Deputy Frances Fitzgerald reported progress on amendment No. 7. I observe that amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are being discussed together.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 7:
In page 3, subsection (2), lines 9 to 12, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) Monies standing to the credit of the account shall be used by the Authority for the purpose of—
(i) commissioning the making of independent television programmes,
(ii) procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by the Authority of the making of programmes as aforesaid,
(iii) assisting the completion of programmes as aforesaid the making of which has not been commissioned by the Authority,
and for no other purpose.".
—(Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.)
The question that arises in relation to the commissioning of independent programmes is whether a mechanism needs to be built in at this stage for that purpose. It would be helpful to consider such a mechanism within RTE, with outside representation. I am concerned that the system is being left too open.
On the last occasion the Minister told us he would see how it works, review the position and, if necessary, introduce some changes. I accept the Minister is serious in that regard, but such an approach is not good enough. He should adopt what has been suggested by my colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, and introduce new mechanisms. This area is fraught with danger and the more I think about it, the more dangerous it appears.
As the Minister is aware, we are talking about a great deal of money which, properly handled, could have a major influence on the future of independent film makers and programme makers here. It would have a greater influence than the resuscitated film board which I am glad to note has been put back in place after being so outrageously scrapped by the Minister's colleague a number of years ago. We are all aware that we will not have a separate station in the immediate future, but we have an opportunity of getting some alternative to RTE if there is satisfactory independent control over the finance.
RTE will handle this very well, but what would happen if RTE found itself in a cash strapped rather than a cash rich position? From previous experience we know that in such circumstances RTE can be as tough as anyone. Anybody who doubts that need only ask those who worked in Century Radio. The Minister is aware that the cost of programmes can vary greatly. Films which are made on location and for which artists must be paid can be exceedingly expensive while other programmes can be produced cheaply, for example, "Talking Heads". Under the Minister's amendment RTE could offload its expensive programmes so that, in turn, it would have cash for programmes over which it would have total control. "Glenroe" is a very expensive programme because it is filmed on location and the various actors and actresses must be paid. There will be successors or alternatives to "Glenroe" and under the Minister's amendment, RTE could contract out such programmes with the result that the independent people would have to pay all the artists and RTE could save money over which it would have total control. I am not saying that would happen but it is a possibility under the Minister's amendment.
Another example is the Eurovision Song Contest. We are all aware of its success and we were told that the cost was between £2.25 million to £2.5 million. Next year, under this legislation, RTE could ask an independent group to produce the Eurovision Song Contest and provide the money under this arrangement, thus saving itself £2.25 million. In turn, it could ask the independent group to employ its own people. I know it is not the Minister's intention that this should be the case, but all of those things could happen. Therefore, some control is necessary.
RTE has a monopoly and the size of our population and our economy dictates that we are unlikely to have an alternative to RTE in the near future. The nearest we will come to that is by building up a strong independent group of film makers and the Minister has the power to do that under this legislation. Such film makers will not be effective if RTE has absolute control, as is the case at present. This amendment states that moneys standing to the credit of the account shall be used by the Authority for the purpose of procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by the Authority of the making of programmes. RTE may request people outside to produce programmes for it. That will not build up an effective group of independent film makers or programme makers. Of course, there is much more than film making involved. To a great extent, this will lead to RTE doing its own thing and someone else making the creative input. The Minister should reconsider this matter and devise some mechanism by which there would be an input from somebody other than RTE regarding the expenditure of this money.
Who will have the rights over those programmes? Will it be possible for the independent film makers to sell them on to somebody else? What will this mean for co-productions with other television stations? Could that be handled under these arrangements? I would not like to see RTE swamping the industry and having absolute control. Under the Minister's amendment all the money could be spent, if not directly by RTE, in the furtherance of programmes originated by RTE. That will not strengthen the position of independent programme producers so that we might have some sort of alternative to RTE, which I know the Minister would welcome.
I thank Deputies for the enthusiasm with which they are approaching the amendments. In particular, I appreciate Deputy Nealon's interest, both as a broadcaster, programme maker and presenter of considerable experience. I would remind the House that in amendments Nos. 7 and 9 I am responding to cases which have been made for greater flexibility. I did this because my approach to broadcasting respects two very important principles; first, that one can and should assist the independent film production sector and second, that one can do this without setting one's face against RTE. I am impressed by arguments that take as their basic premise that RTE has a monopoly and, therefore, is incapable of levels of creativity in response to new conditions. My main aim in broadcasting is to release creativity without and within RTE. I am endeavouring to give the necessary flexibility in this Bill.
I would ask the House to consider carefully what I am doing in amendment No. 7 which is specifying the way in which money standing to the credit of the account shall be used by the Authority. Lest people think I am in the difficulty of someone who has begun a marathon and is required to produce the speed of 100 yards overnight, I am setting up a regime for independent film production commissioning. I am providing this House with an opportunity of discussing this every year. I am requiring a report from RTE as to how it operates and I have gone further from the publication of the Bill by committing myself to a review of the whole procedure not later than two years.
If I was in a different frame of mind from that of philosophical generosity which prevails this morning I would ask about that period between the abolition of the Film Board and now. I have re-established the Film Board. What about all those years when no formal mechanism was in place in RTE? I am simply saying that I want to try it in this way. I will go further by saying that I hope, having set up a mechanism for commissioning, that there will be a response within RTE of a formal kind, in appointing a senior officer in charge of a development section, grouping together what may already exist there formally to harness creativity.
I know what Deputy Nealon and Deputy Fitzgerald want and I am reviewing the entire nature of broadcasting. That review will obviously include the role of the RTE Authority, the role of other authorities that I may choose to establish and perhaps the entire structure of broadcasting. I will examine this whole area root and branch to determine what is the best structure, but I want to allow the Authority to respond to my proposals within the capacities that they have in the existing legislation. For example, if what Deputy Nealon described did occur and that there was off loading, this will be highlighted, for the first time ever, in a report placed before this House every year. If such a report is placed before the House and Deputies opposite draw attention to it, I have committed myself to a review which will enable their comments to be taken into account. I accept that Deputies on all sides of the House want the best legislation possible.
Deputy Nealon invited me to address the best interests of the film and audio visual industry. I can assure him that I will approach it in as integrated a way as possible. I would remind Deputies that in my later amendments Nos. 12 and 15 I specify mechanisms which should be given an opportunity to work. Regarding the other point raised by Deputy Nealon, he will appreciate that the usual mechanism is in fact for the broadcaster to purchase screening rights leaving the substantial rights the property of the maker or vendor. This is obviously a matter for management within the commissioning structure.
I accept the goodwill and the interest of the Minister. Whatever he may think, he will not always be in office. We should make provisions now for the time when some other person will be in his position who will not have the same goodwill and interest in fostering creativity in the film industry and in television programme making.
Would the Minister consider making some of this money available to the new Film Board with a view, perhaps, to their setting the seeds of television programmes as such? It would offer a new degree of independence in the use of portion of this money.
When I refer to an integrated approach to what I am doing in the film and audio-visual area I would remind the Deputy that the Arts Council provide some money for the development of scriptwriting and film making through their small development fund. I have their assurance that they will continue with that. There is also, as the Deputy is aware, a small script development fund which is sourced in Europe. We now have the Film Board and if one considers the changes I have made in relation to the development fund, the 10 per cent I am allocating now is to enable projects that are conceptual in character or those that require to be completed to be turned into products to which the customer and the broadcaster can relate. That is what I had in mind in this regard.
When I am reviewing the outcome of this the Film Board will be in operation with the benefit of its first year's funding. I have indicated the amount of funding which will be allocated to it over a number of years. These will interact with each other. It is fascinating that having provided this atmosphere I am sometimes told that RTE will welcome all of the benefits I am creating but at other times I am told that RTE will be starved by my proposals.
My approach to all of this goes beyond notions of simply developing an obvious creative source in this country, but also involves job creation. There are jobs in RTE, outside RTE and in the televisual area. It is logical that the Film Board will be required to set up its operation and decide its priorities. I will not interfere with it in that way but it is obvious that it will be of assistance to what I am proposing.
To take up the last point in terms of job creation, I agree with the Minister that it is an important element of the suggestions being made here. A figure of 882 jobs was referred to as being possibly created in the sector. That is considering television production alone without looking at possible job creation within independent film making.
To return to the point concerning commissioning, I know the Minister has experience of both types of commissioning. When he was involved in a programme for Channel 4 his producer would have dealt directly with a commissioning editor. The Minister has had experience also of the other system. He probably will not tell us his thoughts on the two systems at this point but I wonder which he considers to be the most satisfactory.
I am surprised at the Minister's reluctance to include a type of structure at this stage in the commissioning. We are talking about a figure of up to £12 million and in terms of setting in train initially a structure that would be most helpful to the development of the Minister's goals, more thought and detail in the commissioning structure would set the process off on a more targeted start. This would be useful and would create a structure within which it could develop at a faster rate. I take the Minister's point that nobody would cast doubt on the creativity in RTE. That is not what is intended by my comments. I have no doubt about the creativity within RTE and the opportunities to develop it further which I hope this section of the Bill will allow. The Minister indicated that he saw a need to carry out a review of broadcasting at a later stage. In fact this ties in with the intent of amendment No. 29 in my name which has been ruled out of order, to establish a single broadcasting authority to oversee the independent and RTE stations. I welcome the Minister's commitment to again look at a possible evolution of a single broadcasting authority.
It is important that the Minister builds into the Bill provision for an annual report and review; however it is regrettable that a more detailed commissioning structure is not also provided, which leaves several questions unanswered. The question of editorial control is another grey area as it leaves open to question who is an independent producer and who RTE will have to accept within that term.
I appreciate that the Deputies opposite are being very positive. We are all seeking to put the best structures in place. I will not be provoked into indulging myself by recounting experiences of different places where work in which I was involved was shown but I can draw from it. RTE, in aspects of its commissioning, can be compared to Channel 4 but it also has to be compared to the BBC. We have one major broadcasting station on whose excellence a great deal depends. I am simply being careful in allowing that station and the staff who work in it to respond, using the existing legislation in a vigorous way. I am not convinced by the argument — I am not attributing them to anybody as they were made outside this House — that RTE must be written off or forced to face competitors to change broadcasting here. I do not think that is being said in this House. Channel 4 had a very special relationship in regard to commissioning which is quite different from the totality of responsibilities of RTE. I am not introducing this Bill solely from the viewpoint of the independent film production sector. I am very interested in making sure that RTE is a place of creativity, that it is strong, will develop to meet its many needs and will have the resources to do this. I intend that it will be accountable for its use of resources. By that I mean accountability for everything it is asked to do under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act. Channel 4's availability in conjunction with RTE has been to the benefit of many independent film makers and for that we should be very grateful. Under the leadership of Sir Jeremy Isaacs, many young Irish film makers managed, through a combination of commissioning, to make significant advances. When the commissioning structure changed in Channel 4 — when there was no longer a specific commissioning editor for Irish material it was to the disadvantage of young Irish film makers in particular. After the regime is improved here I hope we can also restore the former relationship with Channel 4. To this end I have had initial talks with Sir Peter Brooke, the Minister for Heritage. I am hoping also that we will build on co-production to create the best possible set of opportunities.
RTE is finally judged by what is seen on the screen. Members on all sides are anxious to ensure that programmes are of the highest possible standard and this is what we are seeking to do in this Bill. However, there should be a challenge to the monopoly of RTE and some body should be able to challenge the type and quality of its production. We are seeking to encourage the independent sector and the Minister is making money available to this end, which is welcome. I object to RTE getting its claws into that money and I hope that as much as possible is given to independent film producers. I believe that when independent film makers and producers originate an idea they should feel it has an excellent chance of succeeding and that it will be judged on its merit when it is offered to RTE.
This section gives RTE extraordinary authority to originate everything, to ask people to develop an idea for which it would then commission if the work is suitable. In that regime independent film and programme makers will feel they are not getting an equal chance and that no matter how good their ideas, those of RTE will dominate. Let us remember that RTE, excellent institution as it is, like all institutions has certain sameness in its thinking. That would be challenged seriously if there was an independent broadcasting organisation. That is the value of competition. I know the Minister, as a dedicated socialist, will agree that competition of that nature is of great value.
We are seeking to ensure that independent producers and programme makers get an equal opportunity. RTE, like any organisation, by its very nature likes to retain as much control as it can. Naturally the final responsibility for what appears on the screen rests with RTE. No one is challenging that but in legislation the Minister must make an effort to stimulate and encourage independent film makers to originate ideas in the knowledge that they will be accepted on merit rather than being in competition with an idea that RTE originated and then commissioned.
I can add very little to what I said. I will explain my thinking once again as succinctly as possible. When we talk about choice on television — great confusion sometimes creeps in — we are talking about plurality of programme making and the capacity to produce different programmes. This obviously arises in RTE and there must be a capacity in a major brodcasting organisation such as RTE for that creativity to emerge. I have addressed this issue already in relation to RTE but it must also be addressed in the independent sector. Unfortunately previous attempts to create plurality in broadcasting have gone down the wrong track and the plurality of editorial character has been confused with the plurality of ownership. There is also the crazy view that if people own something else we will have induced competition, whereas what we want is variation and creativity. That is separate from the issue of ownership. Where broadcasters have gone into this field they have been among the more successful simply because it shows in the way they structure programmes, this applies to radio as well. To put it in its most simple terms, the issue is that at present RTE spends over £3 million on independent production. Let us remember that figure is now being increased, by 1994 it will rise to £5 million. That is an increase of £2 million but the £3 million is more accountable than previously because there is a reporting mechanism to this House. I have also committed myself to a review. Anybody who has dealt with RTE knows there is no shortage of young producers and young film makers offering them products. There is nothing to stop such people, if they feel the mechanism is not working, from drawing attention to such, reviewing it annually and, in the total review within two years, such matters would surface. I like to think that there will be an open and progressive attitude towards this new regime. I would emphasise again, because an area of great negativity in debates about Irish broadcasting is that people seem to want to begin by saying that whatever progress, innovation and creativity we have in new structures of broadcasting, it must be at the expense of RTE. I accept there will be changes; changes which will be of benefit within RTE but I see it as very important that I trust it in the atmosphere of these new changes. That is why I respect its editorial control but, by means of this legislation, I will require it to report and I will review the exercise of its responsibilities. I feel that is only fair.
It is fair enough.
For that reason I can give the Members of the House little more information than I have given already on these amendments.
What the Minister is saying is that he will be open, in the first review, to looking at how the commissioning structure has worked, to assess it critically to see if any changes are needed; in other words to evaluate it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendment No. 9 in the name of the Minister has been discussed with amendment No. 7.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 3, subsection (2), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(c) The Authority shall not in a financial year use for the purposes specified in subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) of this subsection more than 10 per cent of the amount of moneys that it is required by subsection (3) of this section to pay into the account in that financial year.".
Amendment agreed to.
We now proceed to amendment No. 10. I observe that amendments Nos. 11, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are related and suggest that they be discussed together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 3, subsection (3), line 19, after "moneys" to insert ", that unless in prevailing circumstances the Minister authorises a lesser sum,".
What I am saying here is that the Minister needs to have some flexibility. In amendment No. 10 I suggest that the figures mentioned would apply unless, in prevailing circumstances, the Minister authorises a lesser sum. Amendment No. 11 is related to this. For example could there be a situation where the Authority would have some money in the independent account but RTE would borrow for some of their other work? RTE is often painted as a cash rich empire and in a sense one has to ask where the evidence for that is. We are aware that the licence fee yields the substantial sum of £55 million and we have to think about balancing broadcasting. Nevertheless the Minister is aware that his Department has sanctioned £7.5 million for capital equipment and renewal and there is a Programme for Economic and Social Progress commitment of £1.5 million. Various other factors need to be taken into account such as price increases for performing rights and international newsagency costs and these bodies will be seeking increases from the news division, increases that may range from between 35 per cent and 37 per cent. In a sense I am saying it would be wise to have some flexibility built into the sums envisaged by the Minister.
These amendments which seek flexibility are correct. I have given more thought to the provisions of section 4 and I believe that the introduction of some flexibility would improve the situation. My amendment No. 15 will meet the concerns expressed in amendments Nos. 10, 11, 17 and 19 and particularly in amendment No. 20. My amendment No. 15, resembles the spirit of these amendments and produces the most democratic way possible of ensuring that the concerns are met. I want to say also that the effect of my amendment, No. 15, is that it will give us the opportunity to adjust these structures should our review suggest it. Should my amendment be successful the capacity is in the Bill to adjust the procedures in the light of experience. I hope Deputies will agree I have taken their concerns on board and that amendment No. 15 addresses the issues raised in the other amendments.
How stands amendment No. 10? Is it being pressed?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 12 in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendment No. 13 is an alternative and suggest therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 3, lines 23 to 26, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) The amount of moneys required to be paid by subsection (3) of this section into the account in a financial year shall be so paid in such number of instalments as the Authority deems appropriate having regard to its duty under subsection (2) (b) of this section:
Provided that the said amount shall be paid into the account not later than the 30th day of September of the financial year concerned.".
Molaim an leasú seo a thugann lúbthacht do RTE taobh istigh den Bhille nua atá a moladh agam.
Amendment No. 12 allows RTE greater flexibility to manage the payments into the independent television programmes account by requiring that the payments are made as appropriate, provided that the full amount is paid into the account by the end of September each year. The amendment is designed to avoid a situation where money could be lying needlessly unused in the account. It enables RTE to better work within its normal cashflows. Money will have to be available for projects as they arise and the internal annual allocation must be paid into the account by the end of September each year. It will address an issue of flexibility within the cashflow situation of RTE.
For the benefit of the House and especially Deputy Máirín Quill, I should say that if amendment No. 12 in the name of An tAire is carried, amendment No. 13 cannot be moved.
I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle. In deference to what the Minister has now said, I see this amendment as a substantial improvement on the corresponding section in the original draft. In the light of that I will not move amendment No. 13 because the Minister, in his amendment, has made adequate provision for what I had in mind. My main concern was that RTE would have a cashflow. It seemed unrealistic to expect any company to be in a position to put up such substantial amounts in the first half of their financial year. Very few companies have cash lying around in that manner and if they have it is another matter. The reality is that in this House we have imposed many requirements on RTE already. The purpose of this Bill is neither to bury Caesar nor to praise him but rather something in between. We must acknowledge the contribution RTE make to the Exchequer. For example, since 1990 RTE has repaid £16 million in Exchequer advances. Provision was made in 1993 for £13.4 million out of cap revenue. There is also a cap provision of £4.5 million towards Teilifís na Gaeltachta. Because we impose many requirements on RTE it is important that we would be sensitive to the cashflow problems and cashflow management within RTE. That is why I submitted the amendment I am now withdrawing. The Minister has tabled an amendment that is equally good and will achieve the results I intended. I thank him for that.
I agree with Deputy Quill. I welcome the Minister's amendment which takes account of the sort of practices Deputy Quill has mentioned. I do not know if it is appropriate to mention it at this stage, but in the context of the Authority's functions under the Broadcasting Authority Act which we discussed under amendment No. 15 I appeal to the Minister to look at the other two areas I mention in my amendments, that is, the area of short wave providing a service that is much sought after and would be very welcomed by many Irish overseas. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would give the Authority the power to investigate that.
The other area I would like the Minister to look at in the context of his review of broadcasting is the status of professional music within the Authority and the question of the orchestra, the choirs and string quartet. When the cap on advertising was introduced RTE made certain comments about the viability of these institutions in the long term, but now the cap is being removed. I know there are a great many other demands on the finances of RTE, but I would ask the Minister to look very carefully at that area and examine how these groups can best be supported, maintained and developed. They are national assets in the same way as RTE is. There is a need for us to look at public service broadcasting and define how it can be best supported and developed while recognising what it has given the country already. We must also define how the great contribution RTE has made can be best sustained and developed in a changing and challenging climate for broadcasting in the face of international competition.
I also make a plea in respect of the matters mentioned by Deputy Fitzgerald. I refer specifically to the Vanbrugh String Quartet and to the RTE Chamber Choir. Both of these institutions suffered severely when the cap was imposed. An opportunity has now arisen for these two institutions to be properly funded by RTE. We are a very small country. Our future lies in the promotion of excellence in every field of art and industry and certainly in music. There may be a small audience for the Vanbrugh String Quartet and for the Chamber Choir. Nevertheless it is a legitimate audience which has the right to have its tastes and requirements met within the ambit of public service broadcasting and other broadcasting. It is important that we maintain these high levels of excellence in music and in other areas of life for a young generation of Irish people growing up in a European setting.
Although I am not sure that these two matters come strictly within the ambit of what we are discussing I know the Minister will keep them in mind. What was done to the Vanbrugh String Quartet when the cap was imposed has been modified in the meantime, but the Chamber Choir is still out in the cold. I know it is not possible for the Minister to meet all demands, but we would all benefit from any measure that would enable that choir to continue. It would be of particular benefit to young people who are getting a musical education now that was not available in my day at school. That is a great and positive thing. We should consider the service we are maintaining in the interest of all the population and the next generation of retaining these institutions.
Will the Minister assure us that tax fiddlers will be exempt?
Let me first thank Deputies Quill and Fitzgerald for their willingness to accept that the amendment I have proposed addresses the spirit of their own amendments. The Vanbrugh Quartet, the Chamber Choir and professional music generally were early casualties when the cap was introduced. What is sometimes lost sight of is that in this legislation the cap is being removed. It is only reasonable to expect that the casualties of the imposition of the cap will be restored.
I agree with the Deputies that here we have an illustration of the point I was making philosophically on Second Stage as to the content of public service broadcasting and its role. In the context of communications policy I regard the citizenry not as a set of market segments for exploitation as purchasers — that is a view that is held in marketing and it is legitimate within that profession. As the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, my view is that citizens have rights within a communicative order. There are people with tastes that are served by the string quartet, the Chamber Choir, the orchestra and so on. It would be saying something about the nature of a national broadcaster if one had to list these and put them into legislation. It must have been an extreme situation if RTE decided that these were to be its earliest casualties when they felt that the cap was threathening them very severely. There are those who argued as to whether they should have been the casualties. However, there is no argument about the fact that these are activities which the public will expect to see reconstituted in an atmosphere where the cap does not prevail.
This is a time for me to express my trust and confidence in the Authority in the context of responding to the new situation. It would have been a confession of failure to some extent to find it necessary to mention them in a legislative expression. I am willing to wait and see.
I think that is accepted.
Is this aspect one that he will bear in mind when reviewing the operation after the first year?
There are two things that I am anxious to do. I am anxious that the Authority should function with its full autonomy within the Broadcasting Act without interference from me. That is very important to me. There are opportunities within the Act, and there are obligations. I have said that I intend to review the entire broadcasting framework. I have looked at the question of independent commissioning and how it works out and I specify later the criteria across which we will look. That will be an opportunity for addressing this issue and it would be a pity to miss it.
I know the Minister has made some policy statements and some comments in relation to the role of public service broadcasting. However, in the absence of the sort of debate that we need in relation to public service broadcasting and all aspects of broadcasting, the wish to build in a protection for the groups we have mentioned is understandable. I take the Minister's point. Deputy De Rossa's suggestion that it should be very much part of the review would be of help in evaluating how they have fared during the first year.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 3, subsection (5), line 28, to delete "to be expended" and substitute "unexpended".
This is a drafting amendment for the purpose of clarity of presentation. It does not change the meaning of the provisions in any way. In section 4 (5) we are dealing with money in the account of the independent television programmes which is unexpended at the end of the year. The amendment is simply to ensure that the description is 100 per cent accurate. It is to meet even the most minor scruples of the parliamentary draftsperson.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 3, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) (a) The Minister may, having had regard to each of the following matters, namely—
(i) the current and prospective financial liabilities of the Authority,
(ii) the effect (if any) for the time being of the operation of the provisions of this section on—
(I) the employment or recruitment of staff by the Authority,
(II) the performance by the Authority of its functions generally under the Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 to 1993,
(III) the employment of persons in the making of independent television programmes,
from time to time by order vary an amount or percentage referred to in column (2) of the Table to this section or the amount referred to in paragraph (i) of the definition of `the appropriate amount' in subsection (8) (a)* of this section and for so long as such an order is in force the said Table or the said definition, as the case may be, shall be construed and have effect in accordance with the order.
(b) The Minister may by order revoke an order under this subsection.
(c) Where it is proposed to make an order under this subsection, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 3, subsection (7) (a) (i), line 42, to delete "for".
This amendment was suggested by the draftsperson for the sake of consistency. It is normal in legislation not to use the word "for" when referring to a particular financial year. The amendment does not change the meaning of the subsection. It is for drafting consistency.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 17 to 20, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 4, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) The Minister shall make regulations to provide that a specified proportion of the appropriate amount shall be spent on the making of independent television programmes within the State.".
My concern is that nowhere in the current Bill is there a provision that any specific amount of money or any work done must be within this State. I admit that my wording is not precisely what I intended, it might more precisely read:
The Minister shall make regulations to provide that a specified proportion of the amount shall be spent within the State on the making of independent television programmes.
My intention is not that the programmes should be totally made within the State. In many cases that would not be feasible. If Radharc goes to Somalia to make a programme, it cannot obviously make the programme in Ireland. However, a proportion of the expenditure which might be assisted through this fund should be spent in the State on hiring and buying equipment, renting facilities, or on post production work and so on. In the amendment I am leaving it to the Minister to make regulations in regard to it. Clearly it is a difficult area to specify. It could not be specified in the necessary detail in an amendment but it is something that we should have regard to. If we want to develop a thriving independent film making sector here we must ensure that the money we are providing — or at least some proportion of it — is spent here.
I sympathise with the point raised by Deputy De Rossa. However, the Deputy will appreciate that I am under the constraints of the Treaty of Rome and that our obligations, particularly in relation to competition, place certain restrictions on what I can do. The annual report on how it works out will be interesting. It may well be that the Irish viewing audiences will find that Irish film makers can address the complexities of the Treaty of Rome in different ways. I also take the Deputy's point about working abroad. There will be an opportunity to look at how this has worked out. RTE is spending about £3 million on independent production and from now on they will spend £5 million, but that £5 million is becoming transparent in terms of how it is being used, so we will have an opportunity to look at the balances then. That is the way to go about it.
Given the success of home produced programmes on RTE, Irish independent television producers will be best placed to conceive and make programmes of relevance and interest to the Irish audience. Indeed, the success of Irish film makers is such that the security of knowing that a definite amount is available each year will enable them to develop in such a way as to not only remain the first choice of Irish audiences but to increase their popularity with audiences abroad. I sympathise with what the Deputy is seeking to achieve but I am under a constraint which makes it impossible for me to accept his amendment.
Not only will the Irish independent producers excel in meeting the needs of the domestic market, they will make great achievements abroad. Let us record achievement. Recently I met a young man, Mr. Charlton, who made "Blood on the Canvas". He edited and processed it in Telegael near Spiddal, entered it for the international festival in Houston, Texas, against 4,200 entrants and won the gold medal. That man is only 24 years of age. There is enormous talent in this community. This is a very exciting time. I share Deputy De Rossa's view but I am precluded from accepting his amendment under our Treaty commitments. The spirit of what the Deputy is trying to do will be achieved anyway and even if it is not we will with the first report have an opportunity to address the consequences.
I would be loath to accuse the Minister of trotting out the Treaty of Rome as a means of avoiding this issue. I am not convinced that the Treaty of Rome is as black and white as implied in this area. I have a particularly harrowing case in my constituency where a father has been precluded from erecting a piece of non-Irish stone in a graveyard in Dublin because the graveyard authorities argue that they will use only Irish stone. For the father concerned it is a particularly gruelling imposition because while the item might not be described as being artistic it is all important to him because his daughter was killed in a car accident. It seems that in certain circumstances the Treaty of Rome can be ignored in its general application. If I am wrong in my understanding perhaps the Minister will explain more clearly how the Treaty of Rome affects things. My understanding is that it is only in circumstances in which the State, or a State agency, would be engaged in the business of promoting "Buy Irish" or obliging people to invest in, buy or spend on Irish products that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome would have effect.
I should like to know how the Minister feels that applies to RTE which is free to operate within the provisions of the Broadcasting Acts. I wonder whether it is accurate that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome preclude the kind of idea I have voiced here. I am not arguing for a kind of kitchen sink approach to television production but, if we are to have a vibrant, independent sector, there must be investment to enable creative people actually do their job. Unless a significant proportion of the money now being made available is spent in this State that infrastructure will not exist.
I am struck by the fact that on quite a number of nominally Irish programmes I have viewed, one sees in the credit square that various technical work has been undertaken in studios in Britain and so on. There is need for devising some way of ensuring that at least a proportion of this money is invested to guarantee that the necessary supports for a thriving industry to develop are put in place. I do not expect this to grow immediately.
I refer to the suggestion that we might be in breach of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. I do not think it is necessary to insert in legislation a specific advantage for an Irish independent film producer which would instigate a contest about the exclusion of others in Europe.
Let me paint the worst possible scene. Let us imagine that, at the end of the year, we had a great deal of leakage of what is effectively Irish money, one way or another, that we need to build up our film and television sector. Let us suppose there was a great leak in relation to non-Irish purchased technical work, or indeed total product. That would immediately suggest to us that there was something very seriously wrong with either the quality of what was coming forward or with the commissioning structure. We would have to examine that.
I can assure Deputy De Rossa that while I cannot accept this amendment it is my intention to keep the matter under continuous review, to ascertain the effect of what I am doing. I am speaking this morning on this Bill, but Members have referred, correctly, to what I am doing in other areas, such as the Film Board, J & P McMahon and so on. I will watch carefully to ensure that we reap the maximum job creation benefits for our economy from the whole set of measures I am taking. I hope I will be proved right but, of course, I cannot guarantee success in everything.
On Deputy De Rossa's point about infrastructure, it is my hope within a very few short years to put other infrastructure in place, if I have the opportunity, including a training institute for film and so on. This will mean, as another Member said, that structures will be in place for my successors. I make no apologies for being quite ambitious about what I am endeavouring to do. Obviously that will require reviewing all of the details, piece by piece. I can assure Deputy De Rossa that I will review what is happening. I cannot accept his amendment in the form drafted because I perceive it to be open to challenge which, in itself, could delay some of the progress I want to make.
Another part of the structure that needs to be in place, not unconnected with the question of supporting and encouraging Irish film makers, concerns the overall tax and financial environment within which independent producers, or indeed international film makers, operate. The report of independent film makers advanced many recommendations in this regard. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the type of development he envisages as necessary for this purpose. It is connected with support for Irish film makers. We do need more initiatives, more co-production agreements and so on.
IBEC, who represent the film production side of the business, have film makers affiliated to them and so on. I have made recommendations to the Minister for Finance on very significant changes to section 35 which would render it very attractive for Irish venture capital to invest in film. It is not appropriate to go into the detail now. What is most significant is the raising of the figure from over £600,000 to £1,050,000 which can be spent in one year rather than across three years. I have also recommended changes in BES investment which would not disqualify one from investing further in film. In addition I have recommended circumstances in which individuals can invest £25,000 annually in a tax effective manner in the film industry.
The net effect of all this is that we have a co-production agreement with Canada. It is my aim and hope to sign one with Australia within months and thereafter to begin preparing co-production agreements with France and Germany.
The changes I have announced, that is the combination of re-financing the Film Board and the changes in the finance regime in section 35, have meant that there have been very significant inquiries made already of my Department. There is an expression of interest. When I announce within the next day or two the members of the Film Board the test will be whether they share my confidence that we are on our way. When people see the number of feature films that will be made this year and next year, they will see that we are going about it in a serious manner.
Deputy Frances Fitzgerald's point is well taken that it was necessary to make recommendations on the financial environment in order to complete the package. It is my intention to review that also. If I need to fine tune the financial provisions in relation to the film industry, I will make recommendations at the end of the year for the next Finance Bill, having reviewed the amount of money invested, how it is being expended and the results thereof.
In view of the Minister's undertaking I am quite happy not to press my amendment, but I want to emphasise that the amendment relates to the expenditure of some of the money in the State. It does not seek to discriminate regarding the location of those who may be actually producing a programme. The producer could be British, American or from another country, it would not matter. All that is important is that a proportion of the money is spent here. I agree there may be difficulties and I do not want to delay the implementation of the Bill, but I would appreciate if the Minister would keep the matter under active review.
I appreciate Deputy De Rossa's co-operation, I assure him that this matter will not only be reviewed but that I will fully examine the point as to where the legal restriction impinges to be prepared, if necessary to take actions to ensure the maximum benefit for the Irish film industry.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22.
In page 4, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) Where it is proposed to make an order or regulations under this section, a draft of the órder or regulations shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the order shall not come into effect until a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
This amendment does not relate specifically to the content of this Bill. It is a general amendment which I have tended to table for most Bills. Where orders or regulations are made, it should be by way of a positive motion. At present regulations and orders are in a negative form in that if they are not annulled by the House within 21 sitting days, they automatically become law. In the nature of the Standing Orders of this House, it is virtually impossible to have such an order debated here whatever about having it annulled. In normal circumstances it is impossible to have it debated and discussed.
The most obvious example of this is section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. The order in relation to that Act has been made year after year every January by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications without a debate in the 16 years since it was adopted. There is a need for the adoption of a procedure in this House whereby orders, particularly important ones, can be debated here. I am sure orders are made daily by Ministers and it would be physically impossible for them all to be examined in the House.
In relation to Dáil reform I proposed a secondary legislation committee which would operate similar to the European secondary legislation committee. It would be a committee of Deputies but Senators could also participate. It could take the most important orders and regulations, examine them within the period specified by the Acts and make a case for their implementation or amendment. Far too often regulations have had an effect beyond that intended by the Minister concerned. If there was debate and discussion anomalies could be avoided. I do not propose to delay the House with a list of examples but many regulations have wider consequences than were intended in the first instance. The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the fact that this House does not address or debate many of the laws made in its name. Changes are made which are never addressed by this House except in an emergency. I also have responsibility for the social welfare area in which there are many regulations; most of them are probably innocuous but some have serious effects on the income and livelihood of many people. We have no control over these effects.
I did not table the amendment to generate a major debate or to press the matter to a vote but simply to draw attention to the fact that important regulations should be made in a positive way and that this House or a committee is given an opportunity to address them.
Perhaps we could use the legislative committees in place to consider those regulations. I have made this point in relation to other matters relating to this Bill. The committees should only address those issues if they are passed to them by the Minister. They should not, of their own accord, discuss any regulation. That should only be done if the Minister refers the matter to them by way of report. I am aware that the Minister is well disposed to ensuring and enabling Deputies to have a real role in this House and I ask him to examine the remit of the Select Committee on Social Affairs. Will he also review how his Department could cooperate with that committee?
Arising from last Friday's debate on the Estimates for the Minister's Department, it may be that the committee should establish a subcommittee to monitor the activities of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and broadcasting. For many years that area has been neglected by this House. From the debate last Friday it is clear that there is an interest in that whole area. I have rarely seen as many Deputies attending a debate in this House. On the debate on the Broadcasting Bill four Deputies are present and we have achieved a very good general balance.
A perfect balance.
That is also important. Clearly there is an interest in the area and perhaps, with goodwill, the problem I raised in this amendment could be addressed.
I thank Deputy De Rossa for his comments. I appreciate the quality of the debate last Friday. People agreed it was very positive and constructive and revealed a very deep interest in the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. I wish to thank my officials for the enthusiasm with which they provided information and I favour such information being provided. It was commented upon that paragraphs were provided on subheads. Our future approach will be to provide such additional information, suggested by the questions raised last Friday, to facilitate the involvement of Deputies. This is the direction which we shall take.
Referring to Deputy De Rossa's question, I have anticipated it in amendment No. 15. In respect of amendment No. 22 account must be taken of amendments Nos. 20 and 21 which have been taken already. Amendment No. 15 (7) (c) states:
(c) Where it is proposed to make an order under this subsection, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
I take the principle in the Deputy's amendment and I have addressed it in amendment No. 15.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Amendment No. 15 was issued subsequent to the insertion of my amendment and, therefore, was not taken into account. On the Order of Business virtually every day we agree to take a range of items without debate. Even when positive orders are required by this House they are increasingly being taken without debate. There was a dispute on this issue yesterday when it was proposed that an extremely important Financial Resolution be taken without debate. This is now common practice.
I understand the reason they are taken in this way; there are only so many hours in the day and only so much work that can be covered. That is the reason I am suggesting again that we should consider the possibility of establishing a committee to deal with secondary legislation. It would be issued with regulations in draft form and consider them. I imagine that most of these regulations are unimportant and technical but others deal with key issues which can have a major effect, yet, they are rarely discussed in the House. I accept fully that the Minister has shown good will on this issue and for that reason I withdraw the amendment.
As Deputy De Rossa said, this is a very important point which concerns the democratic procedures followed in this House. It is regrettable that we do not have the resources which would allow us to have the discussion we need on many of these important motions. This is what happened yesterday. I congratulate the Minister for the approach he has adopted.
I am greatful to the Deputies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 25 to 27, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 5, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
"6. —The Minister shall take steps to ensure that, among the members of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and the Authority to be nominated by him, a minimum of 40 per cent of both men and women shall be so nominated.".
The Minister has an historic opportunity to incorporate this recommendation in legislation. If one examines the involvement of women in decision-making structures at many levels, one will see that it leaves much to be desired and that women are under represented in most decision-making structures within society. The Commission on the Status of Women recently reported on this issue. One of its recommendations in its first statement to the Government issued in April 1991 was that in the current lifetime of the boards of all the State-sponsored bodies women should be appointed to all casual vacancies to be filled by direct Government appointment unless there are objective criteria for appointing a man and, as the boards of State-sponsored bodies are reconstituted or set-up, Government policy should guarantee a minimum of 40 per cent of both men and women and other direct Government nominees. I am asking the Minister in this amendment to incorporate this recommendation for the first time in legislation. In this way we would be acknowledging that there is a need for equal representation in all our institutions.
In the European Community's Third Action Programme this issue is highlighted and it states that if we are to achieve equality in society it is critical that in the decision-making centres there is equal representation. Moves in this direction would be in line with the recommendation made in the commission's first statement to the Government two years ago and with current thinking in the European Community and the Council of Europe.
I do not think in either the Independent Radio and Television Commission or the RTE Authority a rate of 40 per cent has ever been achieved even though there are many women who are well qualified to fill such posts. Political parties worldwide have found that when positive action is taken it does make a difference and leads to greater equality and the rate of progress being accelerated. If we are prepared to wait for things to happen we will be waiting for a long time. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment which presents him with an historic opportunity to ensure that such positive action is taken.
I give my full support to this amendment and think the Minister will be very receptive to the arguments which have been well made already. The head of the reconstituted Film Board is a woman. This is to the credit of the Minister who made the appointment. I am quite sure that it was made in deference to that person's ability and experience as well as to her gender. This is true in the case of many other appointments which have not yet been acknowledged.
It is not enough, however, to appoint a "token" woman, which was the practice of the past. A substantial number of women have to be appointed to State boards not in deference to any abstract arguments but to the fact that if people are to reach their full potential at this juncture of Irish history large numbers of women have to be appointed to State boards and key decision-making centres. Our failure to do this in the past has cost us dearly. Women who are creative and courageous and with insight and experience have been excluded and as a result we have ended up the losers.
This amendment presents the Minister with an opportunity to redress the imbalance. I have met many women who are full of new ideas and fresh thinking, who are creative and courageous and who have a major contribution to make to the development of this country in the short, medium and long term. We now have an ideal opportunity to put mechanisms in place. I fully support the amendment put forward by Deputy Fitzgerald and I appeal to the Minister to accept it.
The last thing we want to see is the maintenance of the old establishment line on every issue, the status quo and the gentleman's club. We want fresh new ideas. This will only happen if the requisite number of women are appointed. As I said, it is not enough to appoint a "token" woman. This was good for PR purposes and happened in the past but I do not think it will happen in the future to the same extent. Women will not be appointed automatically unless each and every opportunity is grasped and measures are taken to ensure that this happens. I appeal to the Minister to take such measures and I am certain he will be receptive to the arguments which have been made.
This is a good amendment. We are fortunate that the four Deputies in the House have traditionally impressed on the House the need to ensure equal representation of women on various boards and authorities appointed by the Government. The old argument against this approach is that it is difficult to find women with experience, knowledge and so forth. I suspect that was more to do with the fact that women were excluded from areas where they might have gained the experience or acquired the knowledge that they would be able to use in situations such as this. The way in which boards and authorities are appointed by Government Ministers should be examined when addressing this issue. In the nature of things I imagine — I have never had the pleasure of doing it — that names are sought from friends, party colleagues, officials in Departments and so on who would be suitable for a particular position. A list would be drawn up and because of the exclusion of women from so many areas in Irish life the likelihood of sufficient numbers of women being named in that process is very slight.
They do not meet them in the golf clubs.
They might meet them at the 19th hole because I think women are allowed into the bar——
In some places.
——but are not allowed become members of the clubs.
One way the Minister might address this problem is to place an advertisement in the daily newspapers indicating that he will be appointing, in the course of a certain period of time, a board or an authority, that he is anxious to ensure a gender balance and that any women interested in this post should write to him indicating their experience, their role and their interests. The Minister might strike a vein of gold if he opened up the whole system of appointments in that way. It would not in any sense take from this or any other Minister the right to make whatever appointments they wished in the final analysis. Obviously, any board or authority must have a certain level of expertise in the area to which they are appointed. In many cases a degree of common sense and general experience is required. Experience in an area not connected to broadcasting may well be valuable to a person on a broadcasting authority. For example, a mother who has reared a number of children would have any clear views as to the role of broadcasting and how a broadcasting authority should operate.
There are other areas of life also where women are becoming increasingly active and I am just offering those as suggestions. The Minister would be setting a headline if he were to ask women to indicate their interest in particular areas. This would not deprive him of any right to select, at the end of the day, those he felt would be most suitable.
I have no difficulty sharing the sentiments that have been expressed in favour of this amendment but I accept that actions are equally important since becoming Minister. In the bodies appointed by me in the area of broadcasting for example, the Coiste Bunaithe of Teilifís na Gaeilge have a majority of women members.
Mná na hÉireann.
I am delighted to inform the House that yesterday I appointed Maighread McParland, who is in charge of paper conservation in the National Gallery, as a member of the board of the gallery. Of the ten members appointed by the Minister to that board with the approval of Government, she becomes the fourth woman member which represents a 40 per cent participation by women on that board.
An-mhaith.
I am happy to inform the House also that women will be in the majority on the Irish Film Board. It is my intention to give Deputies those members' names because I am aware of their interest in this area. The Irish Film Board, is chaired, as I have already announced, by Dr. Lelia Doolan. The other members are Ann O'Connell, who worked on the Coopers and Lybrand report on the film industry, Mary Allequen, who is involved in production and has a great deal of experience, Deirdre Friel, who has enormous experience as a drama producer, Peter Owens, who is knowledgeable in the whole marketing area and whose expertise is valuable, Louis Marcus, about whom I need say very little but who is a distinguished film maker and Neil Jordan. Of these seven, four are women and it gives me great pleasure to say that there were many gifted women from which to choose who have made great achievements. I am as sensitive as anybody else to the nature of patriarchal society and I am anxious to ensure the advancement of women in other institutions and organisations for which I have responsibility. I am referring to institutions such as Údarás and others and I will be examining all of those as the opportunities present themselves. In relation to the Coiste Bunaithe, the Film Board and the National Gallery the pattern of my nominations to Government for appointment is one which meets the gender balance.
This amendment is one for which I have sympathy but I have difficulty concerning its wording. I have indicated to the Deputy what I have done in relation to the boards to which I have had an opportunity of making nominations so far. The point she is making in her amendment will be helpful. I would like to extend this to the point where her proposal could apply to all State bodies, not just those I have mentioned. This principle should be addressed in terms of more general legislation if the 40 per cent participation was not adhered to in other State bodies. I am willing to follow the spirit of what Deputy Fitzgerald is trying to achieve. I would also like to address the issue referred to in this specific legislation in more general legislation and to discuss this with Government.
I am surprised at the Minister. Of course, I recognise his efforts in this area and he is adhering to and, indeed, going beyond the recommendations of the commission in relation to the 40 per cent participation by women, which I welcome. I am surprised that the Minister is not willing to include it specifically in this Bill. I am not accusing the Minister of this but there has been much lip service to equality. Obviously, what is required is action on the specifics. Women are crying out for this, whether in the home, in business or elsewhere. They want joint ownership of the family home, membership of the semi-State boards, etc. We have a difficulty frequently getting to the specifics of this issue and the Government accepted this recommendation two years ago. The new Partnership Government accepted it also and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, said that he wants to see this sort of balance within a three-year period so we have support for the thinking behind the commission's recommendation. Therefore, what is the difficulty in building this recommendation into the area for which the Minister has specific responsibility? I welcome the Minister's point that this recommendation should be taken into consideration in looking at legislation generally. However, I remind him that since the first recommendation was accepted two years ago — to which the previous Government gave a great welcome — Eolas and the free Legal Aid Board were set up with all male appointees to their boards. This was done at a time when the Commission on the Status of Women had made a recommendation which was accepted. Even though there is a commitment to ensuring a gender balance on the boards of semi-State companies and an acceptance of the principle, there are still failures in this area. My amendment relates to one of the Minister's specific areas of responsibility, he should lead by example and avail of this historic opportunity to build my proposal into the legislation.
My difficulty with the amendment is that the wording would allow people to escape from the obligation the Deputy seeks to achieve. The Deputy's amendment proposes that the Minister shall "take steps to ensure that ...". Every Minister who has been asked to address the issue of equality has pretended, to some extent, to take steps in this area.
They have taken steps backwards.
I am not using sentiments of support for the principle of a gender balance. Actions speak a great deal louder than words. There is a gender balance on the board which I announced previously and for the first time there is a 40 per cent representation of women on the board of the National Gallery. The woman I appointed is not only distinguished but has been a member of the staff of the gallery for a long time and served it well. I have been consistently in favour of ensuring a gender balance in all my actions.
The 40 per cent gender balance rule should apply to every State board and it should not be left to each individual Minister to implement this provision. If it does not happen legislation should be introduced to implement it. I would support such action by my colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. It would be dangerous to leave the implementation of this rule to the discretion of individual Ministers and not to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure there is a gender balance on boards. Regardless of who they are, they will not have difficulty in demonstrating they have taken steps which would astonish people but which do not achieve the desired result. The provision should not be as loose as that; it should be monitored in the case of each Minister. If there is significant failure to implement this provision across all State boards this matter should be addressed by way of simple general equality and law reform legislation. I have given the Deputy an undertaking that I will monitor this area. I have been consistent in my actions so far and I have no intention of changing.
None of us on this side of the House questions the Minister's commitment in this area as he has clearly demonstrated it, not only by words but through the appointment of women to the boards for which he is responsible. I congratulate the Minister on doing this — it is something of which he can be proud. On that basis if he finds the wording of the amendment inadequate or loose it is within his remit to agree to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to cover this area.
The relationship between the Minister and Opposition Deputies during the debate on this Bill has been fairly good. We have managed to iron out some of our differences. The Minister has very graciously accepted a number of the principles for which we argued. It would be another headline for the Minister if he accepted the principle of what we are proposing and agreed to bring forward his own tightened version — perhaps a better version — of this amendment on Report Stage.
The Minister said he would not like the question of gender balance to be left to the discretion of individual Ministers. However, the reality is that that is the situation. If individual Ministers do not regard it as their responsibility to do something then, unfortunately, nothing will be done. I do not propose to comment on the attitude of the Minister's colleagues in Government but I am sure that some of them would not be as flexible as the Minister. The Minister could put pressure on other members of the Government to act in like manner if he accepted the responsibility we are urging upon him in this amendment.
The Minister has argued that it would be dangerous to leave implementation of this provision to the discretion of individual Ministers; it would be dangerous and unfortunate if the Minister did not avail of the opportunity here to take on board an amendment which, as far as I am aware, would provide for the first time in legislation a gender balance on boards. I emphasise that we are talking about gender balance. We are not seeking to incorporate into the legislation a provision that X number of women will be appointed to boards. There must be at least 40 per cent men on any board, committee or authority. We are not arguing that boards should be made up entirely of women. The Minister has a golden opportunity to take his commitment a step forward and include in legislation something in which he genuinely believes and on which he has acted during his short time in Government. I appeal to the Minister to take on board the principle of this amendment and to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage which will cover the case which he and we are making.
The Minister's position is not totally simple, he has to consider the views of his colleagues in Cabinet. I have no doubt that arguments can be advanced about the rigidity which might arise from the imposition of quotas in the law. If the Minister attempts to get support for an across the board statutory provision I am sure arguments to the contrary will be advanced with quite an amount of intensity.
One way of getting around those arguments is to include the provision in legislation and see how it works. Maybe the arguments of undue rigidity will prove to be quite persuasive. If the Minister was willing to include this provision in legislation and put a limit on its duration, for example, that it will apply for the next five years only, it would be clear it is an experiment and not a permanent change. The experience of operating such an amendment would be helpful to the Government in making a decision on the wider issue because they would have seen it work in an important area — it has been acknowledged that the Minister is sympathetic to making it work. Equally problems that might arise would be brought to light — for example, in the case of organisations that might wish to be represented, all of whose members happen to be women or all of whose members happen to be men, it would not be possible to accommodate them because of the 40 per cent rule. In that way we could see how a general provision in this regard, to which the Minister said he is looking forward, would be dealt with. Unless we experiment with the measure we will not see the problems or the potential in this area. Perhaps the Minister, who is very reasonable in his approach to this matter, will accept Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment on an experimental basis.
I am not persuaded one iota by what the Minister said in that if he takes responsibility in this area it will somehow lessen overall Government responsibility for this matter. It is already Government policy to accept the commission's recommendations, as was restated recently by the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor. I ask the Minister to make an historic breakthrough and incorporate this proposal in law to ensure that the 40 per cent recommendation is met in areas for which he is responsible. Given the Minister's track record and commitment in this area, if he does not take on board this amendment, what hope is there of other Ministers accepting it? Will the Minister consider the amendment or introduce an alternative amendment on Report Stage if he feels that the wording "shall take steps" is not appropriate?
I have no doubt that the wording "shall take steps" is extraordinary weak and very much short of my actions in this area. I am grateful to the Deputies for their comments. In relation to appointments I have accepted the equality report, but the wording in this amendment does not meet the recommendations I wish to see implemented. I am not happy with a formulation as weak as "shall take steps". I also want to address the issue of nomination and decision by Government. Ministers, in relation to bodies under their responsibility, make nominations to the Government which decides on them. That mechanism is worth considering.
There is no disagreement about what we are all seeking to achieve. I want to ensure appropriate representation of women on boards in the most effective way possible. Between now and Report Stage I will have discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. I cannot give commitments until I study his proposals in this regard. I would like to see this matter dealt with in a general way in one Bill. I will return to the issue on Report Stage.
I compliment the Minister on his actions to date. At every opportunity he acknowledged the ability and capability of women and has done so in the most practical way possible, by making a number of appointments of women, as announced today. He is to be highly commended on doing so because at the end of the day it is the action taken that matters, not the aspiration advanced at Árd Fheiseanna or occasional conferences called for various purposes. This Minister has taken action on each occasion on which the opportunity has arisen and he is to be highly commended on doing so.
However, I stress the necessity of acknowledging this amendment on Report Stage. If it is defeated the wrong signals will be sent out and our actions misconstrued. People will fail to realise that advances have been made in terms of appointments of women by this Minister, who in many ways is the most open and enlightened Minister in regard to these matters. All the wrong signals would go out to women and to the general public and Ministers in other Departments who do not have the same outlook or the same broadness of vision as this Minister would not be encouraged to take action in this area. That could be very damaging.
I ask the Minister to take note of what I said. The best approach to this matter is to proceed on a Department by Department basis in the context of legislation rather than in a global manner with the old liturgies and aspirations trotted out again. I do not wish the appointment of women to State boards to be as longrunning as the draining of the Shannon. The Minister is capable of giving a lead on this matter, not only in his own Department but to other Ministers.
Will the Minister consider this matter on Report Stage? He should come up with a form of wording that does not shackle him or the Government in what we are attempting to do, and which would achieve the desired results. If the first major step is not taken in the context of this amendment culminating in a result, future attempts in this regard will hardly succeed. This amendment is the acid test of the future success in this area in the context of other Departments. I support the spirit of Deputy Fitzgerald's proposal and I have no doubt she will advert to the Minister's goodwill and intent on this matter.
It is clearly a matter for Deputy Frances Fitzgerald as to the way she intends to proceed with this amendment. I am disappointed with the Minister's response to this proposal. I appreciate that he is only one of 15 Ministers in Government, but he has autonomy within that body in relation to this legislation, and he can if he wishes accept this amendment particularly in view of the fact that it is entirely in line with the commission's report which has been accepted by Government. I can understand the Minister's wish to consult with the Minister for Equality and Law Reform in relation to the terms of the amendment which might be brought in on Report Stage. The Minister would be doing himself a disfavour by not agreeing in principle to proceed on Report Stage with an amendment such as this. I am not pressing on him acceptance of the wording here. He has indicated its weakness and that is inevitable with amendments coming from the Opposition as we do not have the services of expert drafts people. I urge very strongly on the Minister the need to incorporate in this legislation the reference to the need for a gender balance in the appointment of the Authority and the radio commission.
The Minister is mistaken if he believes that this is not the time to do it. We are fortunate that we have Deputy Michael Higgins as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht with responsibility for the broadcasting area. One of the certainties of political life is that we cannot be certain where we will be next year or the year after. For that reason the Minister should not miss a golden opportunity to ensure that something of lasting value is left in this legislation which bears his stamp. There is nothing to stop the Taoiseach from deciding tomorrow to reshuffle the Cabinet and put, perhaps, Deputy Noel Davern into that position. Who knows what kind of amendments might then be brought forward in this legislation?
Our country and western Deputy.
I mentioned Deputy Davern to highlight the difference of approach that might be taken by different Deputies in different positions. The Minister should have regard to the fact that he does not know who will fill the post after him. Now is the time. The Minister has an opportunity to do something lasting, to set a headline for other Ministers and make it almost impossible for other Ministers not to take similar steps. I appeal to the Minister to take this step and do himself and the women of Ireland a favour.
I agree it is fortunate that Deputy Higgins is the current Minister. The only better person I could see in that job would be Deputy Frances Fitzgerald who would have included this provision in the Bill. The next time the Minister sits down to write wonderful poetry he will be singing the praises of Deputy Fitzgerald, because she has given him an opportunity to be the first Minister to recognise that our boards and State institutions should recognise in legislation the role of women in our society. When poets and poetesses of the year 2010 start to write about this time and about their fellow poet, Deputy Higgins, they will be singing his praises as the man who was prepared to stand up and be counted. I am disappointed that the Minister did not on his own initiative include this provision in the Bill but I welcome the fact that the Minister will address this on Report Stage. Having listened to Opposition Deputies the Minister is now fired with enthusiasm and his officials will present him with the appropriately worded amendment for Report Stage so that we can again sing the Minister's praises and perhaps get someone to write a poem recommending that amendment.
This is also an opportunity for the Minister to impress on his Cabinet colleagues that this amendment calls for 40 per cent representation of both men and women. At some stage someone might suggest a board comprising all women but we must also ensure that men will not be discriminated against in certain areas. This amendment will ensure that men will not be excluded. It recognises that both men and women should be fairly represented. I am sure the Minister's colleague, Deputy Mervyn Taylor, will wholeheartedly support the Minister in this amendment. This legislation will be a flagship for some of the Minister's more reluctant colleagues on the Front Bench who say that of course they will appoint women to boards and recognise their role in our society but who when the opportunity arises cannot find a suitable woman. There are plenty of trained, skilled women who can take their places on any board. Let us take this opportunity to give a lead in this area.
I look forward to Report Stage. I hope Deputy Frances Fitzgerald will not be forced into resubmitting this amendment if she decides now to withdraw it on the Minister's promise. I hope we will not have to withdraw all the compliments paid to the Minister.
Deputy Owen was not here when I was addressing this issue.
I was listening upstairs. That is why I came down.
I appreciate that. The Deputy will appreciate that when I spoke about it before, Deputy Fitzgerald, in fairness to her, recognised that the formulation of words "the Minister shall take steps to ensure that" may not be adequate. There was not a Minister, of the most patriarchal type, since the State was founded who could not show that he had taken steps of some kind. Deputy Fitzgerald and I agree that this defeats the case. Because Deputy Owen is converted to the intersection between poetry and politics she will understand——
It was reading the Minister's poetry that did it.
——that sometimes the text can defeat the intent, as it does in this case.
There is no difference between Members in what we are trying to achieve. It is facilitated by the fact that at every opportunity I have exceeded the 40 per cent quota. I appreciate that people recognise that and I thank them for it. I have also said that I do not intend to depart from that philosophy. The issue is whether this is the best way of achieving what we want to achieve. I listened carefully to the points in favour of including a specific reference in this Bill. I have said that I will have discussion with the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. General legislation is the best way of handling this issue across the State boards. I want to consult with the Minister not only on that principle but also on the timescale for such legislation as he is planning.
I will consider before Report Stage all the points that have been made. It is my intention to examine how this matter can be best advanced so that the objective of equality can be achieved. That will give Deputies an opportunity to reconsider the position. I must strike a balance between introducing general or specific legislation and I will have to consider the timescale involved in introducing both types. I have listened carefully to all the comments and I will consider them before Report Stage.
I note that in the course of the discussion the Minister changed his mind in regard to his argument. We are now focusing on the wording. It is clear that the intention is to have 40 per cent representation of men and women.
I have acceded on that point.
I accept that and we can examine the wording before Report Stage, but the Minister argued about the principle——
It is a balance between general and specific legislation.
As I stated originally, one should lead by example and it is important that the Minister has agreed to consider this matter. This is an historic opportunity for him. I compliment the Minister on his record and I have no doubt about his future intentions in this regard. Nevertheless, up to now there have been enormous barriers to women in regard to both access to the law and changes to the law which reflects the needs of women. We have seen an example of this recently. The law is crucial in terms of its approach to women. The Minister should accept this amendment so that our law is unequivocal and clear. We have had the promises, we want action. I will withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Minister will introduce an amendment in this regard on Report Stage. I hope he will allow the spirit of my amendment to be incorporated in his amendment.
I thank the Deputy for her comments and I will certainly consider this matter between now and Report Stage. I assure her that there is no difference in regard to what we want to achieve. It is merely a matter of striking technical and tactical balances. I have not rejected any of the arguments put forward. They must be placed in the context of arguments for general legislation and I will give careful consideration to the points made before Report Stage.
Technical and tactical balances and strategies have delayed progress for women for far too long. I agree with the Minister that it is action we need and that is what I am asking for.
I accept that the law is a carrier of either progress or patriarchal backwardness and the same applies to legislation. I am merely asking for time to consider the best legislative framework to achieve what we want. I might conclude, because of the timescale involved in introducing general legislation, that this pathway indicates itself to me. I want time to examine the balance between innovation in a particular legislative way and general legislation and the timescale attached to both. We will have an opportunity of considering the most effective way to do this on Report Stage.
I am merely asking the Minister to grasp the opportunity now as opposed to waiting. However, I take his points.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 in the name of Deputy Fitzgerald has been ruled out of order as it is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are alternatives and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 5, line 35, to delete "As soon as may be after the end of the financial year for" and substitute "That before the end of the first calendar month of".
In tabling this amendment I was reacting to the initial drafting which I felt was much too loose and vague and would not meet the requirements of reporting, particularly when we are talking about the use to which public moneys are being put. I reacted to the phrase "As soon as may be after the end of the financial year", which could be three, six or nine months later. I propose to substitute words to the effect that a report should be made available before the end of the first month of the calendar year after which the allocation was made. That is a reasonable request. I admit that the matters under consideration are ongoing and that we cannot put the same deadline on programme and film making that we could on an annual financial report where precise figures and an exact report could be produced at the end of every year. That yardstick cannot be applied to what is under consideration in this Bill. Nonetheless, a progress or an interim report should be made available to this House within a reasonable timescale after the end of financial year in which time the moneys have been made available. It is important that we should require that a report be made available before the end of the following January setting out the progress to date and the plans which are in train so that we could have an overall view as to progress. Because of the nature of this activity it cannot be tied down in a mathematical or specific way but it is reasonable that the Members of this House should have a report that would answer Deputies' questions and that such reports should be made available before the end of the first calendar month of the year after which the allocation was made.
I would draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are not alternatives. Amendment No. 31 is a drafting amendment in my name and, therefore, would need to be taken separately.
Acting Chairman
Thank you, I take the Minister's point.
Deputy Quill's point contains much merit. I agree that a definite date by which the report should be published would be beneficial. However, a requirement to produce a report of such importance within one month might be an unreasonable burden to place on the Authority. I am considering a requirement whereby the report would have to be submitted by the end of March, which would be more reasonable. I would like to take advice on the exact wording of the amendment, but if the Deputy withdraws her amendment I will return to the matter on Report Stage and put down an amendment which I believe will address the issue she raised.
I thank the Minister for taking my reservations on board and meeting the requirements. I look forward to his amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 5, line 35, to delete "for".
This amendment is to correct a simple drafting error, to delete the word "for" from line 35, page 5.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 5, after line 46, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) A separate unit shall be established within the Authority to commission, monitor and report on the development of the independent film production sector in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Members shall be appointed by the Minister from both the Authority and such other bodies as the Minister thinks fit.".
This amendment was discussed earlier and there is no need to go back over the same ground.
I very much appreciate the Deputy's comments. Indeed it was appropriate that we teased out these issues, to which we can return, for example, when we discuss the review. In fact they made the process of the review even sharper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Tuesday next, by agreement with the Whips.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 1 June 1993.