I move:
That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, that it has the power to make provision in the Bill for the establishment of an Independent Radio and Television Commission having the function of entering into contracts for the provision of sound broadcasting services and a television programme service additional to services provided by Radio Telefís Éireann.
May I at the outset stress that this motion is purely of a procedural nature and is necessary so that this House, in Committee, has the power to make the two substantive changes proposed to the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987. Those changes are: to provide for the establishment of a new independent regulatory commission which will select the franchises for the programme services envisaged under this legislation and to regulate those services, and to allow the commission in question to enter into a contract for the provision of a television programme service and to regulate that service.
I believe that the resolve and determination of this Government to tackle the long-running sore of chaotic and unregulated broadcasting in this country has been greatly welcomed and appreciated. For ten years and more we have had the spectacle of illegal pirate radio stations creating chaos on the airwaves, bringing the law into disrepute and, indeed, at international level bringing the good name of this country in the radio regulatory sphere into disrepute.
The fact that within a relatively short period of assuming office this Government were able to produce their legislative proposals in the broadcasting area is evidence of our commitment to deal with this matter once and for all. We were able, with the co-operation of this House, to get our legislative proposals successfully through Second Stage.
I believe there was a generally positive reaction to my initial proposals when they were published in the sense that their thrust was seen to be sensible, pragmatic and workable. They generated a healthy and constructive debate, both within this House and outside it, which I greatly welcomed and which has been of considerable assistance to me in determining how best to make further progress.
I fully recognise that the major area of concern about my initial proposals related to the absence of an independent authority to determine who should get the franchises for the services envisaged and to provide the degree of regulation which it was felt those services required. I made it very clear from the outset that the absence of such an authority was not based on any issue of principle or ideology. Indeed, in the first set of proposals published in this area by a Fianna Fáil Government in 1981 we had provided for such an authority. However from the work and research done since then, the whole question of the financial viability of a worthwhile authority had been brought into question — apart altogether from the questionable need as to whether radio services actually needed the degree of regulation which would warrant the establishment of a separate State authority.
It is primarily the introduction of the television element into the Bill that both strengthens the case for such an authority in terms of the degree of regulation that is warranted and in terms of securing the financial viability of such an authority.
It is unnecessary for me at this stage to go into the detail of the purpose and nature of the authority — or the commission as we are calling it — which we propose. That will be the purpose of our Committee Stage debate. However, I dare say I will not be accused of prejudging the view of this House by stating that the proposal to establish a commission will be generally welcomed. The reason for the motion before us is that the proposal to establish a commission is a change of substance to the original Bill and, consequently, this House needs to adopt a motion as proposed if it is to have the power to give effect to that proposal in the Bill.
The second aspect of the motion before the House relates to the proposed introduction of the television dimension into the Bill and it would be useful to put this proposal into context.
The whole objective of the legislation now before us is the creation of new opportunities and new choices in the broadcasting sphere. We have had for over 60 years — in practice for the most of that period and theoretically in more recent times — a State monopoly situation in our broadcasting services. Those services, which have been vested in RTE, have undoubtedly served us very well and we have every right to feel proud of them, but times and circumstances change. The people — the public themselves — have shown, first, that they want choice and, secondly, that they want to be involved and that they are quite capable of being involved in providing broadcasting services.
What then is the role of Government in responding to this situation? As I see it, our primary objective must be to create the environment and afford the opportunities in which such involvement can take place and new choices created. I believe there is a consensus in this House about our policy objectives so far as radio broadcasting is concerned and I am equally convinced that the logic of what we are doing in that area applies equally to the television area. Indeed, in the context of the major developments in television broadcasting which are taking place all over Europe there are perhaps even more compelling reasons as to why we should seek to open new opportunities in television at national level.
The trend in television broadcasting is moving very much in a supranational direction with the development of satellite broadcasting services and the major expansion in cable networks all over Europe. The public of the various countries of Europe are going to be more and more exposed to external influences in television. This is not something we should fear — indeed in many respects it is to be welcomed. It presents a great opportunity to improve European cohesion, to expose us to views, perspectives, horizons and aspects of European culture which otherwise would not be available to us. It can help us to better appreciate the diversity of culture that make up the nations of Europe while, at the same time, help us to appreciate even more those elements of our own culture which give us our own unique identity. We for our part are playing our full role at Council of Europe and European Community level to ensure that a properly balanced international legal framework is established in which the developments I refer to can take place.
This then is the context in which the Government are putting forward their proposals to have a third television channel. It is vitally important in this new international broadcasting environment that we strengthen our indigenous broadcasting voice and choice. By establishing another channel in this country we can redress to some extent the imbalance between the number of external services which are and will increasingly continue to be available here and offer our public an extra measure of indigenously based choice.
There are some who say that we are moving too quickly in this area, that we would need more public debate, commissions of inquiry, etc., into the question of establishing a third channel. We are, of course, a great nation of talkers. We have been talking and wrestling with our consciences for over ten years about what to do in the radio sector and I wonder how much wiser we are at the end of that process? Will the radio services which will now emerge be significantly different from those which would have emerged had we taken action earlier to deal with this area? As I have said before, the only people to have gained from inaction are the illegal stations.
The world will not stand still while we in Ireland sit back for a couple of years and debate the question of a third channel in this country. By the end of 1989 the UK will have three new direct satellite broadcasting channels in operation and they are talking also about establishing a fifth terrestrial channel. Luxembourg will have its medium power satellite launched with up to 16 channels. France and Germany, too, will have DBS services in operation. I do not believe that the outcome of an extended debate here will be anything other than that we would be right to create the opportunity in which a third national channel could emerge. The danger of delaying, of course, is that some or all of the external services which I mentioned will have already found a niche with Irish viewers, making it more difficult to get a new national station off the ground. The Government cannot actually make the third channel happen — this is entirely up to those in the community who believe that such a service can be established and can be successful. I believe it is our responsibility to afford that opportunity and to create a flexible framework within which it will work.
As to the nature of the services to be established, I do not want to anticipate the debate we will have on the particular legislative provisions we are proposing beyond saying that they are of a general and flexible nature — indeed, in the main, they are similar to RTE's general mandate. It is important that our approach should be flexible; we should not straitjacket the new service but must leave sufficient scope for the new service to be imaginative and inventive. I believe, for instance, that possible concerns that a lowest-common-denominator type service will emerge are completely unwarranted. That simply will not work because the reality is that there will be plenty of other stations, with probably considerably more resources than a third Irish channel will ever have, who will be better able to provide purely entertainment-orientated services. If this new service is to carve out an identity and an audience niche for itself, it will have to be distinctive and inventive. It will have to set out to capture the Irish audience from the plethora of choice it will have.
RTE have already shown how this can be done, that is, by concentrating on home-produced material and on material with which an Irish audience has a strong affinity and which will never be found on external services. This in my view is the way that a third channel here will be successful. Such a service of course will have subsidiary benefits. For example it will be an important stimulus to the development of the audio-visual production sector in this country and will constitute an important new outlet particularly for the independent production sector.
There have been some expressions of concern also as to whether a third channel in this country is a realistic proposition and suggestions that we should undertake feasibility studies into the prospects of establishing such a service. To my mind that is to misunderstand the role of Government in this area. I have already stressed that our role is to afford the opportunities for this development to happen and to create an environment in which greater choice and competition will emerge. I accept entirely that it would be appropriate to carry out detailed feasibility studies if it was in question that the State was going to finance and provide this new channel. That, of course, is not the case. It will be up to those who wish to provide the service to undertake the feasibility studies.
The situation, I might add, is exactly similar to the position adopted by the previous Government in deciding to offer a franchise for a direct broadcasting satellite service from this country. There were no feasibility studies undertaken by the State into the economics of establishing such a service. That was left to the applicants on foot of the invitation of tenders. The commission proposed under this legislation will be doing likewise. They will offer the franchise by means of public advertisement and assess and award the franchise on the basis of the applications received.
From the representations that have been made to me there is more than ample interest in establishing a third service. This being the case, and bearing in mind the reasons I have outlined for a third channel, we should provide the opportunity to enable the service to become a reality.
As to the effect of RTE, yes, of course it will put them into a competitive environment. I believe that will be a good thing. Indeed I believe RTE will welcome the new challenge which will come as a timely fillip to them to achieve further excellence. I sense a great new air of self-confidence and self-respect in RTE; what I might call the old paranoias which tended to come to the fore whenever the question of breaking their broadcast monopoly was raised are no longer there. The attitude now is: we are ready, willing and able to compete with the best that is thrown at us.
While I am on the subject of RTE, this presents me with the opportunity to announce this morning that I have granted approval for a number of developments in their radio and television services. The details are as follows: an extra two hours a day to enable the RTE 2 television service to commence transmission at 3 p.m. daily; an extra 1,092 hours per annum to enable the Radio na Gaeltachta service to broadcast continuously throughout the day; an extra hour a day for the premier radio service, Radio 1, to enable it to continue broadcasting until 1 a.m. every day; four extra hours a day on the special millennium radio service to enable it to provide improved coverage of millennium events and activities; and an extra 575 hours per annum and an adjustment of the hours of broadcasting of the FM3 radio service.
The effect of that will be that Radio na Gaeltachta, on Mondays to Fridays — instead of their present practice of broadcasting from 8 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. — will be able to broadcast from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. On Saturdays they broadcast at present from 11 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. but in future they will be able to broadcast on Saturdays from 11 a.m. right through to 8 p.m. At present they broadcast on Sundays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Under the new arrangement RTE, in getting this approval, will broadcast a service throughout Sundays. I have also approved a proposal from the RTE Authority to allow the Radio 1 service to carry advertising nightly during the 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. period.
Of the developments just mentioned I would single out as being of particular importance the extension of the Radio na Gaeltachta service which will now be able to broadcast continuously from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on a week-day basis and from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. at weekends. This service has carved out a very important niche in the cultural life of the country. I know that the improved service which the station will be able to offer will be greatly welcomed not just by the people of the Gaeltachtaí but also by the strong and loyal listeners to that service throughout the country to whom the Irish language is of great importance.
I will finish by reverting to the substance of the motion before the House and reiterate that it is primarily a procedural requirement to empower the House, in Committee, to deal with the matters coming before it in the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.