I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I have great pleasure in bringing these two Bills before the House to-day. They are long-awaited and sorely needed because on the one hand the Sound Broadcasting Bill provides the opportunity for a major and radical development of sound broadcasting services in this country while the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill will restore order to the chaos which has prevailed in the use of the airwaves for too long.
I think, quite frankly, that it is an indictment of the legislative process that we have for so long failed to respond to a demand which we all know exists among the public for evolution in our radio services and that we have in effect tolerated a situation of lawlessness in the airwaves for over ten years. Furthermore almost every major western European country has already introduced, or is in the process of introducing, independent nonstate operated radio services of one form or another and it is right that we should be part of this trend.
I believe the proposals contained in the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987 are a considered and practical response to the demand I have referred to, a demand for:
choice of radio services additional to those of RTE; involvement by the nonState sector in the provision of those services; the development of a new national radio service; new radio services at local level involving commercial and community interests and opportunities for increased competition.
Before commenting on the contents of the Sound Broadcasting Bill the first thing that has to be tackled is the situation of the pirates. For the last ten years a situation has existed where up to 70 pirate radio stations have been operating in this country, the existence of which has brought the law into disrepute. The Government are not prepared to allow this situation to continue. Consequently we introduced the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill 1987. I wish to state in no uncertain terms that the days of illegal broadcasting are numbered. Such activities will no longer be tolerated. The House has my assurance that the full rigours of the provisions of this Bill will, on coming into force, be applied systematically to those who persist in illegal broadcasting. I should like to state that tonight we are creating history in that this is the first time in the ten years that illegal stations have been operating that legislation to put them off the air has been debated in either Chamber. Legislation was introduced in the Seanad but not debated and the legislation introduced in the Dáil in 1981 was not debated.
Examples of the offences and penalties which will apply under the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1987, are as follows:
to knowingly suffer or permit an unlicensed broadcast to be made from a premises; to operate or assist in the operation of wireless telegraphy apparatus by which an unlicensed broadcast is made; to make available a structure or premises from which an unlicensed broadcast is to be made; to keep, have, supply, instal, repair or maintain wireless telegraphy apparatus for unlicensed broadcast purposes; to supply film or record material, to make a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make an artistic work, to participate in the making of film or record material for use in unlicensed broadcasts; to participate in unlicensed broadcasts as director, producer, announcer or otherwise and to advertise in unlicensed broadcasts or to publish programme schedules of unlicensed broadcasts.
The penalties for all of these offences, on summary conviction will be £800 maximum and/or three months imprisonment. On conviction on indictment the penalty will be £20,000 maximum and/or two years imprisonment. Using or allowing one's telephone or electricity service to be used to promote, further or facilitate a business engaged in illegal broadcasts will also be an offence.
To turn to the Sound Broadcasting Bill 1987, I had several objectives in mind in devising this new Bill. In the first instance I wanted it to be a workable and practical piece of legislation which would allow a wide spectrum of individuals and organisations to respond in a realistic fashion to the wide ranging demands of the public and at the same time to provide for the maintenance of certain basic standards. I think that the difference in approach between the Bill before the House and previous Bills, and I include my own party's Bills in this remark, reflects two major and connected developments. The first is that the radio frequency planning carried out by my Department particularly in VHF has ensured that frequencies for broadcasting are no longer as scarce as they had been. Secondly, the earlier concentration in Europe as a whole on structures, controls and regulation to ensure that the limited number of broadcasting services then available catered for all strata of society, is no longer relevant. Accordingly taking account of these two developments I have attempted to devise a regime that will not be an obstacle to the emergence of radio services which the general public clearly wish to see developed.
The real difficulty we face in preparing this legislation is to strike the right balance between the main objective of getting a variety of new radio services on the air and establishing the means to achieve this objective. There are really two issues here; one, what legal framework should be put in place to oversee the development of the new services and, two, what programming requirements should be imposed on those who wish to establish the new services.
On the first point I have no doubt that Deputies from all sides of the House will be able to put forward many excellent ideas and will express many genuinely held views as to how the Bill should be constructed. However, the incorporation of such ideals has to be balanced with the acid test of practicability in implementation. The danger must be avoided of creating a situation in which nobody could afford to provide radio services which could meet the requirements of such legislation or if they honestly attempted to do so they would not be able to live up to its ideals.
I would appeal to Deputies therefore to apply the critical tests of realism, practicality and workability to any views they feel inclined to put forward, to bear in mind that radio broadcasting costs money, that there is only a limited pool of revenue out there to support it and that every additional requirement or regulation they may seek to impose will have a cost implication both for those who provide the services and those who regulate them. In addition, every additional requirement reduces the flexibility needed in legislation of this nature. I will return to this point later.
On the second issue my own strong view is that the purpose of this legislation is to create the environment and framework which will allow individuals and organisations across the country the maximum opportunity to get involved at all levels of our society and to meet and respond to the public demands and requirements in the radio broadcasting sphere. In this context the State cannot make the services we are talking about happen — it seeks only to provide the framework and the opportunity to allow the public make them happen. For this reason, the State, and we as legislators, must resist the temptation to dictate to the public precisely what they can have. The whole pirate radio phenomenon — not just here but internationally — stemmed in large measure from the fact that establishment broadcasting services, which in the main were state-run monopolies were not responding to public demand. Think of the effect for example which the offshore pirate stations had on broadcasting services in the UK in the early sixties. It led to a diversification of the BBC services and the establishment of alternative independent local radio services.
Likewise the pirate station phenomenon here was very much the catalyst for the establishment of RTE's Radio 2 service. In neither case was the response adequate. Society has changed radically since the days when State radio monopolies were established and continues to evolve — people are better educated, are more independent-minded and want greater opportunities to do their own thing. In the field of broadcasting, they do not want to be dictated to by the State They want the freedom to be involved themselves and decide for themselves what they want to listen to and if we, as legislators, do not respond to that demand we will have failed our public. Therefore, the second objective I had in constructing this legislation was to ensure it would be flexible, that it would provide maximum opportunity for maximum involvement by the public in the provision of the kind of radio services which they themselves want, be they commercial, community or a mixture of both.
It is in this context that the term "minimalist" has come to be associated with my legislative proposals. The emphasis in my proposals is on the establishment of the simplest structure possible to administer and regulate radio services and, therefore, to minimise the cost to both the taxpayer and potential radio operators.
The criteria against which applications for licences will be judged are quite specific in the Bill. Not alone will the character of the applicant and the adequacy of the technical and financial resources available to him be very important but the quality, range and type of programmes proposed will be taken into account in deciding who will get the licences. In addition, the licence issued to the successful applicants will be very specific in relation to performance. In this regard, I see the requirement to carry 20 per cent news and current affairs programming as being a key element of the Bill. The national independent radio to be set up under the legislation will provide a national news service. Other requirements which will have to be complied with by licensees will relate to areas which affect the public interest — for example, the requirement to be impartial and objective in the treatment of news and current affairs, to ensure that programmes conform to good taste and decency and do not incite to crime or undermine the authority of the State.
Because of the importance of the Irish language and Irish culture to our national identity and bearing in mind the need for some offsetting balance against the numerous external broadcasting services that are going to be available over the next several years as satellite services develop and expand, it is right that we should take into account what applications propose to offer in this sphere in the selection of licensees. We want to ensure that stations operating in areas which include Gaeltacht areas will make their contribution towards the preservation of Irish as a spoken language.
Finally, with regard to the regulation of the radio services, simplicity is the key. The emphasis under the regime I propose is self-regulation. I do not accept that radio services need the degree of control, of monitoring or of overseeing which would warrant the creation of a new State structure. The parallel surely is with newspapers. We are approaching a situation where there can be more choice in our radio services than there is in newspapers. Nobody is clamouring to establish State structures to regulate the newspapers or to set down in legislation what newspapers may or may not write about.
I see no reason why licensees, having satisfied the rigorous criteria and selection procedures outlined in the Bill, will not provide a service in accordance with their undertakings without the necessity of a permanent "Big Brother" structure to oversee them. The very prospect of knowing that an investigation into the operations of a radio service can be instigated, that market research into audience reaction to a service can be called for, that the ambit of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission can be extended to deal with complaints relating to the services and that, ultimately, licences can be revoked should help greatly to concentrate the mind in that regard.
The emphasis on self-regulation which I envisage in my Bill means I do not have to build up costly bureaucratic structures within my Department to regulate the services. It can be done by a very modest number of staff who can, in addition, deal with other areas of operations within the Department. Indeed, I can see ways in which the self-regulation approach can be strengthened. There are many areas of important activity in the State which are self-regulated and in the case of the new radio services, I would expect that when a sufficient number of stations is established their operators would come together voluntarily and establish a code of conduct within the framework of the legislation to ensure that operators aspire to the highest standards and to deal with any complaints from the public. It would clearly be in the interests of licensees to have such a mechanism rather than to have something more costly and bureaucratic imposed by the State.
Much of the initial reaction to the Bill stems from the fact that it does not provide for the establishment of an independent authority of some description to select franchisees. I would point out that Ministers in many Departments of State have numerous licensing functions, many of them relating to areas which may be of much greater importance for the country than the field of broadcasting. This power has not caused problems in these areas in the past. In relation to broadcasting I do not believe that any Minister for Communications — from any party in this House — would act dishonestly or unfairly in this area because, apart from the question of integrity, the high profile nature of broadcasting is such that unfair behaviour would inevitably come to light.
I accept the argument that the licensing process should be seen to be administered fairly. The structure which I had proposed to deal with this matter was that an advisory committee would be responsible for assessing the applications for licences. The criteria which both the advisory committee and the Minister would have taken into account in selecting licensees are clearly laid down in the Bill. Neither the committee nor the Minister could have acted on whim and I have no doubt that if a Minister sought to do so he would very quickly find himself before the courts. However, having listened to the deeply held views of the Members of the House in commenting on the Bill after its publication, I intend on Committee Stage to introduce an amendment which will require the Minister to accept the decision of the committee as to who should get a licence. The advisory committee will decide who gets the licence and the Minister will sign the licence on their recommendation. The Minister of the day, irrespective of which party are in power, will have no say in who gets the licence. That is a matter for the advisory committee.
To those who may still feel dissatisfied with this approach and who may still press for some form of independent authority to regulate the services after the allocation of licences by the committee, let me make the following important point and ask them to reflect carefully upon it before proposing amendments to the Bill.
A permanent independent authority would necessarily need well qualified and expensive staff to service it. The interim Local Radio Commission set up by my predecessor did valuable work in spelling out the staffing and cost implications of a full-time body and I presume the objectivity of their work is not in question. Let me give you their estimates of the costs of a full-time body.
The commission estimated the running costs of such a body at £237,000 in the first year of operation, rising to £272,500 after five years. This body was to finance itself from a levy taken from radio station operators but at the end of five years of operation it would have run up a deficit of some £598,000 and would still be running at a loss. A consultancy study was carried out by Touche Ross on behalf of the interim Local Radio Commission on this same question. I only mention this because it has been referred to on a number of occasions by those commenting on the Bill. The study proposed a commission with a three-man executive and estimated the annual cost of such a body at £170,000 in the first year rising to £210,000 in year five but even that body would have had an accumulated deficit of £204,000 after four years. In the event, of course, the interim commission could not accept the Touch Ross scenario because they did not consider it possible to do the task they were being given with an executive of three persons.
In fairness to Touche Ross, they suggested that the commission could consider contracting out its work to the Department of Communications with a view to minimising its costs but there were two difficulties with this suggestion. First, if a commission is being set up to be independent of the State executive, then it will want to do its work in an independent fashion and not be coming back to the central Government for the means to carry out its functions. The second flaw is that the Department of Communications would not, and could not do the work of the commission on an ongoing basis free of charge and it would be bound to charge the commission the real cost of any service it was asked to give.
The commission also felt that it would have to levy 5 per cent of the radio stations' turnover to finance itself — and even then it would not be viable. The consultancy study expressed a concern that this figure was too high. In other words, there was a real danger that such a levy would hinder the development and emergence of new radio services. If you accept what Touche Ross said about 5 per cent being, in effect, a disincentive to the emergence of new radio services and their conclusion that revenue of this order would not, in the medium term, make a full time body financially viable then a licence fee or levy of the order of 3 per cent which I envisage under my proposals — £180,000 per annum — will simply not support a new State structure.
It is appropriate at this point to touch on the question of the total pool of advertising revenues available to sustain independent radio services. It is estimated that total expenditure on radio advertising at the moment amounts to around £15 million of which £11 million goes to RTE's radio services and around £4 million to illegal stations. I believe, and the advertisers believe, that there will be growth in radio advertising under a legal regime for national and local radio but, in the medium term at least, I doubt if the total pool for independent radio services will exceed £6 million.
It is purely on these considerations therefore, combined with my conviction that radio services do not need a "Big Brother" type regulation, that I have come down in favour of the more practical regime in this Bill.
Before I go on to deal with the more detailed aspects of the Bill I think it is appropriate to explain why it is necessary to have legislation governing broadcast services at all — in other words, why not let everyone who wishes to set up radio broadcasting services do so? The main constraint on a total liberalisation of the airwaves is the availability of frequency spectrum for this purpose. The International Telecommunication Union in Geneva, of which Ireland is a member, is the specialised agency of the United Nations with international responsibility for the radio frequency spectrum. The allocation of radio frequencies for broadcasting is decided at planning conferences held at various intervals under the auspices of the union, and Ireland along with all other member countries negotiates its quota of frequencies. There must, therefore, be national control over the use of the available frequences if we are to meet our international obligations.
The nature of the radio services we can provide under this Bill is related to the availability of the radio frequency assignments and their associated technical parameters. In addition to the national radio station, the first phase of franchising will concentrate on the provision of sound broadcasting services at city/county level. I will seek applications for licences for the provision of two local radio stations for the greater Dublin area, one for Cork city and one each on a county basis. These stations will operate on both medium wave and VHF.
The second phase of franchising will depend on demand but frequences are available for town stations with coverage of up to eight to ten miles radius and "neighbourhood" stations which will operate at low power with two to five miles coverage. I have available over 100 VHF frequencies for town size stations — in effect one for almost every town with a population over 1,500. Over 100 frequencies are immediately available for "neighbourhood" stations and by 1990 over 300 frequencies will be available. The franchising of the town and "neighbourhood" stations will depend to a large extent on the nature of the demand which manifests itself and these stations will be confined to operation on VHF only.
I am very pleased at the manner in which the decision about a new independent national radio service has been welcomed. In this regard the Government considered that it would be timely to allow such a development which is in line with the general thrust of broadcasting policy here and internationally. This thrust is in the direction of providing diversity and choice of service, of relaxing State monopolies and of allowing greater competition. In addition it is important at national level that there should be an alternative available particularly in the area of news, information, current affairs and public interest programming. For many people the broadcasting services may be the main, and sometimes only, source of such information.
I also want to refer specifically to the concept of the "neighbourhood" stations because I believe they have great potential for real community involvement in radio broadcasting services. What we would like to see is local communities getting involved in providing the kind of service best suited to their own needs and interests. The objective really is to strengthen the coherence of communities and neighbourhoods, to allow people to talk to and entertain each other and to air issues and concerns of local interest. I hope that the widest possible range of groups and organisations, including cultural, sporting and social groups, can come together to participate in these services. Such involvement would enrich the communities concerned, provide a further outlet for local initiative and talent and would be a manifest example of the educational potential — in its broadest sense — of the broadcasting media.
I am particularly appreciative of the response from the National Association of Community Broadcasting to my proposals. They said in a recent letter to me that they are encourged by the progressive nature of the Bill. Indeed in their response to me they have specifically recognised the key elements of flexibility and openness in the Bill which they see as vital to the development of alternative radio programming. These are precisely the elements which I have endeavoured to keep to the forefront in preparing my proposals. Only by doing so can we ensure that the greatest possible crosssection of the public can become involved in the new services on one level or another.
I would like to make particular reference too to the potential which these services offer with regard to the Irish language. We are all aware of the excellent initiatives taken by numerous Irish language interest groups in establishing all-Irish language schools in various communities throughout the country. This Bill provides an opportunity for such initiative to be directed into the area of radio broadcasting, to see a significant Irish language and Irish culture input into radio services at neighbourhood level and to see the language in a substantial manner being brought into the maximum number of homes.
I would like now to move on to the main elements of the Sound Broadcasting Bill itself. Section 1 contains interpretations which are self-explanatory. Section 2 confers the basic power on the Minister, in accordance with the terms of the Act, to invite applications for sound broadcasting services and to grant licences for such services. The licences must be offered on a public franchising basis and subsection (3) specifies the detail which must be contained in the public notices. It is necessary also to give the Minister a specific power to limit the number of services that may be allowed in the interests of securing the orderly development of such services or for reasons relating to the availability of radio frequencies. It will be noted that subsection (5) provides that the services to be provided under this Act are additional to any sound broadcasting services provided by RTE. In this regard, any involvement by RTE in the provision of additional radio services can be done under RTE's own Acts — the Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 and 1979. I already had discussions with a group from Cork local radio and I also met the RTE Authority. Discussions are continuing.
Section 3 is one of the key sections in the Bill. I referred earlier to the fact that specific criteria are being laid down for the evaluation of applications for licences. This section as it stands requires the Minister to establish an advisory committee to give him advice as to the most suitable applicant to be granted a licence based on the criteria laid down in subsection (4). As I have already said, I intend to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to require the Minister to issue the licence in all cases to the applicant considered most suitable by the advisory committee. I want to emphasise that the Minister of the day will have no power in relation to the granting of the licence. That will be a matter for the advisory committee. His only function will be to sign their recommendations.
Subsection (4) of this section provides, inter alia, that the committee must have regard to the desirability of allowing any person, or group of persons, to have control of or substantial interest in an undue amount of the communications media in any area.
What we are looking at here essentially is widening the range of choice available to the public. In contrast with previous Bills, participation by newspapers is by no means excluded. We recognise the concerns which local newspapers may have about the possibility of advertising revenues being syphoned off from them by new radio services and we recognise too the potential contribution which newspapers could make to local radio services as a source of news and information. It is right that we should include in the selection criteria a consideration relating to the extent to which an applicant controls the amount of communications media in any area. However, this is only one consideration among a whole range of criteria. And if on balance it is clear that, as a consequence of a local newspaper being an applicant, a better service can be provided than might otherwise be the case, then the application will in no way be disadvantaged. In many respects such an application may actually have an advantage in the selection process. In some areas, participation by newspapers might be seen as essential in order to ensure that a service is provided.
It will be noted that regard must also be had to an applicant's proposal in respect of programming in the Irish language and relating to Irish culture.
Subsection (5) is a specific criterion aimed at ensuring that applicants for a station in an area which embraces a Gaeltacht area must have particular regard to the importance of preserving the Irish language as a spoken language. An applicant's contribution towards the achievement of this objective in the form of the programmes he proposes to provide will be an important consideration in the selection process.
Subsection (6) enables the Minister to require the advisory committee to place particular emphasis on one or more of the criteria in any instance. For example, going back to the example I have just mentioned it can be expected that particular emphasis will be placed on the Irish language element and on the contribution towards the preservation of the Irish language as a spoken language in the case of stations to be established in or near Gaeltacht areas. Where an emphasis is to be placed on one or more of the criteria the Minister is obliged to make this clear in advance to intending applicants before they put in their proposals.
Subsection (7) provides that the Minister must have regard to but shall not be bound by the advice of the advisory committee. This subsection will be deleted on Committee Stage.
Subsection (8) binds the Minister to have regard to the criteria spelt out in this section in reaching the ultimate decision on the granting of a licence. As I have already said, it is my intention, by way of Committee Stage amendment to confer the power to decide to whom licences should be issued on to the committee. Obviously there will be consequential amendments to define the revised role of the committee and these will be placed in the hands of the Parliamentary Draftsman.
Section 4 is a standard provision relating to the appointment of an advisory committee as proposed and dealing with procedural and administrative matters relating to the committee.
Section 5 deals with the terms and conditions to be applied to licences including the period of the licence, the terms and conditions under which it may be renewed, technical conditions which in fact will make up a substantial part of the licence and prohibitions on the assignment of the licence or changes of ownership without the consent of the Minister. On the question of the term of licences, I would envisage specifying a period of between five and seven years in general. I am leaving this question open to an extent, because it may well be the case that potential licensees will be able to demonstrate that they need a longer or shorter period of time to remunerate their investment. There is no point in putting our heads in the sand on this one. If applicants are limited to a period that will not allow a reasonable return on investment, the investment that will be needed for new radio stations will simply not be forthcoming.
As to the question of renewal, I would not in fact propose to use this power. My intention would be that at the end of a licence period the franchise would be thrown open to public competition again. Apart from any other consideration, this will provide a good incentive to the initial licensee to ensure that he lives up to his obligation and has no black marks against him when it comes to the second round of franchising.
The reference in subsection (4) to the effect that nothing in this Bill when enacted shall prejudice section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926, relates to the provision in the latter Act which enables a Minister, when a state of emergency is legally declared, to make regulations dealing with the manner in which all forms of radio communication may be used during the course of such emergency. There is a parallel provision relating to RTE in section 16 (3) (b) of the Broadcasting Authority Acts 1960-1979.
Section 6 deals with the suspension and revocation of licences. The terms under which such action may be taken are specifically spelt out and relate to a breach of the terms of the licence or of specific provisions, for example, obligations in relation to programming, in the Act itself. The natural justice requirements of the Constitution require that a licensee be given notice of intention to take such action, in order to enable him to make representations on his own behalf. The Minister must take such representations into account before reaching a decision on suspension and revocation. A licensee, of course, also has recourse to the courts if he feels a Minister is unjustified in taking such action.
Section 7 is a necessary provision enabling the Minister to vary the terms of a licence for the time being in force. The specific circumstances in which he may do so are specified in the provision. For example, if as a result of some future international frequency planning conference changes are made to the frequency assignments or other technical parameters available to this country, the Minister must be in a position to implement these through a variation in the technical conditions of a licence. Again, however, before any such change is made the licensee must be given a hearing.
Section 8 is essentially a technical provision. It provides in effect that licences granted under this Act shall satisfy the requirements of section 3 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 under which wireless telegraphy apparatus may only be installed, maintained and used in accordance with a licence under the latter Act. In effect we want to avoid a situation whereby two licences would have to issue for every radio station.
Section 9 enables the Minister to grant licences in two specific circumstances without the need to go through the whole public franchising process or the advisory committee referral procedure. The first situation is where a person or group of persons may wish to set up a temporary radio service for not more than 14 days. This could arise, for example, in connection with various festivals held from time to time throughout the country. The second situation is where a particular single institution may wish to set up a low-power broadcasting station, and we mention in particular an educational institution or a hospital. The requirement to carry a minimum content of news and current affairs programming would not apply to such stations.
Section 10 deals with the essential standards which stations must meet in the national interest, that is the requirement to be impartial and objective in the treatment of news and current affairs. This is similar to the requirement on RTE, not to broadcast anything which would offend against good taste or decency or would incite to crime or undermine the authority of the State and not to encroach unreasonably on the privacy of the individual.
We have also proposed in this section that a minimum amount of broadcasting time will be devoted to news and current affairs. A complication in the drafting of this provision has come to notice since the Bill was published. The intention is that the minimum obligation will be 20 per cent of transmission time and at least two hours of that must be broadcast between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. in the case of stations which broadcast for more than 12 hours per day. I will be introducing a purely drafting amendment on Committee Stage to remove the ambiguity in the current text.
As I have already said I regard the requirement that 20 per cent of broadcasting be devoted to news and current affairs as a key element in the Bill. I am aware that there has been some criticism that in the case of certain types of specialist stations this requirement may be unduly restrictive. Deputy Richard Bruton made this point in relation to, for example, a serious music station. I am prepared to listen to what Deputy Bruton may have to say, and to introduce whatever amendments are considered necessary.
Subsection (2) of section 10, which allows for party political broadcasts to be carried on radio services licensed under this Act will, I am sure, generate some discussion. The legal advice available to me indicated that it could be found to be unconstitutional to prohibit such broadcasts. A similar provision is contained in the Broadcasting Authority Acts in relation to RTE, as well as in previous Bills in this area, and it was considered desirable to include the specific provision here. There is no compulsion on licensees to carry such broadcasts but if they do so they are legally obliged not to give unfair preference to any party. From the point of view of operating this provision licensees can take as a model the RTE guidelines.
Section 11 enables radio services established under this Act to carry advertisements — this will in effect be their bread and butter. They will be obliged to comply with the standards which RTE operates in this area which will ensure, inter alia, fair play between RTE and the new services. We have proposed a maximum time limit on advertising — 15 per cent of transmission time subject to a maximum of 10 minutes in any one hour. This is a higher limit than RTE's which is allowed 10 per cent of transmission time and 7.5 minutes maximum in any one hour but we think this is justified given that these new stations will not have the benefit of licence fee income which is available to RTE.
Section 12 deals with complaints from the public and subsections (1) and (2) reflect the self regulation ethos of the Bill. We are imposing a statutory obligation on licensees to deal seriously with complaints and to keep full records of the treatment of such complaints. These records will be open to inspection at any time by the Minister or his agents. As I mentioned before there will be scope for licensees to strengthen the self regulatory aspect, through for example, establishing the equivalent of a press council.
If, however, in time it transpires that this self regulatory aspect is found not to be working satisfactorily, there is provision in subsection (3) to extend the ambit of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to deal with complaints about services established under this Act. I do not wish to impose this situation on radio stations at the outset. Apart from the fact that a self regulatory approach is preferable, the procedure for processing complaints through the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a fairly cumbersome one for all concerned. I note, incidentally, that a similar approach was taken under my predecessor's Local Radio Bill, 1985.
Section 13 provides that every direction issued to RTE under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Acts shall apply equally to stations established under this Act. I appreciate that there are many and diverse views about the merits and demerits of section 31 but I presume there will be agreement that we must be logical and consistent in the construction of this Act and if a Government of the day decide that a section 31 direction is needed in the interests of public order and the security of the State, it should apply to all broadcasting services originating in the State.
Section 14 is one of the safeguards needed when adopting the self regulatory approach. It is in effect a reserve power of the Minister. Under the section he can order an investigation into the affairs of a licensee — at the licensee's expense — if it becomes clear that he is not meeting his obligations under this Act. Because it is not our intention to establish a large regulatory structure to oversee the services, we would envisage appointing consultants if necessary to carry out such investigations as might be considered necessary from time to time. Again, my hope would be that we might never have to use this power. But the mere fact that it is there should be an incentive to licensees to ensure that they meet their obligations.
Likewise the Minister may require a licensee to undertake market research in relation to audience reaction to the service in question. One would expect in any event that licensees will be doing this if they are to persuade advertisers to use their services. The right of the Minister however will extend to requesting that such surveys cover aspects of the service relating to its relevance to and popularity with its audience. The results of such surveys will be of use to the Minister in assessing the degree to which a licensee is meeting his audience's needs.
Section 15 enables the Minister to call for reports on the operational, programming and financial aspects of the services established under the Bill. The main report we would be seeking would be the station's annual report and accounts. While we would see this information being automatically sought from the national and higher tier stations we would not necessarily look for it from say the neighbourhood stations, particularly if the latter emerge in any great numbers.
My intention under section 16 is to prescribe by means of regulations the fee which shall be payable to have applications considered. These will be set at a level which will cover the costs involved in examining applications including, for example, the costs of the advisory committee, and secondly to ensure that only persons seriously interested in obtaining a licence apply. Deputies may take it that only a token fee will apply for the neighbourhood stations.
The successful applicant will also be required to pay licence fees and the figure we envisage would be of the order of 3 per cent of turnover with a minimum floor and an up-front payment on account on the grant of the licence. We have been influenced in this area by the Touche Ross findings that the 5 per cent levy being contemplated by the interim Local Radio Commission was rather high and could act as a disincentive to the emergence of new radio services.
Under section 17, regulations made relating to application fees and licence fees will be laid before the Houses of Oireachtas.
Section 18 is essentially a drafting revision of the definition of broadcast used in the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926 while sections 19 and 20 are standard provisions relating to expenses incurred in the administration of the Bill, the short title and the establishment of an operational date for the coming into effect of the Act.
Those then are the proposals for establishing a legal regime for new radio services which I commend to the House. I firmly believe that they are realistic, practical and workable, that they strike the right degree of balance between the freedoms we want to give new radio services and the degree of regulation needed in the national interest and they do so in a way which does not involve either for the taxpayer or the radio services themselves the creation of new, elaborate and costly structures.
Before I finish I would like to address myself briefly to the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1987, which is a necessary concomitant piece of legislation to the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987. In terms of its principles I presume it will find general acceptance in this House — indeed the Bill is precisely the same as that circulated by the previous Government in the Seanad in 1985. The purpose of the Bill is to create a series of new offences relating to the activities of illegal broadcasters and those who aid and abet them. Part of the reason the pirate stations have been able to flourish is that we have had to rely upon the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, to take action against them. While that Act was an extremely far-seeing Act and is still very relevant to all forms of radio communications today, I am afraid its drafters did not quite see all the problems we would be faced with some 60 years down the line. In addition to the new offences which we are creating, and which I outlined at the commencement of my speech, we are also taking the opportunity to up-date all the penalty provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, and also to deal with some anomalies and difficulties which we have found through experience in implementing this Act.
Unless Deputies particularly wish me to do so I do not propose to give a section by section introduction to the whole Bill. We will have the opportunity to go through it in detail on Committee Stage and in any event the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill — and particularly the schedules embodied therein — show clearly what is proposed.
I look forward to a constructive debate on these two Bills and it can be taken — and I want to emphasise that — I will be open to consider any reasonable and practical suggestions which Members of the House may offer on Second Stage and which can be included on Committee Stage. Practical sensible solutions which commend themselves to the Government will quite obviously be adopted. This should improve the Bill. I am quite open to comments from all sides of the House on how we can improve the Bill.
