he would accept any improvements that might be suggested.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I have accepted a number of improvements.

Mr. Yeats

I am talking about this section.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I did not promise to accept amendments to every section. Thank you very much.

Mr. Yeats

I am talking about what the Minister said in relation to this section. From the start I had a particular interest in this section and I kept my ears open and attentive—as they always are—when the Minister was referring to this section.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am sorry to have disappointed the Senator but I am afraid I had to.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister has grieved me deeply because, on Second Stage, the Minister was most amenable. He made it absolutely clear—I am sorry I have not got the Official Report with me but I think he will accept it—that on this section, then section 13, he would certainly be open to suggestions. In fact, it turns out that, even on the relatively small-scale amendments I have now proposed to one small corner of his own version, he is not willing to budge at all.

Before we get to the more narrow confines of the amendment itself, since the Minister has specifically asked me to do so, I suppose I should take him up to some extent on the reiterated point he makes about Republicans. He drags illegal armies and Republicans of all kinds into a matter which I would have thought had very little relation to them. Apparently, the very concept that we should aim to provide a broadcasting service that is essentially Irish in content and character to the Minister smacks of sinister Republican bands. I did not envisage sinister Republican bands as making their way through the wording of this amendment. It seemed to me to be an essentially cultural matter.

Since the Minister apparently associates this with some form of extreme Republicanism, which again he referred to on this occasion in relation to our party, all I can say to him is that at the age of ten years I first took the conscious decision—one cannot really have political views before the age of ten, and sometimes later; but in my case it was the age of ten—that I was a Republican. I have never varied from that view. You can call it consistency or rigidity of mind but, nonetheless, I look on myself as a Republican. To me a Republican is a person who quite simply would like —I am not suggesting next year or even in my lifetime—to see an all-Ireland 32-county Republic. I am at one with the Minister in objecting to the tendency which is very prevalent, particularly in the media, to describe people as Republicans who are, in fact, the various extremist groups who in their varied ways refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Irish State. They may be Republicans but I look upon myself—and I would think most Senators would look upon themselves—as being just as Republican as they are. I have no doubt the Minister looks upon himself as just as Republican as they are. The term, I agree with the Minister, is a wrong one.

Where I disagree with the Minister is in the way in which he has used this tendency of the media as a political stick with which to belabour his political opponents. I look upon myself as a Republican and we in Fianna Fáil look upon ourselves as a Republican Party. The views of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties are their own business. I would not attempt to interpret their views or to interfere in that matter. We are entitled to resent, and look upon as dangerous and contrary to the public interest, the Minister's attempt to equate republicanism with the illegal use of force and with the activities of men who refuse to recognise the Irish State.

The original Irish Republican Army who were the Army of the Republic instituted in 1919 won us freedom for this part of our country. They created the first Irish State. The Minister may regret that this was done by violence rather than by some sort of negotiated process. One must accept historically that, had it not been for those the Minister might look upon as men of violence, we would not in the early 1920s have had an independent Irish Government. The Minister may doubt this but if so he is flying in the face of history. We might have had a sort of Belfast type——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We can hardly debate a large historical question of that order.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister is going far too wide in his condemnation of republicanism. In particular, he is on very dangerous ground from the point of view of the Irish people and the State in claiming, as he has done on so many occasions, that these illegal armies— these various brands of so-called Republicans—are descended in some way from those who created the modern Irish State. They are not descended from them. They have usurped an honoured title. The Minister should stop this attempt to attribute some sort of hankering after violence to his political opponents. It does not do him any good. It does not do the political life of this country any good even though it certainly does us, in Fianna Fáil, no harm.

Having said that, I am totally unable to understand how he can introduce this topic in relation to an amendment which is clearly cultural in intention and wording. There are two essential halves to this amendment. First of all it asks the Authority to aim to provide a broadcasting service that is essentially Irish in content and character. Secondly it asks the Authority in particular to encourage and foster the Irish language. They are two separate issues.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Could the Senator define essentially Irish?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If I might interrupt for a moment, does the House intend to adjourn at 5.30 p.m.?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Possibly we might finish this amendment.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister, as he has on several occasions, essentially says that nothing like this phraseology can be introduced because who is to know what is essentially Irish and so on. He asks what is Ian Paisley for example. I have no worries on that matter at all. Ian Paisley is obviously an Irishman. He has indeed many Irish characteristics, not I am afraid all the good Irish characteristics. We have bad ones. We have good ones. The people who in the back streets of Belfast go around inscribing walls with phraseology such as "To Hell with the Pope"—that is a peculiar type of Irish manifestation. One does not like it. but nonetheless it is Irish. As I mentioned on the early stages of this Bill, the Orangemen march in most cases to Irish tunes. The voices of Orangemen, the voices of people like Ian Paisley, are Irish voices. Can the Minister pick out a Nationalist from the Falls Road and a Unionist from Sandy Row and say that one sounds different to the other?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I cannot, but I believe the thing can be done.

Mr. Yeats

I cannot do it. I cannot do it and the Minister cannot do it. It seems to me——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That means no one can do it.

Mr. Yeats

I am not saying that having an Irish accent is an essentially Irish characteristic but is an Irish characteristic. We have certain things I think in common in this country. We have the same tunes; the Orangemen, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, if there are any left, the so-called Republicans, we all have the same tunes. The voices of all our people are Irish voices. The accent may be from Belfast, Tyrone, Derry, Galway, or from Dublin but nevertheless they are all Irish voices. There is a certain Irishness about us that enables people to feel that, when they are amongst us, they are in Ireland rather than in England, or America, or Russia. One cannot obviously sit down and in careful legal terms say what is essential Irishness. But I do think that any of us, and I include in this the RTE Authority, would be perfectly capable of considering in relation to a particular series of programmes on television or radio whether or not these programmes were complying with the requirement that they should be essentially Irish in content and character. Essentially Irish means Irish as opposed to non-Irish, Irish as opposed to English, Irish as opposed to American. This does not in any way exclude the introduction of American programmes or English programmes—obviously we must have them—but that the outlook of the programme should be inwards to Ireland not outwards to the world; the two must go together. I do not think it is too much to ask our national broadcasting Authority to have consideration for the particular character of their own country.

One of the problems in dealing with this Minister is that whenever one raises a matter such as this, he starts the task at which he is so skilful of indulging in the use of verbiage, of playing around with words.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Senator seems to be doing something of the same kind. It is very hard to avoid it.

Mr. Yeats

At column 875 of volume 81, for example, we had the discussion of national individuality, which is the same type of thing, and the Minister said:

Senator Yeats spoke of the national individuality. I am not sure what Senator Yeats and his colleagues mean exactly when they talk about the national individuality. It is not a self-evident concept. I am not sure whether it includes all the people of Ireland or only an élite of the saved, of the people of Ireland who tend to follow one political banner.

Here we have again the Minister treating matters of this kind which, I think, are serious matters and not matters that ought to be matters of political controversy as political and attempting to suggest that people on this side of the House who have, I suppose, metaphorically speaking, a particular political banner, are getting ourselves up as an élite. I do think we are. Are we?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Senator did not deny it when I said he regarded himself as a better Irishman than others. He knows he does. He frequently says so.

Mr. Yeats

I think the concept introduced into this amendment is an essentially simple one. I think that Senators opposite know perfectly well what is involved. The Senators opposite would be perfectly capable of administering a section such as the one I propose should be introduced into this Bill with the addition of this amendment. It is a simple concept that the Authority should have regard to the characteristics of our people, north and south, east and west—that they should, in other words, have regard for the history of our country, the music, the literature, the language, the way of life of our people, the way in which our people speak, the characteristics of our people. It is for this they should have regard rather than for the great cosmopolitan world around us. And I say again, in case the Minister jumps in on this, that I am not in any way excluding the introduction of programmes from outside.

That is the first part of my amendment. The second part is related to the Irish language. I think it is a related issue but, in some respects, a different issue. I ask that the RTE Authority should in particular encourage and foster the Irish language. The Minister's version is that special regard should be had for the Irish language. I do not think there is any difference in principle between us. It is not unreasonable to ask an Irish television service in particular to encourage and foster the Irish language. This phraseology is not mine. This is the phraseology that was recommended by the Broadcasting Review Committee. It is a good phraseology. It is a reasonable requirement of an Irish television service. It does not involve the introduction of large-scale Irish language programming at peak periods. It simply asks that they have regard for the language, that they try to foster it, so far as that is possible, allowing for the other duties placed upon them, and that they should encourage its use. I do not think that there is anything in that that really any Senator should object to or that the Minister should object to. There is nothing in my amendment that the Minister requires to be deleted. I have merely reworded one small part of the first paragraph in a manner which is more in keeping with the task one might reasonably lay upon a national television authority. I would urge the Minister to accept it. It has nothing to do with Republicans or with the policy of the Minister. It is a cultural matter and it is one the Minister should be willing to accept.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Business suspended at 5.40 and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are alternatives and should be taken together.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 9, line 45, after "Constitution," to insert "especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression,".

This amendment would insert a reference to rightful liberty of expression into that subsection of section 14 which urges the Broadcasting Authority to uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. If my amendment were to be accepted it would read:

To uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression,

It is very important in a Bill which is dealing with the broadcasting media, and not least in a Bill which has been accused in some quarters of being repressive or of re-enacting censorship provisions, that there should be a positive reference to the rightful liberty of expression of the media in general. This is why I put down this amendment and the other amendment which is an alternative to it.

The difference between the two amendments is quite simple. The first one mentions "especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression"; the second one says "including those relating to rightful liberty of expression". In other words, the first one, which is my preferred amendment, is stronger in language and I believe there is very good justification for it. If we have a right to particularise about anything, and we do particularise in this, and indeed, in the following subsection, it should be about liberty of expression. It is in order, I think, to say a few words on this amendment about the importance of this concept not least because it has been so readily misunderstood both by people outside the media and, indeed, by people inside as well. In moving the amendment I have been encouraged, even emboldened, by the remarks made by the Minister about a similar amendment of mine which I introduced on Committee Stage.

The whole question of liberty of expression is hedged around with a lot of ambiguity. It is very often invoked, wrongfully, in my opinion, to buttress the right of people in the communications media to say whatever they like, whenever they like and if any of their utterances are deleted, or altered or amended in any way the cry of "censorship" will be raised. The cry that rightful liberty of expression is being done away with will also be raised. Journalists, in general, should be very slow to raise their liberty of expression as if it were a right which attached solely to them. It is a right essentially which exists for the good of the community as a whole. In the other House, on another occasion, the Minister pointed out that the people involved in the media are not by any means representative of the community as a whole. They do not represent a cross-section of the community, I would suspect in age terms, class terms or political terms. The fact that they are working in the media is very often something which is almost an accident. They may have gone into the media for any sort of reason. They may continue to remain in the media, again for any sort of reason. They have not got any God-given right of speech which exists solely for themselves. It is something which exists in them on behalf of the community as a whole.

I would reject any philosophy of communication which would see people involved in the media as manipulators of public opinion. I think there will always be journalists—I hope there will always be journalists whose pungent opinions add to the spice of newspapers and journals and, indeed, of the electronic media. But while this is one function of the journalists it only is one of their functions. It is far more accurate to talk of the journalist as a facilitator of communication within the community without which the community would die and without which the community is a prey to any sort of totalitarian action on the part of governmental or non-governmental institutions.

In support of my argument I would like to quote a rather fine quotation from Jean Paul Sartre writing in The Guardian on 10th March, 1973, in which he addresses himself to this very problem. He states:

The main mistake people make concerning the freedom of the press is to think that it is a right belonging to journalists, but this is a fallacy. It is a right belonging to the reader of the newspaper. It is the people working in offices, the people working in factories who have a right to know what is happening, a right to draw their own conclusions. As a direct consequence of this, obviously, journalists should be allowed to express themselves freely but that is only because they have to inform the people constantly and the best way to do so is to let the people talk to the people.

I am fully in agreement with this statement because it not only defends the right to freedom of expression but puts it in its proper context. It is a right which exists not for journalists primarily but for the community in which the journalists work.

The greater part of the wording of my amendment is drawn from the Constitution and I look forward to the Minister's views on it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I was impressed both by what the Senator said on this subject at the earlier stage of our debate and on what he has now said. I am happy to accept amendment No. 38 which is a significant improvement of the Bill. I am glad to find that this is the Senator's preferred version as against amendment No. 39. I prefer it too and I take it therefore that, if amendment No. 38 is agreed, which I hope it will be by all, amendment No. 39 will not be pressed.

Mr. Horgan

I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 39 not moved.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 9, lines 49 to 52, to delete all words after "State" to the end of the paragraph.

I somehow doubt that I shall be as lucky on amendment No. 40 but I would like briefly to tell the House the rationale behind it. I have been on record in this House, and at an earlier stage of this Bill, as saying that, while I personally was in favour of the Common Market as an institution and in favour of our membership of it and of our continued membership of it, I thought it unnecessary to introduce this particular question into the Bill at this point or, indeed, at all. As I put down this amendment, and in the intervening weeks, I thought a lot about why I think it is a bad idea and I sought an analogy which I felt would buttress my case. The analogy that I found is in the former Article 44 of the Constitution in which there was a reference to the special position of the Catholic Church. There was a great deal of argument about this at the time when it was removed from our Constitution and, again, I was in favour of its removal from the Constitution at that time for very much the same reasons that I am in favour of the removal of this particular and, I suggest, unnecessary reference to the European Economic Community.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This argument seems to run diametrical to the argument on the amendment which was accepted.

Mr. Horgan

I fail to see the point, but I would be very interested to hear the Senator's argument on it in due course. The Minister spoke on this particular matter in 1972 and said in column 465 of Volume 263 of the Official Report of the Dáil:

The special position of the Catholic Church in the Twenty-six Counties is so unassailable that it does not require this kind of confirmation and a sense of economy and prudence would suggest that it is better that it is not there.

I do not know that I would place the European Economic Community totally on a par with the Catholic Church despite the fact that the Treaty concerned, as the Rev. Ian Paisley never tires of reminding us, is that of Rome. There may have been events in the past few weeks and days which might have suggested to Senators that the Roman Catholic Church is not so unassailable as the present Minister thought then. Yet there is a peculiar thing about the Roman Catholic Church and, indeed, about the European Economic Community; that is, precisely because they are in one sense unassailable they are frequently assailed and this despite the context in which the attacks take place.

I think it is highly unlikely that we will take any radical initiative with regard to the EEC just as I think it is highly unlikely that we will take any radical initiative with regard to the Catholic Church. For very much the same reasons advanced by the Minister during that particular debate, I would urge that it is unnecessary to put in a particular reference to the European Economic Community here. The Minister spoke at that time of his sense of economy and prudence. I would argue that the same virtues applied to this Bill would suggest equally that reference to the European Economic Community is not exactly necessary.

The Minister, during the same debate, spoke at column 468 about the situation in regard to Northern Ireland. He said:

The Northern objection to the recognition of the special position was not that they objected to people in the Twenty-six Counties recognising the special position as long as they liked but that they objected very much to their recognising it for them

If we look at the recent referendum that took place in the United Kingdom on the question of the EEC, we will see very clearly that the only geographical unit, if we except the Orkney Islands and, perhaps, the western islands of Scotland, in which there could have been said to be anything like a contest about the EEC was in Northern Ireland where the proportionate vote in favour of rejecting the Common Market was higher than in any other area of the United Kingdom.

The Minister may think, and indeed he has argued this very strongly, that our accession to and membership of the EEC, together with that of the United Kingdom, is a factor which would tend to promote integration of the national territory rather than its non-integration. I would agree with that. But the fact is, and this referendum showed it conclusively, that there is a very large body of opinion in Northern Ireland which, for resons which may be totally misunderstood, which may be totally wrong, which may be even sectarian in origin, are violently opposed to the EEC and would be, I suggest, at least as displeased with the introduction of the EEC into this particular Broadcasting Bill as they said they were with the continued inclusions in the Constitution of that particular subsection of Article 44. In fact, one might almost say that this reference to the EEC goes totally against the Minister's conviction that BBC 1 would be a suitable channel for us to have.

The Minister has already expressed himself at some length on his preferred views on the second broadcasting channel when he said he would like to see BBC 1 rebroadcast. This might be welcomed in the North of Ireland as a sign that we were not completely the cultural barbarians we are often assumed to be. I suspect that this particular section, if it gets any currency at all in Northern Ireland, would create rather the opposite effect in that it would say to the large minority of people in Northern Ireland who for one reason or another object to the EEC that we are in some way tied in with it.

To sum up I would suggest, first of all, that the Minister's sense of economy and prudence should perhaps persuade him that this section is not necessary. Secondly, I should like to ask him whether he accepts that it could have a negative impact in certain areas in Northern Ireland among certain people and not indeed, among people all of one particular religious or political affiliation. Finally, I should like to ask him whether he has sought or obtained the views of the RTE Authority on this subsection and, if so, what are they.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I will not make a long speech, but in case Senator Horgan might think my interjection implied that he was arguing diametrically opposite to what was argued in the last debate, that was not what I intended. What I intended to say was that it seemed that the balance of the arguments on this amendment would be diametrically opposed to the position in relation to the amendment which was accepted. If there was any objection to the amendment which was accepted by the Minister, as amendment No. 38, it would have been that by including a phrase such as "especially those rights relating to such and such", that by elevating particular rights you are diminishing the others. It seems that the contrary argument applies here. The Bill provides "in particular EEC countries". The Minister has been quite consistent in his acceptance of the last amendment. He is consistent in including EEC countries here. The only objection I could see to the inclusion of these words is that we are diminishing the status of non-EEC countries. That is what I meant when I said that the arguments on the two amendments were diametrically opposed.

Mr. Yeats

It seems a little unfair to be attacking what is essentially one's own side when I say that on the whole I would urge the Minister not to accept Senator Horgan's amendment. I am sorry on this occasion not to be able to accept Senator Horgan's views because for most of the time I have been in agreement with him on this Bill. This amendment ought not to be accepted.

The Minister's wording ought to be accepted on the general grounds I expressed on an earlier amendment which I put down to this section. I believe Irish interests should be stressed particularly by the Authority in their programmes. For the same reasons essentially, since we are members of the European Economic Community the programmes of those countries which are associated with us in the Community ought to be given priority. Their values and traditions should be of particular interest to us. I do not think, as seemed to be suggested by Senator O'Higgins, that this involves a down-grading of other countries. It merely means that we are associated with the eight other members of the Community, and they are of particular interest to us.

For that reason I would not be inclined to urge the Minister to accept this amendment. However I would like to ask the Minister something about this paragraph. The Minister said earlier that he could not accept my amendment, which suggested that the broadcasting service should be essentially Irish in content and character, on the general grounds, as I understood it, of who can say what is essentially Irish. He said one has to be clearer and more certain in one's language. I would not agree because, as I said, it seems to be a relatively simple concept that the Authority would have no difficulty in carrying out. Nonetheless, the Minister maintained against my amendment that it was not sufficiently clear and that the wording in this section was intended to be clear and comprehensible to all. On this basis I would ask the Minister to define the values as used in paragraph (c). The Authority are to have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values of France, Belgium and Germany. What are these values? Can the Minister define the values of France and of Germany? It seems to be a much more difficult and esoteric concept than the essential Irishness I tried to introduce into this section earlier. If the Minister wants to have words which have a definite and clearly establishable meaning, "values" is not one of those. I cannot begin to imagine how the Authority are to work out the values of Italy or of Luxembourg. That does not mean anything to me although it may mean something to the Minister. I would be glad if he would enlighten us on this when he replies.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister may intervene but not reply.

Mr. Yeats

He may intervene.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

There were a few questions raised which I will try to dispose of first. Senator Horgan asked if I accepted that this section might have a negative impact on some sections of the community in Northern Ireland. I think it might. Frankly I find it hard to think of anything which we might think of here and promulgate which would not have a negative impact on some section of the community there and some things which we could promulgate which would have a negative impact on all sections for different reasons. I cannot exclude that. I hope it does not have a serious negative impact; I would not think it would. But I would not set it aside for that reason.

He also asked whether RTE had any objection. The short answer is they did. RTE were consulted on this as on other aspects of the Bill. Originally they favoured excluding the reference to EEC countries, but they did not press this point very vigorously as compared with other sections of the Bill with which they disagreed initially. After a long conversation between myself and the chairman of the Authority, the wording of this section was agreed with RTE in spite of their initial objections. Accordingly I must assume that they regard them as capable of interpretation in programme terms. Their original objection was what, in terms of a discipline with which Senator Horgan is more familiar than I am, might be termed the multiplication of impediments. They did not want too many restrictions affecting their programming.

It is legitimate that they should jib initially at any additional thing.

Senator Yeats asked what are the values and traditions of western European countries.

Mr. Yeats

The traditions I understand; it is the values I am interested in.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The values are those things which a community, or a section of a community values, holds dear, sets a high price on, to which, in short, it is attached. Western Europe is in this respect pluralist. There are different traditions. These traditions held separately but together respect certain values. For example, the values of a Catholic tradition, the values of a Reformation tradition, the values of a Humanist tradition. Things held dear by all these are cherished by different sections of the people in Europe, but are regarded by a great consensus of the people there as having something of value to contribute. The reason why I would defend this as distinct from the essential Irishness concept that Senator Yeats offered, is that it is a pluralist conception. It cannot be briefly summed up in a contribution to an amendment at the Report Stage of this Bill. It has required many large volumes but I do not think it is meaningless and I have made a fair shot at saying what I think it means in the context of this Bill.

I indicated in Committee, when similar amendments were being debated, that I did not favour deletion of the reference to member countries of the European Economic Community. I am still of that opinion. The subsection as it stands requires the Authority to have regard in their programming to the need for formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of other countries, particularly those of our partners, including in particular those of our partners in the EEC. In other words, it is open ended. It does not exclude other countries outside that. But it recognises the reality of the new dimension added to the Irish scene by the decision of a very great majority of our people to join the Community, a decision which was taken democratically after counterarguments represented by, among others, my own party. I do not regret that, and my party indicated when the decision was taken by that massive majority that we accepted it without reservation, as we do.

Since we last debated this matter in the House a majority, though not so large a majority, of the population of Northern Ireland voted in favour of joining the EEC also, as did a majority of the people of Scotland, Wales and England. This seems to reinforce the desirability of the sentiments implicit in the section as it stands. I have in mind also this. Senator Yeats, in speaking on his amendment in relation to subsection (a) about being "essentially Irish", pointed out that this was stressing what might be called the "inward looking aspect"—I think he used that phrase—and said that that which was essentially Irish was that which was Irish only as opposed to— then there was a list of "as opposed tos".

I know Senator Yeats does not oppose this section. Therefore I think that he would take it, as I take it, that the need for reflecting the differences between the Irish and the rest of the world should be complemented by a need for reflecting the samenesses of ourselves and others with whom we have cast in our lot. A television service that reflected only our differences from the rest of humanity would be a monstrous television service. That would be very bad, humanly speaking, because I think the things that unite human beings are not less important than those that separate different nationalities, much as we may value certain of our differences, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. This section balances it.

I would not like it to be taken that by stressing membership of the European Economic Community we should cut ourselves from interests in the rest of the world, for example, in the United States and in the Third World. They are included in "countries other than the State". It is a fact that our people, by a very large majority, have chosen a close, and for the moment exclusive, association with a certain group of western European countries. Television here should, and will, reflect interpretations of that and analyse these relations. I do not have in mind that it should engage in constant glorification of the EEC. Its attention to the EEC should be critical as also its relation to our own culture—I mean intelligently critical and not destructively attacking. I believe it will be so. It is difficult to agree on a wording that satisfies everybody about these matters but I would prefer on the whole the wording of the section as it stands and I would certainly be opposed to deleting an important section of the outward looking aspect of the Authority's functions. It is for these reasons that I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Horgan

I suppose my main reply must be to the argument raised by Senator O'Higgins. However much we dress them up in legal language, all Bills and Acts have a strand of politics in them. I am not against particularising about certain things in certain sections of certain Bills. I have already given a very strong argument which has been accepted by the Minister but, in a Bill dealing with communications, why should we particularise about the right to liberty of expression? That is why I am puzzled by the particularisation in respect of the European Economic Community. Although I agree with Senator Yeats that we are associated with the other countries of the European Economic Community, I would point out to him and to other Senators that it is not the only group of nations with whom we are associated. I could not give the House a check-list of treaties to which we are signatories and which still bind us. I wonder, for example, whether the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement is still operative in any respect. I suspect it is.

What I see here is the singling out of one particular treaty for reasons which, while admirable in themselves, do not necessarily underwrite the special mention that is accorded to it. However, I propose to be reasonably ecumenical and I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 41:

In page 10, to insert ", other than for the purpose of providing for current expenditure," after "may" in line 28.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

During the Committee Stage debate on this section I promised to consider the point made by Senator Yeats that there seemed to be duplication in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. He mentioned that both subsections covered borrowing for current expenditure. On further examination it is accepted that the Senator's interpretation is the correct one and amendment No. 41 is designed to correct this anomaly. I have occasion once again to thank Senator Yeats for his help in improving the Bill.

Mr. Deasy

With regard to expenditure I would like to ask the Minister to clarify some statements we have seen in today's newspapers. One report states that we are going to have to pay £3 million to the BBC network to relay the BBC 1 programmes.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The figure is entirely without foundation.

Mr. Deasy

I thank the Minister for that statement. Secondly, great problems have arisen also regarding the acquiring of "Match of the Day". It seems that not only will we have to pay the BBC for this but also ITV which has certain sporting rights over such programmes, and the Football Association of England. I would like if the Minister could enlighten us as to the amount of money, if any, involved in these transactions. I would like to refer to the state of hysteria which this article evoked, in that it was going to replace the darling boy of our television series, Gay Byrne. I would like the Minister to tell us the exact terms of the agreement and if it is going to cost us any money.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Senator's query arises because the amendment refers to financial provisions. There is no dispute about the amendment itself. There is one point on which I can reply. Speculative statistics have been offered by various sources for the cost of the BBC service. This one, like other ones, is without foundation. Unfortunately I am not in a position to make a statement about negotiations which have taken place. As regards the other matter, all I know about it is what I have read in the paper. It consists of conflicting statements. It would be improper for me, as Minister, to intervene in day-to-day programming by RTE and I am not, therefore, in a position to comment on these reports.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 10, lines 38 and 39, to delete "or a matter of a particular class"; and in line 43 to delete "or any matter of the particular class".

I referred to this on Committee Stage because I had grave difficulty in understanding what the reference to "a class of matter" or "a matter of a particular class" is about. Any research I did into this area leads me to suspect that it is a dangerous ambiguity. Before starting on that I would like to ask whether, in fact, there has been a change from the wording of the Principal Act and, if so, whether this change is of any significance. I have not got a copy of the Principal Act with me but my recollection of it is that the reference in the Principal Act is to "matter of a particular class". Is there a change here to "a matter of a particular class"? Has the indefinite article been inserted before the word "matter"? If so, has this any particular political or legislative significance?

On the whole question of "matter of a particular class", I think it is very relevant to remind the House that the greatest single row which occurred about section 31 was precisely about a directive which was issued by a predecessor of the Minister in relation to "matter of a particular class". The particular direction called upon the Broadcasting Authority under section 31 to "refrain from broadcasting any matter of the following class, that is, any matter that could be calculated to promote the aims or activities of any organisation which engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the attaining of any particular objective by violent means". That directive lay, as it were, on the statute book for quite some time until the Government of the day activated it and served notice on the Authority that they believed they had contravened it, after having refused consistently to give the Authority any clarification of what precisely the directive meant.

Indeed, this was during a period in which it could be and was fairly argued that matter very similar, if not indistinguishable from, that complained of by the Government had been broadcast without any particular wish by the Government to do anything about it. In the same volume from which I have already quoted as reported at column 2465 the then Deputy Garret FitzGerald said that the original order was so imprecise as not to be effective. Unfortunately the opposite was true. It was so imprecise that it did not have to be acted on until the Government of the day found it politically appropriate to do so. Precisely because it was a directive under this very vague heading relating to matter of a particular class, it could be activated by the Government on political rather than on logical grounds and indeed, I suspect that that is precisely what happened.

The Minister himself had some very hard words to say on the directive at various points during the same debate. At column 2481, for example, he said:

That directive could be interpreted as debarring Fianna Fáil from participating in discussions on RTE. It could have been so invoked in the past. People rather dislike historical references but, if that rule had existed in the 1920s, it certainly could have excluded Mr. de Valera from the air, or any reference to the Fianna Fáil Party, because it refers to any matter that could be calculated to promote the aims or activities of any organisation which engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the attaining of any particular objective by violent means.

Again at columns 2482 to 2483 he said:

I understand that the Authority asked the Minister for light on his directive. I believe they submitted an interpretation to him and that he remained in his Delphic posture and refused to give any clarification. That was the order. It was up to them to construe it and, if they construed it wrongly, that is to say differently from the Minister's own interpretation, his own construction of his own words, they would get it in the neck. In fact, the object of the directive was to set up a situation in which they could get it in the neck. Give them a directive that was so vague that almost anything they did was bound to violate it, according to the Minister's interpretation which he held in reserve, and then catch them on some suitable issue when their pants were down.

The most appropriate quotation I think is at column 2487 where the Minister said:

I would think that when the Oireachtas passed this legislation, when they gave the Minister this power, when they gave the Minister power to ban—that is the word— matter of any particular class they surely imagined that class would be rather sharply defined. It is not sharply defined here.

This is the nub of the problem. This is the nub of the ambiguity which, not necessarily in the hands of the present Minister, but in the hands of any subsequent Minister, might still spancel an Authority, might still spancel the rights and activities of broadcasters. On this question, without wanting to emulate the Minister, there are one or two very relevant quotations from the Oxford English Dictionary on the definition of "class". There are some ten definitions in the dictionary of which only one, the sixth, refers to what we have in mind. Here it is defined as: "A number of individuals, (persons or things) possessing common attributes, and grouped together under a general or `class' name; a kind, sort, division." Two of the subsidiary definitions, in particular definition (b) relating to logical classification, are particularly relevant. One of them introduces a quotation from John Stewart Mill. "By every general name which we introduce, we create a class, if there be any things, real or imaginary, to compose it." Again it quotes Fowler: "We conceive that there is no limit to our power of making classes." Here is the mischief in this particular phraseology. We can make classes with imaginary things. There is no limit to our power of making classes.

An Cathaoirleach

Would the Senator give the end as well as the beginning of quotations?

Mr. Horgan

The end of the last quotation was: "We conceive that there is no limit to our power of making classes." Speaking for myself, I would repeat that herein lies the mischief; herein lies the possibility, as I said, not for this Minister but for some other Minister about the way in which a particular class of matter can be used.

I am more, in a sense, looking for clarification from the Minister on this matter. Does he think it is possible to issue a directive which would be clear, but would not require the sort of clarification the Authority sought from the previous Minister when he last gave it and, indeed, which they did not perceive? It seems to me, as I said on Committee Stage referring to the original debate, that what the Government had in mind at the time was a very specific ban. I do not think you can deny the Government the right to make a specific ban. My argument is that when you ban a class of things almost by definition you are creating ambiguities. You are creating a situation in which the very uncertainties inherent in the definition of the class will have an effect which may include that willed by the Minister, but which may go far beyond that to include other things which he does not will at all.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Senator Horgan has argued his case very ably. I should make a few clarifications. First of all the wording of the original Act, the Act we are now amending, is the same as section 31 (1) which says that the Minister may direct the Authority in writing to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or matter of any particular class and the Authority shall comply with the direction. Into the present Bill the word "a" has intruded itself. I do not find that it is there for any particular reason, good or bad, and if anyone feels it might be a sinister addition I would be happy to sacrifice it as we go to the Dáil unless I find in the meantime that there is in fact some very good reason which I do not know now, and if there is I will then explain myself to the Dáil.

That is the wording of that. The BBC have a similar restriction on them. I am quoting from the BBC Handbook, 1975. In a document of 1969, quoted at page 302, the Postmaster General, now the Home Secretary, may from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time, or at all times, from sending any matter or matter of any class specified in such notice. There is a similar provision binding on the IBA that subject to subsection (4) of this section the Minister may at any time and by notice in writing require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter specified in the notice—it is not quite the same wording —and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice. That closes that quotation.

Nobody will ever get entirely satisfactory language for this sort of rule, because it represents a reserve power which has to be formulated in a sufficiently sweeping fashion to be effective in an emergency situation. I have kept the existing wording with certain clarification. The section embodies the principle that the area in which the Minister would have the power to issue directions to the Authority should be reduced to the minimum necessary. There will always be philosophical differences about what that is. While this principle is important, it is equally important that this power should not be so emasculated as to be detrimental to the public interest. I fear that acceptance of the Senator's amendment might well have this effect.

It would limit the power to issue a direction for the broadcasting of a particular matter which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be likely to promote or incite to crime, and so on. This could be unduly restrictive in this sensitive and vital area where the need might arise to prohibit the broadcast of matter of a particular class as distinct from a particular matter.

The Senator makes the point that a Minister might do bad things under such powers, and he makes the quiet legitimate point that I, myself, while in Opposition criticised a Minister for action which I regarded as wrong, and still do, taken under the previous section. The present Bill limits the Minister's powers in several ways but the most specific and the most valuable in relation to what is now worrying the Senator—and it is a legitimate and perennial liberal and democratic worry —is that a statutory order issued under the section would have to be precise because of the Minister's responsibility to the Oireachtas, the way in which it could be tested out in the Oireachtas. If the Oireachtas had any doubts about such an order, they would have the opportunity of demanding clarification under section (1) (b) which provides that any order made must be laid before the Oireachtas with provision for annulment by resolution of either House.

In these conditions a repetition of the type of direction issued under section 31 (1) by the previous Minister could hardly arise and certainly could not easily be defended if it did arise. This is the most important change in this area made by this Bill. Any direction would have to be submitted here to the very searching scrutiny of Senator Horgan and his colleagues and of the whole Seanad. I believe that, rather than the particular wording of the section, which has to be fairly general, is the important thing.

Mr. Horgan

I accept the Minister's points, particularly with regard to the parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed directive which, as he says, is a completely new importation into the Bill and a very valuable one.

With regard to the extra indefinite article which has been added, I would urge the Minister to retain this on consideration. In so far as it very slightly further adds to the delimitation without in any way negativing it, it would encourage any Minister issuing a directive under this subsection towards the virtues of clarity and precision. I urge the Minister not to do away with it unless he finds some very good reason for doing so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 11, line 56, after "part" to add "thereof".

This is a very small matter of language. The last paragraph of section 18 on page 11, ends with a reference to "wireless telegraphy apparatus in the possession of the occupier of the premises or part". While it is fairly obvious that the word "part" refers to premises it is a curious way of putting it. I have not noticed it occurring in any other Bill. It seems a rather unclear way of putting it and I would suggest that we add the word "thereof" making it "of the premises or part thereof". This is better English and the Minister might consider accepting it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The definition in the Bill is identical with that in the Wireless Telegraphy (Wired Broadcast Relay Licence) Regulations, 1974. While the amendment suggested by the Senator might marginally improve the text, the definition, on the whole, seems to me to be reasonably clear and unambiguous as it stands. I agree that it is neither very elegant nor usual in general language. Since this point was raised on Committee Stage I sought legal advice on the matter. The advice given to me is that it would be unacceptable from a legal point of view to have different definitions of service points in this Bill and in the 1974 statutory regulations referred to.

Mr. Yeats

What is the date of the Act?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We are speaking of regulations—the Wireless Telegraphy (Wired Broadcast Relay Licence) Regulations, 1974. In the light of that, I hope that the Senator will not press this amendment.

Mr. Yeats

Obviously it is not something we will have a division on. I inquired about the date of what I thought was an Act because, if it was an Act, I was going to plead guilty of not having complained about it at the time. If it is a ministerial regulation there is nothing we can do. All I can say is that it seems a shame that by ministerial regulations we can be given ungrammatical definitions and then be told, when it then comes before us, that because these ungrammatical definitions have already been produced by some Minister, we cannot change the legislation. It is not an important point so I will leave it at that.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Touché.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 14, lines 18 and 21, to delete "subsection (9)" and substitute "subsections (9) and (9A)".

This is a matter I raised on Committee Stage by way of amendment and the Minister said the parliamentary draftsman was satisfied that it was not necessary. I have been reading it since and I find it very difficult to see how the draftsman takes this view. This very long section 20 deals with the testing of electrical apparatus to see that it does not interfere with radio and television broadcasts. There are various provisions in subsection (9) as incorporated in the Act of 1926. Subsection (9) provides that the Minister, his servants, the Authority and their servants, and so on, can enter premises to look at apparatus, require the manufacturer of the apparatus—and I suppose the person who stocks it—to transport at his expense, samples of the apparatus concerned so that it can be tested. That is all in subsection (9). In subsection (9A) provision is made that this can be tested by various people.

The amendment I seek to make is to paragraph (14) which says that the Minister may by order declare that the authority or any other body specified in the order shall have all the powers which the Minister may exercise under subsection (9), that is, the powers of entering premises, examining apparatus, calling for it to be sent to some place for testing, and so forth. It does not mention paragraph (9A). I suggest to the Minister that he ought to take power to make an order to ensure that paragraph (9A) is also covered. The other body referred to at various places in these sections, as the Minister told me on the Committee Stage, would probably be the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. One can see that they would be a very obvious agency to carry out the testing. Equally they would be a very unobvious agency to start entering premises, inspecting apparatus, calling upon manufacturers or agents to shift their apparatus here and there to have it tested. It is not their business.

Even after careful reading I still doubt whether giving them powers which they do not want to use under subsection (9) would enable them to do any testing under paragraph (9A). It seems a very cumbersome way of doing it even if this power can be extended to subsection (9A).

If the Minister intends to authorise the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards to test apparatus by telling them they can enter premises, inspect material and so on, it seems to me all he needs to do is to add, as I suggest, section (9A) giving specific powers of testing as well as the powers which do not relate in any way to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards contained in section 9.

The Minister said on Committee Stage that such an order while relating only to section 9 could be covered in a roundabout way with section (9A). I am not sure that I see this and at the very least it appears to be ambiguous. I would put it to the Minister that this is a point of some importance because the people concerned could well be manufacturers in a large way of business. The particular piece of apparatus, having been tested and found wanting, found to be causing interference, could be one of maybe 50,000. There could be a very considerable loss to the manufacturer. The first thing the agent or manufacturer would do would be to ask his lawyer was there any way that it could be broken. If the testing had been done in a manner not provided for in this Bill, then obviously this could be a way out. I would suggest to the Minister that, if there is any ambiguity at all, and I think at the very least there is, he ought to clear the matter up by inserting the words I suggest. I cannot see that this would do any harm and at, the very least, it would make it absolutely clear that the power of testing is covered as well as the power of entering premises and so on.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

First, there is a point of fact I might as well clear up. On Committee Stage I said that a body such as the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards might be nominated as a testing body. I did not say they would probably be nominated as the body referred to in the Bill.

The Bill owes a great deal to the industry and ingenuity of Senator Yeats but I am afraid that, as far as I can see it, and according to the best technical and legal advice I have, these qualities have carried him too far on this occasion. We cannot see that there is a need for this. As I indicated on Committee Stage, there is no need to provide in the new subsection (14) for enabling power to confer the powers in subsection (9A) on the RTE Authority or on any other body which might be nominated to carry out tests. Subsection (9A) as it stands provides that an officer of the Department or of the Authority or of any other named body may exercise the powers in subsection (9A) subject to the provisions of section 9. I regret therefore that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister speaks of the powers given in section 9 in a way which lends them a clarity which I am afraid do not exist in the actual wording of the section which is by no means written in a clear fashion. However, if having looked twice at the matter the parliamentary draftsman's office is still convinced this is covered, all I can say is that it must be covered. I find it puzzling that the Minister can say that the testing in section (9A) would be covered by his order when his order only refers directly to section 9 which has nothing in it about testing. One can only assume that it is done properly and one can only regret that some of these sections are phrased in such an incredibly roundabout and complicated way that it becomes difficult to find one's way through them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 15, line 7, to delete "(3) and (4)" and substitute "and (3)".

This amendment does not make any practical difference. Whether the (4) which I seek to delete is in or out, the Bill and the section carry on regardless. At the same time we should be against the insertion of references to subsections in Bills unless they are necessary. This section, in brief, deals with the question of programmes sent down wires and the possibility that they may cause interference. The reference in subsection (4) to the Act of 1926 relates to ships. We are saying here that we are covering the possibility that wired radio or television programmes will emanate from ships and could cause interference. It may be that the Minister envisages this strange occurrence taking place. I would be fascinated to hear about this, because I find it very difficult to follow how such a thing could happen. I should think there are a great many places more convenient for the propagation of cabled programmes than ships. But if the Minister has this in mind, obviously this ought to be in the section. Perhaps he could enlighten us.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The effect of this amendment would seem to be that, if apparatus on a ship to which the Merchant Shipping Acts apply, which was being used for provision of local programmes for relay on cable systems, was causing interference the Ministry could require that steps be taken, including cessation of the use of the equipment, to cease the interference without consultation with the Minister for Transport and Power. This is felt to be inappropriate since that Minister is responsible under the Merchant Shipping Acts for laying down the types of radio equipment that may be used on ships in consultation with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Admittedly it seems unlikely, and the Senator obviously considers it farfetched, that a ship might be used for local programme origination, but it is not inconceivable. Some Senators will remember the problems caused by Radio Caroline.

Mr. Yeats

Not down cables.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It does not have to come in on cables. I regret, therefore, that I cannot agree with this amendment.

Mr. Yeats

It is not worth fighting over this but I must say one can only admire the ingenuity of people who sit in back rooms and consider the possibility of cabled programmes being fed from ships.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

There are some very ingenious people around.

Mr. Yeats

If they think this might happen, obviously this should be in.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Agreed to take remaining Stage today.