Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 12, and 20 are consequential on the proposal to delete section 6. Therefore, amendments Nos. 5, 9, 12 and 20 and the proposed deletion of section 6 may be discussed together, by agreement.
Private Members' Business. - Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
(Dublin Central): Does that take in the amendment of section 6? Is that what the Minister has in mind?
Yes, with the permission of the Chair, I should like to take the deletion of section 6 and amendments Nos. 1, 5, 9, 12 and 20 together. They are all consequential on the proposed deletion of section 6.
(Dublin Central): They have a bearing on other sections of the Bill. Would it be possible to take section 6 on its own?
I am in the hands of the Chair in this matter. They are all interconnected, I think.
These amendments hang on section 6 and are, therefore, consequential on that section. That is why they have been put together.
(Dublin Central): I agree that they are consequential on section 6 but they affect other sections of the Bill as well.
As we come to deal with the sections, if Deputies have points they wish to make they may do so on those sections. Is it agreed to take the amendments and section 6 together?
The amendment in relation to section 6 involves deletion of the section. Is that correct? Does that automatically mean that, when we deal with an amendment such as amendment No. 1, there can be no discussion on the background of the reason for the amendment suggesting the deletion of the section?
All discussion will arise on, say, amendment No. 1. There can be a full discussion on all the amendments together.
(Dublin Central): When we arrive at section 6 we can then discuss that section?
There will be a discussion on it in regard to the amendments which involve the deletion of the section.
In so far as this is procedural, of course, we are all entirely in the hands of the Chair. But, so far as it contains a question of what is to be the subject matter to be discussed, what I would certainly intend in moving the deletion of section 6 and these amendments is that all matter connected with section 6 and its deletion could be considered together. Therefore, I do not quite understand the difficulty which some Deputies on the other side appear to have about this matter. There is no intention whatever to shut out debate either about section 6 or its deletion.
(Dublin Central): I am quite prepared to take the amendments which have a bearing on section 6. But, when we come to that section of the Bill, do I take it it will then be deleted and that we can have no further discussion on it?
That is right.
(Dublin Central): We are doing all that now?
We are doing it all at this stage. Therefore, we go to section 1, amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister and amendments Nos. 5, 9, 12 and 20 which are consequential on that. This also involves the deletion of section 6.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, lines 14 and 15, to delete the definition of "rebroadcast".
The House is very familiar, perhaps, indeed, over-familiar, with the history of this matter. Section 6 of the Bill would have given the Minister power to direct the rebroadcasting of outside services. This was intended to give power to rebroadcast BBC 1 if that was what people, especially those people in the single channel area, seemed to want.
As the House is aware, there was considerable discussion about what people did want and I agreed to put the matter to the test of an opinion survey which was set up jointly by RTE and myself. I also agreed that RTE should have an adequate opportunity to explain to the public the merits of its proposals of a second RTE service which would consist for about four-fifths of its time of broadcasting of programmes originating outside this country and mainly in Britain.
When the opinion survey was carried out, it became clear that a clear majority of the sample taken favoured the RTE 2 as that concept was explained to the people who participated in the sample.
I had undertaken before the survey was carried out that if it gave a clear result I would be guided by that result. It did in my opinion give such a clear result and I, accordingly, recommended to the Government that the second channel, the material for which is now being put in place, should be entrusted to RTE for use for the second RTE channel as described by it, as explained by it in its pamphlet The Second Channel and in its material submitted to the people who participated in the opinion survey.
The Government are now committed to that and there is, therefore, no further need for the powers contained in section 6 which would have been necessary, in the opinion of the Government, were it clear that the demand was, in fact, for the retransmission of an outside service.
The deletion of the section and the consequent amendments do not necessarily and logically follow from the Government decision. It would have been possible to decide to give the second channel to RTE and nonetheless to retain these powers as possibly of service on some future occasion. I decided not to act in that way, partly because of the objections that had been raised to these particular powers in the Seanad and elsewhere and partly because I wanted to leave no doubt in the minds of the public or of the House of the Government's entire good faith in abiding by the best expression of public opinion on this matter which it could obtain. It is for these reasons that I commend to the House the deletion of section 6 and the amendments consequential thereon, all of which are of matter which would have been necessary if section 6 was required and none of which is necessary if section 6 is removed.
So, as Deputy Fitzpatrick, the Opposition spokesman on this, has indicated, it is all essentially a matter of section 6. The amendments are consequential and technical matter and what we are really concerned with is the deletion of section 6. As the opposition in the Seanad and in the country also took very strong exception to section 6, I would hope that its deletion will not here be an extremely contentious matter.
(Dublin Central): We are fully in agreement with taking the Minister's amendments together because it is obvious that some of them are of a very technical nature and they all have a bearing on the deletion of section 6. I can assure the Minister that we welcome the deletion of section 6.
Since the Bill was first introduced in the Seanad we have objected at all times to section 6. In the protracted debate in the Seanad it was brought to the Minister's notice in no uncertain fashion, by various speakers, that this party objected to the fact that the Minister was taking this right unto himself to direct the authority to broadcast an outside broadcasting programme. In the past number of months we have put it forcibly to the people and to the Minister that we believe that a second Irish broadcasting channel is the best and most favourable type. We made our views known over the past five months since the Bill was first introduced. We could never agree to the handing over of a broadcasting station to an outside broadcasting company. That is what the Minister proposed to do.
The Deputy will forgive me—there was no question of handing over a broadcasting station.
(Dublin Central): Excuse me—a broadcasting channel—to an outside broadcasting company. The Minister was taking this right unto himself and he expressed the view on a number of occasions that the programme he would like was BBC 1.
Not alone did we on this side of the House express dissatisfaction with the Minister's proposals but various organisations throughout the country, trade unions and the various organisations attached to the Minister's own party, expressed dissatisfaction and objected to the fact that the Minister was taking this right and giving the additional channel which is being built at this time to be utilised by BBC 1.
The Minister carried out a survey on the matter and put it to the test. The result of that survey has proved conclusively that the Minister completely misjudged the pulse of the people. That survey was conclusive evidence that the participants rejected the Minister's proposals as regards the rebroadcasting of BBC 1 and came down in favour of an Irish channel, in favour of RTE 2.
If the Minister had got the pulse of the people and of his own backbenchers before the Bill was drafted, the Bill as introduced would not have contained section 6. No one in this country would dream of handing over this valuable asset to an outside broadcasting company. At the moment there is a considerable amount of money being spent on the second channel. Before it is fully equipped the second channel will cost an amount in the region of £4 million. This is taxpayers' money or money raised by loan on behalf of the taxpayer to be spent on buildings, installations and equipment for the second channel.
The Minister was misguided in including a section such as section 6 in the Bill. We put forward our proposals. RTE in their own right, put forward their proposals. We know now the result of the survey. We put forward proposals for the retention here of the second channel. We proposed the establishment of a programme council. It was our intention to give representation on that council to that part of the country which is commonly called the single channel area. We have several other amendments tabled to the Bill. We propose enlarging the authority. RTE made a strong case for control of the second channel. They pointed out to the Minister in no uncertain fashion the adverse effect there would be on RTE were control to be vested elsewhere. There would be redundancies if the Minister went ahead with section 6 and handed the second channel over to the BBC. All these points were made even before the survey was carried out and the Minister should have realised the serious consequences there would be within RTE had the survey gone in the Minister's favour. Everyone is, I think, delighted the survey did not go in the Minister's favour.
RTE also pointed out the fall in revenue that would inevitably take place if BBC 1 were broadcast in its entirety. The Minister should have taken account of all these important factors before ever the survey was carried out. These were factors which would affect the livelihoods of those at present employed in RTE. The Minister's insistence on this particular section had the effect of weakening confidence. I welcome the deletion of this section. I said initially it should never have been there and we pointed that out on several occasions. This survey was carried out in the single channel area and it was quite obvious early on in that area that the people were not prepared to hand over the second channel to BBC 1 when it was explained to them that this would not really give them any choice.
We would like to see, and I hope the authority will consider this, a selection of programmes from BBC 1, BBC 2 and UTV. I believe RTE can provide this. Our proposal contemplated 20 to 25 per cent of home-produced programmes on the second channel. These programmes would generate employment for actors, writers, technical staff and so on. We believe studios should be established in the south and west. This would be a move towards diversification, a move away from the Montrose complex. Whether one likes it or not, there is a feeling in the country that RTE is Montrose orientated. I do not believe that myself and I have said so but, if the proposal we put forward to establish studios in Cork, Galway, Limerick and elsewhere were implemented, that feeling would no longer exist. I think RTE have this in mind. I think they will make progress in studios elsewhere than in Montrose.
These are very important factors which should be taken into account. The country is in a state of economic crisis. The time has come to boost morale. Every semi-State body has difficulties. Introducing this kind of section in a time of economic depression would only result in more redundancies. We can ill afford that sort of evolution at this time. Broadcasting BBC 1 would mean that people would get the same kind of programmes as they get at the moment because 40 per cent of RTE's programmes are broadcast from BBC 1. RTE 2 will give a wider choice. I should like RTE 2 to give quality programmes. If I were to make a choice the last thing I would do would be rebroadcast BBC 1. I believe BBC 2 produces better quality programmes. So does UTV. There is a wide choice.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27th November, 1975.