This meeting has been convened for the purpose of considering the Broadcasting (Funding) Bill 2003 from the Seanad. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, and officials of his Department. I propose we consider the Bill today until 4.30 p.m. If we have not concluded by then, a further meeting may be considered or, if the committee so wishes, we may continue until consideration of the Bill is completed. Is that agreed? Agreed. Members should be as brief as possible with a view to concluding the business today.
Broadcasting (Funding) Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
On a point of clarification, will the Minister of State also take the remaining Stages of the Bill next week, or will the responsibility switch from one Minister to another? This is a serious point. If we are trying to persuade a Minister to accept amendments which we consider valid and genuine, it is not unreasonable to insist that the same Minister takes the Bill through all Stages, if that is possible. I am aware that the senior Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, took the Bill through the Seanad. Will the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, have the authority to accept amendments, as distinct from having to go back to his senior Minister and will he will take Report Stage?
I agree with Deputy Coveney's comments. It is unsatisfactory to have different Ministers taking a Bill at various Stages in the Houses and committees. Perhaps the business of the committee could be ordered in advance to take account of the Minister's schedule of commitments, thereby facilitating a degree of continuity throughout the legislative process. I hope the Minister of State will be in a position to accept amendments without our having to await a final yea or nay from the senior Minister in the Department, Deputy Dermot Ahern. If that flexibility does not apply, the legislative process becomes difficult for the Opposition. While certain amendments may be rejected for reasons which we can accept, there will also be situations where logic and reason will be on the side of the amendments and I hope there will be sufficient freedom to accept them.
Having initiated the Bill in the Dáil and taken Committee Stage today, I will also have responsibility for the concluding Stages, whether they take place next week or later. When dealing with previous Bills, I have always tried to be flexible and open-minded towards suggestions from Opposition spokespersons. Having listened carefully to the arguments put forward, if there are worthwhile amendments which we can consider taking on board, we will do so.
The situation with regard to Bills being taken by Ministers or Ministers of State is common to all Departments. For instance, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, will be in Brussels today and tomorrow. I understand he will also be out of the country next week and, in the following week, he will be involved in the fisheries council. Having regard to commitments involving important business abroad, it is not always possible to have continuity in terms of a certain Minister or Minister of State taking a Bill through all Stages in the Houses. However, as far as this Bill is concerned, I will be dealing with it all the way through.
Did I correctly understand the Minister of State to say there are some amendments which he will consider favourably?
I have in the past listened to what Opposition Deputies have had to say and taken amendments on board. I am not saying I will take amendments on board today, but I am prepared to listen and make decisions on the basis of the arguments put forward.
I understand the Opposition will press some amendments today.
SECTION 1.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 19 and 27 are related and may be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
" 'Authority' means Radio Telefís Éireann;".
The amendment goes to the heart of the argument which I and my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, put forward on Second Stage. While we are in favour of an additional fund of this nature being spread across the gamut of broadcasting, we are not in favour of the thin end of the wedge, as it were, being applied to the licence fee of the national broadcaster. We prefer that, if such a scheme is to exist, it will be as part of Radio Telefís Éireann's remit. In the amendment, I sought to the best of my ability, in the context of the Bill, to remedy the situation by inserting the word "Authority", meaning Radio Telefís Éireann rather than the future broadcasting authority or the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland.
Like previous speakers, I also regret the absence of the senior Minister, although I am always pleased to see the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, who is one of the most affable and competent Members of the Oireachtas. I congratulate him on his achievement yesterday - if it ever materialises - in bringing the Custom House and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to Wexford town. I hope it will be a great boost to his county, which is also my ancestral county.
The Deputy should not embarrass the Minister of State. Maybe there will be something for Ballyboughal as well.
I hope the expectations of Wexford will be fulfilled by the Government.
Deputy Broughan might come to Wexford as a Minister one day.
That would be great. One could not be in a better place. While the Minister of State has ably taken us through fishing and some other parts of his Department's portfolio, it is regrettable that the great communicator, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is not here to tease out these issues with us. We would have preferred to have seen the new broadcasting authority Bill first to see where all this is leading.
I have tried in amendment No. 1 to ensure the word "Authority" means RTE. This fund should be administered for the foreseeable future by the national broadcaster and nobody else. When RTE has been represented at the committee, we have encouraged it to link up with community and special needs broadcasting. I welcome the many amendments which have been tabled to make accessibility provisions for people with disabilities. The national broadcaster has done very well in this regard, unlike some of the commercial broadcasters.
Are we dealing with all the amendments together?
They are all related.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete the word "Commission" and substitute the word "Authority", by which I mean to refer to RTE.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 19 and 27 are being taken together by agreement.
Why have these amendments been linked?
Amendment No. 27 is clearly linked with amendments Nos. 1 and 3, but I do not see why amendment No. 4 is included.
The amendments were put together for us by the Bills Office.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to delete the words "and submit to the Minister for his or her approval". I seek to make this amendment on the basis of the Minister's speech to the Seanad in which he said broadcasting should be left to the broadcasters. If we want schemes to have full editorial integrity, whether it is through RTE, the new broadcasting authority or the existing broadcasting commission, we should be fearful of ministerial influence over even the basic remit of the schemes themselves.
In recent months, the national broadcaster has had problems with monthly reporting, the charter and programme commitments. These are due to the licence income. A possible downside to the national broadcaster's commitments is that its integrity may be interfered with. We have seen channels like Fox News and Sky News seem to act as advocates of a certain party rather than as independent reporting organisations. There were examples of this during the recent Iraq war. Outrageously, as the Minister might remember, Sky News failed to report the death of one of its star reporters who allegedly faked a report from Iraq and tragically took his own life.
Any attempt to interfere with the editorial integrity of broadcasters should be resisted, which is why I am fearful of giving the Minister such extensive control of this scheme. While the sum involved is only €7 million or €8 million at present, this could increase over time. I took two key points from the Minister's speech to the Seanad. He said there should be additionality, which the Labour Party does not believe this Bill's provisions represent, and that broadcasting should be left to the broadcasters. For that reason, we should make amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 19 follows on from amendment No. 4. According to the Bill as drafted, a scheme of the content and structure of the new programming fund will have to be submitted to the Minister for his or her approval. Deputy Eamon Ryan rightly seeks to amend the Bill to ensure that the scheme should at least be brought before this committee. Such a provision would ensure there was some democratic control.
Amendment No. 27 refers to the Bill's Title. It seeks to insert the words "RADIO TELEFÍS ÉIREANN" in substitution for the current wording. I note that "telefís" is spelt differently in the broadcaster's annual report to the way it has been spelt in the Bill. Perhaps our drafters need to check that.
The Labour Party wishes to see the licence fee remain the responsibility of the national broadcaster and to have the same integrity as it does in the case of the BBC. We do not want to see ministerial interference. There has been a shocking history of attempted interference with the national broadcaster over the years. One thinks back to the late 1980s and former Minister Ray Burke who imposed stringent and unfair conditions on RTE. There should be no interference with content or the editorial integrity of broadcasting.
The proposed amendments would have the effect of assigning responsibility for the scheme to RTE and are outside the scope of the Bill. They cannot, therefore, be accepted. While RTE has undoubted expertise in the commissioning of programmes, the purpose of the scheme is to encourage an improvement in quality programmes in all broadcasting services, not simply in RTE. It would not be right for RTE to administer this scheme, even if it were open to all broadcasters, as its position as a fund applicant would represent an unacceptable conflict of interest. RTE would be in a position to decide on funding between television and radio and among public sector, commercial, local and community broadcasting services. It could decide on the types of programmes to be funded, set out the assessment procedures and make the final decisions. These functions are best left to the independent body, the BCI, as provided for in the legislation.
It would not be in the best interests of the sector to make Deputy Broughan's amendments. It would not be fair to put RTE in such an invidious position. RTE would not wish to be in that position itself. The Minister's only involvement in the scheme will be to improve it and to ensure the BCI acts in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. He has no role to play in terms of the formulation or implementation of programmes. These matters are left at the discretion of the independent BCI. The Minister has no other function than to approve the scheme.
Under section 2, to which many Opposition amendments have been tabled, is it not the case that the Minister could exercise great influence, if he wished, in determining the structure of funding?
My main concern - there are various concerns to be addressed in the amendments to the Bill - is that section 2(6) allows the Minister to direct the commission to support a television or radio programme under a scheme. If this does not represent ministerial power extending to the micro-level, which the Minister of State says he does not want to apply, I do not know what does. How does he respond to this concern?
I cannot support amendments Nos. 1 and 3 for the obvious reason of my amendment No. 2. Fine Gael supports the establishment of a fund run independently of RTE. This is not to say we do not recognise RTE's contribution to the independent sector in terms of promoting certain types of positive programming. I support of Deputy Broughan's amendment No. 19 and agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan that it is not true to say the Minister is only approving schemes in general. This is clear from section 2(6) which states:
(6) The Minister may direct the Commission-
(a) to support in a scheme a television or radio programme in relation to any particular matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1), or.
Section 2(7), which Deputy Broughan plans to delete, states that: "Any amendment or revocation of a scheme under subsection (5) or (6) shall be submitted by the Commission to the Minister for his or her approval”. Therefore, the Minister is getting involved in micro-management regardless of whether we want to accept this. It is a dangerous precedent to set in the Bill.
Let us give the responsibility to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, or the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland as it will be known in 12 months. If the commission wants to make general changes to policy, the Minister, who is responsible for policy, needs to be able to give his approval. However, individual micro-management in terms of whether programmes receive grant aid should not be a function of the Minister. The Minister of State needs to examine this area carefully because it is clear that what he said is incorrect.
The Minister is only empowered to direct the commission to draw up a scheme. There are four schemes to be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas by way of legislation. If the commission decided to use the same scheme each year, for example, the Minister could draw attention to the fact that three schemes are being ignored. This is the only way he can influence the commission. He has no power to influence the content of a programme. The commission will receive the money and reallocate it to the different programmes. However, if it ignores three of the four schemes, is the Minister supposed to stand idly by?
Unless my understanding of English has changed since my school days, it is not a question of whether the Minister wants a certain type of scheme. The language is clear. It states:
(6) The Minister may direct the Commission-
(a) to support in a scheme a television or radio programme in relation to any particular matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1), or.
The Minister may dictate to the commission that he wants a particular television programme included in the scheme. This is direct ministerial interference in broadcasters' editorial policy. I cannot understand how section 2(6) could be interpreted in a manner that would suggest anything other than that the Minister would have direct control over whether individual programmes should be included.
I agree with what Deputy Eamon Ryan has said and wish to add to it. If the commission decides to revoke a scheme for genuine reasons, such as the abuse of funds or the lack of value for money, the Minster can decide it cannot be revoked. Section 2(6)(b) states that the Minister may direct the commission to “amend or revoke a scheme”. This is the kind of ministerial intervention from which we have been trying to move away in a series of Acts. An obvious example in this regard is fishing licensing. The kind of lobbying Ministers will be subjected to under this Bill will be unacceptable.
We have no amendment tabled to address this. We are happy enough with the wording that the Minister can only direct the commission if it ignores schemes. He cannot direct it in respect of the content of a programme, types of programmes or what programmes will receive money. He can only do so in the event of the four schemes not being administered by the commission.
Deputy Eamon Ryan may disagree with the wording but the parliamentary draftsman has drawn it up specifically to state the Minister can only direct the commission in the event of a scheme being ignored.
Why not give independence and statutory responsibility to what will presumably be called the BAI? We will have given it strict guidelines and we are trying to add a few more. We have been lobbied regarding these amendments. For example, I have tabled an amendment on science because some believe that, because we are becoming a scientific civilisation, there is not enough science on the national broadcaster's stations and even on the commercial stations. We should have more science and science related programmes on television.
We have set down fairly strict guidelines on the general character of the schemes and therefore we should allow the commission the freedom to make its own decisions. As the Minister, Deputy Ahern, stated, let the broadcasters do the broadcasting, which we as viewers will judge.
My first inclination was to table an amendment to delete section 2(6) completely. This would not affect the quality of the Bill in any way. However, because I was interested to hear the Minister of State's reason for including the section, I felt it would be better to ask if there was a reasonable reason a Minister would have to state why a certain television or radio programme should receive funding or why he should support one. In this context, I tabled amendment No. 21 which requires that any such direct interference by a Minister in editorial policy would at least be open to public scrutiny. This committee would provide a forum for such scrutiny. Under what circumstances does the Minister of State believe the Minister would have to say to the commission that a certain programme should receive funding?
If what the Minister of State is saying were true, I would happily support him. Will he point out the location of the wording to which he referred which will result in a Minister getting involved only when there are programmes being left out of schemes?
Section 2(6) states quite clearly that the Minister may direct the commission to support in a scheme a television or radio programme regarding a specific matter referred to. Section 2(7) states: "Any amendment or revocation of a scheme under subsection (5) or (6) shall be submitted by the Commission to the Minister for his or her approval.” This means the Minister can approve his own decision. The BCI can only make a decision to revoke a scheme on the Minister’s say so. Will the Minister of State show us the wording in the legislation that will lay our minds at rest and make it clear that the Minister is not getting involved in the micro-management of either revoking or granting schemes?
There is no evidence that the Minister wishes to interfere in the editorial content of these schemes.
That is not what we said.
Deputy Ryan referred to it. Guidelines and policies will be laid down that will have to be followed. If these are transgressed it will go back to the Minister. Other than that, I cannot see any Minister getting involved in the micro-management or editorial content. The editorial content of these programmes is going to be uncontentious.
Did the Deputy's former leader, Sean Lemass, not telephone Radio Telifís Éireann?
If we going to discuss history I will do so too. A Labour Minister for Posts and Telegraphs fired the entire RTE Authority.
This is the crux of the Bill.
When Deputy Ryan has finished speaking I will ask the Minister to respond and then I will put the question.
No one is saying that any Minister is seeking to exert editorial influence on any programme. However, if we pass the Bill as it stands, it will give any future Minister the power to do this. Given the history of the engagement by other parties in direct interference in editorial policy, referred to by other Deputies, I would have thought everyone should agree that this is not an intelligent way to proceed in broadcasting policy.
The role of the Minister is to ensure the delivery of the objectives laid down in the legislation. As the Opposition Deputies are unhappy with the wording we will consider any amendments they table for Report Stage. We are providing for four schemes and the BCI will have the opportunity of implementing them. For example, if the commission decides not to implement three of the schemes, surely they must be accountable to the Minister and their reports must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The commission is accountable to the Oireachtas through the Minister.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 18, after "Ireland" to insert "or the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland".
While the wording of the amendment may not be ideal, its purpose is to make a point. We are dealing with legislation that sets out broadcasting funding policy in the medium to long-term. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland probably will not exist in eight months time, or should not if the Government is on track in establishing the broadcasting authority of Ireland. By the time this legislation is enacted, its terminology may well be outdated. The BAI, which will take on the function of both the BCI and the RTE Authority, will deal with this fund from August next. Would it not be prudent to include a reference in the Bill that we will deal with the BAI in the future?
As the broadcasting authority is not yet in existence it cannot be anticipated in legislation. The legislation for the broadcasting authority will make provision for the transfer of necessary functions from the broadcasting commission, such as the broadcasting fund scheme, in due course. We cannot accept this amendment.
I accept what the Minister of State has said about not being able to refer in legislation to a body that does not yet exist.
The Deputy can rest assured that all functions will be transferred.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 12 and 13, to delete "and submit to the Minister for his or her approval".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Ryan, Eamon.
Níl
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Kelly, Peter.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11 and 24 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, subsection (1)(a), lines 15 and 16, to delete “Irish culture, heritage and experience” and substitute “the diversity of culture, heritage and experience on the island of Ireland”.
This amendment refers to the broadcasting fund scheme and the general characteristics of the new television and radio programmes. I want to broaden the definition of "Irish culture, heritage and experience" to include diversity on the island of Ireland, given that the reference to "Irish" culture might be perceived to be the traditional culture of part of the nation.
The amendment seeks to ensure that all of the nation, as I and most others regard it, is included to encompass that part of the public in Northern Ireland, who judging by the recent election, do not consider themselves fully part of our nation. I wish to include all of that heritage and culture. For example, we get information on the Scots tradition from the minority tradition on the island who are closely linked by blood to Scotland. This is interesting in the context of the achievements of the Irish and Scottish nations, particularly in countries to which their peoples emigrated, such as the United States. The remit of the amendment also includes people who have come here in the past four or five years and seeks to ensure that their culture, religion and traditions are recognised in these programmes.
Amendment No. 10 refers to the Irish experience in a European and international context. Like the Minister, a number of us have received extensive representations on Ireland's relationship with less economically developed countries from the southern hemisphere. Globalisation is a controversial topic and one that has to be kept under close review. Ireland is not sufficiently aware of the impact of the globalised economy on our socio-economic structure and that should be taken into account with these television programmes. Issues such as the impact of consumer products from southern hemisphere countries would be a fitting subject matter for these programmes. For example, 99% of our imports is brought in by ship and a programme on the conditions for those who work on those ships would be of particular interest to the Labour Party. We seek the widest remit under section 2(1)(a)(vii).
I have three main concerns with the Bill. The first concerns ministerial interference with individual programming. The second concerns subtitling, but the third, concerned with broadening the context beyond the traditional, narrow historical perspective of Irish culture, is the most important. We must recognise that the Irish experience is now a multicultural and multiethnic one. The wording to reflect that is difficult and I hope my proposed wording in amendment No. 9 is not too clumsy. We must reflect the immigrant experience in Ireland as well as ours abroad. Amendment No. 24 is an attempt to recognise the other ethnic cultures and experiences in Ireland. These are of interest to programme makers and members of the public.
Members spoke earlier of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, and his vision of Ireland. However, the Bill also refers to an earlier vision of "maidens dancing at the cross-roads". I have a fond regard for such a heritage and culture. However, I admire the modern Ireland, which is made up of a variety of different cultures and ethnic groups. We should celebrate and record their culture and heritage just as much as our own.
I am of a similar view to that expressed by my colleagues. Even though section 2(1)(a)(vii) refers to the Irish experience in European and international contexts, I am not convinced that is enough to offer hope to broadcasters who may wish to cover the multicultural nature of Irish society today. They may also want to cover the Irish experience abroad, such as the Irish business community in Boston. Other issues include how international experience affects Irish society, such as Afro-Celt music, and how Irish-Americans have influenced modern Irish culture such as “Riverdance”.
Successful television and radio programmes, most of them commissioned by RTE, may not be able to apply for funding because of the terminology used in the Bill. The programme, "Race to the Bottom" is a good example of a programme made to highlight how sweatshops in Bangladesh affected the clothing industry in Derry when companies moved operations to countries with cheaper labour forces. Tom Hyland's work on East Timor is another example. There are many other examples of programmes detailing the significant impact made by Irish people and communities abroad. There are also programmes highlighting the impact of foreign cultures on Irish society.
I understand the Minister of State does not want to exclude any of these experiences but the wording in the Bill should be more sufficient to cover this issue. In a recent conversation, an official at the Department agreed with what we were saying but asked if we could propose a better wording for the Bill. Although the wording differs, all these amendments have the same theme. If the Minister of State proposed an amendment which reflected this I would be happy not to move my one. However, I want to see an amendment that is broad enough in scope to reassure programme makers who are interested in the global Irish experience and its impact on our society that it would be beneficial for them to apply for funding under the scheme.
We might be losing sight of a reality here. The Minister of State has indicated he has at his disposal funding of €10 million for such programmes. Deputies may recall one of the most influential series of programmes on RTE television, "Bringing it all Back Home", which examined how Irish music affected the development of music styles in the United States, such as Appalachian music, and how, in turn, these developments affected Irish music. That series cost a lot more money than the amount of funding the Minister has at his disposal.
The other points made by Deputies were well put in that programming must reflect not just the Irish experience but international effects on Irish activities. On Report Stage, will the Minister of State devise a new wording in the Bill to encompass the diverse views expressed in these amendments?
Report Stage will take longer than Committee Stage if we keep referring to it. The focus on the proposed scheme on programmes relating to Irish culture, heritage and experience is specific but not as limited as suggested. While these concepts have a considerable historical dimension, they are, by definition, not static and continue to evolve. I cannot prejudge the content of the scheme or the likely success of any programme ideas that may be put forward. It should be possible to develop a variety of good quality programmes which can fit within the objectives as set out in the Bill. This includes programmes of a multicultural or international dimension, or which focus on the diversity of culture, heritage and experience on the island of Ireland.
I appreciate the suggestions by the Deputies but they are already covered in the Bill. We only have funding of €8 million at our disposal. We do not want to put it out of the reach of programme makers. Deputy Coveney cited the examples of specific programmes made by RTE and TV3, but we should not interfere in this. It is important they continue to make these programmes. While I cannot say what programmes will be made, we will do our best to allocate the money. Someone might decide to make a programme about my town of Enniscorthy through the ages, showing how we have had Normans, Vikings, and the Cork militia. We now have a Nigerian culture in Enniscorthy.
The Minister would be able to direct the BCI to ensure such a programme is not made.
Earlier the Deputy said he did not want me to interfere with the BCI. Over the past four or five years, about 100 Nigerian families have arrived in Enniscorthy. A programme about Enniscorthy through the ages should include coverage of the multi-cultural diversity that exists at the moment, which incorporates Romanians, Nigerians, Algerians, etc.
If a broadcaster applied to make a programme about Enniscorthy, which subsection in the Bill would justify the programme?
Why would the Minister not simply accept the word "diversity"?
Or the term "multi-cultural".
In answer to Deputy Ryan the Bill refers to Irish culture, heritage and experience. Would the word "experience" not cover a wide range?
Why should there be ambiguity?
The Minister is being specific on other issues such as historical buildings, the natural environment, traditional and contemporary arts and the Irish language. Then comes the ambiguous section concerning the Irish experience in European and international contexts. The Bill is specific on historical Irish culture but is vague on Ireland in a global context.
It fails to take account of the immigrant culture now in the country.
Historical buildings would not necessarily be Irish buildings and could beNigerian buildings, Viking buildings and other buildings that were not just built by the Irish.
This Bill may be the first opportunity to reflect the changes in the country. Earlier legislation on commercial broadcasting, the national broadcaster or local radio did not afford such an opportunity. It should not be necessary to continually seek ministerial approval. The BAI should be given the authority to pursue that if it wishes. I ask the Minister to reconsider this and introduce a Report Stage amendment that encompasses the point we are trying to make.
While I can certainly look at it, I believe Irish culture heritage and experience covers what the Deputies seek.
The Minister has indicated he is satisfied with the wording of the Bill as it stands and I am not.
We will reconsider this, based on what the Deputies, including DeputyFitzpatrick, have said. We will see what can be done.
Concern has not only expressed by Opposition spokespersons but also by outside bodies. It is not unreasonable to give slightly more clarity in the last subsection, which is all we seek. The mention of the words "global" or "multi-cultural" would ease people's minds.
It could even include the word "diversity".
We will reconsider it. Nobody is more aware of multi-culture than I am. There are about 600 families living in Wexford of all origins.
It is not just about immigrants.
I accept that. I think I will have to ask Deputy Fitzpatrick to leave the room.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (1)(a)(iii), line 21, after “environment” to insert “and science”.
While I welcome the inclusion of the natural environment, I feel we should add the word"science". There are specialist channels like National Geographic or Discovery, which could be said to be scientifically oriented. In preparing for this Bill, I was contacted by the Irish Research Scientists' Association, which specifically complained that the national broadcaster does not take science sufficiently seriously. Given the remit of the Department of Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources and of this committee, we should be anxious to take action. Projects like the work on the digital hub and other work that has taken place at the University of Limerick should be encouraged. With the exception of the "Seascapes" programme the whole maritime area is not covered in a sufficiently serious way by national and local broadcasters, which has led to a huge deficit in this area.
In the old days in Eastern Europe, in addition to support for high culture, classical music etc., the socialist countries had a strong emphasis on science and scientific development and achievement. While those countries might not have been distinguished in the areas of civil rights, etc., they had some impressive scientific development. I urge the Minister to consider adding this.
The existing wording and that of section 3, which sets out the objectives of the scheme, defines what the Bill is about. The categories of programmes are and will remain specifically on the subject indicated, that is Irish culture, heritage and experience and adult literacy. This is not to deny there may be many other interesting subjects for programmes, but rather it reflects two basic principles: the funding is limited and best focused on a specific category of programmes; and the funding should not overlap with existing requirements on broadcasters covering the provision of news and current affairs.
As part of the licence fee increase given to RTE this year, a focus was placed on the science area. When it received additional funding, RTE agreed to take on a science and education correspondent, which it has done. I do not believe we should get involved in this area considering the small amount of money available to us. It already exists as part of the licence fee given to RTE, which has agreed to this and is doing an excellent job,
It should be included in this legislation.
I tabled my amendment so that the Bill would be in line with Government policy. We had an excellent debate during the passage of the Arts legislation on this issue. I give credit to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, who listened to all the arguments on whether there was a difference between traditional and contemporary arts. He concluded firmly that it is not possible to differentiate between traditional and contemporary arts. I am a fan of traditional music. While someone like Martin Hayes is steeped in tradition - his father and all his ancestors were pure traditional musicians - he is as contemporary as they come. I do not know of a single musician who is not contemporary. I do not know what a traditional painter is. I cannot think of a traditional art form which is not contemporary. By confining an art form to a traditional format, as distinct from contemporary, one will tend to destroy it. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism has a clear view of the matter, on which I commend him. I believe the Bill should reflect the Government's position.
Perhaps my view differs from that of the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue. I am of the view that the distinction should be retained, both because it emphasises the focus on Irish heritage and because traditional arts are not necessarily encompassed by the customary understanding of contemporary arts.
Can the Minister give an example of a traditional art?
If a type of art or music has died out, is it suggested that it should not be included in a programme with a historical context?
As I see it, a distinction of this nature would not be valid in the context ofmusic.
What does the Deputy's amendment add to the Bill?
If one tries to place traditional music in a separate box, so to speak, as distinct from "contemporary" music, one tends to damage the very feature one is trying to protect.
Perhaps it is the Deputy who is putting it in a separate box?
No, I am simply saying that programmes should be based on the arts - the contemporary arts - including so-called traditional music or painting as well as modern music or painting. This was strongly debated in connection with the Arts Bill, in terms of setting up separate categories of the arts. At the end of that very intense and important debate, the Minister recognised that one cannot separate traditional and contemporary arts.
I am advised that our approach is consistent with that in the Arts Bill.
If we follow Deputy Ryan's argument to its logical conclusion, we should remove the words "traditional" and "contemporary", simply leaving the word "arts".
I would be happy with Deputy Fitzpatrick's suggestion.
Does that add anything to the Bill?
I am unclear as to how the removal of the word "traditional" improves the Bill, although I understand what Deputy Ryan has said. To take an example, if somebody proposed to do a programme on stone age art, in terms of painting on walls in caves, is that not traditional art, but not necessarily contemporary art?
Perhaps it could be considered as the start of a buildings category.
It relates to a cave. Perhaps the term "art" is sufficient. Does the change suggested improve the Bill?
We should not be debating how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. Those involved in the debate on the Arts Bill will realise that the question as to how we see ourselves and the Irish arts is a core issue. If we start differentiating between what is supposedly traditional and what is contemporary, that is the first step towards killing the traditional arts, by saying they cannot change and are, somehow, different from contemporary arts. This was a most important issue and, in my view, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism took the correct policy position in the matter. I believe we are making the same mistake in this Bill by following the original approach in the Arts Bill, which had to be subsequently amended.
Perhaps the Minister of State will consider the views expressed prior to Report Stage.
It would not be very difficult to amend the Bill.
Is there any downside to simply confining it to the word "arts", without specifying "traditional" or "contemporary"? Would that leave everybody happy?
Will the Minister of State consider the matter prior to Report Stage, taking Deputy Fitzpatrick's suggestion into account?
I will look at it.
The Minister of State will have an opportunity to consider it before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (1)(a)(iv), line 22, after “heritage” to insert “including the social economy and the voluntary sector”.
The amendment is related to the area of community broadcasting. The type of programming in which community broadcasting has been involved, certainly in my area of Dublin city, has related to local economic development. I recall that, during the International Year of the Volunteer, the Taoiseach lamented the shortage of people willing to be involved in the voluntary sector in the context of local economic and social development initiatives. Perhaps this area of activity is sometimes taken for granted. My party has tried, in recent days, to highlight that in connection with community employment and jobs initiative schemes, in which great advances have been made throughout the country. This will continue to be an important area.
I note from the Budget Statement yesterday that the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, has succeeded in obtaining funding for a rural scheme, which I welcome. However, I regret that he did not achieve similar funding for a new urban-based development scheme. Those with a background of experience in such matters would agree that the local programming and community broadcasting aspect deserves consideration. I hope the Minister of State will consider it.
I believe the heading "Irish culture" is adequately covered as voluntary work is part and parcel of Irish culture and the role of the voluntary sector has been well recognised over the years. I would expect that any programme on voluntary activities would come within the ambit of Irish culture and the Irish experience.
What would be the position in the case of an economic project, which might be managed by volunteers while also employing people? I refer to the area of social economy.
The terms "Irish culture" and "Irish experience" are very broad. I do not see any difficulty in including the interpretation to which the Deputy referred, without amending the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 25 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Amendments Nos. 14 and 25 are in the name of Deputy Eamon Ryan, who has another commitment in the Dáil.
I will not press amendments Nos. 14 and 25 when they are reached. The same will apply to amendments Nos. 20 and 21 - I believe that was agreed earlier.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, subsection (1)(b), line 28, after “literacy” to insert “and measures including captioning or subtitling to improve access to television programmes”.
The issue of sub-titling or captioning was a common theme running through the Second Stage debate. The lack of adequate provision in this regard to date is most unsatisfactory, having regard to the number of citizens with serious hearing disabilities. I looked at different parts of the Bill to seek an opportunity to insert this provision. This is probably the first one. My amendment seeks to insert "and measures including captioning or subtitling to improve access to television programmes". The development of archiving is another point, because it is specific to the technical remit of broadcasting. It is not a programme, as such. Perhaps that point should have been made. The general point has been made, especially by Deputy Coveney. The case was made strongly by the Irish Deaf Society and other bodies involved with those who are hard of hearing. The organisations have met all the members of the committee and other party colleagues. It is impossible to dispute that television broadcasting should be captioned.
The national broadcaster should be commended for its achievements so far. It was striking, when reading some recent reports, that it has yet to hire captioners and equipment. It is a huge thing in the commercial area. I understand that the BCI has a specific legislative remit. When I spoke to groups representing people with hearing difficulties last summer, I learned that the BCI has an absolute obligation to implement European directives about access rules in this regard. I hope that the Minister will rigorously insist that it does this quickly. Such a provision has not been included in our domestic broadcasting legislation before now. It can be achieved, however, through my suggestion or some of Deputy Coveney's proposals. We can say to people that we do not want this to happen any more and we can tell people that they have to provide a captioned service. It will be built into the cost of the programme.
The Minister of State probably knows what I am going to say. I feel very strongly about this issue. We are establishing an independent broadcasting fund for the first time. The fund will be distributed by the BCI to ensure that the overall quality of broadcasting in Ireland improves. It will improve access to those programmes and programming generally. We can improve access for people to programming by ensuring that better subtitling is provided. RTE has made significant improvements - 64% of the programmes on RTE 1 are subtitled at peak times. The figure in respect of Network 2 is nothing to shout about. The levels of subtitling on that channel are poor. The RTE annual report states that just 15% of peak time programming on Network 2 is subtitled. I am not sure whether any programme on TV3, other than "Coronation Street", is subtitled. TV3 purchases "Coronation Street" with subtitles already in place.
We should not miss this opportunity to use a portion of the fund. I have not insisted in my amendment that a portion of the fund be used. As a consequence of the reaction to such a proposal on Second Stage, I know there is no chance that such an amendment will be accepted. We must include a wording that can allow a broadcaster or an independent programme maker to apply for funds to help with the costs of providing subtitling, or "captioning" as it is called in legal language.
It is unacceptable to go half way in this regard, by ensuring that programmes funded under this scheme are subtitled. Such a measure would be welcome, but it would not go far enough. The Government should set subtitling targets which broadcasters are legally required to meet. If we take such a hard line, we must be reasonable in helping broadcasters to achieve targets, by providing some funding. It is true that just €8 million is available, but this sum will increase considerably in the next five or six years. The television licence fee receipts given to RTE have doubled since 1997. One can expect that the sum accruing from the 5% provision will continue to grow. It may be €8 million this year, but it will probably be up to €10 million within the next two years and €12 million after that.
I do not expect another independent levy to help fund subtitling for a broadcaster like TV3 to be introduced in the future. We can require the BCI to enter negotiations with independent broadcasters such as TV3, but the reality is that TV3 will not introduce subtitling or captioning because it does not make commercial sense for it to do so. TV3 has said that it cannot afford to introduce such services because they account for between 10% and 30% of the cost of programmes. This Bill, which creates an independent fund, offers us an opportunity. One of the objectives of the fund, outlined in section 3, is to "increase the availability of programmes". Approximately 20% of people are affected by deafness or are hard of hearing in some way. Most such persons are senior citizens who need assistance to access television services. There was a great deal of lobbying in this area until about 18 months ago. It was argued that targets for subtitling should be set.
This is an opportunity for us to take some action. I accept that allowing people to apply for funding in the way I have proposed will not solve all our problems, given that just €8 million is available. It is likely that a similar sum would be needed to establish a national subtitling or captioning unit. If my suggestion is adopted, however, we will send out the right signals. I appeal to the Minister to examine my proposal favourably with an open mind, or to suggest another means of providing captioning and subtitling. I am not aware of any solution, apart from the Minister saying that the BCI is in negotiations with RTE and TV3 about subtitling. Representatives of TV3 have told me that there will not be an increase in subtitling, unless some form of incentive or financial assistance is provided, or unless legal requirements are introduced. As a commercial television station, it is faced by the commercial reality that subtitling is expensive. This is also true of RTE. Despite the fact that it has made progress on RTE 1, it may need assistance in respect of Network 2. I cannot make my point more strongly. This Bill provides an opportunity to meet a need, but we are failing to do so.
As I indicated on Second Stage, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is considering the issue of subtitling with a view to putting together proposals for a policy. It is examining any phasing regulations that may need to be put in place. The BCI's obligation under section 19 of the Broadcasting Act 2001 is to:
make rules requiring each broadcaster to take specified steps to promote the understanding and enjoyment by-
(a) persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, and
(b) persons who are blind or partially sighted,
of programmes transmitted on any broadcasting service provided by him or her.
I agree that improved access to television services is an important issue. I look forward to progress being made by the commission in this regard at an early date. Regardless of the future requirements of broadcasters, I do not accept that the State should pay for the cost of subtitling. A number of public interest requirements apply to broadcasting services. Broadcasters are required to provide minimum amounts of news and current affairs programmes and to comply with codes and standards. The public purse does not pay for such costs. There is no reason to change this principle when the quality of service is being improved to a basic level in future. Subtitling is one of a range of issues relating to broadcasting services. Our approach must be even-handed.
I would like to expand a little further in this regard. I remind Deputy Coveney that the BCI is engaging in a process that will lead to the making of rules. The commission has established a forum involving both broadcasters and disability groups. It is important that disability groups wanted to have a say in future decisions. They want to put forward ideas which reflect their view of how best to move this process forward. They are involved in discussions at the moment and the forum is due to report to the commission within the next two months. The commission will then formulate a policy.
As the parent of a physically challenged child, I empathise very much with what Deputies Coveney and Broughan have said. There is a need to dramatically improve the quality of services to disabled, blind and elderly people. It is also important that the groups involved have a say in what they feel is the best way to move forward. While I can understand the position adopted by the Deputies, the matter is best left to the forum to report on, to the BCI to make decisions and to the Government to take recommendations on board. I do not know what the BCI will recommend in terms of what the forum puts forward. The information will be available in two months time.
I have made my point as strongly as I can and I do not wish to prolong the debate. I understand from where the Minister of State is coming when he speaks of the need to include disabilities groups in the decision making process. However, it is not fair to say public funds should not be used to assist in paying for subtitles. RTE would not provide the subtitling it does if it were not for the licence fee. The licence fee is a form of public funding. The only subtitling available in any quantity is on RTE which is a public service broadcaster partly funded with public moneys.
I acknowledge the points which have been made about the negotiation process, which is ongoing. It is welcome that a report will be available in two months. What will happen if the report states that the only way the level of subtitling will increase is if some assistance is provided to independent broadcasters? We will have launched an independent fund, the structures of which we cannot change. I suspect the report will recommend some assistance. It might recommend the establishment of a national captioning unit to provide captioning for any channel. Using economies of scale, such a unit could produce captioning in respect of all Irish programming. That would be great, but it would require funding. We are establishing an independent broadcasting fund some of which may be used for this very purpose, but we will not be able to change it. This will be a missed opportunity.
I support Deputy Coveney's comments. As time goes on, technology in this area will develop. We are already used to talking programmes and so on. Surely, the provision of captioning would require a relatively small amount of funding. This issue has come up at European level. We should have addressed it more urgently as a basic civil right. I applaud RTE for its achievements in this area. It is such a critical issue that we should not miss the opportunity to make an amendment to the legislation on Report Stage.
As discussions are ongoing in the forum, this matter is best left to the BCI. While I do not wish to tell the BCI what to do, I hope it will make speedy decisions based on the recommendations of the forum. As I have pointed out, the forum will report in two months. Only last week, I realised that the disability groups' ideas about captioning were not necessarily the same as mine. The groups have their own views and input. We will certainly consider the matter between now and Report Stage. We take on board the Deputies' comments. I want to reach the same conclusion. The question ishow to get there without costing the State afortune.
I thank the Minister of State for his co-operation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments No. 17 is related to amendment No. 13 and both amendments may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(c) the start-up costs of community broadcasters,”.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 17 were suggested by representations made to me by people from the community broadcasting sector. They spoke of the great difficulty which often arises in trying to establish and maintain stations. I acknowledge that we are primarily discussing content. One attractive aspect of the broadcasting fund is its potential to deliver major support for the community sector. This was raised on Second Stage. Community broadcasting has tended to be funded through fund-raisers of one kind or another. Certainly, in my constituency the purchase of equipment has been supported this way, through race nights and pub quizzes. The stations tend to be maintained, by and large, through community employment workers and supervisors.
One of the most attractive aspects of the community broadcasting sector has been its success in training young broadcasters who have gone on to commercial stations and into the wider national media. However, there is a real problem. My local community station, North East Access Radio, or NEAR FM, is competing for a television community licence. The station recently had a major difficulty renting space from the Office of Public Works. Community broadcasters can face grave constraints. I understand there are difficulties about the size of a community needed to generate decent viewing figures. Interesting research has been produced in the UK, which is a little ahead of us in this area, about the sizes of stations and the territories they should cover.
There are distinctive local areas, including Dublin's northside. The Taoiseach is the leading political personality from the area. It has had its own strong characteristics from the days of Fingal to the present. There is major scope for community broadcasting. My amendments seek to address that by inserting a new paragraph (c) to section 2(1) to refer to the start-up costs for community broadcasters. A common idea among members of the community network which contacted me was that a specific percentage of the independent fund should be allocated to the community sector.
Broadcasters in this sector often face a difficult struggle. A criticism I have of all stations, including local radio channels, the national broadcaster and commercial national radio and television stations is that none seems to have taken any of the community stations under its wing. Relationships could have been formed like those in sport which exist between club and county teams. The sector does not, however, appear to have these kinds of relationship with the community sector. Through these amendments, I seek to ensure that we place much greater emphasis on the community sector and encourage it to have a more professional base, starting with equipment, staff and a specific percentage of money for programming.
There is no doubt that when it is done well, community broadcasting is a tremendous addition to the cultural life of a community. Senior citizens, for example, find nothing better than listening to experiences from their past times and lives in the various parts of the country. We have mentioned archiving and so forth, but there are many attractive elements of community broadcasting which we should support at every turn and through this fund.
The Bill does not cover the start-up costs of any form of community broadcasting, which is excluded from the Bill. My first experience of community television was in Deputy Coveney's constituency about ten years ago when I attended a public meeting during a by-election campaign. His late father was a Deputy at the time. People were hanging from the rafters.
My father lost his seat for the same reason.
He won it back. The importance of community radio and television must be uppermost in our minds. The Bill provides a small amount of funding - €8 million - and does not cover in any form the start-up costs of community broadcasters.
As regards the second part of the amendment, the detail of the funding, including grants and the allocation of costs between the various categories is best left to the scheme. The Bill already provides that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland may decide that programming in a particular year will be directed at particular classes of programmes or programmes broadcast on a particular medium, such as radio or community television. This is a more flexible approach which will allow the scheme to be developed, to operate effectively and to be amended, as necessary, over time. It is better to have a flexible scheme rather than specifying, as Deputy Broughan has done, a particular percentage.
I did not specify a percentage. The Minister debated this issue in the Seanad with my colleague, Senator O'Meara. We received representations that 50% or 55% of the fund should be allocated to community broadcasting, but sought to remove this straitjacket, so to speak, by indicating that the sum should be a specified percentage, which should be set by the BAI or BCI. We are, therefore, arguing solely that community broadcasting must be catered for.
Section 3 clearly states that the development of both local and community broadcasting is one of the objectives.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 32, to delete "State." and substitute the following:
"State, and
(e) the development of improved levels of subtitling or captioning of programmes on television.”.
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 14, to delete "affairs." and substitute the following:
"affairs, and
(e) may not provide funding for programmes which are not produced with subtitling/captioning.”.
I wish to make a brief comment on the amendment.
The amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 12.
It was not really discussed. The Minister of State indicated on Second Stage that he would consider this matter. Is he inclined to accept an amendment along these lines?
I will return to the issue on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 5, subsection (3), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(a) that a specified percentage of funding be allocated to community broadcasters,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, subsection (4), line 30, after "circumstances" to insert "and may in particular require that funding be allocated on a thematic basis during periods specified in the scheme".
This matter was brought to my attention by broadcasters in the community sector who were concerned about the possibility that a tendency will emerge in which once-off programmes on miscellaneous issues will be included in some of the categories referred to in section 2. Their view was that we should have a system where funding, for example, for programmes on the diversity of culture on this island, would be addressed on a themed basis. This would mean, for example, that multiculturalism would be addressed as a theme, rather than on a once-off basis. The Minister of State may argue that the amendment would tie the hands of the BCI and BAI, but certain themes should be addressed in the manner I have outlined, rather than as a once-off sop.
I agree the Bill should provide the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland with the power to decide from time to time that the scheme should be directed at particular categories of programmes or broadcasting services. This is already covered in section 2(3)(c), which allows the scheme to provide for a variety of funding arrangements, including funding for different types of programmes or on different media in different years. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, lines 38 to 40, to delete subsection (7).
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, subsection (8), line 41, after "scheme" to insert "or an amendment to a scheme".
I understand a similar amendment was tabled in the Seanad by our Independent colleague, Senator Quinn, which proposed to include publication by electronic means in subsection (8). This is an obvious amendment to make and the provision should have been in the Bill from the outset. It would ensure the scheme or any amendment to a scheme are published electronically. I expect the Minister of State to accept it.
This issue was widely discussed in the Seanad when the Minister explained fully that there is no intention to amend any scheme in a piecemeal fashion or have individual amendments to a scheme which would stand on their own. If amendments to a scheme are required, the Minister will wish to have the original scheme revoked and a new scheme put in place, which incorporated the amendments. The Minister can, if necessary, direct the commission to do this under section 2(6). Schemes will not be amended, nor will individual amendments stand on their own, and for this reason, the amendment is unnecessary.
I accept the Minister of State's argument.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 6, subsection (1)(c), line 18, after “State” to insert “including persons who are deaf or hard of hearing”.
Am I entitled to speak to the amendment?
The amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 12.
The Minister of State is aware of the purpose of the amendment. Section 3 contains a potential error.
We will return to the issue on Report Stage.
Section 3(1)(c) states an objective of the scheme is to “increase the availability of programmes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) to audiences in the State”. What about paragraphs (d), (e) and (f)? Is it proposed to only increase the availability of programmes that develop the Irish language and high-quality programmes based on Irish culture, heritage and experience? What about programmes that represent the diversity of Irish culture and heritage? Am I misreading the subsection? To what section do paragraphs (a) and (b) refer?
My wording would refer to persons with a disability as opposed to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. As the Minister of State has rightly pointed out, others have difficulty in accessing programming.
We are referring to paragraphs (a) and (b) but these cover all the programmes, which are defined further in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f).
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
We will revisit the matter on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 8, after line 12, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The Broadcasting (Offences) Acts 1968 and 1988, the Broadcasting Authority Acts 1960 to 2001, the Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) Acts 1999 and 2003, the Broadcasting Act 2001 and this Act may be cited as the Broadcasting Acts 1960 to 2003.".
This amendment addresses an issue that was also raised by my colleague Senator O'Meara. In the interests of good drafting we were advised that all the broadcasting Acts should be cited together. My amendment tries to achieve this and the Minister of State could accept it. I understand he indicated in the Seanad that there were difficulties with the wording we proposed then but that it would be fair to include the broadcasting Acts in one citation. I urge him to accept my amendment.
I accept the Deputy's argument. While there is a need to do what he suggests, it cannot be done under this Bill. In the preparation of the broadcasting authority Bill, consideration will be given to improving links and references between Bills.
Why not do it in this Bill?
This is a specific Bill dealing with a specific area.
The BAI Bill will be the same, albeit covering a broader area.
The BAI Bill will have a wider remit and will allow for serious consideration of what Deputy Broughan suggests.
We will go back to our legal advisors.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 3, lines 5 and 6, to delete "THE BROADCASTING COMMISSION OF IRELAND" and substitute "RADIO TELEFÍS ÉIREANN".
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Title agreed to.