Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Oct 1975

Vol. 285 No. 5

Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

It is an understatement to say all is not well with RTE and I do not know how far this Bill will go to make things any better. When one looks at the financial provisions in it, one has a rather uneasy feeling that RTE may well become like CIE as regards financial subventions, not quite so huge, perhaps, but, nevertheless, large subsidies will have to be paid over the years if we are at least to save RTE from becoming an entirely advertising medium. This would be disastrous.

If we are to go to the people asking for more money to maintain the service we must be able to assure them that every effort will be made to make that service an instrument of entertainment and education, a holding up of the mirror to the national scene. I am afraid the Minister's approach has not got that common touch. He is inclined to look at the whole RTE scene from his own undoubted intellectual standards and this may well be reflected in the running of the station and may have been a minor cause of the dissatisfaction of many people with the programmes being put out.

I will try to be fair in my criticism of RTE because I realise that it is being compared with cross-channel stations like BBC 1 and BBC 2. BBC 1 have been operating for 40 years and have tremendous financial backing. Therefore, RTE are being compared with the incomparable. Having said that, RTE and its services could be improved vastly but how to do this is a big task.

I must say that from the Director General down the staff of RTE are doing a good job. We must realise the tremendous influence television now has and from that point of view a very critical look must be taken at broadcasting to ensure that it will not so much influence people's thinking as encourage people to think for themselves. It has been said that very often television pictures taken in one part of the country and shown elsewhere can have a potent influence on people's outlooks. For instance, a person who is not blessed with the world's goods and who sees sumptuous living portrayed on the screen might be filled with a desire to better himself but equally it could engender a kind of jealousy and envy. Often such feelings are worked out in violent methods.

So far as possible the medium of television should be educational. This must be its guiding role. The Minister said that he would consult the people on whether we should hand the second channel to a cross-channel service or whether RTE should create their own second channel. Most of us knew what the outcome would be. We realised the seriousness of the situation, where it was contemplated giving control to another country over this important broadcasting medium. It was unthinkable that we should not have complete control of the second channel.

Some people accused us of being insular and they said we were trying to keep BBC programmes from the single channel area. Of course this was not true because for many years RTE have been showing films from BBC channels and some of them have been very popular. However, that is very different to allowing the BBC authorities to dictate what we should see. The Minister over-simplified the whole issue when he thought that if the people decided to accept the transfer to the BBC that that would be the end of the matter. During all that time we were being told in no uncertain fashion by the trade unions and some journalists that this was not on.

We can learn a lesson from the fact that very few people want the transfer of power outside the country and perhaps the exercise was worthwhile if we learned a lesson from it. I realise it is difficult for RTE to broadcast for seven or eight hours a day with their limited resources. There must be a strong temptation to import cheap canned material and to show it which, although it may not benefit the people to a great extent, at least is less of a drain on their financial resources. However, that does not justify the wholesale purchase of canned material from outside the country.

We must make up our minds about the system we want and decide how much we are willing to pay for it. I am convinced people would pay for a good television service. It plays a very big part in our lives and it is cheap when one considers other entertainment costs. We should take another look at the educational aspect. For many years I have been advocating an extension of educational programmes. I do not know why we do not put money into RTE so that a small attempt might be made to provide an "Open University" type of programme. We know that education is an ongoing matter and that a person should never stop educating himself. When we consider the high cost of education today, of buildings and staffing, surely we could use the medium on a broad scale in order to have "Open University" programmes, especially for adult education.

People nowadays have more hours of leisure and retirement age is earlier. Consequently they have much more time to devote to study and television could play an important part in this area. We cannot afford to cast aside our citizens when they retire, to give them the impression that we have no further use for them. I should like RTE to broadcast educational programmes from 10 a.m. This would be of enormous benefit for the development of our people and the country. I am not talking of a pedantic kind of station, with the emphasis totally on teaching all the time but I am convinced that the people of Ireland—in this context I am speaking of a Thirty-two county entity—would appreciate the new effort. I know that RTE broadcast a Telefís Scoile programme but I am dealing with education on a broader basis. By doing this RTE would be fulfilling the aims set out by the people who founded the station and who created the service and it would find general acceptance in the country.

We do not want to become just a copy of another country in our habits and our thinking. For instance, rowdy behaviour at football matches is a world-wide phenomenon at the moment. People in Ireland who look at the British soccer scene must be influenced by what happens practically every week at some of the soccer matches in England. I do not want to take a "holier-than-thou" attitude, I do not say that some of our people are not as blackguardly in their behaviour as the crowds in London or Manchester; I realise that the people across the water and in other countries have many virtues and these could be portrayed on the screen just as easily as the violent scenes at football matches.

RTE and especially their television service can be a tremendous force for good particularly in the sphere of education. I appreciate that the station cannot be subsidised fully by the State. I note, though, that the Minister is giving them power to engage in borrowing. This might help to make them self-sufficient although nobody would condone borrowing of the type being indulged in by the Government at present. We learned yesterday of the frightful cost of servicing those borrowings.

It might be said that RTE could raise more revenue by selling increased advertising space but we realise that they could do this only by being prepared to sacrifice some of their worthwhile material. Many of the commercials are made across channel and do not necessarily appeal to the tastes of our people. It would be my hope that the second channel be free of advertising. While I am a non-drinker I have no objection to drink so long as it is not abused but I do object to the manner in which the big brewers and distillers advertise their products. These advertisements are designed in such a way as to give the impression that in order to be trendy, young people must drink. This is a very deliberate piece of psychology. Apart from anything else there is the question of the very high cost of drink. In this morning's papers we are told of the exorbitant charges for drink in Belfast clubs, for example.

It would be my wish that RTE reach a stage where they can dispense entirely with advertising. In this context the first commercials to be taken off should be those advertising drink. An American company who produce soft drinks are so convincing in their advertising that I am glad they are not pushing alcohol. However, in the present circumstances, with taxation at such a high level, I doubt whether we can afford to dispense entirely with advertising on RTE.

On Committee Stage we will be afforded the opportunity of discussing the full implications of this Bill. The Minister and the Government must give much thought to this whole question and must have regard to the wishes of the people because should they be remiss on the question of what the people want, one might be uneasy as to their attitude on other broader but more dangerous issues facing the country.

There are many mornings when I am reluctant to switch on the news bulletins because it is very likely that we will be told once again of killings and bombings during the night. In this context a broadcasting authority must be very careful to present a true picture of what happened in so far as this is possible; otherwise there would be the danger of their aggravating the situation. While the news may be bad there is no point in hiding the warts or in preventing us from hearing what the people in the North are suffering. There have been some very good programmes regarding the North on the home channel since the troubles began there. At the beginning of the present spate of troubles I recall seeing an RTE film depicting gross brutality on the part of the police in that part of the country. I understand that this film was sold to stations in many parts of the world and that it resulted in international interest in the northern scene. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the staff of RTE who are prepared at great risk to themselves to go into dangerous situations in order to record events. They are motivated not merely by a spirit of adventure but by a desire to portray the true picture. There is a genuine desire on their part to do what is right.

We may well feel that the Government at times use the medium to their own advantage. Certain people, not on this side of the House, are persistently put on programmes, even programmes of purely local interest. There is that kind of political influence. However, I am not going to quibble about that. The keen intelligences of our people can always sort out the good from the bad. While saying that, I want to emphasise that these trendy advertisements I mentioned have a very bad effect on people as a whole and I would appeal to RTE to be courageous enough to drop these even though that may mean a loss of revenue. They should be courageous enough to tell people they are dropping them and that they will have to raise the revenue elsewhere. If they make a good case and convince people I believe we would be better off not having to endure these advertisements daily and nightly on television.

I look forward to the subsequent Stages of this Bill. I also look forward to hearing the comments of people as to how they think we should plan our television programmes as against being an advertising medium. This medium could be very important in the educational sphere.

In his opening speech the Minister pointed out that after the passage of 15 years, since 1960, there is need to improve and modernise television. As late as yesterday in The Cork Examiner there is a report of two prosecutions against people for not paying their television licences. It is 15 years since these people bought their television sets and in that 15 years they have been unable to use these sets. Even in the month of July all they see on the screen is snow. The Minister has made an effort to improve reception in south-west Cork. Since he came into office some two years ago he has had a number of transformers erected and that has resulted in improved reception. Some people in the past went to considerable expense themselves trying to improve reception. In the prosecutions I mentioned the Justice fined both defendants £2 for not having licences. They were Mary Ellen Roycroft and John O'Donovan of Cononagh, Leap. People were so disgusted over the lack of reception all over the past 15 years they decided not to pay their licences.

I am concerned about the references to private individuals. I take it the Deputy is quoting.

I may not get an opportunity of dealing with this matter again. All I would do now is ask the Minister and his Department to pay the fines. These people were right to refuse to pay their licences. They themselves did everything possible to get reception, but unsuccessfully. I trust these will be the last prosecutions in this area.

There is a good deal of controversy at the moment about RTE and a second channel. As far as I know, we already have BBC on RTE at very regular intervals. Quite a number of programmes on RTE are BBC programmes. I should like more time to be devoted to farming, to sport and to civics. There is room for an expansion of programmes. Irish people are noted for sport. In horse racing all one gets on the screen is the last two furlongs of a race. Surely better coverage than that could be achieved. We could have better coverage of football matches. People are deeply interested in football. Viewing of these would pay a better dividend than watching "The Fugitive". I should like to see farming getting better coverage and I hope it will on the proposed second channel. I am a member of the beet growers' organisation and just lately we sent five or six members to the USA to examine beet growing there. If these things were televised and people could see what is happening in France, Belgium, Holland, the USA and elsewhere there would be no need to go to the expense of sending people abroad to learn.

We are lacking where civics are concerned. A great deal of education in civics is required and a great deal could be done on television. I hope that will be the evolution when the second channel comes into operation. Civics are very important.

There are many other matters I should like to speak about. I want to make an appeal to the broadcasting authority to broadcast programmes dealing with sports, agriculture and civics, which would give our young people the information they badly need and help the teachers in our schools to play their part in providing our young people with information on these very important matters. I hope whatever service is provided will be of benefit to the people and that less canned material from abroad will be used.

The main subject of contention has gone out of this Bill in view of the Minister's announcement in his Second Stage speech that the section providing effectively for the retransmission of the BBC is being dropped. So far as I have been able to discover, in other respects the Bill has been more or less generally welcomed.

I cannot claim to have followed the debate about a second channel with great attention. I followed it only in its large lines. That debate was conducted with something less than frankness, and certainly something less than reason, by those on the side which was popularly identified as being against the Minister. To pretend at this stage that exposure to English television or radio will undermine the national character and culture is an absolutely unsustainable and indefensible proposition. In the remotest parts of Ireland it is perfectly clear that elements of culture are prominent in people's lives which have no Irish roots whatever. There is a limit to what you can do, or what you should attempt to do, about policing people in this regard—I would hate to live in a State in which any ruling clique or sequence of different ruling cliques imposed cultural patters.

It is observable that culturally this country is very porous; I have said this here before. There is almost no fashion, even if it is only a style of speaking, some cliché or cant phrase, which does not take root here very quickly, much more quickly than elsewhere, and which lasts here much longer. Some expression like "no way" comes up in England or America. It is fastened on here and, in no time at all, people have forgotten how to use the word "no". It lasts here long after the habit of speech has disappeared or fallen into disfavour or become unmodish in Britain or America. The same goes for fashions in clothes. The same goes for modes of decorating places of public resort such as lounge bars, and so on.

It seems to me that if one were to examine an Irish village, no matter how remote, on external criteria, in other words, without actually being sensitive to the minds of people and how they work—which, of course, are still a bit different from the way they work elsewhere—one would be very hard put to it to find features of which one could say: "This is a specifically Irish pattern and not an imported one." In very nearly all the material areas of life, I am afraid, one would have to report that people here have become accustomed increasingly to patterns of existence, for better or for worse, which are not specifically Irish.

It is that fact which I record and observe—without particularly deploring it, even though emotionally I would welcome a more specific Irish environment—which renders hypocritical for me the pretence that looking at BBC television will turn an Irishman into an Englishman or into an amalgam of west and east Britons. That is a hypocritical pretence because it seems to me that in all the palpable modes of existence, people in all parts of this country are as thoroughly anglicised as they possibly could be. I regret that very much only in the sense that emotionally I would prefer if it were otherwise; I do not suppose that being anglicised reduces their chance of saving their souls, or makes them any the less charitable, or any the less decent citizens or anything else of that kind, but it does make them less Irish for what that is worth.

The additional dimension of dehibernicisation which would be represented by a direct rebroadcast of the BBC is so small as not to be worth arguing about. Indeed, the values of Britain, such as they are—some of them are extremely low—are already available in newspapers, and notably in Sunday newspapers, and have been for years, and are lapped up avidly with absolutely no cultural resistance. This is the porosity, of which I spoke, of Irish people in all corners of the country. Really, there remains very little left over which we can call our own; and what is left over that we can call our own is sometimes promoted with an excess of self-consciousness which is out of proportion to the importance which the item under consideration bears to the totality of life.

I regard the arguments against rebroadcasting BBC as unreasonable and hypocritical on those grounds. The battle has already, very largely, been lost. The forces of the English-speaking cultural world have already prevailed here. It may be that there is some remote corner of the battlefield to which they have not yet penetrated, or some little mopping up operation which has not yet been completed, and which the rebroadcasting direct of the BBC would achieve. It is so minimal, so tiny, so imperceptible, compared with the substantial cultural conquest which has been made, that it is not worth arguing about and, above all, not worth arguing about in the very emotional terms we heard used over the past year or so.

Moreover, if the arguments used in regard to handing over our culture into the keeping of the English had any truth, as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has pointed out very frequently, in Dublin and along the east coast where the BBC and other British programmes have been receivable for years the degree of de-Irishisation should be more marked than elsewhere. I do not observe that; quite the contrary. I observe that in my own Dublin suburban constituency, which is exposed to every British channel, there are more Irish speakers, if you do not mind taking that as a convenient criterion, and more Irish enthusiasts than there are, I believe, in some western or southern four-seat or three-seat constituencies. There are more Irish enthusiasts in the postal districts Dublin 6 and Dublin 14, both of which I represent substantial parts of—I will not identify country constituencies because I do not want to be hurtful— than there are in many parts of the south and west where the BBC cannot be received.

There may be vocational or professional reasons for that, and so forth. But most certainly it is not demonstrable that the receivability of English broadcasting in Dublin, along the east coast, has made Dublin or east coast people any more vulnerable to cultural inroads than people in the south or west. I absolutely dispute that there is a shred of evidence to that effect. I have never seen it and my observations tend in the opposite direction, namely, that there is more conscious, painstaking or laborious Irishness, of which perhaps the interest in the Irish language may serve as a convenient example, in Dublin suburbs than there is in many parts of provincial Ireland. I say that not in any sence of being hurtful to provincial regions but merely to rebut the idea, or what must be the implicit corollary to the argument advanced by the other side that exposure to British broadcasting leaves one a little west Briton. That is absolutely untrue.

That is a point I felt I ought to make now that this national debate is, I hope, drawing to a close. Before it ends I should like to fire one shot—that I absolutely dispute the reasoning in, if I may call it reasoning, and the honesty, in many cases of the argument that to throw open the air waves here to British broadcasting means the end of Irish culture. Irish culture is a very tenuous and feeble little growth in the year 1975 anyway and the additional burden which will be laid on it—if it is a burden at all, which I do not believe —by spreading British broadcasting to the west would make no difference.

In regard to the mode the Minister chose for making up his mind on this question, I said a few disorderly words here the other evening in the course of Deputy Moore's speech. I was sorry to have interrupted him. He took it in good part, but I was provoked into interrupting him because he described the Minister's behaviour in the months and years which preceded the results of this survey as arrogant. It may be that Deputy Moore does not like the Minister for personal reasons which are a closed book to me. It may be that the Minister invites epithets of that kind from time to time, as we all do. But I cannot see, in this particular instance, how he, of all Ministers has deserved to be described as arrogant because, so far as I know, uniquely amongst Ministers in this State in 53 years, he has sought the guidance of a survey which has been scientifically carried out according to modern techniques, the accuracy of whose results nobody disputes; uniquely he sought the guidance of that survey before asking the Government to make up their minds. What Minister ever did that before?

No Minister that I can think of ever did, although there were very strong reasons for doing so in many cases. I asked Deputy Moore "How was it that in all the years of controversy about compulsory Irish under the last Government no Minister ever had the guts to consult the people by means of a survey of this kind as to what kind of an Irish policy they wished to have?" Deputy Moore's reply to that, as far as I can remember it was: "Well, are you going to consult the people about the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill?" That is a fair question and I am going to give it a fair answer. There are areas of what I might call day to day, month to month or even year to year Government policy which require expression in legislation and which are of an extremely sensitive and difficult kind. In these areas, and the example given by Deputy Moore would be one, the Government have to stand on their own feet, make their own decision and carry out their own policy in the Dáil and Seanad.

But there are other areas of national policy which are not simply a matter of dealing with a crisis which may be over tomorrow, in six months or, I hope at most, in a year or so. There are other matters of national policy which are intended to be long-term policy stretching over a generation or two and to have effects stretching over countless generations ahead, items of national policy, broadly speaking, of a cultural kind, of which the efforts to revive the Irish language or to rescue it have provided the most conspicuous example here in 53 years. There are certainly other matters which would fit into the same description but that is a very conspicuous example and one of a quite different kind. I hope I will not be thought a casuist in drawing that distinction. It is a quite different kind of policy; it is not as immediately explosive. It is not one on which a wrong decision now may have irreparably disastrous consequences. It is a policy area of a quite different kind and it would have responded to a properly conducted survey in regard to the people's attitudes.

Perhaps I may develop that point for a moment. The Official Report for one of the early years of the forties will show an exchange in the House here between the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera and the then Leader of Fine Gael, General Mulcahy—who, as everyone knows, was a very enthusiastic and, for some people's tastes perhaps too enthusiastic, Irish revivalist. General Mulcahy asked the Taoiseach whether he would consider making provision for the application of a compulsory Irish test to candidates for the Dáil and Seanad. Mr. de Valera replied to him in Irish, saying: No, he would not consider such a move because it was not clear that the people's support would be behind such a measure; he would not support compulsory Irish for entry to the Dáil or Seanad because it might not enjoy popular support. In other words, popular support might not be got for a measure to compel candidates for both Houses to pass some kind of an Irish test. But that same Government never considered whether there was any popular support for forcing tests of exactly the same kind on humble children, applicants for even the most junior grades in the public service, for entry to the Garda and so on. The question of whether or not public support would be forthcoming for the application of that kind of policy never entered the then Taoiseach's mind or the mind of any of his Government.

This Minister has uniquely deserved not to be described in this context as arrogant because, unlike any predecessor or unlike any other Minister in any other Government here, so far as I know, before making up his mind finally—and I say "finally" with intention because this Bill had already gone through the Seanad, where it had a stormy passage—he said: "All right, the representations are very strong, some of them very persuasive; RTE in particular, has put its hat into the ring, said it is anxious to supply this second service, and I am going to give the people, by means of this survey, a chance to say what they want." He did that and he must be saluted for it. He will not, perhaps, be expected to submit every ministerial decision he makes or every ministerial policy he promotes to the same test and I would not ask him to. I do not think any Minister should be asked to do that in regard to all his measures. But, in regard to this matter, it was very appropriate, I will not say for decisions because decisions are made by the Dáil and Seanad, but for advice which he was enough of a democrat to regard as persuasively binding on him.

Having said that about the taking of the survey and about the argument which preceded it, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I say that I am not disappointed at the way the survey turned out. I observe in the Minister's speech—I will not say he minimises in the rhetorical sense but he draws attention—the fairly close similarity between the deal which RTE were proposing in a second channel and the deal which would have been got by the people if BBC had been rebroadcast direct. He says, quite rightly, the people—no matter which way they had shown a majority— would have been opting for a choice and in fact for similar kinds of choices. Therefore, in the Minister's mind, and justifiably, there is not a great deal of difference between the RTE second channel proposal and the BBC proposal. That is a fair way of looking at it but I am inclined to put my own reading on the results which show a very substantial majority in favour of RTE, and the reading I put on it and am glad to put on it and which leaves me in the position that I am not a bit disappointed by the result, is that hidden beneath all the "no ways," and the platform soles, the hideous imported plastic fascias, and all the indicia of our cultural surrender, is a vestigial or residual anxiety on the part of the Irish people not to disappear as such, to stand up for their own institutions and to prefer their own institutions and their own way of doing things; and although I absolutely reject, and reject with contempt, all those bogus and phoney arguments about how we would become little west Britons if the BBC were directly rebroadcast, I hope I see in the choice of a second RTE channel a kind of despairing indication on the part of the people that they would like their own television service, even if it does very largely rebroadcast material from outside because at least the finger on the button which will determine what is going to be rebroadcast and what is not will be an Irish finger.

Again, if my interpretation is a reasonable one—I do not know if the Minister thinks so—I am glad the survey turned out as it did. I must confess I would have been a bit distressed, despite my arguments about the bogusness of the campaign mounted against the Minister if a large majority had said: "OK, let the BBC take over". As I have said, I do not think it would have done any damage, but their preference for it even though it may not make a great difference to them in correct terms, is one which shows a residual anxiety to be their own men and to run matters in their own way, and if at all possible to see as much native material as they can. It is for that reason I am glad the result turned out as it did, and I believe that pleasure will be shared by the Minister—I hope I am not being presumptuous in saying that— and that he can at least sympathetically understand this point of view.

I want to say a few words about what any television service here should do. I would have liked to see the amendment of section 31 which the Minister proposes extended a bit further so as to create power in the Government or in the Minister, not to prohibit the broadcasting of material but to require the broadcasting of material other than mere ministerial announcements. I have said something like this in the House before on another occasion about a year ago and I do not want to be wearisome in repeating it, but a country like this, which is a small almost family-sized community but which has got very large problems, must have available whatever means it has to mobilise its resources. It cannot afford the luxuries which larger and stronger countries can afford.

To treat television purely as an entertainment and a mode of relaxation —and I know I differ here from many people who have made a study of it and who work in television—is a luxury people in a community like ours cannot afford. We have got here a very powerful weapon for mobilising people's minds and influencing their actions, and I am quite alive to the danger of throwing open the broadcasting weapon to the operation of a purely political force and to the danger that it might be taken over and used in order to forward the purposes of the Labour Party, the Fine Gael or the Fianna Fáil Party. Nevertheless a television service in a country like this which has so few ways of dealing with the blows which rain on it from the outside world, which is so vulnerable to the outside world, must go a bit further than television services elsewhere.

To take a trendy example because it is on everybody's lips these days, if this country can derive substantial benefit from some humble activity like recycling waste paper, it presumably is a benefit which other countries can also derive from the same activity. Other countries may be economically strong enough to allow ordinary market forces to operate in such a way as to inspire the collection or recycling of waste paper, but we may not be in that situation. It may be that what other countries can allow themselves a liberty in respect of is not open to us. It may be that even in a boy scout-size activity like recycling waste paper or preventing waste generally, the State here ought to take an initiative.

I repeat in this connection that I do not mean a politically contentious initiative. I do not believe that a Government which is at loggerheads with the Opposition on a matter of principle should be given the freedom of the air to promote its political point of view and drown the Opposition's point of view. What I do mean is that in a non-contentious area where the mobilisation of public opinion and the activation of individual or community initiatives are concerned, the television service in a small weak country like this which is vulnerable in many ways, must take on itself or should consider taking on itself functions which perhaps the television services in France, Germany and Holland do not need to take on because their economies are stronger. Therefore I believe the case must be made for thrusting upon the television service at whatever cost to the finances of the State or at whatever cost to the recreational content of the service—although I do not believe that instruction is necessarily nonrecreational—the duty of leading individuals and the community in actions of what I might broadly call an economic kind, to mobilise them to defend their own economic existence in preventing waste, making the best possible use of their local resources and so on. I could spend a day listing desirable activities which could be promoted by intelligent advertisements, but I am not going to multiply them for Deputies who can quite well multiply them for themselves.

It seemed to me always that to treat this enormously powerful force or weapon which is at the State's disposal as simply a thing to enable the citizens to put their feet up in front of was a mistake. I know I may be open to the criticism of trying to turn RTE into a sort of platform like Dr. Castro uses in Cuba when he harangues people for hours on end when telling them to push up sugar production or whatever it is he is advising them to do. I do not mean it should be dehumanised to that point, but I do think it must take on itself a function which is different from entertainment, different from recreation, which is expressly instructional and expressly intended to provide leadership in matters of this kind or to mediate leadership to ordinary people and to ordinary communities.

I know I am not very far away from the favourite point of view of the late President Erskine Childers. I noticed with interest that the Minister paid a tribute to his memory in the opening paragraphs of his speech. As far as I remember, I agreed with very little the late President said, I am sorry to say, but I had a great deal of sympathy for the point of view he used to express with regard to the media and broadcasting, that it was too much given to bad news and not enough given to good news. It was not so much news I wanted to direct these remarks to, as to the kind of leadership I am talking about. One form of transmitting leadership—and nothing could be better adapted to this than television—is to show people success stories: success stories of small industries, success stories of tidy towns, success stories of individuals who overcome handicaps, success stories in agriculture. While I know Radio Telefís Éireann do transmit such stories and I am not in any way accusing them of hiding such matters, I know they do it, I think that the doing of such things should be intensified and there should be far more of it. It may be that many people would switch off or switch to the more popular channels if they had a choice. That may be, but the 10 per cent or 15 per cent that do not switch off are the people one is trying to reach. The number of people capable of giving leadership, even in small ways, in the country is small. If there is one leader in six or one in ten it is a high proportion. That is precisely the proportion that would be reached, I believe, by programmes of this kind. All this is completely at odds with the television medium's conception of its own role.

The television medium's conception of its own role may be appropriate and possibly the only conception of its role, in a different kind of country. I believe it is not appropriate for a country like this. I believe we have very few natural resources of our own that we can mobilise to help us in the increasingly difficult economic world we are moving into, but the existence of a medium which will reach straight into people's minds and hearts is one of the powerful weapons we have. It may be the most powerful one, for all I know. To treat it simply as a recreational—and no doubt simultaneously edifying, but mainly as a recreational—medium, is a mistake and one which the country cannot afford indefinitely.

I am glad to see the Authority's independence and autonomy being entrenched to a greater degree by a provision of this Bill. I see now that a member of the Authority is being given a security of tenure while his appointment lasts comparable with that of a judge. I am not sure that quite that degree of entrenchment is necessary but I recognise that the intention is a good and a sound one and I completely support it. To leave the controlling authority of the television service in the position where a signature of the Minister could remove them would not be desirable. I do not specially accuse the former Government of having abused this power and I do not particularly say it has ever been abused but we do not know what kind of Governments will come after us. I am certain that to build in a safeguard of the kind the Minister proposes is a good thing and I believe the Authority will immediately benefit from it, will be freer and able to do a better job. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and I wish the Authority success.

I briefly want to talk about some of the things which are topical in relation to a debate of this kind, which is always interesting. Perhaps the most important medium of our entire media is television. I was, like many of those still in the House, for a time in the Department and found that the problem of radio and television preoccupied the Minister with a good deal of what he might have to do in the Department. Some of this other work might be mundane but nevertheless is important.

During my time in office I brought in an amending Bill. At that time television was in its infancy. Viewers had not become so selective as they inevitably have become as the medium has grown from infancy to adolesence and has become an accepted medium, which people take for granted to a great extent. Since the people have become more selective and since they have become accustomed to television and take it as part of their everyday lives they have come to realise the marked influence it can have on our society over and above the other sections of the media which have not the visual impact.

The Bill, as the last speaker said, is not so controversial now since section 6 has gone. Nevertheless the Minister devoted a great part of his speech in explaining that the decision of the survey which he had carried out did not reflect any rejection of the views which he obviously held. I do not know if the Minister admits it or not but I believe it is fairly openly admitted that he was in favour of BBC 1. In his tour of the country and the centres where he held discussions he endeavoured to sell the idea to the people. After many pages in his opening speech where he sought to define culture in the narrower and the wider senses and in which he sought to explain that with cable television we have the opportunity of taking in different programmes he went on to deduce from all this that the people who supported RTE 2 did so in the belief that they would still have, as was published in an RTE booklet, an opportunity of seeing a rebroadcast of all the BBC programmes which they might have seen on BBC 1, and said it was not a victory for the cultural protectionists.

In his final summing up paragraph the Minister said:

As a result of these prolonged explanations it can be truly said that the RTE concept of a complementary two-channel service drawing most of its additional programming from BBC and ITV sources is now preferred by most viewers.

I do not accept the Minister's view there that the opinion poll was influenced by the knowledge, that was made available to them through that booklet, that it would be a rehash of BBC programmes that they would get from RTE 2. It may have influenced some people but I believe it to be a very small minority. If I were to judge from my examination of the feelings of the people in relation to the opinions that were expressed through the survey it is that they wanted to have control of whatever would be produced. I believe that was the dominant influencing factor in relation to the decision of the opinion poll.

I believe the people were not prepared to accept, without question, another channel. There were other fringe influences in relation to employment. I believe the people who voted against it were influenced in areas where they are not in a position to get other channels at the present time. When it comes to the final decision, people like it to be left as a choice and not handed over as something which they must turn on and take as they get it. I do not believe RTE 2 will be predominantly a rehash of BBC programmes. I hope it will not.

I hope that as time goes on it will be able to present programmes that are much more intellectual and, perhaps, programmes directed to what might be regarded as minorities in our community and society. I am not referring to political minorities but there are all sorts of interests in the community which have a right to be served. This was always the Authority's difficulty in trying to arrange programmes: the most vocal section, those who tend to complain or to praise are not necessarily the most avid television viewers. Thousands of people occasionally enjoy television but seldom make known publicly their views in regard to what they are getting. Yet they have very definite preferences and standards. Sometimes because these are not so vocal in their demands I feel we tend to cater for those who make most noise about what they want.

The question always arises as to whether people should get what they want or what is good for them and that raises the question of who is to decide on what is good. On re-reading the Minister's statement—I was unable to be present for most of the speech; I had to leave but I did get the beginning and the end and I did not do that out of any discourtesy—I think the Minister injected too much of his own personal thinking into explaining what our culture is and should be and the wrong views that some people have. The whole reason for having an Authority is to ensure that one mind does not predominate in directing a medium which has such tremendous impact on the formulation of our social behaviour and our national progress and thinking and influences the endeavours of people in the fields of economics, education, sport and so many other things. That is why we sought to have a widespread Authority comprising a number of people of different opinions.

It fell to me to establish an Authority and in spite of what may be said to the contrary I was not influenced, nor was the Government, by the political thinking of those we put on that Authority. We were concerned with having a variety of views, all of them intelligent and enlightened views and, perhaps, in conflict in regard to different things in the hope that a wide spectrum of public demand would be catered for and reflected in a type of broadcasting that would satisfy most people all the time.

I do not know what many people who are not able to be here, due to political circumstances at present, would say but I think that overall we have been getting a good performance from our station. Many Ministers have frequently pointed out the impossibility of pleasing everybody in all his demands. The people who switch on and switch off are a sufficient indication of the variety of views; some detest what others like; some people would want a symphony orchestra morning, noon and night while many switch off immediately it appears and ask if the station is gone mad and if they have nothing but that type of stuff. Others want light programmes and films and so on. It is long established that to produce programmes that would be universally accepted is impossible but to get through to most people most of the time with reasonably acceptable programmes is the aim and, to a great extent, this is what the medium has been achieving.

It is certain that television has a tremendous impact. Presentation of news through any medium can be very subtly done, not to talk of the paragraph writer and commentator who can succeed in getting their own views into whatever they produce. Television is a medium which requires careful analysis and study by all concerned to ensure that people who may have ulterior motives do not always succeed—they often do—in getting their views across in a subtle way. It is all a matter of skilled presentation. This is something the Authority should monitor carefully and they should completely eradicate this abuse if possible.

Films in which people are shot and life is taken as a matter of course are objectionable. In many of these stories life is taken without any obvious punishment or any ill effects resulting as if it were a football match in which somebody scored a point. People are killed but nobody takes any notice. This is bound to create a peculiar mental outlook. Young people are impressionable and may get a completely jaundiced outlook on life which will necessarily manifest itself in their behaviour later. This is something that should be tackled at an international level. Violence, to a great extent, has become important viewing on television and in films generally which are reproduced on television. It is sometimes disgusting to watch the build-up towards violence and life taking. This is supposed to be realism which makes it all the more serious. It is bound to affect young people and it does so subconsciously and it becomes manifest later in their lives. I do not think anybody has ever made a serious effort towards ensuring a better approach in this matter. The Americans are the main sponsors of this type of programme which portrays violence. I do not think it has had any beneficial effect and, in fact, it is obvious that it has had a serious effect on American society. This has been talked about so often that to mention it now and condemn it is regarded as a cliché. People just say that violence on television has a bad effect on youth but nobody does anything about it.

Any authority who would endeavour to ensure that that type of film was completely eradicated from the screen would be doing a good job. Surely during the period when programmes are being selected it should be possible for those in charge to eliminate programmes portraying violence. Our people can use the other channels if they wish to see such violent scenes but we should not make it easy for them to see violence on our service.

There are many programmes on other channels which our people would like to see and that is why there is a natural desire by people to have a selection of channels; it is not simply because people detest their own channel. It is inevitable that people when they scan the television guide will express the view that they would like to see a programme being shown on another channel. It was that which created the impression that people wanted to get an outside channel but I do not think anybody wanted to have BBC 1, or any other channel all the time. Compulsive viewing of television is not a common complaint and and people have now become selective.

I was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs when the first demand was made for cable TV. The demand came from the high-rise flats in Ballymun and those who sought cable TV pointed out that many of those living there could not receive all the stations because of the lack of uniformity in the height of the flats. The Department stood out strongly against it, being completely influenced by the desire to maintain the revenue from commercials. It is understandable that if a station is depending on its commercials for financial support that it should not be entirely enthusiastic for making it possible for the viewing public to see other stations. In fact, it was finally taken as a Government decision with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at the time, myself, objecting. However, the majority around the Government table were in favour. In stating that I am not giving away any Government secrets.

That was the first move towards bringing in piped television and it was understandable that once that happened it would be impossible to resist demands for it elsewhere. We lost the battle. We were entirely influenced by the desire to get as many of the viewing public as possible confined to looking at our own station and that is only natural. Commercial pricing was based on set count and set count would be less important if the people had an opportunity of seeing a number of other stations. The value of the advertising is bound to be influenced by the fact that more and more people have more channels available to them. This was something which would occur inevitably and while many people, like Deputy Moore, do not like commercials anyhow——

Would the Deputy permit me to put a query to him? The Deputy has indicated his own stand, and this is very interesting historically, but would he also feel able to indicate why his colleagues over-ruled him and gave the decision making possible cable which was an important decision? Why did the Government decide to authorise cable against the Deputy's recommendation as Minister?

I thought the answer was obvious. The decision was in favour of the people in the Ballymun area at the time who were able to make a good case that they could not get the number of channels their neighbours could get. There is a limit to insisting that people watch their own television service all the time with this bombardment of advertisements, however necessary they are for paying for the service. It was inevitable that at some stage there must be a relaxation towards giving them the choice. Some people could receive the other channels. The exact same question prevailed in relation to the Minister's problem when he had a survey to see whether there should be a second channel or not.

In dealing with that point he made it clear that everybody likes to have a selection. In most parts of Donegal we are fortunate, due to our proximity to Northern Ireland boosters, to be in a position to get other channels and sometimes the reception is better than RTE. That does not mean that we watch them all day but the knowledge that one can select a programme one wants to watch is different to blazing the one channel all the time. It is the ability to select from a variety of programmes that appeals to most people and I believe that influenced the members of the Government who felt that the people of Ballymun had a right to have access to a variety of channels. We reluctantly succumbed to the decision and our thinking was naturally in favour of protecting our advertisers. It was difficult for some people to understand why we should facilitate people who look at other stations when we were trying to sell our own based on income from commercials.

I do not know to what extent the Authority take an interest now in commercials in their productions but I can recall making reference to commercials to a newly formed Authority some time ago. They felt, as I did, that the standard should be monitored. By and large, they are interesting particularly since the advent of colour but some of them are disgustingly bleak and uninteresting. The impediment of having to have commercials at all was very evident during the Ali-Frazier fight. On that occasion commercials blotted out a good deal of the viewing. That was understandable because the opportunity to see the fight was made possible by advertising. This brought home to everybody, more forcibly than ever before, the extent to which commercials can be a deterrent to television viewing. If we had not taken the decision at the time to make RTE a commercial station, we would have been much longer waiting for our own station, and it would be very expensive to set one up now. I am not sure if it is appropriate to discuss sound broadcasting here today.

The Bill covers the whole range of broadcasting.

When I was Minister radio was shown up in a wrong light from a financial point of view. This was mainly due to one thing. For some reason there was, and still is, a reluctance to make the facts known about the symphony orchestra. Does anybody in this House know how much it costs? It is an enormous figure and I doubt if it is ever published. The orchestra is a status symbol. Nobody would dare stand up and say that we should not have it. I was always disappointed at the very small number of symphony orchestra enthusiasts. The light orchestra is much more widely acceptable. The people who like highbrow music, or pretend to like it, are in the minority.

Symphony concerts, which were useful in that they provided material for broadcasting at a later stage, were never well attended. The bands who played ragtime got a better audience. Our symphony orchestra was regarded as one of the best in Europe and still has that reputation. When I was Minister it was costing from £700,000 to £1 million a year. That figure was carried on the sound radio account which showed sound radio as losing heavily every year. That was very unfair to radio.

Much more could be done to further popularise the symphony orchestra. The best way would be for the symphony orchestra to go on provincial tours. More Irish artists could have been trained to take part. Some time ago there was a controversy because the conductor, Tibor Paul, did not have his contract renewed. Symphony enthusiasts predicted that that would be the end of the symphony orchestra. I did not think that criticism was justified. At that time I attended most of the symphony orchestra's performances and enjoyed them, but I do not think that when the conductor left the quality deteriorated. In fact, I think it improved. I am glad we stuck to that decision which was, in retrospect, justified.

If the provinces got the chance to hear the symphony orchestra more frequently that would do a great deal to popularise the orchestra and, ultimately, would produce more revenue. People who considered the symphony orchestra to be a status symbol felt that it was far too expensive. I am not for a moment advocating its discontinuance but we should do something to further popularise it.

Personality cults develop in most countries, Ireland included. Certain individuals become so ubiquitous in relation to television and radio that one can hardly turn on a knob or press a button without hearing their voices. People are inclined to ask if these are the only people in Ireland capable of broadcasting. Can an opportunity not be given to others who might be equally as good? Against that, those who are skilled in broadcasting and bring a high degree of professionalism to their programmes, should be retained. Somewhere in between lies the proper approach.

Not everybody is always prepared to be entertained by the same people day in day out. Some people become fans and want the same person all the time and it is not a good argument to say that a person is not good and that he should be discarded because he developed a personality cult. However, those who have been lucky to get a great many engagements should be prepared to give way to the trying out of new material and new talent which so far has not been given an opportunity.

When television was first opened here—it applied also to radio—the people who benefited most were the journalists. Naturally, those who got their toes in at the beginning were determined to hold and to stay. Should there not have been some system whereby opportunities would have been given to a variety of journalists rather than have permanent or semipermanent engagements of certain people? The people like variety. Particularly in relation to news readers, there is now a wide selection which is quite good: a number of readers participate even in the one bulletin and this can be interesting and can give added interest to news presentations.

I wonder to what extent the Minister might draw the Authority's attention to these points. One of the purposes of the Bill is to underline the independence of the Authority but the Minister can and may make known to them his views at particular times and they will undoubtedly have regard to his thinking, particularly if the Authority are weak, which I hope they will not be.

I am glad the Minister has learned and that he has regarded it as necessary to maintain some ministerial control. This is something that cannot be ruled out because when you say "the Minister" you mean this House. He must have some means of ensuring that he can intervene at times and I am not so sure that the statutory notice or order provided for in section 17 is sufficient. In regard to events that could incite to crime or lead to violence, there could be ad hoc situations and because of that I cannot understand why a statutory order should have force for 12 months.

In this regard, there could be prepared scripts or produced programmes and these should be available before screening so that the Minister could see they do not contain material that could be inflammatory, incite to crime or lead to violence. Intervention in relation to prohibition of this sort of behaviour should be in the form of machinery that could be immediately applied. It should not be a matter of having to wait for a year before annulling or changing the order. Perhaps the Minister will explain further the effects of section 17 when he is replying.

I apologise again for interrupting but it is for the purpose of trying to be clear so that I may reply more adequately. The statutory order can be replaced by the Minister himself if the situation changes. The point is, it can be annulled by either House at the end of the year. It holds for a year. May I ask what was the Deputy's suggestion about how he sees it? Was he suggesting the State should see programmes before they are broadcast?

Pre-censorship?

Yes. Unless the Authority, and through the Authority the State or the Government, have the right to see a prepared script or a programme that has been produced, it would be too late to see it after presentation. It could be that the wrong material was presented, the wrong people interviewed and the wrong things said. That is the kind of thing that can do most harm in the context of section 17. It could take several months to prepare a programme and as has happened in the past, it might be only after presentation that the faults came to light, that the fact that the programme was produced at all was not in the best interests of the State. It is difficult to say to what extent that might interfere with the liberty of the media but there must be some control somewhere. Mostly it can be left to the good sense of the people producing the matter but this may not always be so.

In regard to broadcasting in general, the public have become more selective and if one casts one's mind back to the original days of the nation one recalls that anything produced was considered to be interesting. Nowadays people are more discerning and more difficult to satisfy. The public have acquired a discerning taste with regard to television and, consequently, it is all the more interesting to note the decision of the survey. The Minister said it was not a victory for the cultural protectionists but I think it was a case where the Minister failed to get his view across. It was a situation where the people stood out for control of their own station, where they were not prepared to import programmes and take what was given to them. They demand a variety of channels but with the option to select what they want. They are not prepared to take holusbolus a channel from another authority.

All we can do is to give our opinions on matters that have been discussed here on many occasions. Since section 6 has gone the Bill is not so controversial. From my contacts with people I think they regard the medium as generally acceptable and sometimes even very good. It would be too much to expect that it would not err from time to time, that politically there would not be an effort to monopolise it sometimes. It is obvious that the Government have tried to hog the service on many occasions. I suppose that is a natural weakness, particularly in a new Government, but the less that happens the better the public will like it. When we get back to power I hope we will have learned a lesson from what has happened in the last few years. Many of the Ministers have been overexposed and that is not a good thing. We should not appear to seek an undue amount of publicity.

The listening and viewing public are quite enlightened and they are able to detect when news or any other programme is being produced in a subtle manner for an ulterior motive. It would be much better for those who script and produce programmes to be open and clear regarding the message they want to get across. They should not try to do it in a subtle way, and that is not unknown in the media today. If opinions are to be hammered into people, if there is to be brainwashing, it should be done in an open way that will be understood by all. It should not be carried out in a subtle, sinister way, where someone is denigrated by praising him. I am glad that we do not get too much of that. I do not view television all that much. There was a time when I would break my journey at night-time on my way home in order to look at the "Late Late Show" in case there would be a shower of telegrams from the bishops next day regarding something said on that programme. We have got away from that situation. Now I view programmes only when there is something I particularly want to see and, like most Members of this House, it is not always easy to get time to watch. The public have become very mature and discerning and they will not be codded by any kind of subtle effort to brainwash them.

I hope the second channel will be different from the existing channel; if both channels were the same, there would not be any point in having them. It should be easy to ensure that the channels will be different because there is a variety of material that cannot be produced on RTE at the moment. It has been said that the basic purpose of television is to entertain, inform and educate. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said that people should get what is good for them rather than what they want. If we want to ease the abuse of drugs we must pass legislation to prevent people from using them. We must do what is good rather than what people want and, to some extent, the same thing applies to the media.

Having undertaken the market survey, I realise the Minister was in honour bound to accept that decision. My constituents are people like the people of Ballymun and those Deputy Brennan mentioned. They consider they are entitled to a service from the State, whether it is BBC 1, BBC 2 or Ulster television. What they want is a choice. I understand that in Waterford city there is a piped service giving BBC 1 but in my area, in Dungarvan which has a population of 6,000, we are totally dependent on RTE. Our people are entitled to more. We pay the same licence fees as the people of Dublin. I know it is an accident of location that people in Dublin and on the east coast get the benefit of the British stations. I have no objection to that and I would be very glad if we could get it in my area. I am convinced if there was a genuine survey of licence holders in this country there would be a different result.

I have arranged to meet a deputation on Saturday of 14 people who happen to be in a multi-channel area and I consider them to represent the views of my constituents as a whole. This deputation will be asking me what stand I took in the House during this debate. In this respect I am asking the Minister for some guidance. Can he say whether section 6 is to be removed? As I see it, to remove this section is to take from the Minister the right to do what I am asking him to do. I understand the Minister's position but I want an assurance that the Minister is satisfied that the survey reflects the wishes of the people. In saying this I am not in any way being critical of RTE but they, too, are only human. On an occasion when there was an attempt by two RTE officials in Waterford to brainwash me I said to them: "Surely you cannot stand over the production of a series such as ‘The Lads'". They agreed with me that that series was a great insult to the Irish nation. Why should we be asked to give up our choice of channels and allow the people in RTE to decide our viewing for us? I trust I am not giving the impression of being critical of the Minister. I understand what he is trying to do but I would like to ask him whether he is satisfied that the survey was authentic. I am concerned with this question because I am in a position to produce a sworn statement, made in the presence of a commissioner for oaths, by a lady teacher to the effect that on at least three occasions on which she stated her views, the opposite were recorded.

I wonder whether this is typical. I understand that the information about this case has been forwarded to the Minister. On behalf of the people of Waterford I am asking for as good as can be given but the only alternative now seems to be a second RTE channel. This is not satisfactory because it is leaving to RTE the choosing of programmes for us. The screening of "Match of the Day" has been a deliberate innovation. This pro gramme was of vital importance to this issue but suddenly RTE decided that they would produce the programme late on Saturday nights. However, my grandchildren do not mind staying up until very late to see this programme. I hope I will not be misunderstood but I am anxious to hear from the Minister on the points I have raised. I have no wish to vote against the Bill. It is a good measure but I do not wish for the removal of section 6. I understand the Minister's position on this issue to be the same as the one I would take but it appears that he is bound by the result of this survey of 1,800 people. We must remember that the issue is not a political one and nobody to whom I have spoken in connection with it has endeavoured to make it such. If necessary a new Bill should be introduced giving people outside the multi-channel areas a choice of BBC 1, BBC 2 or some other programme, but what is being offered is not an alternative. I shall not go into the question of whether the broadcasting here of BBC's programmes would be detrimental in any way to our culture and values. It is my task merely to endeavour to interpret and put forward the views of those who elect me.

The progress achieved so far both in the debate on this issue here and in the national debate has helped clarify and promote a better spirit of understanding in regard to broadcasting. We have had the arguments of the viewers, of the RTE staff, of the Minister and of those who might be regarded as being noncommitted. The debate has tended to educate the public as to the aims of broadcasting.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach referred to our being a small and closed society and that arising from this the views of some of our people tended towards a degree of isolation. He said he was glad that the debate and subsequent survey resulted in clarification of those problems and in the fact that the Bill will be amended in its second aspect, as it were.

The first aspect of the Bill is its technical aspect because a number of the sections are involved with broadcasting technicalities. The second aspect deals with people and with culture, with our likes and dislikes. From the point of view of clarifying the position this debate has been one of the most useful we have had. Plenty of scope was provided for those who were pro and those who were anti and, pro and anti having clashed, we see today in this Bill the ideas that were ultimately produced. We are now members of a larger community and that must bring home to people who think in terms of the future the part we will be expected to play in that larger community. The result of this will be an on-going attitude.

The Minister says that in our culture we conjured up certain aspects. I suppose culture is based largely on tradition, on writing, both prose and poetry, on history and on politics. That is as it should be. The politician has a major part to play. Whether we agree or disagree with the attitude towards our culture, anything we can do as politicians should be done in the knowledge that we must look outward in future. This does not mean moving away from our own ideas of culture. There need be no surrender. We are not asked to surrender. The purpose of communication is to find out what the majority want and, if we can reach the desired degree of accord in this measure, then there is nothing to prevent us going further and widening out the scope of our activities in regard to broadcasting.

Important as it is, broadcasting is only one facet of the general spectrum. Let us not expect too much from it. It can play a major part because it enters every home in the country. Perhaps that is why some are inclined to place too much emphasis on broadcasting. Perhaps some rely on it too much in making up their own minds. Broadcasting is providing a service. It has thrown up some very able and well-informed people. There is no doubt about that. They go before the public and say what they have to say with regard to what they believe to be the best interests of the country. We are free to agree or disagree with what they say.

The Minister referred to the debate on this Bill in the Seanad. That debate served to bring out all the elements involved in framing a Broadcasting Bill in accordance with the views and opinions of the majority. The last measure on broadcasting was the 1960 Act under which the system was set up. We had not very much experience at the time and I think everyone will agree RTE did a good job of work. Wireless broadcasting started in the GPO on a shoestring. It prepared the ground for what is being done and what we are trying to do today. In effect, there is a stem to this whole matter and the stem started in the GPO and subsequently extended to RTE, and so on.

The Minister referred to the fact that RTE's finances were not very strong. In fact, he said they were weak. Last October there was an increase in licence fees. He indicated that another increase is being considered currently. In this context we have to consider the whole question of development. We have to consider whether or not we can afford the type of development we are seeking in present circumstances, and whether or not we can continue to afford it if costs keep mounting. We should have regard to this and each step we take on the road to a better broadcasting system should be brought into line with our ability to finance it.

We hear much criticism of expenditure which is not regarded as productive. We cannot go all the way with those who argue in favour of productive expenditure because there are many other sides to life besides commercialism. Indeed, one of the greatest sides to life would be the cultural side if we could afford it. I am not saying we are going overboard in trying to provide this service, but we should take a look at the total expenditure involved. It is estimated what it will be from 1976 to 1979 but in the past I have come across estimates for various projects which started off humbly but which became very expensive projects, indeed, and committed us to far more than we bargained for at the outset. These are disjointed remarks offered in good faith but they are remarks which should be made on a Bill of this kind.

The Minister, in a very detailed speech, talked about the wishes of the people, and the survey, and so on. He extended that somewhat at a later stage in his speech by saying there is a general wish here for open broadcasting. It may well be that every viewer would like open broadcasting but in present conditions, it is better to take it in stages as we have other road blocks to surmount on the road to open broadcasting. Barriers have to be broken down. It is regrettable that we have such barriers to break down in a country of this size. The fact must be recognised that the greatest barrier of all is the mind barrier. It is one that cannot be shifted physically like a road block. Therefore, if we have points to make in this argument let us make them. We should not enter into this argument under the mistaken impression that we are taking away part of our national heritage and culture. We must adopt an on-going policy, not merely in the framework of the Thirty-two Counties, but also in regard to Europe and world events in general.

The question then arose as to how this should be handled, whether RTE should handle the second channel, or whether the BBC should play a greater role in it. From my humble experience, I think it is wise for RTE to handle it in present circumstances. The people who argued this on behalf of RTE rounded off the argument rather skillfully. It could be taken that the Minister was acting as the devil's advocate and that he was more or less hoping the debate would go in the direction of open broadcasting. That might be desirable in certain circumstances, but I doubt that we could reach that point for some time. Therefore, this whole matter should be taken in easy stages and this Bill proposes to do that. It is a compromise between those in favour of a limited system and those in favour of an open system. For the moment a limited system will meet our needs and, at the same time, may result in promoting better communications. If the Bill can do this it will do well.

In regard to the implications of preference the Minister said:

I would also like to dwell a little on the implications of the preference which has been shown.

The twin themes on which I have based my policy have been the need to treat broadcasting as a service that is based on popular demand, like all the other media, and a wish to use broadcasting to further what I think we would agree is a primary national concern, that is a greater degree of mutual understanding on this island.

All of us, as politicians, would agree with him on that point. If we are unable to do this by what one might describe as remote control through the media—this Bill extending the activities of RTE and an intermix of programmes—if we are unable to further mutual understanding in that way, how will we commence or at what point will we commence?

It is to be hoped the Bill will be successful because if we could achieve this target it would be a wonderful advance: we would be making a start at breaking down barriers in minds. In this way also we would eventually substitute the ballot for the bullet. I hope people will view it in this way because appalling events have been happening recently and, currently, horrific deeds. If the implications of our preference turn out to be a better understanding of our neighbours, then one might have some hope of that method being successful.

Perhaps I might quote a second snippet from what the Minister deemed to be the implications of preference when he said:

I would seek to put forward the proposition that there has been a change in the generally accepted view of what the public wants, which has occurred over the past few years. This had partly been an evolution in those wants themselves, as RTE put their ideas across in public discussion.... It seemed to me that there was a certain evolution, not only in the more positive public reaction to an RTE 2 but also in RTE's own conception and presentation of what the public wanted and would accept.

That is a fair measure of the size of the problem in both directions—what the public wanted and would accept— because often there is a great difference in what the public may want or what an individual may want and will accept. Therefore, we must achieve a balance which must be calculated always not to upset our general aim at better understanding.

One might also agree with the sentiment that discussion is not a one-way process. That has been responsible in the past for destroying the basis of any understanding and for building barriers of the mind. Regrettably, it has happened. Whether we like it or not, we in the South must have regard to the fact that we played a part in it, be that part great or small. We have lived with it. It may be deemed to be an elusive sort of general theme but perhaps we always regard ourselves as too righteous in refusing to even see some particle of the mind of those who lived in slightly different conditions perhaps more intensified industrial conditions, than we did.

We must accept part of the blame for not adopting a more on-going understanding of events in the Northern part of this island. We should make it clear that when it comes to communications we are always able to justify our own stand and see the beam in the other man's eye; we were never too ready to think that we might have a mote in our own eyes. In that way we propagated certain views and ideas which had the effect of helping to create those blocks of which I speak. I would call them road blocks to humanity and anything we can do to lower them should be done. Any move at all calculated to do that should receive support. Whether people disagree with Conor Cruise-O'Brien——

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

The Minister. He has been criticised but I always contend there is a place for a man who does and can put across the other point of view but who, at the same time, does not go overboard in doing so, putting the view as dispassionately and in as balanced a way as possible. For that reason we are inclined to resent criticism here. That is shortsighted in the long run because, now that we are members of a wider community, we have to accept pluralism, the pluralism of society. In this context it might be well to say that the British as an island people were slow enough to accept the principle of pluralism. Seeing that we import and accept so much of the British way of life and did in the past to a certain degree I would think that it may well be said of the British that they also have certain barriers erected against this open society of which we speak, that is, the cultural side of our society. I am not saying it is not a purely democratic society but I often think that we are both island societies and that even though down through history we have had a fairly large exchange of other races by way of invasion and so on, that we are a little like the British in this way, that we never fully accepted the pluralism of society as we know it in America and other countries. This is distinct from the quality of the society. I am talking about whether we accept pluralism at all or not. I suppose we accept part of it anyway, but could the British be said to be similarly orientated in that regard? Whether we accept it or not we should make an attempt to understand the subject and to try to bring about better conditions in our society for living with pluralism, because unless we do we will still go on in the mistaken idea that the bomb and the bullet will solve our problems. This is mistaken logic.

We have something to learn from those men in politics in the North who have lived with that situation. Anything that tends to promote a mutual spirit of understanding in this island, whether it be communicated by the media or otherwise, is welcome. The media could be said to be remote control, but remote control is preferable to no control. In the past we surely could be said to be isolated from each other North and South. Very seldom people from the South went North; similarly very seldom people from the North came South. This was regrettable, and this has resulted in this terrible holocaust which we are witnessing now and which we have the misfortune to be living through.

I agree with what the Minister said, that a fresh look should be taken at public policy. We may fulminate and criticise each other or argue the point regarding the scope of broadcasting and the other elements which make it up, but we should always bear in mind that all of us would like to live in peace on the island. We should always be working with this object in view. In his introductory speech the Minister referred to the growth in demand for cable television, and said that we should take a fresh look at public policy and what we meant by our national identity and culture, as well as taking steps to ascertain more precisely what public demand was and what RTE would offer to meet that demand. I think none of us could disagree with the sentiments expressed there. Those sentiments may or may not be met by the survey, but we are on the same road or near each other on the same road. If the result of the survey does not go as far as the Minister or others would like, still we are within reach of this objective, and that in itself has been worth all those debates in the Seanad and the subsequent arguments which have been put forward throughout the country.

Perhaps there was this major discrepancy of which he spoke. He said that the notion of national culture as traditionally used in the broadcasting context did not altogether coincide with the concept of national identity which was commonplace in the political context. I am not too clear as to what he meant here.

I would think that he was referring to the fact that we did not go far enough in trying to understand what motivated the mind of the fellow on the far side of the fence, and I could reply to him by saying perhaps we did not, and perhaps we did not understand what motivated the mind of the man on the far side of the fence, but be that as it may, we have come to a point when we should try to relate this discrepancy in a more positive way to our political ideas and our political concept of how far we should go on the road to promoting, by way of the media, a better understanding all round and a better understanding of life on this island. He said: "National identity has been generally if loosely, understood as something which applies to the whole island and all its population. ‘National culture' as traditionally used in the broadcasting context, has been, also rather loosely, understood as the culture felt to be prevalent among the population of this State together with the minority in Northern Ireland." We should plead partly guilty in this regard. That summary is fair enough criticism of the length we were prepared to go to try to get the feel of what was motivating the mind of the man who lived on the far side of the fence. The other one is a qualification of the first and says:

Out of the growing realisation of the damage and danger caused by this situation, has come a growing sense of the need for better understanding between the two main traditions in this island as they actually are and not as we might wishfully imagine them to be.

It may be a bad thing to try to generalise on this point but one could compare this with neighbours living in harmony with one another. I have seen neighbours, especially in rural parts of the country, who have been at loggerheads all their lives perhaps over a very trivial matter like a pathway, which will be there after all of them have reached the grave. This often separated two families for years and caused endless heartbreak.

Perhaps it might be a dangerous thing to say that part of our problem in dealing with the North is on a similar basis to neither the hardliner in the North nor the hardliner here ever thinking sufficiently long and hard enough on this aspect of the matter to realise that one must take people, warts and all, and that one cannot have a person as one would like him or her to be. There is no such person. We must take the good with the bad. What is an island without people? Therefore, we should come more and more to the realisation that if we are prepared to accept people we cannot have them as we would like them to be so we should accept them as they are. In doing that we will have to forego some of our share of ideas, plans, and possibly even culture to meet the other people and to try to blend the two together. There may not be a very wide gap between the two but there certainly is a gap. I do not know what good this Bill will do but we should certainly go on trying to match people and trying to merge their views.

It was said by some speakers that possibly we could do more. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach referred to this in what one might call a materialistic point when he spoke about recycling certain articles and how useful the medium is in this regard. One could agree that the medium is very useful. At the moment we are trying to get children to understand that it is a good thing to keep litter off the streets, that it is the first step in the prevention of pollution. The television medium is doing a good job in this regard. If they keep on at this they deserve every support we can give them. The fellow who thought up the slogan: "Feed a hungry bin" deserves the greatest credit. This shows how far the medium can go to influence the minds of people.

RTE should invite plans not merely on the commercial side but on the national and cultural side. They should give good incentives to people who come forward with good ideas for better broadcasting. Everything that is good can be made better. If we said to people: "If you do this work in conformity with our general aims, having reviewed your programme beforehand, we will contract this work to you", it might be a step on the road to a change in ideas and bringing fresh ideas into broadcasting in general.

We are often inclined to go overboard when a Bill is brought before the House or when some organisation is set up to deal with the many sides of cultural life as we know it today and then after a while we weary of it and let it die into the background. I would prefer if we took it on a medium key and kept working at it rather than going at it in an enthusiastic way, walking away from it, leaving it there and saying: "We have established it, we will leave it there to live or die". This is a mistake which served us ill in the past. We should continue to encourage people to give their views on many topics irrespective of where they come from. We should try to aim at using RTE as a centre for the gathering of information, evaluating it and distributing it later in the form of intelligence reports.

The fact that in the past a certain confined area of the country was limited to RTE reception while the remainder enjoyed the benefit of a number of channels created an imbalance and anything that can be done to wipe out that imbalance is welcome. In a certain respect this Bill is trying to accomplish that. The programmes shown on RTE compare very favourable with those screened in other countries; they are entertaining and educational, and are preferable to any of the programmes imported or shown by outside channels.

I have always felt that it was a pity RTE did not show some of the famous Irish plays. If that was done, it would serve the purpose of wiping away some of the myths that exist about our past. For instance, it is a pity that instead of importing the series of programmes concerning the American Civil War we did not prepare documentaries about our past history. I am aware that to prepare such documentaries would take a great deal of time and cost money and that we would be asked to sanction the provision of that money by way of an increase in the licence fee. We must always have regard to the position of the finances of the State.

In case I become boring on this subject I shall now make a few points about the proposed new channel and what I should like to see on that channel if it is set up. I have no doubt that RTE will be able to establish the second channel. A university of the air would be a wonderful advance if we could reach that stage. That brings me to the series of Thomas Davis lectures broadcast by Radio Éireann on Sunday nights. Those lectures are very informative and it would be wonderful if something similar could be shown by RTE.

Many of the imported films shown on RTE portray a great deal of violence. We should endeavour to get rid of the gun, the bomb, terrorists and criminals off the screen. I do not have much time to watch television but I am conscious of the fact that people can learn a great deal from television. It has a big advantage over the radio in that it is a form of visual aid. I am not trying to convey the impression that radio has not progressed in recent times because Radio Éireann have made great strides in the last decade. There is no doubt about this. We should aim at a happy medium, eliminate all undesirable characters from the screen and try to present more programmes with the balance in favour of education. If we did that, this Bill which deals with cultural and political relations as well as technical matters, would mark a milestone in our progress. I hope this happens because it is in this direction that we should all be going.

I welcome the many commendable proposals in this Bill, particularly regarding the complaints commission. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to some other matters. We should be very serious in our approach to this subject because of the importance of television as a medium of communication. I want to make suggestions rather than to be critical at this point. I also want to refer briefly to the manner in which programmes are arranged. If the station does not give the people what they want, when they want it, they might as well not be there. For example, I had to stay up until after midnight to see a relay of a football match which had been played in Ireland. On Saturday evenings we get the "Match of the Day". If we have children old enough to be interested in these programmes not alone should they be in bed when these programmes are shown but they should have had one or two hours sleep.

RTE should satisfy the people. Television influences the younger people more than the adults because the latter can hear both sides of an argument and make up their own minds. In a discussion programme both sides should be represented, if possible.

Now we come to the part of the Bill which affects me. My view, and that of the people of Limerick whom I represent, is that we must have equality for all. While we do not have the same choice of programmes, although we pay the same licence fees as the people living on the east coast and in County Donegal, we are being deprived of this facility. I am not interested if this is happening because of an accident, an act of God or an act of man. At a public meeting in Limerick the people said: "We shall get equality" and this is what we are striving to achieve in this Bill so far as I am concerned. Any man with one eye closed and the other eye half open must realise just what is going on.

If adjustments must be made, let them be made and give everybody the same service; give us equality. I insist on that. The public meeting held at Limerick was open to all. My party and I did not invite any organised groups to that meeting. Anybody who was interested in the subject came to that meeting and listened. We had a packed audience. The Minister stated his case. RTE made their case. When a show of hands was taken after the public discussion, there was no doubt in anybody's mind what the people of Limerick wanted—they wanted a choice, and not a second RTE channel. I do not know what happened in other areas but, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the people I represent are concerned, there is no doubt in our minds what we want.

It has been said that because we would be subjected to stations from England we would become west Britons, or east Britons, or maybe south or north Britons—some kind of Britons anyway. That is not my experience. I cannot see how anybody could assert that if we got a programme from England we would become more English than the English. It is absolute nonsense. I can tune to Radio Luxembourg or any station in the world and it has not changed my views or nationalistic outlook. I am no exception. We have had a long hard road to independence and we are not likely to lose our culture and heritage because of watching a programme from England or America or anywhere else. We have taught our children the same views and thank God they are following them. Our culture has survived centuries of oppression and will not be changed overnight by any outside channel.

During the summer season we hold siamsaí and céilithe, festivals of all kinds and ballad sessions. Tourists, British or American, are present at these sessions, they listen to our culture and they know that outside influences do not change our people. It is our own characteristic music we hear at these events. So let nobody tell me that our culture would not survive an outside televisino channel.

People went around different areas in one way or another soliciting support for RTE 2. They were trying to project their own particular slant, forgetting, of course, that we are now Europeans. They are the very people who went around soliciting support for EEC entry. For centuries outside influences tried to convert us but they failed.

RTE have had plenty of time to put their house in order. They did not do it. They are a law unto themselves. A bit of competition keeps all of us on our toes. RTE have not had it in the single-channel areas. Complaints went to them about programmes but they had no effect on Montrose. There now has been some penetration there and we welcome it.

On the question of the survey that was carried out, we all know that anyone who has a flutter on what the tipsters say is on a loser 99 times out of 100. This happens not alone here but in England and America. We have seen cameras being put on people in the streets of our cities. They are asked something and the reply is indefinite. On Sunday night last when somebody was asked something in front of the camera the reply was: "Yerra, sure I don't know", and so on. That is all we got. The more serious problems are not put to such people in a serious way.

I do not know what kind of a survey was carried out. I mix with the people as much as any Deputy. When this survey was carried on in Limerick, if it was, the news should have trickled in to me. There is very little news or scandal or gossip in Limerick city that does not come back to me in some form, but not in this case. I am sure the same thing happened in regard to every man in public life. I do not know which people made the survey. I did not see any of them. Somebody told me a person was brainwashed into changing his mind about the second channel and that he later went and swore an affidavit before a commissioner of oaths that he had been brainwashed in favour of one channel. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

These are the things I want to put before the Minister. They are very simple but very important. I want to see the man in the single-channel area who pays the same licence fee, be it black and white or colour, being able to see the same programmes as are enjoyed by the man in Dublin or Donegal or anywhere else. We had a public platform in Limerick and there is no doubt about what the people there want. There is an active committee there and their statements are going to the Press.

One section of the Bill that puzzles me is section 6, the section with too many "mays" and too few "shalls". If something is to be done we should state "it shall be done". The word "may" is a very indefinite word and many a law case has been won on the difference between the insertion of the word "may" and the insertion of the word "shall". We are living in changing times, when there can be many misrepresentations, and we should take note of the loophole that is in this section. I am not in favour of the section until it is more clearly defined, when it states that certain things "shall" be done.

I shall not deal in detail with the Minister's statement but I cannot agree that the result of the survey was the overriding factor. We know what the people want and whatever is accepted on one side should equally be accepted on the other. I will leave that matter to the Minister in the hope that the necessary amendments will be made before the Bill is put through the House.

I have read the Minister's statement with some care. The first half more or less gives a general outline of the Bill. The second half is designed more for public consumption or back-clapping by the Minister. I should like to deal with a few points that arise in the Minister's statement.

The Bill provides for direct transmission for outside broadcasting services here and the Minister has stated he intends to amend that section in view of the survey. I do not see that it should be necessary to amend that section because there might be an occasion in the future, if not immediately, where the provision might be useful, which would prevent the Minister of the day coming back to the House seeking fresh legislation. There may be some technical, complicated reason why the amendment should be made and, if so, I should like the Minister's explanation. I accept the verdict of the survey but I will deal with that later.

If we can persuade other countries to take broadcasting from here for direct transmission in other countries. I take it this can be done under the provisions of the previous Act. I should like that point clarified. Not long ago I discovered that a television set bought in the Six Counties will not operate in the South and vice versa without having a box put on the side of the set to change the system. I know that on Saturday afternoons we get coverage of race meetings transmitted by BBC and UTV which are broadcast by RTE. There must be some technical process where the same signal can be received by television viewers in the North and the South. Quite frankly I do not know how it works.

When I was in Belfast I bought a portable television set for approximately £30. The customs men were satisfied but when I tried to use it at home it would not operate. The local repair man told me it would cost another £25 or £26 to attach a box to the side of the set before it could be used. I could have bought a set in the South just as cheaply and it would have been more convenient. I have been told that in the North the ordinary RTE signal is not received and I should like this confirmed or denied. If it is not received there, is there any technical adjustment we can make with our transmission to ensure that news items and comments can be made available to those who want to receive them in the Six Counties?

With regard to the survey, it is fair to say that even before he introduced the Bill into the Seanad the Minister campaigned in the interests of BBC 1. While I agree that the cost of providing the extra channel was in dispute, clearly the Minister was favouring BBC 1 transmission. In spite of the fact that the Minister's point of view was very clear, and while I agree he had to contend with the professional organisation in RTE, I should have thought that the Minister would have picked up public reaction more accurately than he did. I am sure the percentage that voted in favour of BBC 1 would have been considerably less had it not been for the Minister's obvious views. Many people thought that the Minister had the best available information, they considered it did not make very much difference to him what their decision would be, and consequently his views were accepted by a considerable number of people.

I am living in a multi-channel area and I have cable television but I find that most of my television viewing is RTE programmes. Admittedly, on Saturdays I turn off the sports programmes on RTE and watch wrestling from one of the other stations. Generally speaking the content of RTE programmes is much superior to the BBC 1 programmes. Until there was the clerical dispute at Dublin Airport, if one were interested in light entertainment it was possible to watch a programme such as "The Invisible Man" on RTE on Monday or Tuesday and it was carried on BBC 1 on the following Thursday or Friday. This also applies to other programmes in the autumn schedule. It appears the American export companies fly the film to Ireland, it is shown here and is then sent on to England. So far as canned material is concerned should the programme planners in England decide to opt for the same programmes as the programme planners in Ireland, the Irish viewer sees them first. Therefore, at least so far as that type of programme is concerned, there would be no point in having BBC.

I represent the mainly working-class areas of Inchicore and Ballyfermot. It is a constituency in which there are mostly local authority dwellings, some of which we inherited when the State was established. Obviously, there are a large number of old people in some of those areas and this brings me to the question of a licence fee. People in these areas cannot understand why they should have to pay more for a service of which they can avail already in order that that service might be made available to people in other parts of the country.

So far as I can ascertain, their view is that either the extra charges should be borne by the Exchequer or by way of advertising revenue. In this regard we know that advertising is not capable of carrying the additional costs because those companies who advertise work within a budget for this purpose. Therefore, the only other means of raising this extra revenue is by way of the television licence. It is common knowledge that there is not as much money in the Exchequer as we would wish for. Indeed, it can be said that no Government have as much money as they would like to have for development purposes. Therefore, it seems to me that the only way of dealing with this problem is that those people who require the facility of the additional channels should be the ones to pay for the service.

While there may be administrative difficulties and inequities associated with any such arrangement I am merely endeavouring to put forward the views of the people I represent. I have carried out what could be regarded as a sample survey in that I have spoken with about 100 people on this question and what I am giving is the majority view. The Minister must examine seriously the question of whether the Exchequer can bear the cost of providing this extra service. The cost of maintaining it is another matter. The views of Irish Actors Equity and the Federation of Irish Musicians, for example, would be based on the amount of work that would be available to them.

The Minister says that the Government must retain a final say in difficult and sensitive areas relating to the security of the State. No one would fault that but I should hope that this Minister or any future Minister would use his power as sparsely as possible. I am of the opinion, but if this can be denied I am not in a position to prove it, that the present Minister has indicated his feelings in relation to programmes such as "7 Days". This programme constituted compulsory watching for me when I was on the Government side of the House because at that time it was attacking Government policy and attitudes. However, the programme has lost its teeth entirely and my attitude is to watch at the outset so as to ascertain what subjects are for discussion and then, perhaps, to switch to BBC. Admittedly, this programme was the subject of an inquiry but it is a pity that it has lost so much of its bite in so far as matters of a political nature are concerned.

In general I find many of the provisions of this Bill to be an improvement on and an up-dating of previous legislation. The Minister says that under section 15 the Authority will have more flexibility in regard to the setting of hours of broadcasting and in deciding when advertisements may be broadcast. It could be an advantage to know at what time commercials were to be screened because a person might wish to make a phone call, for instance, and might avail of the commercial break for this purpose rather than to have to miss some of the content of the programme. Usually the first commercial break after a programme begins does not occur for 30 or 40 minutes but thereafter there is a break every ten minutes until the programme is finished. When I was in the US I noticed that the arrangement there was a very simple one—12 minutes of a programme and three minutes for advertising. That amount of advertising might not be permissible here but the system had some merit in that one knew exactly when the interruption for the commercials would occur.

In the US, too, in cities and towns much smaller than Dublin there is maintained not only the national broadcasting and CBS networks but also one or two independent stations. The latter survive on revenue from advertising by local sources. If private enterprise can do that in the US one is tempted to ask whether Parkinson's Law has taken over in RTE because increasing numbers of people are being required to do the amount of work done by fewer people in the past. It might be desirable at this time to engage a firm of management consultants who would go into the question of the structure and management of the RTE Authority. I am not saying that the situation I am referring to exists but it is something that can happen where a monopoly is concerned.

Having expressed the hope that this Minister or any other would use sparsely his powers in relation to interfering with the Authority, I would hope, too, that the same would apply to the commission and that there would be the minimum of interference by the commission in the RTE Authority. While the idea of a commission is good we will be watching carefully those appointed to it. The intention of the Bill could be frustrated unless the commission were appointed on an impartial basis.

In so far as piping either for multi-channel or for an RTE 2 channel is concerned private enterprise should be encouraged as much as possible. So far as I am aware this has not been the position up to now. We must encourage them to take over some of the work from RTE Relays. In some areas private enterprise has gone ahead but only after experiencing difficulty in obtaining approval. They would be in a better position than RTE to bring multi-channel viewing to a much wider area. That would be done, of course, without any cost to the taxpayers and I imagine it could be done at reasonable rents. Indeed, I saw a programme not so long ago where one town in the west of Ireland has actually done this for itself.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn