Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 May 1976

Vol. 290 No. 5

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

Question again proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Dealing with section 4, I found a number of faults in its presentation even though there are a great number of words in it. Specifically, no qualifications whatsoever are prescribed for membership of the commission as such except that Members of the Oireachtas or the RTE Authority or their officers or servants are ineligible. The Oireachtas have no control whatsoever over these appointments nor any power to investigate the suitability or qualifications of the proposed appointees. Nevertheless, these persons are to be in a position where they are to be removed only by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, as if they were Supreme or High Court judges protected by Article 35 of the Constitution.

I respectfully submit that this is an exercise in nonsense which should be rejected out of hand. As I have said already, this section covers four pages of the 13½ pages that go into the Bill, covering details of the type of case which the commission may investigate and so on. When this Bill was first presented the media were thrilled with it. Here was the Minister implementing a promise he had given of setting up a watch-dog and taking the power away from himself, something like the Minister for Local Government setting up the statutory bodies who consider appeals, thus taking the matter out of political hands. He was taking away the right which former Ministers had to give specific directives in various areas. No doubt the intention of these four pages was to create the impression that the commission would be a powerful controlling influence on RTE, that we could all go home fully satisfied that everything was specifically laid on the line for the Authority, that strict control and impartiality would be operated and things would be kept that way, and that we were going to have no more maverick imbalance within the machinations of RTE because of the judicial eyes of this commission.

But things are not as was suggested at that time. I have asked the House already basically to plod with me through pages 3, 4 and 5 to the middle of page 6 of this Bill, and they will find this little subsection (7) concerning what happens when all of the ritual circumnavigations that have been prescribed in pages 3, 4 and 5 have been complied with and performed and the report on the complaint reaches the RTE Authority.

May I ask the Minister are the Authority to take speedy steps to redress the offence if an offence is judged to have been committed? That is not what subsection (7) says. What subsection (7) says is that when the Authority receive a statement of a decision of a complaint from the commission then—carrying on to subsection (9)—the Authority shall within 14 days specifically inform the commission as to whether the decision is accepted by the Authority. This means that the commission, provided for at such length, by this subsection, have no real power whatsoever to control RTE and are no more than a piece of toothless verbosity. The small print in subsection (7) shows that the insurance policy, which is what section 4 is supposed to be, is worthless. So far as the Bill goes RTE might light its pipe with the commission's report. This might sound ridiculous, but as an end product this is what section 4 of this Bill means.

Some people may think that the existence of a commission and the possibility of adverse reports would suffice to keep RTE on the straight and narrow and ensure that they would deal with all matters objectively and impartially. The hope of the Minister in this regard is that by setting up this complaints commission the Authority will be able to keep their operatives on the straight and narrow.

One of the Sunday newspapers reproduced a photograph recently of two scarecrows standing in a field in my constituency and that newspaper made reference to the fact that they were still continuing with the old-fashioned way of trying to keep away the crows. I compare section 4 with the scarecrows and the presentation and dressing of those scarecrows. It spreads over four pages and is an effort to frighten the mavericks within RTE who might be tempted to continue with an unbalanced presentation of programmes. The Minister is giving statutory authority to what is already in existence. Yesterday the Minister made reference to reports which had appeared in the RTE Guide and today he spoke of guidelines and various decisions of the commission being used to keep the Authority on the straight and narrow. I intend to quote from a report of the Broadcasting Complaints Advisory Committee which appeared in the RTE Guide on November 29th in relation to a complaint made by the Language Freedom Movement. That report is the most suitable one to choose from rather than some of the reports referred to last night. In the case of the latter the complaints had been rejected by the complaints advisory committee.

Having made the criticism last night of operators or comperes within RTE riding their own hobby-horses I do not want it to appear that I am continuing on that track. The Minister made a justifiable point in relation to the commission when he said that we can expect that, just as a Supreme Court decision is taken as a guideline for similar cases in the future, so also would a decision of the Broadcasting Complaints Advisory Committee be taken as a guideline. We seldom have an appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision made by a lesser court based on a previous decision of the Supreme Court. I am satisfied that if the commission made a decision it would be unlikely that people with a similar complaint later would appeal to the commission. We have guidelines in regard to the conduct of business in this House. Those guidelines are often quoted to us and we are often told that precedents have been created in similar situations. This is the pattern and society demands that that sort of pattern be created.

I presume the commission will be set up, in spite of the opposition here. I do not know whether the Minister will be tempted to appoint the same personnel on this established commission. That is a matter for himself and the Cabinet and we only enter into it if the Minister decides he wants to remove them at some stage. In that event he returns to this House just as the Government must do if they wish to remove a High Court or Supreme Court judge. They are placed on that sort of pedestal. The case I have referred to, the complaint by the Language Freedom Movement, concerned the failure, as they saw it, of RTE to give publicity to a private meeting between the Language Freedom Movement representatives and the Minister for Education. They felt that RTE was being used against them. That group, I should add, did not go out of their way to any great extent to praise Fianna Fáil when we were in power. I should now like to quote an extract from the report on that complaint, as published in the RTE Guide:

RTE is not a debating society. The Committee does not accept the suggestion (made to it on several occasions) that if it can be anticipated that the participants in any programme will probably unite in putting forward a particular viewpoint it is automatically necessary or even desirable to include in the programme a speaker or speakers of opposing views. Any such obligation might be calculated to produce a series of inconclusive dull and often acrimonious debates. Such a framework may sometimes be advisable and sometimes not. A wide discretion must be allowed to programme producers whose business it is to present such news and features as in their judgement are of the greatest public significance and the widest public interest and to do so with due regard to accuracy, truth and informed comment.

That was the observation of the committee in relation to an aspect of that complaint. That was working on the basis of a code, on the acceptance of the directive of the Director General of RTE of May, 1970, which, I submitted last night, was in contrast to section 18 of the Act.

The Minister dealt with this question of balance last night. The relevant code, which I presume was set out by the director general, following discussions with the Authority, must recognise that it may not always be practicable to represent all significant views in a single programme, with another programme presented within a reasonable time to balance it. We still have that in the new Bill. I use this specific example from the complaints advisory committee report in order to make a point, because in its own way it reveals the outlook of the complaints advisory committee and of RTE. This report says that the committee do not look upon RTE as a debating society. The alternative to the debating society concept and to debate itself, is a propaganda machine and the suppression of freedom of speech, or suppression of freedom of speech for certain people. No discretion was given by the Oireachtas to producers or anyone else to suppress legitimate views publicly expressed. In so far as any non-statutory code purports to give RTE such a power it is in breach of the statutory obligations imposed on RTE in the former Bill and I hope in this Bill.

The vagueness about a reasonable time still exists and it in fact gives carte blanche to RTE to play fast and loose with propaganda and to pretend to discharge their obligations of balance and impartiality by giving a few minutes now and then to speakers for views which have been decried over several programmes. The looseness which was made use of in the last Bill, such as the reasonable period part, is something which should not have been built into this Bill. I respectfully suggest that what is really needed is something that was mentioned from this side of the House when the Minister and his party were represented here, that was that there should be an Oireachtas Committee set up with powers to call on RTE to account for failure to comply with the statutory conditions and the limitations prescribed for RTE by the Oireachtas, if that arises. That should be set up instead of this type of selected complaints commission in view of the fact that the Authority are now going to be created by the Government and can only be sacked by the Oireachtas.

It is remarkable that we can have a free and frank discussion in the House on this Bill. The difficulty is that once the Bill is passed into law, if Deputies make any effort to raise a question here, referring to what they might see as mishandling of programmes on RTE they will be told politely by the Minister that there is an appropriate channel through which they can address their complaints, that the Minister felt that it would be improper to interfere or to convey the problem through his office to the Authority, and that the proper procedure would be to convey complaints through the complaints commission. I apologise for holding the Minister in this instance. I have spelt out a number of points that I would like him to comment on. The major fault of this section apart from the other faults is that no matter how serious a complaint is or how justified a complaint may turn out to be, the complaints commission have no teeth.

I am sorry that Deputy Lalor cannot be here to hear my reply to the points he made. We have dealt with the amendments and I would now like to convey the Government's thinking in relation to the section. Deputy Lalor was critical of the section generally and indeed at times was scornful in relation to the whole concept. That is a pity, because I think the complaints commission is a useful concept, widely regarded as useful elsewhere, and its presence is welcomed both by the public and the broadcasters. I hope it will have, as appeared at earlier stages of the debate, widespread support here. Deputy Lalor suggested that a great deal had been made on this side of this complaints commission idea, and it had been extravagantly welcomed in the media and so on. That is not the case; there is no reason to make a great song and dance about this. We are not claiming that this is an extraordinary revolutionary proceeding because it is not. It is a body which we hope will function informally, expeditiously and not very obtrusively, and that it will be useful. A point was made in the Seanad that in proportion to what the commission will do, the length and detail of the section appears to be excessive. That was my first reaction when it came back from the draftsman's office.

Deputy Lalor suggested—he probably did not mean it very seriously— that the length of the section was designed to make some sort of propaganda on behalf of the work that it would be doing. There was no such intention. If it could have been shorter and still cover the ground that needed to be covered I would have been very happy but it transpired from discussions with the parliamentary draftsman that it was necessary to spell out in a fair amount of detail what had to be done. If that caused an undue impression of the momentousness of the new rule I am sorry and I am taking this opportunity of dispelling that. The thrust of Deputy Lalor's remarks concerned the idea that the committee and commission have no teeth or no real power to control RTE and that RTE might light its pipe with the commission's report.

Under the section as drafted the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will have no power to enforce their decisions. However, any broadcasting authority that ignored the findings of the commission would be very unwise. In the final analysis if there were repeated complaints which the commission accepted as well-founded, that the Authority were in breach of certain statutory provisions, for example, those in regard to objectivity and impartiality, I have no doubt that the Government of the day would take appropriate action, that is to say, make appropriate recommendations to the Oireachtas. While we should not have a superabundance of teeth in relation to broadcasting, ultimately the teeth are with the Oireachtas. This Bill is designed to make that more precisely clear. I do not think we should abandon that function to a complaints commission. It is for the complaints commission to point a finger at spots where things are going wrong and it is for the Minister and the Government, and, ultimately, if matters worsen, for the Oireachtas to take action.

I would assume first that any authority which any government are likely to appoint would be likely to take their duties seriously, that they would not be disposed to light their pipe with the report of a complaints commission if the findings indicated that something was wrong. Any authority would wish to look into what was going wrong as would any body of prudent people with these responsibilities. We ought to assume that there will be prudence but even in the event of some failure in that regard any authority would be bound to take cognisance of the fact that if there were repeated findings of this kind by a commission—findings that biased or unsatisfactory programmes in respect of balance or in respect of incitement to crime, for example, had been going out on RTE—the Government and the Parliament would be likely to take action in the event of the situation continuing. Therefore, there can be no question of any authority simply lighting their pipe with reports of the commission.

I consider arrangements of this kind to be the most appropriate and to be the most consistent with the general principle I have tried to have reflected in the Bill—that the Authority should have maximum freedom and authority and have it within the statutory obligations and restraints specified clearly. A decision to give teeth to the commission or to make binding their decisions would conflict with this general principle and, consequently, I am not in favour of it.

Deputy Lalor made some comments on particular findings of the present committee. I do not propose to follow him in this area so far as my responsibilities are concerned because if a government set up a committee of this kind specifically to discharge duties, particularly in connection with impartiality, the Government should not then jog the committee's elbow, as it were, and say: "We do not think you are being as impartial as we would be." The whole object of the exercise is to remove from the Minister's direct area of concern specific judgments on specific complaints and to leave that task to the commission.

Deputy Lalor suggested, too, as possibly meeting the case, an Oireachtas committee and suggested that this might be desirable now that the Government were maintaining the power to appoint the RTE Authority and are giving the Oireachtas the power to remove the Authority. It does not seem to me that this follows in the sense that the present Bill gives more scope to the Oireachtas as distinct from the government of the day in this matter. I do not see why, in itself, it creates the need for an Oireachtas committee. Obviously, neither Deputy Lalor nor the Opposition considered it to be a need during all their years in office.

There would be dangers in having an Oireachtas committee with a sort of permanent oversight in regard to RTE because there would be a danger of RTE and broadcasting generally becoming a political football. I think that both the Authority and the broadcasters are aware of this danger. Members of an Oireachtas committee might not desire that situation but in the pressures of democratic politics and at times with some heat regarding the presentation of political controversy, there is a very great danger that an Oireachtas committee would be drawn into polemical confrontation in which RTE would be involved. Other democratic countries whose systems are like enough to ours to make us take note of them, have not followed that path.

I should like to say something about the BBC programmes complaints commission which was set up in October, 1971, to consider complaints from the public of unfair treatment. There the commissioners are Sir Edmond Compton, chairman, former Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Lord Mowbray King, former Speaker of the House of Commons, and Sir Henry Fisher, former High Court judge. The composition in one way is like the former High Court judge aspect and is in other ways unlike the composition of our present complaints committee but it provides—this is an aspect we bear in mind in setting up our complaints commission—for a kind of non-polemical link with the Parliament in including a former Speaker of the House. That is a possibility that I should like to bear in mind in appointing the commission which we all seem to think should be an expansion on the present machinery.

However, I should not like to say definitely that certain things shall be done because the number of people that can be approached is obviously extremely limited. We cannot know how far any one of them might be prepared to undertake this. That kind of, if you like, somewhat indirect link with the Oireachtas is what I would regard as possibly appropriate in a body of this kind rather than direct involvement in what might be regarded as the hurly-burly of democratic politics.

I should now like to consider the main divisions of section 4, beginning with section 18A. This is part of a general review of the section which we might have perhaps had earlier. Section 18A is one of three new sections inserted by section 4 of the Bill after section 18 of the 1960 Act, which deals with the requirement as regards objectivity and impartiality.

It provides for the setting up of an independent statutory commission to be known as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission not later than the end of the year.

The commission will consist of at least three members, including the chairman appointed by the Government and will be financed by yearly grants made by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance out of funds voted by the Oireachtas. The terms of office of a member of the commission, which will not exceed five years, will be fixed by the Government and the remuneration and allowances, if any, of members will be determined by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service. A member may resign at any time and will be eligible for reappointment on expiry of his term of office.

A member of the commission may be removed from office by the Government for stated reasons only and only if both Houses of the Oireachtas pass a resolution calling for his removal. The purpose of this provision is to demonstrate the independence of the commission. In his reference to that provision Deputy Lalor obviously found it a bit highfalutin', as tending to put the complaints commission on the same footing as the Judiciary. The complaints commission are obviously not on the same footing as our higher courts in the sense that their functions are very much more limited and informal. Because of their function in relation to impartiality of broadcasting they need an equivalent protection. The protection is functional. It is not intended to indicate some judgment as regards status or as conveying some attempt at glorification of the commission. It is purely functional.

Subsections (9) and (10) deal with eligibility for membership of the commission. Members of the Dáil or the Seanad, of the RTE Authority or of the staff of RTE, are ineligible to be members of the commission for reasons which will be clear. The commission will settle their own rules and procedures, apart from the quorum, which shall be at least two. Finally, the commission will be staffed by the Department of the Public Service to demonstrate their independence of both the Minister and RTE.

Subsection (1) of section 18B provides that the commission may investigate complaints alleging breaches of the requirements in regard to objectivity and impartiality in news broadcasts, breaches of the requirements regarding objectivity and impartiality in broadcasts relating to current affairs or to matters which are of public controversy and the prohibition on broadcasts of anything which may reasonably be regarded as likely to promote or incite to crime or else tending to undermine the authority of the State. At an earlier stage on an amendment we discussed the propriety of including that provision.

They may also investigate complaints alleging breaches of a statutory direction issued to the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or matter of a particular class which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be likely to promote or incite to crime, or would tend to undermine the authority of the State—that was also discussed—breaches of the prohibition on unreasonable encroachment on any person's privacy, breaches of RTE's advertising code, breaches of the requirement that the Authority shall be objective and impartial in any matter they publish or distribute and shall not publish anything which might be regarded as likely to promote or incite to crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State.

Subsection (2) provides that, except in regard to complaints about publications, any complaint must first be made to RTE within 30 days of the date of the broadcast complained of. If the complainant is not satisfied with the explanation given by RTE, or RTE do not provide an explanation within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, the complainant may then forward his or her complaint to the commission within a further 30 days.

Subsection (3) enpowers the commission to make rules concerning the procedure for dealing with complaints about RTE publications and the commission can publicly announce the making of these rules in a manner approved by the Minister. Under subsection (4) the commission must afford RTE an opportunity to comment upon a complaint. Under subsection (5), if the commission consider that the interests of an employee of RTE, because of the complaint may be adversely affected, the commission must afford that person an opportunity to comment on the complaint. Under subsection (6) if the complaint relates to an advertisement, the relevant advertiser must also be given the opportunity of making submissions.

When the commission have decided on a complaint they must notify the decision to the Authority, the complainant and, in the case of a complaint about an advertisement, the advertiser or the advertising agency. The Authority must inform the commission within 14 days whether or not the commission's decision is accepted by the Authority. Subsection (10) provides that the activities of the commission will be carried out in private. Subsection (11) provides that the commission must publish or require RTE to publish the decision on each complaint without delay unless the commission consider it inappropriate to do so. This aspect was also discussed earlier in our debate. For example, the publication of a decision might involve a further encroachment on the privacy of an individual if the original complaint related to an encroachment on privacy. I think there was acceptance from the opposite benches that that was something which had to be safeguarded.

Subsection (12) provides that the commission will not have power to award any party costs or expenses. That also was discussed and decided on here on an amendment. Subsection (13) provides that a member of the commission must not act as a member of the commission in relation to any matter in which he has a material, financial or other beneficial interest. Subsection (14) provides that the commission will have no function in relation to programmes rebroadcast by RTE by the direction of the Minister. However, as we know, this subsection is being deleted by amendment No. 9 consequential on the proposed deletion of section 6, which deals with rebroadcasting. Subsection (15) provides that the commission will not investigate complaints which are frivolous or vexatious, or complaints which are withdrawn unless the commission consider there are special reasons for doing so.

In section 18C, subsection (1) provides that the commission shall make to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs an annual report of their activities and that copies of the report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Subsection (2) provides that this report must include particulars of any decisions not accepted by RTE. I am sorry my review of the section should take so long but, as I have indicated, it was necessary to provide in some detail for how the commission will work, this being a somewhat new concept.

(Dublin Central): I should like to direct the Minister's attention to subsection (3) of section 18A which provides:

The Minister may out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, in each financial year make a grant or grants to the Commission of such amount or amounts as he considers necessary to enable the Commission to perform its functions.

I presume the Minister for Finance in conjunction with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will decide how much money it will be necessary to provide to enable the commission to carry out their functions. Will this money come from the Department of Finance or will it be deducted from the revenue from licence fees?

It is the latter. We do not expect any large expenditure in this respect.

(Dublin Central): This body are being set up by the Government but it appears that any money spent will be collected from licence fees.

(Dublin Central): We know the financial difficulties RTE have and I thought the Minister for Finance would be generous enough to make provision for such expenditure. The Minister said the amount will not be substantial but earlier he said he may pay remuneration to members of the commission. Nobody would disapprove of that. Do members now serving on the committee get even ordinary travelling expenses?

They are allowed expenses if they incur any but they are all Dublin residents and I do not think there has been anything of significance there. As regards chargeability, this is a service which is intended for the benefit and protection of viewers and it seems fair that any expenditure should be borne ultimately by the licence fee. I would not expect it to be of a magnitude which would involve the scaling of the licence fee. The sums would be quite small in proportion to overall RTE expenditure and I believe it would be appropriate, as a service integrally connected with broadcasting, that it should be borne by the licence fee.

(Dublin Central): May I direct the Minister's attention to the provision in subsection (7) that members shall be paid as the Minister with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, shall from time to time determine? I do not agree with the manner in which that subsection is worded. The Minister is leaving himself room for manoeuvre. Is the intention of the Minister for Finance to remunerate members of the commission?

The Deputy is quite right: the Minister is leaving himself and his successors some room for manoeuvre, and the reason is not sinister. One would need to know more about the likely volume of the work. So far, it has turned out to be more than I had expected in the initial period. If, as has been the case in Britain and Sweden, the annual number of complaints is very small it would then be not unreasonable to ask the members to provide a voluntary unremunerated service, but if it should be the case that the work would prove time consuming, then obviously the need to compensate members would arise. For that reason we are leaving it open. I am not sure whether the present sizable volume of complaints is an initial novelty or whether it can be regarded as something that will continue, and I want to leave room for myself and my successors to do what is appropriate.

In the year before last the RTE Guide published some notes on cases. Could the Minister give us an idea of how much of the time of the committee was taken up in the past year?

I do not at present have the necessary information. I will get it and provide it for the Deputy and the House on Report Stage.

It would be interesting to know what the dimensions were.

(Dublin Central): Subsection (8) states that a member of the commission may be removed from office by the Government for stated reasons if resolutions are passed by each House of the Oireachtas calling for his removal. This is the same type of provision as has been made in relation to the removal of the Authority. My reason for putting down an amendment in that regard is that the Authority occupy an entirely different position. They have control of the day-to-day direction of a broadcasting station. In regard to the commission, they could be permitted to operate during the duration of prolonged debate in both Houses. Members of the commission do not hold the same power as the Authority: they will be there to investigate complaints. However, if the Minister says he believes it is right to have the matter of their removal provided for in this open way, perhaps he is right.

The Minister seems to apply the same principle to the commission as to the Authority—that we must have a resolution before both Houses. Seeing that the Minister has already proposed the same type of section with regard to the removal of the Authority, I am quite convinced he will not change his mind here.

Deputy Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says that this provides a cumbersome way of removing the commission. That is true, but it is also in a sense intended to be cumbersome. The commission's role is a limited one. But it is also a big one in that they are, in particular, the custodians of impartiality for the Authority and, to a metaphorical extent, a sort of court of appeal. Therefore, in our view, they should enjoy a degree of irremovability, if one can speak of that, not less than that of the Authority themselves.

Specifically, if the Minister is required, as he is under this legislation, to give over to a commission what to a considerable extent he had before— the role of the judge of impartiality, of what impartiality is and when it is contravened—as he is rightly required to do under this legislation, then it should not be too easy for him to take that back as it were by having the power of removing the commission at the snap of his fingers, saying: "Oh, I do not agree with their finding on impartiality in that case. I am going to get rid of them". The commission appointed thereafter will know what they are expected to do about impartiality: to see eye to eye with the Minister of the day. If the commission were under those constraints I do not think they would be doing their job. Therefore we thought it proper to make it difficult to remove the commission, just as it now becomes more difficult than before to remove the Authority.

These decisions are taken quite deliberately and, I think, are for the benefit of broadcasting, and particularly for the protection of impartiality.

(Dublin Central): I would not consider it a question of difficulty or otherwise; there is either a right or a wrong. We are laying down guidelines in this Bill as to what exactly is expected of the Authority. If there is a set of rules laid down by the Minister in this Bill —just as the managing director of any business company would lay down a set of rules—he should say exactly what he expects, spell it out. There should not be any confusion in regard to this matter. I would not accept the contention that it should be made difficult for the Minister to carry out his duty. The Minister is appointed by the Government to carry out a duty on behalf of the House and people. It may be very important sometimes to carry out a duty, but that does not take away from the fact that one has to carry it out.

On the majority of occasions, unpopular decisions are taken for the common good. People have to do it every day in the week. I would not for one moment think we should take that responsibility off the shoulders of any Minister, or anybody prepared to take up a public appointment. For that reason I make no excuse about the Minister transferring that responsibility to the House. In effect that is what we are doing here. Ministers have to take unpopular decisions every day of the week. Everybody occupying a high post must take unpopular decisions at some time, but they do so in the belief that it is for the common good.

The contention that in our drafting of Bills we must not make it difficult for a Minister to carry out his duties is not a valid one. We are making provisions in the Bill for the removal of the Authority and of the commission. The question at issue is the mechanics of how that will be done. I do not believe we should proceed along the lines of saying: "The Minister is setting up these rules for the removal of the Authority; in another section we will make it practically impossible for him to carry out that obligation." I do not accept that we must make it difficult for the Minister. Certainly, we tie the Minister to certain guidelines, ensuring that he does not take a decision like that lightheartedly.

This is a line of argument about which a good deal was heard on the Second Reading. I have been prepared to attribute due weight to the arguments of the Opposition when I felt them to be weighty. I do not feel that this argument is weighty and I am not going to pretend that I do. It is not really a question of making it harder for the Minister to carry out his duties.

(Dublin Central): It was the Minister who said it.

No, not exactly in that way. The new legislation defines the Minister's duties in terms which are not intended to make them harder or easier for him. That is not the point. The point is that the Minister's powers will be less sweeping to the extent that in future he will have to justify certain courses of action before the Oireachtas. The case will have to be appropriately made. That is meant to clarify the relationship between Parliament and broadcasting and make it, if you like, more open and above board.

As Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, Ministers have to take unpopular decisions. Indeed, they have. The Minister, having taken the decision to recommend to the Oireachtas the removal of members of the Authority or of the commission, that decision is quite likely to be unpopular, and he will have to defend that possibly unpopular decision. It may not always be unpopular; there might be a widespread consensus in regard to the failure that had taken place and that ought to be rectified. But, whether it is popular or unpopular, he has to justify it before the Oireachtas.

I do not think it justifiable to say, as has been suggested, that the Minister is thereby running away from his responsibilities. On the contrary what he is doing is accepting his responsibilities, clarifying them, before the Oireachtas: he has to defend the decisions he takes before the House and the public. It has been suggested opposite that there is something cowardly about this, some kind of abdication of responsibility and so on. I see nothing cowardly about obliging a Minister to be responsible to this House. That is what this measure does and I think it is quite appropriate.

Without necessarily disagreeing with Deputy Fitzpatrick in this matter, I agree with the Minister. I believe it is necessary to give the commission a status, so to speak, and to make it a little bit more difficult for the Minister to remove a member of the commission. I agree with the Minister because if I were a member of the commission I would be happier in the knowledge that the matter would have to be serious before the Minister could shift me.

(Dublin Central): I want to make my point quite clear. I do want to undermine the status of the commission in any way, and I drew a distinction as between the removal of the Authority and the removal of the commission. I agree the duties of the commission would be responsible duties and I do not want to diminish the status of the commission in any way.

I apologise for not being here when the Minister was replying to what I said earlier on this section. I did hear the Minister say that he felt he should accept responsibility for the conduct of the commissioners or members of the Authority he would appoint and that is his justification for giving judicial recognition to both the members of the Authority and the members of the commission. Having set up the commission and given them the right to investigate and come to a decision, he said he felt that was as far as he should go. But in subsection (9) of 18B it is provided:

When the Authority receives a statement of a decision from the Commission pursuant to subsection (7) of this section, the Authority shall, not later than fourteen days after its receipt, inform the Commission in writing whether or not the Commission's decision is accepted by the Authority.

Where do we go from there? The Authority reply to the commission, the commission having found a programme to be at fault, and what happens then? The Authority can write back saying they accept the decision of the commission or they do not accept the decision of the commission. According to my files the invariable reply to correspondents in regard to complaints is that the programme complained of was not unbalanced and that RTE do not take the same view of the programme as the complainant does. In that context, the complainant then goes to the commission and the commission investigate and find that RTE are wrong. I presume they write to the chairman of the Authority and say they have investigated the case and found RTE at fault. Under this section the reply from the chairman of the RTE Authority will naturally be that the Authority do not agree with the commission and do not accept the decision of the commission. Where do we go from there? This is what I meant when I talked about teeth. The commission can go no further. Will that be the end of it? The Minister said last night there were ten complaints, eight had been heard; in seven RTE were exonerated and in the eighth— probably the homosexual programme —they were found guilty. What was the end result? The programme was advertised in the RTE Guide. Did RTE do anything to redress the balance or to make amends? What will the end result be? I understand the Minister believes he should not give the commission more teeth but, if there is to be no attempt at a proper balance being kept or no attempt to make amends, then the Minister cannot possibly be as happy as he pretends to be about this complaints commission.

Deputy Lalor said he was unable to be present for my reply to what he said earlier. I do not want to go over the same ground —I am sure the Deputy will understand that—but I should like to cover a little of it. My point about the teeth was that I did not want to set up another body with teeth in relation to RTE. My concern is to ensure a general democratic authority over broadcasting—I mean authority with a lower case "a"—and that authority is here in the Parliament of this country. That is where the teeth are and should be. The function of the complaints commission does not envisage finding the Authority guilty and punishing them and that is not the way such a commission works in other comparable countries, such as Sweden and, to some extent, Britain. Their function is to flash a warning light, as it were, which the Authority are free to disregard. If there were to be a series of warning lights in a given area it is obvious no wise or prudent Authority would disregard them for the two reasons I gave the House earlier.

The first reason would be the Authority's sense of their own responsibilities and the concern they would feel at having an impartial body find that they had not discharged their responsibilities. I am sure if any of us were on such an Authority and such a body found that we would be concerned. We would not be concerned in the first case about its consequences but about its implications and we would look very seriously at that. I believe any Authority that are likely to be appointed would react in that way. They would also, on a lower plain, necessarily feel that if warnings of this kind were going on the situation could be approaching where a Government would be concerned and might have to bring the matter before the Oireachtas under other provisions of this measure.

Any Broadcasting Authority who ignored the findings of the commission in a general sense—I do not say that a specific case might not occur where they would decide it was the lesser evil to ignore it—and made a habit of that would be very unwise indeed. In the final analysis, if there were repeated complaints which the Broadcasting Complaints Commission accepted as well founded, that the Authority were in breach of certain statutory provisions especially those in regard to objectivity and impartiality the Government of the day would no doubt take appropriate action.

An arrangement of this kind seems to me the most appropriate. It is consistent with the general principle I have tried to have reflected in the Bill that the Authority should have maximum freedom and autonomy within clearly specified statutory obligations and restraints. A decision to give the complaints commission teeth or to make their decisions binding on the Authority would conflict with this general principle and I am not, therefore, in favour of it. As I say, in other countries where they have equivalent bodies that is the principle applied. The commission, committee or whatever it may be, give a signal if they feel a line has been gone over, not that anybody is expected to be punished or, indeed, that the Authority are expected to eat humble pie. It is just to take note of that and if they are convinced that there is substance in it, as they would be in most cases, take such steps as they judge appropriate to prevent a repetition.

Deputy Lalor asked if they were expected to do anything to redress what they had done. In matters that concern the balance of broadcasting the appropriate form of redress is the provision to ensure as far as possible that the balance will be maintained. There are so many ways of falling away from balance that the formation of a sort of code of case law, using again the legal analogy in the very wide sense, is perhaps the best way of ensuring the development of that and that the complaints commission would contribute to that but not be an enforcing body or punitive body. That is the whole idea behind this.

It is the verbiage in section 9 that prompted me to ask the question. If that was the Minister's intention it would be more appropriate for him to have worded the section by saying: "When the Authority receive a statement of a decision from the commission pursuant to subsection (7) of this section the Authority shall not later than 14 days after its receipt acknowledge its receipt". That is what the Minister has just said. He talks about the warning lights but I cannot visualise a situation where the Authority reply by saying: "We have got your decision and we do not accept it". That is a straightforward rebellion. If that occurred, even on a subject that might be described as trivial, the Minister of the day would have the problem of coming into the Oireachtas and either recommending that the members of of the commission or the members of the Authority be replaced. The Authority and the commission are Government appointed and if the commission tell the Authority that they have acted wrongly and the Authority write back and say that they do not agree there is a clear difference of opinion between two Government appointed agencies and the Minister will have to act.

There is a guideline built into subsection (13) that a person shall not act as a member of the commission in relation to any matter with respect to which he has a material, financial or other beneficial interest. When dealing with section 3 last night, I said that the Minister might not be as critical as I was of the various radio and television programmes. Here we have a commission being set up by the Government at the request of the Minister to hear complaints.

I know that Members of the Oireachtas cannot be members of the commission. Let us assume that the Dáil dissolves at some stage between the passage of this Bill and the appointment of the commission, that the new Government come in and that neither the present Taoiseach, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government nor I are re-elected to the House.

That is an interesting selection.

I wonder what would be the reaction of the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to the incoming Minister for Posts and Telegraphs appointing the present Taoiseach, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and me as the minimum three people who should form this Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Does the Minister visualise that there might be a resurrection of some of the complaints we already had placed before the present broadcasting committee? If he does, he is pretty right in his assumption.

Everybody has his own point of view and on the issue that I spent some time discussing last night the Minister will accept that material, financial or other beneficial interests do not quite cover three or four of the complaints presented to the present investigating committee that he appointed. Is there no way in which the Minister could build into this section the type of provision whereby the commission that is to be appointed could be balanced from that point of view? Suppose the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and Mary Kenny were appointed as the commission I think I would be reasonably justified in objecting on the basis that it was likely that commission would be biased in a particular direction.

It would not be unanimous anyway.

They are unanimous at the moment. This is pretty much in line with Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment this morning which the Minister accepted practically in principle in spelling out not less than three members with the hope of five. I think the Minister accepts that I am saying this sincerely; I am worried about the commission of three or five to be set up under the Bill. I am mindful that the commission are to be set up by the Government on the request of the Minister but I have a notion there are one or two in the Government who might try to be a guard against what I have in mind. Against that, a Bill was brought into the House and one or two members of the Government did not agree with it and we did not know this until very late in the day. Is there anything to provide for the sort of declaration of interest I have in mind which the Minister could put into section 13? This is an extremely important commission who are to be set up to investigate complaints. Many people, including myself are not happy about the outcome of the seven complaints on which decisions have been taken.

I am not taking from the qualifications of the three people on the committee; I am fully satisfied that they ruled properly as they saw it but three other people might rule differently, even though they might not rule correctly. I am merely saying that personally I disagree with some of those decisions. I am worried about the handing over of that function to a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whose views on this issue which is the subject of so much complaint and controversy are so well known. I cannot see how the provision can be built into that section; I am merely using that section to outline my worries on that score.

Deputy Lalor has made a very interesting and highly imaginative speech, very fertile in hypotheses. I hope he will forgive me if I do not pursue all the hares he started some of which seem to me to be decidedly political. He seems to suggest—possibly under the strain of making his remarks relevant to the section—that members of the commission should be required to make some kind of declaration of non-material interest, perhaps ideological or spiritual interest. I do not think that has been required of members of other State bodies and I do not think it should be provided here. In part his remarks are a little inconsistent. Obviously, he is worried about the Minister's attitudes and therefore worried about bodies that might be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister. Yet, whatever the Minister's personal attitudes are, the scope of the present legislation and its thrust is to remove certain matters, in particular this function of judging impartiality, from the Minister. That is a function that is being removed by this Bill from a Minister.

If the Deputy objects to the tendencies of the present Minister he should, at least for the period of the tenure of the present Minister, rejoice in a moderate way that the function of judging impartiality is taken out of the hands of that Minister and given to a commission which will not be appointed by the Minister or be removable by the Minister but will be appointed by the Government of the day and only removable—on the recommendation of the Minister—by the Government. Certain drawbacks are incurable so long as the Minister to whom the Deputy objects is there. There is no way out of that except by getting rid of the Minister and I know that the Deputy is addressing himself to that problem——

I am working hard on that.

——as fast as he can. Obviously, this transcends a particular Minister and is intended to be of longer duration. I do not think it will be seriously contended that we should seek some kind of declarations from people to be appointed on the commission which would not be sought in relation to members of the Authority and have never been sought in the past from members of other State bodies.

The Deputy also referred to the position when an Authority do not accept a given decision. He suggested that if in any case an Authority did not do this the Minister or the Government of the day should dismiss either the Authority or the commission. I certainly would not go that far: there could be borderline cases where there could be a legitimate division of opinion where the Authority, after very carefully considering the report of the commission, as they must, came reluctantly to a contrary conclusion, and one such instance, or rare such instances, over a long period of time would not lead to the necessity for such a drastic conclusion as Deputy Lalor suggests.

I would agree with him if he were to say that a consistent run of adverse reports by a commission which were then rejected by the Authority would create the situation he describes, where the Government of the day would have to say "Well, either there is something wrong with the commission or with the Authority, and we will have to make up our mind which it is and make appropriate recommendations to the Oireachtas." I would hope that such a situation would not arise and I see it as unlikely to arise.

The position where the Authority may reject a decision is not unusual. For example, it remains a power of the board of governors of the BBC in relation to reports of their complaints commission. But there is a remedy here in the event of such an unfortunate divergence, and that is contained in the provision in 18C (i) for the annual report of the commission. We may take it as certain that the commission's annual report would give particular prominence to any case where the commission found in a given sense and the authority did not accept their decision. The report would be laid before the House and then the Oireachtas would be able to debate that. That is not a situation which any Authority would lightly wish to encounter. I think the provisions in the section are adequate.

(Dublin Central): When the Minister spoke about the composition of the complaints commission of the British Broadcasting Corporation, he mentioned the name of some members of Parliament, if my memory serves me correctly——

A former Speaker.

(Dublin Central): A former Speaker, but he did not say whether he had any commitment to it. I would have reservations about that, without casting aspersions on any former Speaker of the House, and I presume he means that he would not be a Member of the House.

Present Members are excluded, so it would be former Speakers.

(Dublin Central): The Minister of the day could find himself in trouble with the same type of accusation again, probably unfounded, but these things can be compounded and exaggerated out of proportion. I am sure the British authority works effectively. If the Minister is considering a former Ceann Comhairle of the House as a member of the commission, my view is that the appointment should be balanced.

The complaints commission will, of course, be empowered to call witnesses. Will the commission have statutory power to compel witnesses to attend a hearing, even if they have participated in a broadcast?

First of all, I should like to say that I note the Deputy's reservations on the question of former Speakers and would bear those reservations in mind. One point that any Minister would bear in mind —I certainly would—would be the extreme desirability of ensuring that as far as possible any complaints commission had the widest possible acceptance as an impartial body. Therefore a reservation of the kind that has been formulated would be a serious matter. I certainly would not like the nomination by any Government of a complaints commission to be greeted with cheers on one side and objections from the other. None of us wants that. That is also relevant to other points made earlier in the debate.

There is no statutory obligation on witnesses to attend. They can stay away if they want to. Granted, all the time your subject matter is something in the public domain and is something of which there is a record. Therefore the question of witnesses in the ordinary way as to what was broadcast does not arise if the commission themselves know what was broadcast or what is complained of. In the normal way the people whose evidence they would be looking for would be people, who, we would assume, would be eager to come forward, that is to say, people in RTE itself concerned with the making of the programme, with the intentions that they had when making it and with any material constraints that might have been on them, such as the dropping out of any participants. We may take it that in virtually all foreseeable cases the relevant members of the RTE staff would be eager to give evidence. If a member were reluctant to give evidence, that would be an unusual matter regarding which the complaints commission would have to reach their own conclusions. I do not think the obligation is necessary. As I said earlier, and would like to re-emphasise, this is not a court but an informal body of inquiry into such matters as impartiality and the less formal and costly its proceedings are the better.

(Dublin Central): I should like to draw the Minister's attention to complaints regarding advertising, which of course would also be a matter for the complaints commission. We know that certain advances have been made to the Minister in connection with local television and advertising. Would the complaints commission have the same rights over local television or radio as they have over RTE? I have community television in mind.

It is not envisaged that the commission should have powers in relation to community television at present, going on as to a limited extent and to an experimental extent. If community television developed, as some of us might hope it would—but there may be inherent limitations on its growth—to a very considerable extent the question of its further regulation by legislation might arise. But we do not at present feel that it is necessary to involve the commission with community television. As at present constituted they are a voluntary body and we do not want to put too much on it at the present time. However control of community television and advertising on it will be considered when statutory regulations are made under the Bill if it is enacted.

(Dublin Central): I do not want to develop that aspect of community television at this stage; we can do it later. Section 4 is one of the most detailed in the Bill. It will play a very important role as regards the standards which will obtain in broadcasting. It is a safeguard for the public. It is a watchdog which was set up to ensure that if the public have any complaints about impartiality or imbalance, they will be able to make a proper approach to the commission. This section places many obligations on the commission. If, as the Minister indicated, more complaints are submitted to the complaints commission in this country than anywhere else, this is a very large undertaking for such a small committee. There is every likelihood that this trend will continue. There is a growing awareness among the people today but whether this is good or bad I do not know. The most trivial matter nowadays can be magnified out of all proportion.

If a person has a complaint he must first get in touch with the Authority. They may be able to give good reasons why they took certain action or why they showed a certain programme. I would not be surprised if the number of complaints mentioned by the Minister were doubled. I am not sure how long it takes to investigate complaints. The commission must be supplied with the relevant facts; the Authority must give them the necessary tapes and material to help them reach a balanced judgment. In another section the Authority are obliged to keep certain material for six months.

Sixty days, or whatever time is agreed with the commission, it might be longer.

(Dublin Central): I believe records and tapes should be kept longer. Cases might come to light two or three years later and I cannot see how keeping records for that length of time would place a strain on the Authority. The same regulations should apply to the Authority as apply to the ordinary business of the Revenue Commissioners. The Income Tax Act makes it compulsory for companies to keep their records for six or seven years. We all know the problem involved, from a space point of view, trying to keep these records. I would be inclined to oblige the Authority to keep their records for two or three years at least.

If a manufacturing company felt aggrieved and complained to the complaints commission it could take the commission a few months to reach their findings. Even if they found in favour of the company, that company could have suffered a loss of business. The next step would be for the company to take action for compensation against the Authority. To get this action listed could take up to 12 months. In such a case it would be necessary to keep the tapes and documents for that time. That is only a minor case; other cases can drag on for years. The Authority should be in a position to supply tapes and documents two or three years later and say: "That is what took place on a certain night two or three years ago." That is not too much to ask.

The Minister should have another look at the section which deals with the keeping of tapes and records. It could happen in a High Court case that the relevant evidence was destroyed, because it was allowed under this Bill. The Authority are not obliged to keep these tapes. If I were on the Authority I would go with the Bill because it would make things easier. Later I could plead that the Authority upheld their obligation to the Oireachtas and that, at that stage, they could not supply the information.

I welcome the introduction of this very detailed section. It is necessary that we have the complaints commission to ensure that the people's views are heard by a group independent of the Minister and the Authority. I hope that whoever the Minister selects as members will be impartial because any commission or committee to be successful must be seen to be impartial. We can all play a political part but it is the common good that matters. What the Minister and I think about a person because he leans this way or that way is irrelevant. If he does his job well, that is what matters. We have been bedevilled down through the years by playing politics with these things and not having the job done properly.

We have already mentioned that this body should contain one or two people with a professional knowledge of broadcasting. The Minister has conceded that. I can see his point that it could cause problems if we put that into the Bill, because this type of person might not be available. However, any Minister in the future should take that into consideration.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

(Dublin Central): I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, after line 43, to insert new subsections as follows:—

"(4) The Authority shall with the consent of the Minister appoint a programme Council which shall as far as possible be representative of those parts of Ireland in which it is not possible to receive television broadcasts at reasonable strength emanating from outside the State.

(5) The programme Council shall control the selection of material and production of programmes to be transmitted on any service of television programmes that may be introduced after the coming into operation of this Act."

This amendment relates to section 6, which has been deleted. I do not intend to go over the old ground of the Minister's proposal to rebroadcast BBC 1 for the second RTE channel. On that occasion we put forward the proposal that the second channel should be under the control of the RTE Authority and following that up we put forward amendments earlier on in the Bill to enlarge the Authority.

We have put forward this amendment to ensure that a proper balance and representation will be given to the people in that part of the country who do not receive multi-channel television as we do on the east coast. We want to give such people a choice of programmes which will be as good if not better than BBC 1 programmes. Therefore we would like the Minister, with the co-operation of the Authority, to establish a programme council to select programmes which would be desirable and acceptable especially to the single-channel areas. It is important to ensure that there is proper representation in respect of the second RTE channel when it comes into operation probably in 1977. The members of this council, coming from, say, Cork, Limerick, Galway and so on should be able to feed back to the Authority or to the people who prepare the programmes in Montrose what they think is acceptable in those areas.

We are all conscious that there is criticism of the present RTE programmes especially by people living in the single-channel areas. If there is a proper selection of programmes, both imported and home produced, and the second channel, the complaints we have heard over the past three or four years will be eliminated. It is not possible with one channel to cater for the various interests. I have travelled in many parts of the country, especially in the south and the west, and I have heard these complaints, that they are not getting the choice of programmes. I can see their point, but I can also see the point of view of RTE having only the one channel. In such circumstances it is very difficult to cater for minority viewers. If a programme council is established, the members will be conscious of the needs and the desires of people in the single-channel areas whom they represent.

That is why we put forward the amendment to increase the membership of the Authority and asked that the additional members appointed to the Authority should if at all possible reside in and be representative of those parts of the country that have only single-channel reception at the moment. The amendment would enhance and strengthen the new RTE programme when it is established. I am convinced that if RTE set about properly programming for this second channel the selection which the people are looking for will be given.

People were afraid, that this would be completely dominated again by Montrose and that we would have the same biased type of programmes reflecting the views of the east coast and so on. I have heard it mentioned on several occasions that the news generally reflects only incidents that take place along the east coast. I see the difficulties which Montrose and the station encounter. If an incident should happen in the west or south it just is not possible to have it filmed and back for the six o'clock news. It is more simple to do that if it happens here in Dublin.

These are the difficulties which the Authority are encountering. We want to ensure that there is no question about this programme being Dublin-biased at Montrose or taken over completely by a certain group of people. We must get away from that concept. I am quite sure that the Minister is as conscious of this as I am. We are trying to get a balanced representation and to ensure that the views of this programme council will be heard by whoever is in charge of the selection of programmes in Montrose. We do not want to make his job difficult. I understand he has a certain job to do as controller of programmes. This type of programme council would be able to monitor and assimilate generally the feelings of the people of a district, especially in the single channel areas. They would be more alive to complaints, and I believe it would help the Authority and the controller of programmes to a certain extent if he had those views. It is for this purpose we tabled this amendment. We believe it is desirable. It certainly would give this broad spread which is so necessary. It is important that we get as many views as possible if we are to get this new channel accepted. The Minister should consider seriously accepting this amendment.

I might as well come in before the Minister speaks. The selection of programmes that are to be provided in RTE 2 for the single channel areas is a very important matter to people living in those areas. The question of making that selection from what programme materials are available should be in the hands of at least some people living in mainly the southern and south-western part of the country. It should not be dependent upon what people living in this area think we should allow people living in Cork, Kerry, Clare and so on to see.

There is no need to go into the controversy of the past couple of years on this issue. Now that a second channel is in process of being erected and an executive of RTE in Dublin has been made responsible for looking after it, it is important that some means be found of ensuring that the sort of programmes provided will be not alone good programmes but, if necessary through research, some of the kind of programmes that people living in the single-channel areas want. I should like to hear from the Minister what thinking has been done so far on this and if any information is available to him. We all know the feeling of genuine resentment of the people living in those areas who have not got the accidental benefit of additional channels.

I have not heard anything about what methods are to be employed by RTE in arriving at a selection. That is what makes the amendment being put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick a useful one—at least a good talking point—that some sort of council or committee might be selected representative of those areas and of course including somebody from the station itself, with the object of arriving at a result which will be satisfactory, rather than create another element of protest.

Coming from the single-channel area I support the amendment. I would appeal to the Minister that if he wants to get RTE 2 accepted—as we all hope it will be and we look forward to that—he should have some kind of programme council representative of single-channel areas. As I said on the Second Stage, people in my area accept and would, I think, vote for RTE 2 in preference to rebroadcasting of the BBC. There should be an independent programme council because it is felt, with all due respect, that there are some very good programmes in RTE 1, but there are some very bad and hopeless ones. There should be an element of competition between the two stations if there is to be good broadcasting. There could be an excellent RTE 1 and 2 if there was this competition—of course under the supervision of the director of broadcasting. They could not make any programmes they liked, but there would be a better variation of programmes and there would be programmes with a regional voice, which is very important for RTE 2

I do not want to rehash what we had in the Second Reading because I do not believe in repeats, but it is worth asking the Minister a second time to consider seriously this amendment because I come from this area and I am listening to this every other day: "We have no reception at the moment except from RTE 1." I listened to people the other day saying "Ah sure listen, it is the same crowd doing the programmes. We thought we would get a bit of variety when we get RTE 2, but it is the same old three and four pence". I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment and do away with that feeling in the single-channel areas that we are going back to square one as far as programming is concerned.

I should like to make it clear that I am not condemning all the programmes transmitted by RTE. The Authority have a difficult job to do and transmit some very good programmes. The task for the existing Authority is difficult enough without putting the burden of a second channel on them. In my view there should be a separate programme council for the proposed second channel. There should be an element of competition between the two channels in an effort to make them strive for better things. I support the amendment for that reason and I appeal to the Minister to accept it.

I dealt with the question of an advisory committee for RTE 2 in the course of my opening speech on Second Stage on 28th October, 1975, as reported at columns 410 and 411 of the Official Report, Volume 288. At that time I said that this Bill provides for the transfer of power to appoint advisory committees from the Minister to the Authority. It is all part of the general concept in this legislation of strengthening the autonomy, the self-determination, of the Authority. Accordingly, it is for the Authority to act on this question and I would not wish to prejudice their decision or make creation of a given advisory council or committee mandatory on them under the legislation. I believe that in reaching their own decision as to whether an advisory committee or council would be useful in this area, and if so just what it should be and how it should function, the Authority will take into consideration the points made here by Deputies Fitzpatrick, Brugha, and Callanan.

I pointed out some possible objections to such an arrangement. The second channel is a second national channel, not the extension to the single-channel area of a service already available in the multi-channel area. Furthermore, it is to be run as a complement to the existing channel so that there is to be a single balanced national service on two channels. As this concept has won popular acceptance, I thought it should be allowed to work itself out. That being so, it may not be advisable to create a statutory system of committees which would naturally tend to pull in different directions, in order to run a two-channel concept which is intended to be a balanced whole. Therefore, I do not think I should make the creation of such a committee mandatory on the Authority. The Authority themselves will undoubtedly want RTE 2 and RTE 1 to be as acceptable as possible in the single- and multi-channel areas. I believe they will have to devise such methods of consultation as they think may best work for this purpose. I do not think they should be simply required to set up such a committee by law but they retain the power to set up such a committee which, after consideration of the whole problem, they may decide to use. This is a matter for the decision of the Authority and, accordingly, I regret I cannot accept the amendment although the arguments which have been put forward for it here, and which afterwards may be put forward, will be brought to the attention of the Authority.

I agree with the Minister if he is saying that the Authority can appoint any sort of advisory committee they may wish to appoint. That comes up under the next section. I would not like to see a collision developing and the Authority being so unwise as to say it does not need any advisory committee to give them an idea of what should be provided in the single-channel area. The Minister is saying that if the Authority wish to appoint a committee well and good, it is the responsibility of the Authority, and at the same time I agree with the Minister when he says that RTE 2 is part of a national network. The consideration behind this amendment is one which bears in mind the vacuum created by the accidental reception of three, and sometimes four, other channels in a part of the country. We all know about this. We are also aware of the feeling of irritation, of virtual protest, which has arisen in some parts of the single-channel area, notably Galway, Limerick, Cork and Waterford.

This is a situation which should not be ignored and I am sure the Authority will not ignore it. I am not sure that the Minister is correct in passing all of that on to the Authority without so much as a recommendation. In controversial areas of this kind it is a good thing to concede this much to public opinion so that they will know that what is being done is fair and open and that they will not be subject to any sort of whispering campaign that Dublin is deciding everything. I know it is impossible to satisfy all the people in the area of television, generally, and I know that we will never please everybody with regard to our national television station. In my view RTE do well in many areas and, perhaps, what is being said here will help in the situation we are discussing. It is of vital importance that people who have not the accidental benefit of outside channels will, through the second channel, get the best selection possible. What concerns me is that they might be exposed to the idea that they are not getting that, that Dublin, as we are described, is deciding the matter.

I accept the Minister's argument that it is a national channel and, therefore, it must be balanced; what RTE 1 and RTE 2 are doing must have a national balance. I see that the Minister does not wish to make something of this kind mandatory on the Authority. I am sure that the present Authority would not be so foolish as to decide arbitrarily on this without consultation with those in the single-channel area. In his amendment Deputy Fitzpatrick seeks to make sure that people in that area will get the best selection possible. Other than prevailing on the Minister to accept the amendment, I cannot put the case any stronger.

I do not agree with the Minister that it should be left optional to RTE, because human nature being what it is, if I am in authority and if I agree to set up an advisory committee I will want it run my way. If an authority over RTE 1 are asked to establish an advisory committee to help organise programmes for RTE 2 they will not put someone on the committee who will want to change programmes. I think it should be in the Bill.

(Dublin Central): It is a pity the Minister cannot see our point of view. The reason for this amendment is to ensure that when the second channel is established it will get full acceptance. The public view is of vital importance to the success of an operation. The complaints commission is there to give the public a vehicle to express dissatisfaction if they feel that certain aspects in relation to broadcasting were unbalanced or impartial. I agree with the Minister that this is a national broadcasting station. It is for all the people of the country. I sincerely hope that I will be able to discontinue looking at foreign stations. I hope to get programmes that are acceptable to all members of the family on RTE 1 and RTE 2. I believe this will be done.

It is important that the people are consulted. No matter how qualified a controller of programmes is he would not be capable of saying: "This is the type of programme that the people in Cork, Galway or Sligo would like." The present controller of programmes is of outstanding integrity and quality and even he could not do that. People in commercial life carry out researches in various parts of the country to see what commodity will sell. When that is done the product is manufactured. If any sort of enterprise is to be started in this country researchers are sent out first to assess the possibilities before a decision is made. We do not want to go into that professional type of stuff. We are dealing with a very sensitive area to ensure that the quality and type of programme that people want will be forthcoming from RTE.

The people have the right to have their views expressed on television and there is no better way of doing so than setting up a programme council such as we are proposing here, consisting of people representative of that part of the country that has only single-channel reception. The whole selection board should not be confined to people from that part of the country. There could be members from Dublin or Wexford there or any part of the country which is receiving the multi-channel stations at the moment. If something like this were established, we would not have the same complaints we are receiving today from people all over the country that certain programmes are completely unsatisfactory and that certain views are not being considered. I think we should have some type of a board or a programme council that would be processing machinery whereby the director of programmes in RTE would be in a position to say that certain programmes reflected the views of the programme council. I do not say that the director of programmes should at all times accept the recommendations of the council but at least it will be a guideline; it would show him exactly what people are thinking.

This is a controversial issue. Throughout the country when this second channel was being debated, people came out in favour of RTE 2 and wanted to be assured that it would not be a complete duplication of RTE 1. If RTE 2 is to be a success, we must set up a proper council to ensure that these people's views are heard. When the second station comes into operation, it will have to be paid for by everyone irrespective of where they reside. We should ensure that the people living on the east coast will tune into RTE 2. If we are to generate the revenue so necessary for RTE to finance its various programmes and undertakings, we will have to get more people, especially people on the east coast, to look at Irish programmes. This relates to commercial value.

People place their advertisements on the basis of the TAM ratings of programmes. Both RTE channels in the future will be depending to a considerable extent on commercials for their revenue. Therefore we must endeavour to have programmes which will be of the widest appeal possible. I should not be surprised to learn that the TAM rating on the east coast is very low so far as RTE are concerned. In these circumstances every effort must be made to win back those lost viewers. RTE must concentrate their efforts in this area if they are to sustain themselves in regard to revenue. If the present decline in revenue continues the deficit will have to be made up by increasing the licence fee. I see no other way by which RTE could operate the second channel to the highest standard possible, a standard that will attract the desired number of viewers and which will attract advertising. Despite the number of complaints that may be made with regard to advertising on the proposed second channel, we must be realistic and accept that, while commercials may detract from the enjoyment of a programme, they are necessary to enable the station to sustain itself.

However, the most important consideration is the question of ensuring the channel's acceptability and its provision of the broadest scope possible. Undoubtedly, the new channel will give us a selection of imported programmes in addition to home-produced ones. There are many excellent programmes on cross-channel circuits which many people in this country cannot receive now. These include such educational programmes as "Open University" and educational programmes for younger viewers. Programmes of this type would be acceptable on the new channel. At the same time, we can utilise this channel for the development of home talent. We must not at any time overlook our writers, producers and broadcasters. RTE 2 can be a means of providing work for some of these people and, hopefully, the channel can be expanded ultimately, to absorb some of those artists who have emigrated because of lack of scope for them here.

It is desirable too that studios outside Dublin be expanded and diversified. In this way a balance of programmes can be achieved. These smaller studios could produce home programmes reflecting the views of the various elements in our society. We are drifting increasingly towards the international type of programme. While this may be desirable we must not overlook the element of home interest. Most people will prefer programmes of home news, for instance. Although there is a choice of cross-channel and even international newspapers available, most people will seek first the local paper in order to ascertain the home news. The same goes for broadcasting.

We can rest assured that the home-produced programmes will play an important part on any Irish television channel. With this in mind we have put forward this amendment. We are endeavouring in this way to consult the public, to tell them that by means of a programme council we are asking for their views in relation to television programmes. Perhaps the amendment is not word perfect and could be improved by the parliamentary draftsman. Perhaps the controller of programmes on RTE could work in conjunction with the council for which we are asking. Would it not be possible to change the amendment so as to make it, not mandatory on the controller to accept the council's recommendations, but at least to take their views into consideration in overall programme planning on the second channel?

Therefore I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. He has told us that as the section stands the Authority can establish an advisory council but I doubt if what I have in mind is what the section envisages. I doubt if the Authority would establish such a council and for that reason I do not accept the Minister's proposal in this regard. RTE have stated that they can provide the selection of programmes necessary to satisfy the public generally. They have much to live up to.

I believe they will live up to the expectations I have of them. I have always said we are capable of using our second broadcasting station. We have the potential and the talent to service this station and to deliver the goods. To ensure that it is acceptable we must get the co-operation of all the people. We must show that we are concerned to see that their views are expressed within the Authority. For that reason we put forward this amendment. If accepted it would enhance the whole operation of RTE 2.

Naturally I listened with interest and attention to the statements made on this matter. I am struck with a certain gap between the speeches made in support of the amendment and the amendment itself. What Deputies opposite, including Deputy Fitzpatrick in whose name the amendment stands, have done is to make a good case for an advisory committee on the second channel, a committee on which the residents of the present single-channel areas would be represented as well as others a broadly based advisory committee. The amendment is far more drastic. From the remarks Deputy Fitzpatrick has just made I do not think he is really convinced of the need for his own amendment in the form in which we have it here.

(Dublin Central): I said we might get better drafting.

This is much more than an advisory committee. This is a programme council which shall control—that is very strong—the selection of material and production of programmes to be transmitted on any service of television programmes that may be introduced after the coming into operation of this Act. That is the second channel and any other channels the future may bring. If carried, that would take away a very important area of decision-making from the Authority. In fact, it goes very far in the direction of setting up a second or alternative Authority. That is very drastic and goes far beyond the idea of an advisory committee.

I could not at all accept that. It would be a retrograde step. The idea of a single Authority for our national broadcasting station, on however many channels it functions, is absolutely vital if we are to get the necessary complementary system of programmes on more than one channel. I would not envisage for a moment going to those lengths. Therefore, I could not at all accept this amendment. That does not mean I do not think there is a considerable weight of argument which deserves consideration for the kind of advisory committee envisaged by Deputies opposite and of which they have spoken persuasively.

If we accept the idea that there is good case for an advisory committee, though not for the kind of alternative Authority which is envisaged here in my view, to whom is the decision to be left? Is the Oireachtas to decide that there shall be such a committee or council and, in effect, impose that on the Authority? Or do we leave it to the Authority to consider the arguments put forward here and those which will certainly reach them from the public especially in the single channel areas? Do we leave that to them or do we say: "No, you will have this whether you like it or not"?

There would be an inherent tension between the Authority and any mandatory committee or council of this sort even if we were to tone down the actual wording "the programme council shall control..." which would be unacceptable to any Authority. That tension would be there. Sometimes there is a case for building in tension but I do not think it would be useful here. It would tend to create suspicion, division and confusion. When the Authority are left to determine how they will bring in the views of the public in the single channel areas and elsewhere, that will tend to produce a better method of consultation because it will be one the Authority will want and not a potential adversary set up.

Deputy Callanan said bluntly that the Authority, being human, would be likely to appoint to an advisory committee people who agreed with them. Obviously this is a tendency of all appointing bodies anywhere. Clearly there are limitations to it. If the Authority want a single channel region to be represented they will also want it to be seen to be represented and, whatever committee is set up, that its membership will be acceptable in that area. If they are nonentities or chosen because they might be likely to agree with the Authority the whole exercise would be counter-productive. I think we need not fear that.

The analogy, if it is an analogy, with the complaints committee was introduced. I accept this to the extent that I think it is right for us to be vigilant and cautious about setting up additional bodies in this area. It is only too easy to multiply bodies. I hesitated for some time before even setting up the complaints committee, but I set it up for what seemed to be a cogent reason that there should be a body other than the Minister or the Authority which would decide on disputed cases, particularly where there was a charge of violation of impartiality. I felt the final decision on that should be left to such a body and therefore there was a need for such a body functionally. I do not accept there is the same need to set up a mandatory body. I should like that to be left to the Authority.

Deputy Fitzpatrick indicated—perhaps this is a little bit away from the literal construction of this section but it does arise generally—that he deprecated what he called drifting towards international type programmes. We should be aware that when RTE set out to convince the public in the single channel areas and elsewhere of the desirability of their concept of a second RTE channel, they did so on the basis of 80 per cent international type programmes, that is, foreign programmes.

(Dublin Central): I agree with that figure.

That is what the demand was for. We need not dispute that further. I hope I will not have to come in again on this amendment. I have spoken for quite long enough. I entirely agree with Deputy Brugha when he says what we say in this debate may help. I appreciate that all the contributions to this debate were intended to help. I believe they will be taken into consideration by the RTE Authority in whatever they may do in relation to this area.

I do not think it is any harm to prolong this discussion because this is an important area.

I would not like to see a division between the Government and the Opposition now that we have RTE 2 coming up. It is preferable that we should try and see one another's point of view. If one takes into consideration the fact that RTE were in the campaign to ensure that it would be RTE 2, and the very strong feelings among the minority, a minority that counted, it is most important that people should be satisfied that the arrangements made will be the best possible. It seems to me that it might be better, perhaps, not in the mandatory form set out here, to spell out some method or provision for arriving at a selection of programmes for RTE 2 either way by way of another Bill or the Minister asking RTE to appoint an advisory committee or by asking RTE to do it by way of research. Perhaps we can talk about this on Report Stage.

I will be glad to do so.

I do not think Deputy Fitzpatrick wishes to push this issue. Irrespective of the views we may have, either on the Government side or here, as to what the national station should do, I am sure we all agree we want the best possible programmes.

I agree entirely.

(Dublin Central): I have very little to add. I said I did not expect the Authority to accept all the advice that would be given but I am very concerned that some type of advisory council should be established to reflect the views of people in the single-channel area. I have been looking through my amendment and, perhaps, I may change one or two words but I intend to introduce a similar amendment later because I believe it is necessary to have some type of programme council. I would add that I do not in any way want to tie the hands of the Authority or the Minister in the matter of the control of programmes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

(Dublin Central): This provides for the appointment of advisers to the Authority. What type of advisers are in mind? Will they be an ad hoc body or will they be permanent?

I think they will enjoy a good deal of flexibility. Section 5 transfers to the RTE Authority the powers in the 1960 Act in such a way that the Authority may exercise these powers with the consent of the Minister. Otherwise the section is identical to the relevant section in the 1960 Act. Subsection (2) provides that no committee shall have more than three members and that a member of a committee shall, unless he previously dies or resigns, retain his membership for the period determined by the Authority when appointing him, and no longer, but shall be eligible for reappointment. It provides that a committee must meet when requested by the Authority.

Subsection (3) provides:

(3) (a) An adviser under this section shall, unless he previously dies or resigns, continue as adviser for the period determined by the Authority when appointing him and no longer, but shall be eligible for reappointment.

(b) An adviser under this section shall advise the Authority whenever requested by the Authority.".

The Authority could set up a committee for an ad hoc purpose or on a more long term basis. We can all see the reason for a considerable amount of flexibility.

The first part of the section is exactly as section 21 of the 1960 Act. I note, however, that subsection (3) (b) in the 1960 Act, that "an adviser who under this subsection shall advise the Authority whenever required by the Minister or the Authority" appears in the Bill simply as "whenever requested by the Authority". I should like to know the reason for the change. Subsections (4) and (5) of the Act have been omitted from the new section. I should like to know why.

There may be some confusion here—possibly I am the one who is confused. Subsections (4) and (5) have not been removed.

It is my script.

"Required by the Minister or the Authority" becomes "requested by the Authority". The removal of the Minister from it is part of the general tendency of the Bill to leave the Authority to fend for themselves and to do their own requiring or requesting without the Minister coming in and requiring the committee to do something the Authority have not asked them to do, which is the kind of situation we had. On the distinction between "require" and "request", it may be a difference in style between now and 1960. It is, perhaps, a more emollient wording than Deputy Lalor would give it.

Am I to take it that subsections (4) and (5) are still there?

Question put and agreed to.

The acceptance of amendment No. 1 involved the deletion of section 6.

Section 6 deleted.

SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, lines 1 and 2, to delete "(other than broadcasts made pursuant to section 6 of this Act)".

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn