I was referring to paragraph (ii) of Deputy Mitchell's amendment prior to the adjournment. Perhaps the Minister when replying to the House would clarify the position regarding his promise that he would give sympathetic consideration to the position of charitable organisations, when a few days later on 29 June the Taoiseach said that this was not on. The Minister also said that on the question of charities it was not his intention to curb the time allowed to charitable organisations for advertising on RTE radio or television. However, what in effect the Minister has done by this is to further reduce the earning capacity of RTE. The Minister suggested that charitable organisations could have advertising free of charge and that he saw no reason there should be a reduction in the time given to charitable organisations for advertising. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this in his reply because there is a doubt as to what the Minister and the Taoiseach intended here.
Private Members' Business. - Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Report Stage (Resumed).
We had an extensive discussion on Committee Stage as to whether we should have a definition of advertising and I remain convinced that it is preferable not to have one because of the dangers of straitjacketing ourselves in an area which needs flexibility. The areas where the proposed definition would have an impact relate to section 2 (1) dealing with time limits for advertising RTE'S services and to sections 3 dealing with codes of practice for advertising.
I will look first to the issues which the proposed definition seek to address and will try to persuade the House that these issues could be better dealt with other than by relying on a definition. One of the first items the definition seeks to deal with is the question of charity advertising. It is proposed to exempt such advertising from the definition of advertising. There is clearly a misunderstanding as to how RTE treat such advertising. Special discounts for advertising only apply to RTE radio services, and even then RTE only allow a maximum of seven minutes discounted charity advertising per day. Charity advertising on the television is charged at the appropriate full commercial rate. The only exception to this is for special appeals associated with major emergencies or disasters when the advertising is allowed free. What I have done to accommodate RTE's existing practice is to increase the maximum amount of advertising allowed per hour from four minutes 30 seconds to five minutes — amendment No. 17. This would be more than adequate to allow RTE to continue to offer the maximum of seven minutes discounted charity advertising per day on their radio services. I also have other reasons for increasing the maximum minutes per hour to five minutes. I received representations for a number of quarters including ICTU that the four and a half minutes was too restrictive and that there was a danger that RTE might not even be able to reach the advertising revenue cap level, with the time allowed. The concession of the extra half minute is equivalent in current value terms to almost £2 million advertising revenue per annum.
Another issue dealt with in the definition is the question of announcements about forthcoming programmes or activities of a cultural or educational nature. These questions can be better dealt with through the code of practice. I made it clear in one of my interventions on Committee Stage that information announcements about up coming programmes would not be regarded as advertising for the purpose of section 3 (2) dealing with what is to be counted as advertising for time limited purposes. Likewise I made it clear that I had an open mind about the treatment of announcements in relation to orchestral concerts and other events of a cultural character. I made the point that these could be regarded as announcements of a public service nature rather than strict commercial promotion. It is precisely to find a modus operandi to deal with this kind of issue that I provided for a consultative process with the Authority in drawing up the code of practice. The issues which the definition seeks to deal with can be better dealt with in general through the more flexible mechanism of the code of practice.
Apart from the charity question and the matter of announcements about upcoming programmes, the question of the status of sponsored events such as the Carrolls Open and advertising hoardings around football pitches and so on was also raised. There is no question of RTE or TV3 to whom the same code of practice will apply, being prevented from covering such events and there is no question of the inadvertent showing of an advertising hoarding during the televising of a football match being counted as part of RTE's advertising quota. The broadcaster has no direct control over such matters and does not gain revenue from the inadvertent depiction of such advertising.
One would think that these were all new issues and that RTE had no advertising time limit before. These kinds of issues will continue to be dealt with in the practical common-sense way in which RTE currently deal with them. The question of prizes on programmes was also raised. Of course there will be no prohibition on the acceptance of such prizes but their acceptance will require safeguards which RTE already seek to apply. This is not anything new. Thus, if a programme has a postal quiz for a motor car, it will be appropriate to give basic factual information about the car but not to extol its virtues on a branded image basis, because that amounts to surreptitious advertising. I know that already in their codes of practice RTE are concerned about this whole area.
Sponsored programmes as distinct from sponsored events will continue to be a possibility for RTE and TV3. There is in fact a small problem about the status of the sponsored brand name and logo on such programmes but that problem arises not from the legislation we are dealing with now but from existing legislation. It is a problem that can be covered in the proposed code of practice.
Deputy McCartan raised a question as to the status of events such as "Lark in the Park" and similar events and there is no question of prohibiting such promotions of events which are not actually broadcast events and these events do not have any impact on RTE's advertising revenue quota. The proposed code of practice, in the context of complying with time limits, will apply only to a broadcaster's promotion of his own purely commercial activities by which we mean products or services that are competing on a market with other commercial products.
Deputy Higgins eloquently drew attention to the defects in the proposed definition. This demonstrated the danger of becoming straitjacketed into a legal definition rather than relying on the more flexible approach of dealing with the issues raised for example in the code of practice. Rather than tying ourselves into a straitjacket, we require flexibility. It is important to remember that we are not dealing with something new here, as if time limits on advertising never existed before. There are time limits on advertising in existence and there are voluntary codes of practice. What is being talked about, and what is intended, is that the codes of practice which are at the moment voluntary will become legal and will be imposed on state and independent television companies.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment tabled by Deputy Mitchell but there are other aspects to advertising that need to be looked at. For example, we need the introduction of an environmentally sound code of practice. We insist that the hazardous effect on the environment or health of all products should be clearly labelled and feature as part of all advertising campaigns for them, much in the manner of public health warnings on cigarette packets. The Green Party are critical of the whole question of advertising. We should look at options to remove advertising entirely from national broadcasts on radio and television.
I should like to support the amendment. Looking back at the 1960 Act it is surprising that "advertisements" and "advertising" were not defined then. When one looks at the amendment which is designed to eliminate ambiguity one can see the ambiguity and doubts that exist in regard to what is or is not "advertisement". One can argue as to whether some of these things are in or out but when there is an element of doubt and ambiguity about several of them which is self-evident, the case for having a definition is strong. I support the proposal as to what should be included.
I have some doubts about sub-paragraph (v) and one could argue about the merits of its inclusion or not.
However, I accept the view of Deputy Mitchell on this subject and the case for having his amendment included is a strong one. If we are going to get involved in the kind of decisions that the Bill involves in regard to the financing of RTE it is important that everybody should be clear as to what is involved. Deputy Mitchell's revised amendment states that the announcements regarding other programmes as part of the ordinary service of the Authority should not be described as an advertisement and I was hoping to hear the Minister's views on that point but, perhaps, I missed them.
With regard to promotional material for charitable and philanthropic or voluntary bodies I should like to say that I do not think the addition of an extra 30 seconds can make that possible or deals with the problem because the pressures on the Authority to sell any time they have at the best rate, given the extraordinary reduction in the amount of time available, would be such that it would be hard for them to spare this extra half minute for that purpose. Unless the Minister defines "advertising" as not including that type of promotional material I am afraid that the charitable, philanthropic or voluntary bodies will suffer. For those reasons I support the amendment. An amendment is necessary and Deputy Mitchell's amendment is reasonable and meets the requirement of having clarity and certainty in regard to what it is we are continuing to do. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the intent of the Bill — I disagree fundamentally with it — the amendment is needed so that we can be clear as to what we are doing and that RTE and the public can be clear as to what is being done.
I thank Deputies for their views on the amendment. Deputy Michael Higgins in adverting to the amendment referred to the original draft and not the revised amendment. For his benefit I should like to tell him that subparagraph (i) now refers to announcements regarding other programmes or services provided or to be provided by the Authority. That covers not only commercial activities but cultural activities. I am grateful for the elaborate support so eloquently given by Deputy McCartan and other Members on this side of the House.
In the course of his comments on the amendment the Minister said that what we needed was flexibility. The House should reflect on that major change of heart on the part of the Minister. This side of the House for several weeks have been telling him that flexibility is needed but what the Minister is giving us is rigidity. I urge the Minister to give meaning to his own words. We need flexibility and my definition seeks to mitigate, clarify or control some of the powers the Minister proposes to take in subsequent sections, notably in sections 2 and 3. What is extremely worrying is that the Minister seems to be unclear as to what will constitute "advertisement" and income from advertisements. He now says that announcements about upcoming programmes will not be included in the prohibition but he did not say whether cross-station promotions, such as announcements on RTE1 about programmes on Network 2 or on 2FM about Radio One will constitute such announcements. If the Minister is saying that they are not included, that represents a change of heart from his original contribution on the Bill.
Are cross-promotional announcements to be included in the time limits being imposed by the Minister? Up to now the Minister said they were but tonight he told us that announcements about upcoming programmes will not constitute advertisements. The Minister has created further doubt and confusion. The Minister said that in response to points made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and others, he increased the limit from four-and-a-half minutes to five minutes per hour but he did not increase anything. The Minister is bringing in a smaller reduction. The present maximum is seven-and-a-half minutes per hour, or an average of six minutes, but the Minister is bringing in a maximum of five minutes per hour which represents a reduction to two-thirds of the present level. We have been pointing out to the Minister for weeks that that will mean that the price of advertising will be pushed up and that will push out the charitable organisations. I appeal to the Minister to exempt advertising by charitable or voluntary bodies from the overall limits.
The Minister has tried throughout the debate to have jam on both sides of his bread. He has sought to give the impression that he is concerned about charities. Indeed, earlier in the debate he urged RTE to carry advertisements for charities free of charge. If I were to say this was an off the top of the head suggestion it might be said I was being derogatory, but it is self-evident if RTE were to carry advertisements for charities free of charge they would carry nothing else because of the demand for such advertisements. It would be far better — this would give real meaning to his concern — if the Minister were to exempt advertisements for charitable, philanthropic or voluntary organisations. Having regard to the fact that RTE do not charge a reduced rate, they will charge the going rate unless additional time is made available for the carrying of advertisements for charities.
I regret the Minister is unable to accept this constructive proposal which could not be described as over-elaborate. It would ease many of the practical problems which are bound to arise. It is quite clear that no advertisements for charities will be carried on RTE after 1 October next when the Bill comes into operation as they will be priced out of the market. I appeal therefore to the Minister to accept the definition at this late stage.
There was one significant omission from the Minister's comments. He referred to sponsored programmes and events, but in a very narrow sense. For instance, he did not say if it would be possible for bodies such as Bord Gáis to sponsor RTE's coverage of the World Cup in 1994 or the Olympic Games in 1992. It is my understanding, having read the Bill as it stands, that this will not be possible and we can only assume the Minister deliberately avoided addressing the question in his comments. He did say that time limits are nothing new. He is correct in saying this, as the Minister already has power to control the time limits per hour, day and month. Indeed, one wondered from the outset why he was introducing the Bill given that he already had that power. Using this power he can also control the amount of cash that flows into RTE. However, he has sought to give himself a new power with which to control the income earned by RTE. Section 2 (4) states:
If in respect of any financial year or in respect of the period from the commencement of this Act until the 31st day of December, 1990, the statement to be provide to the Minister under section 5 (2) shows that the actual receipts derived by the Authority from advertising, sponsorship or other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasts in that year or period exceeded the limit as calculated in accordance with subsection (2) or (3) of this section, as the case may be, the total receipts which may be derived from such sources in the subsequent financial year in accordance with the said subsection (2) shall be reduced by the amount of the excess.
It is quite clear that it will not be possible to sponsor the coverage of events such as the World Cup in future years.
I refer the Minister to an excellent article by Cliona Foley on page 20 of this evening's Evening Herald under the heading “RTE's Cup Hat Trick”. In this article she makes reference to Bill O'Herlihy, Johnny Giles and Eamon Dunphy, RTE's panelists for the World Cup who were excellent. Indeed, RTE's coverage of the event was superb and outdid the coverage of the event by the BBC, ITV and the satellite channels. They attracted the overwhelming percentage of the Irish audience and a fair share of the Northern audience also. The article in the Evening Herald says, “a shoestring of success but can we stay in the big league?” It is quite clear, and I challenge the Minister to deny this, that RTE will not be able to avail of such sponsorship unless they reduce the amount of money they earn by way of their other advertising. This would make no sense for RTE as it would not defray the cost of covering these events.
Fortunately, Deputy McCartan has put down a similar amendment and it will afford the Minister a second opportunity to clarify whether income raised by way of such sponsorship will be exempt, whether he is prepared to grant such an exemption so that such events may be sponsored in the future. At least three major events take place in each four-year period: the World Cup, the European Football Championship and, of course, the Olympic Games. Added to these are events such as the Tour de France. When an Irishman proves successful in that event the Government are prepared to jump on the bandwagon. Therefore we are not talking only about coverage of the World Cup but also about the Olympic Games, the European Football Championship and events such as the Tour de France and the Nissan Classic in this country. I regret the Minister has not indicated that he is willing to accept this definition and, in conclusion, I urge him to accept it because if he does it will greatly clarify this matter and many others raised by other Deputies and myself.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"‘advertising' shall mean advertisements other than advertisements carried for or on behalf of a charity, or material broadcast by the Authority within its own broadcasting service for the purpose of informing the public of forthcoming programmes or other activities of a cultural or educational nature, in which the Authority may be involved;".
This amendment addresses the need for the introduction of a definition of the word "advertising". The need exists for all of the reasons I advanced in talking on amendment No. 3 and in advancing the cause of amendment on Committee Stage when I then proposed a particular definition of the word "advertising". The issue was lost by The Workers' Party on Committee Stage. Consequently, I have sought to introduce a definition that builds on the arguments advanced by myself and other Members on Committee Stage, repeated to some extent on Report Stage. As indicated, it follows, in composite form the general lines of the preceding amendment and seeks to introduce an element of clarity into the debate and indeed into the whole intent of what the Minister proposes in this area.
The difficulty experienced by all of us on the Opposition benches — and as I have said before those inside and outside the House, those inside and outside RTE — is to ascertain precisely where the Minister is going and what are his ultimate intentions. The only guidance we have received in this area to date has been contained in the course of the Minister's introductury remarks on Second Stage when he talked about unfair practices, sometimes amounting to abuses, which he felt in the commercial workings of RTE had to be dealt with, first, and then generally about the whole right of RTE to advertise being restricted, capped, and their revenue pegged on a downward spiral from this year henceforth once the Bill has been passed.
Our difficulty is that there has been little guidance in the Minister's approach, in the Bill itself or in any amendments the Minister proposes, to specify exactly what advertising will consist of in his mind. The Minister says there is need for flexibility, that all of this could be left to consultation between himself and the RTE Authority on the passage of the Bill, when he will thrash out all of the issues on which we have sought clarification and in respect of which he has been so scant on explanation.
To deal with that proposition and, in so doing, advance what I believe to be the absolute necessity for a clear statement of definition on the concept of "advertising" in this Bill — and contrary to anything the Minister says — in section 3 (1) as the Bill now stands — formerly section 5 — he will seek to confer on himself the power to draft codes of conduct governing standards, practice and prohibitions in advertising, sponsorship or other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasting services and so on. He gives himself absolute power to draw up these codes. Then in section 3 (5) he suggests that his only obligation will be to consult the RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
Consultation is a meaningless exercise in the hands of a Minister who simply has his mind made up and is determined to see his way through in this legislation. While the current Minister may be prepared to listen to all representations and be the most reasonable man on earth in regard to the future of public broadcasting — although I do not suggest that is the case; nonetheless he may well be, or may like to think he is — we here are legislating for the future. Who knows how matters will progress in the future? We are being asked by this Minister to accept a formula that he, or any successor of his, will have absolute power to draft a code of standards in the area of advertising. The only brake on that power is the proposition that he consult with the two bodies involved.
There is no obligation — as there was in the Bill as originally drafted — that these proposals would be put before the Houses of the Oireachtas. That provision is gone. We are left in circumstances in which, henceforth, it will be a matter for the Minister, he can consult, but we know that consultation does not mean negotiation. Even if it was said that he would negotiate terms with the RTE Authority, that they would have a right to be heard and insist on a right of consideration, one would hope always that, in reasonable minds, consultation would mean that, in circumstances in which a Minister is dealing with those responsible for broadcasting he would have full regard to their opinion, but there is no guarantee of that. At the end of the day a man or a woman in the Minister's position can say that that is his or her view of it and that they are doing it in a certain way.
The Minister has said to us, since this debate opened, that he is doing it his way, and we get curt replies to the effect that nothing we have to say in the matter will have any bearing on the Minister's actions. This suggestion that flexibility is a desirable way of approaching the issue of defining advertising is not acceptable to me, particularly in the context of the Minister's attitude and, most importantly, in the context of the codes of negotiations or consultations provided for under this section that the Minister says he will embark upon once this legislation is passed. It gives me no comfort. For that reason I am doubly convinced that this House should introduce some form of clarity to, in some way, reflect the views of the House as to what should or should not be included in advertising.
In what way — and here is the kernel of it — are we introducing inflexibility into this Bill by simply suggesting points of definition which, if I understand the Minister's arguments, he is fully in agreement with? As I understand the Minister, in broad terms he is for looking after charities; he is all for allowing sponsored programmes to operate with proper interludes; he is all for ensuring that the public broadcasting authority will continue to give us the excellent sports coverage they have given us up to now. He tells us that gifts and prizes will not be a big problem provided certain standards are there. He says that in any event RTE are currently applying those safeguards and standards. What is the difficulty? Where is the element of inflexibility the Minister is accusing us of introducing when we promote definitions of this sort? It is simply not there. This plea for flexibility is nothing more than a clever device on the part of the Minister to give him a free hand to do the bidding of whoever it is that has prompted him to introduce these new departures and practices heretofore not known in the area of broadcasting.
There is a need for flexibility. The Minister should remember that the definition is there. Advertisements shall mean advertising generally. I would then go on to simply ask the Minister to exclude a number of areas of gesture and work and activity of the Broadcasting Authority that is not really a revenue earning operation but is an integral part of the public spirited social function of the Authority on the one hand and, on the other, their own self-promoting commerciality. What we are asking for is a small gesture of encouragement for the work of RTE. For that reason my amendment suggests that we should take out of the general concept of advertising activities by RTE promoting a charity, or material broadcast by the Authority within their own particular broadcasting service for the purpose of informing the public of forthcoming programmes or other activities of a cultural or educational nature in which the Authority may be involved. If the Minister says all of those are in the clear in any event, what is the difficulty? Why not simply put our minds at rest and let us move on in this debate to issues that we have not yet reached because of the machinations in the debates heretofore?
This is not just an academic issue. Let me take the first area of my amendment, the one that the Minister took up and tended to concentrate on here, that is, the position of charities. I want to read correspondence from the Irish Cancer Society. The suggestion is that the Minister's extension by half a minute is his concession to charities. I will ask the Minister a positive question in the hope that he will answer it in time. Am I to understand that what the Minister intends is that when increasing the amount of advertising time for RTE from 4.5 to five minutes per hour he will tell the RTE Authority that that extra half minute is to be exclusively given over for the purpose of facilitating charities and their use of the airwaves? This needs to be clarified. To what extent will the Minister guarantee what he said to Deputy Mitchell's amendment that he introduced the 30 seconds to meet the representations of those in the charity area? The Minister referred to amendment No. 17 which we will come to later. Is this the way the Minister is going to handle the problem?
The Irish Cancer Society have made the case very succinctly in a letter which I referred to on Committee Stage. I simply want to quote what it says:
Presently RTE allow charities a greatly reduced advertising rate. Should their allowed advertising time be cut down, they would cut out this special rate. Presently we spend £26,000 per annum on radio spots promoting our programme of rehabilitation, education, information and funding. Should the charity rate be abolished the cost of the above advertising would rocket to £132,000. Obviously we could not afford this, and without it our programmes would be very much less effective and our income reduced which in turn, would mean curtailment of services.
Quite clearly any move to change the status quo in regard to RTE 1 and 2 FM would be disastrous and will hit the already hard hit terminally ill, the cancer researchers and the future prevention of cancer through education.
That is their letter. Those are their words, and that is the case they make. Altering the advertising time of RTE and radio will inevitably lead to the ending of the special charity rate which would push up costs for the charities and mean that their work and activities will, by definition, be curtailed. Increasing the time by 30 seconds will still leave a situation where RTE is down 2.5 minutes per hour from current standards on their advertising capacity. Thirty seconds will not put right what the Irish Cancer Society are concerned about and what we in this House are concerned about. It is simply not enough.
That point was also made to the Minister in a letter from the Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped in correspondence dated 12 June 1990. The following is what they asked the Minister on behalf of the 45 members of their organisation acting on behalf of the physically handicapped. I want to read it into the record so that there is no confusion in this area:
I would ask you to consider amending the Bill to allow advertising for registered charities to be discounted from normal advertising time, in other words, that RTE be allowed to continue to broadcast promotions or advertising of registered charities in addition to the reduced air time allowed for commercial advertisements.
That is what they are asking for. They are not asking for 30 seconds extra to be added on to RTE's advertising time. They are asking, as my definition proposes, that the promotion of work and charities as promulgated by RTE not be considered as advertising. Any suggestion by the Minister that he is attending to the position of charities is not accurate and is somewhat disingenuous. The Minister says that the 30 seconds means, in quantified money terms, an amelioration of £2 million in the position of the revenue earning capacity of RTE. That is simply not good enough from RTE's point of view. They are still short massive amounts of revenue. By definition of the commerciality that is required of them, they will be obliged to use to the maximum every second of the shortened period, unless the Minister introduces an edict in this consultative process he talks about that the 30 seconds extra he has introduced on Report Stage will be used for charities and nothing else. The Minister must make that clear.
He also suggested in response to Deputy Mitchell's amendment that the 30 seconds extra was in response to ICTU, whose submission to him I also have. They were not making the case for charities but were trying to help RTE meet the unbelievable restrictions on their revenue. In short, on this issue of charities the Minister is playing hot and cold. He is telling ICTU he will give RTE an extra £2 million in respect of the 30 seconds while on the other hand he is suggesting that the interests of charities will be looked after in the same 30 seconds. Which is it? What does the Minister intend in this area? Because of his muddling, pushing the issue around and manipulating cleverly, as he has done from the outset of this debate, this House should introduce a clear definition, excluding the area of charitable work from the definition of advertising. The Minister's arguments here tonight make that case most forcibly.
I will refer briefly to some of the other issues mentioned by the Minister. He said the cultural and educational events, which I wish to have excluded from the definition, will be dealt with by the code of practice. I have no confidence in the Minister's concept of broadcasting and therefore I have no confidence in giving him the free hand he proposes for himself in this legislation in terms of the code of practice. For that reason, I am arguing that we should be entitled to include in the legislation a definition that reflects the views of the House, on the one hand and on the other, of the many hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned about the Minister's proposals and the implications of the loss of revenue to RTE in this important area of cultural and educational activities. I would ask the Minister to address this issue.
When the Minister says we need not be concerned about cultural and educational events, is he talking about the promotion by RTE, on radio or television, of the activities of the orchestra or of the educational activities of the broadcaster? Is he talking about the existence of events, particularly those related to 2FM, all of which, from my understanding of the submissions on that area, cannot survive without sponsorship? You cannot have "Lark in the Park", "Beat on the Street", "Roadcaster" and such events, including the orchestra, without direct commercial sponsorship. How is the Minister going to deal with these events in terms of the code of practice and in his overall concept of advertising? This is an issue I have raised — and I am raising it again for the final time — in the hope that the Minister will clarify what he is referring to when he talks about practices that are unfair because they cross promote, or because they are abuses. I would invite the Minister to clear the air once and for all and say what he is talking about in the context of abuses. Where are they and what are they? What does the Minister intend to get rid of — as he said in his Second Stage speech — once he gets his hands on the Authority under the powers to be given him in this area?
The Minister suggested that all these issues are adequately covered at present because RTE are implementing their own safeguards, or that they will be dealt with in consultation. If I understand him correctly, he said there is an element of consensus on what should be the position with regard to the various areas we have agreed on. The one thing on which we seem to disagree is that we believe there should be a definition of advertising but the Minister says that is not necessary. For all the reasons I have advanced, I would urge the Minister to acknowledge that he is not conceding substantially if he includes in the Bill a definition of advertising that seems to be in accord with everything he hopes to achieve once the legislation is passed. As I have said, what I suggest would not mean a major concession and would show that at least we are making some progress and taking a constructive attitude to this Bill.
I regret very much that the Minister chose not to respond to my highlighting the fact that at an earlier stage he indicated that he was prepared to give more time on behalf of various charitable organisations throughout the country. At a later date this was contradicted by the Taoiseach, as I pointed out earlier. I would like the Minister to take into consideration some of the points made by Deputy McCartan, which I will not repeat. Some of the people who are likely to be affected by virtue of the fact that there is no clear definition of advertising in this legislation are the various charities.
The voluntary organisations for the handicapped represent a large body of people who are disadvantaged. I will briefly list the charities concerned: the Rehabilitation Institute — I do not think anybody could doubt for a moment that they are doing a magnificent job; the Central Remedial Clinic; the Irish Wheelchair Association; Cheshire Homes; Disabled Drivers; the Asthma Society; the Arthritis Foundation; Barnardos; Irish Epilepsy; C.O.P.E. Foundation; Cystic Fibrosis; Multiple Sclerosis Ireland; Muscular Dystrophy Society of Ireland; Cerebral Palsy Ireland; County Wexford Community Workshop; Downs Syndrome Association; Fingal Association for Handicapped Children, in which the Minister was directly involved and to which he made a major contribution — I believe he opened that institution; the Galway County Association for Handicapped Children; Freidrichs Attaxia Society of Ireland; Clashganhagh Mills Trust; Riding for the Disabled; the Order of Malta — last Sunday week many accidents resulted from the massive crowds who gathered on the streets of Dublin to welcome home the international soccer team, and several hundred calls were responded to by the Order of Malta; the National Council for the Blind; National Association for the Deaf; Irish Deaf Society; Irish Association for Spina Bifida; Alzheimers Society of Ireland; Irish Guide Dogs Association; Irish Kidney Association; KARE; the Order of Malta Workshop Training Centre; the Polio Fellowship; St. Michael's House; Sunbeam House Service; the Volunteer Stroke Scheme; the West Limerick Community Workshop and various associated groups including the Irish Speech Therapists and Occupational Therapists. A number of other organisations could also be added to that list such as the National League for the Blind; Headway, who deal specifically with head injuries; ARCH and the Caring and Sharing Association.
A number of people depend for their very existence on charity. There are people who are totally dependent on their fellow human beings to be generous towards them because the State does not provide adequate cover for them, people who are disadvantaged and who are ill-equipped to make a case for themselves. Yet this legislation is inadequate and the Minister cannot face up to reality, define advertising and deal with the matter appropriately. I anticipate that the Minister will say he has already responded to this matter when dealing with an earlier amendment from Deputy Mitchell, that it does not apply to television except in special cases and that it specifically applies to radio.
Deputies have received correspondence from various organisations which states that the organisations concerned have no doubt that the legislation will affect their ability to get support from the community. I do not understand how the Minister can sit there mutely believing that all will be well on the day. The weakest section of the community have appealed to the Minister, but he has refused to respond to their requests. It is an indictment of the Minister and the Government, that the Minister can sit there and refuse to do anything about their appeals on the basis that his position is under threat from the Opposition. For that reason I will be supporting Deputy McCartan's amendment.
I call Deputy Mitchell.
I would like to hear the Minister's reply.
With regard to the arguments put forward on the general question of the need for a definition of the word "advertising" I responded to this argument in reply to the last amendment put forward by Deputy Mitchell. I thought I had made the point very strongly — as strongly as I possibly could — for the need for flexibility rather than an amendment which would limit us to a straitjacket definition of "advertising".
That is a joke, the whole Bill is a straitjacket.
I am convinced that it is preferable not to amend it because of the dangers of straitjacketing ourselves in an area where some flexibility in the code of practice is required.
On the question of advertising for charities, I want to tell Deputies that I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward on Committee Stage and indeed I have received the same correspondence which was read into the record. I was convinced by it and with that in mind, together with the arguments put forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and others, I increased the limit from four minutes 30 seconds per hour to five minutes per hour to include the work of the charities. Having listened to Deputy McCartan's contribution, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the role of the concession rate available from RTE. Let me reiterate that there is no concession rate available on the television services, that is RTE 1 or Network 2, and the advertisers have to pay the full rate except in cases of special appeals associated with major emergencies or disasters and at that time the advertising is allowed free of charge. RTE give a concession rate to charities for a total of seven minutes only across the entire radio service.
Is that per day?
Yes, seven minutes is the maximum per day which is discounted for charities advertising on all radio stations, that is Radio 1, 2FM, Cork local radio. There is no discount for charities on television. I propose to increase the amount of advertising allowed per hour from four minutes 30 seconds to five minutes per hour. I believe that RTE, while meeting their public service obligations and not just their straight commercial obligations, should be able to allow charities seven minutes advertising out of the extra time that I have given, because it should be borne in mind that it is not just 30 seconds per hour on one service but it is 30 seconds extra per hour on Radio 1, 30 seconds per hour on 2FM and 30 seconds extra per hour on Cork local radio and 30 seconds extra per hour on both television stations.
Deputy McCartan asked what abuses in advertising I was referring to. However, I felt I had answered this on a number of occasions and I had referred to it again in response to Deputy Mitchell. In situations where, for example, a car is being given away on a television show there is a difference between giving the car as a gift and mentioning that it is a brand X car. I am sure Deputies are aware that a car can be placed in a certain position in the centre of a studio with full flashing lights and the presenter extols all the qualities of the car in a way which is just like reading out public relations bumf from the manufacturer and giving the car a branded advertising promotion. I believe that is an abuse of the situation as distinct from giving a car as a gift or a prize on a show, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Deputy Mitchell asked about the implications of the new capping proposals for RTE coverage of the World Cup and major events. The capping proposals will merely return RTE to their 1988 level of income. In that year RTE were able to increase broadcasting hours significantly, stage the European Song Contest, provide extensive coverage of the European Soccer competition, the Seoul Olympic Games, the Tour de France and other major sporting events while still turning in surplus of £5.3 million. RTE will not be prohibited from securing sponsorship appropriate to maintaining the excellent coverage of major sporting events, to which we have all become accustomed in recent years, and while revenue arising from such sponsorship will need to be taken into account for the purpose of the advertising revenue cap, RTE as a public service broadcasting service will give due priority to the viewing preference of the public, as they have done in the past.
Deputy McCartan made a statement that he had no confidence in my concept of broadcasting but Deputy McCartan argues from a strong ideological point of view — to be fair to him he makes no apologies for this — and he is strictly supportive of a State-owned radio and television service. I am afraid time has passed by Deputy McCartan's point of view on State-run services. Right across Europe the monopolies of the State-run services have been broken and choice has been made available to the peoples of Europe. This happened illegally in this country for nigh on ten years when the public decided they wanted a choice and listened to illegal pirate radio stations. This was legalised under legislation which we brought through this House in 1988 with the establishment of the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
For the first time a scientific assessment of the listnership of all the radio stations in the country, including RTE, the national independent radio stations and the local radio stations has been carried out. This information was available to us about a week or ten days ago. This survey was carried out by RTE in conjunction with the Independent Radio and Television Commission and the advertising profession during the months of April and May, when a number of local stations were not on air and a number are not yet fully on air. However, the report showed that in any one day — I am not saying all day — over one million people are listening to independent radio at any one time. This proves that Irish people want choice. That is what this legislation is about — it is about providing the opportunity for choice.
I want to refer to the amendment before the Leas-Cheann Comhairle rules me out of order. We argued this point in detail when discussing Deputy Mitchell's amendment. I have tried to answer the specific points brought forward by the Deputies who have contributed. I can assure the Deputies that I have taken into consideration the arguments which were put forward by them, by the charities concerned and by ICTU. I am confident — I will be prepared to make this point in the discussions with the RTE Authority in relation to their code of practice — that the position of charities who advertise on RTE will be fully catered for. At present RTE only give seven minutes to such charities. I believe that as public service broadcasters they should give a lot more time free of charge to the registered charities. I am confident that the extension of time which has been given, as a result of the debate in this House and the representations made by outside organisations, will meet the legitimate concerns, which I share, of the charitable organisations.
An Teachta Jim Mitchell——
May I——
We have not had a Fine Gael contributor yet.
I understood Deputy Mitchell was replying to the amendment.
No. Deputy McCartan will be replying.
It is very clear that the Minister does not know what he is at and is waffling here. I want to refer to a number of points he made.
I deliberately waited to speak after him to see whether he would clarify any of the mis-statements or extraordinary comments he made on my amendment. The Minister spoke about advertising on TV for emergency relief which is now free of charge. However, as he proposes it, even free of charge advertising will be included within the five minute cap. The Minister made this clear in his contributions on earlier stages of the Bill.
Secondly, in his earlier contribution tonight he said that programme announcements will not be precluded. I have all the records with me and I will quote them chapter and verse if he likes. In debates on this subject over the past couple of months the Minister said that RTE will not be permitted, except within their advertising time limit cap, to cross-promote their different stations, channels and services.
Thirdly, the Minister said tonight that it was because of his concern for charities that he increased the four-and-a-half minutes to five minutes or, to be more accurate, confined the reduction to two-and-a-half minutes rather than three minutes. The Minister is contradicted out of his own mouth. He said that charities pay the going rate on television. Would he not admit that the necessary corollary of what he is doing by reducing advertising time will be to push up the price of advertising especially at peak times? Does he not see that logic dictates that by pushing up the price he will make it extremely difficult and much more costly for charities to advertise?
Moreover, he has clarified beyond doubt in his latest contribution that if RTE seek sponsorship to cover events like the World Cup and the Olympic Games in future they will have to do so by reducing by a similar amount their advertising income. This will mean there will be no financial benefit to RTE in having sponsorship and it will unquestionably affect the quality of coverage in the future. If the Minister cannot see this he must be blind.
The Minister made another extraordinary claim in his earlier contribution on my amendment. He said that the extra half minute would bring in £2 million extra to RTE but he did not say how. It could only bring in extra money to RTE if the revenue cap was increased by that amount, which it has not been. I can get the blacks of his earlier reply to verify that point. How could this extra half minute bring in any extra amount if the cap on revenue is not increased by a similar amount? It is self-evident that if RTE's maximum advertising per hour is reduced to five minutes from seven and a half minutes and their total revenue is reduced by as much as £10 million or maybe even £12 million in a full year that they are going to sell our all their advertising time and will get their full limit from that advertising time. If they stay with the four and a half minutes advertising time they will get the £46 million or whatever amount they will be permitted and if they go to five minutes they will still get the same amount because the revenue cap will not be increased. It is very clear that the Minister is trying to make it appear that he is doing something for charities when all he is doing is pricing them out of television. He is pushing them out and is also bringing to an end, effectively, sponsorship of the type we had for the World Cup and of which he was fulsome in his praise a week or two ago, and rightly so.
I do not think any part of this debate since it was commenced with the Fine Gael motion on 29 May has so incapsulated the contradictions and confusion of the Minister's position as this debate has and nothing said by Members on this side of the House has condemned his policy as eloquently as he has condemned it out of his own mouth. Even at this stage I ask the Minister, before he makes a complete mess of broadcasting which will require new legislation to be brought before this House in months — in any event within months from 1 October — to see sense and provide for some flexibility in relation to advertising time limits and income for RTE. If he does not do this there will be no free emergency advertising, no charity advertising, no sponsorship and no cross-promotion of services. It is amply clear from the Minister's reply to both Deputy McCartan's and my amendments that all these things will happen. I will be strongly supporting Deputy McCartan's amendment. Notwithstanding all he has said I urge the Minster at this late stage to accept the definition proposed by Deputy McCartan.
I seek clarification from the Minister before the proposer of the amendment, Deputy McCartan, replies. It is a matter which has, unfortunately, become more muddied than clear as the debate has worn on. It is in relation to the question of the times. If one is talking about, for example, charity advertising, the merit of Deputy McCartan's amendment is, very simply, that it takes the time given to charities outside the advertising quota; it is very clear and unambiguous.
I wish to refer to those who used the phrase "charity advertising" within the boundaries of the advertising allocation and this is where the confusion begins. I want to put it as briefly and as clearly as I can. The Minister said he had gone from four and a half minutes to five minutes in response to the charities and ICTU lobbying. That is possibly the basis of the confusion because the charities lobby and ICTU made two entirely different cases to the Minister. The ICTU case, as I understand it, was to allow RTE to have greater scope in relation to advertising revenue which would, in turn, allow them greater freedom in relation to a number of different activities, charitable and otherwise.
It was felt that the other kind of concession for advertising in RTE, such as a discount for advertising entirely or partly in Irish, is equally affected by shrinking the advertising period. It simply means you have no space for that concession unless you are out of your mind as a business organisation, because when you are given a limited amount of time to earn advertising, you have to go for the prime earners, if you want to say that RTE is run as a business. If you also want to say that RTE have commitments to the people it means that, in public service broadcasting, they should allow space for charitable organisations to send their message and for the Irish language because they are doing something to promote it in making advertisements and because of the number of people involved. The way to do that is to take it outside the advertising category. The Minister is choosing not to do this although that is what the amendment suggests.
The Minister said that, in response to the charities lobby, he granted this extra half minute. What does he mean by this? Does that mean the half minute was lobbied for by Congress who wanted a general expansion of the advertising capacity of RTE to shrink the damage as much as they could while, at the same time, the half minute is due to the lobbying of charities? This creates a whole host of problems. It means that one could envisage the list of people about whom Deputy O'Sullivan was speaking all queuing up for their portion of five minutes. The charities' proportion of five minutes is obviously different from the proportion of seven minutes and, if you are talking about the charities' proportion of five minutes and comparing it to their proportion of seven minutes you are talking about disabling RTE in relation to their revenue-earning capacity within that slot of time allocated to them.
There is a list of questions and I am asking the Minister to state unequivocally what is happening. Is the charity advertising, for example, within this allocation? If it is not, how can he say that the half minute makes a case for the charities? Is the Congress case that it is the half minute which makes it possible for him to make that statement? Which is it? We must remember that all this is being done in a way which is peculiarly insensitive to the nature of the structure of advertising on television and radio. The Minister has not yet in the Bill accepted the concept of averages, the notion of, for example, averaging times across a day's broadcasting. Therefore, he could be talking about a five minute slot in a major period of the day. He cannot come back and say that this is something he can work out when he discusses the code of practice because it cannot be done like that; it must be stated at this stage in addressing this amendment what is within the five minutes and what is outside it. If the Minister does not put the activities of charitable organisations outside the limits of advertising, the House is entitled to hear how exactly he will do it. If he does it within a slot of five minutes, does he accept the implications that the proportionate activity will be far greater in the case of five minutes than of seven? If that is the case, what is left of the half minute concession to Congress? Which is it? He cannot have it every way.
It is the two card trick.
These questions must be answered. There is no point in confusing two quite different, separate things in this debate. I hope we will be as constructive as possible and make as much progress as we can on these amendments. However, if the Minister is speaking about plurality of choice in relation to either radio or television, that is one thing; it is a well known concept. It is entirely different from concepts which suggest breaking up State ownership. That is not the relationship which prevails at the same time. In a very curious way, the Minister is regulating the market and he has selected a particular company — RTE — a corporate entity seeking to function in the market-place with other sellers of advertising. He is saying that they are peculiarly disabled because of their origins and because they receive the licence fee. I expect that the constitutional issues provoked by this will probably be decided by the courts, and I need not delay on them now.
The Minister should avoid stretching the debate on these narrow amendments to wider areas of philosophy and this whole question of choice and one million people listening at any one time, according to the recent listenership survey. I could delay — but I will not — on the question of the figure of one million. It is an extrapolation from a sample survey and if the Minister looked at it closely he would see that there are grave reservations about the manner and the way you could go from the sample published, to making a statement that one million Irish people are listening to the new independent stations at any one time. If there are, good luck to them but I am just saying that it is not as factually based as the Minister might think.
The main reason I rose before the proposer of the amendment replies is to seek clarification on the situation. It cannot be left vague so that it appears attractive to people with two quite different projects and straightened out in the codes of practice. That is evading the issue, and we would like straight answers in regard to it.
Deputy Higgins is optimistic in seeking clarification, especially on Report Stage, when the Minister has already spoken. As everything the Minister said failed to give us clarification, perhaps it does not matter very much whether he speaks. I do not want to go over the ground already covered, the evasions and the deliberate ambiguities which mark this whole discussion.
I want to focus on something on another level which disturbs me. The Minister has twice said he is concerned that there should be flexibility in interpretation of advertisements. I have been in the Oireachtas for 25 years in Opposition and Government and I tried to recall any occasion when a Minister defended the drafting of legislation because it was uncertain, ambiguous and left doubt and room for interpretation. The purpose of legislation is to be clear and unambiguous. We often fail and things go to the courts and are decided differently from what was intended, but at least we try to be unambiguous. I never heard a Minister advocate uncertainty in legislation. One wonders why.
In this case will the interpretation of this word ever be decided if it is in dispute in the courts? I do not think so. Whatever the Minister decides regarding the interpretation it imposes, it is rather hard to visualise the Broadcasting Authority taking the matter to the courts and challenging the Minister's interpretation. That is why the Minister is not concerned about the meaning of the word. This Bill is unlike most other Bills before the House because its interpretation rests in the hands of the Executive, not in the courts — in practice, although I do not know about the theory. The Minister will decide — as he has made quite clear by his concern for flexibility — what an advertisement is. He will also, without any control whatever in the form of bringing the matter before this House, decide off his own bat, on codes covering standards, practice, prohibitions on advertising sponsorship. He decides also on the level of licensing fees without coming back to this House. All these matters are decided by the Minister.
I have noticed with some amusement Deputy McCartan using the usual ploy we have in this House of saying it is not just the present Minister, that you could not be sure what other Ministers might do in future. Deputy McCartan was not being serious. Surely he does not envisage any future Minister being more hostile to public broadcasting than this Minister. In this case let us forget the ambiguities and the politeness. It is this Minister who is setting out to control public broadcasting for his own purposes, not in the public interest we are concerned about. It is he who is seeking these powers for himself to exercise in order to control public broadcasting to which he is known to be inimical because it has been impartial where all of us are concerned, to our own fury and annoyance. We are all paranoid about the subject. Because of that the Minister wants to get control of public broadcasting and also because he favours more the commercial broadcasting aspect. However, I think the former motive has now become, in this draft of the Bill, more obvious than in the previous one.
It is a matter of great concern that a Minister should come into this House and defend drafting because it is ambiguous, because it will give him power to decide what things mean. That is not how parliamentary democracy works. It works by doing our best to define things and the courts deciding on them. In this instance the Minister has no intention of allowing it to go to the courts. No broadcasting authority while he is there would have any encouragement to dispute a matter in the courts. We know from the appointments made that we have an Authority who are not appointed with a view to being independent and tough in standing up to Governments, unlike the kind of authority we appointed five years ago. This appointment was on quite different criteria. Therefore, I am very concerned in this instance about this talk of flexibility. At this stage the Minister has what he wants. He has got his majority. He is steamrolling this measure through.
I am afraid a certain party in this House, the Progressive Democrats, have let themselves and the country down on this issue. They failed to tackle this problem at the right level from the beginning in Government. When that was found out they tried to mend their hand and did so clumsily and inadequately. Now having shot their bolt, they are unwilling to exercise their leverage in Government on which we rely to a great extent to ensure that this Government do not abuse their power. In this instance that leverage has been lost because they shot their bolt too soon and are not prepared to stand up now and take their responsibilities as the party who have in the past given very strong views on some of these issues and were seen to be serious about it. Without that the Minister now will have his way. He will force this through. He will tell RTE what "advertisement" means. He made it quite clear that he does not expect that to be contested in the courts. He will decide all the other matters here including the licence fee. I may come back to that point about the licence fee later. It may not be relevant now, but I think we want to look at it. When the original legislation was brought in the Minister's power to determine the licence fee related to a broadcasting service under his control, under the control of the Government, and he wanted to have more revenue. It was not envisaged in 1926 that the Government would want the broadcasting authority to have less revenue. That was not thought of, and that legislation under which the Minister has power to determine the licensing fee is quite wrong now in the present context. Unfortunately, we cannot deal with that here but I hope a future Government will return to it. The power to determine that crucial factor and to have a stranglehold over public broadcasting should not rest in the hands of any Government.
Deputy FitzGerald is absolutely correct when he corrects me in turn and the views he has expressed in terms of the current Minister are views I expressed earlier in the debates. Short of throwing the kitchen sink at the Minister in an effort to engage him in some way in this debate and get him to respond to some of the excellent points that have been made on this side of the House, I felt that suggesting what might be a future more bleak than the present might have prompted him, but it was simply a device and the Deputy is correct about that.
I thank those Deputies who have spoken to the amendment. I will address briefly the points the Minister has repeated as he did on Deputy Mitchell's amendment along similar lines. As Deputy Michael Higgins said, the Minister has played absolutely clever on the issue and is being totally inconsistent. He argues on the one hand that charities and their functions will not be included in the definition of "advertising" as he understands it or as he will be introducing it to the Authority once in place with the powers under section 3 of the Bill, but on the other hand he says that, as he is giving RTE an extra half minute, charities can be included and accommodated. I do not know where the Minister is going. Even though I raised those questions with him before he rose on this section of the debate, he refused point blank to answer them. We can only leave it there hanging and let us see what emerges as time progresses.
On the issue of flexibility, the Minister's main point, he suggests that the definition I am proposing would introduce a strait-jacket element on the workings of himself, the Authority and anyone in the area of broadcasting. I tried to make the point that the definition is anything but a strait-jacket, that it is a simple formula for including everything relating to advertising except a number of stated narrow, precise areas of activity. It includes one area which he himself said on Committee Stage he would address by way of amendment at this point. That was the position of charitable organisations seeking access through the airwaves to promote their activities. Why has he not done that? It is quite clear that, having reflected on the matter, if he had brought in any provision to guarantee in legislation the position of those charitable organisations, he would be abandoning his very first premise which is that the notion of advertising is a common-sense one that requires no refinement, no definition and in particular no exclusion for any area of activity. It could all be left to himself in consultation later. That is why he has not put before us the amendment he undertook to introduce. He did not want to set the precedent because if he did so in regard to one area it would be so easy for us then to argue, as we have sought to do, in regard to any other area. Now it is ambiguous. It is clear that the Minister has another agenda and another area of debate and it is now a matter for the independent commission and the Authority to try to curb his zeal for intrusion into the airwaves and into what are properly the functions of RTE.
Finally let me refer to one remark the Minister made in regard to me, to the effect that I am relying on ideology in this area. He has forgotten or again paid no regard to anything Deputy De Rossa said in the debate on the 1988 Bill when it was going through here. The Workers' Party have no difficulty in welcoming the establishment of the commission or welcoming into the arena an area of broadcasting independent operators. As I have said time and again in this House, we do not wish any of them ill nor would we like to see them being closed down. The Deputy has simply made the point that what the Minister is attempting is not the best way of going about this issue. If one is talking about a public broadcasting service, we are committed and see RTE as a national broadcaster, the best and only one providing that public service area of broadcasting. For that reason we are concerned with what the Minister is doing here. He is not simply dismembering RTE, he is dismembering that Authority, that agency, who can sustain so many socially desirable aspects of a national broadcasting service. He is dismembering that whole concept itself. That is where this Minister and I disagree fundamentally. However, we have pushed this issue thus far. The Minister is not prepared to enter into debate in a meaningful, constructive way to respond even to the questions that have been asked. For that reason I ask that the amendment be put.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, line 23, to delete "as amended".
This is a technical amendment because it is not necessary to use the words in question.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
2.—This Act shall come into operation on the 1st day of October, 1990.
I do not have any objection to my amendment No. 10 being taken in conjunction with amendment No. 6.
I suggest that amendment No. 23 should be discussed with those amendments.
Amendments Nos. 6, 10 and 23 will be taken together for discussion.
My amendment proposes that the Act should come into operation on 1 October while various other commencement mechanisms have been proposed in the other amendments. Basically, the Government have determined that we should pursue a policy objective of creating fairer competitive conditions for the broadcasting sector as quickly as possible. However, in response to representations received, and in particular to allow RTE a reasonable period to adjust to the new circumstances, and also to avoid difficulties relating to possible contractual commitments to advertisers, we have determined that 1 October would be an appropriate starting date.
The Minister cannot be serious when he describes this as a concession to RTE. We are now in the second week of July and the Bill must go through all Stages in the other House. The earliest that it will be passed by both Houses is the end of the month or, perhaps, early next month, and it must then go to the President for signature. That will be done in August. In effect, the Minister is talking about a delay of six weeks. The implementation of the provisions of the Bill three-quarters of the way through a financial year is absolutely crazy. This is exactly how Fianna Fáil used to run State companies up to 1982 and it was one of the main reasons why every State company was loss-making in that year and for several years before. That includes RTE. Fianna Fáil gave insufficient notice of financial changes to State companies. CIE were a classic example. They were told within a few days of the new financial year that their subvention would have to be reduced by £20 million or £30 million. That was done every year and as a result each year they grossly exceeded the limit.
Control over the finances of State companies was lost as no one took the figures seriously. No sensible organisation would attempt to dramatically change the parameters in the middle of the financial year without giving due notice. If the Minister was to indicate that the Bill would come into operation on 1 October 1992, or some earlier date he may fix by order, I might be inclined to say that that was a concession and therefore I would be willing to support him, even though I am vehemently opposed to the capping proposals in principle. This would make sense from the point of view of management as it would allow for a phasing in of the proposals and the date on which they would come into operation to be synchronised with the date on which the alternative television channel is to be set up. For the Minister to suggest it is a concession to postpone the coming into operation of the Bill by about six weeks is to treat the House with contempt. I do not know where this leaves RTE but, as far as the Minister is concerned, they are beneath contempt.
I am opposed to the amendment proposed by the Minister not because it would defer the coming into operation of the Bill by between six and seven weeks but rather because it suggests it should come into operation in this financial year. Have the Government any idea of what went wrong in the State sector in the period up to 1982 and are they willing to learn any lesson from the way in which this was rectified between 1982 and 1987, by which time most of the State companies had returned to profitability or greatly improved their finances? RTE, having incurred losses year after year, returned to profitability and repaid some of their Exchequer loans. However, they are now to be penalised for this.
Aer Lingus also incurred losses in the three-year period up to 1982 but they, too, returned to profitability by 1986 and continue to make profits. Other companies to return to profitability include the ESB, the Irish Sugar Company and the Great Southern Hotels Group, to mention but a few. This was done by running the companies as businesses, which not only required a change of attitude on the part of the Government but also on the part of the trade unions, who were not found wanting. Indeed, they played a very significant role in improving the performance and prospects of the State sector.
I cannot understand why the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been so inactive in this matter. They have made statements but these have not been as strong or as virulent as some of the statements they made on other issues in the past. We need be in no doubt that if the Irish Congress of Trade Unions strongly defended the State sector in this instance, this Bill would not be enacted or, indeed, brought into operation on 1 October this year. I have already indicated that it is my prediction that the broadcasting sector will be in a mess following 1 October but it is possible that the Government will find themselves in a bigger mess before then when they come to negotiate the next centralised pay deal. It seems the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will be able to make a very powerful argument when they come to discuss the Government's attitude to this Bill, the unemployment figure and the other privatisation proposals.
This amendment, apart from symbolising the attack on RTE, also symbolises a reversion to the old attitude towards State companies and the failure to understand that they should be run as businesses and given sufficient notice of changes in financial policy. On 27 February the Minister indicated in the House that he had no plans to level the playing field. However, On 29 March, he indicated that he was going to do so and on 29 May he outlined certain proposals in response to a Fine Gael motion. Four days later he introduced a different set of proposals, which were revised one week later. These are to be implemented even though seven-twelfths of the calendar year have passed by. By the time this Bill is enacted two-thirds of the year will have passed by and suddenly they will have to change tactics and meet new targets.
I ask the Minister to indicate what implications this Bill will have for RTE; how much they are likely to have received by way of advertising and the licence fee in the period up to 30 September; what precisely is going to happen in the months October, November and December, in other words, how much income are RTE going to lose? Furthermore, how much advertising revenue are they capable of bringing in, at present projections, during the last three months of the year? I also ask the Minister to outline how he expects RTE to survive without that income at such short notice. As anyone who has run a Department or a business knows, decisions are often made long before the commencement of a financial year when commitments are given, people hired and contracts signed. These commitments cannot be abrogated or changed at short notice. It is deplorable that the Minister is moving this amendment and it is clear he is not prepared to give RTE sufficient time to adjust to the vice-grip regime he is proposing to introduce.
If the Minister was sensible he would forget about any clawback from RTE this year. If he was intelligent he would forget about it next year as well and, perhaps, the following year. This is no way to treat any business or State company. More significant than the attack on RTE is the impossible target it implies for RTE. If the same attitude is to be applied to the finances of other State companies, they will throw up their hands in horror, there will be no clear targets and no confidence in the Government's approach. If the Minister adopts the same attitude in relation to the other State companies for which he has responsibility, for example, Telecom Éireann and An Post, I do not think the present healthy financial position of Telecom can be assumed. For those of us who played a part in achieving the turnabout in the State sector, this proposal makes us recoil in horror that we are on our way back to the pre-1982 situation.
I wish to address the Minister's amendment and to say that I oppose it at least until I hear some explanation and if he is disposed to expand in some way on how he considers the short period between now and 1 October as a reasonable period in which to allow RTE adapt and meet whatever potential contractual obligations exist. I would like to hear what consultations he has had, what views have been expressed to him and to what extent the RTE managers association have been consulted so that those who run RTE as a business, on a day-to-day basis can indicate that 1 October 1990 is the date on which they will be ready to deal with this draconian legislation.
I propose an alternative to 1 October because I suspect there is no basis whatsoever for suggesting that 1 October is a reasonable period. Amendment No. 10 proposes that this legislation should not come into being until such time as the television programme service as envisaged under the provisions of the 1988 Act is in place; in other words until TV 3 is up and running. If it is in operation before 1 October 1990 then I am in a slightly awkward position, but I am prepared to gamble on that issue and say that I do not expect TV 3 to be up and running by 1 October 1990 or, indeed, shortly thereafter. What I am arguing for is in keeping with the crude principle of the Minister as advocated in this debate, in regard to the playing pitch, that if you want to even the playing pitch you need two teams for the game. TV 3 is not in existence at this stage, and I do not see any necessity whatsoever for the legislation to be put in place until such time as we do have two teams out on the pitch needing an even surface to play on. For that reason I am advocating a very simple proposition that the Minister defer the implementation of the provisions on capping of advertising etc. in the Bill until such time as TV 3 is up and running and there is the cogent need for the level playing pitch about which the Minister talks.
I also adopt the formula in amendment No. 10 because there is a need, as the Minister grudgingly acknowledges, for RTE to be given an opportunity to redress the draconian provisions in the legislation. This proposition was made in the submission correspondence of the Radio Teilifís Éireann Managers Association by letter dated 9 July 1990 where they said, in one of the three basic propositions which they put to the Minister after Committee Stage and in recognition that little was to be conceded. They sought as a third proposition "a general phasing in of the crucial financial provisions to allow RTE time to adjust to the new realities in a more structured way."
On Committee Stage many of us illustrated the wide-ranging implications of the financial curtailment for RTE in the current year, and in the full financial year to follow, 1991. There were implications not only within RTE, such as curtailment of programmes, the laying off of staff estimated by the managers to be in the order of 500 — the Minister has not given any indication to the contrary — the laying off of contracts for independent film-makers outside. The implications of what is intended in this legislation are not simply confined within RTE; there will be knock-on effects on the independent film making and advertisement making area of the industry. In addition, the independent broadcasters who are serving RTE on contract or otherwise will be affected. The advertising industry has indicated also what is in store for them in terms of the laying off of staff and the loss of revenue that will inevitably occur. We are not just arguing the cause of RTE in regard to a phasing-in process but also that there is a need for breathing so that the industry as a whole outside of RTE that services and works with that Authority will have an opportunity to adjust and to find their own level.
The point was very well made by the Campaign 25 Group to which I adverted on Committee Stage. I understand the Minister is familiar with their submission. This is an organisation of independent film-makers representing all the major independent film-makers in the country, with the exception of Windmill Lane because of their close association with the proposed TV 3. They have acknowledged the need for a phasing-in operation in regard to an organisation like RTE that is up and running. In their proposition they suggested a phasing-in over a three year period. As independents representing the other team in the game, they recognise the need for the broadcaster working in the field and they simply cannot respond overnight to a change in the rules.
If the pitch is to be levelled — I argue it is not a levelling of the pitch but more the changing around of the goal posts, the operation and rules are being so fundamentally altered — there is an urgent and important need for a phasing in of these provisions if they are to be implemented. The Minister acknowledges that in part. He has suggested 1 October. He has not indicated any grounds whatever to suggest that that is a reasonable period. He has merely made the bald statement that it is so. All the indications are to the contrary. The RTE Managers Association have indicated that they would need a period of years to assimilate and to reorganise the scale of the jobs to be shed, the reorganising of programmes, structures and schedules and the renegotiation of contracts not only in the advertising area but also in the employment area, all of which would require more time than that between now and 1 October.
In terms of the best management and in respect of the people whose lives will be fundamentally affected by what is proposed here, I urge the Minister to think again and to look at the proposition in amendment No. 10 which fits in with his own concept — as best we can understand it in this debate — of interfering in or refereeing in this game of pitch levelling and working between the various players. The other player in the game is TV 3. The financial capping provisions are not needed until TV 3 show that they are ready to launch and to enter into the fray. At that stage the Minister can move, if necessary, but I see no basis on which there is need for these measures to be introduced in advance.
Finally, as we are discussing amendment No. 23 I should say I have no difficulty in supporting the basis of what is being argued by Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan on behalf of the Labour Party. Equally it fits in with what we, as a House, should be concerned about, that is having a say in when the Act should come into effect. A commencement order laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas would afford us an opportunity to debate when that should be. Developments take place on a day-to-day basis so that one cannot be clear as to what will be the nature of the game to be played in the months ahead.
In this respect the proposition of the Labour Party merits consideration — that we should have an opportunity to understand the actual conditions prevailing in the field of broadcasting when this Act comes into force. The amendment in Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan's name is a good one, that a commencement order be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Equally, the concept of renewal of the order, once made and laid before the Houses, is equally a good one because it would enable us to review its operation. Indeed, it is in line with the provision I will be proposing later on behalf of my party.
In the context of when this legislation should come into force there are two very reasonable and acceptable propositions emanating from this side of the House. It would be my hope that the Minister would depart from the tightly-scripted words he is delivering from his file in order to have some regard to the arguments being advanced by Deputies on this side of the House, ascertaining whether there is a via media, a compromise, or another way of meeting the grave concerns of those working within RTE, those working in the field of broadcasting closely associated with the RTE Authority, with regard to the immediacy of the implications of what is proposed in this Bill.
In moving amendment No. 23 in the name of Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan I wish to indicate the Labour Party's support for amendment No. 10 since we are taking Nos. 6, 10 and 23 together.
We can discuss all three but move only one.
In moving amendment No. 23 I want to say——
Deputy, we have agreed to discuss the three together. One amendment only can be moved. If the Deputy so requires, we can get the Deputy to move that amendment so that we can have a vote on it, but we do not formally move the others.
I am moving amendment No. 23.
No, the Deputy is speaking to it.
The Deputy is in favour of it.
Yes, the Deputy is speaking to it.
I think I am suffering from broadcasting lag.
He is not the only one suffering from broadcasting lag.
The Deputy is an old broadcasting lag anyway.
Amendment No. 23 is a logical extension of the arguments advanced in amendment No. 10. Indeed, the Labour Party will be supporting amendment No. 10 as we will be opposing amendment No. 6 unless we hear convincing arguments in favour of No. 6. The difficulty about amendment No. 6, as has been pointed out, is that it proposes an arbitrary date for the coming into operation of this Act without any justification whatsoever. A lay interpretation of what the Minister is proposing is very simply that this is the earliest date he feels he could bring the Act into effect, once it has been passed by Seanad Éireann and has been signed by the President.
The suggestion made in amendment No. 10 is an entirely reasonable one. If one takes the Minister's own logic — if it is to confer conditions of competition between two broadcasting services — is it not entirely fair to have the second player, as Deputy McCartan says, in the field? I might say that, if the Minister rejects amendment No. 10, then a very clear construction can be put on it. If one says that the present player in the field, RTE, is to be capped in terms of advertising revenue, without another competitor being in the field, the only construction that can be put on an action like that is one of being entirely punitive towards the existing major broadcaster.
We all know that.
I am afraid it is necessary to repeat the obvious, even more necessary as the weeks of this debate go on, because what is being proposed is in violation of elementary logic. For example, the concept of competition requires more than a single player in the field. In the absence of that, what one is saying is that one is capping the advertising revenue of a corporate entity in anticipation that another broadcasting entity will come into existence. That is, if you like, reducing the uncertainty — as we should — in legislation. One of the principles of good legislation is that it should be as certain as possible. I agree very much with the point made earlier by Deputy Garret FitzGerald in this regard. Therefore, if one is anticipating the imminent arrival of TV3 one should await their arrival. The Minister might say: I am going to make it possible for them to arrive. But what he is saying here is that he is taking it from RTE. Then he allows in all the other arguments made previously about what will happen in the interim, the whole leakage of advertising from the State to other systems, to other advertisers and the inevitable job losses that will accrue. One cannot have it every way. If one says one is going to take it from RTE whether or not TV3 comes into existence, that is just an extremely punitive viewpoint and turns the proposals of the legislation straightforward into the category of vindictiveness.
The suggestion in amendment No. 10 that TV3 be in existence, that that is the time that this Act should come into effect, has another merit, which is that this section to which we are adressing ourselves is one dealing with advertising. I have never heard of an advertising community that advertises on a hypothetical station. They are very shrewd people. When they are talking about radio, they know a lot about listenership and, when talking about television, they know how many people are viewing which programmes not only on their station but others, at different times of the day.
Better than the Minister knows.
If that is the case how can one possibly speak about a level of competition in respect of something that is not there? Then to go on to an entirely illogical deduction from that and say: "I will damage what is there already just in case that which might be might come into existence", is, to put it bluntly, just crazy. Amendment No. 10 merits support on the simple basis that it tries to make some sense even out of what the Minister is proposing.
The purpose of amendment No. 23 is to endeavour to restore some authority to this House in relation to broadcasting and to legislation. It proposes that the provisions of the section will not come into effect until the Minister for Communications has issued a commencement order which shall be placed before Houses of the Oireachtas. Then the second part reads:
(6) The provisions of this section will cease to have effect unless the Minister for Communications brings an order before both Houses of the Oireachtas for their renewal within twelve months from the date of issue of the Commencement Order."
May I offer some pragmatic, and I can assure the Minister certainly not ideological, points in favour of amendment No. 23? They are simply theses: the amendment allows the Minister and the Dáil and Seanad to have a look at the legislation again in 12 months' time. I am telling the Minister this evening that he would be very wise to think carefully about rejecting this amendment. Rather it would be a very wise course of action for him to think why he should accept it. Let me give one reason that I have hinted at already. In the event of a legal challenge to either a section or sections of this Bill, which I believe there will be, it gives one an opportunity to react to the legal case that is being made against any particular provision or provisions in this Bill. As well as that, there are other practical adjustments that will be possible. How could one, for example, take the draconian effect of subsections (3) and (4) and imagine that they should quickly come into effect on 1 October, without giving the station, that is RTE, an opportunity to discuss and assess their impact on the station in terms of employment and recruitment? The problem about that is that in many ways what will happen, if it comes in, is that there may be a short, sharp reaction which would lead to the loss of jobs.
I know that the word is being put around Dublin and elsewhere that one can simply dislodge people from RTE and there will be lots of jobs in the new station, whenever that happens. That is poor comfort to people who will be threatened and RTE will be locked into an almost inflexible position. They will have no flexibility whatsoever. By putting in the possibility of reviewing the impact of the legislation after 12 months, one is able to see how the effects of the legislation, through advertising capping, have in fact worked their way through the system in a period of 12 months. Therefore, one is able to judge costs against employment and recruitment and one is able to try to avoid forced redundancies and having to advertise for voluntary redundancies within RTE.
Let us suppose the Minister rejects this amendment. I would remind him that he will be seeking a new national Programme for National Recovery. But if a new national wage agreement is negotiated — and that is the position the Minister and his colleagues think they are operating in relation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions — then if the Minister sticks to his date, which he has not justified, any new national wage round for its staff will be at the expense of jobs in RTE, because there would have been no opportunity to look at the effects on revenue of the capping of advertising and so on. It could be simply disastrous. It would mean that there would be confrontation within the station. In addition to that, if RTE inform their staff that the wage increases it was hoped would be agreed could only be implemented at the cost of jobs, that will involve the whole question of the possibility of concluding a national wage agreement and a Programme for National Recovery.
I am simply saying that it is madness to be putting in an arbitrary date that has no justification whatever in relation to the policy thrust of this Bill, whatever it might be, which has not been justified for us. It makes no sense at all to be so provocative.
I would put this interesting point to the Minister before he dismisses not only amendment No. 23 but amendment No. 10. I sat in this House, Sir, and I listened to the very same Minister on the occasion that, as he keeps saying, he won his spurs in defeating the pirates. He said he would not put the pirates off the air until the alternatives were in place, until the new stations were in place. He said he would not implement his legislation until the new people were in place. The fact was that he would face the wrath of the crowds that were gathering all around this House and in the streets of Dublin.
Then it came to deflectors and the Minister's flirtation with what he saw as the first application at national level of MMDS. But did he have the courage to say to the people who were using deflectors that they should take them off from within a few weeks of his passing this legislation? No, he did not. He said he would have to think it out very carefully and see whether MMDS was in place. Is it not extraordinary that the Minister would use one criterion of judgment about legislation coming into effect in relation to people using deflectors illegally, or the pirates operating outside of the law altogether, and he could grant them time, and yet refuse time in relation to the station that has been established and built up, whether one likes it or not. I agree with what Deputy FitzGerald said earlier, that it is because it is discomfiting for the Minister and is creating an intolerant reaction on the part of the Minister, because it is a station that is critical and has the capacity critically to address issues in society. In that sense it has been a powerful contributor to change and to discussion on the nature of change. That station is to be singled out and treated in an entirely different way, a lesser way than the pirates and the people using illegal deflectors.
The suggestion in amendment No. 6 has not been justified and in the absence of any case being put forward by the Minister one can only think that it is through sheer expediency that he is justifying this date in October. I would certainly say that the Labour Party's position is that we will support amendment No. 10 as an entirely sensible amendment on the grounds that it makes no sense to be talking about completion until all the partners are there. This is quite consistent with previous decisions taken. In relation to amendment No. 23, we believe it gives accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas, it gives us time, it gives us an opportunity for review, and quite frankly, if there is a serious legal challenge to a provision or provisions of this legislation under amendment No. 23, it can be allowed to wither away without any significant loss of face by a Minister for whom having a great deal of face seems to be a preoccupation.
I, too, support amendments Nos. 10 and 23. They both have merit. They serve different purposes and they are both worthy of the support of this House.
I would like to ask the Minister, in regard to his amendment, is it not the case that his amendment implies the intention, when this Bill goes to the other House, of not allowing any amendment to be made there? As we know, the Dáil is adjourning shortly and, as far as I am aware, it is intended it shall resume in October. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but that is my understanding. What the Minister is proposing is to emasculate the other House by bringing a Bill before it and telling it in advance that he has no intention of allowing them to amend it. This is another example of the kind of tactics which are associated with the Minister which do not help the reputation of Government in the eyes of the people. For the reasons already given, this is a bad amendment intrinsically and it is bad in parliamentary terms also. That is the only point I want to make.
I would also like to confirm my support for the views expressed in relation to this amendment. It is very clear that this amendment is not a cosmetic gesture on the part of the Minister. What is the effect of putting back the commencement of the operation of this section to 1 October? We are now coming to the close of the present Dáil session. After that there will be the holidays and, effectively, what the Minister is talking about is a gesture to those who are opposed to the Bill which involves having a commencement date immediately after the holiday period and, indeed, before the resumption of the Dáil. It seems that this is a further ridiculous example of the Minister's attitude. It is absolutely nonsensical for the Minister to ask this House to accept this amendment. It is absolutely nonsensical for him to ask the general public to accept that it makes sound sense to construe this amendment as a concession of even the slightest consequence on the Minister's part. It is typical of the ill-thought out approach on the part of the Minister to this whole business behind this Bill and is a further indictment of the Minister in his capacity as Minister for Communications. In fact, this is the first opportunity I have had to address any remarks to the Minister in that capacity. My remarks have generally been in relation to his other part-time job. Let me say that I am as unimpressed by him in his capacity as Minister for Communications as I am of him in his capacity as Minister for Justice. I totally reject the approach which he is asking this House to adopt in relation to this amendment.
I am totally opposed to this deadline, or any deadline for that matter. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this Bill. I would ask the Minister at this late stage to scrap the whole Bill in all its shapes and forms, of which it has many. There is so much confusion about the Bill that nobody knows exactly what is in it or what is the end purpose. The original purpose was to cap advertising so as to bail out the Minister's friends in Century Radio. Some people might think that is a very personal thing to say but I can support it.
Advertising will find its own level on television. If there is too much advertising and not enough content in programmes, people will not watch it. If the TAM ratings go down, the advertisers will pull out because they are only interested in advertising to a public who is viewing and buying the goods they are advertising. Rather than putting a cap on RTE, they should be encouraged to get as much revenue as they can from advertising, and reduce the licence fee.
Deputy Boylan is straying very far from this amendment. It is a very clear and precise amendment.
It relates to the deadline. It is the licence fee that is the real burden. I would like to ask the Minister why it is necessary to regularly warn people of the penalties for not paying their licence fee?
This amendment has nothing to do with advertisements.
Indeed it has. It is introducing a deadline which relates to advertising.
The Deputy is straying very far from the amendment. I would like him to get back to the amendment.
Will we continue to see the advertisement of the man with his dog complaining about his neighbour who is not paying the licence fee? When people are not warned about the consequences of not paying, others will follow suit and will not pay. Therefore a bad situation will become much worse. That is only one aspect of the matter.
A deadline of 1 October has been set by the Minister. The same Minister set a deadline in relation to the pirate radio stations. If he is so concerned about helping independent radio stations, why has he turned a blind eye to pirate stations who continue to operate? I am not blaming the Minister personally — he may have some knowledged of these stations but certainly his Department have knowledge of them. I will name the radio station who are still on the air, collecting advertising and competing with a legalised station in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan — it is Radio Star. That station continues to broadcast programmes and to advertise in competition with a legal station. Perhaps the Minister would explain why he has turned a blind eye to them.
In the same constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, a very popular illegal radio station went off the air when the Minister announced the deadline but came back to fill a vacuum until the new radio stations came on the air and within two days of coming back on the air, the Department officials intervened and the Garda, backed up by the Army, confiscated the equipment and warned the operators that they would be sent to jail. There seems to be a law for one while a blind eye is turned to the other.
Smugglers radio.
Far from it. The law should be applied fairly across the board but that is not happening. I would like to know what is behind the Minister's thinking on this matter. I am totally opposed to this deadline and to the Bill. It has done irrevocable damage, which will take a long time to undo. RTE are an excellent station who are providing excellent viewing for the public. You would not be embarrassed to sit down with your family to watch an RTE programme, unlike the case of some of the other stations that are available in this country. People will now have no alternative but to turn to these stations because RTE will not be able to provide the entertainment they were previously providing.
I, too, would like to add my voice in opposition to the Minister's amendment. In the last few weeks, as the debate has raged about this ill-conceived Bill, the Minister appeared to give the impression that he was listening to some of the arguments and that perhaps he would consider suspending the operation of the Bill for some time. As we can see from this amendment, that was all a smokescreen and a window dressing. It is quite clear the Minister does not want to listen to what the Opposition have to say. I would ask him why he is not prepared to listen to all the bodies who represent the various sectors involved in television advertising, such as the marketing society and the Association of Advertisers of Ireland. I am sure the Minister has received similar correpondence to what we have received.
In the letter from the marketing society of 9 July, they clearly state that the availability of TV3 still appears to be, at the very least, a year away. There has been no indication as to whether the contract for TV3 will be awarded. The marketing society remind us that when another television service has been set up they will have to build up a reputation for their programmes and prove that they have a large enough audience to attract advertisers, who will not spend money on a station that people are not watching. If the Minister does not know the basic element of advertising, he should not be bringing this Bill before the House.
Whereas the Minister might not wish to be seen to be giving in to the calls from the Opposition, he is totally ignoring all the professional bodies who represent the advertisers and the marketing society and I would appeal to him to listen to their calls. As regards this amendment which proposes a deadline of 1 October, I support Deputy Garret FitzGerald in that the Minister is pre-empting any possible amendments that the Seanad or even he might wish to make, by cutting off any opportunity for those amendments to be taken or to be brought back to this House. The Minister should stop bulldozing this Bill through the House and listen to the bodies outside the House, the unions, the associations and the marketing board, even if he is not prepared to listen to us. He should change the Bill or, as Deputy Boylan has said, throw it out.
On amendment No. 6, I would like the Minister to clarify one point. I would refer to his speech on Second Stage on 7 June 1990, in which he stated, volume 399, column 1575 of the Official Report:
I would expect that the effect of this measure in the current year should be to divert something around £6 million of advertising revenue onto the media market, while in a full year, in current terms, it should lead to a diversion of around £12 million.
Bearing in mind that the commencement date proposed in this amendment is 1 October, three months from now, are we to take it that the figure of £6 million applies to the three months? If that is the case, rather than doubling the figure to £12 million, I would imagine we are talking in terms of £24 million for a full year. This is a point that will have to be clarified. If I am correct, our predictions to date regarding the future viability of RTE will be realised in no uncertain terms.
I have no hesitation in supporting amendment No. 10 in as much as it proposes to introduce an element of sanity into the debate. What the Minister is doing is ensuring there is not a repeat with TV3 of what happened with Century Radio. He is making provision in advance of the introduction of the third television channel, at the expense of RTE. We have expressed our views time and again on what he is doing. This is an effort on the part of the Minister to avoid the pitfalls that would be encountered in allowing a third national radio station to come on the air. What the Minister is doing could be challenged in the courts and could eventually lead to the embarrassment of this House. He has not shown any inclination to listen to the suggestions made by the speakers on this side of the House to reduce the draconian effects, as Deputy Michael D. Higgins said earlier, of what he is trying to achieve.
In amendment No. 23, we in the Labour Party are asking that the provisions of this section should not come into effect for a period of 12 months. This would allow the Government and the Dáil to have a fresh look at the situation and would be the proper course to follow, bearing in mind that in spite of the Minister complimenting himself on his achievements in 1988, we are here two years later introducing new legislation. It is indicative of how unsuccessful the Minister was in 1988 and how flawed the legislation was that we again must have a protracted debate on broadcasting on this occasion.
Deputy Mitchell referred to the inactivity of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, but I think his point needs to be qualified. It is difficult to say how effective the ICTU action will be at this juncture but I imagine the Minister is putting the chance of another national agreement in jeopardy. If he is prepared to play for such high stakes, that rests fairly and squarely on his shoulders, but I have no doubt that his colleague, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Bertie Ahern, must have some reservations about the course of action the Minister is pursuing. The point was made earlier in the day, but each and every one of us realises the importance of achieving a second national agreement because when the floodgates open in 1992 unless, there is some measure of agreement between the trade unions and the Government, we will expose ourselves to the cold chill from mainland Europe, where they are highly organised and do not face the problems we face in this country.
The Deputy is straying very far from amendment No. 2, and the amendment in question, amendment No. 6, that the "Act shall come into operation on the 1st day of October, 1990."
I am trying to develop the point of the likely effects of the Minister's actions in introducing the legislation on 1 October 1990.
I must dissuade Members from embarking upon Second Stage speeches.
I feel that the likely effect of the Minister's actions must go on the record of the House. However, I accept the Chair's ruling. I will conclude on the position of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have asked that the legislation should be brought in on a phased basis rather than on 1 October 1990. I would much prefer to go along with what has been suggested by Deputy Boylan and other speakers in the House that the proper thing would be to throw the legislation out.
Hear, hear.
But unfortunately we are trying to restrict the damage that is being inflicted on RTE. I ask the Minister to give further consideration to the point made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that the legislation be introduced on a phased basis because I think this is the correct and sensible approach.
I welcome the participation in the debate, of Deputy Garret FitzGerald who highlighted the very sensitive area of the public attitude to what is happening in this House. The Minister, by setting down a commencement date of 1 October 1990 is engaging in a pre-emptive strike in that he is applying a guillotine to the debate in Seanad Éireann over which the Members of Seanad Éireann have little or no control. In addition, this House will be in recess on the commencement date and will not have the opportunity of passing any amendments that might be referred from the other House. For that reason the Minister has to reconsider the commencement date, or, face the consequences of having the matter resolved in the courts and bringing the House into further disrepute.
I have listened with interest to the points being raised. The effect of the amendment which I proposed is in response to representations I received, in particular, to allow RTE a reasonable period to adjust to the new circumstances and also to avoid difficulties relating to possible contractual arrangements with advertisers and it was for that reason I decided on 1 October 1990 as the appropriate starting date. In reply to the points raised by Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan and Deputy Jim Mitchell on the cost of capping advertising in 1990, it will cost about £2.8 million as distinct from the sum of £6 million which was referred to earlier. The effect of not introducing the legislation on 1 July will save RTE about £2.1 million in 1990 so that the postponement of the commencement date to 1 October 1990 is of benefit to RTE to the tune of the figure I have, just mentioned.
Deputy Mitchell's speech had more to do with the record of the Government of which he was a member and I do not want to start tossing back and forward arguments about who doubled the national debt and who did this, that and the other. The Deputy also predicted the need for new legislation shortly on broadcasting but I would let my record on broadcasting stand against his any day.
Deputy Michael Higgins made the point that competition requires that there is more than one player but there is more than one player in existence at present. On the radio side we have RTE and approximately 21 alternative independent stations. I accept that the television company is not yet on the air but in terms of overall communications they must compete with the newspaper industry. If anybody was under any illusions about the problems in the newspaper industry, one has only to look at the situation in the Irish Press Group.
Is the Minister saying that RTE have closed down the Irish Press Group?
Let us hear the Minister's reply without interruption.
If the Deputy wants to look at the situation in relation to the overall advertising cake and how it is divided, or to use the phrase which I am now branded with in relation to "the levelling of the playing pitch" in the communications industry generally — and this has been emphasised on numerous occasions during the debate — it does not just refer to the electronic media but over the years the National Newspapers of Ireland have made a strong case with regard to the dominant position that RTE hold in the advertising market.
Should the Minister not address the monopoly in the newspaper industry?
It is not just one player, we have alternatives in radio and in the print media.
Where is the unevenness between the print and broadcasting media?
I have made the point on various occasions during the course of the debate and on numerous occasions outside this House that as far as I am concerned RTE are and will remain the premier broadcasting organisation in this country——
That sounds like a concession.
——and that is the way they will remain. Deputy McCartan made a number of points and, in particular, he referred to the role of the independent production sector and he quoted from the group representing the independent film-makers and producers. In response to their arguments and the arguments made in this House I put down amendment No. 33. This is the same proposal put forward by Deputy McCartan in relation to giving them a guarantee that between now and the coming into force of the European Community Directive on 3 October 1991 RTE will be bound, in principle, by the same rules and regulations, and we will keep in existence until that time a thriving independent sector. This was brought in——
How many job losses will that mean for RTE?
The Deputy talks to me about job losses in RTE but he has put down an amendment which, in practice, would take £4.6 million per annum out of RTE——
It would be £3.5 million. The Minister is proposing to take more from them in three months than we would take in one year, and we are not capping anybody.
We have had a very orderly debate up to now and I intend to keep it so.
The Deputy's proposal would in practice, take £4.6 million out of RTE. Yet he talks to me about diverting funds from one sector to another.
It may be £12 million or £24 million——
We will argue that point when we get to it.
Maybe the Minister will enter the debate at that stage.
I will look forward to that debate.
Let the interruptions cease.
Will the Minister respond to us?
Please, Deputy O'Sullivan.
I look forward to responding to the Deputy on that point.
Is that a threat or a promise?
I have attempted to meet the totally legitimate point raised by Deputy McCartan in relation to the independent film-makers group. The day this letter came forward from the independent film-makers group the Deputy said he thought they had entered the debate a bit late in the day but I felt they had a reasonable point. This point is covered by the EC Directive and I argued this in response to the legitimate views put forward by the independent film-makers group. Having considered their argument further, I decided to put down an amendment which would copper-fasten the position of the independent film production sector in advance of the Directive coming into force. That was a genuine attempt by me to meet their point.
The one point the Minister missed in that letter is that they believed it should be phased in over three years so far as RTE are concerned. I borrowed the argument about the phasing in——
As I said, I tried to meet their legitimate concerns about their employment. I want to have a thriving independent film sector here, the same as the independent sector in Britain which began to thrive after Channel 4 came on the air. I have referred to this before in debates and I do not want to be repetitious. In an effort to ease the situation for RTE and in response to arguments put forward by various people both inside and outside this House——
That is an insult.
I have proposed 1 October 1990 as the operative date for this Bill. This will mean a saving of approximately £2 million for RTE this year.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan,Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.