As in the case of the previous item, this is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil and the same procedure will be followed. It will be considered here on Report. For the convenience of Senators, I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of the list of amendments made by the Dáil. In that connection it is necessary for me to indicate that there is a typographical error in the list. Item 33 of the list, which reads: "31st day of December" should read "1st day of March 1976".
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [Seanad Bill Amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration".
First of all, I should like to apologise to the Cathaoirleach and to the Seanad for my late arrival here. This was made absolutely unavoidable by Dáil business.
I propose to deal with amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 15 together. Amendment No. 6, probably the most important amendment, deletes section 6 of the Bill as passed by the Seanad and the other amendments are consequential on this. Section 6 was the section under which the Minister could direct the RTE Authority to rebroadcast other programme services. It gave rise, of course, to an extended debate in the Seanad when I initiated the Bill here. It was an enabling provision intended to facilitate the introduction of open broadcasting and, in particular, the rebroadcasting of BBC 1, Northern Ireland, here. This section was the subject of considerable discussion in the Seanad when the pros and cons for a second television channel controlled by RTE and for a rebroadcast BBC 1 were thoroughly aired. I said in the Seanad that, if it were clearly demonstrated that the public preferred an RTE 2, I would recommend that solution to the Government. Subsequent to the Bill being considered in the Seanad a joint survey of public preferences regarding a choice of television programmes was commissioned by my Department and RTE in September, 1975. This survey showed that over 60 per cent of the public preferred an RTE 2. As a result of this survey the Government decided to entrust RTE with the task of providing the second television service, which meant that section 6 was no longer appropriate. Consequent on the deletion of section 6, it is necessary to delete the references to rebroadcast programmes from sections 1, 3, 4, 7 and 13. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 15 refer.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are two technical amendments to section 4. This Bill as passed by the Seanad provided for the appointment of a broadcasting complaints commission not later than 1st March, 1976. The expectation when the Bill was being drafted was that the new broadcasting legislation would be enacted well before that date. The purpose of the revised date of 31st March, 1977, which is being inserted by amendment No. 3, is to provide adequate time for the appointment of the commission after the Bill has been enacted.
The word "effusion" has been replaced by "effluxion" by amendment No. 4. I am advised that the word "effusion" is imprecise in the context in which it is used in this subsection and that the word "effluxion" should be inserted instead.
Amendment No. 8, section 7, arose from comments made during the Committee Stage debate in the Dáil on this section. The point was raised whether the mandatory period of 60 days for retention of recordings was long enough. I reconsidered the matter in consultation with the RTE Authority. The result of these consultations is reflected in this amendment which provides that sound recordings of all programmes must be retained for 180 days rather than the 60 days provided for in the Bill as passed by the Seanad.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are technical amendments which arose from comments made by Senator Yeats during the Report Stage debate on this section when the Bill was previously before this House. The purpose of these amendments to subsection (3) of section 7 are to ensure that recordings made under the section could be retained for as long as the broadcasting complaints commission considered necessary to enable them to complete investigation of any particular programme.
Amendment No. 11, section 8, also arose from comments made in this House by Senator Yeats, who had introduced a somewhat similar amendment. I indicated then that I had a certain sympathy with the intent behind the Senator's amendment and I was not prepared to accept it at that stage. I had doubts about the need for it, but I was influenced primarily by advice I had at that time that the amendment as drafted was not acceptable from a legal point of view. The matter was re-examined subsequently and I was advised that no objection need be raised on legal grounds to a similar amendment introduced in the Dáil. The amendment which is before this House is in similar terms. It is designed to make it clear that any additional functions assigned to RTE under section 8 would relate to activities subsidiary to RTE's statutory function of providing a national broadcasting service.
I should like here to express my appreciation of the work done by Senator Yeats and the painstaking attention he gave to the details of this Bill and a number of improvements in it which resulted from his attention.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14, which are technical amendments, are designed to provide covering statutory provision in section 9 for payment of net cable television licence fees to RTE in 1974 and 1975. These fees were first introduced in April, 1974, and were paid to RTE under subhead L.2 of the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Section 9 of the Bill as passed by the Seanad provided for the payment to RTE of grants equivalent to the net receipts from wired broadcast relay licence fees, cable television, only from 1976 onwards.
Amendment No. 16 arose from comments made by Senator Horgan during the Committee and Report Stages. The amendment is designed to make it clear that pre-censorship of programmes by the Minister under section 17 is not envisaged.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to make a comment on the Final Stage. I understand from what the Minister has said that it is as a result of a survey commissioned by the Department that we have those amendments and that it has been the view of the Irish people that a second Irish channel is preferable to imposing on them BBC 1. I am very heartened that this has been the outcome of the survey because I personally was ridiculed by the Minister at a meeting which we held in Listowel and which was attended by people from the North Kerry and West Limerick area. I am very delighted that the stance that the Listowel people took at that, one of the first meetings which the Minister had held around the country —the "Wanderly Wagon" thing—was the stance which was supported finally by the rest of the Irish people. I am delighted that we are to have the second Irish channel instead of having BBC 1 imposed upon us.
I could not let those comments of Senator Uí Eachthéirn pass without saying something, because I think that the survey referred to on the controversy between BBC 1 and RTE 2 was most misleading and the results were doubly misleading. The survey was biased in the direction of RTE 2 in such a way that the result obtained was inevitable. The questionnaire drawn up was most unfortunate in its content. Many people were fooled by the type of question asked. It did not give a true result. I come from an area where there is a fantastic demand for multi-channel television. If a referendum was held in that area I have no doubt that the BBC 1 proposal would win by at least ten to one. I am glad that the Minister has shelved his proposals for the time being to put on the RTE 2 service. I hope when the matter is resurrected— I hope it is resurrected shortly—that the majority of the people will get their way and will get a service that they want to see.
I do not think, as one accustomed to dealing with mathematics and figures and so on, that I could leave the comments of the last speaker pass without refuting them absolutely. The survey was commissioned and carried out in the accepted and best scientific sense available. The results were conclusive and they reflected, as far as I am concerned, the overwhelming view of the Irish people that they should have an RTE 2 rather than having BBC 1 foisted on them.
I contradict that statement.
I should like to endorse what Senator Deasy has said. When the meeting was held at Listowel, which the Minister attended and which Senator Uí Eachthéirn refers to, it was carried by a very narrow margin. The vote was not carried out in a proper manner; it was with raised hands. We then had the next meeting in Killarney for South Kerry and the voting was clear there, but still there were some people who were not satisfied. There was a house to house survey by the Killarney Chamber of Commerce and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of BBC. That was the answer from South Kerry.
I should like to refer briefly to some of the points made in the debate. Senator Uí Eachthéirn spoke about imposing a solution on the Irish people. I should like to be absolutely clear that I at no time sought to impose anything on the Irish people, that I was scrupulously careful to try to find out what people wanted. Some people thought I insisted too much on that, that I was prepared to give them things that they wanted which those people thought that they ought not have, even if they did want them. The Senator said that I had ridiculed her at the discussion which took place at the time in Listowel. It was certainly no intention of mine so to do, and if in any way I was personally offensive to her I should like to apologise for that. I do not think I was. I differed from her view and said so, as she would never hesitate to do with me, and rightly so.
Senator Deasy criticised the survey and Senator Quinlan, on the other hand, said that it was a scientific survey. I think there is a little to be said for both points of view. The survey was scientifically weighted and indeed Senator Quinlan is better placed to comment on that than myself. I see the point which Senator Deasy had in mind, which is of course that, if you like, a case for RTE 2 was presented to those who completed the survey. This was in my opinion unavoidable in that people had to be told what is the proposition that is before us. RTE 2 had to be allowed to describe what they had in mind. A description of that kind is hard to disentangle from a case. I see the objections of those who would dispute the survey, but unfortunately I do not see any better way of getting near the proposition of what people want. Certainly, if in the teeth of the findings of a survey which I had agreed to commission jointly with RTE 2 I had insisted on going ahead with BBC 1, in that case I could have been accused with a considerable show of justification of seeking to impose a personal view on people generally. I did not want to do that.
As this point perhaps I might leave the amendments and say a final word about this Bill which is now concluding its protracted progress through the Oireachtas. It began here in the Seanad and, apart from the signature, it finishes here in the Seanad. I think it would be appropriate for me to express here my appreciation to the many Senators on both sides of the House who have contributed to this debate and made it a memorable discussion of broadcasting policy and problems and led also to a number of improvements in the Bill as originally drafted.
In my introductory speech I mentioned that the Bill had two main functions. The first was to clarify and establish the duties of the RTE Authority in fulfilling their task of providing a national broadcasting service in the light of developments experienced and new insights since the Authority were established. The second main purpose of the Bill was to provide greater autonomy and freedom for the broadcasting services within clearly defined statutory restraints and obligations while at the same time improving public control in certain areas.
As regards the first function, that is the clarification of the functions of the Authority, I am glad that the general principles laid down in the Bill in section 14 were generally welcomed. The statement of the general duties of the Authority in that section was considerably improved as a result of suggestions made in this House by various Senators, and I thank them for this. I think we can be confident that the revised and expanded statement of the authority's duties now enshrined in the Bill will enable them to meet the changing needs of broadcasting over the next decade or so. Changes there will undoubtedly be in this country, as in the rest of the world, and I am confident that the Authority will respond to these and will continue to provide a broadcasting service which is responsible, relevant, stimulating and entertaining.
The second main purpose of the Bill, that is to provide greater autonomy and freedom for the broadcasting service within clearly defined statutory restraints and obligations while at the same time improving public control in certain areas, I regard as the more important contribution to the theory of broadcasting, its relationships to the Oireachtas, to the Government of the day and the necessary public controls that any Government must exercise over this extremely influential medium. The element of public control of broadcasting contained in the Bill, that is, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which will now be a statutory body, is also, I am confident, an important innovation.
The increases in the autonomy and greater freedom of the authority are enshrined in sections 2, 3, 5, 15 and 17. When the Bill is enacted it will be possible under section 2 to remove the Authority from office only by the Government for stated reasons and only if resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for their removal. That contrasts with the present situation whereby until this Bill is passed the Authority can be removed at any time without justification or consultation of the Oireachtas.
It has been suggested that this provision somehow involves a derogation by the Government from their responsibility. I do not share that view, nor do the Government share it. I think future commentators on broadcasting matters will vindicate the importance of this provision in the light of the need in a democratic society for granting the maximum possible independence for the broadcasting services. For the first time, under section 3, the Authority will be statutorily entitled to express their own views on matters of broadcasting policy which are of public controversy or the subject of current public debate and which are being considered by the Government or the Minister of the day. This, too, should give a new dimension to discussions of broadcasting policy in the future.
The transfer from the Minister to the Authority under section 5 of power to appoint advisory committees is a further increment to their autonomy and, finally, under section 15, they will have greater flexibility in deciding on the hours of broadcasting and the times for broadcasting advertisements. The delimitation of the power by the Minister under section 17 to direct the Authority to refrain from broadcasting certain matters is possibly the most important extension of the Authority's autonomy. It is only in the sensitive area of incitement to crime and preservation of the authority of the State that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would have in future the power to restrict the Broadcasting Authority's freedom to determine what they would broadcast. Under the existing Act, of course, a Minister could literally instruct the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter of any description. While it is inconceivable that a Minister would use this power improperly, our legislation should not confer such absolute power on any Minister.
Finally, the Bill adds a new dimension by establishing control by the Oireachtas in certain broadcasting matters. I have already mentioned the fact that an Authority cannot be dismissed except by resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. There is the further very important control by the Oireachtas that a statutory order made by the Minister under section 17 directing the Authority not to broadcast a particular matter, which he must specify, must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. If the Oireachtas in their wisdom consider that the direction by the Minister should not have been made, they have the power to annul the order within 21 sitting days.
I am most grateful to all of the Senators who contributed to the improvement of the Bill originally presented to this House. I think my original statement that it can be fairly described as a Bill of moderate liberalisation is still a fair description of the amended Bill which has now been passed by this and the other House. It will, I hope, contribute to a greater excellence in our broadcasting services in the future. I thank you.
Question put and agreed to.