Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 1975

Vol. 81 No. 13

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

Debate resumed on 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."

—(Senator Yeats).

Mr. Lenihan

Amendment No. 20 relates to the complaints commission. Before we adjourned for tea I was seeking to get across the fact that this amendment is seeking to make the Minister's whole approach a logical one. We are seeking here to help the Minister in devising legislation that would be at least logical having regard to the way he has responded to the debate here in the House. Broadly speaking, his approach here in the House has been that on section 6 he seemed to have a closed mind as regards BBC 1 coming in here. The Minister has indicated this from the earlier remarks he made long before the introduction of the Bill and on Second Stage he indicated that this would be so. In subsequent discussions on Committee Stage, and the reply indeed on Second Stage, the Minister indicated that if there was sufficient argument put forward he, as of now, has an open mind in regard to how he would implement section 6. If sufficient argument was put up for various other solutions the Minister would agree to them and adopt an alternative to the mere automatic transmission of BBC 1.

In that context why write in what is written in here in the section and is sought to be amended by our amendment on Report Stage? What is written into section 4 is that this section, in relation to the complaints commission, shall not apply to anything rebroadcast by the authority pursuant to a direction given by the Minister under section 6 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1975 The complaints commission and all the paraphernalia of criteria, standards and functions that are set out in that section, which is a very major section in the Bill, are regarded as not applying to whatever the Minister does under section 6. What we are merely seeking to do in amendment No. 20 is to insert a new subsection that the commission may receive complaints that rebroadcasts transmitted by the authority did not comply with one or more of the requirements in section 18 (1). In other words, that the commission may receive these complaints so that they would be apprised of public complaints in regard to the transmission of the second channel.

We understand that if the second channel is going to be BBC1 we cannot have all these procedures written in unless the Minister himself is going to take charge of BBC1, which of course is an outrageous proposition. I doubt if the Minister can transport himself in that manner. What we suggest in the further subsection of the amendment is that complaints under this section shall be considered by the commission in accordance with procedures laid down by the commission with the consent of the Minister. This is a very rational approach that again gives the Minister the greatest degree of flexibility possible in approaching this matter and he has indicated in the course of this debate that he will be flexible. If he is simply trying to ramrod through this House a Bill in which he is going to have BBC1 under section 6, then the section as it stands in regard to the complaints commission makes sense. It makes sense because the Minister in that situation has to exempt any rebroadcast by the BBC, over which he does not have sufficient control. We suggest a way out for him here in suggesting that we are not going to apply all the criteria in section 4 as regards the complaints commission and that he may instead receive complaints that might be even valuable in the context of BBC1. But if the Minister has an open mind in the matter and if he is receptive to further suggestions and possible solutions to the dilemma in which he has found himself, then it is obvious that this subsection excluding the alternative channel from the functions of the commission altogether, is wrong in the context of the Minister agreeing to some other solution of his problem than the BBC 1 solution.

What I am saying is that if the Minister, after hearing various representations—indeed what has been advised to him by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and other people such as broadcasters brought in here by the transport union to advise us on what we should do—adopts the attitude that whatever method of administering an alternative channel is selected by him, be it RTE 2 or another form of associated body, committee or board representing the single-channel areas will ensure that control is ultimately in Irish hands, then it is quite obvious that in that situation he must maintain the criteria and the functions that are embodied insection 4 and he should not have the exemption provision that he has in section 4 (2) (11). In other words, the complaints commission should apply to such an alternative channel just as much as it applies under the Act to channel 1.

What we are seeking in our amendment is to get the Minister out of this trouble and have an amendment that will cover both avenues; in other words, if the Minister persists in this rather personalised approach of his in trying to push against a growing volume of opinion that rejects his view that it must be BBC 1, then at least under the amendment put down by Senator Yeats and myself the commission may receive complaints in regard to BBC and the complaints can be considered by the commission in accordance with procedure with which the commission and the Minister may agree. In that situation the Minister can be enabled to monitor the whole running of the affairs of BBC 1 or at least monitor them from this end. He will not be able to control them because they come from London, right up to the British national anthem at the end. He will not be able to control that, but at least through the commission he can monitor the various BBC 1 programmes that are irrelevant, injurious or contrary to our national interests.

Having received from the commission a report on these matters the Minister himself will then be in a better position to exercise the function which he undoubtedly has under section 6 and that is, of course, as he has said himself, to drop BBC 1 in its entirely. The Minister is being helped in that area in that he will be enabled to drop BBC 1 in its entirely if he is satisfied from complaints that have come from the complaints commission that such is necessary or, alternatively, if he does not decide on BBC 1 he will have here a section on which he can rely to deal with the alternative RTE channel or whatever form of rebroadcasting under whatever form of Irish control he may introduce. In that event what we have here in paragraph (b) will in effect become the rest of this section in that the procedures in regard to complaints under the subsection to be considered by the commission in regard to the alternative channel, if it is an Irish-controlled channel, will of course be the procedures as set out under section 4. That would appear to be common sense.

The Minister is saved by this amendment on two fronts. He can deal through this amendment in a flexible way with BBC 1 and, alternatively, in the event of an Irish-controlled or monitored alternative programme by RTE or otherwise he can also devise the procedures necessary here under section 4. The Minister will get out of all his troubles by simply deleting subsection (11), exempting altogether the section from application to any rebroadcasting authorised under section 6. He could do it that way. He could delete that particular subsection. He is not willing to do that and, therefore, we are suggesting an alternative method here which will enable the Minister to monitor the situation and to ensure that the complaints commission will be enabled to implement the whole spirit of the Minister's section 4. The complaints commission may be able to do that by receiving complaints relating to rebroadcasts transmitted under the alternative channel and the procedures for the investigation of these complaints can be devised by procedures laid down by the commission with the consent of the Minister.

This would appear to be an eminently reasonable approach to what is a dilemma as far as the Minister is concerned. Great stress has been laid on establishing a broadcasting complaints commission. It occupies four pages of the legislation here and it is a very important section giving a safety valve to a complaints commission to ensure that the public interest, weal and public welfare are acknowledged and examined by an independent authority that will look into any such complaints.

If this section becomes law we do not have an amendment of the kind I have mentioned. Alternatively, we do not have a deletion in regard to exempting the alternative channel from the provision of this section. This means that neither the Minister or the authority nor any alternative body that may be established will have any day-to-day complaints jurisdiction as it were or complaints interests in programmes broadcast over the second national airwave. So the second national airwave is being totally exempted from the functions, criteria and standards of the broadcasting complaints commission. That is the effect of that.

The Minister may reply to me that if it is BBC 1 it is not practical to introduce it or to implement the functions here. If it is BBC 1 it certainly is not practical to implement the full functions that the Minister has designated here for the complaints commission, but it would be practical as suggested in our amendment to receive complaints that rebroadcasts transmitted by the Authority did not comply with the requirements set out in section 4. They could then be considered by the commission in accordance with procedures laid down by the commission with the consent of the Minister. This means, in effect, that one could ensure some monitoring of BBC 1 if it is retransmitted in toto by the Minister. It will also ensure that the Minister himself—as I said earlier we are trying to protect him and to prevent him from the anomalies in his own legislation— through the broadcasting complaints commission, as envisaged here by our amendment, will be enabled to see exactly in what way and in what manner BBC 1 is performing.

The Minister can get out of his trouble in this respect. He cannot enforce BBC 1 but at least he will be in a position to know how they are performing and operating and what percentage of complaints are coming through to the commission from Irish viewers. He will know the general standard of BBC 1 programmes. This, in my view, will be a very positive benefit to the Minister in the event of it being BBC 1.

Going back to my first point, if the Minister is serious that there are other options in his mind then he will accept this amendment. If there are other options in the Minister's mind the logical thing is either to remove the exemption that is incorporated there or insert the amendment which would meet the other alternative options and would meet the BBC situation also. Either by removing the exemption or by incorporating the amendment the Minister would be in a flexible position where all of the various options that he would envisage between now and the end of next year could be monitored and regulated and could be subject to the broadcasting complaints commission which he has set up. In that way the Minister could be flexible in regard to what assessment he may make as to the performance of whatever alternative channel uses our national airwaves.

I appreciate fully that if the Minister goes against all the clamour of public opinion and insists on imposing BBC 1in toto he cannot enforce what is involved in the broadcasting complaints commission. He has no ultimate power of doing so but at least he will be able to monitor the situation and thereby exercise the power that he talks so much about which he has in section 6 of the Act—the power of ultimately removing BBC 1 from the airwaves altogether. In either or any of these situations our amendment would meet the case.

Our amendment is only weak on the basis that the Minister has already made a preconceived decision to let in BBC 1 in any event and to hell with the lot of us. It is only weak in that situation because then the importance of our amendment is accordingly diminished. If that decision has been made we are having BBC 1 and it will be there forever. It will dominate our airwaves and we will not have any broadcasting complaints commission to deal with it. If that is the attitude, the value of our amendment is considerably diminished although it has some value in monitoring. A Minister who might be sincere in monitoring programmes or broadcasting or rebroadcasting may wish to remove them from the airwaves after a period of time if they are not performing their functions properly. If that is the Minister's attitude then our amendment has some value. If he is merely making an assessment of BBC 1 and seeing how they perform, he will have the valuable assistance of his own broadcasting complaints commission. He will be able to monitor what the performance is like. Although I do not think it is practicable to consider removing something that is established and functioning for a number of years, at least it may have the value of forcing an intelligent Minister who has courage to remove BBC 1 if they are not performing satisfactorily after a certain period. I agree that the value of our amendment has diminished in that respect.

The value of our amendment accounts for nothing if there is now a predetermined attitude to have BBC 1 willy-nilly, irrespective of the consequences, not just to have BBC 1 for a trial period but to have it forever so that we are permanently little Britons. If that is the attitude of mind and if the predetermined decision has been made at this stage to have BBC 1 irrespective of the consequences, section 6 will never be invoked to remove it from the airwaves. If that is the attitude at this time, which I suspect it is, although it is not borne out by the Minister's words in this House, then our amendment unfortunately diminishes still further in its logicality and it practically disappears.

The amendment has logic in the sphere of various options but it has no logic if the decision is (a) to have BBC 1, (b) to enforce it on the Authority under section 6 and (c) that the intention now is to have it not just for now but forever. In this context the amendment diminishes considerably in value. In any other context the amendment does have substantial value.

Mr. Dolan

I wish to support the amendment. I can see that it has some merit. If it could succeed in ensuring that people who will be forced through no fault of their own to listen to BBC 1 can make complaints to some commission in this country it would be worth while. I notice the Minister smiling—I suppose he might have reason for it— but I can truthfully say that I——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

How can people be forced to look or listen?

Mr. Dolan

We will be the first country in the world to hand over in toto our broadcasting system to an outside country and in particular to a country with which we have been at war for the last 700 years.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

800 years.

Mr. Dolan

To be exact 800 years— 1169. If the Minister wants facts I can give him the exact dates right up to 1975. The Minister may suggest in so far as the amendment is concerned that the reference I have made would have no meaning, but it is a well-known fact that with the resources at the disposal of the BBC once they get in here they eventually will take us over and Radio Telefís Éireann will vanish. Everybody knows that because the weight of money and so on will put them out of it. It seems the Minister wants in 1980 and 1990 that all little Irish children in Kerry and Donegal will go to bed happy at night once they hear God Save the Queen and once they see the Queen riding round on her horse as the final act of the day. I have no objection to the Queen moving around in her own country. She is entitled to do it, but I take grave exception to forcing Irish children and Irish people to listen to this and have it rammed down their throats by an Irish Minister in an Irish Government.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Who is forcing them?

Mr. Dolan

The Minister may say he is not forcing them, but nothing has happened since this debate started which has led me to change in any way the opinions that I had at the beginning. It seems that the Minister, irrespective of what the trade unions, Radio Telefís Éireann and the general body of the people in the country may say, intends to have BBC in its entirety. He put those words into section 6 to make sure that it would begin early in the morning and finish up late at night with a whole British outfit for all of Ireland. That is exactly what is in it.

I am not saying that all the Labour people will vote with the Government on this, because many of them have not been very anxious to come and take par in the divisions, but it seems that the Government will be able to carry this through. Irish people who will be paying twice the licence they are paying now to listen to propaganda being rammed down their throats should have some body in this country to which they can complain.

The only machinery for this is a broadcasting complaints commission. Our amendment proposes that such a commission should be allowed to hear complaints made by people who will be listening to this foreign service in their own homes. As I said at the beginning, I am quite sure they will not have an alternative in 1980.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is only particular complaints according to the Senator's own amendment.

Mr. Dolan

A complaint is a complaint whether it is particular or otherwise. There should be some machinery whereby any citizen could make complaints against a broadcasting service, let it be Radio Éireann or a second channel. Even if we have a second channel, which I hope we will have, but under Irish control, I would hope we would be able to complain about it if we felt like it. After all, broadcasting is a very important medium, and very important to the nation. I do not think control of it should be handed over in its entirely to anybody from outside this nation.

If the Minister does not accept this amendment, he is giving 100 per cent control to BBC 1 to do what they like once they take over here. He has the majority to do it. Irish programmes will be controlled but we will have to put up with whatever we get from BBC 1. The whole exercise we are going through here with these various amendments and so on may look to the outside world to be tremendously important, but so far as I am concerned it is a waste of time. It is a matter of dilly dallying and going through the performance of debating the Bill. It seems to me—and this has been borne out by something I read recently—that the Minister has been over in England already and he has been in consultation with these people. I would like him to tell us whether he has fixed up all the legal details and can he broadcast BBC 1 in its entirely.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now going wide of amendment No. 20.

Mr. Dolan

We are discussing amendment No. 20. When does he intend to introduce it? What will it cost the nation? These are relevant questions that should be answered.

An Cathaoirleach

They are not relevant to amendment No. 20.

Mr. Dolan

This amendment should be accepted on the case made for it by Senator Yeats and Senator Lenihan. They have shown quite clearly that there should be some control over this outside body.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

A number of the amendments which have been put down, including certain amendments by Senator Yeats, have been very serious efforts to improve this Bill and have had that effect. I should like to record once more my acknowledgment of that fact and of that contribution. Some amendments put down—and this is one of them—have not at their core a real attempt to improve the Bill but are of what might be called, without offence I hope, a propagandist character. That is to say, they are intended to reflect adversely on important sections of the Bill, notably on section 6, without being seriously intended as amendments which any Minister could accept.

Senator Lenihan has spoken repeatedly in blandishing and kindly tones of his efforts to help me, to protect me and to offer me a way out. I should like to say that, if the Senator and his colleagues ever offer me a way out of anything, I will inspect that aperture of exit with considerable care before moving through it. It was also said that the principle of open debate required acceptance of Senator Yeats's amendment. I certainly do not see that. The principle of open debate demands that people honestly and clearly uphold the positions they believe to be right. They may change those if they are offered adequate argument against them or, in this case particularly, if it becomes apparent that public opinion demands a particular thing. It certainly does not demand that one accepts a particular amendment.

Senator Lenihan also referred to me as going against the clamour of public opinion. I wonder am I going against the clamour of public opinion. I do not intend to do so. Indeed, I have been accused with I think a good deal more justice by some Senators, of being too respectful to the public wish and not giving a strong enough lead in the direction in which I believe it should go.

Mr. Lenihan

Public opinion is changing.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It is very possible that public opinion is changing. Public opinion sometimes does change, but we ought to listen carefully in that matter. We ought to employ all the means we can to find out what way public opinion is moving, above all, in what direction, in this case. I do not accept editorial writers as necessarily representing public opinion. They represent the views of the editors and sometimes of the managements of newspapers. I think that is about all.

Senator Dolan referred to people being forced to listen to broadcasts by the BBC if this Bill is passed and if I use the powers conferred on me in it. Should opinion decide in favour of rebroadcasting and should that be put into effect, what you will have will be RTE in its present form, in full competition with the BBC. People who regard the BBC with that degree of abhorrence we hear from over there —nothing would persuade Senator Dolan to view the BBC, to listen to the BBC—will certainly tune into RTE and will watch RTE and nobody will force them to do anything else or anything they do not want to do. There is no interference with their freedom at all. People cannot be forced to listen to broadcasts. Those in Dublin and in other parts of the country, including I think the Senator's own area, who actually watch the BBC do so of their own free will. Of course, the fact that they do so goes against certain attitudes held by Senators opposite, that is to say, that all things coming from a certain quarter are bad, but most people in this country do not actually take that view. Indeed, many people who express that view publicly do not really hold it either and that has been brought out.

Mr. Dolan

It is a different situation. You are broadcasting BBC through Irish television.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Let me come more specifically to the amendment and I am sure the Chair will be grateful to me for that. One point that has to be made is in reference to some of the things Senator Lenihan said in particular. If the second channel is provided other than by way of a rebroadcast service, and if it is handed over to RTE—this is relevant to the insinuation that I have closed my mind on this, which I have not—then sections 3 and 4 of the Bill would apply to it. There is, therefore, no need in that connection to amend section 4 (18B) to provide that the broadcasting complaints commission would be in a position to deal with complaints about the second television service if these included rebroadcasts by RTE but did not involve the rebroadcast in its entirely of, say, BBC 1 or UTV.

Of course a main reason why this amendment cannot be taken seriously is that it is clear that for live rebroadcast to become a reality two conditions have to be fulfilled. One is that we have to establish that there is a consensus in favour of it. I dealt with this at an earlier stage. Senator Dolan was not here and I cannot go over that area again. The other condition that has to be fulfilled is that it must be worked out in agreement with the BBC. It is clear to people who have any practical experience that you could not attach as a condition to such negotiation the submission of rebroadcasting to a complaints commission here. Senators opposite have every reason to say from their own point of view that they are against rebroadcasting but, to introduce an amendment such as this as a supposed means of improving a piece of legislation that does involve enabling power to rebroadcast is, I suggest, a bit unreal.

The implication in the amendment is that the authority would have editorial responsibility for the content of rebroadcast programmes and, in particular, that they would be required to answer to the complaints commission if any of the programmes are in breach of the restraints laid down in section 18 (1) of the 1960 Act inserted by section 3 of the Bill before the House. As I mentioned during Committee Stage, if it is decided to provide a choice of television programmes by rebroadcast of BBC 1, the programmes will be transmitted simultaneously as they are broadcast from the transmitter in Northern Ireland. That was the subject of discussion under a previous amendment. RTE could not be held responsible for the content of them. Accordingly, they should not be bound statutorily by the restraints laid down in section 3 (1) of this Bill. The Senator's amendment in its present form, even if it were acceptable on other grounds, is, therefore, not suitable and I am sorry that I cannot accept it.

I should like to reiterate, however, that the BBC and IBA are subject to much the same restraints as those provided for in section 3 of the Bill and there is no reason to assume that their programmes would be in conflict with the spirit of that section to any marked extent. I should like to stress again that the fact that the complaints commission could not deal with complaints about rebroadcast programmes would not mean that people could not complain about them. They would be quite free to do so, and it may be taken that the Minister would take serious notice of the position if complaints were of serious proportions. The Government would, of course, always be free to arrange for cessation of the rebroadcast of any programme service at any time if they so wished.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister has brought forward in the proposition that the BBC would be rebroadcast by Telefís Éireann, a matter about which we have had so much discussion. He speaks of Members from this side of the House having, as he puts it, an abhorrence of the BBC. That, of course, is not the situation, nor has anybody suggested that that is the situation. But we do— and I think it is fair to use the word in this context—have an abhorrence of the concept that a national Government, a national Minister, should come into a national Legislature and propose in this way that the second channel which is available to our national television service should be handed over to a foreign station. We certainly have an abhorrence of that.

We have no abhorrence of the BBC. They are an excellent institution and, on the whole, they provide a very good service for British people. To a much lesser extent they provide a good service for Irish people in the North of Ireland. To the extent of about 90 per cent I do not think their programmes are really suited to Irish people, either North or South of the Border. We certainly have no abhorrence of the BBC. They have been dragged into a totally false and difficult situation for them by the Minister. I know of nobody from this side of the House who has an abhorrence of them. It is not their fault that the Minister has invented this fantastic and eccentric notion. English people to whom I mentioned this matter on the Continent recently expressed their utmost amazement that any Minister of a national Government would make such a proposition. They thought it was, to say the least of it, eccentric.

The Minister said this is of the nature of amendments that obviously one would not expect a Minister to accept or even to take seriously. He ought to think very seriously indeed about the concept that if he does introduce this form of rebroadcasting, some independent, non-party, non-involved body should be in a position to have an idea at least of what kind of programmes were being broadcast over our television channel by the BBC. The Minister says that the BBC and the IBA have their own codes of conduct, much the same as ours. That may well be so, but does anyone, even the Minister, seriously suggest that on all occasions news broadcasts by the BBC, still less by the IBA, in so far as they relate to Irish events, are objective and impartial? I am sure they are objective and impartial in so far as they relate to internal British affairs but I do not believe, and I do not believe that any Senator or the Minister himself would stand up and claim, that they are objective in relation to Irish affairs. They may sometimes be objective but on many occasions they are quite clearly neither objective nor impartial.

Does the Minister seriously maintain that in accordance with the criteria laid down in section 3 of this Bill the BBC and the IBA are consistently, in their broadcast treatment of Irish current affairs, fair to all interests concerned, that they present broadcast matter relating to Ireland in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of their own views? We know perfectly well that their views and news about Ireland and their discussions about Ireland are frequently slanted and biased. It is not surprising. One could say the same about any national broadcasting concern. One could say that perhaps, in certain instances our own broadcasting concern has an Irish slant and an Irish bias when we are talking about other countries. These things are inevitable. It is no use telling us that the BBC and the IBA have their own internal codes. They are strictly internal codes, relating to British affairs, and they have nothing whatever to do with Ireland. It is no use quoting this to us as a sort of safeguard that in fact there is no need to worry about what they will be saying about Irish affairs.

We all know that on many occasions even in the recent past the BBC have broadcast matter which, as he puts it in section 3, "may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote or incite to crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the Irish State". We know that consistently in all these respects their broadcasts of news, their treatment of current affairs and of matters of public controversy or public debate, do not comply with the criteria the Minister has laid down in section 3 of this Bill for our own television service. The Minister knows that as well as anybody else. He introduces section 6 into the Bill knowing that the material rebroadcast by the Authority—and bear in mind always that these rebroadcasts are transmitted to the Irish people by Radio Telefís Éireann, subsidised by the taxpayer, by the listeners or viewers, and by the advertisers of Ireland—will, as a matter of course, violate the criteria he lays down and insists must be observed by Radio Telefís Éireann's own Irish television and radio broadcasts. He would welcome a proposal which would attempt, at least in part, to deal with the difficulty this creates, a sort of vacuum left as a result of the inability of the Government or anyone else to apply section 3 directly to the BBC.

I am not suggesting in this amendment that the BBC should be subject to the strictures laid upon the Authority in section 3, nor am I suggesting that the BBC should be subject to being cross-examined by the commission, nor am I suggesting that the Authority— and this is a matter the Minister seems to misunderstand—should be subject in this respect to being cross-examined by the commission. I say merely that the commission may receive complaints that rebroadcasts transmitted by the authority did not comply with one or more of the requirements of section 3 of this Bill. The word "Authority" only comes in because I refer to rebroadcasts transmitted by the Authority. There is nothing that says the Authority shall be called upon to reply, to make explanations, or condemned or criticised in any way by the commission. The authority simply do not come into it. It refers to them in an incidental way only to describe the nature of the rebroadcast.

In paragraph (b) I propose 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." I thought I would bring in the Minister so that he could ensure that it was done in a way which would not interfere with his various susceptibilities. The Minister said in his reply that he and his Department would be keeping an eye on these rebroadcasts. It is nice to know that, but nonetheless it seems more satisfactory, more reasonable, more common-sensical that this independent body the Minister himself is creating should consider these matters. Maybe there will be no complaints: maybe everyone will be happy: maybe, on the other hand, there will be complaints. People would much prefer, if there are complaints about the nature of these rebroadcasts, that they should be made to an independent commission rather than to a Minister, particularly a Minister who, in this instance, is dedicated apparently to the concept of foreign broadcasts being distributed throughout the country.

I would visualise the procedures to be adopted under this amendment, as being simply that the commission would receive these complaints. They would consider whether in their view they were justified. They would write to the complainant to this effect. In accordance with the Minister's amendment we passed earlier today, they could publish their views on these matters. Their views, obviously, would have no effect on the BBC, but they could have an effect on the Irish public and on the Minister in showing over the years whether, in fact, there was general agreement with the way in which the rebroadcasts were going or general disapproval.

The Minister has said repeatedly that, if the BBC do not give satisfaction, the broadcasting can be stopped. Who is to decide, and how is it to be decided, whether or not these broadcasts have given satisfaction? I do not think it ought to be left to this or any other Minister to decide on an individual basis as to whether in his view these broadcasts should be continued. Obviously ultimately he has the authority under section 6 to withdraw or change his direction. Some kind of independent guidance is needed, some kind of independent body which could consider these matters and issue periodical reports giving their views on these broadcasts.

I am afraid the truth of the matter is that the Minister has made up his mind long since that he wants to have rebroadcasts. He wants to ensure that the entire BBC programme is rebroadcast with no additions, deletions, not even a variation of an hour. The concept of simultaneity is being elevated to the status of a new religion, as I have already said. None of the restrictions laid on RTE are to apply to them. No one, except perhaps the Minister in an informal way and in secret, is to give any kind of official consideration as to the nature of these broadcasts. He has decided all these matters.

The Minister repeatedly speaks of public opinion. I was rather surprised, although pleased, to hear him in his recent reply saying that this would only go through if there was a consensus in favour of it. A consensus to me means that the great bulk of the people agree. Until now I was under the impression that if 51 per cent were in favour he would go through with it. I now find from his recent statement that it must be a consensus which is encouraging because, whatever about a 51 per cent majority, I cannot see that he will get any kind of consensus on this proposal.

He speaks repeatedly of public opinion in the single-channel area. He speaks as if some sort of huge spontaneous demand suddenly sprang out of the soil like mushrooms after a rainy day calling: "BBC 1, BBC 1, we want BBC 1." Nobody ever thought of rebroadcasting BBC 1 until the Minister dragged it up out of the recesses of his own mind. The broadcasting review committee received some 120 representations from individuals and organisations. As I understand it, only one of this 120 referred to the BBC. The whole concept of the BBC, this so-called spontaneous demand, was originated by the Minister himself.

Apparently having originated this, he is determined to ram it through, at least through the Oireachtas, without giving way in the slightest. He has made changes of detail in the Bill which I think have improved it. But, on the basic question of section 6 he has remained completely unbending and unyielding. He has not been willing to make any minor change except for the one single one when he accepted Senator Horgan's amendment about the debate in the House of the Oireachtas which we will be coming to later on another amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is going somewhat wide of the amendment.

Mr. Yeats

I have almost finished. On the basic point of the direction to rebroadcast the BBC, the Minister has not budged. On issues such as the one raised by this amendment, where one merely asks for some kind of consideration to be given to the nature of rebroadcasts, he has refused to budge in any way. Apparently the BBC are to go ahead with these broadcasts over the Irish airwaves without any sort of scrutiny from any source except perhaps the Minister himself. One can only regret that he is not prepared to accept this amendment. It seems to me to be the minimum requirement that would seem to be essential.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 are related and should be debated together.

Government amendment No. 21:

In page 6, to delete "which is withdrawn or" from line 43.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

In the course of the Committee Stage debate I promised to consider the point made by Senator Yeats that it might be desirable, in some cases, for the commission to consider complaints which are withdrawn. I accept the force of his argument but, on the other hand, the essential function of the commission is to deal with unsatisfied complaints. It must be assumed, generally speaking, that a person who withdraws a complaint is no longer an unsatisfied complainant. Accordingly, a blanket mandate to the commission to deal with complaints that have been withdrawn seems inappropriate. Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 would give a qualified mandate to the commission to deal with complaints that have been withdrawn. I hope they will be acceptable to Senators and, in particular, as meeting the general intent of Senator Yeat's amendment which, in its form as amendment No. 22, I am unable to accept because of commitment to amendments Nos. 21 and 23.

Mr. Yeats

I thank the Minister for accepting the principle of our amendment. I agree that his more elaborate version is better. I quite agree that, if the commission are going to consider a complaint which has been withdrawn, they should give special reasons for doing so. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

Government amendment No. 23:

In page 6, line 45, to delete "vexatious" and substitute "vexatious, nor, unless the Commission considers that there are special reasons for investigating the complaint (which reasons shall be stated by the Commission when giving its decision), shall that subsection apply to a complaint which is withdrawn". Amendment agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 can be discussed together.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 6, to delete lines 46 to 60 and substitute the following:

"18C.—As soon as may be after the end of each year, the Commission shall make to the Minister a report of its activities during that year and the report shall contain particulars of all decisions made by it pursuant to this Act."

We have argued this out in some detail already, and I made a reference to it on amendment No. 18, which may have been marginally disorderly, but was not intended to be so. It is important that the commission should publish some information about all the complaints they hear during the year. I certainly would not be prepared to press this amendment if we got an undertaking from the Minister that between now and the time the Bill finally becomes law he will at least consider the statutory inclusion in the annual report of the commission of at least the total number of complaints considered by them. The report may contain details of three complaints and, unless there is some provision of this kind, we are not to know whether the total number of complaints was three, 30, or 300.

In favour of the widest possible amount of publication by the commission subject to good sense, we could consider, for example, the precedent set by the National Prices Commission which have very often printed in their appendices details of statements made to them by persons in support of their particular claim for price increases. We can see there can be a very valuable public and publicity role played by a commission which adopt a wide and generous policy of publishing on all matters under their concern. I am prepared to accept that there may be particular cases in which it will be invidious for some reason or another to give details of individual complaints, but I feel there should be a statutory responsibility on the commission to give an indication of the total number of complaints considered by them during the year.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister earlier introduced an amendment saying that "where complaints have been decided by the commission, they should give whatever information they see fit about it". This is in advance of the issuing of the annual report and 18C (1) states:

The report shall contain such statements (if any) as the Commission thinks fit giving particulars of decisions made by it.

My first amendment proposes simply to add the word "all". It seems reasonable that where the commission have made a decision some information should be given in the annual report. Under this subsection they are entitled to give such statements, if any, as the commission think fit. They can decide in a particular case not to give such statements. The word "all" added would show that the intention is that all decisions made by the commission shall be referred to in some fashion in the annual report. It would be very undesirable to have a situation where the commission had received a complaint, and made a decision and no reference was made to it in the annual report. There may be cases when a complaint has been rejected and for some reason, the commission felt they ought not to mention it, but I should imagine these would be very, very rare and we ought, I think, establish the general principle that all decisions made by the commission should be referred to in the annual report.

The second amendment deals with a related matter though it is not quite on all-fours with this. It relates to particulars of complaints. The section, as it stands, refers to decisions made but it does not refer to complaints. It would seem desirable that, where complaints have been made to the commission, as a general rule the commission should include these in the annual report. I followed the lines the Minister has: "The report shall contain such statements (if any) as the Commission thinks fit giving particulars of complaints made to it." The commission have the power in exceptional cases not to refer to specific complaints—for example, if a complaint was held to be frivolous. It seems desirable that, besides giving particulars of all decisions made by them in the annual report, they should also refer to all complaints made to them in the annual report as a general rule. If the Minister feels that there could be cases where either decisions or complaints ought not be mentioned the words "if any", which are in his text and in my amendment, would cover that situation. I urge him to accept these amendments.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

In the debate on amendment No. 18 I mentioned why I considered it undesirable to require publication by the commission of particulars of every decision. In some cases it could be undesirable to do so where the complaint involved a question of intrusion on privacy. Section 18C, as it stands, provides that the commission must submit an annual report on their activities during the year which would contain particulars of decisions made, if the commission think fit. The report must contain particulars of decisions not accepted by RTE. Admittedly provision for mandatory publication of decisions not accepted by RTE creates the problem I mentioned in the case of complaints dealing with intrusion of privacy. It seems unlikely, however, that a serious complaint of intrusion or encroachment on privacy in which the commission found in favour of the complainant would be contested by the Authority. In the event of their contesting such a decision, however, publication of particulars of it in the annual report would seem desirable despite the risk involved of further encroachment on privacy. If such a risk existed I am sure the commission would be able to minimise it, if not eliminate it altogether, in their report of the decision. Accordingly, I think on the whole that section 18C as it stands is adequate. The point has been made that the commission should give particulars of the total numbers of complaints they dealt with. I think it would be surprising if the commission did not give particulars of the total number in their report seeing they are bound to report on their activities during the year under section 18C as it stands. On the face of it that would cover the total number of complaints.

I do not feel very strongly on this matter and I am prepared to look at some new points made by Senator Horgan and Senator Yeats in the course of their statements. I am prepared to look at the matter again while this Bill continues its progress through the Oireachtas. For the general reasons indicated in my comments on Senator Horgan's amendment, I am not inclined to favour Senator Yeats's first amendment either but, as I say, I will think over their arguments.

As regards Senator Yeats's second amendment, I am not convinced it is necessary to make statutory provision that the commission give particulars in their annual report of complaints made to them which they did not investigate because they decided they were frivolous or vexatious. The commission would, of course, be quite free to include such particulars if they thought this was, desirable under subsection (1) of 18C which provides that the commission shall make to the Minister a report of their activities during the year.

I regret accordingly I cannot see my way at present to accepting this amendment. Again, I appreciate the reasons for this but Senators who have complained about the great elaboration of the functions of the commission show themselves disposed to elaborate them still further. We have to try to strike a balance.

Mr. Horgan

If I attempted to elaborate on the functions of the commission it would not necessarily be the same thing as elaborating on their procedures, which is what the Bill does in a way I found both unpleasant and unnecessary. I am grateful for the spirit in which the Minister has welcomed the observations made, especially about this view of the total number of complaints made. There are really just two ways of doing what we propose. One way is for the Minister to undertake at some stage to bring what he has just said to the notice of the commission when he sets it up. This is perhaps an informal way of doing it. The other way is making a very minor surgical amendment to the Bill at some stage to make this a very modest statutory requirement. I myself would prefer the second, but I would leave it to the Minister to decide which is the more appropriate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.

Mr. Yeats

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 7, lines 22 and 23, to delete paragraph (b).

This is a very small matter. It is more a question of what one might describe as common sense in legislation than anything else. I raised it on the Committee Stage, though not as an amendment. The last paragraph of section 5, the section that deals with the informal advisory committee to advise the Authority, says:

An adviser under this section shall advise the Authority whenever requested by the Authority.

For practical purposes this paragraph has existed since the Principal Act of 1960 and, while it is not the Minister's own particular baby, I would ask him to throw out this baby now that he has the chance. On the face of it, it seems silly to provide in some detail in this section that committees be set up to give advice; members are to be appointed to the committee, presumably with their consent, and would attend meetings and then an adviser, under this section, shall advise the Authority whenever requested by the Authority. Does this mean that he is in some kind of breach under the Act if he refuses to advise either because he object to advising on a particular issue or he is just too lazy to bother? It seems to me self-evident that, if you have agreed to be a member of an advisory committee, when you are asked to advise you are likely to do so and, if you do not, it sounds a good idea to put you off the committee and replace you with somebody who will. To put it solemnly as an injunction in a piece of legislation that an adviser shall advise when requested to seems rather unnecessary. I would suggest it could conveniently be dropped.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I have considered this point since the Senator raised it on Committee Stage and I am satisfied the paragraph should be retained in the Bill. If it were deleted an adviser would be statutorily entitled to retain his position for the period for which he was originally appointed irrespective of whether or not he gave any advice to the Authority. Admittedly, it is unlikely that a person who accepted a position as adviser would subsequently refuse to give advice when requested to do so, but it could happen, and subsection (3) (b) provides the necessary power for the Authority to compel the adviser to give advice in such an eventuality. I am sorry I cannot accept the Senator's amendment.

The Senator poured a certain amount of scorn on this section which he apparently regarded as inherently somewhat ridiculous. I should like to point out to him that the subsection the Senator wishes to delete is identical with section 3 (b) of section 21 of the 1960 Act. The need for amendment of section 21 of the 1960 Act arose solely because it was decided that the Authority, rather than the Minister, should have power to appoint advisory committees and advisers. The Senator has advised me to throw out this baby. I would point out to him that the baby is some 15 years old and of impeccable Fianna Fáil parentage.

Mr. Yeats

Both on the Committee Stage and now I pointed this out to the Minister. I explained with some care on the Committee Stage, in case there should be any doubt in the matter, that he was indeed a Fianna Fáil baby dating from 1960 and I repeat that now. I am perfectly well aware it was. I also said on Committee Stage that I was not at that time a Member of the Seanad so that I was in no position at that time to complain. This is the first time since 1960 that this particular subsection has come before me and on the first opportunity, therefore, open to me, I am complaining about its lack of common sense. I do not follow at all the Minister's reasons for not accepting this. As I understand it, he has said that, if this paragraph were to be deleted, the adviser could remain an adviser and member of the committee forever. I do not see that. An adviser under this section—paragraph (a) of subsection (3)—shall unless he previously dies or resigns continue as adviser for the period determined by the authority when appointing him, and no longer, but shall be eligible for reappointment. If in fact he consistently refuses to advise, he cannot apparently be put off the committee. He has to stay there until his time is up when, I take it, the authority will not reappoint him even though he may be eligible for reappointment. That is all that happens. It happens whether or not this paragraph exists. If deleted that is still the position. He can remain until his term is up but equally, if he is there and he does not advise, he cannot be removed unless he resigns.

I do not follow the Minister's point. I am not pressing this because obviously it is of no practical interest, but it seems rather silly to have a paragraph like this which means nothing, which contributes nothing, which appears to lay some kind of legal obligation on someone to advise when he has already agreed to be on an advisory committee. However, it looks as if this original Fianna Fáil baby is now going to remain as a Coalition baby too and I can only regret the lasting powers of the child.

Mr. E. Ryan

The Minister to be consistent should introduce a section saying that the chairman of the authority shall chair the authority whenever requested to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 28 and 36 are related and can be discussed together.

Mr. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 7, line 25, to delete "in its entirety".

A further contribution to this central core of the Bill might tend to be repetitious and I should like to try to avoid that and to concentrate on the basic principle involved in this amendment, namely, to remove "in its entirety" from subsection (1) of section 6. It comes back to some extent to a theme we have aired already but it is also relevant in this context. The Minister is seeking to circumscribe himself in this section, in particular in regard to subsection (1). If the amendment is accepted the words "in its entirety" would be deleted and the section would read accordingly:

The Minister may, after consultation with the Authority, direct the Authority to rebroadcast a service of programmes specified in the direction and broadcast from any source other than the Authority and so specified.

What we object to here, and I want to say it once again, is not the rebroadcasting of BBC programmes, not the rebroadcasting of a substantial proportion of BBC or any other programmes from any other broadcasting service but to the rebroadcasting of programmes in their entirely, run by a station controlled by another country. The phrase "in its entirety" in this section effectively prevents the Minister, once he has launched the particular service in its entirety, from interfering with that service short of withdrawing his direction and dropping the service completely. That is the legal position. The Minister would agree with me in that.

Why does the Minister circumscribe himself by having the words "in its entirety" inserted here? Surely again, and this fits in with the attitude towards another amendment earlier on, it would be much better, if the Minister is serious about his declared intention to be flexible about this whole matter between now and the end of next year, not to have the words "in its entirety" included in subsection (1) of section 6. The Minister could then direct the Authority to rebroadcast a service of programmes. That might not be a bad idea if there was a second channel under Irish control and the Minister might take the view that the particular service of programmes should be rebroadcasted by that alternative channel. That might be a point of view. Indeed, I would envisage, as I said on all Stages of this Bill, the alternative channel carrying a substantial number of programmes from the various BBC programmes and UTV programmes, carrying them simultaneously, carrying them live.

I want to make it quite clear this is not a debate between RTE and BBC 1. This is not a debate between the multi-channel and the single-channel viewers. This is a debate fundamentally, as I have said on another section, about who in the last analysis controls the alternative channel, who decides on the programmes, who decides how to so organise the second channel so that it will complement the first and thereby ensure that the Irish viewing public will get maximum viewing and the best service.

That is what this whole debate is about. This whole debate fundamentally is embodied in this amendment in so far as one can get a nugget out of the Bill relevant to the basic principle of the Bill. That nugget is in these three words "in its entirety". They mean that the Minister will direct the Authority to rebroadcast an entire service of programmes from the first children's hour programme to God Save the Queen at the end of the day. That will be the entire programme. Excellent programmes and drivel, the whole lot broadcast willy nilly, without any power of discrimination, without any distinction or any separation. The Minister has emphasised BBC 1 as being the one he would adopt if he was going to rebroadcast a service “in its entirety”.

All sorts of options are open to the Minister if he deletes the words "in its entirety". I mentioned some of the options earlier on. It can be a straightforward RTE second channel. It can be based on the single channel area. Senator Russell challenged me earlier on the costings involved in establishing an alternative channel based on a single channel area with a committee or some body associated in some way with the running of RTE 1 so that the programmes would not be competitive to a wasteful degree but would complement each other. Senator Russell challenged me to state whether or not this would represent an enormous cost.

RTE have some very interesting costings in their report. BBC 1 represents the most expensive of the various options open to the Minister in this matter of providing a second channel. Indeed the Minister himself, as he has stated here and elsewhere, cannot at this stage given us an assessment of the costings. We are entirely at the mercy of whatever BBC 1 may indicate in regard to costings, in regard to price, if they agree to it at all. I am certain that there will be a growing reluctance on the part of the BBC to any participation in the matter which appears to have been largely gestated in the mind of the Minister and does not appear to have had any germination whatever in thought from the BBC.

If the Minister is in some way trying to enforce or persuade BBC 1 to come in here as unwilling partners he is doing something very foolish. He can be held up easily to ransom if he tries to persuade unwilling partners to rebroadcast their system "in its entirety". The Minister will certainly be on a very weak side of the bargaining table in regard to the cost the unwilling partner will demand. If the Minister is open to other options and other arguments why have the words "in its entirety" been incorporated here in subsection (1) of section 6? If rebroadcasting on the second channel is to be rational rebroadcasting, rather than the holus bolus acceptance of what comes from another State service, then the words "in its entirety" can be deleted.

Whatever rebroadcasting the Minister may direct would be of programmes specified in the direction. It can include a varied service of programmes, not just coming in their entirety from one particular broadcasting service, but coming from a number of broadcasting services. That is why, I respectfully submit, these words represent the kernel of this Bill. If deleted, as we suggest in this amendment, it would mean that the Minister, in a far freer and flexible way, would be in a position to exercise the various options open to him over the next 12 to 18 months.

However, I cannot avoid the belief that the Minister is not serious— although he has not expressed himself as such—about leaving himself open to accept options. If he was serious in this respect, he would delete the words "in its entirety". Once those words are in, the Minister is committed to a service derived entirely from an alternative station, and transmitted from an outside State service. The Minister said that would be the alternative he would broadcast on the second channel. I am trying to get him away from that over committment. If the words "in its entirety" are deleted then the Minister has the option to take the best from BBC 1, BBC 2, UTV, European or North American programmes and services, and combine them into one sensible alternative channel that would complement the present RTE 1.

If the Minister persists in including these words, I have to doubt his sincerity when he says that this matter is open to debate and that the options are open until the end of next year, because there are no options open if the words "in its entirety" are included. These words mean that the Minister must take in, willy nilly, without discernment or criticism, a programme that may be good in some respects but can contain an enormous amount of trivia, totally unrelated to Irish circumstances. That is why I doubt the sincerity of the Minister when he says that he has his options open in the matter.

We are seeking in this amendment to ensure that the Minister will, under legislation, be seen to be empowered to keep his options open over the next 12 to 18 months. If the words "in its entirety" remain in this subsection of section 6 it means that the reality of the situation, no matter what the Minister may protes to the contrary, is that the Minister is not keeping his options open, that he has a closed mind, that a decision has been taken, the issue has been predetermined and we are going to have BBC 1 whether the Irish people like it or not.

A growing volume of opinion has arisen against the Minister's measure since its introduction in the Seanad. In his introductory speech the Minister asked for critical and constructive comment and got it. He got it from the six university Senators, every one of whom voted with the Fianna Fáil group in the various debates and divisions. We had a strong expression of views from the trade union movement. An excellent seminar was organised by the Irish Transport and General Workers Union over the weekend in which the Finnish communicator, Dr. Tapio Varis, one of the leading television experts in the world, spoke on his paper "The Subtle Imperialism". This paper set out, for delegates representing the Workers' Union of Ireland, the Irish Film Workers' Association, the Irish Actors' Equity and the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union the dangers that exist, particularly for a small country like ours in the middle of the Anglo-American information commercial stream, the severe and serious difficulties with which we would be faced if we rebroadcast in its entirety a service of programmes specified in the directions made by the Minister. We object strongly to the words "in its entirety". We are not going to be driven into an artificial disagreement with the Minister.

I do not object to a substantial number of excellent BBC programmes being incorporated in an Irish second channel. They show some of the best world affairs programmes which obviously we could not afford, such as "Panorama". There are excellent sporting programmes throughout Britain and the world which we cannot afford because of the cost of sending equipment and personnel. It is common sense to borrow these programmes and incorporate them in our alternative channel. By incorporating the best in BBC—it is quite easy to assess the best and to get the programmes that have a reasonably high TAM rating with Irish viewers—in an alternative channel that would be complementary to the existing RTE channel, we will not be engaged in wasteful competition. That is why I want to emphasise that this is not an argument of RTE versus BBC. This is not just an old-fashioned, jingoistic, argument that everything coming from Britain is bad. That is not so. I object to the BBC programme, the State programme of another country, being rebroadcast in its entirety, without anything being taken from it, diminished or cut out.

BBC being transmitted here automatically without any Irish control, or monitoring on the Irish air waves is, as I said, unprecedented in the world today. We will be the only country in the world—including the Banana Republics in South America and the newly-emerging countries in Africa—with one single State channel and who, after 55 years of independence, took the retrograde step of allowing the State service of another country—in this case a powerful country with the whole Anglo-American culture behind it—to be rebroadcast on our second channel. We are doing this at a time when that neighbouring state is already devolving its powers in television into cultural regions within its own community, and where Welsh television is now being established by the British state as an independent television service, under its own state control to preserve Welsh culture.

One of the great weapons of the modern world for good or ill is telecommunications. Each sovereign, independent state has certain rights in regard to their air waves. We have sovereign rights over our air waves. We have sovereign rights over the various television wave bands that operate within our control. We are now proposing to hand over a substantial proportion of those air wave rights "in their entirety"—to use the words that we are seeking to delete—to the services of a neighbouring foreign station.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Are we still on amendment No. 20? I have heard this speech on amendment No. 20.

Mr. Lenihan

No, we are talking about the deletion of the words "in its entirety" from section 6, subsection (1), and saying that those words represent the heart and the nub of this Bill. Our objections to the Bill have often been misrepresented but, as far as people in the single-channel areas are concerned, I wish to see them getting what is available to the people in the rest of the country. I am certain that aim can be achieved by having, in the single-channel area, an alternative system that will incorporate everything good the people in the single-channel area see on BBC 1 and other channels. They do not want to see the trivia broadcast by BBC 1. That is what is meant by the three words "in its entirety". What we are suggesting here is that "The Subtle Imperialism"—to quote the phrase used at the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union seminar—involved in rebroadcasting in toto, the programmes from an alternative station run by another state is seriously damaging. It can show up our weaknesses, be they cultural, social, economic or financial.

As I said before, we are an independent sovereign State. We have interests that run counter, in many instances, to British interests. We have a very positive divergence of opinion within our own island on the North of Ireland problem. We are very well aware of that. There is no doubt about it, the British case in regard to the North of Ireland is totally different from ours. The Minister may think that by having BBC 1in toto he may water down the Irish person's view of the Irish case. That could be one rather sinister reason for having the words “in its entirety” incorporated in this subsection. If BBC 1 is rebroadcast in its entirety, propaganda and all, and if “The Subtle Imperialism” comes over our air waves, then the average Irishman's appreciation of an Irish Government's case in regard to the North may be very subtly eroded. That is one reason.

There is also the common agricultural policy. With our backs to the walls, we are fighting with our French friends in particular, and with our Danish friends to make sure that the high price agricultural structure which exists for producers within the EEC is maintained. While we are experiencing total opposition from the British in this respect, BBC 1 will be rebroadcast in its entirety into every Irish home, on our State wave lengths, and can carry the subtle message of the British consumer into every town in this country—that cheap food is good and we should not be paying high prices to agricultural producers. I mentioned that as an example of total conflict between the British and the Irish case.

Now we, as a sovereign Parliament, are suggesting that a sovereign Irish Government should hand over those air waves to the State service of a country whose interests conflict with our own. It is no argument to suggest that BBC 1 is already seen in various parts of the eastern part of Ireland, because (a) it is a spill over, (b) it arises from the licensing of certain television operations and (c) at the present time there is very bad viewing, even in the multi-channel areas. All this would be changed completely if we got equal strength viewing of BBC 1 and RTE. Because of competition, our single national channel will gradually diminish in importance, strength and appeal as far as advertisers are concerned.

I am not in any way reflecting on RTE 1, but without an alternative Irish controlled channel to complement it, and avoid competition, it could not compete with the advertisement-free, fully-beamed, fully directed BBC 1 television channel. There is no comparison between the two programmes. Without any discredit to ourselves television tends to be an area of massive expenditure in regard to investment, both on equipment, and the large number of highly paid personnel and so on. It can be done by BBC 1 because of a substantial base of 17 million people. It cannot be done by RTE on a base of 3 million people. It is as simple as that, particularly if you circumscribe RTE 1 by having the highly-based, highly organised channel competing directly with it, in its entirety.

"God Save the Queen" will emerge as the National Anthem instead of "The Soldier's Song". It is a very rational development. That can easily happen because of that decision I suggest that a rational development will flow from an irrational decision. If the irrational decision is made to include the words "in its entirety" in section 6, subsection (1), then the rational development is the one I mentioned. RTE 1 will become an irrelevancy.

That is what was agitating the various unions concerned at their seminar over the weekend, because they see the rational development from the Minister's irrationality, in terms of jobs, in the running down of RTE 1, and the elevation of BBC 1 in the course of time to be the principal and then the only channel operated in this country.

The way to rationalise our limited resources is to take the rational step in the first instance—and the rational step is incorporated in our amendment: to delete the three words "in its entirety" and thereby give the Minister and the Authority the wide range of choice that would be open to them in having an alternative programme that would dovetail into the existing programme.

I do not mind if that alternative programme is controlled in the present single-channel areas, if it is established in Cork or Limerick or Galway. I do not mind if there is a committee or body representative of people in those areas, set up to supervise it as long as these people are Irish people and the programme will dovetail in with RTE in a sensible manner. In that way, one can make viable the two Irish-based channels and ensure they will not be competing in a wasteful manner. We will be able to stand up to the BBC situation which will continue to exist as cable television expands and BBC programmes will be broadcast holus bolus—we cannot stop that—but RTE 1 and the second Irish-controlled channel will be able to complement each other and present a viable, vigorous alternative to BBC 1. This amendment is designed to help the Minister and to ensure that he does not completely commit himself to one programme coming in its entirety.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is not——

Mr. Lenihan

I appreciate the point that Senator O'Higgins is making. The Minister has made it, too. It is nonsense to suggest that if the Minister allows in BBC 1 on the second Irish channel, he can then remove them after 24 or 36 months.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am sorry for interrupting, but the Senator did not get my point. I shall try to put it across later.

Mr. Lenihan

The point has been strongly made in this House that in some way the Minister is still reserving to himself—which he is, of course—an effective power to direct the second channel, operated by BBC, at some future date. I agree that, theoretically, the Minister has that power under section 6, but I would question that power on two grounds. First of all, as a matter of practicality, once BBC 1 is operating on our second channel the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, even if he wanted to, could not turn them off without very serious difficulty. The present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would have no interest in turning them off anyway. I believe he is committed to rebroadcasting BBC 1 in its entirety for political reasons and for reasons that are not associated with the merits of television but are basically associated with "The Subtle Imperialism", to quote the title of the Irish Transport Union Symposium, of making us all little Britons.

Fundamentally, the Minister thinks this is one way to solve the Irish problem. As long as he keeps the three words "in its entirety" which we seek to delete from section 6 (1) he has a closed mind, has already determined his approach, and is determined to rebroadcast BBC 1, if the BBC allow him. However, I have a very real reason to believe they will not.

The Minister is not succumbing to particular pressures which he alleges exist in the single-channel areas. He positively wants BBC 1 and that is the only rationale for incorporating "in its entirety" in this subsection. He would be delighted to overcome every obstacle that might exist to bring BBC in as a second Irish channel. He believes this is philosophically, culturally and politically desirable; that it is necessary and good for us. Otherwise, there is no rational for what he is doing here. Talking in terms of keeping his options open, of having an open forum and free discussion on this matter over the next 18 months before he makes his final decision under section 6, is a mere smokescreen. All my information is that the Minister's intentions to drag us into this situation are not going to succeed, because the BBC with their traditional British cuteness, will not be dragged by the Minister into an Irish row. The BBC will not agree with the Minister, from a union point of view, because the unions will insist that the BBC unions do not co-operate and they will queer the Minister's pitch in that direction. That process has already started. The BBC are a very conservative British establishment and it is not their form to get involved in an imbroglio such as this. Even if the Minister wants to make us all little Britons, my view is that the BBC have no desire to participate in that mission field.

The Minister has not yet given one iota of hard evidence to the Irish public that serious negotiations, or discussion even, have commenced with the BBC authorities or with his counterpart in the British Government, the Postmaster-General.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Who?

Mr. Lenihan

Whoever is in charge. Is it the Postmaster-General?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Senator should know.

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister knows better the name of his British counterpart.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Minister does not know.

Mr. Lenihan

I should like to know from the Minister what serious exchange of views and discussions have commenced with his counterpart in the British Government, or with the British Broadcasting Corporation, on the feasibility of or the manner in which BBC 1 will be transmitted into Ireland, and on what terms. Is the Minister capable of disputing the very positive date in the RTE Authority report published a fortnight ago, in which they set out the expenditure involved bringing BBC 1 in here? They said it would be double the cost of RTE 2 being operated by the Authority. I should like the Minister to give his views on this, either here or in some other public place. The Minister has been remarkably coy about stating what consultations he has had with his British Government counterpart, what discussions have taken place, what area of costs he feels is involved in this because unless and until that emerges, we cannot have any real assessment of the situation. The Authority have done it in detail in their report on the second channel. The Minister is aware of the figures. I am precluded from going into them here, but they have set out a case which roughly means that a second Irish channel—they, of course, want an RTE channel, but there is nothing final on that, it might be operated by some other body—would cost half the price of a BBC channel. We have had no financial facts from the Minister yet to dispute the case of the RTE Authority.

The Minister must be aware, at least in broad outline, of the nature of the fee or charges which will have to be paid to the BBC 1 for the complete use of our airways, together with RTE 1. We would like information from the Minister on that because a lot will depend on the words "in its entirety" in subsection (1) of section 6. In their document RTE said that specific programmes can be obtained at a reasonable charge, which is what we have been suggesting all along, but that to rebroadcast in its entirety would be a highly expensive operation. I am certain that BBC 1 are not going to risk coming in here seeking to educate the Irish people in the British mould, which is a rather daunting task, without a very substantial fee. They well understand the sort of antipathy they would be working up vis-à-vis their trade unions and vis-à-vis other people in the Irish political situation. They are well aware of the area of disturbance they would be getting themselves involved in in seeking to make an arrangement of this kind with the Minister.

This smokescreen was thrown out by the Minister two years ago in an emotional period after the change of government. But the Minister is now coming to the crunch of reality. My bet is that the Minister, even if he wants to force the BBC to come in here and make us little Britons, will not be able to do so, that he will not be in a position to negotiate or request the BBC to come to Ireland and record BBC 1 in its entirety on our airwaves. I think we will get a situation where the Minister will get a very polite "no".

I hope the Irish national cause will be served in that manner by the good sense of BBC 1 against an Irish Minister seeking to erode a national cause by invoking BBC 1 to come here on some mission to make us all little Britons. I would suggest to the Minister that the way he can meet the situation in this section, and maintain his open approach, which he says he wishes to maintain, is by deleting the three words "in its entirety". This will allow him the opportunity to exercise the options available to him if BBC do not want to come in, or if he changes his mind about their coming in or if he wants to have some service of programmes from a number of television stations. All these options can be open to him by deleting the words "in its entirety" from subsection (1) of section 6. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment in that spirit. It forms the heart and core of this Bill and at this late stage I would ask the Minister to take this matter seriously, which has not been done so far.

Mr. Russell

Having listened to Senator Lenihan very carefully for the past half hour or more I should like to bring back a sense of reality into the discussion. There was talk about subtle imperialism, little Englanders, West Britons and so on. It seems to me to ignore the fact that Senator Lenihan and others fortunate enough to live on the east coast have been subjected for some years now to the subtle imperialism of BBC 1, BBC 2 and UTV. They have had the further advantage of deciding which of these subtle imperialist stations to tune into. I have no doubt that when this debate is over this evening Senator Lenihan will return to his house and tune into one of these stations.

Unfortunately we in the south and west do not have that opportunity. I would be the last person to suggest that the result of this subtle imperialism to which Senator Lenihan has been a victim now for many years has had any effect on his nationalist outlook and I am sure he would be very hurt if I were to suggest for one moment that he was a West Briton or a little Englander. I do not think he is but I think he is a little naïve in suggesting that because people in the disadvantaged areas are now to be offered for the first time ever an alternative that, as a result, they are going to be turned into West Britons or little Englanders. To say the least it is a grave insult to the patriotic instincts of those of us who are fortunate, or unfortunate enough as the case may be, to live on the south or west coasts. I think that it is no harm to have a look at subsection (1) of section 6. Three words have been taken and bandied about for the past half-hour.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are discussing the amendment on Report Stage.

Mr. Russell

I wish to take it in the context of the Bill. Just talking about the three words "in its entirety" could give a wrong impression. Subsection (1) of section 6 reads:

The Minister may, after consultation with the Authority, direct the Authority to rebroadcast in its entirety a service of programmes specified in the direction and broadcast from any source other than the Authority and so specified.

That seems to me to indicate quite clearly that the Minister has the right, if he so desires and after consultation, to direct that an entire programme or series of programmes from BBC 1, BBC 2 or UTV may be rebroadcast; in other words, putting the people in the disadvantaged areas in the happy situation which Senator Lenihan and his fortunate colleagues on the east coast have enjoyed for many years. If we exclude "in its entirety" I assume the corollary would arise that the Minister cannot then direct the Authority to rebroadcast in its entirety. That would seem to me to be the effect of taking out those three words.

People who live in the disadvantaged areas want to have a choice of turning on BBC 1 or BBC 2 in its entirety, just as people on the east coast can do now. Something else which also seems to have been forgotten is that they will then have the alternative if they feel that their culture is under an attack of turning back to RTE. Senator Lenihan talked about the dire position in which RTE will find themselves as a result of the Minister extending in a limited way the alternatives enjoyed by those on the east coast, and he said RTE will not be able to compete. I would like to know, and I hope the Minister will enlighten us in his reply, how is it that RTE have managed to survive up to now in competition with three or four outside stations? What is going to be the remarkable change if people on the south and east coasts are going to be offered one alternative in the not too distant future? Why has Senator Lenihan so little confidence in the competence and quality of the RTE programmes to think that they are going to sink because people in the disadvantaged south and west areas are going to be offered a modicum of what their fellow-Irishmen on the east coast have enjoyed for many years? I think that it is absolute and utter nonsense. As said before, the alternative I would like to see is a group entirely outside RTE and BBC or any other station taking over but apparently that is not on. Nothing that has been said by the Senators opposite can convince me that there is any alternative to the proposal contained in this Bill. I would like to think that there was a sensible, practical, economical alternative but it has not been shown.

Senator Lenihan picked me up on some remarks I made earlier on about the cost. He referred to the very well documented case of RTE. I did not refer to that. I said that the Fianna Fáil Party, of which he is the leader in this House, had produced recently what they called an alternative to the Minister's Bill but they had not costed it. and no figures were subsequently produced. In the absence of those figures I think it is quite impossible to argue the merits of the Fianna Fáil alternative, if in fact it is a practicable alternative.

Senator Lenihan has repeated the speech he made on the first section of this Bill some hours ago but he has failed to convince me that by taking out three little words he will improve the Bill or offer any practical alternative to those of us who live in the south and west of Ireland. Not for the first time in this debate, it is a question of the haves telling the have nots what the haves think they should have.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We should recall that the words which this amendment seeks to delete were inserted by the Seanad on the Committee Stage of the Bill. They did not appear on the Bill originally. They were inserted as the Minister's response to arguments which were made or the dangers which would exist if a Minister were to be given power which would allow him to direct the rebroadcasting of particular films, programmes or interviews. The Minister made it clear on the occasion of the Second Reading introductory speech that what he had in mind was the rebroadcasting of an entire programme and his response to the criticisms, objections or queries raised was to make the position abundantly clear by introducing an amendment on Committee Stage to insert the words which it is now proposed to delete. If the Minister had not proposed the introduction of these words which were subsequently adopted by the House, it is possible that on Report Stage he would be met by objections that he had been so dictatorial in his approach that he had not amended the Bill even though he had stated that his intention was to have programmes rebroadcast in their entirety, that he had burked the issue by not putting that into the Bill and pinning himself to it. There were objections that as long as the Bill remained without the words "in its entirety" it was open to the Minister to order the Authority to rebroadcast particular items which possibly might have political significance or be politically advantageous to the Minister. As I see it, no matter what action he takes the Minister cannot win in this kind of argument. By his amendment on Committee Stage he has made it quite clear that he meant what he said in his introductory speech and he has pinned his colours to that masthead.

It is important that we should remember a point made by Senator Russell. This is an enabling section. It is not a mandatory section. I know I have used the word "section" but it is necessary in this context because it denotes also the subject matter of the amendment. The section enables the Minister to direct the rebroadcasting of programmes in their entirety. Equally, when it uses the expression "the Minister may after consultation..." that means if he so chooses the Minister may not. It is entirely discretionary. There is nothing to make it obligatory or mandatory on the Minister to do this. If as a matter of public policy or for any reasons responsive to public opinion the Minister decides that it is not in the best interests of the State that this section should be brought into operation—

Mr. Garrett

God help Ireland depending on his decision.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

And if, having operated the discretionary powers which are given to him here, the Minister decides in response to a plea from Senator Garrett to alter his decision, he is free to do so. The next point I want to look at briefly is the impassioned plea that was made by Senator Lenihan to save us from the fate of being made little Britons, and to ensure that we will not adopt "God Save the Queen" as our National Anthem. If I thought that was being advanced as a serious argument I would regard it as the greatest insult ever offered by people in this House to Senator Garrett's neighbours and others, particularly those west of the Shannon.

Mr. Garrett

The Senator's party were responsible for the execution of 77; they were in favour of the Treaty——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Garrett should allow the Senator in possession to speak without interruption.

Mr. Garrett

When did the British Government execute 77 men?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Higgins is making a contribution on amendment No. 28. He should be allowed to continue.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I regard people west of the Shannon as the salt of the earth and I have very great regard for the character and the calibre of the people there. Certainly I would not like to be the one who would stand up and insult them by saying that if they switched on BBC 1 they would end up as little Britons singing "God Save the Queen". That seems to be the weight and purport of the argument advanced by Senator Lenihan. It is equally insulting to the people living along the east coast who for years have been switching to BBC 1 or BBC 2 or UTV. Are we to castigate them now as little Britons because they have been able to look at BBC 1 or any of the other stations?

Mr. Garrett

Not only BBC 1.

Mr. Markey

They had only BBC 1 for several years.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They have been able to resist the temptation of singing "God Save the Queen".

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Garrett should restrain himself from interrupting the Senator who is speaking.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That is the argument as I see it that has been advanced in favour of this amendment. I think something more substantial than that requires to be advanced if we are to regard this as a serious discussion. If that is true, if it is likely to have that kind of result, let us get back to the basic point, that this is merely an enabling section which may or may not be operated and which, if operated, can be discontinued. Do not let us fall into the temptation of thinking that those who live outside the scope of the BBC reception at the moment are going to become little Britons, when those within that area have not become little Britons and have not yet started to sing "God Save the Queen".

Mr. E. Ryan

Perhaps Senator O'Higgins thinks that Senator Lenihan and other Senators have overstated the case when they say that any section of the community who are exposed to BBC 1 indefinitely would become little Britons. I think Senator O'Higgins would not deny that television has a very important influence on people who watch it. There is no doubt whatever that, if the people of this country were exposed to BBC 1 and no other programme over a number of years, this would undoubtedly have some effect on the outlook of the people of this country.

If I interpret Senator O'Higgins correctly, it is only a matter of degree because I do not think he would deny that exposure over a long period to a particular programme would have some effect on those who watch it. I think it is a matter of degree. Would it have some effect on the people of the country to be exposed, on the one hand, to the present RTE programme and, on the other hand, to one particular British programme? I have no doubt whatever that it would have some effect. As I have said it is only a matter of gauging what the effect would be, the extent of the influence, the extent to which it would colour people's outlook.

It has been mentioned that the people on the east coast have been able to turn to these programmes and that it has not had any effect on them. In the first place, the fact that they have been able to turn to several different programmes has mitigated the effects to a considerable extent, because they have not been watching a particular programme all the time. The fact that there are several different ones helps to mitigate the effect; it does not have as serious an effect as watching one particular programme. The people on the east coast watch several different British programmes, UTV, BBC 1, BBC 2 and so on, and I have no doubt that it has some effect which should not be underestimated. Even if it does not make little Britons of those who watch it, it has some effect on us. Perhaps the reason that my objection to the proposal is not as vehement as Senator Garrett's is because I have been exposed to BBC programmes and to some extent, I have become a little Briton.

One may feel that the position has been overstated by some Senators but I believe it is something which should be seriously considered, that it is something which should not be underestimated, which properly forms part of this debate and is a matter for serious examination in considering the proposal that is apparently being considered by the Minister.

That brings me back to what Senator O'Higgins has said about this being merely an enabling section. Of course we have been told that the Minister will exercise his discretion here and that this is something that may never happen. That would carry a great deal more weight if the Minister had never expressed any views about this and if we had no idea whatever as to what he was going to do. The fact of the matter is that we are all aware of what the Minister has in mind. We are all aware that he has expressed the view that BBC 1 is probably the programme he would like to see as the second programme. We are not discussing this completely without having any idea of what the Minister would like to see happening. The Minister may say that he has not any final decision made or has not a final view about it, but certainly the suggestion of broadcasting BBC 1 on the second channel has been suggested by him. Consequently we are not merely talking about an enabling section without having any idea of what is going to happen. We have a considerable hint of what is going to happen. We have been told that this is quite likely to happen. Consequently there is no use talking about an enabling section, as something that may never happen.

These sections are not put into Bills for nothing. It is not like section 31, as amended, which is something that enables the Minister to step in on some occasion but which will probably never happen and we all hope it will not. This is something which almost certainly will happen, something which is going to happen very soon. We have a very firm indication of how this section is going to be used. We have very firm indication that it is going to be used in a way that many people think is the wrong way and that many people think will be used in a way which would do a great deal of harm, or in a way which is the least advantageous for the viewers in this country. I do not think we should be merely shrugging it off as an enabling section.

Senator Russell seemed to take quite for granted what was going to happen. He was saying that what was going to happen seemed to be the best possible thing in the circumstances, that there seemed to be no reasonable alternative to what the Minister proposed to do. We have a firm indication that the Minister proposes to put on BBC 1.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is 10 o'clock. Does the House intend to adjourn at this stage?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Until 3 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Yeats

Do we take up Report Stage again at 3 p.m. tomorrow? Do we continue until it is finished and then after that we start the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Yes.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th June, 1975.