Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1988

Vol. 120 No. 7

Radio and Television Bill 1987: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

On section 3 may I say at the outset — and I am sure the Minister agrees with me — that the sooner this Bill is on the Statute Book the better and the long gestation period this Bill has had was used to good effect. Certainly, I share the frustration of very many people because the legislation did not get through, but the time which intervened has been used very constructively. There has been a pretty genuine national debate. Most of the points about which I was uneasy have been taken on board. Section 3 is a very good example of this. The one great flaw in the original proposals of the Minister concerned the composition of the board and the sense that the board would ultimately be responsible for deciding on the licence, and so on.

The Minister assured the Dáil — and has written into the legislation — that the members have been drawn from specific areas of expertise. The Minister goes a bit further than I would ask for in this specification. What is crucial is that the country will have a very well balanced, sensible, informed and genuinely independent Commission. It is right that the Minister of the day should nominate the members of that board.

I also believe because a person is a member of a political party, or is a known supporter of a political party, that person should not be disqualified from membership of the Commission. There is a great obligation on all of us to try to attract into public life people of the highest possible calibre. I do not believe that, because a person is a member of a political party, that person's judgment or integrity is thereby impigned. It is very much to the contrary. It is strange that, if we are inviting people into politics, we make it impossible for them to serve on boards of this sort, or immediately the only tag by which they are referred to is that they are a member of a political party. We have many examples of very good people in politics — Mr. Frank Flannery on the RTE Authority, Mr. Paul Kavanagh on a number of boards — people whose political colours are well known, but who have been exellent public servants as far as membership of commissions are concerned.

If the Minister appoints one or two people with strong political views, so long as their competence and integrity is not in question, there will be no complaints from me. I do not believe that political abstention is a virtue in itself. Quality is all important for this Commission. I do not know the politics of Mr. Jim Culliton, Chairman of the RTE Authority, but I know he has credibility with the public and a sense of achievement which lends credibility to the very stature of the RTE Authority. I hope that the Minister, in appointing the Commission, will be going in for people of this calibre. Quality is important.

I also agree with the points the Minister made in the Dáil when he said he hoped this new Commission will not become bureaucratic, and that it will be a small, lean institution which will be able to do its job effectively without becoming a burden on the new service. In section 3 the Minister is being sensible. There is the framework here for a very, very good Commission. All that is needed is the judgment of the Minister in making the appointments.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are related and may be discussed together. I wish to clarify that there are three separate lists of amendments. Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are on the yellow printed list, and in amendment No. 3 on page 6 at paragraph (a) the word "wise" should read "wide". We are now dealing with amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together to section 4.

Mr. Manning

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 29, to delete "one television programme service" and substitute "television programme services".

I thought it was a Freudian slip and I was very happy to accept it. I thought it improved the Bill to have the word "wise" written in. I had no objection at all.

Section 4 is probably the most radical departure in the Bill which makes possible a third television channel. As the Minister is aware, there is some debate on this and some concern as to whether or not a third television channel is even a starter as far as we are concerned. Estimates I have had from people in the business indicate that we are talking about an investment of about £12 million for a channel of this sort. I wonder if that sort of money is available. I certainly wonder if the return would be there from that sort of investment. We may well be talking about something which is not a licence to print money and may take a long time to get off the ground.

Having said that, my amendment goes almost in the opposite direction. My concern in all of this would be that the Commission would be under pressure to licence a third television channel. We could end up with something which fell very far below the standards which the Bill specifies. We could end up with some sort of a sub-quality satellite operation. My amendment states the opposite. If in fact I am wrong, if there is a demand for an extra television channel, if it is a success, if in the process it creates employment and does all the things we want this legislation to do, why should we be restrictive? Why should we simply not open ourselves to the possibility of there being two or three such channels? I really wanted to raise the point and I will not be pressing the amendment.

Mr. Bradford

I would like to support Senator Manning in respect of this amendment. I want to refer back to some of the points I raised yesterday evening on the sort of regional type of television service which I felt we should consider. In confining ourselves to the one extra channel we are, in a sense, confining that channel to the same source of advertisement revenue as is available at present to the two RTE channels. It is most important that, if extra channels are to be commercially successful, they can branch into new fields of advertising revenue. I made the point that I felt channels operating on a regional basis would be better able to get into this new field of advertising revenue. We must look very closely at some system of regional television. There is a market for it. I hope the Minister gives it serious consideration.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I had a different interpretation of the section. I thought it could be run on the type of model that the IBA are running in Britain and that a television service did not necessarily mean that the same output had to be broadcast to every region at the same time. I am sure the Minister will explain it. The Bill needs to be changed to encompass the argument put forward in proposing the amendment. I understood it was a television service in the sense that the IBA are a television service in the UK. They can split up their services at odd hours of the day such as a particular programme for Ulster, UTV, or another different programme for Wales or a different programme for Midland or Central. Maybe that is not the case. I do not know, but I would like to hear it explained.

Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

The point is exactly as Senator O'Toole has just mentioned. The primary objective is to have a third television channel established, which will be essentially national in nature. However, there is absolutely nothing to debar — I tried to cover this in my Second Stage speech here in the House — any of the individual cable companies, for example, in Dublin, Cork or Galway or any of the individual MMDS operators in particular regions, from opting out for an hour or two during the day with their own regional programmes to meet exactly the point Senator Manning mentioned so that we can have a regional character to it and it can be encompassed. Consequently, the amendment is unnecessary because the exact ideas that are mentioned can be accommodated within the Bill as it is.

Mr. Ferris

I have no problem at all with amendment No. 3, which is being taken in conjunction with this. I am concerned about the first amendment we are dealing with. I have a reservation about the need for this one additional television station, which is now going to be referred to as the third channel. Unless the Minister has information in this area that I am not privy to, we are now speaking in a vacuum. Obviously, the Minister would not have put in this section unless he was aware that there is a need for and a possibility of a take-up of this section, because it has been added to his original idea. If there is a need for it, we will then have to see how it goes. Certainly, I would not agree to extending that remit beyond this one the Minister feels there is a need for.

I honestly believe that opening up this additional channel could put the financing of RTE in jeopardy. That is my only reservation. You can call it competition or what you like, but in the area of advertising revenue, there is only a limited amount of money available in this country. People might opt for a new channel as an advertising outlet out of curiosity alone. That might put the funding of RTE in jeopardy. They are giving an excellent service as it is on their two channels. If the Minister has other information available, fair enough, but given the actual provision as I read it, this amendment would give the Commission power to have anything up to three or four additional television services, apart from the regional position outlined by Senator Bradford. I have no objection to that at regional level, but I object to a proliferation of independent, private television stations being set up by this new Commission. That is my reservation.

Mr. B. Ryan

I have to apologise to the Minister. I missed his Second Stage speech. Therefore, if I am duplicating or wasting his time, no doubt he will tell me. As I understand section 4, what he means by one television programme service is one broadcast service. Is it possible to have a number of broadcast services? If it is, why the emphasis on one, at all? I would like to know the reason for the form of words there, if it is as simple as it appears to be to opt out of it.

In particular, the specific demand I am aware of for broadcasts of what you could call a regional nature is the quite insistent demand from the Gaeltachtaí for a television service for the Gaeltacht as distinct entirely from television programmes in Irish. What they are actually talking about is a local television service for three, four or five communities who are scattered. They are separated from each other by fairly long distances. What I would like to know in clear "yes" or "no" answers from the Minister, is whether it is possible, under this legislation to set up an independent television service for the people of the Gaeltacht communities who have a fairly consistent and well-articulated demand for such a service. I do not want to get involved in the practicalities of it. I simply want to know if this legislation or existing broadcasting legislation makes such a thing possible. If it does not, we ought at least to make it possible under the legislation.

Mr. R. Burke

It is possible under RTE legislation. The Senator will be aware that we have been looking at the propsect of a pilot scheme for the Gaeltacht areas. That is being examined. It is not a simple matter, but it is being examined in detail. There has been a provisional allocation agreed in relation to lottery funds. The whole prospect of it is being examined. As far as this legislation is concerned, the principle of one extra commercial station within our limited advertising budget is on the borderline as far as liability is concerned. It will be viable. I believe it will be very effective and a quality programme. The point that the Senators were making to me was that they wanted a regional aspect. All I am saying is that this regional aspect can be given in the same way as Senator Ryan's adopted city of Cork has an "opt-out" capacity. It has an "opt-out" capacity at the moment on cable television where you can have Corkabout and things like that. That is exactly what we will be doing, as I envisage it happening in cablelink land, in Dublin, Waterford and other areas. It is not necessary to amend the legislation for that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Manning

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, lines 21 to 53 and in page 8, lines 1 to 7, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) The Authority shall publish the name and address of each applicant and other details of the application, including the services proposed to be provided but excluding commercial details that should be kept private.".

The guidelines laid down in section 6 are important. They are very broad and I do not think anybody could disagree with any of them. These are the guidelines under which the awards for the sound broadcasting contracts will be made.

The problem is that they are a bit subjective. While one could leave them there, there is the question of public confidence and openness about all of this. If the Commission are under an obligation to declare publicly who the applicants are, what are the claimed resources of each of the applicants, what did each applicant promise to offer the particular community, the public would at least be in a position to know with confidence that the best candidate is chosen or that the candidate chosen is in a position of equality with the others and whatever other factors came into account were factors of judgment at the end of the day. This is to ensure that everything will be fully above board. Otherwise there could be some undermining of the credibility of the Commission.

This is a great country for rumours and innuendoes. There could be a belief that, even though there were three or four very strong candidates, it was the fourth candidate who, for political or other reasons, actually got the contract. If the names and some of the details — obviously there are certain commerical criteria which would be excluded — are published, there is a greater sense of openness and there is a extra layer of vigilance as far as the workings of the Commission are concerned.

Mr. R. Burke

I believe, with respect to the Senator's proposal, that the edge of transparency which I have already proposed for this legislation is almost unprecedented in legislation in this country, in particular the full disclosure of the licences and the contracts. There will be full details of every licence for the successful applicant and the full contract between the Commission and the contractor are on public display. Copies of them can be received from the Commission by any member of the general public. To go any further than that would be to make the task of the Commission quite impossible.

If Senator Manning thinks about it for a moment he will see the difficulty with it. He is suggesting that all of the applications should be published in advance of a decision by the Commission. Somebody could be putting forward an application, perhaps one of the better known pesonalities in RTE. He would want the fact that he is associated with an application to be kept totally secret on the basis that, if he is unsuccessful, he will want to stay with RTE. If all the information is made public in advance, it could compromise an individual application. If somebody applies and is unsuccessful in a commercial sense, nobody wants to be seen to be associated with a failed application. For example, if it is a public company, it can be damaging to their interests on the Stock Exchange. If it is a well-known personality in the media world it can be damaging to that person's reputation.

As far as the question of everything being seen to be above board is concerned, there is nothing to stop an unsuccessful applicant at the end of the day, publishing the details of his or her application if unsuccessful and then saying to the media generally: "This Commission have not behaved correctly. This is a better application and you can see it is a better application because here are the full details of the applicant and the contract of the unsuccessful applicant". It is open to any individual, if that person feels aggrieved, to publish his or her details. What is happening here is the same as happens in any contract, whether it is the construction of a road, the construction of a sanitary services scheme or the construction of any other project.

Only the successful applicant is made known to the public, not the unsuccessful ones. If somebody feels aggrieved there is nothing to stop that person highlighting and publishing the details of his or her tenders or application with all of the details of programming. It would be going totally against all the normal criteria to try to go further in relation to confidentiality. It would be damaging to confidentiality and might result in the best applicants not coming forward because people would not want to be seen to be associated with failure.

I have tried to ensure, in a way which is not normal in legislation in this country, that the successful applications will be the best on the basis of the criteria for the type of personnel who are to be appointed to the Commission. They will be people of high calibre with particular qualities. Having picked a successful applicant, the application will stand public scrutiny. All of the details of the application, the directors, the full beneficiaries, the shareholdings, all of the details of programming and all of the details of financial arrangements will be available for public scrutiny and a copy can be had by any member of the general public by merely going to the office of the Commission after the decision is made. That is a degree of transparency which is unique in Irish legislation.

Mr. Manning

The Minister has met the case very fully. I thank him for his very comprehensive reply. I suppose, Dublin being Dublin and Cork being Cork, these details will become public anyway in the normal course of events.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister has dealt with the amendment in the correct way. The Commission will publish the details of the successful applicant. In his Second Stage speech I understood the Minister to say that the Commission will be deciding on when, how and from whom to invite applications for tender for contract for particular areas. That will be done on a technical basis.

We had a lot of discussion here, especially in relation to radio broadcasting. Is it county, half county or existing areas that are covered illegally at the moment? Where mountains run through a county, naturally, on the eye to eye level of radio signals it might not necessarily beam into the other part of the county. There are some, like Tipperary Community Radio, who have a fairly restricted broadcasting base because of the Galtees which run right down through the centre of the county and separate us from Limerick and the Cork border. Will this new Commission set up the technical areas which they consider, from the information available to them, are the appropriate areas to be covered by community radio?

Mr. R. Burke

I will explain the procedure that will be followed. First, the Commission will be appointed. They will immediately advertise in what has become known as a trawl arrangement. They will place an advertisement asking for tenders but asking if, out there in the community, somebody is interested in providing a radio service or a television service and in what areas they are interested in providing the services. For example, the Senator mentioned Tipperary. That could include part of Tipperary, Cork and adjoining counties. It could be the north Cork area that was mentioned earlier and could include Limerick and Tipperary. Somebody could be interested in Sligo-Leitrim as a joint unit. The idea is to bring forward as much information as possible from the general public on what is the interest and who is interested in providing radio. This is particular to radio rather than television.

The Commission will then examine the information that comes in and make recommendations to me. I will discuss it with them in relation to what sort of break-up they suggest. They may suggest two stations in Cork or maybe one station in Cork, maybe three stations in Dublin or maybe two stations in Dublin. They may suggest a station covering Connacht or maybe three stations in Connacht. They will make the recommendations, at which stage those recommendations will be considered by myself with my technical people in the Department. We are tied by international regulations in relation to frequencies and in relation to power, and so on, of particular transmitters.

I will then, in consultation with the Commission, make the decision in relation to the number of stations there will be in a particular area covering a region, a county, a combination of a couple of counties and, having decided on that in consultation, mainly on the basis of frequency allocations and interests that have come from the trawl, the Commission will then advertise for applications for the regions that are decided upon. That is the procedure that will be followed. The Commission will then decide on the applications that come in for that region. They will decide on the successful applicant and then the successful application is available to the general public to stand the test of public examination.

Mr. Ferris

I now understand more clearly the kind of procedures that will be followed, but it could happen that the person who responds to the original request from the Commission may not be the successful applicant. Once they have done the ground work, based on experience they may not necessarily be the only ones who apply formally at that second stage. The more we talk about this the more clear it becomes to us and we will be able to communicate with people who are interested, particularly in the radio area, because they will be confined to minimum power outputs on international regulations.

This will probably not apply to the same extent in the television area except in regard to the new microwave signal the Minister talked about and about which there is a lot of controversy in relation to health and so on. Does the Minister intend to impose that type of signalling on the new television network or will they be working on the same frequency as RTE are at present? How do we relate that to the existing cable link or, indeed, other means of transmitting television programmes which is going on widely throughout the country?

Mr. R. Burke

It is not the only other means that is going on around the country. It is illegal deflection and I am sure the Senator would not want to be in any way associated with any illegal operation. Part of the other Bill we will be discussing later on, which has already received the unanimous support of this House, deals with illegal operators. I know the Senator would not wish to be associated with that.

Mr. Ferris

I was concerned that the Minister might not be aware of their operations. They are also aware of the Minister's proposals for the other microwave transmission. If the Minister wishes, we can deal with that problem which has arisen under the second Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

On the same section I have amendments Nos. 4a and 4b. They are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I move amendment No. 4a:

In page 8, line 12, after "language" to insert

"and shall ensure that not less than 35% of the transmission time of each applicant is devoted to the transmission of programmes in the Irish language."

The objective of this amendment is to increase the use of the Irish language in broadcasting. I would like to address myself particularly to amendment No. 4a. Ag moladh an Rúin agus chun é a mhíniú agus a chur i gcéill i gceart, an rud atá i gceist anseo ná go mbeadh trian de na craolacháin sna réigiúin sin a bhfuil Gaeltacht ina mease tugtha i nGaeilge. Níl mé ag iarraidh pribhléide do mhuintir na Gaeltachta, níl mé ag iarraidh go mbeadh aon rud speisialta déanta dóibh. Táim ag rá gur chóir é seo a thabhairt dóibh ó cheart, gur chóir go mbeadh sé acu de cheart, go mbeadh seirbhís i nGaeilge ar fáil acu, agus más iad muintir Chorca Dhuibhne nó muintir Chonamara nó muintir Thír Chonaill atá i gceist tá siad siúd ag brath, agus go deimhin tá siad ag súil leis an mBille um Chraolacháin seo, agus ba chóir dúinne gach tacaíocht a thabhairt dóibh ag an am seo. Fiú féin san Eoraip tá polasaithe ag an EC chun tacaíocht agus cúnamh a thabhairt do na mionlaigh chiníocha, ethnic minorities. B'fhéidir gur cúrsaí ceoil a bheadh i gceist nó cúrsaí nuachta nó cúrsaí comhrá; cibé rud a bheadh i gceist tá siad ag súil go mbeadh seirbhís Ghaelach agus seirbhís i nGaeilge ar fáil acu.

Anois, b'fhéidir gur féidir teacht timpeall ar an rud seo. Agus an tAire ag tabhairt amach ceadúnais do áit, dá bhféadfaí é a dhéanamh sa tslí go mbeadh an réigiún craolacháin chomh teoranta leis an nGaeltacht, mar shampla, ansin d'fhéadfaí a rá go mbeadh an tseirbhís sin ag freastal ar mhuintir na Gaeltachta go mórmhór, agus go bhféadfaí, fiú féin níos mó ná aon trian amháin den am a thabhairt don Ghaeilge. Go mórmhór, is dócha gur chóir dúinne gach tacaíocht a thabhairt don teanga, gur chóir go mbeadh an tacaíocht sin ag dul i dtreise, ag dul i láidreacht, agus go bhfuil sé an-tábhachtach dúinn anois gach seans a thabhairt di. An rud atá i gceist agam, is dócha, go bhfuil go leor ráite ag páirtithe, ag polaiteoirí, agam féin gan amhras, admhaím sin, agus go bhfuil sé in am anois, b'fhéidir comhartha, gesture, a thabhairt di.

An deis nó an seans atá anseo againn ná an teanga, cultúr, saol na Gaeltachta, cúnamh a thabhairt dó, tacaíocht a thabhairt dó chun é a fhorbairt agus a chur chun cinn. Ba mhaith linn a fhios a bheith againn go bhfuil muintir na Gaeltachta ag maireachtaint, go bhfuil siad ag caitheamh a saoil, a lán acu, trí Ghaeilge agus go bhfuil siad ag brath agus ag éisteacht le cibé rud atá á chraoladh ón raidio, ón teilifís, nó cibé áit óna bhfuil sé ag teacht, agus go bhfuil sé de cheart acu siúd an méid atá á chloisint acu a chloisint ina dteanga féin, agus gur chóir dúinn an deis sin a thabhairt dóibh, an tacaíocht sin a thabhairt dóibh

Nílim ag rá go gcaithfí Gaeilge a chaitheamh siar sa scomach orthusan nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu agus a chaitheann a saol trí Bhéarla. Ní aontaím in aon chor gur chóir an Ghaeilge a bhrú ar dhaoine mar sin. B'fhéidir nach mbeadh sé féaráilte dóibh siúd nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu a bheith ag éisteacht le Gaeilge an t-am ar fad. Mar gheall air sin, mholfainn féin don Aire, chomh fada agus is féidir é, go mbeadh réigiún craolacháin ar chósta thiar na tíre seo, go mbeadh sé, más féidir in aon chor é, chomh teoranta leis an réigiún craolacháin a bhfuil ceadúnas á thabhairt amach dó.

If these people are spending 24 hours a day speaking the Irish language and living that life, they are entitled to hear radio services in the Irish language. I am not looking for this as a favour for the people who conduct their lives and businesses through Irish. It is their right to have this service from the State. I have been saying quite clearly that, whether they are in Chorea Dhuibhne, Connemara or Donegal, we should look after their special interests and their needs.

Cultural values are very special. I said on Second Stage how important it is to be confident that Irish culture and the Irish language will not be threatened by 16, 20 or 100 broadcasting satellites and that I firmly believe that they are strong enough to hold their own in any sort of cultural medium. I am not asking for something special here. I am not talking about protectionism. I am not talking about something that will keep the people of the Gaeltacht cut off from the rest of the country. Quite the opposite, I am saying we should let them live their lives naturally in the Irish language. If we are providing local radio broadcasting that should also be available.

This in no way reflects on the very fine service provided by Raidio na Gaeltachta. I am speaking on the basis that, if we need this Bill and if a choice is to be offered to people all over the country, that choice should also be available to muintir na Gaeltachta. I am trying to present it in a way that is not purist. I do not support this view of people pushing the Irish language down the throats of people who are not interested in it. I am totally opposed to that. That type of fanatical approach has done more damage to the language than anything else.

We should look at the special needs of the people in the Gaeltacht. In issuing the licences can we try to ensure that the area of broadcasting is co-terminus with the Gaeltacht area. In other words, they would cover the same area. That would get us away from the difficulty of imposing Irish on people who are not interested in it.

Similarly, it would also allow us to provide an all-Irish service in parts of the Gaeltacht, rather than 35 per cent. If you take a whole county, the county of Kerry or Galway, all those areas are not Irish speaking. It would be unfair to try to impose it, but it would make more sense in those areas to offer the people of the smaller and the local regions a service in their own language. Chun deireadh a chur leis an méid atá le rá agam, a Chathaoirligh, tá mé ag iarraidh ar an Aire gach tacaíocht a thabhairt do smaoineamh, go mór mhór, agus an rud atá ráite agam sa rún, go mbeadh sé in ann, tá súil agam, tacú leis agus ligean leis an uair seo.

Mr. R. Burke

Tá aird tugtha ar an cheist seo cheana féin. The points raised by the Senator were very close to my heart in the drafting of this legislation but I believe I have covered it very well in the Bill. There are specific requirements relating to the Irish language. The quality, range and type of programmes to be provided in the Irish language are some of the criteria in section 6 and also the general requirement relating to the preservation of the language as a spoken language in areas which embrace a Gaeltacht area.

I believe that it is well to leave this flexibility to the Commission, to allow the Commission, hopefully, to provide the framework where groups within the Gaeltacht areas will come forward with local independent radio within their own region. I believe we would be going the wrong road in accepting the minimum-maximum type ideas of the Senator. I do not disagree with his aims. I am fully supportive of it but I believe that we should leave it to the flexibility of the Commission. This flexibility provides great scope for the emergence of a significant amount of Irish language broadcasting. For instance, it presents the opportunity for Irish language interests to come together and to establish stations particularly at community level.

This is very much what we have in mind in the reference to communities of interests in section 6 (2) (g). We see them doing this either on their own initiative, or in association with other interests in the community, thereby ensuring a significant input of Irish language programme and cultural programmes into such services. As well as that, the Senator will be aware that recently I sanctioned an extra three hours a day broadcasting time for Raidio na Gaeltachta which will leave them with a full service from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., so that they will be geared for and well capable of coping with any competition that comes from outside their areas. In regard to Raidio na Gaeltachta, with the criteria concentrating as they do in section 6 on the quality, range and type of programmes etc., in the Irish language, and the general requirement relating to the preservation of the language in particular in the Gaeltacht areas, we should leave it that way rather than going down the road proposed by the Senator. I do not disagree with the aim he is trying to achieve, but I believe the flexibility and the manner in which we have already approached it are the correct way.

Mr. B. Ryan

A Chathaoirligh, ní fheadar an bhfuil mórán difríochta idir an Seanadóir O'Toole agus an Aire ó thaobh aidhmeanna de, ach má cheapann an tAire gur féidir daoine a mhealladh chun seirbhís as Gaeilge a chur ar fáil sna Gaeltachtaí, nó cuid den tseirbhís a chur ar fáil as Gaeilge sna Gaeltachtaí, agus má tá sé cinnte go gcuirfear seirbhís mar sin ar fáil, níl aon leithscéal aige gan céatadán bunúsach a chur isteach sa reachtaíocht atá os ár gcomhair chun é sin a leagan síos.

If the Minister is confident that the Commission will be able to ensure a minimum and an acceptable level of Irish language broadcasting in those radio stations that will serve a community which will be to a greater or lesser extent Irish speaking, it ought to be possible to insert a condition, a minimum figure into the legislation. If, on the other hand, the Minister is not confident of that, that is a reason for inserting a minimum level to ensure that his objective is met. Whether you see it as something that is likely to happen, in which case we simply want to clarify the thinking of the Commission, or something that is liable to be squeezed out by commercial pressures, in which case a desirable objective, which is shared by almost all Members of the Oireachtas, should be met.

Let me put this in very clear terms. This is not just a matter of our national language. This is a very important matter of minority rights in a community that is much given to talking about pluralism and divergence of cultures. There is more than one divergence of culture in this island. There is not just the Protestant-Catholic divergence. There is an important cultural divergence between that small community who speak Irish on a day to day basis, who represent in or around 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the population, and the remaining part of the community who do not. It is important to remember, for instance, that the Irish language community is as big as the nonofficial Roman Catholic community in this country and is, therefore, entitled to a similar degree of concern and sensitivity.

For that reason it is most regrettable that the Minister is not prepared to specify a minimum level. One would hope that a minimum level would represent a base line and that the Commission would be looking for people who were imaginative enough and broadly based enough in their outlook to extend beyond that. It appears to me, for instance, that in a station serving the western part of County Galway, one ought to expect something well in excess of 35 per cent from that station, given the population structure and given the extent to which Irish is a spoken language in County Galway. There is a large area in Donegal of which the same would be true. Places like County Kerry would be somewhat more difficult. Those communities are entitled to demand a service in Irish. This is not just a nice cultural thing or a commitment to our diversity or historical culture. This is a community which is entitled to expect and demand services in their own language.

Many of us believe it is our own language as well, but for these communities it is their language and it has survived remarkably well under extraordinary pressures. They are entitled to the choice they have made and at this stage a choice they make freely because, as I can testify from correcting exams recently, as far as I can see the products of the Gaeltachtaí now can produce a far better standard of English than any of the products of the schools where English is not properly taught to them any more. I have a student from the Gaeltacht and his English is well above the standard of most of those from what we call the Galltacht.

The people of the Gaeltacht who now choose to use Irish as a freely spoken day to day language are entitled to more from us than a well-intentioned but nevertheless vague aspiration to a reasonable commitment. They are entitled to a specified percentage which is representative of their proportion of the population in the areas where these local services will exist. I regret that the Minister cannot see his way to do it.

Mr. R. Burke

The Government are very anxious to meet the aims and desires as stated by Senators O'Toole and Ryan while, at the same time, retaining the flexibility of this Bill — and flexibility is the keynote to it.

In drafting the criteria in section 6, the determination of applications for award of sound broadcasting contracts is specified. Section 6 (2) (d) states:

The quantity, quality, range and type of programmes in the Irish language and the extent of programmes relating to Irish culture proposed to be provided;

Section 6 (3) states:

In considering the suitability of any applicant for the award of a sound broadcasting contract to provide a sound broadcasting service in respect of an area which includes a Gaeltacht area,

exactly the point Senator Ryan made

the Commission shall have particular regard to the preservation as a spoken language of the Irish language.

In relation to the point made about minorities and minority communities, we have covered this in section 6 (2) (i): the extent to which the service proposed serves communities of interest. They are all geared towards the exact area Senator Ryan wishes to aim for. This is much more than just about the Gaeltacht regions as we know them. I believe there will be great scope, for example, within the Dublin region and within the other cities and also in rural Ireland, for Irish language groups to come together and develop a town station which can provide for their needs for Irish language programmes for a certain number of days in a week or a certain number of hours.

The key to this Bill is flexibility. I believe the needs of the lovers of the language, those who live in the Gaeltacht areas and those who would love to understand more of the language, can be met and are more than adequately met by the various provisions as laid out in this Bill.

Mr. Manning

I found myself broadly in agreement with the point taken by the Minister in his reply. We would all share the objectives but I wonder if the Minister could give some commitment that one year down the line we would have some provision for a review of the operation of this section of the Bill. If there was genuine concern in the Gaeltacht areas, if the points made by Senators Ryan and O'Toole were not being met, and if it was clear that the expressed desire of all parties in the Oireachtas was not being met, there could be a provision for a revision at that stage.

Mr. R. Burke

It is already written into the Bill in the broadcasting obligations of any particular contractor. When the successful contractor receives his contract from the Commission, he will have received that contract on the basis of special obligations in relation to music, language and all of the criteria laid down in the Bill. It is not a question of monitoring this on an annual basis to see that the contractor is meeting his obligations. It will be a responsibility of the Commission to monitor continually the operation and the situation where the contractor will meet his obligations in relation to all of the criteria laid down.

If the general public are not satisfied that the contractor at any time is not meeting his obligations, there is a mechanism within the Bill whereby they can go and make a complaint to the Commission that the contractor is not meeting his obligations. I have no doubt that the people involved in the language movement will be very vigilant in relation to the monitoring of the obligations as laid down in the contracts that are received by any operators from the Commission.

Mr. S. Haughey

I welcome the Minister's comments about the Irish language and the provisions for it in the Bill. I disagree with the amendment for a number of reasons. We are dealing here with private commercial local radio. By its nature it has to be responsive to the needs of the people it is serving. I know from my own experience that Raidio na Gaeltachta has a huge listenership in the Gaeltacht areas. I suggest that, if a station which represented a Gaeltacht area did not provide an adequate number of programmes in the Irish language, they would soon get the message. The nature of the new radio stations is that they have to be responsive to the needs of the people. It is wrong to stipulate a particular percentage and I do not think the mover of the amendment explained adequately why 35 per cent should be the figure. It is wrong to come up with a figure like that. I would be happy if we got an assurance from the Minister that somebody who has the Irish language close to his heart will be appointed to this Commission to ensure that the Irish language gets a fair deal.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Chun a mhíniú conas a tháinig mé ar an bhfigiúr trian leis an gceist a chuir an Seanadóir Haughey orm: ag féachaint ar na contaetha Ciarraí, Gaillimh agus Tír Conaill, ó thaobh acraí de tá tuairim is trian de na contaetha sin sna Gaeltachtaí. It was just that way and no other way — roughly one-third of those counties. Any figure can be argued. I am not going out to bat on the one figure. I am very pleased with the response and the debate on this amendment.

Fáiltím roimh an méid atá ráite ag an Aire go raibh sé sásta éisteacht leis an méid a bhí le rá agam agus a chur leis agus a aontú leis. Aontaím go mór go gcaithfidh Bille mar seo a bheith, mar a dúras, solúbtha chun déileáil leis an tír ar fad.

Ar an bpointe sin a chuir Senator Manning, in ar mhol sé gur chóir go mbeadh athbhreith ar na socruithe atá déanta, tar éis bliana, tá mé ar aon intinn leis sa rud sin. Is docha, mar a dúirt an tAire, go bhfuil sé sin ag dul ar aghaidh an t-am ar fad agus go bhfuil an coimisiún ann i gcónaí le monatóireacht de shórt éigin a dhéanamh ar an tseirbhís atá á cur ar fáil.

Mar sin, dá mbeadh muintir na Gaeltachta nó muintir áit áirithe sa Ghaeltacht ag gearán nach raibh go leor Gaeilge ar fáil acu, dá gcuirfidís an pointe sin os comhair an choimsiúin agus go ndéanfadh an coimisiún athscrúdú agus athbhreith ar an tseirbhís a bhí ar fáil, dá mba rud é go raibh sé sin ann is dócha go mbeadh sórt cosanta ansin, agus caithfidh mé a rá go mbeinn sásta ar shlí éigin leis.

Pointe amháin deireanach ar an rud agus is é seo é, tá chomh maith le séirbhís Ghaeilge agus seirbhís Bhéarla, sórt seirbhíse dhátheangaí. Ceann de na rudaí a théann go mór i bhfeidhm orm féin, ag taisteal timpeall na hEorpa agus ag éisteacht le stáisiúin raidió sa Fhrainc nó sa Ghearmáin nó an lodáil nó aon áit eile, is féidir éisteacht le clár, abraimís ceoil, agus is féidir leis an D.J. Fraincis nó lodáilis nó cibé teanga eile á úsáid, agus ansin, b'fhéidir, rock song éigin Béarla a chur ar siúl.

That is my only complaint about Raidió na Gaeltachta at the moment and I have taken it up with them. The fact that they have confined themselves in their purity to pure Irish culture in the sense of almost protecting the people, imprisoning the people in one culture, is also wrong. It is chauvinistic in the extreme. I welcome the comments of some DJs on Raidió na Gaeltachta who have bemoaned the fact that they are not allowed to play popular music, introduce them in Irish and if the song happens to be sung in English they should also be able to present it. All over Europe that is the case. You can listen to a rock station in Germany or Holland and it is more than likely to be an English language record that is playing. That, in fact, has not in any sense taken from or threatened the cultural values of those countries.

I look forward to that spreading. That is one of the reasons I feel there is room for a mix, as well as for all-Irish or all-English stations. However, it has been adequately debated. I would have liked the amendment to be accepted. The Minister has given it serious thought and it has been considered. The suggestion put forward by Senator Haughey might be taken up and somebody representing the Irish language constituency, as it were might be appointed. That is one of the things that might be kept in mind.

Mar fhocal scoir, tá mé thar a bheith sásta leis an bplé atá déanta againn ar an rún seo. Tá brón orm nach raibh an tAire in ann é a ligean leis, ach sin mar atá. Fáiltím roimh an méid atá ráite aige. Is áthas liom gur aontaigh sé leis na hargóintí a chuir mé féin faoi bhráid an Tí. Beidh mé ag féachaint agus ag faire cosúil leis an Skibbereen Eagle ar cad a thitfidh amach.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cassidy

On a point of information, could a successful contractor who might have nothing to do with an existing station which has built up a listenership loyalty in the past use the existing name of a station now in being? For instance, if someone wanted to get a licence in the morning who had nothing to do with TTTR radio, could they then use TTTR radio as a new name in the future?

Mr. R. Burke

It is a question of whether the name is registered. If it is a registered name it cannot obviously be used by somebody who has not got the right to use it. It depends on who has got the name nailed down.

Mr. Cassidy

If there is a legitimate sale?

Mr. R. Burke

Yes, if there is a legitimate sale of the name. We must remember that section 6 (2) (a) is a direct nod against those who have been involved in illegal broadcasting. So I cannot imagine that they would want to use it.

Mr. Cassidy

On a point of information, someone who has had nothing to do with the station in the past, but who is a successful contractor and wants to capture 10 per cent of that market, might see an angle where he could have a head start on a lot of other radio stations — I take it there are no objections in the Bill to this.

Mr. R. Burke

At the moment, no.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

On a point of information about section 8 (2), does this mean that any hospital or educational institution broadcast on campus, for example, NIHE Dublin or Radio Belfield, must go to the Commission for a licence?

Mr. R. Burke

It automatically gets one on the basis that it will be only a very limited licence for their own area. The idea is to give encouragement to educational institutions, hospitals and so on. So there is no difficulty for them in getting a licence. They do not have to meet all the criteria in section 6. They get it automatically.

Mr. Manning

On a further slightly frivolous point, is Radio DART obliged to get a licence in this way?

Mr. R. Burke

It is an internal broadcast. It is not broadcast outside of the train; it is internal to the train. If they put it out in the stations as well as in the train, they would have to get a licence.

Mr. Cassidy

Are there only FM radio stations?

Mr. R. Burke

No, there will be medium wave and FM.

Mr. Cassidy

How does the Minister propose to control the AM radio?

Mr. R. Burke

There is only FM in this case.

Mr. Cassidy

There will be no AM at all?

Mr. R. Burke

No.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Amendment No. 4b not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

I would like to get in plain language some sort of assurance on sections 9, 11 and 13. These are the sections which deal, among other things, with impartiality, with questions of taste, with invasions of privacy of the individual, the possibility of the manipulation of the air-waves for whatever purpose, be it political, financial or whatever. Central to all of this is the status of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

Without going into this at any length, one of the most frightening aspects of modern times is the extent to which the media can be manipulated. In Britain we see in its classic form the fact that nobody with a left-wing point of view will get a fair hearing from large sections of the British press. Examining why Mrs. Thatcher has been so successful over such a long period, undoubtedly the press barons have come to her rescue, and actively and in a very systematic way destroyed her political opponents through the way in which they control their own aspects of the media.

In the same way — there is equal balance — many journalists, but broadcasters in particular, feel they have a God-given right, a duty to democracy, to attack and expose politicians, to undermine what they would regard as the Establishment, the Houses of Parliament, to take an anti-Establishment line in every possible way, to stir things up and to be agents of change. RTE in the past have not been free, at least in part, of this sort of thinking when, especially in the seventies, a coterie of producers and journalists came in who seemed to have as part of their general philosophy on broadcasting that it was the duty of the broadcaster to challenge existing society. In so doing they were frequently extremely selective in the institutions they actually challenged. I am not saying there was a conspiracy to bring people in — there may have been an element of that. I also believe that there was a genuine view that the best type of broadcasting was confrontational broadcasting; that was a way of grabbing the viewer and of stirring things up.

I have no doubt that, in the public perception, RTE's credibility as a public service institution suffered damage during that period, and there were many people, and some politicians, who felt that frequently it was not possible to get a fair hearing from RTE. Indeed, we had a Member of this House awarded significant damages in court recently as a result of a programme which was adjudged in the Circuit Court to have been biased and unfair and certainly did damage. I am wrong about that. A Member of this House was associated with the programme and was vilified in a programme in respect of which damages were awarded.

It must also be said that in RTE there is also a very strong sense of professionalism. They have some of the best and most professional journalists in the country. There is a very strong sense of balance within RTE and of ensuring that no one tendency will ever run riot and that there must be countervailing pressures within it. Certainly RTE have some of the most superbly professional broadcasters, people like Seán Duignan, Donal Kelly, Mike Burns, Kevin Healy, Shane Kenny, people who have an acceptance in the community that what they say is as objective and as accurate as can possibly be.

The point I am making is that RTE in recent years, as our main public service broadcasting institution, suffered a drop in their credibility. Charges have been made; some of them have been documented; others probably have no foundation in fact. Nonetheless the absence, or the apparent absence, of an effective complaints commission has done damage there. I believe that central to the success of this legislation must be public acceptance that it is fair, that it is not being manipulated by politicians, by financial interests, or by pressure groups of any sort. At local level this could be particularly important because all of us know provincial papers that felt no obligation in the past to be impartial between one political party and other parties, between one politician and other politicians. There is not a strong sense of impartiality so I hope the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, as envisaged in this Bill, will first of all be accessible to the public, will be seen to have powers which are effective and that this new broadcating does have a strong sense of accountability in the way in which it is operated.

Mr. Cassidy

I want to refer to section 9 (1) (c) which says "not less than 20 per cent of the broadcasting time" shall deal with current affairs. In my Second Stage speech yesterday I suggested to the Minister that this would be an ideal opportunity for meetings of councillors and town commissioners and urban councils around the country to broadcast live on the air for local radio current affairs programmes. It would be a tremendous way of promoting the meetings and letting the people know how important they were and how they were dealt with in the same way as the Oireachtas. The Seanad and Dáil reports are being well received since Radio Éireann were allowed broadcast the day's proceedings that evening. I strongly recommend that the Commission should look at this. The question I want to ask is whether the county councils, the towns commissioners and urban councils are empowered to let their meetings be broadcast under this section.

Mr. R. Burke

I will deal with the last point first. That is absolutely a matter for the local contractor in the area and whether he wants to give time, and is prepared to put in microphones, etc., for county council meetings. Having been a member of a county council for many years and having had the honour to chair the council for some considerable time, on the basis that the contractors will be operating on advertising time alone I am not sure whether it is really riveting radio, to put it mildly, but that is a matter for each individual area.

Mr. Cassidy

Have they the power?

Mr. R. Burke

They have the power. Nobody is stopping them. They have the power but whether they wish to exercise it is a matter that is strictly for themselves.

The general question of impartiality raised by Senator Manning is a very key element of this whole legislation. This section deals with the programming obligations of the station operators. It provides that all news shall be reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and without expression of the contractor's own views. To cover the point made by Senator Manning it is important that we should have the principles of impartiality and objectivity further elaborated upon rather than just having them down as general principles.

Section 9 (1) (b) relates to the broadcast treatment of current affairs including matters of public controversy and provides that such matters are to be treated in a manner that is fair to all interests concerned. It also provides that, if the foregoing requirement cannot be met in a single broadcast "two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole, if the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period of each other". What we want to see is that it there is a public controversy in a local area, in the construction of a factory or any issue where there could be vested interests involved, both sides of the argument get a fair hearing. If they do not get it in one programme, the person who feels aggrieved has the right to get a further programme on the issue to get a balanced point of view across. That is very important. If the contractor is not meeting his obligations, the person who feels aggrieved has the right to complain much more so than in RTE. The contractor is operating on a basis of a contract with the Commission. The Commission can rescind the contract and that is a very important penalty. I believe there will be impartiality in the independent stations that will set a headline for everybody else in the media world.

Mr. Manning

On the same point and same question, one of the problems is often that of speed. Unless a complaint of this sort can be dealt with, heard and adjudicated on fairly quickly, an unfair impression may well be left lingering, or by the time the complaint has been dealt with the matter is no longer of currency and importance. Nonetheless one party has been damaged so a speedy resolution of these complaints is of the essence.

Mr. R. Burke

I accept that point.

Mr. S. Haughey

I fully welcome the comments made by Senator Manning on the whole area of impartiality. Indeed I was surprised to hear him say so, but I fully agree with him particularly in relation to RTE who have come under serious scrutiny over the past couple of years. Perhaps I might cite one example. Today Tonight did a programme on the abolition of the housing grants immediately after the budget last year. They spent an hour on that programme and not once did they mention the total devastation which these housing grants were causing in estates like Darndale and huge suburbs of Dublin. That is just one example. We could offer several others.

I welcome what the Minister had to say about impartiality and the fact that he is satisfied that will be the case. I want to ask one quick question about party political broadcasts. Does the Minister envisage political parties buying time for party political broadcasts, or will they be a matter of course?

Mr. R. Burke

They will be barred from buying time. You cannot have advertisements for political or for religious purposes on television and radio. The party political broadcast structure, as we know it in RTE, will be transferred to the independent stations and the same rules on balance and everything else that we know within RTE will apply.

Mr. B. Ryan

On the question of consistency of codes of practice and standards between the independent broadcasting Commission and RTE, how does the Minister propose to achieve it? Section 9 (1) (d) says: "anything which may reasonably be regarded as offending against good taste or decency, or as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime ..." etc. I presume that is virtually verbatim what is in the broadcasting Act?

Mr. R. Burke

Agreed.

Mr. B. Ryan

How does the Minister propose to ensure that the interpretation of that is somehow consistent between the Commission for the independent services and the RTE Authority? Has this question arisen? They are very much matters of opinion and we could have very different standards being applied. It applies equally to section 10 with regard to the code of standards governing advertising. How does the Minister propose to ensure that similar codes of standards for advertising are applied by the RTE Authority and the broadcasting Commission? There is no point in writing these things down if there is not some equivalence. Obviously we do not want people tied down in detail, but does the Minister propose to make any formal arrangements?

Mr. R. Burke

There will be codes of practice and, as well as that, common sense is the great arbiter in this. I believe it is in large measure in Ireland, and common sense will prevail in this case.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

Section 10 (3) deals with the question of advertisement of party political broadcasts, industrial disputes and so on. One issue that is going to become much more central from now on is that of takeovers, takeovers of one company by another and bids for these companies. Could a company take advertising time to make its case on radio, in the case of a takeover bid, or is that forbidden under the heading of industrial disputes? It is something which is probably going to become much more a feature of our commercial life over the next four, five or six years. Perhaps this is the first time this has been raised.

Mr. R. Burke

It is the first time it has been raised. I must say I had not given it any thought at all. Industrial disputes, meaning strikes as we know them, are not barred. There is no question of them being debarred from making their point. If, for example, Irish Distillers want to fight it out with their competitors on the air, by way of advertisements, I am sure the independent national station will be delighted to accept them as, I am sure, would RTE. I do not know whether they are debarred from RTE; I do not imagine they are.

Mr. Cassidy

I want to ask one question. Because of the popularity of sponsored programmes on RTE in the past — as somebody with personal experience in this matter — may I ask will successful contractors be allowed to contract out work under the usual sponsorship?

Mr. R. Burke

Yes.

Mr. B. Ryan

May I ask why section 10 (3) is necessary? Why are the broadcast media different from the print media? We do not prohibit people from buying advertising for political or religious purposes in print media. We do not prevent people from buying full-page advertisements in the newspapers when there are industrial disputes on. Why is it presumed that the broadcasting media are different? These are the sort of provisions that get struck into legislation because nobody thinks about them. Why should the provision be there at all?

Mr. R. Burke

I could give the Senator a long, detailed reply, but because of the time constraints on us, I will refrain from doing so. For example, take the question of religion. It would seem quite inappropriate to reduce spiritual values to pure commercial terms. Furthermore, bearing in mind the numerous sects that exist these days — many of which have no shortage of funds — it would seem to be in the public interest to prevent them exploiting the new broadcast media to get their messages across.

Again, on political questions, it would not seem to be in the public interest or in the interest of democracy, that political ends should be sold across broadcast media. Provision has been made separately for party political broadcasts in a fair and balanced way and in accordance with codes of practice which the commission may draw up. Again, the use of paid advertising time to have particular points of view put across relating to industrial relations disputes would not be generally conducive to the fostering of good industrial relations, or to the resolution of industrial disputes particularly in circumstances in which there might be a wide disparity between the resources available to either side in any such dispute.

Mr. Manning

Does that mean that no Church, sect or group could actually run a radio station?

Mr. R. Burke

No, nor can they advertise on them but they can apply for a licence.

Mr. B. Ryan

I do not want to keep us here all night but that is not a very satisfactory answer. We should leave it to the religious orders to decide whether buying advertising is contrary to their religious affiliations or convictions. We should not decide it. Politicians in particular are somewhat over-powered by the broadcasting media in the sense that we have got used to the print media. It is as true of the reluctance with which we allowed ourselves to be broadcast on radio with which many people allowed television cameras into the Houses of the Oireachtas. In a similar way we seem to believe there is something specifically threatening about the broadcast media that is not true of the print media. Presumably all these restrictions were thought about in the printing media in the days before the whole idea of a fairly free press was accepted.

There is a little bit of fear of the media involved in this. My feeling is that, if there is something inherently threatening to democracy in advertising in relation to religious or political purposes or in relation to industrial disputes, they should be banned everywhere. People should not be able to use the muscle of money to do these things. To pick on the broadcast media shows a little bit of an inferiority complex on our part towards those media.

Mr. R. Burke

It is a point of view I would not necessarily disagree with. I must admit to the Senator that all I did in this case was to cover myself by copying exactly what was there in relation to RTE. I did not give it the sort of consideration the Senator has just raised. I am sure it is a subject for long, detailed debate and consideration on some future occasion when we are going through the general question of the principles behind our national policies in relation to the media.

Mr. Cassidy

Is the Minister saying that the Angelus can be rung on all those local radio stations and Mass on a Sunday morning can be broadcast because Radio Éireann are doing so at present?

Mr. R. Burke

That is not advertising as I understand it.

Mr. Cassidy

No, but I should imagine that most people would like to hear the Angelus bell rung at 12 noon and 6 o'clock and Mass on Sunday morning, particularly in hospitals and such places.

Mr. R. Burke

They will be well able to do that.

Mr. Manning

Can we have an assurance from this Government that the Sunday service, the Mass and the Angelus are safe?

Mr. R. Burke

We are not the party who are trying to make other alterations in the——

A Senator

One party only do that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. B. Ryan

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission now have a remit to deal with the two television channels and two radio stations. Subsection (3) says that the Minister may, by regulations direct and so on. I hope the Minister will clarify whether the word "may" is there simply to enable him, or whether he intends to do it and do it fairly quickly, because I think he should. It would be one way of ensuring reasonable parity of interpretations if the Broadcasting Complaints Commission have a remit extending to all these broadcasting services.

The Minister might remind the Broadcasting Complaints Commisison that it would be an awful lot easier to make complaints if people knew about their existence. At the best of times they are a rather difficult body to find. They exist under a post office box number. I discovered to my amazement at one time, when I was making a complaint, that they actually had an office in the same building as myself. I was three months into my complaint, writing letters to them, which went out of the building, went half way around Dublin and came back to the same building before I discovered that. They do not have a telephone number. They do not have an identifiable person one can contact. They are a rather peculiar body. If you actually succeed in making contact with them which involves a fair amount of determination anyway, the guidance they offer you about making a complaint would be sufficient to put off anyone other than the most determined. In fact, one of the tasks I have set myself over the summer is to provide a two-page layman's guide on how to make a complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission appear to be singularly reluctant to do it themselves. Given that they have not any legal obligations or accountability I should have thought they could have simplified the whole matter a good deal.

The fundamental question is: how does the Minister propose to ensure that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission have the resources to deal, first, with the volume of complaints and, second, with the perhaps specific and local nature of many complaints that may be made about the multiplicity of local stations that may well obtain under the provisions of this Bill?

Mr. R. Burke

The systems provided for under the provisions of this Bill will be more effective than anything we have had in the past. The word "may" is inserted deliberately. I believe the relationship between members of the general public, the listening audience of these independent stations, will be a very intimate one vis-a-vis the relevant companies because they will be immediately accessible. If a complaint is to be logged it can be logged immediately. It then goes to the Commission. Because of the contractor-principal relationship between the Commission and the contractor, the Commission will be able to put far greater pressure on a contractor — being the broadcaster — to respond effectively and speedily to a complaint than will ever happen in the case of RTE, a much larger organisation. Because it is the Commission who actually hand out the licences to contractors I believe it will be a very effective way of lodging a complaint. If it does not work — although I believe it will work much more effectively — we can bring in the Commission. I can assure the Senator that the necessary resources will be made available to the Commission.

Mr. B. Ryan

I have a funny feeling that there is an agreement here to rush this Bill through in a hurry. I am not trying to be in the least disruptive. The Minister is somewhat optimistic about that fact that, because something is local, it will be responsible and will be something close to a local monopoly. Those of us living in Cork, having watched the operations of the local monopoly who produce local television, and their apparent capacity to ride roughshod over people's feelings in recent months, would not be that optimistic that simple local protests will interfere with something like this.

The Minister's Department could have a word in the ear of the people who provide cable television in Cork about the way they deal with their customers. They do not exactly respond with sensitivity and immediacy to the complaints of their customers; quite the opposite in fact. I am quite happy that the Minister is prepared to allow the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to investigate complaints and to provide them with the necessary resources. Since they are actually there to serve the public the Minister might remind them of their responsibilities. They would do well to avoid hiding from the public.

Mr. R. Burke

I will do that immediately even in regard to their activities in relation to RTE at present.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. B. Ryan

I do not like section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, its provisions had the logic of being confined to State-owned broadcasting services. We now have a directive issued by a Government which will be extended not just to a national television or radio channel but to every single broadcast medium. The Minister, in the imaginative way he has drawn up this legislation, envisages a large number of different kinds of radio stations at different levels. It appears that this will extend even to the institutional contractors about whom he spoke in a hospital or other such institution. Directives under section 31 will apply to all of those. It is a very serious precedent, that something that was envisaged, first, to deal with a State-owned national broadcasting service, is now being extended to everybody who is involved in broadcasting, much of which will be privately-owned, privately-funded, run by advertising in which the State, as the Minister said when he was introducing this legislation some months ago, will have only a very light regulatory hand. It will not be a day-to-day State monopoly; it will be a commercial operation. Effectively we are now extending the provisions of section 31 — which in my view are offensive in the way they operate at present — into a huge area of broadcasting activity. I find that inherently unacceptable. The same principles should apply as apply elsewhere. No radio station should be allowed to incite people to commit crime, to encourage people to commit crime, similar provisions to those contained in section 9 (1) (d) in relation to anything or any activity likely to undermine the authority of the State.

In my view the section 31 mentality has as much to do with attempting to maintain control over the media as it has to do with its ostensible objectives. I find section 12 objectionable. It is a wrong concept. The censorship mentality behind it is wrong. The idea of extending the provisions of section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, and the way they are now operating to every contractor who will receive a licence for sound broadcasting or for a television channel is completely wrong and unacceptable. I am opposed to section 12.

Mr. Manning

I speak as somebody who philosophically supports section 31. I do not like it; I regret the inhibitions it places but I believe — and I will say it in one sentence — that the State has a right to defend itself against those who would attempt to subvert it. Having said that, I can see enormous difficulties in its practical application in day-to-day broadcasting because the emphasis will be so much more on the local element. Sinn Féin councillors, known members of Sinn Féin, who will have a strong local profile, will be concerned with local issues. I presume the assumption is that these people, if they are known to be members of Sinn Féin or elected officials of Sinn Féin, will not be able to take part in programmes. I can see this causing genuine problems on the ground. However, having said that I will support this section.

Mr. R. Burke

We all have our views about section 31. In the circumstances in which we live, section 31 is in existence. It would be totally illogical to have RTE operating under one set of rules, and others on the air-waves under a different set of rules. Therefore, it is totally consistent to have section 12 here, as we had section 31. We could not have RTE operating in one way and the independent stations operating in another different way.

Mr. B. Ryan

Do I take it that if and when the Irish direct broadcasting satellite is launched it will be the Government's intention also to extend the provisions of section 31 to programmes transmitted from that, because that would be the logical conclusion? If that is the case, why not extend this logic and debar the newspapers from doing it as well? There is not that much difference between the newspapers and privately-owned, commercial broadcasting stations. The argument used to be that RTE were a State body, and therefore there was a particular reason why a State body should be debarred from doing this.

One hopes that, by and large, local stations will devote their activities to local issues and concerns. What happens if a local expert on gardening happens to be a member of Sinn Féin? A local station would be able to talk to that person about gardening and nothing else, because that is the apparent interpretation of the directive under section 31. It is quite ludicrous and sinister. To talk about section 31 and the way it operates in defence of the State is making a mountain out of a molehill. I regard it as perfectly acceptable that no broadcasting service should conduct interviews with members of the Provisional IRA or related bodies. It might even be reasonable to suggest that people who are official spokesmen for Sinn Féin should not be interviewed. I do not find that acceptable. If Sinn Féin are a subversive organisation they should be banned; if they are a legitimate political party, they should not. The Supreme Court, in its judgment on section 31 and the way it has operated, invited the State to ban Sinn Féin on the grounds that they were an organisation dedicated to the over-throwing of the State.

What I resent most is the ambivalance that goes through all of this. If Sinn Féin are a subversive organisation, they should be banned under the Offences Against the State Act. If not, they should be allowed to participate in the activities of the State and should not be put in this never-never land. My own feeling has been and continues to be that that is the best way to deal with them. I believe in the power of ideas. I believe in the power of argument. I believe in the ultimate triumph of good argument over bad argument and of truth over falsehood. I do not believe that people who set out to break the law, and who break the law, should be given access to the media or the air-waves. The best way to deal with people who have extreme points of view is to believe in democracy and to deal with them in that way. I cannot see any reason either for section 31 or its extension into this section.

Mr. R. Burke

The Senator advanced all sorts of philosophical arguments which I will not take up at this stage. He asked the question: why restrict the broadcasting media and not the print media? We are dealing here with a national asset — radio frequencies — and that is the reason. Radio frequencies are a national asset and we are talking about their allocation here. It would be illogical not to have the same rules applicable to them as apply to the national station.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. O'Toole)

The question is: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill." Is that agreed?

Mr. B. Ryan

No. Vótáil.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?

Senators B. Ryan, Ferris, J. O'Toole and O'Shea stood.

An Cathaoirleach

As fewer than five Senators stood, I declare the question carried.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

The names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Seanad. Seanad.

SECTION 13.

Mr. Manning

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 12, lines 22 to 25, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) Where on completion of the investigation, the Commission deems that the station has been culpably in breach of its obligations, it shall be empowered to levy the licensee with the cost of the investigation."

The important word there is "culpably". It is there to indicate that, if a contractor has wilfully abused a position of trust, if a contractor has been found to have abused, over a period of time, the rule of impartiality, of fairness, if a contractor, in some way, is found to have abused his position — the acts are over — that abuse may well have achieved its purpose. It may well have resulted in manipulation in a certain way. If that happens, I do not believe the State should be obliged, or in this case the public should be obliged, to bear the cost. It is for that reason that the word "culpably" is the central word there. There should be some sanctions against a contractor who has behaved in that way.

Mr. R. Burke

The motivation behind the Senator's amendment is understandable. The context in which the investigations are likely to be conducted must be appreciated. The provision is primarily a threat, something which would be used as a last resort only. In these circumstances I believe the amendment, as proposed, is unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

An Cathaoirleach

May I seek some guidance? It is now 10 o'clock since everybody is now so specific about time in this House.

Mr. Lanigan

I suggest that the Seanad should adjourn and that we commence at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Ferris

Are we taking this Bill at 10.30 a.m.? Could the Leader of the House advise us?

Mr. Lanigan

Tomorrow morning's business will be announced on the Order of Business in the morning.

Mr. Ferris

Could the Leader of the House give us some guidance? We want to try to facilitate one another.

Mr. Lanigan

The Seanad will adjourn until 10.30 a.m. on 23 June 1988.