Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1990

Vol. 126 No. 4

Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

The Minister is welcome to the House to hear what we have to say. I am sure he will find that most of it will be against the contents of the Bill. He would, in fact, have been more welcome in the House when we were dealing with the previous Bill, — the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1990 — under which he sought to abolish the death penalty but, unfortunately, we saw very little of him during that debate. I am glad he is here today and I hope he will take on board the criticisms which I have no doubt will come from this side of the House. Certainly, criticism will come from me, and the Labour Party, in relation to this unsavoury Bill.

Yesterday we had the unfortunate, indeed scandalous occurrence, of the entire proceedings of this week being subjected to the guillotine. It is unprecedented that no new business can be dealt with and that the proceedings of the House today, in the context of discussing the Broadcasting Bill, will be terminated, irrespective of what Stage we have reached. In view of the number of speakers waiting, and considering the large number of amendments, the introduction of the guillotine will cause many problems. It will be extremely difficult for us to tease out the full implications of the Bill as, indeed, was the case in the Dáil last week when the guillotine was introduced.

I feel it necessary to point out to the Senator that what he is addressing has no bearing on the Second Stage of the Broadcasting Bill, 1990. I would ask the Senator to stay with the business as ordered.

I understand we are here to discuss Second Stage of the Broadcasting Bill, 1990 and under that we can discuss the general ramifications and implications of the Bill.

We are not here to discuss the Order of Business that was arranged yesterday morning.

I do not propose to discuss the Order of Business. I was merely informing the Minister of the context in which we are discussing this Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is twofold. It is part of the Government's policy of privatisation. I do not see it as something that has come out of the blue but rather part of a strategy by the Government. The whole concept of privatisation will be discussed tomorrow when we debate the Insurance Bill which involves the transfer of a major national asset valued between £0.5 billion and £1 billion. We will be discussing selling that asset off to the private sector, one of our most successful ventures.

On a point of order, are we discussing the Insurance Bill, 1990, ordered for tomorrow, or are we discussing Second Stage of the Broadcasting Bill, 1990?

We are discussing Second Stage of the Broadcasting Bill.

May I raise a point of order?

I request the Senator not to interrupt in matters for which I have responsibility.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Senator Costello to proceed and I would ask him to keep to the business before the House.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Senator Conroy has developed this technique of sniping and it is deliberately intended to dislodge the Senator in possession.

I am asking the Senator not to get involved in cross-fire in this House and to allow, without interruption, Senator Costello to proceed.

I appreciate the Chair's protection. I was pointing out that privatisation is part of an overall strategy. We have a peculiarly Irish entrepreneurial way of going about it. We are opening up the airways to the commercial sector by nobbling the successful operator in the public sector, namely, RTE. That is something that would only happen here; we are going about it backways. That is my first approach to this legislation and Government policy.

The second approach is that this is a simple straightforward vendetta against RTE. It is a naked attack on RTE for control. It is well known that the Minister's party have been constantly critical of RTE in the context of RTE operating their public service function and duties in an impartial fashion. I suggest the Minister is nobbling RTE to ensure they operate only and within the parameters the Government set. That is not acceptable. In the Bill, and in the lead up to it, a number of factors came to light. First, we saw the Minister's attack on 2FM, the station which has been the most successful competitor in commercial radio and which has taken over from the pirates. Yet, the Minister is seeking to undermine their effectiveness and competitiveness by ensuring that they must operate in areas and at levels of production not in accordance with the successful formula they developed over the years. It is probably the most popular station with young people and it is also a very valuable station in that 25 per cent of the music played is recorded by Irish artistes. In that way the station has been supporting employment and has given a boost to our entertainment industry. None of the independent stations has undertaken anything of the same nature by way of supporting that industry.

The Minister's second attack on RTE has been in regard to the licence fee. His intention was that part of the licence fee revenue would be transferred to commercial stations; in other words, public money would be handed over to the private sector with no strings attached. There would be no shares held by the State, there would be no control; rather it would be simply a golden handshake in order to support the ailing independents. The Minister discovered that all of these proposals were met with very considerable hostility in and outside the broadcasting industry, leading him to withdraw two of the three prongs of his attack on RTE.

We are left with this Bill and the Minister's proposals with regard to capping RTE's advertising revenue. The proposal is that there will be a reduction from the present 10 per cent to 7.5 per cent of daily advertising time and a reduction from six to five minutes in the hourly advertising time. That compares very unfavourably with present levels in the EC which are 15 per cent and nine minutes respectively. Indeed, it compares equally unfavourably with the position obtaining in commercial stations — 15 per cent — as against the present RTE 10 per cent which will now be reduced to 7.5 per cent. Therefore, it will be seen that RTE's competitive element is being halved in the context of advertising. That could hardly be regarded as levelling the playing pitch. Rather, it means very substantial favouritism to the independent stations.

The second part of the Minister's proposals in regard to advertising and limiting the ability of RTE to raise money by that method is to limit RTE's total advertising revenue to an amount equivalent to the level of the previous year's licence fee revenue. It is the Minister who makes a grant-in-aid in respect of the licence fee. Therefore, it will be clearly seen that the Minister for Communications will have total control over RTE's revenue by fixing the level of grant and he will also be able to determine the amount RTE will earn by way of advertising in any given year. Therefore, he will have done two things: he will have capped their avertising revenue in percentage terms and in minutes and also built in another capping arrangement to ensure he will have total control over the amount RTE can earn by way of advertising at any given time.

The effects of those proposals will be catastrophic for RTE and indeed for broadcasting overall. It is estimated that in any one year it will amount to a loss of revenue to RTE in the region of £12 million and some estimates put the figure considerably higher at, say, £20 million. The figure of £12 million is said to be the entire income of RTE1. Therefore, the Minister is taking away one limb of support of RTE's public service broadcasting ability. RTE1 are an extremely successful station and also the oldest one. In one fell swoop major damage will be caused to RTE's ability to collect revenue and thereby fulfil their function as a public broadcasting service. Naturally that will have an impact on the service provided over a whole range of programmes, their ability to carry out their mandate, duties and responsibilities to all citizens. We must also remember that RTE have a mandate in respect of minority interests, whether they be the Gaeltachtaí, education, agriculture, drama; anything in the overall national interest forms part of RTE's public broadcasting service mandate.

We must also bear in mind that the employment generated in ancillary industries in broadcasting is enormous, with a very large number of people dependent on RTE's prosperity and their ability to contract out work, the fall-out from RTE directly and distinctly separate from RTE's direct employment. It is estimated that there may be anything from 500 to 600 job losses in RTE resulting from this provision. I have already noticed reports in the newspapers over the past two or three days that RTE's Director General, Mr. Vincent Finn, is requesting staff to take early retirement, is seeking an immediate 200 early retirements, amounting to 10 per cent of their overall personnel. That will be the immediate effect of this provision as foreseen by the RTE Authority in job losses, a very substantial reduction in their staffing levels.

In the context of the Minister's proposals, their effect on RTE and on broadcasting generally will be counterproductive. The Minister said there would be more revenue spread among the other independent media which would be to the benefit of all but it is more likely that advertising costs will rise. Obviously RTE will have a reduced advertising time overall, leading to costs being raised in order to maximise income. It is estimated by the Association of Advertisers in Ireland Limited that advertising costs will rise by 30 per cent to 40 per cent in the first year, a substantial rise. If that is the immediate effect, naturally advertisers will look elsewhere for a market. But where will they look? I predict they will look to other stations and media in the marketplace. Certainly the available marketplace with regard to television advertising is outside this State at present, in Ulster or across the water in Britain. Their programmes are beamed regularly into this country. Therefore, the likelihood will be that rather than sponsoring local Irish advertisers in broadcasting they will sponsor external advertisers.

I have here a letter from The Marketing Society which incorporates the former Market Research Society of Ireland and is recognised as the final authority on matters concerning marketing and market research in Ireland. I will quote from what they have to say in the course of this letter:

Any price rise will tend to squeeze the smaller advertiser out of the market in favour of the big budget international marketing company; this can have a detrimental effect on the growing sector of new, small Irish companies; this would appear to be contrary to the Minister's stated objectives.

An advertiser who cannot obtain time on RTE but has the funds to advertise is much more likely to seek an alternative broadcast medium. The largest share of this is for television and an advertiser who has a TV commercial available (often produced outside this country and therefore bearing no direct cost to the Irish marketing company) will select the next best TV alternative.

The only serious alternative is UTV. Two out of three sets in the Republic can receive UTV programmes and this rises to 85% in Dublin. The likely effect of "capping" therefore is to drive money out of the economy and into Northern Ireland. There is no guarantee that it will re-circulate among the other Irish media.

The availability of TV3 still appears to be at least a year away; after that TV3 will have to build a reputation for its programmes and prove that it has a large enough viewership to justify advertisers spending money with the station. This could take many years to develop, in the meantime UTV will have benefited from the "capping" and will fight hard to maintain the opportunity handed to it.

That, in a nutshell, is the view of the experts in this area in relation to marketing research in Ireland. It will not be, ultimately, to the benefit of the more prosperous independents, not to talk of the ailing independent Century. It will drive money out of the country because we do not have equivalent advertising stations here, particularly in the context of television. Indeed, UTV also has more scope for increasing its advertising potential to the detriment of RTE because it has more advertising time allocated, seven minutes per hour, whereas RTE is now being capped to five minutes. It will also probably be to the detriment of the broadcasting industry here.

The next item I would like to address is the constitutional issue on which I said a few words the last day. This aspect requires greater development and, in the final analysis, I think we will find that this is the real challenge to this Bill. I do not expect we will be able to prevent the passage of this Bill in the Seanad even though there is total opposition to it from the Opposition benches. The Constitution makes very specific provision in relation to freedom of expression. I quoted Article 40 the last day but I would like to put it on the record again in addition to a short editorial from the Irish Law Times because I understand that if a matter of this nature is regarded as unconstitutional the President would look into the debates that have taken place to see what arguments were put. Article 40.6.1ºi of the Constitution is as follows:

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

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.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

What is being offered there in the Constitution is freedom of expression, the right to speak, to broadcast freely. The editorial comment on that is as follows:

This Article does not permit legislative provisions seeking to make broadcasting the preserve of the State. Under the freedom of expression provision there is an open market to publish or broadcast. For practical reasons of crowding the airwaves, the Minister for Communications issues licences to broadcast. However, there is no distinction in Article 40 between the right to broadcast and the right to publish and accordingly the assumption that the Minister for Communications has the right to dictate who should broadcast, is incorrect.

The Constitution of Ireland is the source of law in Ireland and as such Article 40 confers no right on the Government to decide who can and who cannot broadcast. There is a general "right to broadcast" and therefore such right creates a free market...

If the Oireachtas passes legislation giving the Government, in effect, the right to decide what can be broadcast and the conditions of same——

Senator, I must remind you that it is not the practice to allow lengthy quotations.

This is extremely relevant.

I am sure you can paraphrase it. That is the normal procedure.

It is the professional legal opinion in relation to constitutionality which, when this Bill leaves this House, will be the most important matter in relation to the Bill. If you will bear with me for a moment I will go through it quickly.

If the Oireachtas passes legislation giving the Government, in effect, the right to decide what can be broadcast and the conditions of same, such legislation may be unconstitutional unless it is within Article 40.6.1º.

If the Broadcasting Bill, 1990 has the effect of restricting the amount of advertising which RTE or any other station can seek, the Bill is restricting or interfering with the right given by Article 40. In the view of this Journal a case can be argued that part of the Bill may be unconstitutional. Accordingly, under Article 40 there is a free market to broadcast and those engaged in same should be free to solicit advertising as part of that right....

The truth of the matter is that, subject to ‘long stop' requirements relating to public order, blasphemy and obscenity, broadcasting stations are as entitled to make their own decisions as to programme content and the soliciting of advertising as a newspaper editor can in relation to what is to fill his or her newspaper. The statutory controls appear to say otherwise. If eventually scrutinised by the Supreme Court they may be found unconstitutional.

Society benefits from a free press: it is now time to peel away the restraints on RTE and other broadcasting authorities. We have no more a need for a State controlled broadcasting service than we do for a State controlled newspaper service. The State's proper role is to protect us from political and moral subversion, not to dictate the terms of broadcasting.

Essentially what is being said here is that there is a freedom of expression which includes the right to broadcast freely and that implies the right to seek advertising without restriction. What the Minister is imposing here is the capping of advertising, therefore, the introduction of restrictions. The only area where the Minister should be operating legislation is in protecting us from political and moral subversion or to license and regulate the airwaves, not to restrict advertising or the market. That will be a major part of the challenge to this legislation. I certainly would like the President to seek the advice of the Council of State in relation to the constitutionality of this legislation and refer it to the Supreme Court.

The code of practice has been referred to, I think it is reasonable to regulate matters of this nature. In the industrial relations Bill last week the Minister introduced a code of practice in the context of industrial relations. Here the Minister is also doing this in the context of advertising and sponsorship. At present RTE prepare and issue their own code of practice in relation to advertising and sponsorship and that is regarded extremely highly. The Independent Broadcasting Authority in Britain look to RTE, their regulations and guidelines on advertising and sponsorship as their model. Likewise, European broadcasters have used RTE's standard on advertising and sponsorship as a model. The present RTE code of sponsorship was used by the mass media working party of the Council of Europe in drawing up guidelines on sponsorship and commercial promotion. The model at present being used by RTE, while it is not a statutory model, is of a very high order. With the EC and the Council of Europe establishing uniformity in codes of practice, we would be expected to operate accordingly. Considering the quality of the code of practice that has been in operation by RTE, it seems strange the Minister finds himself obliged to apply his own strict regulations. My fear is that the Minister, by making it a statutory matter for which he has responsibility, may so restrict the code of practice in relation to advertising and sponsorship, that he might drive away advertising from RTE.

The second area I am concerned about is that the Minister intends to include RTE's promotions of their own activities, irrespective of what they are, as constituting advertising in the context of the five minutes they have been allocated. That is a further infringement of RTE's ability to advertise and it will limit the amount of time available for commercial advertising. I would like the Minister to address that issue and quell our fears in relation to his intentions.

The Irish language will be a casualty of this legislation. RTE had a mandate to promote the language and they fulfilled that to a considerable degree. There has been much criticism from language enthusiasts, representatives of bodies promoting the language, and from Gaeltacht areas that not enough was being done by the public service broadcasting station. RTE will be underfinanced now and will have less money to go around. They will certainly have less money for areas that are in need of development. Not enough was being invested in the promotion of Irish programmes, and the Irish language, in the first place but there certainly will be less now. The independent stations have no such responsibility, mandate or commitment to promote the Irish language. They do not have an obligation to do that. That will hit the Irish language further.

The proliferation of independent stations around Gaeltacht areas will encroach on Raidió na Gaeltachta. That will be a further threat to the language. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that and whether licences will be given to stations in areas bordering the Gaeltachtaí without the constraints of promoting the Irish language.

Those who are involved in the promotion of the Irish language have long requested that there should not only be a Raidió na Gaeltachta but Teilifis na Gaeltachta. They see that as the only way of ensuring the Irish language will have some hope of survival in the late 20th century and 21st century. Television is the modern technological medium which people watch and unless we have a station broadcasting in the native language, the language will not be able to prosper. That hope is dashed. It looks like it will be impossible to see that development taking place. This is the death knell, the new threat to the Irish language. In the context of this Bill may I ask the Minister what proposals he has for the promotion of the Irish language on the airwaves. How does he see them affecting the Irish language? I can only see them as being detrimental.

In relation to the Fianna Fáil Party's partners in Government, the Progressive Democrats, we have seen a very solid coalition on this issue. Yesterday we saw the Progressive Democrats entering the lobbies to impose a guillotine on the proceedings of the Seanad. They came to this House even though their stated public policy is to abolilsh the House and we expected that while they were here they would participate fully in the democratic functions of the House and uphold them. Their criticism of this House was that it was inefficient, was not doing its duty and that there was no need for it. Certainly, their actions yesterday in supporting the guillotining of the debate——

This has no relevance to the Broadcasting Bill.

It has a relevance to the final outcome of the Bill.

It is a personal opinion that the Senator is expressing.

I am sure the Progressive Democrats will have something to say when they speak on this Bill.

The manner in which the Broadcasting Bill has been introduced and supported by the Government means that we will find ourselves with a united front of free marketeers who on the one hand speak about the cold wind of the marketplace blowing at all levels of Irish industrial society and then look for support for the private sector. It is a question of one rule for the private sector and another rule for the public sector. Surely if we are talking about levelling the playing field we can expect the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil will consider a similar policy for both. We should not be introducing a policy of protectionism for the private sector while we are introducing a policy of nobbling a successful public sector body that is competing in the same area.

Finally, I would like to refer to the Programme for National Recovery. The trade union movement have been very concerned about the effects of this legislation and the General Secretary, Peter Cassels, has said very many of the provisions of the Bill were completely unacceptable to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The decision of Congress was to withdraw from the joint committee reviewing State companies under the Programme for National Recovery. Despite the changes that took place at the annual conference in Tralee last week, the conference strongly condemned the Bill and described it as an act of vandalism. They said it represented a serious infringement on the social partnership that had been developed under the Programme for National Recovery. Members at the annual conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were outraged at the provisions of the Bill. It is putting in jeopardy the prospect of a new programme for national recovery because it is attacking the very core of what is being sought in that programme. The responsible social partners, the Government and the trade union movement, are working for the benefit of the country in terms of industrial promotion and expansion and employment creation. The opposite will take place when the Bill is passed. We are talking about one side of the partnership going out on their own, like a bull in a china shop, and undermining one very successful industrial operation and causing the loss of permanent employment. We will see a rise of poorly paid jobs, as is the position with many independent stations.

This is contrary to the expressed wishes and public calls by the Taoiseach to the semi-State sector to increase employment. How will this semi-State body increase employment if advertising, which is the source of their revenue, will be limited? On the one hand the Taoiseach is calling for an increase in employment and during the semi-State sector to get dug in and increase employment and on the other hand the Minister for Communications is introducing legislation which categorically will have the effect of decreasing employment not only in RTE but in a wide range of areas. We need some assurances on Government policy in regard to this. I would like the Minister to address this issue. We need greater assurances. We need a national broadcasting policy rather than this ad hoc interference that has happened from time to time and which has been proposed on such a wide and damaging scale in this legislation.

This Bill is part of the Government's strategy for overall privatisation. It is not something that has come out of the blue. It is not a foolish Bill, but it has been introduced in a very unsatisfactory way. The Minister made certain statements and then rode back from them and made others. It is very sloppy legislation. It is part of the Government's overall strategy for privatisation in the semi-State sector. It will level the playing field in favour of the private sector which, of ocurse, is contradictory in terms of the marketplace philosophy and the economics that are being promulgated publicly by both sides of the Coalition. This is where I find most of the hypocrisy in what is being proposed here.

The second prong of their strategy is control of the media. That is effectively what this Bill will do. The Minister is seeking to control RTE and the independent stations by first, capping the amount of advertising by RTE, from which they get their revenue — this which will limit and restrict their operations — and secondly, imposing a code of practice which will restrict their operations in the areas of sponsorship and commercial enterprise.

There is popular hostility against the Bill and the country at large is opposed to it. Because almost 50 per cent of the Oireachtas is very forcibly opposed to the legislation, the only way the Minister could get it through both Houses was by using the guillotine. This is unsatisfactory and undermines the whole function of the Oireachtas which is to pass legislation after it has been properly debated and teased out. This Bill is a blatant attack by the Government on RTE, the most successful public company in the history of this State. It is an attempt by the Government to muzzle RTE and to weaken their competitiveness. The Labour Party totally oppose this legislation. The only desirable thing that could happen would be to withdraw it and start again from scratch.

Senator John A. Murphy asked me this morning if he could contribute a little earlier. It should be the turn of Senator John Dardis to contribute and he has agreed to let Senator Murphy contribute before him. Does the House agree to accommodate Senator Murphy in the circumstances? Agreed.

Our dreadful secret is out, a Chathaoirligh.

The first thing I want to say is that I do not propose to attribute any malicious motive to the Government in bringing in this Bill. It has been variously said that the purpose of this Bill is to benefit the Government's political friends in the independent broadcasting area and/or to punish RTE for their alleged anti-Government record, with particular reference to the last election campaign and the emphasis given to the debacle of the health services. I have no evidence to suggest that this Bill is basely motivated. Maybe it is that some remaining wisps of lost innocence still drift about me, but I really believe that one would have to be of a fairly Machiavellian cast of mind to believe that the Government are prostituting the legislative process in order to exact revenge, to line the pockets of their friends, or to show their disapproval of RTE's Dublin 4 values, as being allegedly contrary to Fianna Fáil populism I find all that a bit far-fetched, and I do not particularly want to be associated with that attribution of malign motives because the scenario thus suggested is unacceptable in its cynicism.

I do not think RTE have been particularly anti-Fianna Fáil. If the present Government and the last Government have reason to be displeased with RTE, looking at current affairs programmes, I sometimes think the Government have only themselves to blame either because of their frequent pigheaded refusal to send along representatives to a programme or by sending along someone who was utterly inadequate. The pattern of public broadcasting and Government relations shows a persistent healthy, and natural pattern of tension. It is not just Fianna Fáil Ministers who are displeased with RTE from time to time — we have very short memories if we think like that — and it is not just Fianna Fáil Ministers who have responsibility for broadcasting who have tended to think paternalistically that they know best. A man whom I admire greatly and who has played a unique part in the public life in this country, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, was quite certain, and remains quite certain, that he knows what is best for broadcasting. This is by no means something peculiar to Fianna Fáil.

To go back to the 1973-77 Coalition, nothing quite like the biting satire of "Hall's Pictorial Weekly" has been seen since then. It was a very politically damaging programme which arguably contributed to the fall of that Government in the election of 1977. To their great credit, the Coalition Government did not, so far as I know, take any action in that regard. Indeed, in a democracy they cannot take any action. This so-called animus the Government are supposed to have against RTE is no more than the normal pattern between broadcasting and Government, not alone in this country. I was in Australia recently and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation were accused by their critics, some of them Government critics, of being arrogant, monopolising public opinion and so on, the kind of criticism one heard in the past about the BBC as well. Public broadcasting services of their nature tend to become establishments and tend, therefore, to attract criticism. I do not believe that a Government will conduct a vendetta against RTE because of the public broadcasting service's right and duty to be critical of that Government.

I give the Government credit for introducing the Bill for motives of policy. There is at least one section of the Bill which I welcome, that is, the section which gives the Broadcasting Complaints Commission more teeth. I have been a member of that commission and I thought that their powers and, in particular, their means of communication and of publishing their findings were very limited. I accept that the Government have brought in the Bill for policy motives rather than for any ulterior motive. I hope that my arguments will be strengthened by the fact that I dissociate myself from the malign scenario. Nonetheless, it seems that the political thinking behind the Bill is flawed, the Bill itself, in terms of objectives and methods, is mistaken and ill-judged and is likely to be disastrous in its outcome.

Much of what I wanted to say has already been said by Senator Costello and others. I do not propose to go over that ground except to say that I find the arguments which suggest that the capping of RTE advertising is not necessarily going to strengthen the independent broadcasting sector very convincing. There is no guarantee that reducing RTE revenue is going to strengthen the independent broadcasting sector. Is olc an ghaoth ná séadann do dhuine éigin, the seanfhocal says, but the "duine éigin" in this case is very likely to be a beneficiary outside the State, the most probable beneficiary of diverted revenue will be UTV. Revenue once diverted will not easily be attracted back. TV3 has been cited in this regard. We must remind ourselves that TV3 is still notional and its future problematic. We need another television service like a hole in the head, given the fact that most of the country now is increasingly able to receive ten, 12 — and in Cork I think we have 15 plus — channels, many of them simply duplicating the same kind of programmes. I find it very hard to believe that TV3 will make any real addition, if you like, to the cultural broadcasting wealth of the nation.

To say that the diverted revenue of RTE will benefit a purely notional, problematic service is making a very far-reaching jump indeed. My only concern in regard to the independent broadcasting sector is that of the local and regional broadcasting services. I have no great interest — and I believe this is shared by many people — in the so-called national independent radio services. Nothing I have heard to date leads me to believe that they have, in any way, enriched our broadcasting culture but the local and regional services are a different matter. Certainly, it is the public and Government concern that local broadcasting services should be strengthened.

In that regard, there is a very interesting article in to-day's issue of The Irish Times about the success of Clare FM which apparently is outstandingly successful in achieving a very high listenership The article discussed the reasons for this and dwelt on the personality of the chief executive of Clare FM, Mr. Caimin Jones, about whom two significant points could be made, one that he was a student of my own and the other, that he is an ex-RTE man. It is a tribute to the history of RTE that most of the professional pool of expertise in this country is RTE-trained. The same can be said of the chief executive of Kerry Radio, which is now about to get off the ground. What Mr. Jones said in the interview is of interest in the debate in this context. He said that if RTE had promoted a vigorous local radio policy, there would not have been any need for a commercial broadcasting initiative. I firmly believe that. To that extent, RTE were negligent in not fully meeting that need. Perhaps they were not encouraged by the Government to do so. That is another matter.

The other significant point made — not by Mr. Jones but by somebody else in that article this morning — was that in spite of Clare FM's success, there must be a huge question mark over their ability to attract revenue because the pool of revenue is limited in the country and because of small numbers. It does not matter how vital and vigorous the local service is, unless it has a large listenership the advertising bodies are not interested in it.

In the Minister's original statement in the Dáil on 7 June, the basic philosophical line was that monopoly is a bad thing, that it is ending all over Europe and that we must diversify, which is perhaps another word for privatise, the broadcasting service. I would ask the House to think for a moment about the word "monopoly". It has various derogatory associations but I suggest that there are monopolies and monopolies. Again, if I may advert to my recent travels, I have seen examples of really bad broadcasting monopolies which directly resulted in a poor quality service. I do not think that anyone could ever have accused RTE of that kind of monopoly. It seemed to me that although technically there was a monopoly in RTE, within that monopoly there was a marvellous diversity of creativity and independence where individual talents were encouraged. We should make the distinction, that the so-called RTE monopoly was not really a threat to a variety of opinions or different ways of presenting our culture and so on. Of course, RTE had their faults. I use the past tense because it seems to me that the present Bill is very much a turning point. From the point of view of being overstaffed, featherbedded and so on, the public broadcasting service would have made a much more justifiable target perhaps five or ten years ago. There has been reform and it was a considerably leaner, fitter and healthier service before it experienced the present onslaught.

Senator Costello has referred to the implications of lost advertising revenue and how far-reaching they are. Indeed, some of the material sent to Deputies and Senators in the last few weeks has revealed not alone how wide and varied the opposition to the Bill is, but how, in the most unexpected ways, the diversion of revenue from RTE will affect all kinds of worthy causes. For example, the Irish Cancer Society pointed out that a reduced advertising rate which allows them to broadcast their educational material may no longer be available because the new regime will compel RTE to cut down the special rate and, therefore, to limit educationally beneficial programmes in terms of cancer and other health problems.

Senator Costello also quoted the Association of Advertisers in Ireland who sent us a very interesting memorandum indeed reminding us of something which I think has been lost sight of in the Minister's general philosophy, that this is a very small economy, that the advertising pool is very limited and fixed, that some of the arguments about diverisfication and privatisation and spreading the whole industry may well make sense in the context of a large economy and a large country like the United States but in a country with a total population of 3.5 million — an adult population of 2.5 million over 15 years which is the effective listening audience, many of the arguments about diverting and increasing the revenue are simply not applicable. The memorandum from the Association of Advertisers in Ireland also emphasises a point brought up by previous speakers, namely, that revenue is almost certain to be diverted to more attractive markets outside the State, notably to UTV.

Finally, this memorandum speaks about the deleterious effects of the present measure on the advertising industry itself, and I quote:

The advertising industry is an employer of highly skilled artists, designers and other creative technically trained people. These people are essential for the development of our economy in the current and post 1992 Europe. If advertising revenue leaves our country, we will lose both its control and the people who create Irish advertising.

Equally impressive is the presentation of the marketing society — which was again adverted to by Senator Costello — who urge the reality that UTV are the most likely beneficiary of diverted revenue and I quote:

Any price rise in advertising will tend to squeeze the smaller advertiser out of the market in favour of the big budget international marketing company. This can have a detrimental effect on the growing sector of new small Irish companies.

This would appear to be contrary to the Minister's stated objective. The memorandum goes on to outline all the knockon effects, so to speak, of the change in advertising.

My main concern, however, is with the likely impact of the Broadcasting Bill and especially of lost revenue on RTE on their morale, on the changed attitude it will bring about among editors and programme producers, on the quality and quantity of home-produced programmes — at the moment 37 per cent of RTE TV programmes are home-based — and, in short, the impact of the Bill on the life and health of a great national institution.

RTE is one of our great success stories. Again, when one has some experience of comparative services around the world one realises how splendid the service is. It is often said that the Irish State was fortunate in starting off its life with a very good Civil Service and that is very true. I think it has been equally fortunate in that the national broadcasting service from the beginning in the 1920s attracted people of great talent, commitment and dedication. In a very subtle way our national broadcasting service has kept on reflecting us as a changing people. As we changed from being a rural people to an urban people, as we became more modernised and so on, RTE radio, and more recently television, has reflected that process, contributed to that process and shaped that process. Perhaps we are good at that kind of thing. Perhaps communications is our forte as a people. At any rate, there have been superb programmes over the years in so many areas, minority areas catering for minority tastes, made by talented people, who did it for no other reason than that they are good professionals who were not getting any extra money for doing it, who did it as wage earners.

I recall offhand a marvellous pattern of colour-sound in a programme called "All Ireland Day" which lasted for an hour and was a marvellous impressionistic evocation of a unique day in our national life. I ask myself who would make that kind of programme in an independent radio service, the only purpose of which was to make money? Who could be bothered to make that kind of programme?

I can only fear then for the impact of this Bill on areas like drama, documentaries, the RTE sponsored film sector, the vital music area and, as Senator Costello said, the Irish language programmes. Who else is committed to looking after the Irish language, inadequately as many of us feel, that RTE have discharged that function? Who else is going to look after the Irish language in the broadcasting service?

I speak more in sorrow than in anger. I accept the inevitability of the guillotine measure. In effect, the Seanad is revealed in these days as more impotent, more of a rubberstamp than we care to admit. I can do nothing about it. When Geoffrey Keating wrote his Foras Feasa ar Éirinn he said he was doing so in a spirit of melancholy and sorrow but it was his duty to record the glories of the Gaelic race before it perished. Without being pretentious, I think what must be done on this occasion is to put on record that RTE have been of great service to the nation and their future is now very much in peril.

"Anti-national" is a phrase I do not use, I do not like using it, but I think in this case it is a fair charge to say that the Government are acting in an anti-national way. If someone in the 1930s and 1940s had introduced this kind of Bill to put down the national broadcasting service the Fianna Fáil of that day would have been the first up in arms against such a measure, because this Bill is an attack on a national institution. Without too much exaggeration, it is a form of sabotage. To retrieve a time-honoured phrase from the nationalist rhetoric of 19th century Ireland, of our forefathers' day, this is a bad day's work for Ireland.

I begin by welcoming the Minister for Communications to the House. I am very glad he is staying with us this morning. I realise he might wish to be in other places, but we thank him for his attendance.

The Bill before the House is controversial and has been shown to be so. It needs serious and studied consideration. This week and last week we had many appeals across the floor of the House for a delay in its introduction, that we come back in September and so on. The word most frequently used was "reflection"; we needed reflection before we could go on to consider this Bill. On the basis of the length of time some Senators have taken, I think we have had more than enough time to reflect adequately on the Bill. It is also understandable that the Government should move to close the debate. One Senator last week went on for two hours. I do not think it takes two hours to state a case.

I have had some experience of working for RTE and I discovered that the shorter the script one was preparing the longer it took. On that basis it would seem that some people who stand up can go on with no preparation whatsoever because they can talk out the time for as long as they like. I find it ironic indeed that some of the Senators on the Independent benches — I exclude Senator Murphy — who never cease to amaze me with their capacity for instant reaction to every conceivable topic were among the most vocal when asking for a period of reflection. Being reflective is not a characteristic that springs immediately to mind when thinking of those Senators.

When the Minister published his original proposals we in the Progressive Democrats expressed reservations about their content. In particular, we were concerned about the future of 2FM and restrictions on what it could broadcast and about giving £3 million to Century Radio. We believed the proposals were contrary to fair play, and our opposition to them and to other suggestions from the Minister is a matter of public record. It resulted in discussions which have led to amendments in the legislation. I believe the modified Bill now before us takes some — not all — of our views into account. I continue to have reservations about certain provisions in the Bill, but I realise it is unrealistic to expect that I, or indeed my party, the Progressive Democrats, as a very much smaller party in Government can hope to have our way on every part of the legislation that comes before the Oireachtas. We have to live in the real world.

It is odd that people who several weeks ago were haranguing the Minister for being doctrinaire and unbending are the very people who are now saying he is weak and dithering because he has made amendments. It is one thing or the other; it cannot be both. While I am still unhappy about certain aspects in the Bill, I believe it is quite proper to regulate what is, after all, our national radio and television station, and it is also appropriate to place controls on any company or organisation who might constitute a monopoly or abuse a dominant position within the market. That is not to be anti-market; that is to allow those wishing to do so to compete and operate in a fair market where they can compete successfully.

I agree with the sentiments which have been expressed in relation to RTE having served the country very well and I am confident they will continue to do so. Over the years, the staff in RTE have performed their duties to the highest professional standards and the quality of their produce can be compared favourably with broadcasting services anywhere. I accept that there is diversity within the broadcasting content of the station and I agree with Senator Murphy that having looked at broadcasting in America and most of Europe and in the Far East, the quality of the RTE product is as good as one would find anywhere.

This Bill will not affect the commitment of RTE people to excellence or their ability to make the best of the resources available to them. However, just as we in this House have a responsibility to RTE, the station, as a State service, has a responsibility to the country and a responsibility to work within a legislative framework set down by the Oireachtas. That is a very important principle. The Oireachtas decides on behalf of the people. That is its privilege; that is its duty. There may be defects in the system. It may not be palatable to those who feel that their vision of Ireland or their idea of public taste is the only view which should prevail, but it is the best system we have, the basis of our democracy. There may be some people in RTE or elsewhere who believe they know what is best for the country. They may be right, but that is not the point. The point is that the Oireachtas has the right to regulate and it does so to the best of its collective ability. If a regulation is subsequently found to be erroneous, it can be overturned by democratic decision.

I have not heard anybody in either House say that he would repeal this legislation. It has been suggested that it is impossible for independent radio stations or the press to compete with 2FM for advertising because there is a degree of cross-subsidisation of 2FM rates and that, if that is the case, it is unfair competition. We do not find it acceptable to be lectured across the floor of this House by parties who, when they were in Government, abdicated their responsibilities to broadcasting and brought nothing but chaos to broadcasting by allowing pirate stations to flourish without responsibility to anyone. I fully accept the view that people who go into commercial enterprises take risks in expectation of personal gain, and if they fail they must take the consequences and that the State should only intervene for pressing social reasons, such as large scale job losses. Equally, if the State imposes restrictive conditions affecting ability to compete, it must move to ameliorate the consequences of such restrictions. That is why independent radio stations must be allowed fulfil their public service responsibility without being penalised.

CKR Radio in Kildare are doing an excellent job and filling a public need. Some of the people who have had most to say about this matter have not even heard their local radio stations. I listen to my local radio station most mornings coming in here and the quality of their product is excellent. The same is true of Louth/Meath Radio, another example of good local broadcasting. The choices that these stations give to radio listeners is very positive. It is not exaggerating to say that this is the essence of democracy, the promotion of diverse views and culture, so that people can make a free choice.

Unfortunately, recently we have been subjected to a propaganda war as much as to a political war and it has brought home just how easy it is to manipulate people's views if they are confined to only one source of information. Even the presence of BBC and UTV to those who can receive those stations is a balancing influence in our society.

Senator Costello referred to my party's position in relation to this House and other matters, and it is appropriate for me to respond. Our views are well known. I absolutely reject the Senator's suggestion that we have not participated fully in the workings and in the life of this House. It is up to the House to prove its relevance. Frequently, in my experience, it has not done so. Two to three hour speeches cannot be described as relevant. As a political party we realise that this House is a political institution. As a political party we must participate in a political institution of the State. We also realise that we are in a minority in asking for the abolition of this House, that the large parties, not just the Government party, do not wish to see it abolished. We have to be realists. As long as it is there, we will be here and will participate. I hope to be able to participate in this House for as long as I am allowed.

An indefinite stay of execution.

Absolutely, yes. We have what is commonly regarded as a stable Government bringing signficant improvement to our economic circumstances. We as junior partners in the Government have contributed to that state of affairs. We have stated our position on the Radio Bill and on other matters and will continue to do so. We do not always have our view prevail, but that is in the nature of things.

Senator Costello suggested that there was some devious plot to control everything and everybody in RTE. I do not see anything wrong with setting up the legislative framework within which RTE will operate, but there is no question of anybody from this House or anywhere interfering with the editorial content of what RTE produce. The people who are responsible for editorial content are free to exercise their judgment and produce quality products. There is no animosity, certainly in this quarter, towards RTE or the people who work there. Healthy tension is a positive thing and there certainly is that. That contributes to what RTE do and I have no reservations about the commitment of the people to their jobs.

There have been fears about job losses but if we look at the sector as a whole it must be conceded that there has been considerable growth in employment in that sector given what the local radio stations are doing. I hope that independent programme production can continue to flourish and produce high quality material as in previous years.

Some aspects of the Bill are quite positive. I welcome the Minister's decision to increase the amount of advertising time to five minutes in one hour, although I would have preferred if it were more. Like Senator Murphy I welcome the complaints procedure to rectify an attack on a person's honour or reputation. It is important that an individual's rights be protected by legislation and that he should be able to have his name cleared if necessary.

The Minister referred to Teilifís na Gaeltachta and said that the establishment of a TV channel will not rule out the possibility of establishing Teilifís na Gaeltachta. I welcome that. I realise that people in advertising are very unhappy about what is proposed, but perhaps their unhappiness derives from the fact that to date it has been very easy for them to have an advertising campaign which could go into one station without a great deal of effort and earn a great deal of money for them. There is a vast market there. It will not contract, but they will have to work for it. There is nothing wrong with that. These are my party's and my observations on the Bill and we will be supporting it.

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution on this very important Bill. At the outset, I wish to say I strongly resent the attack made on the Minister and the Government. RTE, their employees and the members of whatever political party they can muster have done a major disservice by sensationalising the issue. By doing so, they have prevented Members in both Houses from seriously considering the legislation. I, for one, do not take seriously the views expressed by my colleague, Senator Murphy. He stated the Seanad is being used. However it is common practice for someone, if they cannot get the support they would like or obtain the agreement of the House, to argue the House is wrong. I believe the Minister has approached the matter in the right way.

The Minister has a responsibility to the nation far beyond his responsibility to RTE. His first responsibility is to the nation, the people and the silent majority who do not have any muscle and who are unable to demonstrate and block the streets in front of this House for three hours. The views of these taxpayers should be taken into consideration by the Minister who I believe has done no more and no less than that.

There is nothing in this Bill which will pose a threat to RTE. Indeed, it is long overdue and was in limbo during the term of office of the Coalition Government who could not agree on the best way to present legislation to deal with what was a growing problem. The Minister has interpreted the views of the public in the correct way and the Bill will make a major contribution in regulating something which has gone out of control.

Like other speakers, I am very pleased with the performance of RTE and the way in which they have approached our national games, the Eurovision Song Contest and so on. They are a credit to the nation and I am one of those people who look on them with a sense of pride but it is only right and proper, like all other national and international companies, that they should be examined. There is a duty on public representatives to assess the progress made and the way in which RTE have developed. No matter how much we admire the contribution made by them and their employees to the nation, we have to recognise that RTE are a powerful organisation. However, there are dangers that go with such power; for example, they see themselves as being above control and codes of practice. Therefore, we more than welcome this legislation.

The Minister, the Government and Fianna Fáil are not paranoid about what is said on current affairs programmes carried on RTE. One of the questions which needs to be addressed is, should RTE receive all the funds raised by way of the licence fee? People in rural Ireland, especially those who cannot pick up RTE — it cannot be picked up in some pockets of the country — would disagree. Should RTE have the right, from Bantry Bay in County Cork to Malin Head in County Donegal, to monopolise advertising revenue? I strongly believe they should not be given this right and codes of practice should be adhered to. There has been much scaremongering in an effort to get the Minister believe there will be job losses in RTE but no one who understands the issue believes jobs will be lost in the advertising section of RTE.

Like many other companies, RTE tend to believe they have achieved major success but I would remind them they achieved such success because they had a monopoly, were State financed and had all the advantages other companies in Ireland did not have. There is a danger they will let this success go to their heads. Therefore, I claim the legislation is long overdue.

RTE have levelled criticism at public representatives and politicians but they should bear in mind that they have had a few runners themselves. During the years people from RTE have been sponsored and have become active politically. Indeed, some have been elected but they did not make any sensational contributions. To be quite honest, they failed miserably. I ask RTE to indicate if they believe in monopolies. Watching programmes in recent months in which they criticised companies whom they alleged had monopolies one would get the impression that RTE do not believe in monopolies; yet, when it comes to their own affairs, it is clear they would like to have a monopoly in broadcasting.

RTE tried desperately hard to block the introduction of local community radio. If any criticism can be levelled at the Minister it is that he has not been tough enough and only took action when it became abundantly clear that local radio stations would not survive if RTE were given a free hand. I do not subscribe to nor do I accept the Minister's intention of capping the revenue or his plan to rescue any local radio or television station. From my personal knowledge I am aware that RTE have made it almost impossible for local radio stations to get on the air. The suitable locations in County Donegal for local radio broadcasts were within an area that was fenced off and was the property of RTE. RTE sought approximately £60,000 to erect a radio mast inside this fenced off area and to use a right of way. They also sought a substantial amount of revenue per annum which it would have been impossible to pay. The County Donegal local radio station were forced to select another location outside the control of RTE.

I wish to put on the record — and I am aware of what I am saying — that following the setting up of Highland Radio, Donegal, RTE increased power to try to put them out of business. If the Minister wishes to press the button at this very minute and does a test on the output of RTE in County Donegal he will see that it is far in excess of what it should be using. This is a deliberate attempt to make it impossible for Highland Radio Donegal to exist. That arrogance is consistent with many of the practices demonstrated by RTE. I ask the Minister to take positive action because there are a number of people who may not have a voice but are aware that that arrogant attitude has got to be tackled. Many people may not be able to write to the Department or look for fair play but the Minister has a responsibility in this regard. I have a responsibility to say to the Minister — and this is the only medium I have — that he must ensure local radio stations get fair play.

On behalf of Highland Radio Donegal I want to inform the Minister that they do not want funds from his Department, from the licence fee or from any other source but they do want a fair crack of the whip. They do not want any restrictions or to be blocked out by increasing the signal by RTE. I have an obligation to say that. Because RTE have not been in a position to give coverage nationally, it was right and proper that the Minister took positive action to license local radio stations.

I could complain, and I am sure most rural areas find themselves in the same position as County Donegal. County Donegal features in the news only when something sensational happens or when there is bad news. Recently bags of waste were washed up on the beaches and along the River Foyle. The RTE "Today Tonight" team went down to do a biased programme excluding those who had another point of view and they put out a programme on the pollution of the River Foyle. I can state here and now that they will find themselves in court defending their right and the content of that programme. I complained bitterly and should like to put it on the record that County Donegal features on RTE only when there is bad news, for example, when we have a pollution scare, when we are bringing bodies ashore after disasters at sea or catastrophes. Consistently we feature in the news when it is bad. County Donegal does not feature if we have something which would benefit the county. That is not the kind of participation and involvement the people of my county want. There must be a balanced and fair approach. If we cannot depend on the Minister and his Department to exercise that control, through legislation, then I do not know what RTE would offer us.

This has been a useful Bill and, like other Members, I feel it is a pity the Bill could not have been discussed in a calmer atmosphere. Many sections in the Bill could have been examined more carefully but that is not the fault of the Minister. The Minister did his utmost but he was confronted with an Opposition who were not prepared to listen or to discuss the very important measures in the Bill which were many years overdue. The Minister has made an honest and serious attempt to regularise something which was totally out of control.

I commend the Minister and hope he succeeds. The vast majority of the people of this nation who have not been part of the sensational drive against him, against the Bill and the Government did not have an opportunity to speak. I am glad I was in a position to make my contribution, which is only a token of what is felt nationally.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Broadcasting Bill. I am one of those who is opposed to it and I do not have as sanguine a view of it as my friend, Senator McGowan.

I would like to start where Senator Murphy left off in relation to the role of the Seanad where this Bill is concerned. We are ending the Seanad for this first year on a fairly appropriate note given the problems we have had throughout the last 12 months, in that we are discussing a Broadcasting Bill where the Seanad, according to our Constitution, has a profound function in the State. Its function is to discuss and tease out in a vocational sense all legislation that is to be enacted by the State. This vocational approach is supposed to be one where we look at the detail on Committee Stage and where the Minister may from time to time give or take a point.

Unfortunately, we are discussing this Bill today in the most appalling circumstances because we are really dealing with a charade. Because of the guillotine and the number of speakers who are offering on Second Stage, it is extremely unlikely that any discussion will take place on Committee Stage so that there will not be a possible single constructive line that might emanate from an Opposition source discussed. Even if we reached Committee Stage we would still be dealing with a charade because it is arranged by the Dáil that it will return very late this year. The terms of the Bill before us state that the Bill will come into operation on 1 October this year. Consequently the debate on this Bill in the Seanad is a total charade, because regardless of what any member of the Opposition or the Government parties may say, and regardless of what matters might be desirable on Committee Stage, so far as the minutiae of the Bill are concerned, none of them can be implemented unless the Minister has the will to arrange with the Government that the Dáil be recalled from its summer recess. In practical terms we all know that neither the Minister nor Government have the least intention of doing so. Consequently, our words are wasted in the wind, they will appear in the Official Report but, in so far as this Bill can influence what is happening to any degree it is absolutely purposeless. It constitutes an appalling background to this debate.

There are aspects of the Bill on which I want to comment in particular on the commercial pragmatic issues. We are jumping into issues of a vocational nature here in far too hasty a vein. We are talking about broadcasting policy, movements within the EC and the balance desirable between private and public sector broadcasting. In respect of all such areas normally there should not be haste in the type of legislation that will constitute the culmination of issues such as this. Normally this type of vocational issue — which should not engender too much heat — might be prefaced, for example by a Green or White Paper which, in turn, would lead to a conventional, national debate. The views expressed by the vocational bodies, in this instance such as the RTE unions, the Association of Advertisers in Ireland Limited and The Marketing Society should have been sought. All of this teasing out would then have led to legislation being introduced by a Government which, in turn, would be discussed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Again, the process of having to come to the Seanad with legislation affords the public time to explore the issues and express their views. In this case we see a modus operandi under which a Bill was introduced and was very quickly withdrawn because of the huge opposition there was to it. Then the fat was in the fire because a Bill had been published by the Government. In such circumstances a Government feel they must react by producing instant legislation, leading to us getting the Bill, in its final draft form, today. This means we are getting instant legislation. This leads to vocational groups, such as the Association of Advertisers in Ireland, The Marketing Society, the trade unions and other interested bodies, having to make representations not against the calm background of agreeing a White Paper or a preliminary speech on the part of a Minister but against the pressures of legislation actually going through both Houses of the Oireachtas. I contend that the judgment on this issue is wrong, is not the approach that should be adopted to this type of legislation and that we are jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

It is interesting politically, I suppose, that the action of the Minister on this issue has united — we have a disunited Opposition here, which is an understatement — as has never been united before in the term of office of this Government all the disparate and opposition elements there are to the Government. It is not simply political opposition. We have here details of representations made to all of us by sound vocational groups such as the advertising groups. These groups are not pro public sector; they are not pro private sector; they are not pro Fianna Fáil, pro Fine Gael, pro Labour Party, pro The Workers' Party or the Independents; they are just making solid vocational representations in relation to a business they know very well. In this instance all these groups — bar elements in the newspapers — are coming out very forcefully against the Government's proposals in so far as this Bill is concerned.

Of course we had in the first Bill the nonsense about 2FM, the question of the licence fee capping and the hasty withdrawal of all that. But in regard to the new Bill, The Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland are on record as stating that, as a result, advertising costs could rise by upwards of 30 per cent. They believe the Minister's objective is not likely to be achieved, in regard to the diversification of advertising revenue. I am not getting into the politics or minutiae of it; neither am I getting into the philosophy of whether one should go public sector, private sector or what mix there should be of both, but I am thinking of solid, pragmatic issues such as the national interest, advertising revenue, where the revenue will go and will it flow out of the country? The Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland say that unquestionably the major beneficiaries of the restriction on RTE advertising revenue will be the other television companies such as UTV, Sky and other satellites beaming into this country. In this sense it is quite untrue to suggest that RTE have a monopoly, that we must introduce private sector companies to crack that monopoly. Already RTE compete hugely against massive infiltration by television companies from outside this State, such as BBC1, BBC2, UTV, Channel 4 or Sky. Today the airwaves are open.

If it is an issue of Century Radio having a problem — again we are into the radio sector akin to television but still distinctly different — it is interesting to refer to what the Minister had to say in the course of his Second Stage introductory remarks, on the Sound Broadcasting Bill in the Dáil on 20 November 1987 and I quote from the Official Report:

In the current economic climate, where the Government finds itself having to make major savings in the provision of services which have a higher priority than broadcasting, and where it is finding it necessary to abolish or rationalise various State agencies, it would be unacceptable to provide public moneys to finance a new broadcasting regulatory authority.

On the same occasion the Minister continued:

The Government also questioned whether radio service actually need the degree of regulation which would warrant the creation of a new State structure, given the trend internationally towards less or lighter regulation in the broadcasting sector. We decided on the minimalist approach. The new service to a large extent will be self-regulatory. Their sole source of income will be from advertising which will only be available if they have a substantial audience.

Obviously, there appears to be a change of policy in that regard in so far as radio is concerned. I support the change of policy. I support the view that Century Radio should be supported, but I want to state unequivocally that support for Century Radio bears no relationship whatsoever to any consideration in so far as television broadcasting here is concerned. I am all for the approach that Century Radio be looked on in isolation by the Government and that a package be put together to help them. We must foster the private sector in broadcasting as well as having a public sector, but I do not think we should mix our metaphors in this area.

Even the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, in his approach to public sector broadcasting, is on record as supporting a package for Century Radio and some public sector investment in Century Radio if necessary. That is an entirely separate issue. It would cloud judgment were we to introduce the Century Radio issue into this debate because it bears no relationship to it.

It is highly unsatisfactory that the various vocational groups to which I have referred cannot make representations in normal circumstances rather than having to react to a Bill. The most satisfactory and succinct comment on the part of the vocational groups was represented in a letter which arrived with my post about three days ago from The Marketing Society. It is an incredible state of affairs that The Marketing Society can put their thoughts fully together only at a time when a Bill is leaving the Dáil and going to the Seanad which will be completely impotent in this case due to its structure and relevant operative dates. Therefore, in many regards, we are dealing with farce here.

The Association of Advertisers in Ireland Limited state that the proposed capping arrangements will leave RTE with half only of the advertising time allowed the independent commercial stations, half of what is allowed under EC directives. They state that advertising costs will be pushed up and revenue diverted out of this country.

I should like to deal in some detail with what The Marketing Society have said because they have put very succinctly what I believe to be the kernel of the commercial and pragmatic opposition to this Bill. They say, in complimenting the Minister to a certain extent; let us put things into perspective:

While the society agrees wholeheartedly with the objectives as stated in the Minister's speech to the Dáil on June 7 last, some of the aims intended to serve these objectives seem, in our professional opinion, unlikely to achieve their intentions.

This is the kernel of entirely reasonable opposition of reasonable people to the Bill. It is the opinion of unbiased people.

I will refer to some of the issues they speak about. If the amount of advertising on RTE is limited there are two immediate effects. The first is that the cost of advertising will rise as all of the available time must be sold to maximise its permitted revenue. The second is that advertisers who cannot get time on RTE will look to other relevant media instead. In relation to this other relevant media, the Minister has made a colossal business misjudgment. While it might be laudable for the Government, if a second commercial Irish television station was now up and running, to bring in some Bill which might logically and pragmatically result in the lost revenue moving into this private sector television station in Ireland, one might still disagree with him, but one could say there was some business sense here. The biggest single mistake the Minister is making in this legislation is allowing revenue to slip from RTE's hands. It is revenue within the Republic of Ireland; it is Irish revenue flowing into RTE, flowing into the advertising agencies and flowing into the video companies. The Minister is doing this without giving any guarantee or having any real reason to believe that loss of revenue will flow to other Irish companies.

I do not think for an instant that one can believe that because advertisers have not space to advertise on RTE they will go to the Irish newspaper media. I do not believe that because newspapers are an entirely different medium to television. It is for these reasons that professional people in the media business, in the video film companies and in the advertising agencies, without a political axe to grind are pounding the message home that in their view there will be a huge loss of revenue out of this State to television stations such as UTV and Channel 4 at present beaming into a huge proportion of houses in this country. In relation to that issue the Marketing Society state:

An advertiser who cannot obtain time on RTE but has the funds to advertise, is much more likely to seek an alternative broadcast medium. The largest share of this is for television and an advertiser who has a television commercial available (often produced outside the country and therefore bearing no direct cost to the Irish marketing company) will select the next best TV alternative.

The only serious alternative is UTV. Two out of three sets in the Republic can receive UTV programmes and this rises to 85% in Dublin. The most likely effect of "capping" therefore is to drive money out of the economy into Northern Ireland.

This is without any guarantee that it will recirculate among the other Irish media. They go on to state a view which I agree with very much. The State is committed to the development of TV3 but pragmatically what are we talking about? They go on to state:

The availability of TV3 still appears to be at least a year away; after that TV3 will have to build a reputation for its programmes and prove that it has a large enough viewership to justify advertisers spending money with the station. This could take many years to develop, in the meantime UTV will have benefited from the "capping" and will fight hard to maintain the opportunity handed to it.

That is a crucial comment, and I agree with it. If TV3 was now up and going, was a commercial success, and if the revenue lost to RTE could flow into this new television station at least it would be saved for the State because, whether we agreed or disagreed with the Minister's rationale, at least it was an option. At this stage, forcing RTE to lose revenue when we are at least a year away from the availability of TV3, and then it will be in an embryo state where it might not be an acceptable television advertising medium to many professional advertising punters, is writing a blank cheque of revenue that should be available to this State to companies outside this State.

There is no reason to believe that even in a year's time TV3 will be up and going and providing a commercial service. We can see what happened to Century Radio. I am not being critical of Century Radio. It is a fact of life in the private sector that there can be huge successes, middling successes and failures when one moves into green field operations. That is what Century Radio were doing. I hope they get their act together but it is a fact of life they are not a very attractive advertising medium at present to advertising companies. TV3 may be in an identical situation in one, two, three or four year's time. That is why this is the single largest catastrophic misjudgment which has resulted in all these representations to the Minister, the Government and the rest of us in the Oireachtas.

They refer, as others have done, to the reduction in RTE earnings, shifting advertising money from the State to Northern Ireland, the fact that the commercials produced in London can flash onto UTV screens without an input from the video film companies in Dublin who have been building up a big business on the back of the development of RTE advertising, and this is in direct contradiction, they state — and I agree with them — to the Minister's objectives. It is a classic example of politicians having pious hopes which they express in flowery speeches but when one gets to the nub of the issue on Committee Stage, or in the commercial sector with which the Minister is dealing, one finds a totally different situation. If all this business had started with a Green Paper or preliminary speeches, the whole matter could have been teased out, and I would bet my bottom dollar we would not be ending up with the legislation we are on the point of putting onto the Statute Book this afternoon.

I am not a particular fan of State companies, I am very much pro-private sector. Having said that, I believe RTE have done an outstanding job as a broadcasting television agency in a very small country. We are individuals; we have our pet hates and there are individuals we do not like very much in there. Sometimes they seem to express philosophies we might not altogether agree with but, on balance, they have done superb work over the years in the area of drama and of music. There is a need to have revenue for symphony concerts and major dramatic events which are in the national interest.

I do not think the introduction of this type of legislation, particularly the cutting off of revenue without there being an alternative source in the State to mop it up is sensible. What is lacking is a commercial approach and a sense of pragmatism and I, with others on this side of the House, are completely opposed to what is proposed. The change of policy was referred to by a political journalist in The Irish Times about three weeks ago as one of the most comprehensive political U-turns in recent years. It is this jumping from the frying pan into the fire that has us in the difficulty we are in here today. It is regrettable that with so many speakers offering it will be virtually impossible to have any comprehensive discussion of the Bill on Committee Stage. That is very undesirable.

We have had representations from the RTE Managers Association. They point out that most of this lost television advertising revenue will flow out of the State to Ulster Television and perhaps some to Channel 4 who have 55 per cent coverage of homes in the Republic and a much higher ratio in Dublin. The association go on to state that it is felt in the advertising industry that it would be difficult to entice such revenue back to the Republic again. The impact on the reduced minuteage and revenue is analysed, illustrating that the loss in revenue may need to be recouped in a manner which will be very counter-productive. The Engineers' Journal have published their comments on the Broadcasting Bill. There are some very interesting observations in relation to the Stokes, Kennedy, Crowley review of RTE which was carried out in 1985, which point to the extent to which RTE as an organisation have improved. They have become financially stable, they have increased the amount of programming substantially in that period, home produced television programmes are now in excess of 2,500 hours a year, up over 50 per cent on 1985 levels. All this has been achieved without any increase in the licence fee. Employment in a wide variety of cultures and skills, both inside and outside the organisation, has been generated from the activity. There has been a positive response to the challenges of today's commercial climate. Against this type of background I would put it to the Minister that he is putting Irish employment in jeopardy. The build-up of the input of advertising into RTE will be curtailed without alternative television advertising mediums into which these funds can flow, and this is the kernel of my criticism. I know that all members of the Opposition share my opposition to this Bill and I would join with them in rejecting the whole approach to the Bill; the guillotine, the lack of discussion on Committee Stage and the impossibility of there being any question of a single change on Committee Stage going back to a Dáil which will not be recalled from the summer recess.

Mr. Farrell

While I agree that RTE have done a very good job, there is no doubt that they have a monopoly and a very powerful one. It is essential that in the case of any monopoly set up by the State that the conditions under which they operate are clearly defined and set out by the Oireachtas. The Minister and the Oireachtas are only carrying out their duty as legislators in bringing this legislation about. RTE are powerful, and could be a very dangerous monopoly if misused. RTE have been very vociferous in their condemnation of monopolies in other sections of the community but when it comes to themselves they want to protect their own monopoly. This is the kind of double standard that the ordinary man in the street finds hard to understand or comprehend. The Minister is to be congratulated for doing something about this.

There is no doubt that when he came into power he inherited a situation that was completely chaotic with between 70 and 80 pirate stations operating without a licence, and not covered by rules or regulations. A Government allowed that to continue because they could not agree among themselves on the best thing to do, so they decided to do nothing and let the chaos continue. This Minister set out to correct that situation.

A monopoly like RTE can project whatever they feel like doing and they can also project whatever the interviewer wants projected. We hear a lot about balance. When I see some programmes, it reminds me of the old horse borrowed by the mean farmer in years gone by, he tightened him back three links and let the harness of his own horse out three links, the swings looked balanced but mind you the borrowed horse was pulling a lot more, hence the old saying: "the borrowed horse has hard hooves". This is the kind of balance that was in RTE. Certainly there was balance, but if you noticed when somebody was making a point that they did not like, time ran out or they had to break for a commercial, in order to make sure that only what they wanted to get out went out. Of course, there was a balance, but how were they balanced?

We heard similar jargon when the Government decided to open up the skyways to allow more aeroplanes. When Ryanair opened up we were told that jobs would be lost in Aer Lingus, fares would go out of all proportion, and they would fold up. When they had the monopoly there was a strike in Aer Lingus during every sunshine week or during high season and nobody could get in or out of the country. Since they have faced competition, employment has increased, fares have come down and strikes have ceased. Where does that leave the many experts in this House who forecast a catastrophe for Aer Lingus? It never happened. In other words, they improved under pressure. I believe RTE can improve, because a monopoly leads to arrogance and to laziness — if nobody else is supplying something you can let the queue wait as long as you like. I believe that competition is a good thing.

RTE have studios around the country, but, what do they do? On Sunday week last the yacht club in Mullaghmore invited the Minister for the Marine to announce a grant to refurbish and rebuild the pier, a beautiful bit of architecture. It was built by Lord Palmerstown in the 18th century and it was badly destroyed during last winter's storms. Could we get Eileen Magnier of RTE to cover that? No way. But I can assure you that if the Minister was coming down to tell us that he had no money for the pier, and a gang of flagwavers were protesting every little stone that was shifted during the storm would be exaggerated in sound and vision on television that night to try to show up the Government and the Minister as being neglectful, and doing nothing about the beautiful architecture of the pier. When the news is good how often do they want to come to the area concerned? There is a quotation which goes as follows: "Good, the more communicated the more abundant grows". I do not know who said it but I could look it up.

The sports personnel in RTE and indeed in the media in general have been excellent over the last number of years. See how our sports have improved and how our athletes have improved. That is because their morale has been boosted, the media are showing the good side.

They live in England where they get very good facilities. That is why the Irish football team nearly took the World Cup.

Mr. Farrell

I know now why so many students are so vociferous and so cantankerous today. It is because when they are making a point they are so often interrupted, instead of being educated, by their educators.

(Interruptions.)

The Senator to continue, without interruption.

Mr. Farrell

I had to reply when I was interrupted. If more of the good things of life were projected on television and on radio, we would be a better society. I am making that point to prove it.

We talk about the capping of advertising. I believe that alcoholic beverages should be banned from television.

I agree with you.

Mr. Farrell

Last week, Dr. Loftus, a former president of the GAA, said that 85 per cent of accidents in his area are alcohol-related. There was a survey done in the Eastern Health Board area and up to 60 per cent of accidents were completely alcohol-related. We see the hardship that all of this is bringing on families, and yet we allow it to be advertised. We talk about banning cigarettes. If we ban that type of advertising, then there will be lots of space left for the genuine advertisements which will do good for people instead of injuring them. I believe that that type of advertising should not only be capped but abolished and banned.

It is already.

Mr. Farrell

During a contentious debate some time ago RTE condemned a certain class of people for using the pulpit to make their point. I believe RTE have used the pulpit more than those people to condemn this Bill. They have done themselves more harm than good and have gone out of their way to do a bashing job on the Minister. I condemn them for doing this. It is scandalous that they should use the national airwaves to specifically attack one man. The Minister is carrying out his job and if RTE want to attack the Bill or the Government that is fair enough but it is nothing short of scandalous that they should attack one man. They are a discredit to the nation and have shown the low depths to which they can descend. It is callous and unforgiveable to make a personal attack on one person and they should be condemned for it.

The pirate stations were set up in the first instance because RTE were not doing their job. RTE2 was set up in competition with the stations which had been set up by industrious people who could not get reception from RTE1. The pirate stations were set up to fill the vacuum which existed in the market and, as we learned from our school books, nature abhors a vacuum. Many of the staff vacancies in RTE were filled by personnel from some of those pirate stations. This proves that those stations were doing a worth-while job and employed good people.

We have heard about all the job losses in RTE. I should like to refer to the 3,000 people who are employed in the live music business in Ireland. Many of those people, for example, Daniel O'Donnell, Mick Flavin and John Hogan, would never have been heard of it it were not for the local radio stations. Many people would never have heard the beautiful voices of these singers or know about their capabilities if it were not for the unlicensed radio stations which played their records. I believe the setting up of more local stations will lead to greater employment in the music business.

All the emphasis is being placed on the loss of jobs. I question why we always hear so much about jobs in Baile Átha Cliath. What about all the jobs that will be created down the country when those stations are set up?

It is better to have 100 jobs in Baile Átha Cliath than in London.

Mr. Farrell

I want to refer to the point Senator Staunton made in relation to advertising. A lot of the criticism I have heard about this Bill has not related to the Bill but rather to how it will affect people. Perhaps they are indulging more in nepotism than patriotism. Many of the people who have criticised the Bill have friends or relations working in RTE and they believe they must promote that line of thought.

Senator Farrell, without interruption.

Mr. Farrell

These people are concerned only about personal gain. It is scandalous the way some RTE presenters, in particular Gerry Ryan, Gay Byrne and Joe Duffy, have criticised this Bill. To be fair to Pat Kenny, he was not as biased as the other three presenters.

On a point of order, I understood it was inappropriate to name specific parties who are not in the House to defend themselves.

Mr. Farrell

I am only waffling in this House but they can waffle on the public airwaves——

I agree with Senator Farrell that he is only waffling but——

Mr. Farrell

——and be heard in a lot of homes. I can only waffle within the four walls of this House and I will do so.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Senator to refrain from mentioning names of individuals.

Mr. Farrell

I must give credit to the people who do their job in an impartial way. I have been told that one of those people may stand as a candidate for a political party at the next election. I would love to be contradicted on this point——

I bet the Senator would, but he will not be.

Acting Chairman

Senator Farrell, without interruption.

Mr. Farrell

If this is true it is abuse of a privileged position. In my town of Sligo a very able county councillor was interviewed by his wife for about 20 minutes during which he abused the Government.

A cosy arrangement.

Mr. Farrell

When this was brought to the notice of RTE they said their interviewers were entitled to interview whom they liked.

The people who are opposing this Bill are concerned only about their own interests. One would think there were hundreds of jobs involved when in fact there are only five or six jobs. I would remind those people of the following lines from a poem:

We stand on the torrent's brink

Our eyes on the clouds afar

We fear the things we think

Instead of the things that are.

It is a pity so many people are motivated by self-interest. The Opposition are so worried about their own interests that they have not put forward any suggestions on how the Bill could be improved but have concentrated instead on criticising the Government and the Minister, something I detest. Those are the sad facts of the situation.

We have heard it said that RTE are anti-Fianna Fáil. I do not agree with that point of view because I believe they are anti-establishment. It is always the flag wavers who are interviewed first and Government Ministers and officials have to take the lower ground. This is a disgraceful way to run a national broadcasting station. The views of a public representative who is trying to do what is in the best interests of the people he is employed to work for should be heard before the views of the objectors. Public representatives spend a great deal of time explaining comments which have been made by other people. This should not be allowed to happen. What happened to the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Wilson, is a typical example of this. Luckily he knew the audience and was able to identify a person in it who had objected. He could name people and it was clear that the audience were loaded against the Minister, but the public were allowed to believe that this was a balanced programme.

I have experience of good and bad television. I will not criticise the Minister because it is easy to do so in opposition. On another occasion my predecessor as Chairman of Sligo County Council made some outlandish remark, RTE contacted him about the matter and he told them to contact me as I was the Chairman. RTE telephoned me, I spoke to them for about 15 minutes and 20 minutes later they telephoned back and said they did not want me because I would not adopt their line. Where is the balance?

I find it difficult to believe Senator Farrell could not be outrageous.

Acting Chairman

Senator Farrell without interruption, please.

Senator Norris could teach Senator Farrell in that regard.

Mr. Farrell

I could give him a lesson on good manners if he had the sense to take it. Senator Norris is always interrupting, but we enjoy it as it is his little hobby horse.

The court jester.

Mr. Farrell

We must face the fact that the world of communications is changing fast. When RTE were established to bring in a television service nobody could foresee the explosion of technology. Since then there have been cable systems, satellite channels, pay channels, broadcast systems, competition and independent commercial channels. It would be ostrich like not to face up to it. It is essential that broadcasting legislation caters for all new developments. We will have a great broadcasting service from which RTE will benefit when they are faced with competition from the private sector.

There was a lot of ballyhoo about one station but they have not gone out of business — far from it — I hear them every morning. They are regarded as underdogs but they, and other independent stations, provide very good news bulletins which put RTE to shame. Eventually RTE will realise that competition will do them a world of good. It will be a lubricant to some of their wheels that got a bit rusty without opposition.

Nowadays people want choice and are prepared to pay a lot more money for cable systems, satellites and higher aerials to get it. We want programme choice in Sligo but we cannot get it. For years Sligo County Council have been passing resolutions to make RTE accessible in some areas of North Sligo between Knocknarea and Benbulben which were blacked out. We got the stock answer that it could not be done. However, a local man put a reflector on the side of Knocknarea and beamed RTE into every house. Why did RTE not do that? They were too damn lazy and did not——

Because it was illegal.

Mr. Farrell

——care whether the people got television.

It was illegal.

Mr. Farrell

They could have done it legally because they had a licence. That is a stupid answer from an intelligent man. They were licensed and would have had no problem doing it. If Senator Norris is correct then they were wrong to put a reflector on Ballybofey. If one is illegal so is the other.

I should like to refer to the farce in Molesworth Street last week when employees of RTE parked a truck on a double yellow line and acted the goat——

They were entitled to their view.

Mr. Farrell

If the owner of a truck parked there to deliver a few parcels to Buswells the chocolate soldiers would have him booked and he would have to pay a fine. They blocked the streets and that was shown on television.

I have seen farmers blocking the streets——

Mr. Farrell

There was only a handful of people out there watching them.

Their own staff.

Mr. Farrell

Their own staff perhaps, but there was only a handful. Looking at it on television one would think Jack's lads were arriving. It is said the camera does not lie but it can certainly project an image to suit the person projecting it. The way they castigated and vilified our Minister was beneath contempt, it was scurrilous, scandalous and shameless. If those same people were asked to open a supermarket or something of that nature they would charge a big fee but they would not be prominent except for exposure by RTE. Why do they not do the same as Ministers, TDs and Senators who give their time and service free? Why charge £1,000 to open a supermarket or £1,000 for coming to a concert to do a half hour stint?

RTE always adopt the negative approach. On "Morning Ireland" recently an expert on finance was interviewed in relation to the unification of Germany. The interviewer asked him what effect it would have on Ireland and he said that it would have positive and negative effects. However, the interviewer asked him to outline the negative effects. The expert did not get a chance to elaborate on the positive effects because time ran out. This is the kind of balance we get. We do not want to hear good news. People are fed up with bad news, people with chips on their shoulders are telephoning with complaints and RTE make it appear that they are the norm. This morning RTE were trying to justify unemployed people not going to work when offered employment. A registered unemployed person should take any job. That negativism will disappear when the new broadcasting system comes in because this Government are doing a good job. I am sure this Bill will be the first to try to regularise the monopoly in broadcasting. It will do RTE good and I do not believe one job will be lost. Indeed, I am sure many new jobs will be created around the country and better use made of the airwaves.

I welcome the Bill and I thank the Minister for bringing it in. I regret he got a raw deal from people who should know better.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Farrell

Nowadays people want choice. People are prepared to pay a great deal for cable systems, satellite dishes, etc., and they want a choice of programmes. I would like our national anthem to be played on all stations and that the Angelus would be broadcast each day. It is the one thing all Christians believe in and appreciate.

I give credit to RTE for keeping the service going.

It was a rather sad experience sitting here this morning listening to the voice of members of a great political party, Fianna Fáil, feeling themselves at such an extraordinary disadvantage and to what I felt were the rather naive views expressed that RTE would in some way discriminate against them because they did not turn up at the opening of an extension to a yacht club or something and did not constantly promulgate good news. It was sad to hear that, but I am not going to go on at length about it because I am going to try to keep what I say short and confine my comments to things that may not have been said before, as far as I am aware. I am sure the Minister would agree that it is important that we make some attempt to get on to the amendments, and I expect he will find it rather more lively, entertaining and interesting than merely a rehash of speeches he has heard already.

First, I am glad the Minister has altered the Bill. In its original form, the closest approximation to it in business life would be fraudulent conversion of funds or outright theft. I welcome the fact that some of the provisions have been removed, because it would indeed have been a scandal to take money from the public purse, from the taxpayers, and deliver it into a private enterprise operation. Therefore, I am glad that at least that aspect of the Bill has been got rid of.

It is regrettable that Second Stage was terminated so abruptly in the Dáil; I have my own views on the methods by which that was done. They are not similar to tactics that were engaged in by myself and others in this House, but again, it would be wasting the time of the House to go into too much detail on that issue, so I prefer not to.

I take the view that this Bill is unconstitutional. The editorial of the Irish Law Times was read very extensively into the record. It is there if anybody wants to read it and I am not going to rehash that. It seems the point was very clearly made in a paragraph which ends: “Accordingly, under Article 40 there is a free market to broadcast and those engaged in same should be free to solicit advertising as part of that right”. It is certainly one possible interpretation of Article 40.6 of the Constitution that there is a freedom to broadcast.

If RTE wanted to broadcast 60 minutes of advertising, they are entitled to do that. I do not think they would do it for very long, because the operation of free market forces would come into play and nobody would advertise on them; there would be no programming. It is a logical situation, there would be a logical corrective there. However, I think it is unconstitutional, it is dangerous. There is widely held belief in professional circles that it is unconstitutional. It has been said repeatedly on this side of the House, and there have been appeals to the machinery of the Constitution to have the Supreme Court invoked to assess whether this is the case.

I would like to refer to Article 27 of the Constitution which provides:

This Article applies to any Bill, other than a Bill expressed to be a Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution, which shall have been deemed, by virtue of Article 23 hereof, to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

1. A majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann may by a joint petition addressed to the President by them under this Article request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this Article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.

2. Every such petition shall be in writing and shall be signed by the petitioners whose signatures shall be verified in the manner prescribed by law.

3. Every such petition shall contain a statement of the particular ground or grounds on which the request is based,...

I have drafted such an instrument and I have sought the agreement of Fine Gael, Labour and the Independents in this House, and I would like to inform the Minister that the entire Opposition will be joined in this tactic. It is, of course, open to the members of the Progressive Democrats Party if they have the kind of consciences they talk about from time to time, and it is open to any individual member of Fianna Fáil who may wish to join in this exercise. It is highly unlikely that we will get sufficient numbers to trigger this mechanism completely, but the message will be sent to President Hillery and I believe he may well decide to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. I am placing that on the record so that the Minister will be aware of what we are doing.

I intended to say as a preamble that I do not wish anything I say to be personally offensive to the Minister, and I hope it is not. He is a man for whom I have a liking, and I think most people in this House have, and I think he is a good Minister for Justice. He has shown himself to be a reforming Minister for Justice capable of innovation, but I think holding two such portfolios is really stretching credibility quite far and I cannot say I warm to him as Minister for Communications in the same degree as I do to his position as Minister for Justice.

I would like to address one or two things before I sit down. The first is the question of the level playing field, so called. The Minister seems to be under quite a misapprehension about the nature of what constitutes a level playing field. If he is interested in creating such a level playing field, then certainly I will be happy to back him. His misinformation or misapprehension clearly extended to Senator Farrell who, just before lunch, said he thought advertising of strong liquor should be banned from the airwaves. The Minister, I am sure, is aware of the fact that it is already.

I would like to take up the Minister's defence of the newspapers because I think he has been very clever. I think he has a little bloc, a group around him. Some newspapers, particularly Independent Newspapers Limited, have a large share-holding in the MMDS system. They have a little benefit there for themselves. Some of the newspapers are waking up to the fact that the dislodged advertising will not go to the newspapers at all. I should like to put certain figures on the record. We have heard about RTE having a monopoly or an advantage but the Minister I am sure is aware of figures relating to the newspaper industry. The sale of covers brings in £135 million, of which 50 per cent goes straight to the newspaper publishers. The 1989 figures, in terms of specialised advertising from which radio and television are precluded, are as follows: £1.2 million in spirit advertising, £4.2 million in cigarette advertising, £11.2 million in appointments, and £12 million in property. Then there are the planning applications and the political parties advertise regularly. In the last election they spent £1.4 million on newspaper advertising. RTE have to cover all the old boring Ard-Fheiseanna and that sort of business, but the newspapers cream off the revenue. Here is a playing field that is not level. Perhaps the Minister when replying will deal with this. If the Minister really wants a level playing field he should level it up both ways. Would the Minister not agree that there is something askew here where the newspapers have a clear advantage in an area from which the broadcast media are precluded?

I find the capping quite extraordinary because here we have a national broadcasting service of which we are justly proud, even though some people want to carp. I am amazed at what sensitive little flowers politicians are. The wounds that were bared in the House today were laughable. The decision to go for capping will remove the incentive from broadcasting. That is the really dangerous and nasty thing about it. The money that is dislodged will go to UTV, Cablelink and so on.

With regard to the radio services, I would point out that, for example, Capital Radio which has a majority of listenership under 19 years, advertises beer, fortified cider, Stag and those kind of products. I am concerned that there is not a level playing pitch here too. The Minister is aware that even before his intervention on behalf of the newspapers there was a significant shift in the market share as between the print media and the broadcast. There was a shift between 1985 and 1989. In 1985 the press had 31 per cent of total market share and 45 per cent in 1989, an increase of 45 per cent in four years. Television, on the other hand, went from 40 per cent in 1985 to 29 per cent in 1989, down 27 per cent. RTE radio went from 12 per cent to 10 per cent which is down 17 per cent, magazines went from 10 per cent to 7 per cent and what they call outdoor advertising remained constant at 7 per cent. The press already have an increase of 45 per cent whereas television and radio have gone down by 27 per cent and 17 per cent.

The Minister said that RTE have the benefit of a dual income, that they get both advertising revenue and licence fees and that for this reason they are in a favourable position. This is naive thinking because most of the media, including the newspapers, draw their revenue from a variety of sources of income and do not depend entirely on advertising. As the Minister knows, the only television service in Europe that is funded solely with licence fees is the BBC and we cannot imagine that we can compete with the BBC.

I will point out the possible consequences of the Bill. I have said that the Bill is unconstitutional and I intend operating specific machinery under the Constitution, for which I have the support of all the Opposition parties here, to try to get President Hillery to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. There is also another political dimension to it because there is a Presidential election in the offing. That will trigger a by-election in Dublin West. It has already been referred to by the Government party. A well known broadcaster was mentioned in this House by a Government speaker in relation to the by-election. I wonder if the Government would be happy at the prospect of being reduced to a minority Government because of the impact of this Bill?

I will not take a long time on this Bill because it is important that we get into the meat of the debate, which is in the amendments. I hope we will be allowed to do this because it is important that we have a balanced debate. At some levels people regard this as an abstract debate. There has not, perhaps, been all that level of public concern or awareness. People have not started squawking yet in great numbers and I believe that is because they do not quite follow what the impact will be. I would like the House to realise what the proposals mean because the proposals as they exist in this Bill at the moment will reduce the potential in terms of advertising overall of RTE by 25 per cent, but the peak time availability by 33? per cent. To give a concrete example, the revenue derived from each "Late Late Show" will be reduced by about £28,000. This is a dangerous Bill, and a meanspirited Bill and it introduces a highly undemocratic element into our public life.

I would not have been terribly happy with the transfer of large sums of money to people, particularly when I look at the people involved. A year or two ago No. 29 Clare Street was destroyed by an act of public vandalism and one of the principals in the radio station the Minister was attempting to subvent from the public purse was directly involved in that act of vandalism. I take a serious view of that. These are the people he is saying we should put in charge on the culture of Ireland.

Having said these things I will leave the Bill aside and finish my contribution on the basis that it is unconstitutional. We on this side of the House will be making every effort to have the Bill referred to the Supreme Court. I suppose it is not too late to appeal to the Minister to withdraw the entire Bill. The reason members filibustered the other day was, quite simply, that they were opposed, lock, stock and barrel to the entire nasty little package.

Cuireann sé áthas orm go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an mBille seo. Níl i gceist agam dul siar ar chuid de na hargóintí sa díospóireacht mar is dóigh liom go bhfuil an talamh sin siúlta go maith. I should like to refer the Senator Norris's last statement in which he suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn. I do not claim to have heard all the contributions on this Bill but I am amazed that total concentration has been on a few sections. I intend to comment later on some of the more controversial aspects of the Bill but first I would like to refer to a number of sections about which there has been little comment in the debate to date. At times small things can be important. For example, section 9, which makes it an offence to intercept a signal, has to be welcomed. Legislation is needed to put an end to this malpractice. It is amazing, given all the talk about the Bill, that this provision has not been highlighted. I welcome the provision as it will allow people to have recourse to the civil process in seeking redress. It is a simple matter but it is also important. We are all agreed that those who pirate systems should be brought to justice, but we will not be able to do this until the appropriate laws are implemented. Therefore no one can quibble with this provision.

The provisions of section 7, will be welcomed even by RTE, as it will enable them from now on to appoint their own auditors to have the accounts prepared. As a result the accounts of RTE will be made available much sooner to public representatives and the public than heretofore when they were prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is important that all State companies present their accounts at a time when they are still meaningful. It makes no sense to publish annual accounts which are so out of date as to be meaningless. Therefore I welcome section 7 of the Bill.

Section 8 makes provision for the establishment of a broadcasting complaints commission and includes a reference to the giving of inaccurate information relating to a person in a broadcast which constitutes an attack on that person's honour or reputation. Given the rate at which this industry has grown and the amount of information disseminated on both radio and television it is important that we try to protect the good name and honour of individuals. Therefore I welcome the inclusion of this section which will afford individuals extra protection.

It is hard to visualise what the world was like before the advent of broadcasting. No one will deny that Radio Telefís Éireann have served the people very well. Indeed, many of their presenters have become household names. During the years they have maintained very high standards, in terms of the content of programming and up to a few years ago, were the only native broadcasters. This was very much in keeping with the resources available. It would be fair to say if 15 years ago someone forecast an explosion in the telecommunications industry, grave doubts would have been cast upon their wisdom. When Raidió na Gaeltachta was first established it was considered to be a very unusual service. However, following the advent of pirate radio stations, it became clear there was a market for local radio. This market had to be serviced. It also became clear that the national station was not meeting this need or making full use of the technology available. Given that the cost of broadcasting equipment has come down in relative terms it is now possible to maintain small stations. It was decided in 1988, rather than allow unlicensed radio stations continue to meet this need, to introduce the 1988 Broadcasting Bill. Under this Bill local radio stations and a new national station were established.

Local stations provide a very important service in the community. For example, they cover events which are of no significance nationally but which are of great significance within the community concerned. For instance, on Sunday last in Galway one had the choice of listening to Radio 1, who were covering our national games, Radio na Gaeltachta who were covering both local and national ones, and Radio West who were covering the local community games which were of no interest to anyone outside County Galway but which were of great interest to the people living in the area. I am aware of many people, including myself, who spent the afternoon switching from station to station to get updates. Therefore, local radio does fulfil a very important role. I am very pleased that the stations achieving success are those broadcasting programmes which are in keeping with the local ethos, values and traditions in both music and history. Not only must we try to ensure that local radio survives but that it proves viable. I forecast in this House that we will see a similar explosion and change in the whole concept of television in the next ten to 20 years. As the technology becomes more commonplace and as it becomes cheaper, the diversity that will be possible will be greater. I welcome this because the output of local broadcasting and the listenership it will attract will become greater as our resources to provide it increase.

It is also a fact in the modern world that the amount of employment and resources devoted to service industry is growing. It is reckoned that service industries of all kinds are the most rapid growing segment of employment within the Community. I can see the day when we will have perhaps not as many television stations but where the idea of producing local television programmes will become a reality. I look forward to that day because everybody is interested in what is happening in their own community. Therefore, I forecast that the entire communications legislation will have to be changed time and again to match up to and to respond to the changes that are taking place all around us.

Reference has been made to the impact that will result from the ready availability of satellite television and multichannels throughout the world. However, when the novelty wears off the development will be the other direction as happened in radio. When I was a teenager everybody listened to Radio Luxembourg, and to Radio Caroline but nowadays most people listen to Irish stations. My belief is that increasingly we will be watching a higher percentage of home-produced material. Who among us does not have an abiding interest in those things that are happening near home and around us? Therefore, we must look with confidence to that future and ensure that the explosion of technology is matched by an explosion in choice and that we have available to us the resources to exploit this in the future.

I would like also to make a very short reference to one other matter. It was a pity that the short wave station proposed in the late forties never got off the ground. It could be argued that in the late sixties and seventies with the stemming of the haemorrhage of emigration this was not of such great importance as it had been. However, because of the number of Irish people working Britain and throughout Europe, once again this has become a real issue. I hope a service could be set up that would provide our emigrants with the means to keep in touch with what is happening at home and what better way of doing that than to provide sound radio for them so that there could be a compilation of the best of Irish radio made available to them throughout Europe. In that way we could reach people of Irish extraction throughout Europe and hold together what is basically an extension of the Irish nation.

Ní fhéadfainn, ar ndóigh, suí síos gan tagairt a dhéanamh do cheist na Gaeilge. Is minic agus is fada muintir na Gaeilge ag casaoid faoin gcaoi ar chaith RTE leis an Ghaeilge thar na blianta. Sna seascaidí agus na seachtóidí bhí an chasaoid chéanna ann nach rabhthas ag caitheamh go féaráilte le lucht na Gaeilge.

Bhí casaoidí géara ann nach raibh RTE ag déanamh de réir a ndualgais maidir leis an Ghaeilge. Tuigim ag raibh fadhbanna ann nuair nach raibh ann ach stáisiúin amháin. Bhí fadhb ann sa mhéid is go raibh éileamh ag an mórphobal ar an stáisiún sin, agus go raibh mionphobal ansin go raibh a dteanga féin acu agus nach raibh fáil acu ar chláir sa teanga sin. Ar ndóigh, rinne George Colley a bhí mar Aire Gaeltachta ag an am, cuid den scéal sin a leigheas nuair a chuir sé Raidió na Gaeltachta ar bun. Is iontach an tseirbhís atá tugtha ag an raidió sin do mhuintir na Gaeltachta agus mhuintir na Gaeilge ó shin. B'iontach an dul chun cinn sé nuair a cuireadh ar fáil ar an VHF, an ardmhinicíocht, é ar fud an tíre.

Tá a fhios agam an ceangal a shnaidhmíonn sé idir pobal na Gaeltachta, thuaidh, theas agus thiar. Níl áit ar bith sa tír a dtéim i mease lucht na Gaeilge nach mbíonn tagairtí á ndéanamh d'iontais Raidió na Gaeltachta. Creidim, áfach, gurb é an trua é nár cuireadh an raidió ar bun faoi údarás neamhspleách, le ceangal conartha le RTE maidir leis an taobh theicniúil de, maidir leis an gcraoladh féin.

Creidim nach bhfeileann sé go gcaitear chuile cinneadh a dhéantar maidir le Raidió na Gaeltachta a dhéanamh trí cheannáras RTÉ anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath. Is mór an trua é nach bhfuil aon comhairle Raidió na Gaeltachta ann i láthair na huaire. Sílim go gcaithfimid a thuiscint, agus go mórmhór go gcaithfidh iad siúd atá i gceannas a thuiscint, nach bhfuil aon údar ann níos mó go gcaitear leithéidí Raidió na Gaeltachta a reachtáil trí láreagraíocht mhór ar nós RTÉ. Bheadh súil agamsa go mbeimid ag plé san fhómhar anseo Bille a chuirfidh raidió Gaeltachta agus teilifís Ghaeltachta faoina n-údarás féin ar fáil, agus go mbeadh ceannas ag an údarás sin ar reachtáil na stáisiún sin.

I was delighted to note from the Minister's remarks that, contrary to what had been said in the Seanad previously, the proposal to allow the third channel to establish their UHF transmission would not rule out the possibility of establishing a Teilifís na Gaeltachta service. That is very important. It is a source of great consolation to me that he has confirmed that they have retained sufficient UHF transmission frequencies to enable such a service to be established. Likewise, when that decision comes to be made I would imagine that new funding arrangements will have to be made for that service. It is clear that in normal commercial circumstances Teilifís na Gaeltachta would not be viable without a licence contribution. We are all aware that the licence contribution is meant to service such needs. For example, the RTE Symphony Orchestra falls within the same category. I presume that, when a decision is taken in regard to Teilifís na Gaeltachta there will be special provision for the necessary finances available to that station. Equally, it is important that it be recognised that such a service is not geared only at the people of the Gaeltacht and Irish speakers but comprises a necessary part of the preservation of the Irish language, the common heritage of all of us, without which the country would be all the poorer. It is within the best terms of public service broadcasting that such a service should be provided and funds set aside, whether under a separate authority or the existing one, for that purpose.

It was with great pleasure gur chuala mé an Taoiseach ag rá an tseachtain seo caite go mbeadh cinneadh á dhéanamh faoi seo go luath. Tá mé cinnte, agus a fhios agam an spéis phearsanta atá aige siúd sa scéal seo agus, ainneoin na rudaí atá ráite agus na maslaí atá caite, tá mé cinnte gur cinneadh dearfach a dhéanfar, agus go gcuirfear ann do theilifís na Gaeltachta agus gurb iad Fianna Fáil a chuirfidh ann é mar a chuir siad ann do Raidió na Gaeltachta.

Díreach i gcás an raidió, ba mhaith liom tagairt do rud amháin eile. Sílim, agus stáisiúin áitiúla agus stáisiúin bheaga ag craoladh ceithre huaire fichead i gcaitheamh an lae, gurb é an trua é go bhfuil uaireanta Raidió na Gaeltachta chomh teoranta sin. Níl sé sásúil don lucht éisteachta go gcaithfidh siad bheith ag faire ar an gclog le féachaint cén t-am den lá gur féidir leo éisteacht leis an raidió sin. Tagann sé ar an aer ar maidin ag a hocht a chlog agus imíonn sé den aer arís ag leathuair tar éis a haon tráthnóna. Tagann sé ar an aer ag a trí agus imíonn sé arís ag ceathrú chun a hocht tráthnóna. Tá an lá sin róghearr.

Níl mé ag iarraidh go mbeidh sé ar fáil ar feadh ceithre huaire fichead gach lá ach sílim, ar a laghad, go mba cheart go mbeadh sé ar fáil ag an ngnátham a éiríonn daoine ar maidin, abair ag leathuair tar éis a seacht, go dtí meán oíche. Má tá na stáisiúin áitiúla in ann é sin a dhéanamh, creidim go mba cheart go mbeadh Raidió na Gaeltachta in ann é sin a dhéanamh chomh maith. Creidim nach ceart an polasaí é agus níor thuig mé riamh é; agus go mórmhór anois, má tá na stáisiúin bheaga tráchtála in ann fógraí a tharraingt chucu féin, cén fáth nach raibh fógraí ceadaithe ar Raidió na Gaeltachta, agus cén fáth nach raibh siad amuigh ar an margadh le fógraí a tharraingt chucu féin, a d'íocfadh as cuid de na costais a bhaineann leis an tseirbhís sin.

The Bill before us contains very good provisions, and time will tell how some will work in practice. Developments in regard to the overall broadcasting scene are dependent very much on the explosion in technology taking place. It would be a grave mistake for anybody here to believe that anything in this fast moving world is stable or fixed. In future years I predict several similar Bills will be introduced here to meet the requirements of the times in which we live. I must stress yet again what I believe to have been a misrepresentation of the truth in regard to this Bill. I can always understand people disagreeing but not misrepresenting the truth. The provisions of the Bill clearly set out how licence fee revenue is to be disbursed and how that overall question of advertising should be regulated. I must stress that the Independent Radio and Television Commission is independent; it would appear people have forgotten that fact and have twisted the truth in that connection.

I have no doubt that this Bill was devised and introduced as a stick with which to beat RTE. The station refused to become the mouthpiece of Fianna Fáil and, therefore, must be silenced. They must be silenced because they articulated the deep concerns of the Irish people at the inhumane health cuts carried out by the previous Fianna Fáil Government. The Minister made it clear that he would teach RTE a lesson, that he would screw them.

The Minister is not interested in the views of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. He has shown contempt for the democratic process by his remarks and actions in the Dáil and has produced this Bill to screw RTE because that State organisation chose to maintain their independence. RTE must continue to resist such attacks on their independence. The freedom and objectivity of the press and media generally is the cornerstone of our democracy. In this Bill the Minister is punishing RTE for upholding that important principle.

We commend RTE for their role in the democratic system, keeping our people informed in a fair and objective manner despite Government refusal to participate in debate on the media on most occasions. It would appear that the Government are afraid to have their policies and actions exposed to critical questioning. Senator Conroy explained that refusal by the fact that one member of each party is involved in the discussions, and, to quote him:

...despite the fact that we, in the largest party, often larger than the other parties put together, have only one speaker on a given programme and all the other parties will have one as well.

Surely Fianna Fáil have the confidence to defend their decisions on their merits rather than count heads around a table? What Senator Conroy really wants is RTE to provide a continuous political broadcast on behalf of Fianna Fáil.

No Bill has caused more acrimony in the Dáil and here than this one. In introducing such a botched Bill the Minister was either out of touch with public opinion, that of the Opposition and of most of his own backbenchers, or alternatively, he decided to disregard them and ram through this ill-conceived Bill.

The proposal to incorporate in the Bill power to restrict RTE's advertising revenue is wrong and will not work in practice. Over the years RTE have improved their efficiency, have taken on competition and prospered. Indeed, it is a model many of our other State bodies might emulate. RTE have defied the knockers who predicted that private enterprise vis-a-vis private radio would cripple the station. RTE accepted the challenge and are now being punished for so doing.

One might well pose the question: henceforth what will be the motivation for the station, with one arm tied behind its back, to continue its successful role as a State broadcasting organisation? There must be a great temptation for them to throw in the towel, allow events take a different course and become a lame duck within the broadcasting area. This, of course, is probably what the Minister wants. If this happens Fianna Fáil will have achieved their objective of silencing our independent State broadcasting organisation.

Senator Cassidy informs us that if this happens legislation will be introduced to correct the situation. This legislation is designed to screw RTE and its success will be judged by the Minister on the level of losses suffered. We will then have Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats calling for the privatisation of the organisation.

I wish to compliment the management and staff of RTE for the excellence of their work down through the years. To refer to them as having cosy, cushy jobs, as Senator Kiely did, is unfair. It is most demoralising for RTE management to have to listen to statements from the other side of the House to the effect that if they cannot run the Authority in a proper fashion they should get out of the business and let people in who will do the business for them. This is a very unfair way to refer to an efficient management structure and is, indeed, an incorrect reflection on staff performance within that organisation.

The beneficiaries of this Bill of course will be UTV, Channel 4 and the satellite channels. It is accepted that TV advertising when limited does not transfer to other advertising media. Advertising revenue will flow out of the State to these stations and with it many of the jobs of people involved in producing such advertisements. This does not seem to worry the Government as it will only marginally add to the thousand people per week who leave the country because the country has failed to give them a living. We pride ourselves on being a successful exporting economy. It is ironic that our biggest State export is our people and our unemployment crisis.

In this respect it is a disgrace that Ireland, with such a large emigrant population throughout the world, does not have an overseas service. Once they are gone out of the country they are forgotten. What the Minister should be doing is bringing legislation before the House to establish a shortwave or high frequency radio station. The cost of a transmitter to broadcast such a station is about £2 million. In the context of an annual reduction of £10 million to £12 million now being foisted on RTE, surely £2 million is a manageable outlay. We are the only country in Europe, and one of the few in the world, that does not provide such a service. I think it is a shame that our emigrants must tune into the BBC overseas service to get any news from home through this medium.

I welcome the experimental project in Belgium at present, which falls far short of a proper service. By ringing a number in Brussels 5095050 callers can receive Radio 1 as it is being broadcast live in Ireland for the price of a local call. We welcome this. I understand that up to the introduction of the Bill RTE was looking at the possibility of leasing airwaves from stations who already operate short wave transmitters to reach out to our emigrants around the world. This now, of course, will have to be knocked because of the cutbacks within the organisation. This is a disgrace.

I hope the about-turn made by the Minister in regard to his ludicrous proposals on 2FM will transfer to the Bill itself. I am not hopeful however. In setting to save Century Radio, which the Bill will not achieve now, the Minister decided to kill off the profit and efficient orientation of the RTE management and staff. What is being said to the semi-States in this Bill is that profit and success spells trouble; be a loss maker and a parasite on the State coffers and you will be allowed to go on your merry way. Be commercially aggressive, successful and have progressive policies and you will be taken out of business by the Government.

We limit our national broadcasting agencies advertising at a time when the EC are proposing uninhibited access to their airwaves, not only for programmes but for advertising broadcast. We are going against the EC trend. While the Minister is limiting advertising broadcasting time he has said nothing about the price of advertising. What this means is that RTE in a damage limitation exercise will increase the cost to advertisers which, in turn, will reduce the competitiveness leading to more revenue flowing out of the country to UTV and other stations. In fact RTE is being placed in a commercial poverty trap. The Association of Advertisers in Ireland expressed their concern. I will not quote them because they have been quoted already, but I would like to refer to the previous quotations put on the record with regard to this which say the message for me.

I wish to compliment RTE on the excellence of their programmes down through the years. Programmes in the current affairs section like "Today Tonight" and its predecessor "Seven Days" have been of great service to the Irish people. The Sports Department have brought many hours of great entertainment to the homes of Ireland since Mícheál O'Hehir first set out on the road of making our national games available to people all over the country.

The televising of the World Cup competition was a headline to all European stations. RTE acquitted themselves as well as any, in fact they acquitted themselves as well as our World Cup team did.

RTE has done a great service in promoting Irish culture and in ensuring that traditions and material from changing culture is recorded and stored for future generations. An example of this was when Seán Ó Riada popularised Irish music. RTE facilitated him by giving the freedom of the airwaves to him. Seán Ó Riada's programmes revived interest in Irish music and gave it a new lease of life. It allowed new generations of Irish people to enjoy our music and culture. My own county man Ciarán Mac Mathúna stated that the effect of the Bill was likely to reduce to insignificance the role of RTE in researching, recording and bringing different aspects of our musical heritage to our people. That would be disgraceful and I am shocked and disappointed to think this might happen. Charity organisations have stated in a letter on 19 June that the Bill will have catastrophic effects on their work. The Irish Cancer Society sated and I quote:

Presently RTE allow charities a greatly reduced advertising rate. Should their allowed advertising time be cut down they will cut out this special rate. Presently we spend IR£26,000 p.a. on radio spots promoting our programme of Rehabilitation, Education, Information and Funding. Should the charity rate be abolished the cost of the above advertising would rocked to IR£132,000. Obviously we could not afford this and without it our programmes would be very much less effective and our income reduced, which in turn would mean curtailment of services.

Quite clearly any move to change the status quo in regard to Radio 1 and 2FM would be disastrous and will hit the already hard hit terminally ill, the cancer researchers and the future prevention of cancer through education.

Media manipulation by the Minister is unhealthy. Control of the media by him is dangerous. This is the Minister's objective. He expects a Pavlovian response from the broadcasters. It is opportune for them, whether in private or public, to give the Minister his due response by asserting their political independence and ensuring that political reporting is at all times balanced and objective. Our democracy deserves this from them.

Before I go into detail on the Bill, it is necessary to acknowledge some of the comments made by my colleague on the other side. I presume his comments reflect accurately the views of his party and in that context I must confess to being somewhat surprised because throughout his contribution he seemed to be acting almost exclusively as an apologist for those who, Canute-like, wish to hold back the orderly and phased development of broadcasting in this country. Perhaps my colleague can clarify that at some future stage, but I found his contribution negative in the extreme, highly selective in its accusations and distorted in relation to the reality of broadcasting in this country, specifically because it impinged on a crucial and important concession made by the Minister.

He referred to charities. Since this debate started, charitable organisations, those on short contract with RTE, those in vulnerable positions within RTE, have all been targeted — the soft option is what I would call it.

By the Minister.

It is unfortunate that Senator Neville did not concede that the Minister was acutely aware of the potential danger to the role of charities as a result of their access to national television and radio in particular, and that he did not acknowledge that the Minister has amended the original Bill to allow an extra 30 seconds advertising per hour with this in mind.

However, there is a wider issue. When the national lottery started charitable organisations were the first to rush to the barricades and say that their income would be severely reduced, that people were not going to contribute any more and that there would be no more money.

Which is what happened; there is no doubt about it.

There is no evidence to suggest that the charities have been severely curtailed or that their income has been reduced. Like a number of my colleagues on all sides of the House, I have contributed to charities in my own way. I made no secret of the fact that as a broadcaster, I am available and willing to help charities. As a broadcaster I can inform the Senator that most charities have a very well developed public relations organisation who know not only the programmes people listen to and watch but have advertising agencies, or employees of advertising agencies, or individuals who have expertise in public relations bombard RTE programme presenters for free advertising, which they get on a regular basis. I hope the Minister will not curtail that. I doubt if that is something that has entered his thinking. In using soft targets such as charities the Senator was not making any reasonable contribution to this debate which is about the future role of broadcasting.

The Minister has stated that a fundamental objective of the Government and Fianna Fáil broadcasting policy was the essential need to provide an alternative to the State broadcasting monopoly, particularly in the area of news and current affairs. That is what this Bill is about. It has nothing to do with trying to use RTE but it has everything to do with providing the people with an alternative. I have made no secret of the fact that I have been supportive of the concept of an alternative form of broadcasting for many years notwithstanding the fact that I have derived my main broadcasting income from RTE for almost 15 years.

Two unions within RTE have consistently supported the concept of alternative broadcasting since this debate started back in the late seventies when the pirate radio stations first came on stream. Those two unions were the National Union of Journalists, of which I am a member through my involvement in sports and news broadcasting, and the Irish Actors Equity, of which I am also a member through my involvement in the presentation of music programmes. I was chairman of the radio and television equity group in RTE in the early eighties when a working committee was set up by that union to investigate the alternative broadcasting structures that might be put in place. At that time there was already a plethora of pirate stations operating; it was not as if RTE was in virgin territory. There were already dozens of pirate stations operating a totally unregulated free for all which, I might add for the benefit of Senator Neville and his colleagues on the other side of the House, continued throughout the eighties until a Fianna Fáil Government grappled with the problem and at least brought some order into a disordered, chaotic broadcasting regime. That will be conveniently forgotten as well.

We introduced regulations.

We had hoped the Senator would reflect the views of the staff.

For the record I did not interrupt Senator Neville when he was making his contribution to this debate. I am sad, having listened to it, that I did not give him the benefit of my expertise. I am not a member of the staff of RTE. I have never been a member of the staff of RTE.

I never said the Senator was, but I had hoped he would reflect the staff view.

I am hoping in the context of the Second Stage debate to articulate those views. I will be coming to that point, but I think that what has happened in this debate is gross distortion of the issues. I am saddened that this Bill has not been acted upon by responsible commentators in this House and in the other House to initiate a reasoned, rational and serious debate on the status and future role of broadcasting and RTE.

To return to the point I was making; the working group within Equity came back with a recommendation to the major union that they were in favour of an alternative; the reason was that they wanted to protect their members' interests, which is what a good trade union should be about. The National Union of Journalists were also in favour of an alternative broadcasting regime because they saw it as protecting the long-term interests of their members. I would like to remind the House that until alternative legal broadcasting was initiated, if you did not broadcast with RTE you did not broadcast, and if you did not accept the salaries, fees and terms and conditions of employment that RTE gave you as a broadcaster, you did not work.

I was always in favour of an alternative for purely selfish reasons — nothing to do with any altruistic, high minded notions I might have had about where broadcasting should or should not be. It was my pocket, and that of my colleagues in broadcasting, which were being affected. It is in that context that I am explaining to my distinguished colleague on the other side of the House that I am not a member of the RTE staff; I am on a short-term contract.

It is also important that RTE's contribution to the national life should be put on the record. When we think of broadcasters such as Michael O'Hehir, we realise that it is the easiest thing in the world for any Member to stand up and praise RTE not only in terms of their wonderful programming but of their personnel. I might remark in passing that Michael O'Hehir is a sad loss to sports broadcasting. I am glad to hear his health is improving.

It is not good enough to single out RTE's contribution and to make banal remarks. I am proud of my association with RTE as a national broadcasting service. I am proud of what RTE as a national broadcasting service have contributed to the life of this country, since 1927. RTE hold a unique position in Irish life. The only other station which compares with RTE is the BBC in Britain. The integrity and credibility of their news and current affairs programmes and other programmes has been unquestioned for generations. We are privileged to have had, and hopefully will continue to have, a national service such as that provided by RTE, both radio and television. The concept of public broadcasting was laid down by the first Director General of the BBC, Lord Reith, and it has been the bible, the unofficial philosophy, so to speak, of broadcasters ever since. Lord Reith said that the concept of public broadcasting meant that broadcasters were to inform, educate and entertain, which is what RTE have done in abundance for generations.

I have been critical of certain aspects of RTE's public broadcasting policy. I have sometimes felt — this view is shared by many people — that some broadcasters, or to be more accurate, the managers in RTE who decide programme policy, have been concerned to such an extraordinary degree with informing and educating the public that they have failed to entertain the public. The emergence and development of the pirate radio sector was a direct result of the failure by RTE to realise that they were living in changing times during the late seventies and early eighties. However, it is to their credit that within a few years they realised that the politicians in this and the other House were not reflecting the views of the people on the street when they complimented them each year on their programming quality. The reality was that an increasing number of people were turning away from RTE and were listening to their local, albeit amateurish, broadcasting stations.

In 1987, following years of inactivity, for ideological reasons, by the then Coalition Government — in fairness to Fine Gael, I am sure that if they had been in Government on their own they would have introduced proposals in this regard — when nothing was done about broadcasting, it became the laughing stock of Europe that illegal broadcasting operated in Ireland. It is to the Minister's credit that within a short time of taking office in 1987 he not only had initiated proposals but had implemented them in the shortest possible time so that today we have in place an alternative national and local broadcasting structure.

I am not for one minute going to dance on RTE's grave. Indeed, referring to my personal selfish interest, I have no wish to broadcast with any other organisation. As I said earlier, I am proud of my association with RTE and I hope it will continue. It must be acknowledged that the advent of alternative services at local and national level — I will refer later to the national service — has shown that when a professional and competent service is put in place, with the help of local advertisers, local radio is a viable entity. The one major objection to the 1988 Bill was the Minister's proposal to oblige local and national contractors to devote 20 per cent of their programming time exclusively to news and current affairs. While I did not object to this proposal I felt the Minister was being somewhat ambitious in his aspirations in that area because of the obvious difficulties involved in securing start-up finance and getting organised. I do not think the Minister has had any criticism from local radio stations about this 20 per cent requirement, and I am sure he will happy to confirm this in his reply. I doubt if he has received letters from local contractors asking him to reduce the 20 per cent requirement.

We Irish have always been good at talking to ourselves, which is what local radio is all about. It is about people in a locality talking about themselves, their neighbours, their region and their friends. The success of the local stations over the last 18 months is proof of this. It is to the credit of the Minister and the Government that they grasped that nettle in 1987-88 and put in place a service of which we can be proud. Of course, there are going to be difficulties and some of the 16 local radio stations may not be able to survive in their present form. They are, after all, free marketeers and have to go out into the marketplace and compete. Some may not survive but I do not think that local broadcasting will be in any real danger.

I have dealt to some extent with the monopoly position of RTE. It is important to put on the record that RTE — maybe not at management or executive level but certainly at the lower level — did themselves enormous damage in the way they attacked the Minister for Communications in the early stages of this debate. I accept that when people genuinely believe their jobs are threatened they can become very emotional and it would be wrong of me not to inform the Minister in this House of the discussions I have had, wearing my broadcasting hat, with the employees of RTE, There is low morale and even a feeling of anger and apathy among some broadcasters who believe that the incentive to succeed will be taken away specifically by the capping of advertising which will in effect reduce RTE's potential to earn as much money as the marketplace dictates. It is in this climate that many of the 2,000 people working in RTE are responding to this Bill. There is a difference between personal abuse and a reasoned debate and logical proposals for an alternative. I believe some people within RTE were perceived as abusing their monopoly position by going on air and expressing not only political opinions but abusing the Minister's integrity and his person. However, I believe reason has prevailed and in this context I would draw the Minister's attention to a submission which I received from the Radio Telefís Éireann Managers' Association and their Honorary Secretary, Mr. Tony Fahy. That submission states, and I quote:

The RTEMA is very deeply concerned about the negative effects the Bill will have on all RTE's operations by considerably weakening its ability to survive and perform as a professional public service broadcasting organisation.

Having said that, however, the association welcomes the amendments introduced by the Minister for Communications in Dáil Éireann on Friday, 29 June. The increase in the minutage allowance for advertising from four and a half to five minutes per hour will provide a small measure of relief and the linking of the licence fee base to inflation will provide further limited scope for RTE revenue from the second year onwards.

They went on:

With a view to affording some further relief to RTE in the very difficult years ahead and also giving some flexibility to the Government in enabling it to keep in touch with the developing situation in a run up to the launch of TV3 we ask that consideration be given to other proposals in the Bill.

The Minister has already indicated that he is not prepared to accept any further amendments, suffice for me to say that the proposals by the managers' association concerned changes in the advertising capping. There is also a proposal that the current 100 per cent rigid link in relation to advertising revenue to the licence fee should be expressed in a higher range and, finally, that these vital parts of the section dealing with RTE's minutage and revenue cap be implemented at a date to be set by the Minister. I am pleased the Minister has already indicated that he will not be implementing these proposals until 1 October at the earliest.

It is important to point out to the House, when we talk about advertising capping, that this is not without precedent or unique, or a proposal the Minister plucked from the air. There is a European standard. A State or private body not just in the Community but in the Council of Europe, cannot exceed a certain amount of advertising time per hour. The European standard permitted under the EC Broadcasting Directive and the Council of Europe Convention is nine minutes per hour. RTE, are currently allowed six minutes per hour while UTV are allowed seven minutes per hour. The trend within Europe is to curtail advertising even further or to shuttle it into specific periods of the hour, the main reason being that Europeans generally are concerned about what they see as a reduction in programme quality and a huge increase in the influence of multinational advertisers. It is important that contributors to this debate should realise that there is already in existence a capping mechanism within Europe for television and radio.

I suggest to the Minister in the context of capping, and the argument put forward by RTE, that their potential to generate more income has been severely curtailed, that he might listen to proposals for the further utilisation of existing resources within RTE with no extra cost to the Exchequer and within the budget of RTE. This point was made by the RTE trade union group in a submission in which they said that one of their major objections to the establishment of an alternative broadcasting service was that they knew of the existence of a vast resource, including a network of linked studios nationwide and skilled staff to work them, which was paid for by the people through the RTE Authority but which was to a certain extent under-utilised. We are all aware that there are studios in parts of the country where RTE have not initiated or originated programmes. It has been a source of great annoyance to people living down the country that when one tunes in to Ulster Television, particularly in my part of the country, they traditionally not only have the national news at tea time but a very extensive magazine-current affairs features programme which is transmitted for almost an hour and reflects life in that part of the island. If there is a criticism of RTE in a public service context it is that there has been over the past ten to 15 years a tendency to reflect increasingly what is happening in Dublin and on the east coast rather than in, for example, the west, north-west or the regions generally.

As the Bible says, they, RTE, should look at the mote in their own eye in this respect. I am talking here more about television than radio. Radio has always had a very proud tradition of taking news items at regional level from their substantial number of "stringers" around the country — local correspondents. My late father was a local correspondent for RTE and the national newspapers so I grew up in that environment and, therefore, have some knowledge of the reaction of RTE to news stories sent in from my part of the country. My knowledge also came from talking to other correspondents. The Minister has not been inclined, since this debate started — I am talking about 1988 rather than the most recent one — to allow RTE extend their range of services in the broadcasting area simply because he has been concerned about setting up an alternative broadcasting regime. I can understand his feeling on this matter but I am thinking about the medium to long term. The studios, personnel and expertise are there and the RTE group of unions have a valid point in relation to more development of the regional services despite the fact that we have a local radio and that we will have an alternative national television channel.

The potential that RTE have to earn extra revenue in relation to the capping of their advertising has been probably the most critical and most criticised part of this legislation. It is important to put on the record of the House that while RTE are restricted as a result of the reduction in advertising time per hour, they are not restricted in developing their other important services. Indeed, within the last few months, and prior to any inkling of the Minister's thinking on this, RTE restructured their commercial activities and set up a separate RTE commercial subsidiary to market RTE programmes and to capitalise and exploit the programming expertise and talent within the station. This was to be expected. I am surprised that RTE did not rationalise that area of their activities some years ago and take a lead from other broadcasting organisations around the world, specifically the BBC.

BBC television enterprises, and ITV television enterprisees, earn millions of pounds worldwide for their respective companies through the sale, not only of programmes but of radio cassettes, audio cassettes, recordings on record, classical recordings and commercial pop recordings. There are endless opportunities for the exploitation of this vital national resource. We have not heard anything in the argument to date on this Bill about that aspect of RTE's activities in any of the submissions I received. It is important for the Minister to amplify this argument in his reply at the end of Second Stage. I know that the response might be that there is a possibility of losing £12 million of revenue; these figures come from RTE and are based on their expected advertising income over a specific period of time. It would strengthen the argument to say that surely RTE cannot be expected to generate £12 million in extra curricular activities.

Great oaks from little acorns grow and we are now living in an inprecedented television age. Television has a voracious appetite. A statement from our friends in the Association of Advertisers in Ireland Ltd. said that in addition to RTE channels, RTE 1 and Network 2, there are ten other channels available to many Irish homes and it is expected that this number will double over the next few years.

Where, I ask, are the programmes to come from? They have got to come from professional programme makers, the RTE are in a very special position here. To refer to the RTE group of unions again, they have the resources, the personnel, the expertise. It is to the credit of sporting organisations in this country, the FAI, and more recently the GAA, that they are already beginning to see the potential for their games, on an international level and the GAA are beginning to negotiate substantial contracts with TV contractors for the transmission of their games all over the world. Anybody who would suggest that Irish programming is not acceptable in other parts of the world and, therefore, that there would be no potential for RTE to generate more income should telephone the General Secretary of the GAA and he will tell them how to sell their programmes.

The Minister refers to a code of practice relating to advertising, in other words section 4. He has not clarified as yet how he plans to go about this. One can glean from the comments he has been making that he is not at all satisfied with the existing code of practice as exercised by RTE. In a recent speech he drew attention to what he felt was the excess of TV time given to An Bord Gáis who sponsored the World Cup transmissions from RTE. Senator Neville referred to the wonderful job RTE have done and I endorse that. It was a tremendous technological and professional achievement. In these islands they covered far more football games than either BBC or ITV, yet we are always being told they have very limited resources. They managed not only to achieve a high level of excellence but exceeded that of two stations which we are told — and which we know — have far greater resources. Obviously, the input of An Bord Gáis was a considerable help to RTE in achieving this standard of excellence. In that context I hope the Minister's code of practice will not go too far in restricting RTE's ability to attract commercial and corporate sponsorship, and not only RTE because this Bill obviously applies to the new TV channel, TV3, that is coming onstream. It is my considered opinion that one of the main sources of programming finance for TV3 and for RTE increasingly in the coming years will be the corporate sector.

There must be guidelines. There are guidelines operating among our European partners and I hope the Minister will not take on board some of the restrictions which are currently in operation in some member states of the EC. For example, in Holland in music programmes the manufacturer of the electronic equipment and drum kits has their name blotted out by tape. I hope the Minister will not go to that extreme. It is obvious from the wording of the Bill that for the moment he is allowing RTE to continue applying the codes that are currently in force governing standards, practice and prohibitions in broadcast advertising. That is at the level of the multinational corporate advertisers. I suggest to the Minister that any severe restriction in this area could have a detrimental effect on the small entrepreneur. I am thinking of my colleague Senator Cassidy and others in the entertainment industry who have struggled for the past number of years to convince the powers that be in RTE that they should associate themselves with national and international music promotion, that by identifying with them would help them to attract more listeners and, obviously, more advertising.

I would not like to see inhibiting legislation that would mean RTE would turn around and say to the small-time entrepreneurs "I am sorry, the Minister says we can no longer be identified with you, therefore you are going to have to fund the promotional budget for these events yourself". That would be detrimental. This is a new phenomenon. It is creating employment. There are a number of Irish people who have offices and organisations in this country who are creating employment, albeit on a small level, and more importantly supporting the Irish music industry. RTE are to be complimented on aligning themselves with these interests in the past two or three years. I raise it in passing and hope that when the Minister comes to dealing specifically with the code of practice he will keep that in mind and not unduly restrict RTE. Of course, there must be restrictions but not undue restrictions.

I am very pleased the Minister has initiated changes regarding complaints to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission about broadcasts affecting an individual. For some considerable time, especially in the past ten years, many citizens have felt humiliated, degraded and verbally abused, if one can use that wide range of expressions, by individuals in the media generally. I am careful not to select RTE here. Their attitude in this area wherever there has been a wrongdoing has been exemplary, but generally people offended by the media have had little redress. An example is a statement made in a broadcast on radio or TV which is transmitted at peak time and is plainly inaccurate or causes distress to a citizen. The citizen goes through the Broadcasting Complaints Commission procedure and if their case has been listened to and they are vindicated, all that happens by way of redress is a couple of paragraphs in the RTE Guide, or possibly a sentence or two at some point during the day on radio or TV. That is not acceptable.

In fairness to RTE, I do not think they will raise any major objections to the improvements to this legislation. Let me reiterate, I believe RTE's role as a corporate body has been exemplary. One could argue that individuals in RTE in current affairs and news programmes have on occasion given the impression that politicians and more vulnerable members of society are fair game. I mention politicians in that context because they are vulnerable. However, generally they are able to look after themselves and it is more the private citizen I am concerned about here.

It is interesting that the RTE group of unions in their submission in relation to the broadcasting debate acknowledge there has been a problem in this area. They referred to the image of RTE and said that in dealing with politicians it is important to recognise and admit that RTE have an image problem. Some commentators portray them as a powerful, resourceful organisation using public moneys to compete unfairly with the other media. Some politicians see them as a collection of malcontents availing of every opportunity to make them, the politicians, look bad. Many see RTE as inefficient, with too many staff being paid too much to make a big deal out of a relatively simple job and opposing changes at all cost. The group go on to say that among audiences they are well received, with surveys showing a high level of audience satisfaction. They still produce and show the most popular radio and TV programmes in the country, but they admit that RTE had, and have, an image problem. I hope the strengthening of this section will go some way towards creating a climate where those citizens who feel RTE or the broadcasting contractors in general have maligned them will now get proper redress. I welcome this section of the Bill and I compliment the Minister on including it in the legislation.

I have a note here about Ciarán Mac Mathúna, one of our most esteemed professional broadcasters. Senator Neville referred to him as supporting his argument in favour of not making changes as set out in this Bill. I assume Senator Neville was referring to comments Mr. Mac Mathúna made on his recent conferring for which I take this opportunity to congratulate him. He is the elder statesman of Irish broadcasting and one of nature's gentlemen. Senator Neville may not be aware that some 12 months ago, RTE attempted to reduce the programmes presented by Ciarán Mac Mathúna and but for statements made in this House and the intervention of the Minister's Department, Mr. Mac Mathúna might no longer be broadcasting for RTE. That is just by way of correcting the record.

Finally, I ask the Miniser at some stage, to look at Atlantic 252 and say what he will do with it.

I will do with it what I am going to do with it.

Atlantic 252 is one of the great white elephants of Irish broadcasting. I make no secret of my total opposition to its concept and I did not believe it would generate the income projected. The projections made by the experts in RTE about Atlantic 252 lead me to believe I should have a certain caution in relation to the figures they are talking about in relation to this Bill. I will not labour the point. The Minister and my colleagues know what I am talking about. Could Atlantic 252 be transformed in some way or could RTE be encouraged to give more radio broadcasts of Irish radio programmes to the Irish emigrant population in Britain?

I lived in England for several years and the Minister goes back and forth on a regular basis. I am sure there is a civil servant in the Department reading hundreds of letters from the Irish in Britain asking the Minister to improve RTE reception in Britain. Here is a station which is not only broadcasting to two-thirds of Britain on the long wave but to the entire island of Ireland. It is, in effect, a third national channel for RTE; yet, to the unitiated who might tune into it, it bears no relation to this country. It uses mid-Atlantic disc jockeys, its programme controller is English and it broadcasts pop music for 12 hours a day. The reason behind it was to generate income in England where there was not a national commercial radio station.

As the Minister and other Members of the House are aware, the British Government are currently debating their broadcasting Bill which will result in the establishment of three national commercial stations and an extension to the existing BBC station, Radio 5. In this context, it is interesting that the Minister's comments about 2 FM are bearing fruit in Britain where the Government felt, and the BBC agreed, there was a need to have a sport and education channel. This is something the Minister was musing about, so it is interesting that the BBC are going along that road in the context of the changes taking place in Britain and the fact that for years a major source of irritation and annoyance to the Irish population in Britain is that they cannot hear RTE programmes. If the vote was to be extended to the Irish in Britain at the same time as the Minister announced he was improving reception in Britain so that all could hear the All-Ireland final, Fianna Fáil or whoever are in power would remain in power until the year 2050.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share