asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will give an estimate of the charges to be paid to BBC 1 or UTV for permission to rebroadcast these programmes on the second channel.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - RTE Second Channel.
6.
I regret that I cannot supply the information sought by the Deputy as it would be in breach of the confidentiality condition attached to the negotiations in this matter with the British authorities.
Would the Minister like to comment on the observation of RTE in today's release to the effect that it would cost about twice as much to take service from one of these channels as against providing an alternative channel by RTE?
I am glad Deputy Lynch raised that question. RTE at no time were a party to the negotiations which my Department have been conducting. Their estimates in the area of programmes, as far as the BBC are concerned, are, therefore, purely speculative and are very wide of the figures around which my discussions have been centering, and much above them.
Is the Minister aware that the observations of RTE in relation to the amount by which licence fees would be increased are specific? Would the Minister relate his suggestion that their observations are widely speculative to that precise figure?
Certainly. The statements by RTE about costings in this matter have to be considered under two headings, their estimates as regards the cost of an RTE second channel where they speak as representing RTE, and their observations as regards the cost of rebroadcasting BBC where they are speaking without access to relevant information and where, as I have said, their view is purely speculative. That applies also to its putative consequences in relation to the licence fee. I shall have an opportunity of making a further statement in this matter in the continuing debate on my Bill in the Seanad tomorrow.
Would the Minister make an observation now in view of the fact that he has charged RTE with being "widely speculative" and in view of the fact that he must have knowledge of the appropriate cost of providing a BBC channel and obviously has access to knowledge about the cost of providing an alternative RTE channel? In the light of that information would the Minister be able to say whether the RTE estimate is wide of the mark?
I have already said that the RTE estimate is wide of the mark.
Having regard to the Minister's own knowledge?
Yes, I hope that is clear.
I hesitate to accept, on the other hand, that RTE would be so irresponsible as to put such precise figures before the public without any foundation.
May I suggest, not strictly on the question, that in the event of an RTE second channel being provided, and in the event of a question of choice being a matter of public debate, that the Minister consider recommending to RTE that there should be a selection committee which would be on a rota basis but widely representative of people—not only on the east coast —on the east coast by way of geographical location and of interests?
I am prepared to consider any such suggestion, but I should like to make it clear that my suggestion which RTE have now availed themselves of was that they should put before the people, not just a committee, the arguments in favour of a second channel being allocated to them. They are now doing that, and as far as their advocacy of an RTE second channel is concerned I welcome that. I would somewhat deprecate their references, which are necessarily not well informed, to such matters as the cost of rebroadcasting. I welcome them putting this before the people, including the people of the single-channel areas. What I want to know at this stage is the reaction of the people in the single-channel areas as this proposition is put before them by RTE and explained to them.
I regret Deputy Molloy who put down this question is not here for the answer. I would like to hear from Deputy Molloy, and Deputy Lynch, whether their constituents share that party's enthusiasm for a second RTE channel as against rebroadcasting BBC or UTV. If they do, then the argument is over. However, the argument is really only now opening as this matter is put before them. It is a very interesting exercise in democracy to try to get that reaction, to try to find out what the people want. I welcome the opening out of this debate.
Since the Minister has raised it, I presume he will agree that the only accurate way one can get the views of the people in the single-channel areas would be by way of some form of referendum? Did I interpret the Minister correctly in his radio broadcast last Sunday that he could not put it at more than fifty-fifty each way in favour of BBC 1 and RTE 2 as far as public choice is concerned?
I did not say that.
There was a suggestion to that effect, but I am not sure of what the Minister said.
It would be difficult, but ideally I should like to have a referendum on this matter. It would be difficult to organise and there is no constitutional provision for it.
I am not advocating that it should be done.
There are ways of finding out what people think. I hope to open out the debate at meetings in various places in the single-channel areas in the summer or early autumn. We will be able to hear a bit then. Then Deputies like Deputy Lynch, Deputy Molloy and many other Deputies who represent that area will be in a position to assess the response of their constituents in this matter. I think it would be very interesting and instructive.
Would the Minister like to have a referendum on whether we should have a national broadcasting system at all?
I do not think that arises here, but if there were such a referendum I believe there would be support for a national broadcasting system.
Would the Minister put the RTE Authority in possession of the facts and figures so that they can make a more realistic assessment of the relative costs?
I have explained in reply to several questions on this that these negotiations are confidential. They were entered into by both sides on a basis of confidentiality. Therefore, I am not in a position, until the negotiations are completed, to provide other people with that information.