Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:

In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—(1) The Minister shall appoint a review body to be known as the Broadcasting Policy Review Council (in this Act referred to as the ‘Broadcasting Council').

(2) The Broadcasting Council shall consist of representatives of the Authority, the Independent Radio and Television Commission, radio and television broadcasting contractors, advertisers, news-papers, faculties of communications in the institutes of higher leaning, the trade unions, the Irish language and such other persons as the Minister thinks fit.

(3) There shall not be more than 18 members on the Broadcasting Council.

(4) The Broadcasting Council shall make an annual report to both Houses of the Oireachtas including its recommendations for changes in broadcasting policy.

(5) Its remit shall include consideration of all relevant questions affecting community, local, national and international broadcasting including funding, competition (internal and external), balance standards (including standards relating to good taste, violence, sex and language), public order, copyright, performing rights, home production (including independent home production), Irish language culture and news content.".

(Senator Ó Foighil.)

Professor Conroy

The appointment of a review body has been outlined in this amendment. It is proposed that we have a broadcasting council and include on it representatives of the Authority which means effectively interposing yet another layer of bureaucracy. One of the difficulties is that we have this tendency to appoint more bodies than necessary in this relatively small country. In this case it is difficult to see what real benefit which would accrue from having this very unwieldy body as suggested in the amendment. It is suggested it would include representatives of the Authority. Presumably the Authority has access to the Minister in any event.

Subsection (2) states that the Broadcasting Council shall consist of representatives of the Authority, the Independent Radio and Television Commission, radio and television broadcasting contractors, advertisers, newspapers, faculties of communications in the institutes of higher learning, the trade unions, the Irish language and such other persons as the Minister thinks fit. It seems almost ludicrous that in subsection (3) of this amendment it is then suggested that there shall not be more than 18 members on the Broadcasting Council. How can you fairly represent so many different interests if you have only 18 members on any such body?

Subsection (4) states that the Broadcasting Council shall make an annual report to both Houses of the Oireachtas including its recommendations for changes in broadcasting policy. In some ways at times far too many bodies make annual reports on this, that and the other. It states that their remit — should include consideration of all relevant questions affecting community, local, national and international broadcasting, including funding, competition, internal and external, balance standards, including standards relating to good taste, violence, sex and language, public order, copyright, performing rights, home production, including independent home production, Irish language, culture and news content — a broad remit indeed. It would also have to appoint a large executive body working with it to have any hope of covering all the various aspects, questions affecting community, local, national and international broadcasting, including funding, which is a huge subject.

It would be useful to have some form of body where complaints could be more easily considered, because one of the most important things a broadcasting council could deal with is the question of redress. If, for some reason or another, a comment is made, correctly or incorrectly, in a newspaper the person, or people concerned, have the opportunity at least to write a letter to the editor and immediately get a response which may get some sort of comparable publicity to the initial comment. Unfortunately, that cannot happen easily with radio. It is even more difficult by definition of the medium for it to happen with television but if there were to be a particular reason for a broadcasting council I suggest that would be the primary remit of any such body.

Mr. McDonald

I support this amendment. While I recognise that in section 4 the Minister proposes to draw up and amend codes governing standards, the purpose of this amendment is to have a body of people very widely representative to assist the Minister in doing just that. No one in this House is 100 per cent satisfied with standards, codes of practice, etc., in the media at present. Surely the previous speaker was not enamoured of television over the past number of weeks and the advertisement from RTE; it is as near to anarchy as you will find anywhere for a State broadcasting service to lay into the Government in that fashion. If that suits the previous speakers, let the people get what they want. Many people feel aggrieved at the direction in which standards are going. If you listen for most mornings of the year to Radio 1 and 2 and the national chat shows you will find material in the programmes which is anti-system, whether Church or State.

Anyone on the far side of the House who stands up and says there is nothing wrong with the present system clearly does not understand the problem. People are offended day in, day out. While I would be slow to impose or seek to restrict views, whether they are majority views or the smallest minority view that I would not agree with, people are entitled to hold and express them but there must be some minimum standard of decency. I am shocked that my learned colleague took such a blanket objection to Senator Manning's amendment.

While I appreciate that the Minister is doing something about this in section 4, I and my colleagues are thinking of the future. Looking back over the past few years it seems standards are going down the slippery slope. There is sedition every morning with people encouraged not to accept the status quo or the authority of the Government. That is why I ask the Minister to take into his confidence a cross section of the people mentioned in this proposed new section. There must be some reason for this amendment. Many people are aggrieved and genuinely upset. Subsection (5) of the amendment provides:

Its remit shall include consideration of all relevant questions affecting community, local, national and international broadcasting including funding, competition (internal and external), balance standards (including standards relating to good taste, violence, sex and language), public order, copyright, performing rights, home production...

There is absolutely no doubt but that those standards are under attack daily from people who in their own minds have a mission in life to change the face of this country. The media are powerful and have achieved such tremendous good but the small few find it either smart or modernistic in their own minds to use peculiar or vulgar language which is now commonplace on our national radio. Surely with what the State is spending on education the vocabulary of our people must be wider than the litany of four letter words heard weekly on one or other of the chat shows would suggest? That is why I am horrified at the reaction to this amendment from the other side of the House.

Professor Conroy

I agree with many of the comments that have been made by the previous speaker on one aspect of standards, those in relation to comments on groups of individuals, but, unfortunately, in this amendment as it is phrased that is just one, almost incidental, part well down the primary remit this proposed broadcasting council are given in the amendment which states:

...to include consideration...affecting...community, local, national and international broadcasting including funding, competition (internal and external), balance standards...

I have to agree with much of what the previous speaker said in relation to good taste, violence, sex and language. There is, in the opinion of many people, a very definite deterioration of standards. I have great sympathy with that view. If we were looking at some form of body or council to whom matters of that nature could be remitted, and if that were the sole purpose of this council or body, I would have a great deal of sympathy with it. There is no doubt that in matters of good taste, violence, sex, and bad language many people are extremely concerned. All too often on our television screens, even on RTE, we see programmes which many of us feel are in anything but good taste. We see too many television series in which violence seems to be the prime motivation. Many people are not happy about how sex is often portrayed on our national television or about the use of four letter words and so on. We have to balance this against the freedom to express views, nonetheless, in the opinion of many people, the balance at present is not a very healthy or happy one. Were this the purpose of this amendment I would have a tremendous amount of sympathy with it.

I am not sure, however, in such circumstances one could say to the Minister that he should include the form of representation suggested in the amendment with all sorts of people involved much more in the form of running an executive or other commentary in relation to television and radio rather than a council who would primarily be concerned with moral standards and standards of taste.

Section 4 (1) provides that the Minister shall draw up and may amend, from time to time as he thinks proper, codes governing standards. Section 4 (3) states that he shall consult the Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission in drawing up or amending a code under subsection (1). If that was the sole purpose of the amendment I would have great sympathy with it. I would be very glad to hear the Minister's views in relation to this question of maintaining standards on our national television and radio. Unfortunately, in relation to that the Minister, and all of us in this House, can do very little about external broadcasting on television beamed into this country, but let us try to have good standards within our own broadcasting and television services.

Mr. Mooney

This amendment seems to be the product of a fertile mind.

Mr. Manning

Thank you.

Mr. Mooney

Is it seriously being suggested that we are to set up another layer of bureaucracy? Our nearest neighbour, Great Britain, has appointed a media watchdog in the person of Lord Rees-Mogg. It is rather strange in a society such as the United Kingdom which is pledged to plurality and liberalism that they now have somebody set in place by Government statute who is to be the overseer of the morality of what people should watch rather than what they should listen to because he is concerned about television.

Mr. Manning

What are his powers?

Mr. Mooney

The amendment seems to suggest we should create a monster that may very quickly get out of control. Is it seriously suggested that we should have 18 men and women good and true who will tell us what we should see and hear at a cost to the Exchequer? Where is the role of the RTE Authority in all of this? Certainly, I do not think RTE would encourage this amendment. I do not see why there should be a duplication of powers or another layer of bureaucracy. I assume that the appointees to the RTE Authority and to the IRTC, irrespective of the Minister who appoints them either now or in the future, will be people of the calibre of those who would form this broadcasting council of 18 members. Anybody reading the detail of the amendment would realise that if it were to be implemented it would neuter the existing authorities. What would be their role? Would they be merely a rubber stamp? In the section where the Minister refers to drawing up the codes of practice, the Authority is the supreme body in this area and it is to the Authority the Minister would refer any suggestions or proposals in relation to the code of practice. I object to this on the basis that it is an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy, and because of where this body would take us. Since the foundation of this State, we have had enough debate about censorship, about what has been banned and what has not been banned. Surely, it is not being suggested that there should be yet another statutory watchdog set up to tell us what we should or should not do. Having said that, I fully agree with everything that my distinguished colleague, Senator McDonald, has said, in relation to the excesses in the media, not just in the electronic media——

Mr. McDonald

That is all we are asking for.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Mooney, without interruption.

Mr. Mooney

——but in the printed media. The Minister addresses himself to that in another section where he is tightening up the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Mooney, without interruption.

Mr. Mooney

——and he specifically states that this applies to broadcasts which affect individuals. I have no doubt that there is a need for some reassessment of the activities of broadcasters and people in the media generally, but a reassessment is different from an imposition of censorship.

In my Second Stage speech I welcomed section 6 which tightens up complaints to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission regarding broadcasts affecting an individual. The proposals contained in the legislation as outlined by the Minister in that section, will go a long way towards redressing what has been a very real complaint from individuals who felt the power of the media — and with due respect to my colleagues in the printed media, the impact of the electronic media is very powerful indeed. When someone on a current affairs or news programme says something which is inaccurate or slanderous, or is, in any way denigrating or humiliating the dignity of an individual, it is very difficult to get redress. I am confident that the section for tightening up the complaints procedures to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will go a long way towards redressing that problem. It is in that context that I do not support this amendment.

Minister for Communications (Mr. Burke)

We have had a very interesting discussion on this subject and on this group of amendments — Nos. 3, 4, 14, 15 and 24.

An Cathaoirleach

I must point out to Members here who seek to have me allow them speak on the Committee Stage. The Minister has a constitutional right to address the House. He is exercising that right and I rule, accordingly, that it is proper.

Mr. Burke

We have had a very interesting and wide ranging discussion on amendments No. 3, 4, 14, 15 and 24.

Mr. Norris

You have raised a constitutional matter, and I would like to raise a point of order.

An Cathaoirleach

I am asking you to resume your seat, Senator?

Mr. Norris

I would like to raise a point of order.

An Cathaoirleach

A point of order, please.

Mr. Norris

Paragraph 47.2 of the Standing Orders says that only the Cathaoirleach can suspend a Member. I understand there has been some discussion on that. The reason I wish to raise it here is that I believe that the proceedings may be invalidated.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Senator, when I am speaking, you are not supposed to speak. Rather you are supposed to resume your seat in accordance with Standing Orders. I have reported to the House on that matter. There is nothing further to add. I call the Minister now, and I ask you to desist.

Mr. Norris

I believe the proceedings may be invalidated as a result.

An Cathaoirleach

I asked you to desist. You have other opportunities to pursue that matter.

Mr. Norris

Not tonight.

Mr. Burke

We have had an extensive discussion on this group of amendments No. 3, 4, 14, 15 and 24. Many very interesting points were made in line with the discussion we had in the Dáil.

I cannot accept these amendments. The essence of the proposals is to put the Government's current legislative proposals into cold storage. It is just another device, as was amendment No. 2 but it goes further, the idea being that if we accept these amendments, the legislation will not go through and counsel will then look at the issues involved as well as a whole host of other issues. The Government believe that this legislation is necessary, that it should be implemented as and from the date proposed and that it is part of a logical process which commenced in 1987 when I, as Minister for Communications, took in hand the chaos which had been allowed to develop in the broadcasting sector, and restored order to the broadcasting environment. It is interesting in the context of the amendments to see the political persuasion of the Fine Gael amendments down in the name of Senator Manning as Leader of the Fine Gael group here. It was his Government and his Minister for Communications who allowed the sector——

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 18 Jul 1990

Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1990