May I ask if the House would be prepared to discuss certain related amendments together? Amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan and amendment No. 3 form a composite proposal. I suggest in the ordinary way that we discuss amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together as they are very closely related.
Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:
In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—This Act (other than section 3*) shall not come into effect until such time as the Commission (established by that section) has published its report, and a motion approving of the report has been passed by each of the Houses of the Oireachtas."
—(Deputy McCartan.)
I am not agreeable to that proposition. We decided at the outset of this debate to take each amendment seriatium and for that reason I am anxious for the amendments to be taken separately. In any event, separate considerations apply to each amendment.
That is the privilege of the Members of the House and the Chair will agree to it. If we want to make some worthwhile progress the Chair suggests that certain amendments be discussed together and, if necessary have separate decisions on them but I accept that that proposal is not agreed to on this occasion. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will be debated separately and voted on separately, if so required.
Amendment No. 2 in the name of The Workers' Party contains a very succinct and important proposition in the context of the legislation now before the House. It proposes that the Act other than section 3, our proposed new section on the establishment of a commission on broadcasting, shall not come into effect until such time as the commission, established by that section, have published their report and a motion approving the report has been passed by each of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
As far back as 1982 when the entire debate opened up on the future of broadcasting and the events which took place at that time, in particular, the refusal of the Minister of the day to respond to representations for an increase in the revenue base for RTE, The Workers' Party made the case that it was necessary to have a wide-sweeping investigation of the nature and, more importantly, the future of broadcasting in this country. That proposition was made by Deputy De Rossa on behalf of The Workers' Party in September 1982. This proposal was repeated more particularly during the debate on the future of broadcasting — as far as that went — when the Radio and Television Act, 1988, and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988 were being discussed. The point was repeated many times by Deputy De Rossa who made the proposition and by other contributors to the debate that we had in fact proceeded with such haste to simply bring on stream the commercial so-called independent sector of the broadcasting network that we had given scant if any attention to some of the more basic and fundamental questions surrounding the ethos and future of broadcasting for the nation. This Bill presents us with another opportunity to open up the debate on the same proposition.
The nature of this current legislation has altered radically since it was published by the Minister as recently as 31 May of this year, when the Broadcasting Bill, 1990, was circulated. It should be said that in the course of preparation of the Government's legislative programme, the ships of the various groups in the House were supplied with a schedule of the legislative programme at the beginning of this session. The Government had set out their legislative priorities in two stages: the first section indicated the legislation that was in the process of circulation or at various Stages in this House or that would definitely be introduced during this session. In the second part of the schedule there was an indication of the legislation that "may be"— in the words of the Government — circulated in the coming sessions, in which a Bill entitled the Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1990, was included. That was the state of play at the beginning of the present session of the Dáil. The Government were in the course of the slow and often laborious process of drafting a Bill which they felt might reach the floor of the House during the present session and there were no more definite indications than that. It was to be an omnibus miscellaneous provisions legislation which would tidy up the existing corpus of legislation dealing with broadcasting and would also tidy up the issues which had emerged in the wake of the 1988 broadcasting legislation. The point I wish to make is that the legislation that was intended to be introduced, possibly in the session, was a Bill to address technical or drafting matters. There is no doubt that a primary function of the Bill was the proposition — which was dealt with later in the Bill as currently circulated — that it was the entitlement of RTE to appoint their own auditors and deal with the problems emerging with regard to transmission deflectors as opposed to the MMDS system which the Minister so strongly believed in.
Something radical then happened because the Minister in response to the acknowledged long-standing views of the print media and more particularly the almost hysterical special pleading of Century Radio that they were imminently facing closure, devised a further three sections, which I have no doubt were not originally contemplated in the Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which the Whips had advised us would be circulated. Clearly certain sections of this Bill were designed in essence to rescue in a very direct way Century Radio from imminent closure. We were not made aware whether any other independent radio stations were coming in behind the special case made by Century Radio for monetary aid. The figures that emerged, where the £3 million that Century Radio would need to survive was matched by the Minister seeking to take £3 million from the licence fee, were too much of a coincidence other than to suggest that in the hastily drafted additions to the Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill he had in mind a direct rescue package for Century Radio. There was a strong reaction to these proposals, however, if one looks at today's reports it seems that the information began to change and it appears that Century Radio will in fact ride out the storm and survive. It appears from reports in the national media that things are not as bad as Century Radio had believed in terms of capturing the market. For whatever reasons — and it has not yet been explained fully to us in the Minister's contribution on Second Stage and elsewhere — there was a fundamental change in emphasis and direction. The Minister by his own motion proposed to delete two of the more sweeping sections, sections 2 and 3, and he was also proposing very wide-ranging amendments to section 4. As I have said, there was a radical change in the nature of the legislation. What is most important about the radical change is that the apparent need for urgency which was implicit if the Minister was going to stick with the direct transfer of funds through the Independent Radio and Television Commission to the independent stations, particularly those in trouble — I do not think it was ever contemplated that the IRTC would give money to the successful radio stations and it was clearly a rescue package — is no longer needed. In all rescue packages time is of the essence but this device has now been abandoned by the Minister and consequently the case for the urgency of the legislation should be abandoned. As a consequence, it is difficult to understand why the Minister and the Government are insisting that this legislation must be on the Statute Book before the completion of this session. There is nothing in the latter proposals in the Bill that requires urgency in the way that the original sections 2 and 3 might have required urgency if they were to be a device — as I believe they were originally intended — on a direct rescue package for radio stations facing imminent closure or collapse. Why is there a need for urgency now? Will the Minister take time to explain to the House why there is no longer any discussion at Whips level about the ordering of the business for the House? Will he explain why the House is being asked to sit inordinate hours into the early hours of the morning to debate the Bill so as to ensure, as the Government have indicated — the Taoiseach certainly has — that it is disposed of before the Dáil rises? I do not see the urgency for it and I am asking the Minister to contemplate taking a breather with regard to it; I suggest that he take an opportunity to reflect. The amendment offers him that opportunity.
I would not suggest to the Minister that if he took this idea on board he would be climbing down or was making a U-turn, a concept we abandoned when firing issues at the Government.
A body swerve.
Indeed. Perhaps we will allow for the fact that it was a Charlton-like change of tactics as a means of achieving victory. I urge the Minister to consider our suggestion carefully.
It is essential that we obtain the report of a commission before we proceed any further in the debate on broadcasting. In 1982 Deputy De Rossa, on behalf of our group, highlighted the need for such a commission as a prerequisite to the development in a fundamental way of broadcasting legislation. In the course of a statement on 6 September 1982, issued on behalf of The Workers' Party, Deputy De Rossa Said:
At a time when RTE are facing the challenge of competition from four British television stations and numerous illegal radio stations, not to mention critical pressure from satellite, cable and video systems, it is deplorable that a small and already underfinanced broadcasting service should be further restricted in their development.
However, any discussion on broadcasting in Ireland is surrounded by critical cynicism. Instead of assisting RTE to face the challenge from all sides both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael seem anxious to connive with illegal and culturally illiterate merchandisers and promoters who seek the airwaves not for public good but for private gains.
There is now a serious case to be made for Dáil Éireann to establish a commission on broadcasting with a brief to set out how best public service broadcasting might develop in the eighties and nineties. Such a commission could not only ensure a stable future for our existing broadcasting organisation but also set standards for any local radio and television stations that may in the future receive broadcasting licences.
The point must be made that the eighties, in terms of the progress that could have been made on some of the fundamental principles, were a disaster. Unfortunately, it was a decade that stumbled from one debacle to another as far as addressing the fundamentals of broadcasting and its future development were concerned.
We should not repeat the errors of the past decade. We are following the campaign of a Minister who said of himself that he set a blistering pace in the right directions when tackling the pirates, the illegal operators and in introducing a new system of broadcasting and transmission. I urge the Minister, having taken one step forward, to consider taking two steps back and look at the need for a review of our broadcasting system.
The Bill, and our amendment, offer the Minister that opportunity. In the debate on the Sound Broadcasting Bill on 10 February 1988 Deputy De Rossa expanded on the importance of looking at our basic principles of broadcasting as a prerequisite to embarking on fundamental changes and developments. I should like to put on record what he said because it needs repeating. He said, as reported at column 1808 of the Official Report:
What is needed and which should have preceded this Bill (it should precede this Bill for all the same reasons) but which at the very least should be done in tandem with the Bill — I am talking specifically about the Sound Broadcasting Bill rather than the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill — is a commission on broadcasting with specific terms of reference which would put broadcasting policy, issues of culture and public policy at the head of their list and questions of cables, frequencies and licences at the bottom of their list. It would be a commission on communications on which nobody would sit who did not have a distinguished track record on communications or on cultural work, for example, poets, artists, broadcasters, teachers, novelists, sculptors and men and women widely acknowledged to be public servants of proven merit in the field of cultural administration. Their brief would be to decide public policy on broadcasting. We do not have any such policy. We have only a series of irrelevant reports describing how RTE do things and, indeed, how RTE ought to do things. We need a report on the principles by which RTE and the kind of commercial stations which are being proposed in this Bill would operate, and how they might do things and by what ends and by what legal cultural and political means they would be regulated. In the absence of such principles to talk of independent radio is a nonsense and simply a cover up for doling out the airwaves to commercial free enterprise in the hope that someone along the way will come up with some little nuggets.
He went on to say, as reported at column 1809 of the Official Report:
There is a lot more to be done than simply agreeing to the share out of the airwaves to the commercial interests. There is the task of defining what is the role of broadcasting in fostering Irish culture, of finding out what is contemporary Irish culture, of finding out how to reach our alieanated youth in the urban waste-lands where unemployment and crime conspire against them having any hope of a future of educating our people to the practice of pluralism, for instance, and of learning to live with other religious, cultural and political traditions. That is an obligation which is implied in relation to RTE but which is not implied under the Broadcasting Bill before us.
Since that debate concluded, and that Act was introduced into our law, those fundamental principles and obligations referred to by Deputy De Rossa have not been addressed by the House or debated at any length in the public arena. Consequently, now is the opportunity to debate them. We should use the debate on the Bill to do so, late though it is. We should engage in such a review so that we can establish once and for all the fundamentals surrounding our policy and philosophy with regard to broadcasting. Unless we do so now the Minister will be compounding the mistakes of the previous Government in the last decade about which he was so caustic and critical, not just in this debate but in earlier debates with regard to the absence of any direction, policy or understanding of what is happening. That is the first basis on which the Government and the Minister should accept a deferral of this legislation pending the report of the commission as suggested in our amendment.
The second point is that not only is the Minister's ground changing rapidly since the introduction of the legislation on 31 May, it also appears that the conditions in the marketplace are changing daily. Therefore, the conditions need to be addressed. In today's newspapers a report of a survey into the performances of the independent radio sector as opposed to the State broadcasting sector indicated that the independents are doing much better than people thought. As recently as last week, representations made by people in response to the Minister's legislation acknowledged that perhaps Century were in trouble and that 2FM were stronger, particularly in the urban areas, than is the case.
The joint national listenership research survey was carried out over a two month period by the Market Research Bureau of Ireland at the behest of RTE. The Independent Radio and Television Commission, the main advertising agencies and major advertisers have indicated that Century Radio are performing more strongly in the general categories, and more particularly in the younger categories of people in the age group of 15-24 whom they latterly specifically sought to target. The two Dublin commercial stations, Capital and 98FM, are drawing equally good audiences and 2FM is running behind them in the popularity stakes in the city.
The conditions experienced by the independent broadcasting sector are changing almost on a daily basis and — I have no hesitation in acknowledging — are emerging in a way which many people did not believe possible recently and even since the legislation was published. The question then is if we can ever settle at any one moment in time the basis or parameters of the playing pitch which has to be level, according to the Minister's efforts and devices in this legislation. Is it not timely or opportune, given the stage of flux and the emerging changing factors developing on an ongoing basis, to go back to the fundamentals and involve ourselves in a wide sweeping review of the current state of play, the projected future state of play and our desires for the future of broadcasting before we take radical decisions and introduce major changes in the legislation in the way the Minister is seeking to do?
Because of the changing, emerging and various circumstances, many of which are laying to rest some of the misconceptions with regard to the fragility of the independent sector, perhaps the Minister should avail of the opportunity to accept the amendment proposed by The Workers' Party and defer the implementation of the legislation until we have had some form of fundamental opportunity to review it.
The third point in this context is that there is a need for a breathing space. If the Minister persists with his proposals and wins the day in relation to capping advertising — and, as an indirect result, an outflow of resources from RTE — the concept of immediate implementation and impact of the proposals, even in the current year, means there should be an opportunity for RTE as a commercial enterprise to be allowed a breathing space to absorb the impact of the Minister's proposals. RTE should also be allowed to plan the phased introduction of these economies, cutbacks and consequential loss of employment.
The Minister must tell us why the impact of these proposals must be visited on RTE immediately after the passing of the legislation. The purpose of the legislation is a rescue package for Century and other ailing stations. The other proposals would not suffer unduly if they were phased in or delayed for a period. The media in general have survived over the last decades in this climate, under these conditions of competition, and they could survive longer even if the Minister has his murky way at the end of the phased period. The acceptance of our amendment would afford the opportunity for a phasing in proposition and allow RTE a breathing space to reorganise themselves, which is essential to afford a decent opportunity to redeploy their staff to the other sectors of the market. It would be a decent and humane gesture by the Minister and the Government in response to the major impact on our national broadcasting.
This point was made to the Minister and to other political groups by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, one of the national social partners and negotiators in regard to the economy. In a letter dated 18 June to the leader of my party — which was, I presume, received by other parties — the general secretary, Mr. Cassells said:
In the event of the Government deciding to proceed with section 4, ICTU considers that the proposals on advertising on RTE's services should be considerably amended. In particular, we believe that:
1. A different formula should be used to limit the revenue from advertising than the proposed link to the licence fee. For example, the amount of revenue raised by RTE from advertising in 1989 could be used as the ceiling with provision for increases linked to inflation in future years. Also income from RTE's Commercial Enterprise Unit should not be included when the limit on revenue from advertising is being set;
2. The proposed maximum of 4 minutes 30 seconds of advertising in any one hour should be increased significantly or at the very least averaged over the day;
3. The proposed constraints should be phased in. In particular, the Bill should be amended to provide that a commencement date will be set by Order for section 4. We believe that this commencement order should not be made by the Minister until TV3 is ready to come on air.
The concerns of Congress are rightly reflected there and can be accommodated in what we propose in our amendment, that of deferring the Bill in toto pending the outcome of the report of the commission and its adoption by this House. That would afford an opportunity for all persons concerned, in the broadcasting field, Congress and others, to make submissions to reflect on, review and research the overall broadcasting area, allowing us address, for the first time in a fundamental way, the basic principles on which we seek to develop in the future.
In relation to that issue, in the course of his remarks on Second Stage the Minister attempted to address some of the basic principles or conditions of the market in this Bill. I attempted last evening to demonstrate that there had been a radical departure on the part of the Minister, even within a period of two years, from some of the principles outlined in the debates of 1987 and 1988 in regard to the legislation then being considered in the House, demonstrating that the principle of the minimalist, non-regulatory, nonintervention approach to policing of the broadcasting airwaves clearly was being departed from under the provisions of this Bill, that if anything they constituted a movement backwards in that overall area.
The issue of striking balances, about which the Minister spoke clearly, is being substantially upset under the provisions of this Bill. I suppose that argument is dependent most strongly on from whichever side one tends to view it. Certainly there is sufficient concern felt and argument advanced among all sectors of the broadcasting industry here to demonstrate the need to re-examine how that balance should be struck and be maintained. Most importantly, there was the plea on the part of the Minister that the concepts of workability, realism, practicality should be applied to any of the proposals emanating from whatever source in this debate. Certainly those concepts do not appear to have been applied strictly or considered in the manner in which the Minister is advancing his proposals when one considers that, within weeks of the publication of a Bill of fundamental importance and concept, he changed his mind. It does not appear to me that the principles of realism, practicality or workability are being applied. If one looks at the proposals from that angle it begs the question: what could have changed within two weeks to alter them?
As Congress have said, there is need for a phasing in of any proposals as radical as those the Minister advances. I contend that our amendment affords that opportunity most importantly to the RTE Authority in dealing with their forward planning and the redeployment of personnel who will inevitably be shed from the industry.
That takes me to the next point I want to make in support of this amendment. It is linked to the suggestion that as this debate progresses daily new factors emerge, new ideas are being floated, indeed the texture of the landscape is altering. I make this point with direct reference to an interesting set of proposals launched yesterday at a press conference by the independent broadcasting programme-making sector, Film-makers (Ireland) Ltd. and others, who have entered into this debate — one might suggest at a late stage — but nonetheless with proposals and concepts deserving of careful consideration by the Minister and of being addressed by us in this House. Their campaign, entitled "Campaign 25", advances the argument that the fundamental issue in this debate is not one of rescue packaging, of direct subvention of resources to beleagured independent broadcasters but rather has to do with the issue of redeployment of limited resources, the majority of which are at present controlled by the RTE Authority. They argue that there is an effective way in which we could seek to redistribute some of those resources, which they suggest would be in the better interest of RTE, of programme-making and of the market generally. They contend that the determination of levels of programme-making at home or abroad, of advertising levels and all other quotas should be done within the Authority itself, in consultation with those with responsibility but that, once those quotas have been determined, in the area of programme-making 25 per cent should be commissioned by the broadcasting sector from independent programme-makers here. Campaign 25 recommends that a 25 per cent quota of all domestic schedules be sourced, on commission, within the independent film-making sector here.
They continue, in their press release and attendant documentation, to suggest that that would lead to an increase of from 180 hours at present employed by RTE to 750 hours out of an annual quota of programming hours of 7,500. At a costing of £20,000 per hour they claim that would release to that sector a sum of £15 million. They argue that that constitutes the manner in which resources should be deployed from RTE if that needs to be done, contending that the redeployment would then take place under a constructive rather than repressive regime, recognising that there is a role to be played by the independent television sector. They boast that, with those opportunities or suggestions being taken on board, they could increase their employment from a current figure of 250 to 300 to 1,000 people. I am not yet in a position to defend or argue those figures. I do contend that such increased employment would afford an opportunity so that any shedding of employment by RTE as a consequence of the shifting of resources in this manner could easily be taken up within the independent private sector in due course. They contend that one sector will help the other, that resources that will be transferred from the public to the private sector will be retained here in order to build up a strong, vibrant, independent, private film-making sector which, in turn, will enhance our cultural capacities to produce and broadcast here.
It is argued that this system operates very well in Britain because emerging out of the arena of the 25 per cent concept in Britain is a strong independent indigenous film making sector in that market. They make the case that it is a concept that can be phased in over a three year period in consultation with RTE. Again they acknowledge this need for phasing in and they say that if and when TV3 is established it should be implemented there from the start.
These proposals are new, launched as late as yesterday, but nevertheless constructive and useful and should be considered in the context of what we are now trying to do. The idea should be evaluated and its impact looked at by the Minister and his Department and by a commission, as we propose, in the context of what is being done here.
If it is true, and I believe it is, that this debate is about the moving around of resources as opposed to the simple, crude device that was originally intended of a direct rescue package or ambulance operation on the part of the Minister for ailing participants in the broadcasting market, then what they are arguing for is legitimate but is not accommodated in any way in the Minister's current proposals. I therefore believe that any deferral of this legislation to allow a review of what they contend would be very welcome. It is a scheme that is working well in Britain, a scheme that has been brought to its ultimate conclusion in the USA where since 1971 there has been a proposal on the stocks to the effect that the national broadcasting authorities should make no programmes but must commission all their programme making to the independent sector and that the only programmes NBC and those other national broadcasting authorities make are news programmes. That has had an impact on the ethos and quality of broadcasting in America. Without commenting on the quality, one can certainly recongnise the strength that has emerged in that sector when our national broadcasting service, and indeed many of the European ones, rely heavily on the private sector film making produce of America.
My point is that there is potential in the proposals being put forward and there is not a rigid objection to them in this House from The Workers' Party in the brief time we have had to reflect on them. All we are saying is that the opportunity should be taken to defer the proposals in this legislation to see if these ideas can be accommodated and to see if, in fact, there is common ground to be struck between the Minister and those of us on the opposite side who have a major concern that what he is doing will not achieve this ultimate end and that there is another way. That is why we are asking the Minister, in the context of this amendment, to defer, to reflect and to review it in the way we suggest.
The EC Directive that I referred to earlier is one of the bases for the Minister's arguments about what he should be doing and why. Deputy Higgins addressed him directly on this issue. Article 18 sets overall levels and apportionments of time whereas the Minister says that Article 19 is his justification for what he is doing. It cannot be as simple as picking a convenient article in the directive. Here I am borrowing from the Minister who scolded me for being selective in my quoting from the directive. Equally I would trun back that argument to him and suggest that it is in appropriate for a Minister to be selective in promoting legislation by saying that one article of the directive makes his case and that consequently he will rely on it.
One should say here that this fundamentally important directive has never been debated in this House or in the Upper House or in the only other vehicle available to us, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. At European level important developments which have been taking place since the introduction of the 1988 legislation have not been debated and their import has not been taken on board in any depth by this House in considering their impact on the future of broadcasting as a cultural concept here.
There is another argument for staying our hand on this legislation and for reviewing what the Minister is proposing. We should look to see whether there is more wide ranging guidance in the directive than simply choosing one article to defeat the argument from the other side of the House. In this whole area the future of Teilifís na Gaeltachta is brought into question because the national campaign, Feachtas Náisiúnta Teilifíse, have argued strongly and cogently that the future of the broadcasting service in Irish here is now in doubt and that there is concern as to whether what is proposed in the Bill will facilitate the development of an independent Irish service transmission. In a letter dated 31 May 1990 from Donncha Ó hEallaithe, the public relations officer of Feachtas Náisiúnta Teilifíse this point is made very congently. I quote from the second paragraph of that letter:
We note that the Minister's proposals with regard to FM2 are intended effectively to deprive that station of its younger audience and thus divert advertising revenue from RTE. We fear that the Minister may intend to do something similar to Network 2 — impose on it the burden of providing two hours per night in Irish, at peak viewing times, thus depriving non-Irish language speakers of some of their favourite home made programmes and diverting lost advertising revenue to other stations, including UTV. We are totally opposed to such a cynical solution.
Providing 2 hours per night on Teilifís na Gaeltachta, as a separate channel, has been costed by Stokes, Kennedy, Crowley and was found to be cheaper than providing the same amount of programming on Network 2. Further, enraging non-Irish speakers, by reducing substantially their choice of sport, minority interest and home produced programmes, would do more damage than good.
This group make the claim that there are fundamental consequences emerging from the proposals in the legislation. They have not been addressed in the legislation or in anything the Minister has said in the debate so far. We argue again that this is another dimension that should be reviewed before we pass on from this section of the legislation. There should be a deferral of the implementation of these proposals until we consider all the factors, establish our priorities and, in particular, address whether or not there is a commitment by the Government to the establishment of an independent Teilifís na Gaeltacht and whether or not there is substance in the case being made by Feachtas Náisiúnta Teilifíse that it is cheaper and more effective to establish through TV3 an independent channel for Teilifís na Gaeltacht as opposed to piggy-backing that service on the already intended restricted hours of Network 2. These issues are fundamental to the future quality and nature of broadcasting and must be reviewed. As I have said, they are not being addressed at the important stage of development of broadcasting as represented by today's debate and by the proposals in this Bill for the immediate future.
Equally, the question of community radio broadcasting arises. I am not at all taken by the coincidental announcement by the commission that they are looking for responses to the ideas that licences might be issued some time in the future. I do not understand that. I suspect a certain amount of coincidental timing of that announcement to take the heat from the Minister in the course of this debate. It is all too convenient for the Minister to say there is an advertisement in the newspapers seeking a response to proposals, when I know, as does the Minister and every other Deputy, that people in the community area have been lobbying long and hard for some consideration of their needs.
The community radio network that exists on the north side of the city and involves many of the Minister's constituents — many of his own party members and colleagues are subscribers, as am I, to that network — have been wondering why they are not being invited to take up licences as envisaged by this legislation. Now that a major debate is looming in the House, they are told it is time for them to make responses to the commission, when we all well know the lie of the land, the play that is in existence and the fact that there is no need for further responses.
This is an unusual development and one I regret. As I have said, I believe there is more than mere coincidence in what is emerging in this area and it calls into question basic commitments, if any exist, for the development of the community radio sector. This Bill should be deferred until that most crucial area of the original legislation is properly addressed. The commission are being asked to move into an area of operation dealing with the original legislation in the midst of a climate of controversy that will undoubtedly over-shadow the good work they can do in promoting and assisting the establishment of community broadcasting operations throughout the country. We should deal with everything in the original legislation in terms of the structure that exists before we begin to dismantle that structure, change the goal posts or redefine the playing pitch.
Finally, one must consider the advertising industry and the impact on jobs in that sector. There is no doubt that what is being proposed will have a fundamental impact on the capacity of that industry to maintain employment and compete against outside influences, be it on the television or elsewhere. There is no doubt that a substantial amount of the funds that will be provided by the Minister under the new section in the Bill will flow out of the country to major competitors such as Sky. We know Sky TV have purchased the machinery in Britain to enable them network into the television broadcasting stations here in Irish-orientated advertising. They expect a huge increase in the market as a result of what the Minister is doing and they are up to the minute in their response. It is inevitable that the moneys will flow not only to them but also to UTV and others. That is why we urge the Minister, with all force we can, to consider a breathing space or a stay of hand so that there will be an opportunity to consider the major issues that have not been addressed in the course of this debate and, indeed, in previous debates.
I hope the Minister will consider even factors that have emerged overnight, be they from surveys, from press conferences or from people who are coming into this debate understandable at a late stage because of the speed with which events have been pressed upon us by the Government. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and see if there is merit in what we are arguing for in regard to the establishment of a commission, the review that would emerge from it and all the opportunities that would be afforded for the State and the independent private sector. The issues, principles and perhaps rearrangements necessary should be considered with a view to achieving a common end, a varied mix that respects the State broadcasting sector, protects our cultural interests and at the same time allows for vibrancy in the market. The amendment deserves support and I would urge it on the House.
I can assure the House I will be a great deal briefer than Deputy McCartan.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.
I can assure the House that I will be brief, unlike Deputy McCartan, to whom we have had the pleasure of listening for the past hour and 20 minutes. Unlike Deputy McCartan I have no motive to delay or filibuster the debate. The amendment proposed by the Workers' Party must be looked at in the context of the history of this problem. From the early eighties, when the pirates began to dominate the air waves, it was obvious that we would have a problem. It was also obvious that the longer the problem remained untackled, the greater it would become. The person who occupied the position of Minister for Communications during the period when the problem should have been tackled was Deputy Jim Mitchell——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——the sole present occupant of the Fine Gael front bench. I have a good deal of respect for Deputy Mitchell and I have said this in the House before. I do not question Deputy Mitchell's motives in this regard. I am sure he was aware that there was a problem and he intended to solve it, but he was unable to do so because the Government, of which he was a member, were cripplied by ideological conflict.
I will show the Deputy up for that in a moment. What about Barringtons Hospital?
Without interruption.
I have the transcript somewhere.
In 1987 when Deputy Burke became Minister for Communications the problem had grown to awesome, almost unmanageable, proportions and a solution had to be found immediately. Deputy Burke attempted to solve the problem on an emergency basis, as Deputy McCartan said. We are still in the process of perfecting and implementing the solution the Minister arrived at. The solution was devised by human beings and human beings are not perfect. The response of The Workers' Party, Fine Gael and the Labour Party has been to deride and treat with contempt every potential solution put forward by the Government. They have rejected and derided the direct transfer of the finance proposal, they have derided the licence fee proposals and they have spent the last ten days — sometimes until 1 o'clock in the morning — deriding the advertising proposal.
After ten years of debate, discussion papers, articles being written and speeches being made on this subject, The Workers' Party's solution is to say: "we have no answer, let us set up a commission and let them try to find the answer". That is the answer from a party who have often put themselves forward — both inside and outside this House — as the sole repository of all wisdom and knowledge. Their solution is to set up another commission — another quango — and delay the resolution of this problem for years. I say "years" because I know that Deputy McCartan has written into the amendment a proposal that the proposed commission report within 12 months. I take it from his contribution that he envisages that the commission will issue a report, and there will be time for reflection, discussion and debate on it. The culmination of the discussion, debate, reflection and consideration will be sent to the parliamentary draftsman who will draft proposals to be brought before the Dáil. The net effect of Deputy McCartan's proposal is to delay finding a solution to this problem for three or possibly four years.
Destroy them, Deputy.
I am coming to that point. Deputy McCartan has stated on a number of occasions during this debate that the subscribes to the idea that the broadcasting monopoly which is enjoyed by the public sector at present should be brought to an end. No doubt he also subscribes to the idea that we should not return to the bad old days of the pirates. The Deputy knows well that if the solution to the problem is postponed for the period suggested in his proposal, that is exactly what would happen. Deputy McCartan, the Minister and I know — the Minister has taken advice from all the relevant authorities on this matter — that if this legislation is not implemented in the immediate future a large part of the commercial radio sector will go to the wall. That has been admitted and acknowledged by all sides, both inside and outside the House.
From where did the Deputy get his facts?
I will come to that. Deputy McCartan knows that this is the reality.
I do not accept that at all.
Admittedly, part of the commercial radio sector will survive, it will struggle on, but would this not be a funny atmosphere for that part of the commercial radio sector to operate when they do not know what the ultimate conclusion of this famous commission will be? Will the structures which they have set up and which they are operating now be subsumed into a new structure as a result of the deliberations of this commission? That is a most unhealthy, insecure and unreliable atmosphere for those people to survive in.
Deputy McCartan questioned why there was such an urgency about getting this legislation on the Statute Book. It is well known and acknowledged — and the figures are there to prove it — that a large part of the commercial radio sector will go to the wall if this solution which the Minister has taken on board is not perfected and implemented.
Deputy McCartan has spoken about the need for further deliberation, debate, reflection, etc. We have had ten years of debate and deliberation on this subject. If any subject has been debated ad nauseam and almost to the point of exhaustion, that subject is broadcasting and the broadcasting sector in Ireland. I hope this is the culmination of all the discussion, debate, report and consideration that have taken place over the past decade on this subject. If the Workers' Party have a solution — they say they want to solve the problem, they want an alternative source of news and current affairs, they do not want to go back to the old days of the pirates — I urge them not to hide their light under a bushel but to let us hear their solution. They have rejected the various proposals put forward by the Government without putting anything else in their place other than the suggestion that we set up another commission, or quango as it is known in Britain, to consider, debate and reflect further on this matter——
We do not want to destroy RTE.
——with the result that a solution to the problem will be delayed for another three or four years. The Deputies should not hide their light under a bushel. This subject has been discussed ad nauseam and the last thing we need — and I do not say this in any arrogant or superior way — is further discussion, debate, and reflection, mature or immature as the case may be. What we need is a solution. The discussion is coming to an end and if the Deputies have a solution — the Minister will be flexible and I want to find a solution to the problem, as I am sure Deputy McCartan and his party do — please let us hear it now.
On a point of information——
I am calling Deputy Jim Mitchell.
Deputy O'Dea suggested that the Minister will be flexible——
Deputy McCartan made a speech which was devoid of any interruption.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy McCartan made a long speech which was devoid of any interruption. I am now calling Deputy Jim Mitchell.
The House should be informed if the Government——
This is Committee Stage, the Deputy will have a further opportunity of intervening.
The Government propose to guillotine the entire Committee Stage debate at 4 p.m. tomorrow.
The Deputy may not dominate the debate.
We have now been told that they are going to guillotine the discussion on Committee Stage.
I advise the Deputy that he must cease interrupting.
We have been told the Minister will be flexible on the matter, yet they will cut short the discussion tomorrow.
Let me take up the point made by Deputy O'Dea on the need to find a solution. We all want to find a solution.
Please let us hear it.
What we have to decide is whether the Minister's proposals provide the solution to the problem. I urge the Deputies present to reflect on the matter. I am strongly of the view that the Minister's latest set of proposals will compound the problem and is not the solution to the problem, as Deputy O'Dea suggests. On 29 May in his contribution to a Fine Gael motion the Minister announced that he would introduce a Bill containing certain provisions by the end of that week. When that Bill was published the provisions it contained were radically different from those announced a few days earlier. Within three or four days the proposals were changed yet again. Therefore three sets of proposals were put forward in the one week. Nobody can contend that the Minister has given this matter due consideration. I would like to tell Deputy O'Dea and the other Members present that the Minister——
Deputy Mitchell should address his remarks through the Chair. He should not invite interruptions by addressing Members across the floor.
Before making any of these proposals the Minister was requested to meet several interest groups, such as The Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland and the Association of Advertisers in Ireland but he refused to do so. He has still not met them. Both of those bodies have produced very significant evidence which shows that rather than being the solution, the Minister's set of proposals will make the problem worse.
What is the Deputy's solution?
In rejecting the proposal that we establish a commission to discuss the future of broadcasting, which is the approach taken in every other country, Deputy O'Dea said that this matter has been adequately considered, but I contend it has not.
After ten years?
Unfortunately, no. In 1987 the Minister introduced a Bill on sound broadcasting which he was forced to change within 24 hours. Something similar is happening now in that the provisions of this Bill have been changed not once but twice. Deputy O'Dea knows in his heart — I do not expect him to admit this in the House — that this matter has not been given due consideration.
In his contribution Deputy McCartan indicated that Deputy De Rossa had suggested the establishment of a commission on broadcasting in September 1982. On being appointed Minister for Communications, I considered the question of whether a commission should be established to consider the future of broadcasting. However the previous commission had reported only seven and a half years earlier whereas now it is 16 years since they reported. In that time there has been a veritable revolution in the area of information and telecommunications technology. Sixteen years ago there were no satellite stations and television stations did not have the technology they now have and which has revolutionised broadcasting. We are now in the era of transnational broadcasting. A draft EC Directive was issued by the Council of Europe after prolonged consideration. This will have enormous implications for broadcasting in the future.
Deputy O'Dea said that in establishing a commission we would be putting the problem on the long finger. However, in the House on 29 May I suggested that a time limit of six months be imposed so that the matter would not be put on the long finger. It should be possible within that time for all the interest groups, such as the newspapers, the advertisers, Actors' Equity. The Performing Right Society, now under a new name, and other legitimate interests to make their point of view known. It should also be possible for the Minister, the RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission to make their submissions which could then be dispassionately considered. That was an eminently reasonable and sensible suggestion. The problem is that proposals have been made without research having been carried out by the Minister's Department. The only reasearch which has been carried out is the research which was carried out by Touche Ross on behalf of the then local radio commission during my term as Minister for Communications.
Perhaps we should establish a review body to decide on whether we need a commission.
We are getting involved in a huge political dogfight, with the result that pride would be greatly hurt if the Minister were to step back even further from it than he has. We are set on a path——
To meet our destiny.
"Soldiers of Destiny" is a great phrase. We are set on a path which is very likely to be disastrous for broadcasting. Therefore I urge the Minister to at least consider the amendment before the House which is not unlike one I will move later which proposes something similar to what has been proposed by The Workers' Party.
I cannot wait for the next amendment.
Perhaps the Minister may not want to accept precisely the terms of The Workers' Party amendment or the Fine Gael amendment, just as he did not accept our proposal in Private Members' time for an independent review body. It is not too late for the Minister to fashion his own proposal which would meet the objectives proposed by Fine Gael and The Workers' Party. I would urge the Minister to think again about this proposal and about rushing through the legislation.
I took the view when I was Minister, and have been greatly criticised for it, that it would be better to do nothing——
A courageous decision.
It would be expecting a little too much of the benches opposite not to make much of it.
Let us hear the Deputy in possession, without interruption.
Better to do nothing than to do harm.
Deputy Cowen has put his finger on it — rather do nothing than do harm. I am asking the Minister to do nothing rather than do harm. We did a lot of preparatory work and research. The Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill was drafted and prepared by me and enacted without any change by the present Minister.
Enacted by me.
The ground work was laid for the Minister. The work was done and ready to go ahead when the time was propitious.
Just as Deputy Mitchell was about to go out of office.
The legislation was prepared but the Minister made a change by dropping the Radio and Television Commission. The Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill was passed without a change but the Minister was forced in respect of the second Bill, under which he wanted to give out the licences himself, to bring in a change and announce before Second Stage that we would have an Independent Radio and Television Commission. The foundations for action were laid.
An independent review group was Deputy Mitchell's solution.
Does the Deputy agree with it? We have not had one for 16 years.
We have had commissions — paralysis by analysis.
Here we are making proposals which could have a crucial impact on a number of groups apart from RTE. The people in RTE may be seen to have a vested interest in defending their bastion. We have to see whether the comments and criticisms of RTE personnel have any substance. Whereas in the opinion of some there may have been over-reaction by RTE, there can be little doubt that the proposals before us will have a disastrous impact. It is not just that they will lose £12 million per year. Such a reduction in one year would lead to chaos and certainly would not be contemplated in any private enterprise. Following the enactment of this Bill there will be no reason for enterprise or endeavour within RTE. If they are enterprising they will reach their income limit early in the year. All enterprise will be stifled. It is a recipe for stagnation in RTE which I invite Deputies opposite to consider.
Raise the licence fee. It is a simply remedy.
The Deputy is an accountant and will know that it might answer the revenue problem but not the enterprise problem.
One does not have to be an accountant to see this remedy.
Deputy O'Dea will know how important it is to reward effort and to encourage enterprise. If the result of enterprise is that the revenue is capped, this is by far the most adverse aspect of these proposals. It is self-evident that the impact on RTE will be adverse, to put it mildly. Other people have legitimate rights which ought to be listened to. These include independent programme producers, advertisers, producers of advertisements, Actors' Equity and the Performers' Rights Society.
There are great performers here.
It is possible that all the points they would make could not be accepted but it is very unfair and ill-advised to proceed with drastic proposals, changed twice in the course of one week, without affording all these interest groups the opportunity to make their case. The Minister has refused to meet these groups. Is that reasonable? Originally there was urgency in this matter and that is why the Fine Gael motion was tabled in the second last week of May to be taken the following week.
If it is urgent, let it go through.
It was urgent originally. The distinguished Deputy from Leitrim might listen to the point.
Sligo-Leitrim, to be correct.
It was urgent because we were told that Century Radio was on the brink of collapse. The staff were guaranteed their wages only until 31 May. Even though the idea of a national alternative radio service and television service was the brian-child of the Minister and not of his advisers or his Department and despite the fact that any research available to us in office posed serious questions about the viability of such alternatives, we took the view that a national alternative having been created was a good thing, if we could reasonably retain it. Competition is good for RTE and for the listener. We felt there was a case for once-off help to Century to get over teething problems, some of which were of their own making and some of which were not. The Minister rushed them on to the air against their better judgment and the Independent Radio and Television Commission, or perhaps the Department, awarded a mish-mash of wavelengths to Century. The urgency was to save Century but the Bill as proposed to be amended has no prospect of helping Century and therefore all urgency is gone.
I hope the Deputy will come back to the amendment. He is straying very far from it.
It is pertinent to the amendment. I am arguing for a commission and against any rushed job. All we are involved in now is saving the Minister's face; we are not involved in saving broadcasting. If the Minister were to accept that the urgency had gone he might have to face a little ribbing but the reputation of politicians in this House for maturity would be enhanced.
Therefore, even if the Minister is not prepared to accept The Workers' Party amendment in its present form or the similar amendment I have put down, I ask him to come in on Report Stage with his own amendment and maybe some reasonable compromise will be brought about and whatever immediate problems the Minister sees can be tackled pending a review. In order to avoid the problems Deputy O'Dea feared, the Minister might wish to suggest a time limit along the lines suggested in the original Fine Gael motion.
Why is the commission necessary? Deputy McCartan and Deputy Higgins quoted extensively yesterday from a draft EC Directive on the question of broadcasting. Countries in the rest of Europe which have more than one neighbour have a complex problem. For instance, Belgium has Dutch, Luxembourg, German, British and French broadcasting media to cope with. Our only neighbour is the UK, therefore in essence the issues raised by transnational broadcasting in our context effectively involve only the UK and ourselves. There may be some exceptions in satellite stations but they are very rare and have very little impact.
Another factor special to these two islands is that we speak the same language, whereas that is not so on the continent of Europe; most of the states have another language as well as their first language. We must acknowledge that most countries of Europe are more proficient in alternative languages, especially the languages of their neighbouring countries, than we are. Nonetheless the use of the neighbouring language is not nearly as extensive as is our use of the English language. Our broadcasting media and the British broadcasting media are all using the same language, not completely but virtually completely.
In the studies of the Council of Europe and European Commission all sorts of issues have been addressed and especially the rights of transnational broadcasting including transnational broadcasting of advertising. This has major implications for the funding of broadcasting in the future. In our discussions so far on this legislation we have been talking about capping advertising, as if the Irish advertising pool were something with a precise boundary that could not spill over into the neighbouring, much bigger pool. The reality is that our advertising pool is just a little inlet of the advertising pool based in London and with the development of technology and the rapid extension of transnational broadcasting we will have, throughout our State within the next couple of years, the availability of an extensive number of British based stations, both terrestrial and satellite and in the case of satellite both direct and indirect broadcasting satellites. Many of these would be advertising based. In the Council of Europe and EC documents it is specified that not only must there be uninhibited acceptance of broadcasts from other countries but where they are accepted there must be uninhibited access for advertising. In other words, we could not take the programme and not have the advertising.
In Britain a select committee of the House of Commons have considered the Peacock report and other reports and based on all these findings a White Paper on broadcasting has been produced. They insist in their White Paper that, as a cardinal principle of British broadcasting policy, there must be an uninhibited flow of advertising across national boundaries. That has enormous implications for the advertising pool based in Dublin, therefore it has enormous implications not only for the future viability of RTE but for the future viability of any alternative broadcasting system. Less centrally, the Irish newspapers have a problem but they are not or cannot potentially be as adversely affected in this respect as the electronic media here can be. Nonetheless, newspapers have a very direct and legitimate interest because they too depend for their survival and prosperity largely on the same advertising pool.
These are complex questions. I said in my speech on the Fine Gael Private Members' motion which started off this debate four weeks ago that it was a rubic cube and if you moved one set of squares you upset all the others. The Minister is turning the rubic cube to get one square in place and then when he goes to look at the other squares he will find them all out of place and there is more confusion than there was at the outset. Therefore, I urge the Minister and those opposite very strongly to extricate themselves from the heat of this battle and consider some approach along the lines proposed in the amendments.
I do not think we can confine the terms of reference of any such review body merely to broadcasting. We have to take in the other questions, including those related to newspapers. Undoubtedly our newspapers have a case because they are operating at a disadvantage. Newspaper cover charge is at a rate of 10 per cent here. It was 25 per cent and we reduced it to 10 per cent. Advertising is charged at 23 per cent. In the UK the cover charge of newspapers has a zero VAT rate and advertising has a VAT rate of 15 per cent. Regarding competition for RTE, some people in this debate have been talking about RTE as if the only competition was from Century or potentially from TV3, whereas RTE's main competition now and in the future will be British based stations, the BBC, ITV and whatever satellite stations there are. Likewise, our newspapers not only have to compete with each other but also with British newspapers, who benefit from economies of scale and operate under a more beneficial VAT regime.
Funding, while it is central to the future of broadcasting, is not the only question that should be considered by the commission. There are enormous implications for consumer rights: how can our consumer rights be enforced if consumers are misled by advertising carried on foreign based stations? We have also to consider the issues of good taste, public order and the question of sex and violence on television. The implications of different standards being permitted on transnational broadcasting stations than would be acceptable to public taste here have to be considered. The question of copyright, performing rights and other issues have also to be considered. There is a very strong case to be made for examining this whole area on calm reflection.
This is not something I have been saying for the past few weeks. I proposed this publicly in Cork on 12 February 1990, in essence the date on which this whole debate started. Before I proposed an independent review body I had, over a number of months, consulted with the interest groups and the faculties of communications in our universities, all of whom felt it was an appropriate and timely proposal. I made that proposal in a public speech in Cork on 12 February and I disclosed that the Minister intended to do something along the lines which he now proposes, but of course it was denied on that occasion. It was denied again on 27 February 1990, in this House. There is no harm to reflect on that background. The Minister may want to reflect on the record since 12 February when he inadvisedly denied what is now known to be true. Let us forget about that for the moment and look ahead. In two, three or four years' time I hope the debate in this House will not have proved to be futile but will have managed somehow to set the right parameters for a vibrant Irish broadcasting sector.
I cannot accept the amendments in question for a number of reasons. In the first place, the amendment seeks the deferral of the legislation which we are currently debating. The Government believe that this legislation is necessary and that it should be implemented at the earliest possible date. It is part of a logical and coherent process which commenced in 1987 when I, as Minister for Communications, took in hand the chaos which had been allowed to develop in the broadcasting sector — and which has been referred to so well by Deputy O'Dea in his contribution — under the preceding administration and restored order and control to the broadcasting environment.
I put in place the necessary regulatory framework to enable the Irish public create their own multiplicity of choice. We did not, quite frankly, need a review group or commission to point out the mess broadcasting was in at that time and, indeed, we could not afford to waste any more time, as the previous Government had done for almost five years — as Deputy Mitchell has just admitted.
Likewise, the pace of developments at international level required that early and firm action be taken at national level if we were to have any opportunity to build up a strong and vibrant Irish broadcasting industry which could compete effectively with the multitude of new external services, many with an international dimension, which were about to come on stream.
If there was any merit at all in the notion of a review group, the early eighties was the time to establish it when it might have been able to make some contribution not alone to the national framework needed for broadcasting but also to the international framework. Even if the then Government could have done that much instead of wasting their time squabbling about ideological hang-ups, they might have been able to claim they had made some worthwhile contribution to the broadcasting landscape here.
Both the national framework — thanks to the firm action of this Government — and the international framework for the development of broadcasting are now settled. For example, among the issues which this amendment sees being addressed by the commission is the development of community broadcasting, but we have already set up, through the Radio and Television Act, 1988, and independent commission which will have responsibility under that Act for developing the community broadcasting sector.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Having inherited the mess left by Deputy Mitchell after his time in Government, I considered it was a time for action rather than for appointing a commission. As I have said, there is already legislation in place to allow for the development of community broadcasting under the Radio and Television Act, 1988. We have an independent commission which will have responsibility under that Act for developing the community broadcasting sector and they have already indicated their intention of doing so — irrespective of the calls for another commission here.
The amendment also proposes an examination of the development of a Teilifís na Gaeltachta, but we have had two reports on this area in the recent past, — the May 1987 report of the Working Group on Irish Language Television Broadcasting and more recently the Údarás na Gaeltachta report on Teilifís na Gaeltachta and I cannot see anything being achieved by commissioning another study on this question.
This is a time for action. As I said, we are following a logical and rational line in our broadcasting policy. We created the conditions to allow new entrants to come into the broadcasting sector in 1988 and having done so it is now incumbent upon us to create conditions in which participants can compete fairly and that is the fundamental objective of this legislation. The earlier that objective is achieved the better it will be for the future strength and vitality of the whole broadcasting sector.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
In one of his contributions during which he did not call for a quorum, Deputy Mitchell referred to the transnational problems and the need for standards in transnational broadcasting. He also called for the setting up of a commission to examine these questions. Deputy Mitchell seems to be unaware — one would think that as a former Minister and spokesman on communications he would be aware of this — that we already have a Council of Europe Convention and European Community Directive directly relating to this area. Article 22 of the European Community Directive states, and I quote:
Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular those that involve pornography or gratuitous violence. This provision shall extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally here or see such broadcasts.
Member States shall also ensure that broadcasts do not contain any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality.
Article 7 of Chapter II of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, which deals with the responsibilities of the broadcaster, states:
1. All items of programme services, as concerns their presentation and content, shall respect the dignity of the human being and the fundamental rights of others.
In particular, they shall not:
(a) be indecent and in particular contain pornography;
(b) give undue prominence to violence or be likely to incite to racial hatred.
2. All items of programme services which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of children and adolescents shall not be scheduled when, because of the time of transmission and reception, they are likely to watch them.
3. The broadcaster shall ensure that news fairly presents facts and events and encourages the free formation of opinions.
In calling for the setting up of a commission in this area Deputy Mitchell is calling for the wheel to be reinvented. That work is already being carried out.
I wish to refer to the vitality of the broadcasting sector. I have sat here for days and listened to Deputy Mitchell and others say that the independent operation was the brainchild of Burke, that it was never going to work and has been shown not to have worked. Thankfully, we now have the results of the Joint National Listenership Research survey carried out recently over a two month period by the Market Research Bureau of Ireland, at the behest of RTE, the Independent Radio and Television Commission, the main advertising agencies and the major advertisers. The results of this survey have been leaked to the media so I feel at liberty to refer to sections of it.
It is interesting to note that on average weekday 87 per cent of the population, representing about 2.197 million people, listen to radio and that 75 per cent of those listen to an RTE station some time during the day while 40 per cent, or over 1 million people, listen at some time during the day to an independent station established under the 1988 Act. These stations started to come on air last September, some of them came on air during the spring and a few more have still to come on air. The success of the 1988 legislation, therefore, can be seen in this survey. The survey shows a very interesting figure in the case of local station areas, whether it be Clare, Galway or Mayo. Thirty-seven per cent of the population in those areas listen to their local station at some time during the day compared with 35 per cent who listen to Radio 2FM. Of course, Radio 1 is by far the most successful radio station, with a 52 per cent male listenership and a 54 per cent female listenership, giving an average of a 53 per cent listenership. It is an excellent station which has served this country well and will continue to do so.
It is very interesting to note that while RTE, with over 60 years experience in the broadcasting business, have 75 per cent of the listenership at some time during the day, the independent stations, which have less than 9 months experience in this area, have a listenership of over 40 per cent or 1 million people. This is a very heartening statistic from my point of view.
Where is the problem then?
It is a total vindication of the decision to establish the local stations and the national radio station.
No one disagrees with the Minister so what is the problem?
Deputy McCartan should allow the Minister to make his speech without interruption.
The independent broadcasting stations are finding their niche in the market but they need a portion of the advertising media to level the playing field and ensure they continue to hold their listenership and thrive in the period ahead.
We have had the report, commissions and examinations and now is the time for progress. The 1988 legislation, which has been seen to operate in an effective manner, was the first phase and we are following a rational and logical line in our broadcasting policy. We created the conditions which allowed new entrants to come into the broadcasting sector. They are now in and it is incumbent on us to create the conditions in which they can compete fairly. That is the fundamental objective of this legislation. The figures which have been released today — they are not mine nor the Government's — show that there is room in the market place but we need to ensure that the environment, both in terms of advertising and revenue, is such that the electronic and print media in the independent sector can thrive side by side with a strong and vibrant RTE.
The Minister said that the fundamental objective of this legislation is to ensure that there is a vibrant commercial radio network but I suggest that this is the fourth objective. We first had the Bill of 29 May which proposed taking some of the licence fee and diverting it via the commission to the private sector. We then had the curbing of the activities of Radio 2FM. We are now down to the capping of advertising which the Minister has described at this stage as the fundamental objective of the legislation.
I want to refer to the comments in last Saturday's The Irish Times on what this debate is really about. It was stated in an article in that paper that this debate was all about the control of communications, the MMDS system, which has yet to be developed, and power. That is the real argument. I respectfully suggest that some of points made were completely irrelevant and bear no resemblance whatsoever to the Minister's real intentions.
The Minister said that the Government believed this legislation was necessary but from the vibes around this House — gossip travels very quickly around here — it seems that not all members of the Government are happy about the Minister's proposals. He said that this Bill would bring order into broadcasting. Despite the assurances that we would be given ample time to discuss these matters we have now been told that the guillotine will be applied to the Bill.
Reference has been made to ideological hangups on the part of the Opposition. Is the Minister suggesting to the House that he does not have any ideological hang-ups? Does he not regard this piece of chicanery now being foisted on us as part of an ideological gospel? He referred to community broadcasting which was set up in 1988. Two years have elapsed and nothing has been done and that begs the question, why? When will action be taken?
The Minister has yet to convince me, and many other people, about the need for the Bill. I consider that his intentions are dubious. I imagine that what we are talking about is control of communications. The Minister wants to ensure that there will not be an independent voice on the airwaves to properly represent the people of Ireland. Instead, we will have a very influential clique taking control of communications. It is important that the House is at all times vocal in its opposition to the measures presented by the Minister.
I support the amendment but only as a fall-back. I do not have any difficulty about the suggestion that a commission should be established. Such a move would be welcome but I respectfully suggest that the proper course to follow is to abandon the Bill, put it on the shelf, forget about it and let it gather dust. I tabled amendments in an effort to minimise the damage that will be inflicted on public broadcasting if the Minister's measures are adopted. In view of the development in communications worldwide, and the speed with which technology is developing, there is a need for a debate on the issue, not the type of argy-bargy we have had in the House in recent days. It has been the most acrimonious debate I have witnessed in my nine years as a Member. Ill feeling prevails due to the way the Government are dealing with the Bill. The Workers' Party suggested in 1982 that a White Paper on broadcasting should be produced; the Labour Party made a similar request later and Deputy Mitchell in Private Members' Business some weeks ago suggested that a report on broadcasting be produced. That is the correct course to follow.
I fail to understand the Minister's position. However, I admire him in that he is prepared to press on regardless, despite what is said in the House. He has the ability to completely ignore the point being made by Members. He reads his prepared script and stands by its contents. The Minister presents legislation on an ad hoc basis. He responds to one crisis after another. We have crisis management and today we are dealing with the crisis in private sector broadcasting. The events of the last month are a clear illustration of the Minister's intentions. The Bill was published on 28 May and following that there were amendments, and amendments to amendments, in the name of the Minister. That indicates to me that the Minister is not paying any attention to what is going on, although he accepts that there is a problem to be tackled. He has scant regard for the long-term requirements of broadcasting.
The Minister's attack on Deputy Mitchell was to a degree unfair, bearing in mind that the document produced in 1988 had been, by and large, prepared by Deputy Mitchell. The Labour Party opposed that document when it was produced by Deputy Mitchell when he was Minister. It is worth mentioning the number of Acts dealing with broadcasting. We started in 1926 with the Wireless Telegraphy Act and we had a Broadcasting Authority Act in 1960, a Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act in 1976, a Local Radio Bill in 1985, a Broadcasting Wireless Telegraphy Bill in 1987, a Sound Broadcasting Bill in 1987, the Radio and Television Act, 1988, and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988. In 1990 we have the Broadcasting Bill Mark II. The Bill before us is different from the one circulated on 29 May. It has been altered to such an extent that it is practically unrecognisable. How can the Minister suggest that he has been consistent and has charted a course for the development of broadcasting?
Deputy O'Dea is a young Member who has made some very fine contributions in the House but the same cannot be said of his contribution today. He has given as a reason for pushing through the legislation that if it is not passed we will revert back to the days of the pirates. I do not think anything could be further from the truth. Deputy O'Dea reminded us that in 1988 the Minister put through both Houses legislation to cope with this but I wonder why the Minister has so little faith in that Act. The Bill should be dropped.
I am very worried about the attitude that the Minister, and the Government, are taking to the Bill. The Minister has an entrenched view about how broadcasting should develop. When the first Broadcasting Bill was floated in 1988 the Minister held the view that he should be the person with the authority to give out franchises and to determine the quality and direction of broadcasting for the independent sector. At that stage he was willing and open enough to accept that he did not have the monopoly on wisdom. He could see that the House had different views and he accepted many of those views. However, on this occasion the Minister is adopting a completely different attitude. He is seeking to hide behind the guillotine to push through the Bill before the House has an opportunity to debate many of the important amendments that have been tabled. The Minister sees himself as something of a Horatio at the bridge fighting back the invading hordes but he is failing to look at who is ranked among the ranks of the Etruscans. It is not only the Opposition who recognise in the Minister's proposals the most damaging blow ever inflicted on broadcasting. If one looks at those who have led cultural movements here, who have been at the head of the literary, cultural and language exellence associated with broadcasting, one will see that they have come out clearly and resolutely against the Minister's proposals.
The Minister is not standing at the bridge holding back the hordes. He is like — to use the mixed metaphor — a person who has climbed out on the ledge and regards as an hysterical attack on him the actions of people who are trying to persuade him to climb back in and save himself. The transformation in the Minister's view about broadcasting from hour to hour and day to day betrays a lack of any serious consideration about what broadcasting means and how we can achieve diversity in our broadcasting without damaging quality. The Minister is here to achieve that. The Minister started out with faith in the light touch, faith in advertising and saying that this was the means of competition and the way broadcasting would develop. He told us that this was the way we would get good quality and diverse broadcasting. The Opposition do not see it in those terms. The Minister has said that advertising does not represent a way of competing as far as RTE and the other stations are concerned, and that RTE are not to have the opportunity to compete with the other stations.
The result of this for RTE and for broadcasting will, as other speakers point out, be dreadful in the long term. We have been particularly fortunate in having in RTE one of the very high quality broadcasting services in Europe, despite the small population into which they are selling their programmes. If the Minister's proposals go ahead success in broadcasting by RTE will not be rewarded. If they succeed in building up an audience for their home produced quality programmes to even 100 per cent they will not get one penny more in revenue to further develop and improve those programmes. How can one possibly hope to run a business or any organisation on that basis?
The whole thrust of the remarks by the Minister and his colleagues in Government is that Ireland must develop competitively and build an economy where success is rewarded. However, the Minister's formula for RTE, one of the success stories of the State sector, will mean that RTE will be capped, contained, reduced and eventually strangled in the interests of producing alternative stations which — he has taken on faith — will offer a selection and diversity of programmes in which we do not have any faith. If the Minister gets his way, RTE's situation will be worse than that of any civil servant because they will be entirely beholden to the Minister in relation to what they do. Effectively, under these proposals, RTE will be coming to the Minister with an estimate for their budget on a year by year basis. They will not be able to spend more money unless they get the Minister's say so. That feature is shared by other public servants in the ordinary Civil Service but, worse than that, RTE will be inextricably linked to an earmarked tax. Which of us on this side of the House believes that our services for education, social welfare, housing or anything else would develop if they were linked to an unpopular user tax, based — not on ability to pay — but on a flat charge across the board to all those with television or radio receivers?
The Minister said that RTE are doing a good job and that they need more resources. If his proposals go through he will continually contain the RTE budget. Therefore, in real terms, RTE's spending power will be reduced continually over the coming years. That is why this amendment is so important because we have never had a serious debate about where broadcasting should go. In the modern world communications are cheap and we cannot keep out alternative stations; we must examine how we can develop an Irish sector which is both diverse and high in quality.
The proposal of establishing a commission which would examine these issues is long overdue. It should have preceded the original legislation but, thankfully, as a result of a very lengthy debate in this House on the 1988 Act, we succeeded — through a lot of work on both sides of the House — in getting a Bill which provided good quality choice in the independent sector.
The Minister's attitude on this occasion is quite the opposite. We will have this legislation rammed through without a proper debate by any sections — inside or outside the House — about its implications. All the indications are that the approach taken by the Minister will do irreparable damage to RTE's capacity to continue to produce quality programmes. They will be forced to change the type of broadcasting they produce to try to capture a mid-Atlantic or mid-European audience and to develop programmes for export in the hope that they can eke out their meagre resources. We will see a dramatic change in the sort of programmes being offered. Home produced drama will be particularly squeezed because it tends to be limited to Irish audiences. The only hope is to build up a high audience rating to get a return in revenue to supplement what is available from the licence fee. Under the formula dreamt up by the Minister, those sort of programmes will suffer most.
The notion that we can have competition where one station will have a fixed budget while others are free to develop and expand their advertising revenue as the basis for new programmes is a new proposal from the Minister. There cannot be a proper, balanced development of broadcasting under that proposal. If anything, the Minister's second thoughts on this issue are worse than the first because his first thoughts at least had the merit that the Minister would have had to come into the House annually and pose a capping formula to contain RTE's revenue. We would have had the opportunity to debate the issue with him and to try to persuade him of the merits of a decent budget for RTE. Under the new formula the budget will be set in legislation for all time. Other Members sought indexation but this has also been denied.
The Minister must take congnisance of the growing opposition from all sections to this issue. I fear that it will jeopardise the further industrial and economic peace and sense of social cohesion about a programme for recovery. It is this sort of boneheaded approach to an issue of this kind that puts people off the notion that a lot can be achieved through co-operation. The trade union movement must be looking very critically at what is going on here and it must seriously influence their attitude to the Government. That is a dangerous development. No one disputes that RTE perform excellently and have increased their home made programmes while reducing their costs, meeting competition from abroad and at home and beating it. That jewel in the crown of the State sector is to be subjected to a formula which no Civil Service operation under the thumb of the Minister would accept. The Minister must think again and the virtue of this amendment is that it offers him — without losing face — an opportunity to have a proper and detailed investigation into how we can achieve what the Minister is committed to, getting diversity into broadcasting without damaging quality.
This proposal, with its balanced make-up of people from different walks of life with various skills, would provide us with a blueprint for broadcasting into the nineties which is so badly needed. I hope the Minister will accept the proposed amendment.
The Labour Party support this amendment. I want to refer to its justification in a very practical sense and to reply to some of the Minister's comments in his welcome sixth intervention to the Committee Stage debate.
The idea of a commission is that it would make possible the generation of the principle of a broadcasting policy. The Minister, in replying to that argument, suggested that there would have been room for this concept in the eighties but that the case for it now was very different. This argument is not sustainable. There was a case for it in the eighties and it is interesting that in 1982 The Workers' Party, for example, as Deputy McCartan pointed out, were pressing for a Commission.
I make no secret with regard to one of the points made, that was in relation to the Labour Party's approach towards it in the same period. When we were faced with legislation in 1982 I recall very clearly that our first suggestion was that legislation in this complex area should be preceded by a White Paper. I have very definite reasons for holding that view at that time. Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, I and the late Frank Cluskey discussed this regularly in a sub-committee within the Labour Party. We believed that the complexity of the broadcasting issues involved would benefit thereform.
Therefore, on the part of one party there was a demand for a commission and, on the part of another, a demand for a White Paper. In a totally unemotive way may I explain the difficulty to which the Minister referred in what he has just said, of my squabbling about ideological hang-ups. It was no such thing; those were the Minister's words. The last of the 14 points of the joint programme for Coalition between the Labour Party and Fine Gael did not constitute a defensive line. It did not say at all there shall not be community broadcasting or independent broadcasting. It said that community and independent broadcasting shall be developed within the spirit of public service broadcasting. There was a very legitimate tension, for example, between people who wanted to proceed with the independent end of it and our emphasis on the community end of it, on retaining what was the great strength, legacy and contribution of public service broadcasting.
The Minister was somewhat negative in his latest contribution. He is really saying: I came and brought order to and control out of chaos. I do not want to go down that old road again, contending that, for example, one could make people obey the law by invoking the provisions of the 1962 Act. That choice was not taken; it was decided that two further Bills were needed. It was suggested that a commission would be a waste of time. I shall address that issue very clearly. Here is the answer to the contention that it would be a waste of time: the one directive referred to by Deputy McCartan and I yesterday is one with many implications in relation to Irish broadcasting. Surely it would be very valuable if the working out of that directive could ensure that its terms or provisions would come within the ambit of the commission? The Minister himself will be aware also — because he made reference to a separate Directive — the one on the content of broadcasting and broadcasting standards as they relate to pornography, racism and so on, within the terms of the Irish Presidency of the EC — that there are other directives in preparation by the Commission. Would it not be very valuable to have a commission in place that could not only respond — as Deputy McCartan pointed out — to the implications of this Bill but could encompass the inheritance of other legislation in the broadcasting arena, which would be in position to discuss developments in Europe in regard to draft directives, Commission proposals and the continuing debate on European broadcasting?
It is really not a party political matter. If you like it is an Irish citizen's matter — that is the best way I can describe it — with regard to the notion that a commission is a waste of time, that the time for such existed in the eighties only. That is an extraordinary view. It would be similar to saying that the only time for a Constitution was in 1937 and, therefore, one should never review it for several centuries thereafter. What is very important from a citizen's point of view is this: the issue with which this or any other Minister responsible for broadcasting has to deal, is that what we are witnessing in our time is the integration of the domestic communications system into an international marketplace for the cultural and media hardware. There is a momentum in information technology that nobody can argue stopped in the eighties. For example, there is a discussion continuing at present — by way of illustrating my point that this commission is relevant — about the very future of the European Broadcasting Union because of the impact of satellite on, say, the coverage of international sporting events. The evidence is there already — referred to in a book entitled "Media, Culture and Society" published by Sage, London, 1989, in an article written by Professor Desmond Bell and Niall Meehan. They discuss, in a footnote, the implications of the satellite bids for the coverage of the United States 1988 golf championships which meant that a number of stations could not compete. If one has to compete with international satellite stations for coverage of one major event, then one does so at the cost of one's domestic budget.
These are non-party points. They hinge on the question of the relationship of Ireland, its citizens, an Irish communications policy, in an ever evolving, changing international communications context. To say that the commission should not address the implications of satellite; to contend that they would not be able, for example, to review the changes of mind — and people are entitled to do so — in relation to MMDS; to argue that a commission would not have a contribution to make in the continuing arguments about cable; to contend that the commission does not have a contribution to make or to speak about the whole future of how we should use the new UHF channels available to us; for example, the balance between the lower frequencies needed for the telecommunications industry and the other frequencies more suitable for telebroadcasts and other purposes, is to raise real questions.
In an effort to reply to two of the points the Minister made, I might say that the speed of information technology was not arrested in the eighties. I would say more than that — that the momentum is, if anything, gaining. What is at present being debated in Europe — in Italy, France and other countries — is that we are facing an age in information technology that is dominated by Japanese hardware and United States software. For example, North America produces 86 per cent of all the "soap" material watched in the whole of Europe. The debate in Europe is about whether it is possible at all to have a European contribution. They then pose the interesting question of how we get into a programming position at European level to give us even the concept of a European broadcasting culture, beneath which is a related argument in relation to how different member states of the EC manage to create or, if they have it, retain a national broadcasting culture. The way one goes about this is very interesting. If one places inhibitions on those trying to manage either of the two latter projects I have mentioned, the national or European one, and if one says to them that their advertising budget will be capped, that they are thereby limiting their available budget, they then have the choice of watching other international systems compete with them. In turn this means that, if they are to capture one significant international series, or one international coverage, let us say, of a sports event, they must do so at the cost of the components of their internal station programming.
The first thing in the defensive posture situation will be to direct one's attention to those who are, perhaps, at the periphery of or external to core activities. Hence the very correct emphasis on the danger to the people who are independents, who are supplying to their best customer. They are the people who are most in danger. There are about 90 of them. They hire between five and ten people each depending on their stage of evolution. The next people to go, because one has to shrink back to oneself, are the people in the formative stage of getting into film or broadcasting to whom one could give, for example, equipment on lease or free. Then one is back within the station and within the station itself one looks, for example, at the costly items of programming. Let us say one puts in a bid for an international event. One will therefore have less money for other things, and the things that will go will, of course, be the minority interest things first and then things like cultural and drama programmes. The relevance of this, therefore, in that dimension is very interesting if people wanted to try to put themselves in the position of a decision maker within a station which is effected by this legislation. These are the things that will arise at the meetings that will be taking place every week and every month.
There is, however, another interesting thing which has not been raised in this debate but which a commission should look at. It is peculiarly appropriate that it should arise just as we leave the Irish Presidency. I was in Athens two years ago at a conference on the implications of satellite television and one of the things that came out of that conference was very interesting. The representative of the EBU said that if they were forced into competition with major satellite investors to provide things like international sports events and so forth, they will have to change the rate they charge Eastern Europe because what not many people know is that long before the changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe, the Eastern European countries got cheap linkups to the Eurovision Song contest and a whole series of other things like that. In other words, they did not have to pay the market-place rate and there was a system whereby it was regarded that by simple membership of the EBU and the Link Treaty, with its equivalent in Eastern Europe, one's lack of resources would not ever stop one participating in a major international broadcasting event. The proof of what I am saying about the implications of satellite is very interesting. It is that the board of the EBU have again and again said that they cannot go on with this kind of ethical solidarity among international broadcasters if they are forced into the international marketplace by developments within satellite.
One can take that argument back down from the question of the international broadcasting arena, through the European broadcasting arena I mentioned and bring it into the international arena. These are the issues. May be the Minister may have people who will tell him that I am wrong on one or all of these points.
The great value of having a commission is that at least these points will be replied to. Maybe there are different opinions but I believe that this is the orderly way to do it. There are many other things that the commission can do.
There are other things that are interesting. In the amendment it says that the commission shall publish a report, it shall seek approval from both Houses of the Oireachtas and then that the sections of the Bill and so forth may or may not, by decision of the Minister of the day, come into effect. What that is doing is replying to a criticism that is frequently made by people who are in favour of public service broadcasting. It is giving accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas; it is saying that on the issues of broadcasting the legislation is there and we have decided to take up all the items that have been raised in the debate, that we have listened to the interest groups, to the independent film makers, the broadcasters, the advertisers, the people who purchase advertising space and we believe these would be the implications. It seems there is an unanswerable case for having such a reasoned approach because what it is doing is simply saying we will consider the implications in all the sectors. I cannot see how there can be such a logical case. The Minister's response is that he brought order and control to a condition of chaos and that a commission would be a waste of time and that the pace of change requires firm action now. Yes, we need firm action; but we need firm action based on policy. We need policy based on debate, and we need that debate to be informed and informed of all the possibilities that are there for us, whatever party we belong to, as people, as members of Europe and so on.
The Minister says that the eighties was the time for the review group, in other words, that all the reflection should have been done before the man of action took over. It is a very foolish person who goes barging forward without the basis of a broadcasting policy and if I am wrong in that, Sir, why was it right a few weeks ago to seek to balance the revenue, the licence fee and advertising in RTE by approaching the matter in the context of the licence fee plus FM2 and then going on to advertising, and then certainly a few weeks later it was not right? Perhaps the pace of change in the Department is very fast. It is certainly very considered.
There are other issues in relation to community broadcasting. I will not go down that road but I will simply say, in addition to what my colleague, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan has said, that there was always a problem with the word "independent" in the title. We spent a long time on the title last night and I intervened to say that there were other matters that we should push on to. There is a genuine debate as to what is independent radio, commercial radio and community radio and there is no point in fudging these interests. There was a genuine concern that the people who are investing funds in radio were coming to the top of the queue and that it was quite far down that one had the people looking for community radio licences. I was approached by a group of people once about the Broadcasting Bill and how they could apply for a licence. That was over two years ago, and they had a very good case and they could be viable. If it were all to be balanced there would have been some independent applications granted and then some community ones and so on. It is rather extraordinary to accept that the major commercial independent ones would be granted and that all the community ones would be batched together and then released suddenly as if one were lifting a dam.
The Minister in his reply to amendment No. 2 made reference to Teilifís na Gaeltachta. He asked why there should be any bother about this and had there not been a report by Údarás na Gaeltachta and a report within the Department of Communications. There is a long saga attached to this and it is a very simple one. The terms of reference of the commission are clearly specified in amendment No. 3; they relate to the question of culture. It is a broadcasting issue to decide which road one is to take in relation to communications affecting the Irish language. There is an old lobby that argued, for example, that one should have more hours on the national television network. I believe there are floating around proposals to dump two hours into Network 2 where the advantage, by the way, if one was a market oriented person, of making it unattractive for two hours to those people who did not want to watch Irish programmes, would be to boost the ratings for people over in TV3. Thank you very much, if one is in TV3. There could be other things. The other option which was argued by people involved in the sociology of communications in many other areas is in regard to the Gaeltacht. There are different Gaeltachts. There are people in this House who understand what is happening. What is happening is that people are listening to an aural medium which is Raidio na Gaeltachta. It is in competition with the visual media. What is happening is that people have stayed there and are struggling to teach their children Irish. It is these people who are the genuine bilingualists because many of them have had to learn English to emigrate. At the same time there are people who have learned Irish in other ways and think they are bilingual by speaking that kind of Irish as well as English. The real bilingualists are the people in the Gaeltacht who have managed to learn English.
Why should the commission not have the right to judge these options for the Irish language? My part, and, I think, The Workers' Party and other groups support Teilifís na Gaeltachta. Ba cheart go mbeadh ceannáras na Seirbhíse seo lonnaithe sa Ghaeltacht, go mbeadh sé ar fáil ar leibhéal náisiúnta, agus go mbeadh na cláir bunaithe ar ábhair a bhaineann le cúrsaí na Gaeltachta féin ach, chomh maith leis sin, le cúrsaí ginearálta.
It is desirable that there would be a visual medium that would enable the full discourse of communicative line to be available to people who live in the Gaeltacht areas. When a small group of people came up with these proposals — the history of it is interesting—people said they are just looking for something that can never be given to them. Their proposals were then examined by RTE who said this could be done. A series of questions were put to the Minister for the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Communications in this House. The Minister for the Gaeltacht said the proposals were with the Department of Communications and they were awaiting a report. The Minister for Communications said they provided a report for Roinn na Gaeltachta, but that the ultimate decision was not theirs, and that there were many complicated technical and cost factors involved. In a spirit of constructiveness, because we have to make as much progress as we can now in the time we are allowed, I do not intend to go into detail on the long saga. Let me just say that during election time the people of the Gaeltacht in Donegal were told by the present Taoiseach, who is now Aire na Gaeltachta, that they would have Teilifís na Gaeltachta. Then people were wondering would it be Teilifís Gaeilge or Teilifís na Gaeltachta and it gradually slipped away.
There is a broadcasting issue, an issue of community culture and a national issue involved. The suggestion that there is nothing for the commission to do is a monstrous one. If there is confusion about these options it is because of the absence of collective responsibility by the Minister for the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Communications. We are entitled to a decision on this issue and the people are entitled not to be misled or confused about it.
This has led to further confusion — and I am willing to accept correction in this matter. The Minister wrote an article in an Irish newspaper recently purporting to correct an article from Donncha Ó hÉalaithe in relation to the allocation of UHF capacity. He suggested that even if TV3 got UHF capacity there would still be a possibility for Teilifís na Gaeltachta. These issues have to be resolved. When someone is ill he likes the doctor to tell him if the illness is terminal, and the same is the case in relation to the Irish language. Many people who have a pseudo affiliation to its usage in one form or other, will, if the broadcasting possibilities of providing Teilifís na Gaeltachta are lost, be the people who would not give it one last chance, the chance Mrs. Thatcher gave Scots Gaelic and the chance that was given to Welsh and Breton, all the Celtic languages in Europe.
The original proposals regarding the licence fee were very interesting. We were going to give, out of the taxpayers' money, more money to the private commercial sector in radio than would be required to get the service in the Gaeltacht up and running. The people in the Gaeltacht areas were not entitled to a plurality of choice. The so-called macho independent people took their chances. They knew what they were getting into, and if they got it wrong I would be sympathetic to giving them once-off assistance, but the people in the Gaeltacht could make the same argument. It would be honest to say we no longer have a commitment to the language, Hindley is right in his recent work and so on.
I have reared my family in all-Irish schools. Two of my children are at present in Cill Ciaráin. I have a commitment to the language, but I am not interested in being interviewed as if I was some dinosaur who has survived to the modern age. I know I can do something about this matter. One of the things we can do is insist in the legislation on a broadcasting strategy for Teilifís na Gaeltachta. Not only will we not get that, because it does not arise in the legislation, but we will not even get a commission to which, for example, people who hold views like mine, be they right or wrong, could simply make a submission in favour of the philosophical and practical points we are making. It is not sufficient to say: "The time for thinking stopped when I came in. Action is required. I am the man of action. I am going ahead, and there will be no more squabbling."
In reply to our amendment the Minister said, "It is necessary now to create conditions in which the participants can compete fairly. I wish he had used the correct phrase "in which potential participants can compete fairly." Those people are not there. If you were to advertise tomatoes on TV3, they would be well rotten by the time you found the participants. These are potential participants. If you were an advertiser you would be asking, how many people watch these advertisements, at what times, which products are suitable in relation to targeted populations and so on. To talk about the participants is misleading in many cases.
During Committee Stage the Minister has spoken regularly of monopoly, regulation and deregulation. It is rather tedious to say that there are just two groups of people in the argument, firstly, those who are defending public service broadcasting and, secondly, those who are in favour of market-led options in relation to broadcasting. This is not a real situation. The so-called public service broadcasting is financed by a combination of licence fees and advertising. What we are witnessing is not the State's non-intervention in the marketplace but State-regulated forms of competition. The State is not pulling back from the marketplace. If you want a dramatic example of State-regulated competition, how can you say you are going to limit advertising? We witnessed a kind of Sartrian combination earlier when people said you must regulate to deregulate, which is rather like one of Lamb's poems, "I Watching You, Watching Me, Watching You."
There was not only a proposal to cap advertising through a State mechanism but part of the licence fee was going to be taken by State interference. This provision is still unamended in the Bill. There was also to be State interference in the matter of programming content on 2FM. The notion that the pure market-place prevails in broadcasting as an option to pure public service broadcasting is a lot of nonsense. People are really arguing about the mixed system that exists and the management of that system in such a way as to achieve certain results, results whereby you would not be totally swamped, in relation to content, by the international sources I mentioned earlier. You also want to create employment opportunities within its alternative; in a creative sense that involves programme makers, film makers and so on. So far as it is a mixed system you want to be able to retain its creative employment content in two directions — what is within the making of the station and the commissioned adjunct to it, rather like the branch of a tree.
You also want to be able to retain the employment content of what is bought and sold in relation to adverstising. The tragedy is that in 1982 over 80 per cent of the creative work for advertising in Ireland on the television medium was done outside the State. By 1990, 82 per cent is being done within the State. The people who are working in that branch of the tree of advertising are Irish designers, Irish vision mixers and the people who were selling the material and so forth. It is rather like someone saying: "I am taking a hatchet and I am going to have a big swing at this tree and knock off a good number of its branches. If it survives well and good, but as the other bits fall, there are a few seedlings around the place which may or may not grow into bushes", and so on. I do not want to be provocative, I want to be as constructive as I can in making the case for the commission proposed in The Workers' Party amendment.
There is another point which is very important in relation to this matter. To summarise, therefore, the commission gives us accountability. The commission gives us an opportunity of entering into dialogue with different groups who may be affected. The commission would give an opportunity for a real participant to be there. Let TV3 emerge. Why should we do that? The Minister said there would be more opportunities. In his reply to the independent film makers he said: "When I create more clients there will be more people to whom to sell your products." How do we know that? Where is TV3's commitment to the independent film makers? Would it not be nice to see them buy films from Alan Gilson and all the other young film makers — we would be dealing with the real rather than the hypothetical. It is hard, therefore, to think other than that the legislative intent is punitive rather than constructive. There is something else that the proposed commission would do. The internal problems in this legislation are vast, it is not perfect. I do not criticise any Minister for that. It might be a good idea if many more sections were dropped regularly from legislation but it is not arguable that it was perfect legislation designed on policy — two of its sections are to be removed.
It would be an opportunity to see this thing which had to have an operation soon after birth — retained in hospital — and which had to have a major surgery. When the relatives looked at it they did not like the shape of the baby. The fact is that the commission could not look only at the implications of this legislation but at all the corpus of legislation from 1926 onwards, which is referred to in the Title of the Bill. I have said that the commission would give us an opportunity of looking at the directive. I emphasise that point. The point I emphasised was that there is other commission thinking. This is very interesting and I want to emphasise this from the point of view of people who are buying programmes.
In a curious way the Teilifís na Gaeltachta argument is only a small part of a much bigger argument about national identity. For the longest period I have been in this House one of my spokesmanships has been foreign affairs. I remember an international organisation been split down the middle on the issue of communications. It was on the occasion when the United States and other countries refused to continue their funding of UNESCO because the McBride report on communications had been published. It referred to the domination of the planet by all the hardware from cable satellite and other things. The softwear was in the north and the south was the part without any capacity for communications. The discussion among the Latin people I knew was always the same. They used to say the issue in the end is about the right to tell our own story. They would say that what was happening in Latin America or Africa had to be transmitted through an international news network, the ownership of which sets up a form of control. The rest of the world cannot know what we are saying because we do not have the capacity to tell our own story. At that time a division broke out in UNESCO, the Secretary-General was driven from office and we got back to the business of Japanese hardware dominating the international communications world, American software dominating it and a gradual erosion in the north of the planet in relation to the capacity for own programming and a complete refusal and blank out of the people of the southern part of the planet. These are broadcasting issues. This is a broadcasting debate.
The debate about Teilifís na Gaeltachta is one about the right, now and in the future, of the people who are there at any age to tell their own story, using all the different media available, be it print, aural or in terms of visual. The gradual slipping away into an uncritical market-led ideology for the future of broadcasting is the integration of the domestic communications order into an international structure, dominated by capital, which control both media products and media capacity. The debate is vast. Many people have come in here and discussed broadcasting who may have found it technical or complex previously. Why not have the commission? Why not come back and say, as it happens the Minister has had good news in relation to the private sector in relation to broadcasting and in relation to listenership? I will not question that because it would be tedious. In fact, one cannot go from the survey of MRBI to population figures. The MRBI method of carrying out the survey does not allow one to do that; in other words, one cannot go from 40 per cent of the sample to 40 per cent of the population. It is a very old thing and only a pedant would go into it; we can work out the details again. The Minister has had good news in relation to that issue. How does he know other things will not change in relation to broadcasting in the next year? Perhaps, we are all wrong but unfortunately I believe we are not all wrong. I think there will be a migration of advertising money and, therefore, related jobs will go out of the State altogether.
The capping of advertising will have an inevitable effect in relation to destroying peripheral contracts and employment and the internal shrinkage within the station will set it up into competition. The principal victims are people for whom I have a very old interest, they are the long-serving members of Equity and others who are in the station. They are threatened, as are the people who are involved in the cultural and educational work. Perhaps we are wrong about that. Would it not be very interesting for the commission to test the water in relation to the strength of these arguments? There are other issues that have yet to be decided. This is not stand-alone legislation. There are implications not only in relation to radio and television, there are knock-on effects in relation to the future of telecommunications.
The next regulatory broadcasting conference will discuss the meshing of the telecommunications order in the commercial sector with the broadcasting sector. Could the commission not examine that area? The Minister made reference to the directive on the content of the media and spoke about the reference to pornography, racism and so on. With the greatest respect, there are references in his own legislation to the question of dignity. In regard to the legislation before the House, no television maker in Ireland could ever make a programme like "Spitting Image".
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.