Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 1975

Vol. 81 No. 13

Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1975: Report Stage.

An Cathaoirleach

Before we take up consideration on the Report Stage of this Bill, I should like to indicate that I have ruled that amendment No. 6, standing in the names of Senators Yeats and Lenihan, is out of order on the ground that it has the same effect as an amendment rejected on Committee Stage. The Senators have been notified accordingly.

I also remind Senators that on Report Stage each contributor is confined to a single speech with the exception of the mover of an amendment, who has the right to conclude the debate.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 14, to delete "simultaneous".

This is a matter I raised on Committee Stage in a different form but with the same general effect. My amendment now seeks to delete the word "simultaneous" from the third definition in section 1. By including this word the Minister is unnecessarily limiting himself. We do not approve of the procedure he is adopting with regard to rebroadcasts. I ask the Minister to consider what I am saying about this rather than what he may think are my motives. There is a valid point to be made in this respect.

The Minister is being given the power to direct the Authority to rebroadcast BBC 1, or UTV in its entirety. The word "rebroadcast" according to section 1 means a simultaneous rebroadcast. This is very limiting. In the event of there being a difference in time between Ireland and England, the programmes that had formerly been at peak hours would have changed their times. Deleting this word does not mean that the rebroadcast will not be simultaneous. It means that the Minister has the power to authorise the variation of perhaps an hour in the case of a change of time in the rebroadcast of all or some of these programmes. This can be simply done by the mere recording of the programmes and rebroadcasting them an hour later.

It is not merely that these BBC broadcasts could be rebroadcast here at inconvenient times for the Irish public, but this would upset the whole programming of RTE. One assumes that if the BBC are to be broadcast under the provisions of section 6, programmes on the existing RTE 1 would have to be geared to this. They will have to have regard to what programmes will come over on our second channel in framing their own programmes. This would mean that not only would there be a difference of an hour, in the case of a change of time, with the whole BBC broadcast but that the RTE broadcasts would have to be altered also in order to fit in.

The Minister did not give an adequate reply on Committee Stage to the point I made then. When I asked him why he wanted to have the word "simultaneous" in, he said at Volume 81, column 452, of the Seanad Report:

Because that is what I want and that is what the people as I believe, of the single-channel area want— simultaneous rebroadcasting to get the degree of simultaneity which viewers in the multi-channel area are already getting.

At column 458 he states:

If there is a rebroadcast of a live programme, for example, under the definition as it stands in the Bill, and if Senator Yeats's position were to be adopted and the Minister were accordingly to order a rebroadcast an hour later, the Irish viewer is not getting the live broadcast the English viewer is getting. There is a clear distinction. They are two different things. One is a simultaneous broadcast; the other is not.

Of course, the Irish viewer in most cases would not be getting a live broadcast—he would be getting a broadcast which had been already recorded. Whether you see a recorded broadcast at the same time as someone in Birmingham or Dublin or an hour later, does not appear to be of fundamental importance. What appears to be of rather more importance is that the programmes should be geared to the needs of the viewers.

The deletion of this word "simultaneous" does not in any way mean that there would be a change in the actual time of broadcasting. One could imagine, for example, with a football match or perhaps a horse race, that such programmes might always be simultaneous. Equally, programmes in the evening which were recorded in any event, could well be shown an hour earlier, if there was a difference in time between Ireland and Britain. The deletion of the word does not mean that these things will happen. It merely means that the Minister is given the power, if he sees fit, to see that they will happen. It will give him a slight element of flexibility which he is withdrawing from himself by means of his definition. In his own interests, I suggest he accept this amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may reserve his speech until after the Minister's contribution.

Mr. Lenihan

I would prefer to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to support this amendment because I believe it would create a more flexible situation. At the same time, I would like to support it because it is necessary at this stage on the debate on the Broadcasting Bill to clarify exactly what we are talking about. Senators do not like to legislate in the dark, and I submit that in relation to this Bill that is what we are doing.

There were references in the press and at a seminar organised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to a letter sent by the BBC in which there was a commitment not to engage in an agreement for simultaneous rebroadcasting of BBC programmes, if there was union objection in this country. The Director-General of RTE refused to comment on this matter and, I think, the Minister owes it to this House——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is wide of the amendment. The net point in regard to the amendment is the question of simultaneity, not the principle of rebroadcasting in toto.

Mrs. Robinson

I submit that I am not straying wide of the point. The question is whether this House should be considering the question of simultaneous rebroadcasting, if it is not a reality. I do not think we should be legislating in the dark. We should not be considering something where behind scenes there is correspondence indicating that it will not happen. We will look very foolish at the end of the day if——

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair is concerned because what the Senator has been saying would appear to be far more appropriate to the discussion of the section on Committee Stage. The fact that later information becomes available after the Committee Stage debate closes cannot justify it being raised on an amendment on Report Stage if it does not fall within the narrow constraints of that amendment.

Mrs. Robinson

I submit it is surely open to a House of the Oireachtas when a Bill is being debated to be aware of the factual situation. The net issue in this amendment submitted at Report Stage by Senators Yeats and Lenihan is to remove the word "simultaneous". I submit that the word "simultaneous" should not be there if it is not, in fact, possible, in practical terms for the Minister to direct the Authority to rebroadcast, in the sense of simultaneous rebroadcasting of programmes from another organisation.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator's argument would apply to every word in the section. The argument would indicate that if the Minister cannot do this because of certain constraints, then every word in the section serves no purpose. The Chair is very concerned that the debate on Report Stage should be confined to the actual amendments which have been tabled for Report Stage

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

Would it be hopelessly out of order for me to plead with the Chair to allow Senator Robinson to make her point, to which I would like to reply? I am sure she will make it briefly and I would like to reply.

Mrs. Robinson

Yes, I would appreciate that opportunity.

An Cathaoirleach

This seems to savour of a conspiracy against the Chair.

Mrs. Robinson

I would like to ask the Minister, in the context of the controversy over the weekend——

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair is still extremely worried about this. I am prepared to indulge the Senator and the Minister in very brief statements on this, but the Chair is still troubled that the arguments are outside the scope.

Mr. Lenihan

I would like to be indulged later.

Mrs. Robinson

I thank the Chair for his indulgence. I should like to ask, given the controversy over the weekend, and the fact that the amendment before us would delete the word "simultaneous" in the definition section, whether the Minister is confident that if this Bill were to become law he could enter into a binding arrangement with a foreign broadcasting channel to rebroadcast, in the sense of rebroadcasting simultaneously, a broadcasting service in this country.

An Cathaoirleach

I would remind Senators that they can each only make one contribution.

Mr. Lenihan

I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister is in a similar position. If neither Senator Lenihan nor the Minister offers the Chair will call on Senator Yeats to reply.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

While I appreciate Senator Yeats's work on this Bill— he has done a great deal to improve it in my opinion—I am not in a position to accept his amendment here, because in my view simultaneity is central to the concept of rebroadcasting. Deletion of the word "simultaneous" from the definition of "rebroadcast" in section 1 would involve introducing a new interpretation of "rebroadcasting" which would be at variance with the generally accepted meaning of the word. The definition of rebroadcasting in this Bill is on exactly the same lines as that contained in our own Performers Protection Act, 1968. It is also almost identical with the definition of "rebroadcasting" contained in the 1961 Convention, that is, the International Convention concerning the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasters.

As regards the question raised by Senator Robinson, first of all, I apologise for my own intervention, which I appreciate may have been considered irrelevant and I am sure there was no intention, either on the part of Senator Robinson or myself, of conspiracy against the Chair. The point she raised is relevant to simultaneous rebroadcasting and she has, I think, rightly raised it briefly here. She asked whether I am confident that I can do this thing. Yes I am, provided that the people in the single-channel area, in particular the people generally, really want this, and make their wishes known.

It is true that since the Seanad considered this Bill in Committee, the BBC have indicated in public statements that they would not be prepared, in the words of one spokesman, "to ride roughshod over the Irish unions" and that in effect so long as certain major unions, notably the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, oppose live rebroadcasting of BBC 1, the BBC could not conclude an agreement for such rebroadcasting. I am aware that that is the position of the BBC.

I fully agree that the BBC cannot be expected to ride roughshod over the Irish unions—and indeed it could not do so even if it wished—neither has this Government any intention of acting in such a manner. It follows that if the trade unions decide to do so they can in effect exert a veto over the live rebroadcasting of BBC 1 from Northern Ireland or of any other outside channel.

It has been suggested that, in view of this situation, the whole issue is a dead one since rebroadcasting is impossible. That would be the case on the assumption that there are no possible circumstances which could induce the trade unions to reconsider their position. I do not accept that this assumption is necessarily valid. I believe that if it became clear that there was a strong preference in the single-channel area for direct access to BBC 1, or UTV, or other outside channels, then our trade unions, a substantial part of whose members live in that area, and some of them sit in this House, would necessarily, for good democratic reasons, review their position. That would be the sensible thing for them to do and I believe they would do it. At the recent Conference of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union at Wexford it was quite clear that there was a considerable amount of support among the delegates present in favour of access to BBC1. I was aware of that from responses to my own statement to the union and I have seen transcripts of contributions made to the debate later in which a number of delegates spoke quite strongly in favour of their concept.

It remains therefore important to consult with the people, especially in the single-channel area, to lay the issues before them, to let them hear and consider all points of view and to find out what they want. When what they want becomes clear I do not think any significant organised group is likely to stand in its way. I have already made clear that if viewers in the single-channel area are clearly convinced by RTE's advocacy of a second channel under its control, then I shall be happy to proceed along those lines. Similarly I believe that if a clear preference for access to BBC 1 or other simultaneous live channel should emerge, neither the trade unions nor RTE would be likely to adopt an intransigent position. I believe that has already been said on behalf of RTE, I think by Mr. Louis MacRedmond.

The trade unions would of course have to be satisfied that live rebroadcasting would not be likely to have adverse effects on the livelihoods of their members. I have already quoted in the Seanad from the statement which I made at Wexford in this matter outlining the reasons why rebroadcasting should have less effect on the livelihoods of broadcasting workers than the advent of the cable television systems which many of them now enjoy. Apart from the security of employment aspect there is, however, the question of what kind of television choice is advocated by broadcasting workers.

Obviously broadcasting workers will have strong views, and they have been energetically putting them across, as they have the right to do and as I have encouraged them to do. But do they wish to exert the power, which they undoubtedly have, to decide this issue for the people of the single-channel area?

Mr. John Carroll, Vice-President of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, on Friday the 20th June, faced up to some of these two issues when he spoke at the Seminar which Senator Robinson referred to, run by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, entitled "Towards a Broadcasting Policy". He then rightly said, and I quote:

no section of the Irish community denies or challenges the right of the employees of RTE to protect their jobs and their livelihood, more especially in times of economic depression, and there is surely nobody in our community who would expect RTE employees to sit back and refrain from asking essential questions about the effects of the terms of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill 1975 on their employment.

I fully agree with that. Mr. Carroll also said:

There is no question of any clique within RTE wanting to impose a style of broadcasting on the public at large. Any effort in that regard would be doomed to failure and we, representing not alone RTE employees but 150,000 workers throughout the country, who are also listeners and viewers, would strongly oppose such an effort. But RTE employees have an advantage over the rest of us, in that they are more appreciative of the technical and financial issues involved in broadcasting policy and they can help all of us, by articulating points of view, to come to more objective conclusions about the future of our broadcasting service.

Here again I agree. I think the major unions will want to abide by the wishes of the single-channel area in this matter, provided they have had the chance to put their arguments across and provided the interests of their members are safeguarded.

I would like trade unionists to share the platform with me and Members of the Opposition at a meeting in Limerick on this subject, which is being planned for early July and at which I hope the Mayor will take the chair. At this meeting and at others, which I hope will follow, RTE, the unions and the Opposition can put forward their concept of how an RTE 2, selecting the best programmes, could be more attractive than the rebroadcasting of BBC 1 live and in full. It is not enough to expect RTE 2 to be chosen by default, if the only obstacle to BBC 1 (Northern Ireland) is a say-so of a major Irish trade union. That say-so would be decisive, but it might not be the best augury for the future of the second channel. The people of the single-channel area will have to be convinced of the positive programming advantages which a selection of the best British, American, Canadian and Australian programmes would have over the direct relay of what broadcasters themselves see as a very popular channel, whose programmes they see described every day in their newspapers. That is the answer to the Senator. I am confident that this can happen and if the people of the single-channel area in particular clearly indicate that it is their wish I do not believe then that anyone will stand in their way.

I apologise once more to the Chair for having dealt with this now, but I felt that it would be helpful to the Seanad and to the public to answer the question which the Senator raised.

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister has shown just now the absence of what he called for in his opening speech, namely an open mind. The purpose of the amendment here to delete "simultaneous" is precisely for the reason that the reality of the matter now appears to be that a simultaneous broadcast by the Authority as specified in section I is just not on. I would like the Minister to Answer a specific question. It is a very legitimate question. It relates to at what stage, if at all, any discussions or negotiations have taken place with the BBC about the feasibility of simultaneous rebroadcasting. Leaving aside the question of the unions involved-by the way en passant I am very glad that the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union took a lead in having a seminar over the weekend on this matter—is it on in any event? Have discussions taken place with the BBC Authority on the nitty-gritty of this matter?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Yes.

Mr. Lenihan

Will the Minister give details of such discussions?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

No.

Mr. Lenihan

I suggest that the Minister is, in fact, misleading the House in this respect. I would suggest to him that no such detailed negotiations have taken place. My information is to that effect.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That suggestion is untrue.

Mr. Lenihan

I would ask the Minister to recognise the fact that simultaneous broadcasting in its entirety by the BBC here is first of all not on because BBC have given no indication that any such discussions have taken place. In fact, any spokesman for the BBC who has spoken on this matter has adopted, to put it mildly, an evasive attitude and has made it clear that if there is any trade union trouble in the matter it is not on. That was certainly the gist of what the spokesman for the BBC said over the weekend. Why is this whole issue being raised and fanned by the Minister? Is he not deluding the people in the single-channel area into a belief that this is on when, in fact, a great weight of people throughout the country, both leader writers and newspapers in the single-channel area, are now convinced of the validity of the remarks made in this Seanad and endorsed indeed at the Irish Transport Union seminar over the weekend. All the arguments in the Seanad were almost word for word spelt out under the heading of The Subtle Imperialism. They were arguments made by Dr. Tapio Varis who was quoted here by Senator Halligan, as a leading world expert on the whole question of television technology and its influence. I quote from him:

I am very firmly of the opinion that the media should always be seen as an instrument of political objectives, which is why the unbalanced flow of information, impressions and sociology is a serious matter. We should see clearly that the media has a social role and that anything that has to do with a social change is essentially political.

He also says:

... the fact that the free flow of information is a one-way flow from the Anglo-American commercial powers is a critical problem ...

He believes it must be faced at national and international level. This is precisely the point which I made and which the Minister disputed but subsequently agreed on Committee Stage that I was right. I said then, and I repeat, that no independent State in the world allows the simultaneous broadcasting in its entirety of the broadcast issuing for a neighbouring State service.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is not true.

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister agreed with me on Committee Stage that I was right.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I did not.

Mr. Lenihan

Is the Minister now saying that the report of the RTE Authority on this matter is wrong? The RTE Authority have specifically stated that such is the case. On my quoting this matter on Committee Stage the Minister apologised to me and said I was right. The Minister is in a predicament now. He knows I am right.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Senator is not right.

Mr. Lenihan

The fact of the matter is that certain countries allow private independent television stations in their country by way of licence, agreement or otherwise, but no country in the world allows the simultaneous broadcasting of a neighbouring power emanating from the neighbouring State service into its country on its own wavelengths. I would like the Minister to elaborate on whether or not the specific paragraph to that effect, in the RTE Authority Report is right or wrong. It is a very specific statement issued by the Minister's own Authority, which I mentioned on Committee Stage in justification of what I said on Second Stage, and the Minister apologised to me here on Committee Stage in relation toit.

I feel that this is a most basic matter which indeed was the whole genesis of what Dr. Varis had to say over the weekend. It is a matter on which I feel very strongly that Dr. Varis is completely right. It is the basic political issue as to the control that should be exercised by a State over its own television service and with regard to the wavelengths operating in each national State. Dr. Varis continued to emphasise that the most vulnerable countries in the world were the countries that were subjected to what he called Anglo-American cultural imperialism because the various Anglo-American agencies have specialised in the presentation and transmission of news in every form, and particularly since the war, in regard to the presentation and transmission of television news.

I would refer the Minister to what I referred to on Committee Stage of this debate, namely, the RTE Authority statement. Paragraph 6 of that report states:

No other country in the world has concluded that a second television service in that country should take the form of the rebroadcast in toto of one of the services of a neighbouring country ...

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am in difficulty here in that I am being asked repeatedly to reply but I understand that I am not allowed to reply on the section. May I reply briefly by way of interruption?

An Cathaoirleach

There is no need for the Minister to interrupt. If Senator Lenihan yields and the Chair agrees the Minister could, by agreement, be allowed to make a brief intervention.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I thank the Chair and the Senator. The RTE Authority did say that no country had handed over their second channel to a foreign programme. That statement is strictly true but slightly misleading because in Italy where there are already two national programmes rebroadcasting of foreign programmes has been approved by Act of Parliament. But of course that is not a second channel, it is a third one.

Mr. Lenihan

That is my point. In the Italian situation there is mixed State and independent television. In Ireland we have one State channel and the RTE Authority say that in that situation no other country in the world has allowed a second television service to be taken in the form of rebroadcast of another country's service in toto. That is related exactly to the point here of simultaneous rebroadcasting. It is the reason this amendment has been put down.

In addition to the point made by Senator Yeats, we feel that simultaneous broadcasting by the Authority of another broadcasting organisation in effect is rebroadcasting in toto another country's television service on a second channel already controlled by this country. No independent state in the world has done this. I hope I have clarified my point because this was precisely the point—I was very glad to see it made—made by Dr. Tapio Varis at the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union conference over the weekend. His central theme was that no country should allow or make a political decision to allow the unbalanced free flow of information, impressions and ideology. He regarded that as a serious matter.

What we advanced here and what we said last week in a statement is that however this second channel is monitored—whether it is monitored by RTE, or by an advisory committee, commission or body in the single-channel area from Limerick, Cork or Galway, being the three main centres in the present single-channel area—by working in conjunction with RTE some system could be devised of complementary programmes which would include the best programmes from the BBC, UTV, ITV, European, Australian or American programmes. If there is existing in the single-channel area a view that RTE by reason of the manner of presentation in the present single-channel are not a suitable authority to run the second channel along with the first channel, then my view is that the Minister should adopt some other means. The Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting last week suggested that if the Minister's view is that he does not want to have the people in the single-channel area organised by RTE, it may be a valid and legitimate point. Then let us have some body in the present single-channel area with studios in Cork, Limerick or Galway, with certain statutory powers and functions to ensure that a proper second channel is orientated in so far as they are concerned. That, at least, would be a constructive suggestion.

What I and Dr. Varis objected to strongly over the weekend is the handing over holus-bolus to a simultaneous broadcast in toto from the BBC on our alternative second channel. I do not mind how the Minister devises the control that should operate within this State, whether it is done directly by the RTE Authority, by some other body competing against the RTE Authority in Ireland or by a single-channel authority, body, council or committee. I do not mind how the Minister applies his mind to the situation as long as it is as it is—a body based in Ireland, There are various ways of doing it. It can be second channel RTE controlled rebroadcast; it can be done by way of a competing State body, it can be done by way of the single-channel itself having an authority based in some of the major centres of population in the single-channel area with studios equipped in that major sector and with an authority composed of people who live in that single-channel area. They could work within some overall umbrella that would ensure that there would be a reasonable degree of complementarity between the two programmes and that they would not be pursuing the idle exercise of competing pop programme for pop programme as happens in Britain between BBC I and ITV. Britain can afford it by reason of the huge market outlet in relation to the viewers which are in tremendous number as compared with Ireland.

I should like to come back to the principle of this amendment. It is embodied in the phrase "simultaneous broadcast." Simultaneous broadcast as written in there envisages a broadcast from an outside source. I am not objecting to a degree of simultaneity. There will be a high degree of simultaneity in the second channel broadcasting. While acknowledging that fact, the definition as incorporated in the Minister's Bill means simultaneous braodcasting in toto. Rebroadcast means the simultaneous broadcast by the authority of a broadcast of another broadcasting organisation.

If there is a flexible approach by the alternative Irish authority or by RTE running the second channel there will be a high degree of simultaneous rebroadcasting. I object to that rebroadcasting being automatic, operating in its entirety and being a simple matter of retransmitting simultaneously and in toto the broadcasting system of another State. That is what is envisaged in the Minister's definition and that is why we are seeking to delete the adjective "simultaneous" so as to ensure that there is a flexible approach to the matter and that in the alternative channel organised in one of the various ways I have mentioned to the Minister there will be—decided by Irishmen and women—a mix between what is best in a number of other channels. Some of this will involve simultaneous rebroadcasting from the BBC or some other station but merged in with that there will be other rebroadcasts, not necessarily simultaneous. In that broad flexible approach an Irish authority, composed as the Minister wishes, will ensure that there will be Irish monitoring of the rebroadcasting system and that Irish decisions will be made as to how, when and in what manner the presentation should be made, whether it be simultaneous or otherwise, whether it be BBC 1, BBC 2, UTV, French, Australian or American television. All this should be a matter to be decided by an Irish authority—whether it be RTE, a single-channel authority, a Cork, Galway or Limerick authority, or a totally separate type or organisation— as long as the Minister under this piece of legislation leaves himself open to ensure that Irish people are in the last analysis to decide on the ultimate programme.

It is on this basis that anyone who reads the excellent summary in today's Irish Times in the news feature of the seminar over the weekend can see for himself or herself that the whole tenor of the seminar, and in particular of the visiting speaker Dr. Varis, was exactly on all fours with the views expressed here right through the various stages of the debate by a number of Senators. That is why I ask the Minister to accept this amendment in that it will make his approach to the matter far more flexible in the coming months ahead. The Minister has stated that he is receptive to public opinion and the views that will be expressed in this matter, I accept what he says is true, but then he should have as flexible an instrument as possible in this statute. Defining “rebroadcasting” as meaning the simultaneous broadcast by the Authority of a broadcast from another broadcasting organisation is restricting him in exercising this flexibility of which I speak because it means that if there is any rebroadcasting it shall be simultaneous rebroadcasting. I would envisage that if the flexibility of approach on the part of an Irish Authority in the matter of the second channel were to be expressed in practical administrative action it would mean on some occasions a simultaneous element would not be included and that one might not necessarily on all occasions have simultaneous broadcasting. One might not be able to fit into every programme throughout the evening or the week simultaneous rebroadcasting at all stages. There might be situations where the simultaneous rebroadcasting would be totally unnecessary as far as Irish situations were concerned. It might be necessary in that case to have a programme that was not simultaneous incorporated into the rebroadcasting programme taking place. That might be part of the monitoring that would be done by whatever Irish authority would be established, so that there might be a mix between simultaneous programmes and other programmes. It would be a matter for planning and for working out by whatever authority the Minister might establish, whether RTE or some other authority along the lines I have suggested.

The deletion of the word "simultaneous" frees the Minister and puts him in a position to make far more flexible decisions in this matter. In particular it would enable whatever body the Minister might establish to monitor the second channel. The fundamental message that we got from the leading telecommunications expert in the world, Dr. Varis, was that to think of a State in the modern age handing over its own airwaves in toto to another State——

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair is getting very troubled. The Senator is speaking at great length. He is again returning to this question of in toto which is certainly not in the amendment before the House. The amendment deals with simultaneity and the Chair has indulged the Leader of the Opposition, as he indulged other persons previously in the debate. I would ask the Senator not to travel again ground that he has already travelled in this contribution.

Mr. Lenihan

Before I finish I should like to emphasise the point that the insertion of simultaneity here means inevitably rebroadcasting in toto. Rebroadcasting in toto means including everything in the. BBC programme right to God Save the Queen at the end. That is what is meant by simultaneous rebroadcasting of BBC 1. The principle of simultaneous rebroadcasting involves in toto rebroadcasting. This was the message from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union seminar at the weekend and in particular it is applicable to Ireland which is a small State. As I said already, Ireland is a small State in the middle of the Anglo-American cultural empire. We are unquestionably in a far more dependent situation than many other countries in this respect. We are going to be totally dependent if we hand over the second channel, and I emphasise second channel. If there is any ambiguity about what I am saying regarding the second channel, the RTE Authority in paragraph 6 of their report stated that no other country in the world has concluded that a second television service in their country should take the form of the rebroadcast in toto of one of the services of a neighbouring country. That is what is related here to simultaneous broadcasting. I am seeking to point out that the Minister may make for a far more flexible situation for himself and for the authority, or whatever body he may introduce, by allowing the deletion of “simultaneous” and so enable a balanced mix of programmes to be decided on the second channel by whatever body may be responsible for it.

Mr. Russell

I should like to say a few words on this because a lot of what Senator Lenihan said is over my head. As one who lives in one of the disadvantaged single-channel areas I get rather weary of listening to the people who enjoy the advantage of four or five selections telling those who reside in the less fortunate areas about the dangers to their culture and way of life if they are faced with the same selection or even a part of the selection of what those on the east coast now enjoy as a fortunate right.

It is unfortunate the Minister cannot conclude this debate because I think he might have cleared up some of the points made. However, that is the Chair's ruling and we must abide by it——

An Cathaoirleach

It is not the ruling of the Chair. It is determined by Standing Orders.

Mr. Russell

I accept that. I suppose the Chair was ruling in accordance with Standing Orders. As I understand it the word "simultaneous" is a corollary to rebroadcasting. Notwithstanding the noted authority quoted by Senator Lenihan I do not accept that by giving a Minister of State, who represents a Government selected by the people, the right to require a second channel to broadcast in its entirety certain programmes we are therefore handing over to an outside unnamed power the right to decide what our second channel will do. I assume that the Minister retains the right to direct the second channel what not to broadcast or not to broadcast anything at all.

Mr. Yeats

Is the Senator serious? That the Minister retains the right to direct the second programme what to broadcast?

Mr. Lenihan

Is the Minister part of the BBC now?

Mr. Russell

In the Bill the Minister has the right to direct that a programme can be broadcast.

Mr. Yeats

Once it starts he has no further power except to stop it.

Mr. Russell

I have just said that.

Mr. Yeats

He can tell them not to broadcast but he cannot tell them what to broadcast.

Mr. Russell

I did not say that. Perhaps the Senator misunderstood me. What I said was that the Minister has the right under the Bill to direct that certain programmes would be broadcast and he can also decide that broadcasting will cease. I have said here time and again that what I would personally prefer would be some outside institution, some consortium of newspapers or business interests who would operate an independent commercial station. As I understand it that is not on and there is no indication that it is on. I do not know what would be the costs involved in the suggestion of Senator Lenihan. No costs have been included in a recent statement from his party. It is important in our present circumstances that if one is proposing an alternative to the proposal in this Bill that the costs should be included. I think we could all make very airy-fairy ideal suggestions but unless we are practical about it and include in that what the cost is going to be to the taxpayer and ratepayer it is so much eyewash. I cannot see any practical alternative—I wish there was a practical alternative.

In the single-channel areas—Senator Lenihan and his cohorts can accept this—the people want an alternative. They want a practical alternative. They do not want lectures from people living in the advantaged areas as to what they should or should not do. If the Opposition can come up with a practical alternative and spell out the cost, I am quite certain that this House and the other House and the Minister would listen to it. So far we have had no idea at all as to what any of these alternatives might cost and until such time as we do that I do not think we can give serious consideration to any of these suggestions.

Mr. Lenihan

The RTE report gave it.

Mr. Russell

Unless we in the disadvantaged areas can find some reasonable alternative, I do not see any alternative to going through with the proposals in the Bill and leaving it to an Irish Minister to instruct the second channel what to broadcast or to decide not to broadcast if there is such cultural danger as Senator Lenihan and his fellow Senators seem to think.

Mr. Yeats

This discussion began on the basis of an innocent, technical, little amendment but, largely by the Minister's wishes, it has spread its wings somewhat since it began. I will begin my reply by sticking to the strict terms of the amendment. I regret that the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment because its phraseology is not unnecessarily rigid. I am not at all convinced by his references to other Acts and saying that "rebroadcast" meant such and such in them. If the Minister wishes to achieve the effect of my amendment, I am certain the parliamentary draftsman would be able to come up with phraseology which would suit, instead of using the word "rebroadcast" if that has already been used in another Act in a certain sense. One could say "retransmission". There is no technical problem which could not be surmounted and it does not convince me in the least to say he cannot accept this amendment because there is a certain definition in another Act.

The truth of the matter is that the Minister has got it into his head that it is an article of faith that not only must we broadcast BBC, but we must broadcast it simultaneously so that the Irish people can get whatever vicarious satisfaction he thinks they will get from knowing that they are looking at the same programmes that, at the precise moment, are being enjoyed or not enjoyed in Yorkshire, Lancashire, London, and elsewhere in the neighbouring isle. I do not understand this article of faith but one must accept that this is his belief. It is a curious creed. It does not seem to me to have any basis in concrete reality but, nonetheless, we must accept that these are his views and, therefore, he will not accept this amendment.

Going on to the rather wider aspect the Minister has raised, he dealt at some length in a prepared script with his attitude to the trade union reaction to these proposals. He said, in effect, removing the verbiage and getting down to the bedrock of meaning underlying it, that he hoped and assumed that, in the event of the people in the single-channel area deciding they wish to have this foreign television service rebroadcast to them simultaneously, the Irish trade unions would not stand in their way and, indeed, trade unionists themselves have television sets. The Minister altogether misunderstands the solidarity trade unionists, not merely in this country but in all countries, have on such issuses. If there was a proposal by the Government to ask the taxpayer to subsidise the importation of large quantities of foreign shoes or articles of clothing or textiles from Hong Kong or Korea or even from England, trade unionists would object and they would be right to do so.

The immediate objectors would be the trade unions whose employment was threatened and they would be supported by the generality of trade union members. We have already had trade union action. Whether it be justified or not, we must recognise that the problem exists and action has been taken. Already there has been trade union action with regard to the importation of fully assembled foreign cars. We all know that on such issues trade unions take a severe view of threats, or what seem to be threats, to the employment of their members and that they are supported by other trade unions. Therefore, we may take it that they will be supported in this case by other trade union members, whether or not they have television sets and whether or not they live in the single-channel area.

The Minister also suggested, as indeed he suggested in earlier debates on this Bill, that there is no need for trade unionists to fear any damage to their employment. This is a matter of opinion. The trade unionists feel that their employment and career prospects are threatened. The RTE Authority also think so. Commonsense would suggest that their prospects of employment and of future development are threatened. The Minister should have regard to the fact that trade unionists are not wholly activated by self-interest. Obviously all of us, whether members of trade unions or not, are activated to a considerable extent by self-interest. He should give trade unionists and other people the credit of assuming that self-interest is not their entire way of life.

He should consider also that the members of trade unions who work in Radio Telefís Éireann have a pride in the fact that they work in a national television station. They have a pride in what has been achieved and they have hopes for what may be achieved in the future. They have a sort of national feeling that they would like to take part in the development of the best possible radio television service here. They are naturally upset at the idea that, as a result of section 6 of the Minister's Bill, the prospects for what has been built up are gravely in danger, that at the very least the type of development in the future they could look forward to will not take place and that at the worst what has already been achieved may be very gravely endangered. The Minister should have regard to this fact. It is not simply a matter of self-interest, or of the take-home pay they may expect, or their employment prospects. The Minister should have regard to the pride they have in their work, in the whole ethos, the whole concept, they have of the national broadcasting organisation, of which they are a part.

Senator Russell told us as, indeed, the Minister has already said, that after all, the Minister still retains control of this foreign television service which is potentially brought in by this Bill, and the Minister has every intention of bringing it in. Senator Russell says the Minister still has control because, even after the service has begun he can always stop it. I pointed out to Senator Russell that, while the programme is being rebroadcast, the Minister has no control at all. Once the BBC start broadcasting over the Irish frequencies under the control of the RTE Authority, he has absolutely no control over what is broadcast. Indeed, he has copperfastened it in a number of sections in this Bill with the greatest care and against considerable resistance from this side of the House. He has made it absolutely certain that it is legally stated in this Bill that no control of any kind is to be maintained over the BBC. That is specifically stated——

Mr. Russell

What control has he over the BBC at the moment?

Mr. Yeats

He has no control over the BBC in the sense that if I stand on the beach I have no control over the waves that come in. They will continue to come in. There is nothing I can do about them.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

What if you bring in the waves by cable?

Mr. Yeats

I can build dams or canals and I can do all kinds of things to control the elements, but I have no control sitting on the beach over the waves as they come in. If I build a canal so that the waves come in and flood my neighbour's land—perhaps we are getting back to the swamp we had a discussion on earlier—and prevents his crops from growing, obviously I am responsible. I am not suggesting this is a direct comparison. While we or the Minister are in no way responsible for what the BBC or UTV do now, or any broadcasting station or any radio station in the world we happen to be able to hear, the Minister is responsible, or should be responsible, the moment he spends taxpayers' money, or authorities the spending of the licence holders' money, and in particular authorises in this legislation the rebroadcast of the BBC over Irish transmitters. These are Irish transmitters, paid for by the Irish taxpayer, operated by the so-called national television service from Irish mountain tops. This is a matter over which we have or should have control and for which we are or should be responsible.

There is absolutely no comparision between the situation that will arise if the Minister gets his way under this Bill, and the situation which exists at the moment, whereby, if you happen to live in certain places you can receive the BBC. The Minister quite clearly has no more control over the BBC than he has over the waves in the sea.

The Minister exercises control in this Bill to the extent that he can effectively press the button, He can say: "All right, from now on we will rebroadcast over Irish transmitters entire programmes simultaneously from the BBC." Having done this he can, of course, stop it, but he cannot in any way dictate what they are going to broadcast. As I say, he has provided most carefully in this Bill that the requirements that they should be objective and impartial shall not apply to them, that their treatment of current affairs need not be fair to all interests concerned, nor need they be presented in an objective and impartial manner. The various requirements about incitement to crime or undermining the authority of the State which we are specifically providing for in this Bill do not apply to the BBC. They do not apply even to the extent that if they are breached there is an injunction on the Minister to cut off the service. There is nothing at all about this. No one can say—unless the English language has altogether changed its meaning—that the Minister has any control over the rebroadcasting of programmes by the BBC. His only control is to stop it. Once the material is rebroadcast he has no control over that at all.

The Minister says he can stop it any day. He cannot. You simply cannot have a vacuum. If you were to decide on a Monday that Tuesday's BBC rebroadcasts were to be stopped, what would you put in their place? How long would it take for Radio Telefís Éireann to prepare a new team to put out a changed programme? How long would it take them to prepare programme schedules and go through all the complicated administrative details that are required in such cases? I would suggest at least a year and perhaps longer.

The fact is that, if the BBC service started and the Minister or any other Minister were to decide to end it, there would be a period of at least a year during which it would willy-nilly have to continue until such time as there was something to replace it. It is simply ingenuous for the Minister and, indeed, for Senator Russell to suggest that there is some element of control. There is no element of national control, no element of Government control over the nature of these materials which will be broadcast from this service. That is all I want to say for the moment on this amendment. I merely express formal regret that my original, rather meek little amendment, was not accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are alternatives and accordingly should be debated together.

Government amendment No. 2:

In page 2, to delete ", sold or exchanged" and substitute "or sold" in line 36.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

During the course of the Committee Stage debate Senator Yeats drew attention to the fact that the reference in section 3 (1) (c) to exchange of written material pursuant to section 16 of the 1960 Act seemed to be incorrect. The reference to exchange of aural and visual material by the Authority in section 3 (1) (c) of the Bill is technically incorrect also, as section 16 of the 1960 Act, as amended by the 1966 Act, does not cover exchange of aural or visual material published by the Authority. Amendment No. 2 is designed to correct this. This is purely technical and has no other significance.

Mr. Yeats

I should like to thank the Minister for bringing in this amendment.

I was not aware of the fact that the reference to the exchange of aural and visual material had been taken out of the Principal Act by a later amending Act. In the light of that, the Minister's amendment is clearly more in order than mine, so I am happy not to move my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Government amendment No. 4:

In page 2, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"Paragraph (b) of this subsection, in so far as it requires the Authority not to express its own views, shall not apply to any broadcast in so far as the broadcast relates to any proposal, being a proposal concerning policy as regards broadcasting, which is of public controversy or the subject of current public debate and which is being considered by the Government or the Minister."

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

During the Committee Stage debate Senator FitzGerald raised the point that the Authority could not respond to my suggestion to them to broadcast a programme explaining the case for an RTE 2 owing to the statutory prohibition on expression by the Authority of their own views. I promised to have a look at this and I have come to the conclusion that the blanket prohibition on expression by the Authority of their own views on current affairs broadcasts is inappropriate. Clearly on the other hand they should not be given total freedom to use the airways to propagate their own views, seeing that these same airwaves would not be available to the Government except by way of ministerial announcement under section 31 (2), or to members of the public who might be opposed to the Authority's viewpoint. It seems reasonable, however, that the Authority should be free to broadcast their own views on proposed changes in broadcasting policy which are of public controversy or the subject of current public debate. Amendment No. 4 is designed to make clear their ability to do this.

Mr. Yeats

We are willing to accept this amendment. It seems to me that the Authority are doing very nicely without this assistance but nonetheless this is a desirable amendment. I am happy to agreee to it.

Amendment agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 8 is consequential on amendment No. 5 and, accordingly, the two amendments should be debated together.

Government amendment No. 5:

In page 3, to delete "intrude" and substitute "encroach" in line 7.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Senator Martin, during the course of the Committee Stage debate, suggested that a prohibition on unreasonable encroachment by the Authority on the privacy of an individual would be more appropriate than unreasonable intrusion. I have decided to accept his suggestion and amendment No. 5 makes the necessary amendment. The substitution of "encroach" for "intrude" involves a rather slight narrowing of the restraint imposed on RTE by the section. To encroach has been defined as to intrude usurpingly; in a usurping manner. It is not my definition. It implies that intrusion may be valid in certain circumstances and this reinforces the qualification contained in the subsection that only unreasonable intrusion is prohibited. As the Cathaoirleach has said, amendment No. 8 is consequential on that.

Mr. Yeats

It sounds to me as if the broadcasting complaints commission, if they are to consider this matter, will have to have a linguist on their staff in order to make sure that an encroachment was not an intrusion.

Mrs. Robinson

I would suggest that given the Minister's definition of the word "encroach" the word "unreasonable" is a bit superfluous.

Amendment agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, line 22, after "members" to insert "at least one of whom shall have professional experience of broadcasting,".

This matter came up on Committee Stage as part of a proposal that the number of members of the committee should be increased from three to five. The Minister said for reasons one can understand that he did not want as many as five, and he thought a minimum of three was adequate. In the light of that, this amendment keeps the number as proposed in this Bill, but continues with the requirement that at least one of them should have professional experience of broadcasting. Of the three members of the present informal broadcasting complaints committee whom one assumes the Minister will appoint to be members of the broadcasting complaints commission under this Bill, while we understand that one of these had professional experience of broadcasting, that does not necessarily mean that at all times in the future, in the absence of an amendment such as this, there would be a member who had professional experience of broadcasting.

It would seem elementary that, where a broadcasting complaints commission were considering whether a particular television or radio broadcast had violated the various requirements laid down in section 3 of this Bill, somebody should be there who understood television and radio broadcasting, If none of them had any such professional experience, it would be difficult for them to have an understanding of the underlying problems in preparing television and radio broadcasts. A layman who knew nothing about these things would very often be prepared to condemn the manner in which a broadcast was put out, lacking that understanding of the problems which faced the people who prepared the programme. This is a minimum requirement which the Minister ought to be willing to accept. It is likely that one of the original members the Minister will appoint will have such experience. There will be other days and other Ministers and, since we are laying down the terms governing the appointment of this commission for years to come—we have to think of 20 years from now—and, in the light of that, such a provision as I propose here would seem to be desirable.

Mrs. Robinson

One must think of the future functions of this commission and some very difficult decisions it will have to make. As legislators it should be our concern to ensure that there is sufficient expertise. Later on we will be considering certain amendments which will try to improve the natural justice element in some of the functions exercised by the commission. We should also be concerned to build in sufficient expertise in this area. I support this amendment.

Mr. Harte

I find some difficulty in agreeing with that. To follow this logically, it would be true to say that if the arguments made on Second Stage and Committee Stage were right, workers who had some role or function in the organisation of Radio Telefís Éireann should be sitting on the commission to hear complaints against them because of their expertise or because of their concern.

There is an implication running through this kind of suggestion. It is a complaints commission and not the Authority as such. I would agree with the suggestion that an expert should be placed on the Authority. The implication is that if you want to deal with a problem faced by a pilot you must be able to fly a plane. I do not know if that is a good analogy to draw, but it is the one that strikes me. It means that if you put something through some form of arbitration or some form of independent investigation, you must select at least one person with experience in the field being argued about. I do not think that is practicable.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

On Committee Stage I gave reasons why I do not feel I can accept this amendment. I would refer Senators to Volume 81, columns 550 to 551 of the Official Report. I think that any Minister will necessarily bear in mind the desirability of having someone on the committee with that kind of general experience. I would not wish to have the Minister bound by statute to appoint someone with professional experience of broadcasting. There is, for example, on the existing committee a very experienced and respected journalist, a senior member of the National Union of Journalists, who has broadcast frequently, but has never been professionally employed in broadcasting. I do not know whether it would be considered that he had professional experience of broadcasting, but he represents the type of person I would like to see on the commission. He knows quite a lot about the subject but he is not a member of what one might describe as the professional corps of broadcasters and, therefore, does not have the degree of commitment to the broadcaster's position which might make for unsuitability in the role of a member of the complaints commission. Accordingly I am sorry I do not agree with this amendment and cannot accept it.

Mr. Yeats

I am sorry the Minister will not accept this amendment. Perhaps he misunderstands the intention behind it. As reported at column 550, Volume 81 of the Official Report, the Minister said:

I do not think it desirable to have a statutory requirement that a given number of members of the commission shall have professional experience of broadcasting. I would not like to build in something that would seem to say that a certain proportion of the commission are meant, as it were, to speak up for the broadcasters.

I certainly never envisaged this. It would be most undesirable to have one man or woman on the commission who was a sort of friend in court of the broadcasting fraternity. I envisaged a situation in which there would be one person there who knew something about broadcasting. I would remind the Minister that the amendment does not say "one of whom should have experience in broadcasting" but "of broadcasting". Under that definition the person he has in mind would certainly qualify. If people had been in broadcasting I would think that they would not be suitable members of such a commission until they had retired from or ceased to be employed in broadcasting. Obviously as has been pointed out by Senator Harte, that position would be very difficult. A person who was actively engaged in broadcasting and at the same time sitting as it were in judgment on his fellows quite clearly would not do. That is not what I had in mind.

What I had in mind was a person who knew something about how programmes are created, the difficulties of creating them, the problems that arise in creating them, the bind of traditions and customs which exist, what one ought to do, what one ought not to do, the codes of conduct built up informally over the years. Here you have three people, none of whom ever had anything to do with broadcasting, and I think it would be very difficult for them to achieve an adequate result in their work. Senator Harte said it is not necessary, talking about flying, to know anything about how one flies; one does not need to be able to pilot a plane. I would remind him that, if there was an inquiry into an air crash, it will always be conducted by people who have themselves professional experience in flying.

Mr. Harte

That is not dealing with a complaint.

Mr. Yeats

I know. It is an inquiry into what happened. This is fortunately not as bad as an air crash but there is not that much difference in principle. Here you have a situation where a programme was put out and there have been complaints, saying that the programme was not done right, that the requirements laid down in this Bill were broken, that fair play was not given to so-and-so, that somebody's privacy was invaded or that there was an incitement to crime, and so on. The commission then have to consider how the programme was put together, what its purpose was, what its aim was, what in fact it did and so on. It is the same kind of thing on a different scale and basis as you do in regard to a plane crash; you have to consider how the plane was serviced, how it was flown, what condition it was in. It is a similar type of operation though fortunately not as tragic as inquiries into air crashes frequently are. Senator Harte in any event mentioned the pilot and I did not. I think it is quite clear that any inquiry into a crash or, indeed, into anything relating to air pilots would be carried out by people who had experience in this field.

However, if the Minister will not accept it, he will not accept it. I may be an optimist and I certainly hope, even without this requirement in the Bill, that future Ministers will certainly always include at least one person who has knowledge of or professional experience in broadcasting; otherwise, this broadcasting complaints commission will simply not be able to work.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 8:

In page 4, to delete "intrusion" and substitute "encroachment" in line 53.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 9:

In page 4, to delete "(1C)” and substitute “(1B)” in line 55.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

This is a consequential amendment on the amendment of section 3 (1) (b) during the Committee Stage. This is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 are related and can be taken together.

Mr. Yeats

Is it wise, I wonder, to take all these together? It seems to me my amendments are alternatives rather than additions. My first two amendments are to delete the whole proposal than the commission should discuss these matters at all. They relate to the question we had of written material, the RTE Guide and so on. First of all, I have two amendments to prevent the commission from discussing this at all. Secondly, in the event which, I hope, will not transpire, that the Minister does not accept my amendment, we have the question of how is the commission to consider them. They are two separate points.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If Senator Yeats prefers we could take Nos. 10 and 11 together and then take Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Yeats

I think it would make life easier. It would make for a simpler discussion. I certainly do not intend to go for any length of time on any of them.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, lines 9 to 16, to delete paragraph (f).

These amendments have a simple issue. I seek by the deletion of these various paragraphs and words to take out of the ambit of the commission the discussion of matters which come under paragraph (c) of section 3. We had a good deal of discussion about this on Committee Stage. I made the point then that the proposal to refer to the broadcasting complaints commission the manner in which such written material as the RTE Guide was put out seemed contrary to the prevailing attitude with regard to all printed materials, periodicals, newspapers and so on. While they may be subject to the Censorship Board they are not subject to any other form of censorship or complaints commission or anything like that. First of all, I made that point and, secondly, I argued that a body called the broadcasting complaints commission hardly seems the most suitable one to be dealing with printed material of this kind. Therefore my first two amendments seek to take from the broadcasting division the power to deal with these. It seems to me to be, because of its nature, the membership it is likely to have and the functions which are set out at such enormous lengths in paragraph 4, a quite unsuitable body to deal with the question of the way in which such a periodical as the RTE Guide or any other periodicals that might be put out by RTE are published or written.

In principle it seems wrong that there should be what is inevitably a form of censorship. We have the Censorship Act. One may have views on its existence or views of the manner in which it is administered. I might have them, the Minister might have them. Everyone is entitled to have them but, nonetheless, it is there and it should be let do its job. I do not think we should introduce this new form of what amounts to censorship. We can leave it to the common sense of the RTE Authority to see that a matter does not appear which would be objectionable. In the last 20 or 30 years in which periodicals have been issued by the RTE Authority I do not imagine there has ever been a complaint of a kind which might be considered by a commission of this sort. As there never appears to have been a complaint there seems to be no necessity for this and I would suggest to the Minister that it would be more sensible to delete it.

We then have the position—the Minister was quite adamant on this— in which we have the injunction laid upon them in section 3 that they must present their material in an objective and impartial manner. We can leave it at that and let the Minister take it up with the RTE Authority, if by any chance they publish material that is not objective or impartial. But I think it is not a matter for the Authority but rather for the broadcasting complaints commission to consider a question of this kind.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

As regards Senator Yeats's amendment No. 10, I stated my views on this matter on the Committee Stage and I am afraid I have not been led to change them. RTE control what are probably our most influential and pervasive communications media. Publications by RTE are likely to be viewed in the same light as their broadcasts to which in fact their publications must, by the circumstances of the case, be ancillary. Accordingly, it seems logical that they should be subject to the same restraints, including examination of complaints by the broadcasting complaints commission.

As regards amendment No. 11, the time limits in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) could not in my view appropriately be applied to publications. They refer specifically to broadcasts.

Extensive consequential amendments of subsection (2) would be necessary if this amendment were accepted. In view of the peripheral nature of publications so far as the Authority are concerned I do not think it necessary to provide a statutory procedure in the Bill for dealing with complaints about them. Indeed, Senators have themselves complained, with some justice, about the relevant section as already being overelaborate. However, I have considered this further since the Committee Stage, as I promised I would and I accept it owuld be desirable to provide statutory power for the commission to lay down procedures for dealing with complaints about publications. I gather that amendment No. 12 has been put forward for this purpose. I regret therefore that I cannot accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

Mr. Yeats

I regret the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments. My amendment No. 11, of course, could not possibly hang by itself. It was tagged on to amendment No. 10. I quite see that if amendment No. 10 is not to be passed obviously one could not bring in amendment No. 11. The Minister's point about the vaious 30 days notice and so on cannot obviously apply to anything in writing. So the two hang together.

I will, in due course, thank the Minister for his amendment No. 12 which obviously I am happy to see down there. The only point I would make on these amendments is that, as I mentioned on Committee Stage, there are a very wide variety of publications issued by public semi-State bodies. I mentioned a few before: Ireland of the Welcomes issued by Bord Fáilte and a variety of written material issued by CIE. Every semi-State body issues material in some shape or form and some of these certainly have the kind of authority the Minister attributes to the RTE Authority in the sense of having a position which might make people think that what they issued was in some way an important or official document. None of these is covered by provisions such as this. It does seem contrary to principle. However, I am not really that exercised about it because, as I have already said, in the long period since RTE began issuing periodicals no one, so far as I know, has ever complained and one can only assume that this will continue so the complaints commission therefore will not be bothered with any complaints arising out of this written material. I raised this matter only because, on a question of principle, I do not think we should extend in any way the apparatus for censorship. It already exists. We may have views on it, but we would all agree, I think, that as a general principle it should not be extended beyond what exists at the moment. Unfortunately we now have a situation arising out of this Bill that the RTE Guide and any other literature that may be issued by RTE is to be subject to two censorship boards—first of all, the ordinary censorship board and then the complaints commission which effectively is the same type of thing. I cannot see the point. It seems quite contrary to principle but that, apparently, is what the Minister wants.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 12:

In page 5, to insert the following between lines 59 and 60:

(3) (a) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the Commission may, after consultation with the Authority, make rules of procedure as regards complaints described in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of this section.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

During the Committee Stage debate on subsection (2) of section 18B Senator Yeats drew attention to the fact that the Bill contained no provision for procedures to deal with complaints about publications by the Authority. The subsection provides that such complaints must be made in writing but it is silent otherwise. I have decided it would be desirable to include specific statutory power for the commission to draw up procedures for dealing with these complaints and this amendment is designed to do that. I am grateful to Senator Yeats for drawing attention to the need for this.

Mr. Yeats

I am very happy to thank the Minister for meeting the point I raised. His amendment is obviously more elaborate than mine and is therefore more desirable than mine in that it covers the matter in more detail. It provides for public notice being given of making rules, something I had not provided in my amendments. I am very happy to accept the Minister's amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are alternatives and can be taken together.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, line 62, after "Authority" to insert ", and, in any case in which the complaint relates to a programe or programmes produced by employees of the Authority, any person or persons directly involved in the making of the said programme or programmes and nominated for that purpose by the Authority,".

I am going to do what must be the almost impossible and change the Minister's mind on a Report Stage amendment, because I have studied very, very closely his amendment, compared it with my amendment and, for reasons which, I hope, have more to do with common sense and logic than with fact, I am convinced that one of mine at least is better than what the Minister has put before us.

The Minister's amendment is about 30 per cent longer than either of mine and, in my belief, says substantially less than mine. In fact I am in some doubt as to whether it actually means anything at all. The Minister's amendment, if I may paraphrase it, and I think the paraphase is not inaccurate, says broadly speaking that if anybody thinks their interests will be affected by the hearing of a complaint and, if that person works for the Authority, he can ask the commission for permission to be heard during the hearing of that complaint and the commission, if it is satisfied the person's rights may be affected, can or shall afford to the person such an opportunity. All this says in plain English is that anybody can apply to the commission and the commission can refuse or accept him completely on its say-so; in other words, there is no statutory right given to any person to be heard in his own defence. My amendments, on the other hand, put essentially on the Authority the duty of deciding whether or not the professional or other interests of any of its employees might be damaged by the hearing of a complaint and allow the Authority to nominate the person who shall be heard by the complaints commission.

We can assume that the Authority will not act unreasonably in a matter of this kind. On the other hand, one perhaps cannot always ignore the possibility that employees of the Authority if there is a very sharp contrary situation might act with the same degree of carefulness as the Authority itself might. I can foresee a sort of conflict situation in which the commission might be deluged with requests from individuals working for the Authority to be heard. The commission would, before it even got around to discussing the complaint, have first of all to decide whether any and, if so, which of these persons was entitled to be heard by it during the course of the hearing of the complaint. We might, in fact, have a whole series of prior hearings during which Mr. X and Ms. Y appealed to the commission to be heard during the subsequent hearing of the complaint. This would give rise to all sorts of procedural problems and does not get around the basic problem which, I think, my amendment does get around, that the right nomination, if it is not to be vexatiously exercised, should not reside in the individual but should reside in the Authority. How, for example, is the commission to decide whether or not a person should be heard during the hearing of a complaint without hearing the person concerned? They have got to have some evidence on which to decide whether or not the person's interests will be affected. It seems to me natural that they can only get that evidence largely from the person concerned or from his professional supervisors or colleagues.

I can see the acceptance of the Minister's amendment setting up a sort of rolling-stone situation—not the sort of rolling stone that gathers no moss, quite the opposite, a snowball rolling downhill situation in which any complaint, and particularly complaints in a very contentious area, would become festooned with people who wanted to be heard and that would force the commission into all sorts of anomalous and awkward positions in trying to decide as between the people they will hear and people they will not hear.

I would strongly urge acceptance of either of my amendments. The difference between them is only a drafting one. I think amendment No. 15 is probably marginally preferable to amendment No. 14. I strongly recommend that either of these two amendments, but especially amendment No. 15, should be taken in place of the Minister's amendment because I really believe that either the Minister's amendment makes no difference at all to the commission's procedures or, if it does make a difference, it is a difference which has within it the possibility of being very deleterious to the working of the commission and to its function with regard to the hearing of complaints.

Mr. Yeats

I support these amendments of Senator Horgan, though I am not wholly happy with the wording of them. He provides that the persons to be heard by the complaints commission should be nominated for that purpose by the Authority. I am not keen on that idea. It seems to me that there might well be a person who felt that his interests might be adversely affected and who might wish to be heard and I do not think it should be a matter for the Authority to decide whether or not this person should be heard by the broadcasting complaints commission. However either of these amendments would considerably improve the position as it is at present when no one has any right to be heard. I hope the commission under this Bill will be able to hear people other than the Authority. The only obligation laid upon them is to afford to the Authority an opportunity to comment on the complaint.

It seems quite contrary to natural justice that in a case such as this, where the entire livelihood of a person might be affected, he should not have any right to be heard. We should be realistic about this. This is the commission that hears complaints against programmes issued by the RTE Authority prepared by individual people—the producer of a programme, the editor, the cameraman, a reporter or some individual who depends for his livelihood on his work in RTE. If he is condemned root and branch for an invasion of privacy, or something like that, for incitement to crime, or any of the things laid down in this Bill, he could lose his employment and find it difficult to obtain employment anywhere else if he has been publicly categorised in this fashion. Indeed, I am extremely doubtful whether in such a case, were he to go to court on this matter, this subsection would be held to be constitutional. Certainly if I were condemned in such fashion as I have described by the commission I would be very inclined, subject to whatever legal advice might be available to me, to go to the High Court and seek some kind of declaration that the subsection was, in fact, unconstitutional. At the very least you would have a castiron case against the commission for acting in a way contrary to natural justice. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

One could go one stage further and say that in fact this subsection is unconsitutional. Leaving aside the legal niceties, the Minister ought to agree it is only ordinary justice that, before an inquiry of this nature is undertaken by the commission, they will hear anyone who feels that his interests may be adversely affected. I am not suggesting that they should hear hundreds of people. They ought to have the power to say in a particular case: "We think somebody is only in a very marginal relationship to this programme and we do not feel he could possibly do anything much to help us in our deliberations, and neither could his own status be adversely affected": in this situation they could refuse to hear him. Anyone who could reasonably be held to be in danger of being adversely affected by such an inquiry ought to have in ordinary justice the right to be heard. I would suggest to the Minister that he ought to accept either of Senator Horgan's amendments because the Bill, as it stands, would seem to give wide scope for complaint.

I know that on the Minister's proposed commission there is a very distinguished former judge. One may assume that he would accept the ordinary requirements of law in these matters. The likelihood is that in future years there would not be such a distinguished former judge on the commission; a person with a legal knowledge is not the kind of person that you would necessarily think of in relation to a commission of this kind dealing with broadcasting. It would be very easy for a commission to issue some fairly scathing report without hearing the people concerned. Since there is already so much in this section, it would seem the Minister should add something to lay some kind of an obligation on the commission to hear not merely the Authority but also the workers under the Authority. One must bear in mind that the interests of the Authority and individual workers might not necessarily be on all-fours. It is not sufficient to say that the Authority can comment on the complaint; it is also essential that at least those who are mainly concerned with the putting out of the programme should have the right to be heard.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Senator Horgan in moving this amendment said that he was attempting the almost impossible task of persuading the Minister to accept an amendment on Report Stage. I am genuinely sorry that I cannot give the Senator the satisfaction of achieving the almost impossible on this occasion but I am sure he will achieve it on some other occasion. I do not think the Government amendment suffers from the defects complained of. I think it provides a clear right of access to the commission by employees of RTE who can show that they would be adversely affected by a complaint. We should realise that these offered amendments and the Government amendment derive from, in the sense of a case that occurred, a complaint by an employee or employees of RTE who were not called before the committee to be heard in relation to a case in which the committee decided that the complaints against them were without foundation. I do not think there would be any question of the broadcasting commission reaching a conclusion adverse to an employee of RTE without giving him a hearing. If that were to happen the constitutional matters to which Senator Yeats referred would arise, but they do not arise in reference to the section itself. I have taken legal advice on this matter and I have accepted that legal advice and, indeed, that is among the reasons why it would not be possible for me at this stage to satisfy Senator Horgan.

When I considered after the Committee Stage the proposals made by Senator Horgan and one made by Senator Lenihan on this matter I did decide that a provision of this kind would improve the Bill and I then took advice as to how far we could go in that direction. I have been advised that it would be undesirable from a legal point of view to provide that a decision as to the RTE employees, who would have a right of access to the commission, should be left to the Authority. The legal aspect apart, there is a great deal to be said for leaving this decision to the commission rather than to the Authority. The Authority, not an individual employee, are responsible for all programmes broadcast and they would naturally protect their employees from unjustified criticism.

However, a case might arise in which the Authority decided that an employee was at fault. In such a situation the employee concerned might wish to present his own case to the commission.

Government amendment No. 16 is intended to give him the right to do this whilst, at the same time, not precluding the Authority from nominating any RTE employee to represent the RTE case before the commission. I am advised that the phraseology used is appropriate to give that. In effect, it provides that an employee of RTE who believes he would be adversely affected by a complaint would have a right of access to the commission, provided the commission accepted that he had a genuine cause for concern. I think that is fair and should be adequate to meet the point raised.

Mr. Horgan

I accept the Minister's statement in so far as it constitutes an acceptable rationale for his amendment, rather than for either of mine. On the other hand, we must be quite clear to spell out how little it does. In the Minister's words, his amendment gives a clear right of access to employees who can show they would be adversely affected. My reading of that is not so clear. The Minister's amendment states something, but to say that it gives employees a clear right of access is not true in so far as it is qualified by their need to show that their interests would be adversely affected. Indeed, they have to show such a thing to the satisfaction of the commission itself.

I accept the legitimacy of the Minister's point that there may be, perhaps, an occasion on which an individual might not be wanted by the Authority to give evidence on his own behalf to such a complaints commission. To that extent, I come back a little on the wording of my own amendment about a nomination by the Authority. At the same time, while perhaps not pressing the amendment very strenuously it must be underlined that the Minister's amendment, while the spirit behind it is clear, does not actually confer any rights on anyone independently of what the commission itself may decide. It was my intention in framing this amendment to try and confer rights on people independently of the commission. I still think it would have been legitimate to include it in the Bill. I am not entirely unhopeful that something like this may be added at a later stage when more legal arguments have been teased out but not, of course, in this House.

Mr. Yeats

Perhaps I might mention very briefly that in all candour I should say that when I spoke I had not noticed the Minister's amendment No. 16. The Minister may be surprised to hear me say that I prefer his amendment to Senator Horgan's.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Government amendment No. 16:

In page 6, to insert the following before line 1:

"(4) Where a complaint is made to the Commission and a person employed by the Authority requests for reasons specified by him, the Commission to afford him an opportunity to comment on the complaint, if, having considered the reasons so specified, the Commission is satisfied that an interest of the person, being an interest which the Commission considers relevant to the person's employment by the Authority, may, because of the complaint, be adversely affected, the Commission shall afford to the person such an opportunity."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, line 29, to delete "or request".

This is a small matter that I raised on the Committee Stage. I asked the Minister on subsection (8) what the words "or request" meant or added to the subsection. The subsection reads:

The consideration by the Commission of a complaint or request made to it under this Act shall be carried out by the Commission in private.

I can see that the commission will consider complaints and agree they should carry out this process in private, but the sudden introduction in the middle of this immensely long section of the phraseology "or request" puzzled me, and I asked the Minister what on earth it was supposed to mean. The Minister, I think, did not know either.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is right.

Mr. Yeats

He said at column 637 of the Seanad Report:

As regards "or request", the idea there is that the complaint is thought of as emanating from a member of the public. The request might be from RTE or from a member of the staff of RTE to be heard by the Commission. That is how I interpret it anyway.

That did not help at all. If the Authority or a member of the Authority wish a complaint to be heard, I should not have thought it could have been decided in half a minute or so. One would not expect it to be held in public. I suggest to the Minister, unless there are more coherent reasons for including these words, that he might consider deleting them. Those who have to plough in future through this long section, should not have to decide in subsection (8) of section 6 what this word "request" means. It seems to add an unnecessary complication.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Senator Yeats is quite right. When this matter was raised I did what I should not have done: I made a guess at what the word is supposed to mean in the context. The guess was ingenious but unfounded and I want to withdraw it. I accept Senator Yeats's amendment and I am grateful to him for drawing attention to this slight flaw in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 18:

In page 6, to insert the following between lines 30 and 31:

"(9) Unless it considers it inappropriate, the Commission shall, as soon as may be, publish particulars of its decision on a complaint in such manner as it considers suitable and where it considers that the publication should be by the Authority, or should include publication by the Authority, the particulars shall be published by the Authority in such manner as shall be agreed between the Commission and the Authority."

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Senator Lenihan, during the Committee Stage debate, put forward an amendment to provide that a decision in favour of a complainant would be published by the commission immediately, rather than that publication be deferred pending the issue of the annual report of the commission. In the course of the debate on this amendment it was suggested that the commission should publish all their decisions rather than only those in which they found in favour of a complainant. I accept that early publication of decisions by the commission would be desirable but I am not convinced that there should be a statutory obligation on the commission to publish every decision. To do so in some cases might possibly compound the original complaint, for example, if this involved intrusion or encroachment on privacy. Amendment No. 18 will, I hope, be accepted as meeting the general intent of the House in regard to this matter.

Mr. Horgan

We are grateful to the Minister for putting down this amendment. To a certain extent, it clarifies the situation for us. On the other hand, I do not altogether accept the rationale behind the idea that all the decisions on complaints should not necessarily be published. When we are dealing with "media" we are talking about publication. Very often, if wrongs have been done or if people consider that wrongs have been done, they may not perhaps get a judgment by the commission in their favour. But if the commission is required to publish the fact that they have felt sufficiently aggrieved to complain, and perhaps even some supporting details relating to statements made in support of the rejection of the complaint, this is a consolation prize for somebody who is aggrieved enough to complain, who is serious enough to follow a complaint through and carry it right through to the commission.

There is a small analogy here with the Press Council in Great Britain in which the publication of evidence, and of the report of the Press Council, is in many cases the only redress of people who have been victimised or who have been wronged in some way by the media. This is true in cases in which the Press Council has found in favour of the complainant. It is, you might say, even more true in cases in which the Press Council has found against them but in which opinion might have been so narrowly divided as to make it an even bet either way.

I really feel that all decisions made by the complaints commission should be published. If not all decisions, it would be very important for the complaints commission to publish in any given year details of such decisions as it thought necessary, but also an actual log of the total number of complaints received. It might not want, or be required statutorily, to publish details of every single decision made on complaints, some of which may have been very light weight indeed. If we are given in the annual report of the commission details of three complaints we are not to know otherwise whether the total number of complaints was four or 300. It would be a matter of legitimate public interest to know how many complaints were considered by the commission during the year under review, whether or not the commission are to be statutorily bound to give details of all decisions on all these matters.

Mr. Yeats

I should like to thank the Minister for bringing in this amendment. It is to some extent limited in its wording, as Senator Horgan has said, but clearly it is an advance on the existing provision in the Bill which is that the results of hearings of complaints shall be known officially to the public only in the annual report of the broadcasting commission. This could involve considerable delay. As I understand this amendment, it means that well in advance of the annual report, as soon as may be after the complaint has actually been heard, the commission will, in most cases at any rate, publish the result of their considerations. It is an advance on the existing wording of the Bill and we thank the Minister for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, lines 31 to 33, to delete subsection (9).

This amendment seeks to delete subsection (9) of section 4, which states:

As regards proceedings under this section, the Commission shall not have any power to award to any party costs or expenses.

I raised this matter on the Committee Stage and the Minister, at column 637 of the Seanad Official Report, said:

...we envisaged the commission in this shape without executive power, the power to enforce their decisions. It follows from that that they should not have this power of awarding costs or expenses. It is not that kind of commission we have involved here, despite the formality of the legal language in which it is to be encouched, but rather an informal body. We would not expect that anybody coming before them would normally incur costs except the stamp on the letter written in. Of course, he might have to come to Dublin but presumably he would consider that worth while. That is the reason why we did not want the commission to have power to award costs.

That is not altogether an adequate depiction of the position that could arise in the event of complaints. In putting down this amendment, or in raising the matter on Committee Stage, I did not envisage that those who make complaints would be awarded costs or expenses. The Minister is quite right in saying that one could make a complaint by writing a letter and stamping an envelope. Two stamps might be required, one for the original complaint to the RTE Authority and another to complain once again after 30 days to the Authority. In these days, that costs quite a lot. Nonetheless, it is not going to put anyone in the workhouse—yet.

I had another matter in mind. I envisaged a situation where a producer of a programme, a technician, cameraman, or reporter might have to travel to Dublin, who would have to forfeit all or part of his pay for a day's work, to give evidence before the commission, particularly as the Minister has brought in this valuable amendment which makes it easier for such people to be heard by the commission. I cannot see in such a case why expenses should not be awarded. When the Minister said if someone came up to Dublin presumably it was because he considered it worth while, he was thinking in terms of people who made a complaint. Obviously the person whose livelihood is threatened by the complaint must consider it worth while. He has to put his case before the commission, whether he wants to or not, because it is in his own interests to do so. This being so, the commission should have power to award expenses. This does not mean that they must do so. It simply means that they will have the right to award expenses, if they see fit. That would only be fair because the Minister has provided elsewhere in this Bill, in an indirect way, that the costs of the commission will be paid by the RTE Authority. It is taken from the licence money before it is handed over to them.

The people I am interested in are the servants of the RTE Authority who have been involved in the making of the programme concerned in the complaint. As they will lose a day's pay from the RTE Authority, it seems only fair that they should be awarded expenses which, in the process of the Exchequer organisation, will have to be paid back to them indirectly by the commission in expenses and, ultimately, will be paid back to the State by the RTE Authority. Awards should be made at the expense of the RTE Authority, who will have saved the day's pay which the producer or other employee has lost through giving evidence. Money will not be paid to him for the day's work he has missed but in due course the RTE Authority, if expenses are awarded by the commission, will have to foot the Bill. This is right in principle and I suggest the Minister ought to accept this amendment which does not in any way impose an obligation on the commission in any particular case or indeed ever to award expenses. It would merely restore the position that, if they saw fit in a particular case, they could award expenses or costs.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

As I indicated on the Committee Stage when the payment of costs or expenses by the commission was raised, I do not consider it either desirable or necessary that the commission should have power to pay the costs or expenses of parties involved in their proceedings. The four parties that one would expect to be involved in proceedings are the complainant, RTE, advertisers and, of course, the category of the complained against, about whom the Senator was particularly concerned in his remarks. Senator Yeats made it clear that he did not have the complainant in mind and, as he says, the only expense he would be likely to incur would be the cost of his postage stamps in writing first to the Authority and then to the commission. In the case of RTE there would be no point in the commission bearing their costs, because the money would eventually come from the same TV licence fees. It should not be any great hardship on an advertiser who wishes to present his case to the commission to pay the costs involved.

There remains the case which the Senator has just made of the person complained against, who is granted access to the commission to argue his case. I will certainly clarify this with the Authority. I would think that the Authority would not wish to stop the paying of one of their employees who was absent from his normal duties because of having to appear before the complaints commission, but I will certainly clarify this with them, and if I think serious hardship to an employee could occur under this head, I will consider an amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Yeats

I thank the Minister. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw this amendment, because these are the only people I have in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 6, between lines 41 and 42, to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(12) (a) The Commission may receive complaints that rebroadcasts transmitted by the Authority did not comply with one or more of the requirements of section 18 (1) of this Act.

(b) Complaints under this subsection shall be considered by the Commission in accordance with procedures laid down by the Commission with the consent of the Minister."

This is to provide that rebroadcasts under section 6 of this Bill should be covered by the commission. The Bill, as it stands, specifically provides that only broadcasts originating with RTE should be considered by the broadcasting complaints commission. One can make complaints against locally-produced or locally-broadcast programmes. It is specifically provided in considerable detail throughout this Bill that the rebroadcast of BBC 1, which is transmitted by RTE but originates with BBC, should be altogether withdrawn from the paraphernalia laid down in section 4 for the broadcasting complaints commission.

As mentioned before on various occasions, BBC rebroadcasts can lack objectivity and impartiality, incite to crime, undermine the authority of the State and so on. The commission, under this section have absolutely no control over the matter; they cannot even consider it.

The Minister said, and one must accept it as a fact of life, that this stems from the old, somewhat eccentric concept which is laid down in this Bill particularly in section 6. One must accept that obviously the Minister, the Government and everybody else, is not in a position to haul the BBC over the coals for anything they may or may not have done. Since we have a broadcasting complaints commission, it would seem to be a valuable exercise that they should at least consider these matters. Even if they consider these matters, they will not be in a position to call individual BBC officials, editors, producers and so on before them to answer for their sins, but they should be in a position to consider complaints which members of the public, or even the Minister himself on a specific occasion, might lay before them.

Over a period, always it would be very valuable that there should be an impartial body of this kind to review the manner in which the BBC acted. Therefore, I provide in this amendment that

The Commission may receive complaints that rebroadcasts transmitted by the Authority did not comply with one or more of the requirements of section 18 (1) of this Act.

In other words, people could write to the commission to complain that a particular news broadcast of the BBC, in their view, was not presented in an objective and impartial manner, or that the broadcast's treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, was not fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast was not presented by the BBC in an objective and impartial manner. Obviously, there will be such complaints, that is, complaints of a private and informal nature.

People will object, I am sure, from time to time to what the BBC do. Therefore, I would urge the Minister to allow the broadcasting complaints commission to consider such complaints. They cannot directly complain to the BBC, but, as the Minister provided in his recently accepted amendment, they could consider these matters and publish the results of their deliberations. If they had a complaint about a certain series of programmes on the BBC, in their view the complaint was or was not justified for certain reasons, nothing further would happen. Under the Bill as it stands, if the broadcasting complaints commission issue a condemnation of a programme or series of programmes produced by the Authority, nothing happens because the Authority are under no obligation to do anything about it. If there were too many of these complaints the Minister might ask the two Houses of the Orieachtas to sack the Authority. In the same way, if there were too many justifiable complaints about the BBC, the Minister could not sack the BBC.

In the event of the acceptance of this amendment, the procedures laid down in this section for considering complaints about Telefís Éireann programmes would not be relevant. Therefore, I provided in paragraph (b) that:

Complaints under this subsection shall be considered by the Commission in accordance with procedures laid down by the commission with the consent of the Minister.

In other words, anyone who wishes can write to the commission to complain about individual BBC programmes. The commission when first formed will lay down procedures for hearing such complaints. They will, in due course, publish statements in each case stating the nature of the complaint and their views of it. Over a period of months or years, these hearings and considerations would be very valuable. Provisions for hearing complaints against RTE are set out in the greatest detail but nothing is said about BBC. There appears to be no way in which an impartial body can consider the nature of BBC programmes and whether they are in accordance with what the people would wish to see, or more particularly, whether they are in any way in accordance with the provisions laid down for RTE by this Bill.

I would urge the Minister to accept this amendment. In my view, there is no doubt that the commission would have more than adequate time to consider these matters. As has already been pointed out, the present informal advisory committee the Minister formed, have only heard three complaints against RTE. It is not very likely that the number of these complaints will rise dramatically after the passing of this Bill. They would therefore have ample time to consider whatever complaints there were about the BBC.

Mr. Lenihan

I support this reasonable amendment, particularly as it is in accordance with the more reasonable attitude that appears to be adopted by the Minister as the debate proceeded. He made it quite clear that he is not tied to the concept of rebroadcasting BBC 1, and that he will keep all options open between now and the end of next year. As public opinion appears to be developing according to the points of view expressed here, the Minister, if he takes note of that public opinion, may not rebroadcast BBC 1in toto but may adopt one of the many options open to provide national control over what is rebroadcast on the second channel. In that context, amendment No. 20 would appear to be very reasonable.

The section, as it now stands, removes the procedure for complaining about the second channel broadcasting, and, from the logical point of view, is only relevant in the context of BBC programmes being rebroadcast in toto. It is obvious in that context that the Minister, for practical reasons, could not have the whole complaints procedure, as set out in the section, invoked against the BBC transmitting from London. He could, as suggested in Senator Yeats's amendment, have a complaints system which would help him to monitor BBC 1. In that event, having received sufficient complaints, he could invoke the residual power in section 6, which he says he has, to cut off BBC 1. The Minister knows, of course, that this will not happen. He will not be able to cut off BBC 1, if it gets started.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Why not?

Mr. Lenihan

At least he would have a procedure under Senator Yeat's amendment whereby the complaints commission could receive complaints in regard to the rebroadcasts and then the Minister, in conjunction with the commission, could devise a procedure to deal with complaints. I appreciate that the procedures in the section vis-à-vis RTE 1, could not be invoked against the BBC1 because of the lack of control exercised by the Minister in regard to BBC1. If the Minister is serious about having an open debate on this matter, he will accept this amendment and delete the removal of the second channel from the strictures which he has imposed in the section on RTE.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 5.30 and resumed at 7.30 p.m.