Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53 and 54 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
Broadcasting Bill, 1999: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 36, subsection (5)(a), line 5, to delete “each” and substitute “such”.
I cannot support this group of amendments. The television programme service contractor stipulated in the subsections to which these amendments refer is the television programme service contractor selected by the Independent Radio and Television Commission under the terms of the Radio and Television Act, 1988. As we all know, the television programme service contractor selected by the Independent Radio and Television Commission is TV3. The 1988 legislation set out the specific procedures that must be employed in selecting the independent television service contractor. The Independent Radio and Television Commission must follow these procedures. I cannot, therefore, see the point of inserting the words "as licensed and agreed by the Broadcasting Commission subject to specific obligations and following public consultation" into the subsections as proposed by amendments Nos. 45, 48, 51 and 54. In my view these might have made sense only if the amendments proposing the establishment of the super authority had been accepted. In addition, amendments Nos. 44, 47, 49 and 53 which propose to change the word "each" to the word "such" in subsections (5) and (6) of section 37 would seem to make sense only if the other amendments in this group were accepted. On their own this group would appear to be unnecessary drafting of amendments and, accordingly, I cannot support them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 49, inclusive, not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 50, 52, 55 and 56 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 36, subsection (6)(a), line 22, after “contractor” to insert “and Teilifís na Gaeilge”.
This group of amendments seems to be designed to make TG4 a "must carry" service on analogue and digital MMDS systems. They also seem to conflict with the purpose of an earlier group of amendments which sought to control the amount of "must carry" services on cable and MMDS. My intention with regard to these services on cable and MMDS systems provided for in section 37 is to preserve the status quo to a large extent. Accordingly, our indigenous analogue free-to-air services are and will remain “must carry” on analogue cable systems. The independent television service provided for in the Radio and Television Act, 1988, was originally envisaged as a service that would be available only on cable and MMDS systems, hence its “must carry” status on MMDS. It does not make much sense to make TG4, which was originally envisaged as a standard service in transmission terms, a “must carry” service on MMDS, which has very limited frequency capacity. Equally, TG4's digital free-to-air service will be “must carry” on DTT. There seems no particular reason to require a non-universal subscription service such as digital MMDS to carry TG4 when it will be available on a free-to-air basis on DTT which is designed to provide universal service. Accordingly, these amendments should be opposed.
In so far as I understand what the Minister is saying, I accept her explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 36, subsection (6)(a), line 22, after “contractor” to insert “as licensed and agreed by the Broadcasting Commission subject to specific obligations and following public consultation”.
Amendment No. 51 has already been discussed. I think that has caused some confusion here. It was taken with Nos. 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 53 and 54.
The pace may have unsettled the Chair.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
—or Senator Manning's long winded contributions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 52 to 56, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 36, subsection (7), to delete all words from and including "placement" in line 31, down to and including "free-to-air" in line 33.
Subsection (7) of section 37 is designed to allow the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to act as an arbiter where a dispute arises regarding the placement of free-to-air services of indigenous Irish broadcasters and analogue cable and MMD systems. I do not believe that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland should have any functions in relation to general disputes which may arise between a broadcaster and a cable or MMD operator.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 36, subsection (9), line 52, after "concerned." to insert "For the avoidance of doubt this does not prevent the holder of a licence from charging broadcaster(s) for carriage of a service referred to in subsections (5) and (6).".
Subsection (9) of section 37 is designed to ensure that must carry services such as free-to-air services of RTE, TV3 and TG4 as well as community services authorised by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland are carried on the basic tier of services on cable and MMD systems. In other words, those subscribing to these platforms must have access to these services at the basic rate. The subsection does not refer to charges to broadcasters and I do not believe that it needs any further clarification.
The Bill does not address charges to broadcasters by cable and MMD operators for carriage. This will be more appropriately addressed in the legislation or in regulatory structures governing the operation of such systems. However, the must-carry services such as RTE, TV3 and TG4 are not delivered free by cable and MMD operators. At present, the viewer must pay for such services.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37 agreed to.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 59. Amendments Nos. 60, 65, 67,70 and 71 are related and will be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 39, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "local".
This is a straightforward but important series of amendments. I am seeking to lift the epithet "local" from "community" and leave community as a broader definition than a "local community".
In relation to amendment No. 71, I wish to do the same with "area" so that it is not circumscribed by local or geographical proximity alone.
There are many types of communities and this should be taken into account when providing community channels. We should not ring-fence the concept of community into local geographic area alone. Community is by definition a much broader term; it can mean a community of people who share similar interests and objectives. A community can often have a geographical context, but not exclusively so. A community of bird watchers can be spread across the world and those people are entitled to be called a community. This type of community must be taken into consideration when licences are being granted.
These amendments have been suggested by the Community Media Network. It wishes to see the definition of community channels extended so that a wider definition of community could be embraced.
Section 39(8) gives the definition of local community: " In this section 'local community' means the community of a town or other urban or rural area.". Amendment No. 71 provides for the deletion of "area," and the substitution of "area, or of a defined community of interest irrespective of geographical proximity or location". It is the shared bonding of a particular value, interest or set of objectives that I seek to have enshrined in this legislation.
In relation to amendments Nos. 59, 60, 65, 67, 70 and 71, I explained at length in the other House that the reference to community television in section 38 is made in the context of cable and MMD systems. Cable and MMD systems are specifically mentioned because of the channel capacities such systems have. However, one of the limitations of the systems is that they are specific to a particular geographic area, that is, the area franchised under licence granted by the ODTR.
I refer to the definition of community as set out in section 38(8): " a town or other urban or rural area". The use of the word "local" throughout section 38 is consistent with the limitations inherent in the systems on which community channels will be distributed because they will be community channels distributed at a local level.
The definition of community proposed in amendment No. 71 introduces the concept of community of interest irrespective of geographical proximity or location. I do not see how a television channel of any kind on cable or MMD can be distributed under those conditions. The geo graphic limitations of cable and MMD are a fact and must be addressed as such. That is not to say that the concept of a community of interests is not valid. The provisions of section 38 as drafted allow the commission to grant community content contracts to communities representing particular interests within a specific area.
The definition of the communities set out in section 38(8) does not rule out community of interest channels. It simply reflects the physical reality of the limitations of cable and MMD. Therefore, I am unable to support amendments Nos. 59, 60, 65, 67, 70 and 71.
I disagree with the Minister. I think she is misguided in simply limiting the cable or MMD channels to a locally defined geographic area, whether urban or rural. There are plenty of shared community interests that are not defined in geographic terms. I think that the legislation should leave an option there. The shared interest basis is not necessarily locally based and I think the Minister should open up the legislation to that possibility. Think of musicians, like Senator Ó Murchú. Will all sean-nós singers be in a geographical setting in Connemara or Ring or the Kerry Gaeltacht? A local community music station could be based in a number of specified areas but be wider than any geographical entity. We should highlight the shared interest in community terms rather than shared location.
There is not such a divergence of opinion between Senator Costello and me. I agree that the concept of community of interest is valid. It is not a question of my wishing to limit the sense of community but of having to address the technical realities that limit it to a geographical area. It is not the concept of community that the Senator and I differ over but simply the technical realities that have to be addressed. In that vein, I cannot accept these amendments.
Of course there are technical realities but these can be addressed. The legislation should be broad ranging and leave scope for technical adjustment which might now be a problem but could be sorted out in the future. There is a difference and I think the legislation should be more flexible. People involved in community media networking also hold the view that the legislation should be wider in scope and they see a broader definition of community as more desirable in the operational context of this legislation.
I listened with great interest to Senator Costello and the Minister and I am a little confused. I feel that we have a sense of place here in Ireland and if one looks at how franchises are allocated across the world it is clear that this is done on a technical basis. The necessity to ensure that there is no overlap between different franchise areas is important. I fail to understand how specifying the word local inhibits the diver sity of programmes that reflect the community to which the programme contractors are transmitting. I would be glad if Senator Costello addressed this point.
I am concerned also about the continued operation of pirate radio. I understand that this is not the Minister's responsibility and that is was her colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, who set up the legislation in question. I do not understand how these operators are allowed to continue 13 years after the 1988 Act which introduced draconian penalties for assisting illegal radio operators. The Office of the Director of Telecommunication Regulation and Miss Etain Doyle have not adequately explained why it has not shut down pirate radio stations that are trampling across the airwaves and interfering with law-abiding franchise holders.
I am particularly concerned about those involved with community licences. I recently received a complaint from community licence holders in Dublin who find that the frequency they were allocated is being dumped on by a pirate station which has been operating with impunity in their franchise area for several years. One can understand the frustrations of the community operators because the legislation prevents them seeking to generate advertising revenue in excess of 50% of their income. Consequently they are anxious to have a level playing field.
I call on the Minister to use whatever influence she has, within the limits of her legislative mandate, to impress upon the Office of the Director of Telecommunication Regulation that it must ensure that the law is upheld as well as fulfilling its duty to regulate the broadcasting industry. The Independent Radio and Television Commission is addressing the needs of the broadcasting community and it is no longer justifiable to tolerate the operation of pirate radio stations. It was perhaps justifiable when there were fewer radio stations and less diversity but that is no longer a valid reason.
I would be grateful for some clarity on the subject of local community operators. The Minister has attempted to address the issue as best she can but I cannot see how the deletion of ‘local' from the various sections would promote the diversity of programming and reflect the sense of place that I mentioned earlier.
We are not just talking about a sense of place in terms of community radio or television channels. A sense of place is a wonderful concept but we are talking about the award of community licences. Will it be possible for the Traveller community to have a community channel? Because they do not reside in a specific geographical location this legislation will specifically prohibit the Traveller community from applying. How can we reflect our diversity of values and cultures when we give out the channels? Why should we restrict it to a geographical area? If women, as a community group, wanted to seek a licence to project gender issues, they would have to be in a specific geographical area to apply.
A community of interest should be the key theme in the distribution of licences rather than a community based on a local, geographical area. I am not knocking local, geographical areas, which are a valuable basis for issuing licences, but it is important to promote a diversity that includes locality plus other factors.
The section only refers to community television channels on cable and MMDS. It is open to adjustment but the commission is not limited, and the legislation is wide open for community groups to apply for licences on other broadcasting platforms such as radio. That is the kernel of the argument here.
On the issue of pirate radio, which Senator Mooney is particularly exercised about, I know he is aware that this is not my area of responsibility but that of another Department and the Office of the Director of Telecommunication Regulation.
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 39, subsection (2), line 7, to delete "local."
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 61 to 64, inclusive, amendment No. 68 and amendment No. 69 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 39, subsection (2), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(b)that mechanisms are put in place specifically to permit the active participation in the compilation and supply of programme material by all members of that community, and voluntary and community organisations active in that community,"
Amendment No. 61 and amendment No. 64 would impose very onerous obligations on the commission with regard to the level of community participation required before a contract can be used. It seems to me that under the proposed amendments a small number of dissenting voices could prevent the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland from granting a community content contract. While it would be desirable if the commission could achieve the level of co-operation envisaged by the Senator, it is important to allow it to act in the interests of the community rather than the interests of a small number of persons or organisations who may not wish to accept any ideas on community broadcasting other than their own.
The deletion of sections 39(4) and 39(5) as proposed in amendment No. 64 would undermine the consultative process which the commission would be required to undertake before a community content contract would be granted. This process ensures that the community is given a chance to influence the nature of the community services it wishes to see broadcast. Accordingly I cannot support amendments Nos. 61 and 64. However, I appreciate the importance of community participation in successful establishment of community television.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 stress the importance of participation and the interest of community in the context of a survey to be undertaken by the commission after the launch of a particular community channel. Section 39(6)(a) was inserted by the Dáil to take account of this particular concern. I could not take paragraph (b) of amendment No. 69 as I believe it is adequately dealt with in the existing section 39(6)(b)(ii).
On amendments Nos. 62 and 63, I am satisfied the provisions contained in 39(2), as drafted, are sufficient to ensure community content contracts will only be granted to those who are representative of the community and that the operation of the channel will be on a no profit basis and its content will address the interests of that community. Accordingly I cannot accept amendments Nos. 62 and 63.
What the amendments seek to ensure that there is active consultation with all members of the community and that that take place prior to the granting of the licence and also that there is active participation and consultation, subsequently, on the content. The Minister says that would impose an excessively onerous burden but that there will be consultation and participation. I seek assurance from the Minister that it will be democratic and that there will be active participation and consultation in community television.
It is very difficult to disagree with Senator Costello in the spirit of this amendment and the previous one. There is a conflict between idealism and pragmatism. I welcome the Minister's response on the consultative nature. The whole idea of local or community radio was to reflect the aspirations, talents and strengths of that community. There is always a danger that, like national radio, it will become over-commercialised and look at the bottom line of how much money is being made. I understand the spirit of what the Senator is saying, but he seems happy with what he is hearing from the Minister. I hope that is the case.
I echo what Senator Ó Murchú has said. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Senator Costello. The Minister has moved to reassure the House on that point.
Will there be competition in the franchise area? There is no competition now in the allocated local radio franchise areas. That is not in any way a reflection of the excellent work that local radio is doing. We started on a blank page in 1990, following the 1988 legislation, in establishing a role for local radio, much of which is community based. We are now moving to a new era of broadcasting on the digital platform which will permit a larger number of digital television channels than would be allowed under the existing radio spectrum. When the commission are mandated to allocate franchises for local community digital television, will there be a competitive element within the franchise area? That would go a long way to address the issues raised by Senator Costello and endorsed by Senator Ó Murchú.
On consultation, will there be any obstacles placed in the way of those who wish to apply for licences? Would there, for example, be any obstacle to an application by an outside corporation for a community television as distinct to an application that would be representative of the community? This is an area that concerns me. As the area of digital television opens up, with the vast array of television channels that would be available under the new technology, multinational corporations may see this as an attractive option. It has already happened in the case of the proposed take-over of Cork radio by UTV. I accept that the Minister can only go so far in enabling legislation, but I would like to hear her thinking on this matter.
I am fully in favour of community radio on a non-profit basis. I support everything that has been said here. As Senator Mooney has said, the arrival of digital television will be a whole new area that needs much consideration.
I want to ensure that the commission is in a position to act in the interests of the community rather than in the interests of a small number of persons or organisations who may not wish to accept any ideas on community broadcasting other than their own. I want to ensure that the definitions of community that we have been discussing and that we agree on will be reflected in reality. This discussion only refers to cable and MMDS.
In answer to Senator Mooney's question, there is a possibility for more than one in any local area. There could be both a local and a community channel in any area.
With regard to outside interests becoming involved, that could arise with commercial stations, but not with community ones.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 62 to 64, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 39, subsection (4), line 34, to delete "local".
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 66 not moved.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 39, subsection (6), line 47, to delete "local".
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 68 to 71, inclusive, not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
Sections 40 and 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Amendment No. 72. Amendment No. 73 is related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 72 and 73 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 41, line 26, after "43” to insert “being a day not later than 6 months from the passing of this Act, during which time the Minister shall publish a comprehensive policy on funding Teilifís na Gaeilge”.
I am satisfied that I cannot support amendment No. 72 which seeks to tie the establishment of TG4 as a separate statutory entity to the publication of a comprehensive policy relating to the Irish language. Establishing TG4 as an entity in its own right will be a complex process established by the provisions in the Bill. The policy of the Government is that it should be a separate broadcasting institution. This is in line with the policy of successive Governments involved in its establishment.
This element of policy is not dependent on any other policy matter. My priority in this regard is to have TG4 established properly and comprehensively. The precise amount of time it may take to do this is not and cannot be more important than getting the job done properly. There will be many difficult and complex issues to be addressed and it would not be appropriate to establish TG4 as a separate statutory entity until such issues are resolved satisfactorily. Issues such as the appropriate level of staffing and financing and the ongoing relationship between RTE and TG4 into the future all need to be clarified and pinned down beforehand. Accordingly, I cannot accept amendment No. 73.
If six months is too short, can I take it that two years is too long? Will the Minister indicate if she will strike a happy compromise for us? Properly establishing TG4 means having it established within a reasonable timeframe. There are always difficulties with a new entity but we have been more or less over this ground before in terms of staff, funding, programme content and the relationship between the other stations and channels. It is not new ground and what is required is a commitment to establish TG4 on a statutory basis as quickly as possible. This issue should not be left hanging as changes can take place quickly. The Minister may not be Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in the next Administration, which may come to power before too long. Given the lifetime of the Government, I thought six months was a reasonable period so that this could be done during the Minister's term of office.
The announcement by the Minister that TG4 will be a separate statutory body is a kudos for all those who supported the station and the professionals involved in it. They have taken much consolation and hope from the Minister's action in this regard.
Like the Minister, I would like to be sure that the foundations are solid and that this is not rushed through merely for the sake of it. We owe it to all those involved in TG4 to ensure that they get the support they so richly deserve. The best way of doing this is to ensure that those who wish to have an input to the organic approach to TG4 can have it. I think we all share Senator Costello's desire to see this happening soon. We all share the pride in TG4. Many prophets of doom said that TG4 would not last, but I now hear people with a minimum of Irish or no Irish praise the station. TG4 has an exceptionally bright future and I have no doubt the Minister and Government are reflecting this in the legislation. I wish the Minister well in this regard.
I congratulate TG4 on all it has achieved. All Governments have played a part in the success of the station. As an advertiser, I was the first person to put continuous advertising on the sports sections during the broadcasting of All Ireland Finals twice a week.
It is to the great credit of TG4 that it has given rural areas the type of programmes people love to watch. TG4 makes them proud to be Irish and proud of the achievements of people and their areas. This Irish station broadcasts programmes on everything that is good about Ireland and I cannot praise it enough for its achievements to date. I fully support the Minister's proposals as they will further enhance the station and give it the finances and necessary supports to enable it to continue to be a success.
I endorse the comments made by my colleagues in regard to TG4. I wish to put on the record my acknowledgement of the outstanding contribution an chéad ceannaire of TG4, Cathal Goan, made to the establishment of the station. TG4 hit the ground running and it has not stopped. As Senator Cassidy accurately said, those in the larger national broadcasting organisation in Dublin 4 should reflect on the fact that the ethos of TG4 was centred on the real Ireland. There has been none of the criticism of the philosophy and programme content of TG4 that we hear on a continuous basis about RTE, the parent station. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from this. Having moved from Contae na Gaillimhe and the good environment of the west, Cathal Goan will be like a breath of fresh air in the corridors of Montrose. Having spoken to Mr. Goan on a number of occasions since he took up his appointment as head of programming, he will bring a fresh approach to RTE. I hope this is reflected in a wider diversity of programmes on RTE radio and television.
Senator Costello expressed concern that the Minister may not retain her portfolio following the next election. As the Labour Party has high expectations of being in the next Government, irrespective of who its partners will be, I am sure the Senator will ensure that the legislation is implemented as speedily as possible.
Given that Deputy Michael D. Higgins was the man who got the show on the road I am sure it will be continued.
It is only fair to acknowledge that and I have been happy to do so on other occasions. For the Senator's benefit, when the Bill was first published some people were concerned that I was trying to push TG4 into becoming a separate entity straightaway. I explained that this was enabling legislation, I wanted to make the transitional period easier and ensure that no move would be made until everything was put in place and TG4 was happy with the proposals.
Since publication of the Bill matters have progressed. There are those in TG4 who wish to see the separate entity set up under the right conditions. Work has already started on the plans for the separate establishment. To put a time limit on it as suggested by the Senator would not be helpful because it is important that the job is done correctly from the beginning in a coherent and co-ordinated fashion. It is in everyone's interest, particularly TG4, that it would proceed in that manner.
We would like to see it unfolding as quickly as possible. Certainly every encouragement will be given to ensure that work already undertaken will progress speedily but at the same time it will be necessary to be cautious in the sense of taking every issue on board to ensure the transfer will be a happy one for TG4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 42 agreed to.
Amendment No. 73 not moved.
Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 42, subsection (4)(a), line 18, after “affairs” to insert “which will include coverage of Irish language and Gaeltacht current affairs”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 43, lines 41 to 43, to delete paragraph (c).
I am proposing the deletion of what seems to be an unnecessary and undesirable choice of words in section 46(c) which reads:
In performing its functions, Teilifís na Gaeilge –
(c)shall uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression,
because therein is an implication that Teilifís na Gaeilge might not, or might not fully, uphold constitutional values or rightful liberty of expression. If that is the case similar provisions would have to be inserted into all types of legislation. I would be surprised if this type of provision is part of the establishment of RTE. This is a load of twaddle and it is unbecoming any administration to presume there is a need for this type of provision to be incorporated in legislation. Teilifís na Gaeilge is subject to the Constitution in the same way as every other individual or corporate body in the State and surely that section should be deleted. We expect it will uphold democratic values and all rightful liberty of expression. The least the Minister could do is delete that section and not embarrass the new fledgling body she is about to be set up on a statutory basis.
There is no implication that TG4 would act other than in the most correct way. It is important that this type of provision should be set out in law. TG4 will be treated in the same way as every other broadcaster and, therefore, will have to comply, as every other broadcaster does, with the Constitution. It is not a question of pointing the finger but rather that the same rules would apply to everyone in law. That is the reason for this provision.
Everybody has to uphold the law. It does not have to be written into the legislation. The legislation is the law. Every body established under the law is subject to the law. I do not recollect having seen this type of provision in any previous legislation which has come before us. Rather than speak about upholding democratic values and rightful liberty, why does the provision not simply say that Teilifís na Gaeilge in peforming its functions shall uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Why specify two elements of the rule of law – democratic values and rightful liberty? It seems to me this is unnecessary and there is no reason for it in the Bill.
I would have seen this as an improved status for TG4, although it might sound convoluted. Until now it was viewed as a subsidiary of RTE whereas now it has autonomy under this legislation. In the same way that RTE is governed by statute and by charter, I believe TG4 would like to think it is on an level playing pitch. I was inclined to interpret it in that way rather than as an unusual restriction on it.
I take the point made by Senator Costello. Teilifís na Gaeilge represents all that is fine in terms of who we are and of our cultural identity. The station was set up for the purpose of furthering the Irish language, spoken, written and through the medium of television. While it may seem a narrow Nationalist view – and I have no wish that my remarks be interpreted as such – why not take the opportunity, when celebrating the legal establishment of an all-Irish language television station, to state that we wish it to uphold democratic values as enshrined in the Constitution. Perhaps I view it differently from the Minister and others. Although it is a legal instrument it is also symbolic and is a reflection of those who cherish and love the Irish language and who see it as a badge of our identity. Without labouring the point, I cannot but reflect on two current examples. The first is the advertisement on RTE to promote the language. It consists of a young man in a fast food establishment who sits down beside two young ladies who are having a conversation in Irish. They assume the young man cannot speak the language and obviously they pass some complimentary remarks about him. He responds immediately to what they have said and they are aghast. The point is that young people especially are becoming more aware of the importance of their language as a separate badge of our identity. The second example relates to the time when people travelled abroad for the first time. When in the company of foreign nationals who spoke their own language, they immediately felt somewhat outside and began to recite the Hail Mary and the Our Father to each other to convey that they too had a separate language. We have moved on from that. As recent statistics indicate, not only do more people speak the language but more wish to speak it. Long may that be the case.
I subscribe fully to the philosophy of Micheál Ó Muircheartaigh, the former Cathaoirleach of Bord na Gaeilge, who believes in a multilingual and bilingual society where we will eventually be able to speak in Irish and English as part of our everyday speech. He, of course, is the best exponent of that. That is how I feel about this section, without going into dreamy Nationalist vistas.
Like the Senators who have already contributed to the debate, I wish to again put on record that we are very proud of the high standards and quality set by TG4. Many other broadcasters throughout Europe would do well to follow its example. This obligation is appropriate to all television broadcasters and the basis of the section was the interpretation given by Senator Ó Murchú. What we are doing here is ensuring that all television broadcasters are obliged to follow this requirement. I see no reason TG4 would be exempt from this provision, nor do I believe it would wish to be exempt. In my view, this provision will not cause TG4 any problem and, as Senator Ó Murchú pointed out, it will give it the status of being exactly on the same level and not a subsidiary of any other broadcaster.
I do not wish to prolong the debate but if this type of phraseology and section is in all the legislation relating to public broadcasting, then it should be deleted. It is insulting to any organisation to suggest that specific aspects of the Constitution should be elicited and that it must be subject to those particular aspects. It goes beyond that because it states that Teilifís na Gaeilge must be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland. These are unnecessary concepts which have a whiff of Teilifís na Gaeilge being in some form a little bit subversive, that it cannot be relied on to be fair and democratic in its programming, that in some way it will not give rightful expression to issues or will not uphold all the democratic values. I do not see this provision as enhancing the role of Teilifís na Gaeilge but undermining it by implying that these fundamental areas of law need to be hammered home for the station.
I reject the Senator's interpretation of this provision because we are not talking about mere compliance. We have outlined the very positive role TG4 has played in terms of the Irish language and broadcasting generally. Because of the particular strength of the medium of television, it is in a very special position, as are all other broadcasters, to give a lead, as it were, in the community. What we are doing is giving it a very strong role here in terms of the role it can play in upholding these particular values. Therefore, there is an onus on TG4 and I have every reason to believe that not only will it carry out that responsibility, and it is not a question of mere compliance, but it will take on a leadership role in upholding these democratic values.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 46 stand part of the Bill."
There seems to be a typographical error in the section. Section 46(d) reads that Teilifís na Gaeilge “shall have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of countries other than the State. . . ”. Should that read “of other states other than the Irish State”? Are countries and states not two separate concepts? The paragraph goes on to read, “. . . including in particular those of the Member States. . . ”, not member countries. Surely the terminology should be similar throughout and the word should be “state”, not “country”. I presume this would be a technical amendment and would not require a formal amendment.
The wording is consistent with other broadcasting legislation, therefore, I do not see any problem in this regard.
It is bad English.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 47 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
I was asked earlier if the House would agree to take the Final Stages of the Bill at 2.15 p.m. The Senators who approached me on the matter spoke with all the leaders on the other side and I would be very grateful if the House would agree accordingly.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Report Stage ordered for 2.15 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.