Deputy Briscoe was in possession when the debate was adjourned.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): Deputy Briscoe does not seem to be here. This section was discussed at considerable length on the last occasion. It is probably one of the most important sections in the Bill and the one that is generally most controversial in the operation of the Broadcasting Authority. I think it has caused more problems than any other section in getting the views of the Minister and reconciling them with those of the Authority. The present section goes into more detail than what was in the original Bill, which was very brief. Although I agree this probably spells out certain functions in a better manner, as I mentioned already, it may cause many complications.
The important thing is that the Authority will know how to interpret what the Minister has in mind; we must have no confusion about this section. The current affairs part of the Bill has caused many problems and various politicians on both sides of the House have been critical, irrespective of what Minister was in office, of the way certain programmes were treated. The question of impartiality with which we are dealing here is of major importance especially in the case of television which is such a powerful medium. Television plays a more and more important part in elections and by-elections. We can see how important an instrument it is in the case of the American election campaign. The operation of this section will be of vital interest to political parties here to ensure that during an election campaign there is complete impartiality. The Authority will have to put forward their proposals for covering a general election. Every political party should know from the Director General what his proposals are. The Minister may contradict me if I am wrong, but I understand that certain proposals are at present being considered by the Authority as to how best to handle the next general election. I do not think there is anything wrong with the Authority considering these proposals at this time. Whether we like it or not, we are in the fourth year of the life of this House and therefore the Authority must be looking ahead to see what is the best way to give fair coverage to an election if it should arise.
The majority on this side of the House get very little warning as regards general elections. The Authority must surely be discussing at this time the type of programmes and the provisions they should make. These provisions should be known in advance. There is no point in criticising the Authority on the eve of an election. In these types of programmes where the political parties are very much involved I would like to see the Authority spelling out well in advance the form that they intend to use. Proper discussions should take place between the whips of the political parties and the RTE Authority. Whoever is in charge of this type of programme must be seen to be completely impartial, because it is at such an important point in time that advantages can be taken by the use of television coverage. These are important factors as regards this section and I am sure the Minister will see my point of view. I am sure the Minister would be as anxious as I would be to ensure that all political parties would have a fair idea of the Authority's plans.
This is certainly one of the most important sections in the Bill. It is a far more elaborate section than that contained in the 1960 Bill. When we were last discussing this Bill, I mentioned certain aspects which the Minister said he would have a look at. We have already put forward amendments as regards the deletion of the word "tending". We thought it was ambiguous and would place the Authority in a difficult situation in regard to what the Minister had in mind. The Minister seemed to be convinced that it was necessary to have it there. We put forward the proposal that, even with the deletion of it, the section was strong enough and would give the Authority a more positive view of this section.
In regard to impartiality, I looked at the "Late Late Show" some nights ago. We must ensure that people are not given the opportunity to publicise materials or periodicals. I make this remark in passing because it struck me that a certain group of people were capitalising on the show that night for commercial reasons. I have already dealt with the various amendments. The Minister said he would look at some of them on Report Stage. My proposals in regard to the Authority's handling of an election is important to political parties.
I should like to be quite brief. As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, we have already given considerable time to this section which, I agree, is a very important section. I am not saying we have given too much time to it. As regards the amendments, I have undertaken to make further comments on Report Stage on that matter. I have made the Government's position on this section fairly clear already. A couple of points have just been made by Deputy Fitzpatrick to which I would like to refer briefly.
He says that he believes the Authority have been considering plans for coverage of the next general election. I have no information on that matter. That may be so. As regards the coverage of general elections, the obligations that rest on the Authority are the same as for coverage of other things. I think we would all be agreed that, down the years, successive Authorities have discharged these responsibilities fairly and well and that there is recognition of that on both sides of the House, though, of course, there may be feelings, particularly during a politically hot period like a general election, that this or that which has been done ought not to have been done.
Deputies will agree that it would not be desirable for the Minister of the day to intervene in relation to this area; that the Authority are best left to discharge their responsibility, subject to the machinery which does exist for complaints registered. I am sure the Authority will take note of the comments that have been made by Deputy Fitzpatrick. I am quite sure that in any arrangements that are made by RTE for the coverage of the next general election—and I do not think any great urgency prevails in relation to that matter——
(Dublin Central): You would never know.
Admittedly, you never know, but my guess would be not. However, I am quite sure that they will contact the whips of all parties concerned and that they will do their very best to discharge their responsibility with fairness to everybody as, on the whole, they have always tried to do in the past.
One specific matter was mentioned by Deputy Fitzpatrick about a particular show and he voiced an objection to it. It would not be proper for me to comment here on individual programmes except in exceptional circumstances. I would again draw the attention of any Deputy, or of any citizen, who may feel that a particular programme erred in respect of balance, impartiality or in some other way, to the fact that he has the remedy of putting the case before the present complaints committee or what will be the statutory complaints commission once this legislation is through. Advantage has already been taken of that in a number of cases—I think six—and the results of these deliberations have been published in the RTE house paper and sometimes rather more generally.
Might I intervene for a moment to inform the House that agreement has been reached between ourselves and the Opposition that the House will not sit until 11.30 tomorrow morning to enable Deputies to attend the Arbour Hill ceremonies?
As one who, at one stage as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, had responsibility for the operation of RTE under the former Broadcasting Authority Act, it would be improper if I were to allow section 3 to go through without comment.
On the face of it, subsections (1) (a) and (1) (b) are roughly the same as section 18 (1) of the 1960 Act; subsection (1) (c) applies to books, magazines, tapes and so on, published and distributed by the Authority. The rider to paragraph (b) worries me because it can be used, in my opinion, and for all practical purposes, to make the paragraph null and void, particularly if there is a code giving the Authority further latitude. The last paragraph of section 3 (1) at the top of page 3 reads:
Should it prove impracticable in a single programme to apply paragraph (b) of this subsection, two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole; provided that the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period.
That amendment to the 1960 Act calls into question a circular issued by Mr. Hardiman, former Director General, under the heading "RTE Policy on Current/Public Affairs Broadcasting", issued by way of staff guideline on 8th May, 1970. In paragraph 7 (iv) of that circular, interpreting section 18 (1) of the Broadcasting Act, 1960, he said:
In seeking balance in current/public affairs programming, it is accepted that all significant viewpoints should be represented. It is recognised, however, that in the treatment of issues which are or are likely to be of continuing public interest, this may not always be practicable in every single programme; in that case the duty of impartiality will be regarded as discharged if a balance is maintained between different viewpoints, taking one programme with another, over a reasonable period of time.
I felt that that circular was in contravention of section 18 of the 1960 Act, which says that:
It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that, when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news, or feature is presented objectively and impartially and without any expression of the Authority's own views.
We have that phraseology again here. By writing in the paragraph on top of page 3, to which I referred earlier, the Minister accepts that the directive of the then Director General was not in compliance with the spirit of section 18 of the Broadcasting Act, 1960. That is why I am contributing to this debate. As the broadcasting authority, the Director General and the programme presenters found it possible to go beyond the intention expressed in statutory form by the Oireachtas, as was shown in the directive issued in 1970, I am worried what powers the Authority or successive Directors General make take from this Bill.
There are a number of cross references in this Bill, which is amending the 1960 Act. One has to study this Bill very assiduously in order to tie up loose ends. I am fearful of the additional laxity given in this Bill. Subsection (1) reads:
Subject to subsection (1A) of this section, it shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that—
(a) all news broadcast by it is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the Authority's own views.
Subsection (b) goes on to deal with current affairs and matters of public controversy or subjects of current public debate.
It has been accepted down the years that members of the Authority have always endeavoured to carry out their duties responsibly. The Authority and the Director General have had difficulties trying to stop various operators and programme presenters from flouting authority and the wishes of the Oireachas.
Section 3 (1) says it shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that:
(b) the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the Authority's own views.
I suppose one could be accused of trying to muzzle RTE, and I have no objection to being so accused. I would like to see it being built into the Bill that current affairs programmes or items of public controversy should be dealt with without the specific expression of the views of the producer or presenter of the programme. One cannot put this into a Bill, but there is no doubt at all that we have programmes in which definite efforts are made to influence public opinion by the manner in which they are presented. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is on the record as saying when in opposition, say, between 1970 and 1972, that there are more than the average number of liberal minds in Montrose. I do not suppose the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would have been critical of that. He was saying that the Government of the day were in trouble because of the activities of these people. However, there was and still is undue influence or an effort to have undue influence on public opinion through the manner in which certain programmes are presented.
I want to give an example, and maybe I am going back a bit far, but I am deliberately picking out this example because I have a feeling that operators within RTE at present are encouraged in their efforts to mould public opinion by the knowledge that they are working—I will not say with the full permission of, and it would be wrong for me to say with the blessing of, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—without the interference of the Minister in their efforts to justify the use of contraceptives and to advance the day when divorce will be freely available in this country.
A copybook example of how propaganda can be facilitated can be found in three consecutive programmes of the "Late Late Show" in January-February, 1975. The first programme featured a panel of women in connection with the inauguration of Women's Year. Each and every lay woman on that panel was vociferous in assailing the ban on contraceptives and was quite outspoken in depicting marriage and the life of women in the home as inadequate, frustrating and full of cruelty by the husband and so on.
On that same programme a freelance journalist, whom I shall leave nameless, who was frequently employed by RTE and who was a well-known letter writer to the papers demanding contraceptives, was called on to speak from the floor in order to open up the debate. She was given full latitude to attack the anti-contraceptive organisations, and included in her remarks was an all-out attack on the Pope, whom she described as a rich old celibate with no right to be making rules for married people living ten to a room and so on. No voice was allowed to be heard on this lengthy programme to put the Roman Catholic point of view or even the anti-contraceptive point of view. One young woman on that programme who began to speak about Christian values was dismissed by the compere with the remark that "Mrs. So-and-So has already made her case", before she had spoken more than a few words. Apart from the imbalance of the programme, it is deplorable that the national network should be used to insult somebody that I will conveniently describe as the head of a State with which this country has diplomatic relations. As far as I know no public apology was tendered either to the Holy Father or to the Nuncio for the insult on that night.
I realise that the media will, in line with the current views of the halo-surrounded Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and Minister for Foreign Affairs, draw the conclusion from my contribution today that, unless I express my views in the manner in which I am expressing them, I am subject to the possibility of a belt of a crozier. This is the popular, derogatory was of attacking somebody who stands for his principles at present.
That insult to the Pope, who is the head of my Church, was compounded and aggravated the following week when that same lady was again given a special slot on the "Late Late Show" to explain that she had not called the Pope the son of a bitch, that she would never use such a description, even of her dog, that she had only said he had come of a rich family, which was a fact, and that he was a lifelong celibate. This appeared to be set up, this statement which was basically in contradiction of her statement of the previous week, because at that point a man on the panel intervened to say she could be going only on supposition in stating that the Pope was a celibate and that, perhaps, the rest of her views were also supposition. The dear old lady, as the compere described her, conceded that she had accepted that the Pope was celibate and, of course, the encyclical was not infallible anymore than the document about hunting down witches. Her problem was that she knew so many of these young married women living in one room with their children and that she could not keep from expressing herself. There was no effort in any way to balance that second programme. The only major addition by way of remark to that from the compere for the night was that the good lady was a fine old lady.
On the third week, when the seed had been well sown and the propaganda widely distributed, a few people were allowed in to speak from the floor against contraceptives. They were effective for the small ration of time allowed to them. One young mother of a large family who came from a still larger family objected strongly to the attempts that were made to denigrate large families. She spoke from the floor. Again the panel was reserved for the pro-contraceptives who on this third occasion projected themselves as being really normal married women with children and family life. I wondered, if so, why they were endeavouring to put so many other women off the enjoyment of children and family life.
I could say a lot more on this section because, as the Minister conceded a few moments ago when he was making that observation on Deputy Fitzpatrick's observation, I fully accept and know from experience that it is an impossible task certainly to achieve the type of impartiality that everybody would accept as being impartial. Even if there was any political broadcast, depending on how the ball hops, someone from one or other side of the House is going to feel that the dice is loaded against him. Listening to the broadcasts and seeing the projections, particularly on television, there is no doubt that there are people regularly on the media who have not, from my conservative viewpoint, any great respect for moral values in this country. The Minister replying, again in a few words to Deputy Fitzpatrick, said that if people had grievances they could take up those grievances with the present complaints committee and, when this Bill becomes law officially, with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I have copies of correspondence in front of me arising from complaints which were submitted to RTE in relation to some broadcast. Of course, I do not want to bore the House with reading sizeable extracts from those letters.
If the Deputy will excuse me, perhaps he would not mind informing the House of the approximate date of the letters and whether this was correspondence with the complaints committee or with RTE.
With RTE. I am talking about complaints directly addressed to RTE. In a letter dated 16th October, 1974, to RTE which objected to an aspect of "The Riordans" programme it was stated by the secretary of the organisation on whose behalf he was writing that they objected to the use of a so-called family viewing film such as "The Riordans" as a vehicle for the advertisement of contraceptives, giving, in addition, a false view of Catholic teaching. It went on to say that they were also objecting to the fact that a dispensary doctor, using his own name, is allowed to use public broadcasting time for his views on this matter against the ethics of his profession.
There was a reply from the Head of Information and Publications section of RTE on the 7th November and in part of that reply it said:
With regard to the programme featuring a dispensary doctor, I can only say that the legitimate expression of views which may legitimately be held by any citizen are proper material for broadcasting on a general service. RTE would be failing in its duty to minority opinion in the country if it permitted only majority attitudes to be reflected in its programming. This is one aspect of its obligation to be impartial.
I fully agree with what the Head of Information and Publications said in that letter. However, one of the major criticisms I have of RTE in this regard is that they are so desperately anxious to present minority views that they bent over backwards, as I outlined in the criticism I had of the three editions of the "Late Late Show" in January-February, 1975, to squeeze out and to give no voice to majority opinion. That is all I am criticising. I am not suggesting that whoever writes "The Riordans" script is continuously trying to ride some hobbyhorse. There have been criticisms of it but from my point of view I find nothing wrong with the programme. The end product of the collection of correspondence I have—as far as I know none of it was given to the complaints committee—was that there was no satisfaction obtained by the complainants. There was a lot of correspondence by way of follow-up and the grouping took the matter up with the Broadcasting Complaints Advisory Committee and reported to me that they did not get any satisfaction.
I am worried, as the Minister should be, in relation to impartiality. Deputy Fitzpatrick expressed concern in relation to a report to the effect that RTE are preparing at present for the next general election and that the former head of the GIS had been appointed to take charge of these preparations.
That is a new idea. Deputy Fitzpatrick did not say that.
(Dublin Central): I said that a committee had been established.
The Deputy did not make any reference to a particular individual.
I read about that in a newspaper recently.
Not everything one reads in a newspaper is necessarily true.
I know but not everything one hears on television is quite the truth either. The only thing about television is that it has a way of getting messages across. That is why I am stressing the question of impartiality. I am glad the Minister is confirming that what I read in the newspaper is not true because my personal reaction to it, as Whip of the Opposition, was to write to the director general of RTE asking him to let me know the situation in that regard. I would be worried if that was happening.
I apologise to the Deputy for interrupting again but, purely for information, I did not see any such report and perhaps the Deputy would tell me the publication it appeared in and the date.
It was in one of the newspapers over the last four or five days.
The newspapers differ greatly in degree of reliability; some of them print just fiction.
I accept that. I read a lot of fiction last weekend.
So did I but probably not the same items.
I will go off this matter if the Minister tells me that there was no truth in that report.
It is the first I have heard of it and I think it is extremely improbable.
I thought it rather unlikely. Some years ago we had what could be described as an impartial political programme with a member of the former Government being confronted by a representative from the then Opposition parties. This was operated by agreement between the parties. However, it was a peculiar sort of agreement when we were in Government. My recollection is that a Minister was given an ultimatum that a programme was being broadcast on a certain date and that a Minister was needed to speak on a subject. For a while we had a balance with the Government Ministers facing spokesmen on behalf of Fine Gael and Labour. At that time we were accused of hiding from opposition, of not facing up to demands, and we heard that it was difficult to get a Fianna Fáil Minister to take part in such programmes. However, with the change of Government, and in spite of the volume of talent that was available in the Government—we do not talk about the talents any more because the talents appear to have gone away —a decision was reached that Government Ministers would not take part in such political programmes.
The type of balance that existed on such programmes has been flouted by the Government, obviously with the agreement of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Instead of the balanced political programmes we have news items concerning three or four Ministers and, as a sop, three or four words at the end about the observations of an Opposition spokesman on the matter. I am not satisfied that the director general of RTE, or the Authority, are as adamant in their demands of the present Government for straightforward political programmes as they were when Fianna Fáil were in Government. They gave up the battle early on and no effort was made to renew such programmes.
Deputy Fitzpatrick expressed the view that this section, wordwise, made a greater effort in its planning to ensure that there would be balance. The Minister must know that some programme presenters on radio and television are not impartial in their treatment of current affairs and subjects of public debate. While the line they are taking may suit him at present I am sure the Minister fully accepts that that should not be the criterion. Just because they are playing it his way, does the Minister think that what he has in section 3 of this Bill on impartiality, does not allow an elasticity that can be used against him or against views he holds if the presenter of a specific programme held views that do not coincide with his?
Deputy Lalor made a number of interesting remarks beginning with the final paragraph of subsection (1). The objectives of subsection (1) are to give statutory backing to the existing practice in RTE in regard to interpretation of the provisions regarding objectivity and impartiality. It is not always possible to cover all significant views in a single programme and RTE regard these provisions as being complied with if all such views are covered in two or more related programmes broadcast over a reasonable period. This is a sensible interpretation, and it has been incorporated in the Bill for the sake of clarity.
Deputy Lalor cited a direction of the former director general, Mr. Hardiman, of 8th May, 1970. He pointed out that this might have been in contravention of the old section 18 (1). I do not accept that it was in contravention, but it might have been considered to be in contravention. I am introducing this so that the law shall be specific on this and also so that people who do not think that this is right will have an opportunity and have had an opportunity of contesting it.
They can say: "This is not the right way, it would be better to maintain the strict reading of the existing legislation." Deputy Lalor expressed himself as worried as to what powers director generals might take in relation to these matters, if we are now effectively ratifying in our legislation an interpretation of a former director general and also of the present director general and Authority. It would be wrong simply automatically to rubber stamp any interpretation of any director general. We ought to be vigilant as to whether we should ratify such interpretations as they occur. We are right to question it and debate it. I propose that it should be ratified by the House or incorporated in the legislation, not because it was a decision or a house rule, but because it was a house rule which is reasonable and fair and that the law should give expression to it. I accept that it is capable of abuse. A programme can be put on which is highly slanted and on the following night there could be another programme which is supposed to set it off but which does not set it off. There have been programmes in the past to which that objection would apply. I will not go into a discussion on any particular programme but this abuse is not inconceivable.
The Authority have a duty to see that the powers vested in them are not abused. There is general agreement on both sides of this House that successive authorities have not abused their powers in this matter. Deputy Lalor made the point not in regard to authorities abusing their powers but in regard to individual broadcasters who from time to time may have done so. They may have and I think some of them did from time to time. It is perhaps inevitable that this should occur to some extent. It is the duty of the Authority to keep these tendencies within bounds and to exercise vigilance here. I think the authorities have discharged that duty.
In anticipation of Deputy Lalor's remarks I will outline what I conceive to be the duty of the Minister in this area. How can institutional expression be given to this requirement of impartiality? Can the Authority be left as the final arbiters as to whether they are discharging the duty imposed on them by law of being impartial? I would not think so, on the ground that no one should be judge in his own case. Should the Minister be the final judge as regards impartiality? Again I do not think so, because what could be involved when it is asserted that the Authority have failed to discharge their duty of impartiality, may be a conflict between the Government of the day and RTE, or between a Government Department and RTE, and RTE would sincerely think they were discharging their duty and the Government with equal sincerity would think that they were not. Should we say that the Government's view should prevail in this matter of impartiality? I would think not. That is the reason why I set up as an interim measure, the complaints committee, and why I propose now, the statutory complaints commission. That is not to say that the Minister or the Government should abandon all say in what RTE do.
What I have sought to do in this legislation is to confine ministerial intervention in this area of programming to the question of subversion or condoning or encouraging subversive activities tending to undermine the authority of the State. I have sought to limit it there.
Deputy Lalor quoted me from memory as saying that there was more than an average number of liberal minds in Montrose. I would not object too much to having said that but it was not what I said. Liberal minds in Montrose would be no bad situation. No doubt there are a good many liberal minds there. However, what I said was in the particular situation we had in 1971-72 in relation to subversion and sympathy with subversion. I expressed the view that there was more sympathy among the media with Sinn Féin ideas than there was in the population as a whole. It was my belief that that was true at the time but I think there is less sympathy now with this kind of propaganda and activities than there was then both in so far as the media and the population generally are concerned. The great majority of us here are glad that that is so.
I come now to that part of Deputy Lalor's speech where he discussed the handling by RTE of such subjects as divorce and contraception. In the early part of his remarks he seemed to suggest that I might have encouraged RTE to handle these matters in a certain manner but in the later part of his remarks I am grateful to say that he clarified that and indicated that he did not consider that I had sought to impose on RTE any particular point of view in this area. Of course, that is the case. In this area and in others RTE should endeavour to cover all significant views. I accept entirely that the conservative point of view—I use Deputy Lalor's word—is a significant point of view and should find expression. But I think also that my view and the views of my party are not insignificant and, consequently, should find expression also.
On the question of whether RTE have handled these issues rightly or otherwise, we are dealing here with a very highly emotionally charged field in which anyone who holds strong and sincere views is likely to regard any discussion as giving too much weight to the other side. Clearly, Deputy Lalor holds that opinion genuinely in regard to certain programmes broadcast by RTE.
There have been complaints in this regard addressed to the complaints committee. Ten complaints have come before the committee to date. By international standards this is a rather high number and I should hesitate to say whether it is a tribute to the vigilance of our people in regard to impartiality. It may be of interest to the House to note the nature of these complaints and the outcome in regard to them. Of the ten complaints, seven were decided in favour of RTE, one was decided against them and two of which I shall say nothing further are still under consideration by the committee. Of the decisions in favour of RTE one was a complaint by the LFM alleging unbalanced coverage arising out of a speech by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in Waterford. Another was a complaint by the same movement regarding unbalanced reporting on another subject; another was a complaint by Miss Máire Breathnach in this precise area alleging that on 17th July, 1974, an RTE broadcast in connection with the contraception Bill was one-sided. Another complaint was from the Irish Family League relating to an episode of "The Riordans" which made reference to contraception. The fifth complaint was from the Natural Family Planning people in relation to a "Here and Now" programme. The next complaints was one by the IFA regarding a crisis in the cattle trade and the last was a complaint about biased reporting on Portugal during a "7 Days" programme. All of these were decided in favour of RTE and the reasons for the decisions were published. As the House knows, the complaints committee is headed by a distinguished former judge, Mr. Kingsmill Moore. The decision against RTE was in relation to a "Last House" programme which included an interview on homosexuality. A report from the committee on that case was published in the RTE Guide.
This machinery is about the best that one can provide. Deputy Lalor talked about failure to get satisfaction in relation to complaints but I do not think that one can get satisfaction automatically through such channels because at most, a complaints committee may find against him. In relation to two or three of these cases the point of view expressed by Deputy Lalor was genuinely the attitude of the complainants but the committee did not find in their favour. In the other case—the interview on homosexuality—the balance tilted the other way. At any rate, the existence of that machinery is the best safeguard one can provide in this area in that both the broadcasters and the Authority know that the committee and its procedures exist and that, therefore, there is a kind of vigilance in this area which would be sustained and accepted by public opinion generally as being impartial.
In the last part of his remarks Deputy Lalor dealt with a matter which, strictly, does not come in here, that is, the question of party political broadcasts and what he regards as the unwillingness of Ministers to participate in these programmes. The decision in so far as there is nonparticipation in that kind of programme is outside the hands of RTE who were quite interested in continuing to broadcast such programmes. On our side it was considered that party political confrontations of this kind were not the most interesting way of discussing current affairs. Undoubtedly, Deputies will regard that as a wrong decision but regardless of what sort of decision it was, it was a decision of the Government rather than of RTE. Certainly, RTE would be prepared to provide the required forum for that type of programme as they are prepared to provide a forum for all kinds of public affairs discussions. I would not accept that in the past or now RTE have been particularly anxious to bring in one side in politics to the exclusion of the other. They bring in people on considerations of what they regard as good broadcasting. I do not think they are partial.
I agree with Deputy Lalor that some presenters may go wrong in their presentation, through enthusiasm or otherwise, and may go against the impartiality rule. If they do, it is for the Authority to pull them up. If the Authority are not doing that, the citizens who think that can address themselves to the complaints commission. There is also, of course, this House where RTE can be and are legitimately open to discussion and criticism. The new section which we have discussed at length is not intended as any radical departure from the existing practice which, indeed, in part it embodies more effectively than was previously done. The new departure is essentially the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and we will have an opportunity of discussing that on the next section.
I appreciate the manner in which the Minister has taken my remarks. He said he was not anxious to discuss individual programmes. He went on to say the complaints commission dealt with a number of complaints and a number of those covered the complaints about which I was speaking. The paragraph which is an authorisation in retrospect for something RTE were already doing provides: "Should it prove impracticable in a single programme to apply paragraph (b) of this sub-section....".
I am sure the Minister is reasonably familiar with the "Late Late Show". We do not all see it every Saturday night, but we see it occasionally when there is no dispute on. If a panel of four people deal with a controversial subject on two or three successive Saturdays, and if they all take the one side in that controversy, is it suggested an effort has been made to achieve balance? The explanation can be given that Miss So-and-So and Mrs. So-and-So did not turn up and two other people were invited. I do not think that excuse was offered in the instance I have in mind. As the Minister said, this matter came before the complaints commission and they ruled against it.
Is it not possible to spell it out more clearly than "Should it prove impracticable in a single programme ..."? If four panellists are to appear on a programme, I do not accept that it could prove impracticable to achieve a certain amount of balance. There could be two very vociferous people on a panel and two others who were not so well qualified to speak. The presenter could claim he made an effort to get balance. My idea of balance is not to put on two successive programmes with a panel of four and to have the panel of four for something the first week and the panel of four against it the next week. People may not see the two programmes and they are influenced by the one they see. An effort should be made to balance every proprogramme. I fully accept that it is not possible to balance every programme. As the Minister said, we can all interpret a programme in our own way. If two people are involved in a programme of public interest on which there are different points of view, the two people should have different points of view. If all the panellists take the same point of view on a key issue, that is not balance.
I was not here for the full debate but I gather from Deputy Fitzpatrick the Minister has some amendments in mind. "Should it prove impracticable in a single programme ..."—who decides? I do not know why I always seem to get myself in trouble by picking on the "Late Late Show". It is too easy for the producer or the presenter of a programme with that guideline to come up with an explanation. Some members of the Authority might look at the "Late Late Show" and at a meeting the following week one or two of them might make a complaint. If all the members of the Authority have not seen the programme that is covered in section 7. There is a playback of the "Late Late Show" and members of the Authority see it. They may find it was positively imbalanced and the Director General may be asked to account for this. Being the good man he is, he has anticipated this and he has been on to the producer. The producer tells him they did the best they could, they had four people coming in but, at the last moment, two did not turn up. That is a fine explanation. If there is a full panel of four or five people, all on the one side, it is rather remarkable that it is the people whose views coincide with the presenter who turn up and those whose views do not coincide fail to turn up. I wonder whether there is not a more positive way of tying in the necessity for balancing the single programme and not having to build in such a useful escape clause.
I would like to think over what the Deputy has said. With respect, I do not want to be drawn into discussion of particular programmes, which I think Deputies can quite rightly discuss but which I do not think, for reasons I have indicated, the Minister should, except in relation to a certain very specific area, that of subversion, which I take it does not arise here.
Deputy Lalor, in the earlier part of his remarks suggested—and the suggestion is fair enough—that since the point of view, which was in his view over-represented, appears to have been something resembling my own point of view, I might have been reluctant to intervene negatively even though he agrees that I did not incite this myself. I would not merely be reluctant to intervene negatively but I would not intervene even if the balance was, to my mind, wrong the other way in relation to an area like this. Concerning this whole matter all I would hope for from RTE would be that all significant views should be covered because it is an important area of public controversy. I believe in my own point of view, as I am sure Deputy Lalor does in his. I think the public would benefit by a full representation of both or of all significant points of view on this. I do not want to say much more about that. Deputy Lalor asks who decides. I take it that the decisions are taken at various levels in RTE with the bulk landing with the director general and perhaps ultimately with the Authority.
Deputy Lalor speaks of spelling out more clearly what is required. In general I am prepared to consider between now and Report Stage, in the light of comments made in this House, what improvements, if any, can be brought into the Bill, improvements that would be acceptable to us on this side.
What is wrong with the word "impossible" rather than "impracticable"?
I was just about to come to that. As a matter of fact it is a matter which the Deputy should take up with one of his colleagues in the other House because the wording in question is wording from an amendment in the Seanad by Senator Mark Killilea who submitted:
In page 2, line 35, to delete "in applying" and substitute "Should it prove impracticable in a single programme to apply".
So, if the wording is wrong, there must have been a case of error on the other side, which is virtually unthinkable. I am not trying to make a cheap debating point there but it is an amendment which was accepted by me in the Seanad.
What was the original?
"In applying" were the words in the original. But I am quite prepared to look at it again. It is probably about the best we can do. I have not very strong views about it. I will certainly look at it between now and Report Stage, and the Deputy might have a chat with me.
(Dublin Central): Many points of view have been expressed on this section which we all admit to be one of the most important in the Bill. Certainly it is the most controversial section. We know perfectly well that impartiality is of vital importance, especially in a television programme. We know that the same rigid rules do not apply with regard to newspapers where people are allowed express their views one way or the other.
We all agree that various parts of the Bill are necessary, especially that part which prohibits the Authority from broadcasting anything which would incite crime. Crime today occupies all of our minds, not merely the type of crime dealt with in this section. Anything the authorities can do to discourage ordinary day-to-day crime in our cities is to be welcomed by all sections of the community. I should like to see RTE channelling a public debate on, say, excessive alcoholism amongst teenagers. If I saw RTE in the morning trying to channel a public debate on that subject I would not think that to be in any way partial. It is a problem which is getting out of control in our society and is the type of question on which RTE could very usefully deploy their talents. The Minister and Deputy Lalor spoke about liberalism along certain lines. That could be counterbalanced in a programme of that type, when they could very usefully get that type of debate going and highlight the dangers inherent for teenagers.
We know the important role television can play. It is for that reason we believe this section should be debated at length. I believe Deputy Lalor's remarks were very valid. I am sure the Minister sees his point of view with regard to impartiality and the proper balancing of programmes as being very important. I do not want to deal with any particular programmes at this stage. The Minister has said he will take a look at certain proposals we put forward and I shall leave it at that.
I should like to ask the Minister— and here I do not want in any way to jeopardise any negotiations taking place—has he any news or information to hand on the resolution of the dispute disrupting many of the services in RTE at present? Has he any late information with regard to this matter? I do not want to pursue the question in any detail but I sincerely hope that that dispute will be brought to an early conclusion.
That is hardly relevant on this section.
(Dublin Central): I thought the Minister might let us have any up-to-date information before he concluded.
I am hopeful that it will be brought to an early conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 5 (a):
In page 3, lines 19 and 20, to delete "the 1st day of March, 1976" and substitute "the 31st day of December, 1976".
This is purely a technical amendment. The section, as drafted, provided for the appointment of a Broadcasting Complaints Commission not later than the first day of March, 1976.
When this was drafted the expectation was that the new legislation would be enacted well before that date. There was a sustained and useful debate both in the Seanad and here which I do not complain about, and the amendment is designed to provide for the appointment of the commission after the Bill has been enacted. The date quoted, 31st December, 1976, is the ultimate date by which it is intended to have the body appointed.
(Dublin Central): We agree. This is only deferring the date. It had been anticipated this would be through the House long before now.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, line 26, to delete "two" and substitute "four, two of whom shall have professional experience in broadcasting,".
Deputy Lalor pointed out on a previous section how various complaints will be made to the Authority and it is obvious they will be passed on to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. We propose in this amendment that "two" be deleted and substituted with "four, two of whom shall have professional experience in broadcasting". It is our view that two are too few for an important body like this. We consider such a small number would not represent a cross section of opinion. In another amendment designed to enlarge membership of the Authority, the Minister put forward the opinion that if we enlarged the membership to 12, the Authority would be cumbersome and would not work properly. Here he is going too far in that direction.
The important nature of the complaints that will be submitted—the Minister has told us ten have already been submitted—make it important that the membership of the commission should be of a sufficient number to represent a cross section of opinion. We had the complaint about the Dublin Bay oil refinery. The programme proved to have been unsatisfactory. Such complaints will in the future be transferred from the Authority to the new body.
Our proposals are put forward first because we believe the number proposed would not represent a cross section of opinion. We also propose that two of the members would have professional experience. This is important because this body should have people with a knowledge of broadcasting, of the output of programmes. Ordinary people would not have the technical knowledge of the composition of programmes. We believe that having people with professional knowledge would mean that the new body would be able to get their work done more efficiently.
We know that on the present complaints body there is at least one person with a knowledge of broadcasting. We are asking that this number be increased to two. We do not think we are unreasonable in asking that the membership be four.
There are two aspects to this amendment. The first is that the size of the commission should be increased to at least five and that two of the members should have professional experience of broadcasting. I have some sympathy with the number five, it is what I should like to see, but statutory provision to this effect I would consider to be undesirable. The reason is that the number of suitable people in this field is fairly narrow, or otherwise that suitable people may not be able to spare the time to act on the commission.
As far as the committee are concerned, service has been entirely voluntary and unremunerated. Provision for the possibility of remuneration exists in the proposed legislative measures, but I cannot say at this stage whether remuneration will occur. We are asking rather a lot of those concerned and I should like to put on record my gratitude to the members of the committee who have put in a great deal of work on this difficult quasi-judicial function. At the time when I asked the two gentlemen concerned to serve I had not expected the volume of work would be quite as considerable as it has proved to be in the short period since appointment. I know each case is given very careful attention, the case made by the complainant and by the Authority. It is quite true that if we get more people, to some extent we will spread the workload. I should like to have five but not to be obliged to find five in circumstances where I might find only three. The work to be undertaken is quite considerable and I would ask to be excused from having to provide more than three, membership of three with the chairman, with the possibility of five or even more. I should like to provide for three, bearing in mind that if I can get five I will. I appreciate the Deputy's concern and object.
On the second aspect, I do not think it desirable to have a statutory requirement that any number should have professional experience. It might mean that a certain proportion of the commission would have to speak up for broadcasting and it might spoil the effect if the Minister were required to have two people with experience of broadcasting. I imagine the commission as having a detached quasi-judicial function but I do not want to have a statutory obligation compelling me to have a fixed proportion of the membership of the commission made up of professional broadcasters. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept this amendment.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.