I move:
That the Resolution of the Dáil of 18th May, 1988, in relation to the televising of Dáil proceedings and reform of Dáil procedure is hereby amended by the substitution of "within twelve months" for "within six months".
The purpose of this motion is to extend by a further six months the period by which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges must report back to the House with proposals for the televising of its proceedings, as well as submitting a more general programme of reform of Dáil procedures.
Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats have both tabled an amendment to the motion, which proposed that CPP be allowed only a further three months in which to submit their report. The Government could not see their way to accept this amendment. While all parties are in agreement that more time is needed to examine this important matter, we cannot agree with the other parties that an additional three months provides sufficient time to carry out a thorough examination of all the issues involved and produce a report which will meet our particular needs.
The working group established by CPP have been requested to examine a whole range of matters:
—the televising of Dáil proceedings;
—the permanence of sound broadcasting of the Dáil;
—the question of privilege; in particular, how it should be applied to Committee proceedings; and
—proposals for a more general programme of reform of Dáil procedures, including limitations on the length of speeches, procedures for dealing with urgent matters and the relevance and admissability of parliamentary questions.
Any one of these issues — except possibly sound broadcasting — would in itself be sufficient to require lengthy and considered examination by the working group. However, the group have been asked to prepare a report on all of these issues. It should be borne in mind that if all the proposals which I have just outlined were to be adopted by the House, it would result in substantial amendment to Standing Orders.
The Government believe that 12 months is the minimum period required for a proper examination of this matter and strongly urges Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats to reconsider their stance.
For their part, the working group have already carried out some work in this area. Material on how parliamentary broadcasting operates in other countries has been obtained from our diplomatic missions abroad and this will have to be examined in some depth by the group. In addition, the group have visited both the European Parliament in Strasbourg and the House of Lords in London. As these institutions were in recess until just a few weeks ago, it has only been possible to arrange these visits recently.
I may say that these visits were well worthwhile. Following them, there is a need to evaluate and assess fully the arrangements which both these institutions have in place for the satisfactory televising of their proceedings. These arrangements, in many ways, are different from what we might envisage for our purposes. For example, the procedures of the European Parliament are much less rigid than those of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, there is much to be learned from a careful and thorough study of how these institutions have adapted their workings to the televising of their proceedings. Indeed, there may even be a case for looking at the arrangements in some of our sister parliaments in the European Communities. To properly co-ordinate and assess all of this data will take time.
There is another important aspect of this matter to which I wish to refer. This relates to the broadcasting authority who are to be responsible for providing T.V. coverage. RTE have been asked to submit proposals on how they would provide this coverage. I understand it will be some time before they will be in a position to do so. I fully understand their position in this matter. They wish to submit a report which they can stand over and which will deal fully with all the issues involved. The other side of the coin is that the CPP must have adequate time to assess their proposals and possibly proposals from other interests as well, both technical and programme making.
There are other important matters to be addressed. These include the necessary changes in Standing Orders, the question of privilege, the extent and manner of coverage, the balance to be achieved and, of course, which broadcasting authority is to obtain the franchise to transmit the proceedings. I have already briefly outlined progress in the technical aspect — cameras, lighting, structural alterations to the Chamber. Finally, there is the major question of financing these arrangements in a time of financial stringency.
Let me say that it took some three years from the time it was first mooted to get sound broadcasting of this House on air. In the light of this and in the light of other considerations I have outlined, I commend this motion to the House.