Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1990

Vol. 126 No. 4

Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. O'Reilly

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following definition:

"‘advertisement' means a purchased radio insert or a purchased moving television insert but does not include any of the following:

(i) announcements regarding other programmes or services, provided or to be provided by the Authority,

(ii) promotional material for charitable, philanthropic or voluntary bodies charged for at a special rate,

(iii) passing references to a sponsor of a programme within programmes or programme interludes,

(iv) any coverage of a sporting or other public event where promotional hoardings are a feature of the event,

(v) giveway gifts or prizes which are donated and which in any particular case are not a frequent occurrence in the same programme;".

I do not propose to make a long speech on this amendment. The provisions speak for themselves. Our basic objective is to protect advertising for charitable organisations, and so on, and to make sure it does not become part of the quota which in essence we object to anyway, but that is another discussion. I urge the Minister to accept this as a very reasonable amendment. I think it is not contentious.

Dr. Upton

I join with Senator O'Reilly in asking the Minister to accept these exclusions from the definition of "advertising". It is very important that various charitable and philanthropic voluntary bodies should be able to advertise at a special rate. If not, they will be unable to do their work and fulfil their functions which can be very much in the interests of the whole community. It is important also that passing references be excluded from advertising. That perhaps raises the matter of the definition of a passing reference, but if one is to home in on things like passing references, we are into nit picking and I do not think that is desirable.

For these reasons and in the hope that the Minister will accept this amendment let me say I think it is reasonable and sensible. I urge him to accept it.

Minister for Communications (Mr. Burke)

This question came up on Second Stage and we had an extensive discussion on whether we should have a definition of "advertising". I remain convinced that it is preferable not to have one because of the dangers of putting ourselves into a straitjacket in an area which needs some flexibility. The areas where the proposed definitions would have an impact would be in relation to section 3 (1) dealing with time limits for advertising on RTE services and section 4 dealing with codes of practice for advertising.

In the first place the word "advertising" or "advertisement" has appeared in broadcasting legislation on various occasions over the past 30 years. It has never been considered necessary to give it a formal legal definition for the purpose of that legislation. In other words, its general, common-sense meaning has proved adequate heretofore and I have heard no persuasive reasons either in the other House or here to depart from that position.

Most of the real issues which the definition seeks to exclude from the term "advertisement" or "advertising" in so far as they arise at all can be better dealt with in the codes of practice provisions. For instance, the first element which the definition seeks to exclude is announcements regarding other programmes or services. Already one is into an area of ambiguity with the definition because it makes no distinction between what one might call informational and promotional announcements. It is totally proper and acceptable that a radio or TV service should give informational announcements, for example about upcoming programmes. There is no way such announcements would have been perceived as advertisements per se. To the extent that the issue has now been raised it will be a simple matter to make this clear in the code of practice relating to advertising.

The next item the definition seeks to deal with is charity advertising. Basically, it is proposed to exempt such advertising from the definition of "advertising". There is clearly a misunderstanding as to how RTE treat such advertising, and I spoke about this in my closing speech on Second Stage. The first point to make is the special discounts for charity advertising only applied to RTE's radio services and even then RTE only allow a maximum of seven minutes discounted charity advertising per day. Charity advertising on the TV service is charged at the appropriate full commercial rate. The only exception is where special appeals are associated with major emergencies or disasters when the advertising is allowed free of charge. What I have done to accommodate RTE's existing practice, is to increase the maximum amount of advertising allowed per hour from my originally proposed four minutes 30 seconds to five minutes per hour. This will be more than adequate to allow RTE to continue to offer their maximum of seven minutes discount charity advertising per day. It is important to remember in relation to the increase from four-and-a-half minutes to five minutes that I had also had discussions with Congress in relation to their view that they wanted to increase minutage. It was with that in mind that I increased the time. It will be five minutes per hour on all of RTE's services, not just five minutes per hour overall, but five minutes per hour on RTE Radio 1 and 2FM. It will be five minutes on RTE1 and on Network 2. They will have overall an increase in advertising. The concession of the extra half minute is equivalent in current value terms to almost £2 million advertising revenue per annum. It should ensure that RTE will reach the advertising cap limit without having to introduce unduly excessive increases in their advertising rates.

Paragraph (iii) of the amendment refers to passing references to a sponsor on a sponsored programme. What is a passing reference? It is too vague a provision for definition. I suggest that we leave it to the code of practice. The question of gifts or prizes on programmes is also better left to the code of practice. It is not the intention to prohibit the acceptance of such gifts but we want to ensure that as far as possible they do not constitute surreptitious advertising. The objection to this kind of occurrence does not relate to giving necessary information about a prize but to extolling its particular qualities and brand image in a manner which constitutes advertising, bearing in mind the principle accepted by all broadcasters — which in any event becomes mandatory under an EC Directive on broadcasting activities — of the separation of programme matter from advertising.

I hope I have put forward sufficient reasons to illustrate why a definition along the lines proposed is unnecessary and would create more ambiguities than it would solve. I accept the good faith of the Senators in putting forward the amendment but the best way forward is to go with the years of experience and practice that RTE have, together with the new IRTC, and allow the definition to be catered for in the code of practice and in the day-to-day operation rather than, as the amendment would unwittingly do, impose a straitjacket. The acceptance of the amendment would put RTE, and others, into a straitjacket.

Mr. Harte

I accept that the Minister changed four and a half minutes to five minutes. Paragraph (ii) of the amendment refers to promotional material for charitable, philanthropic or voluntary bodies being charged at a special rate. If an industrialist wants to advertise he does research and realises that many people for instance will be in the kitchen and will not see his advertisement. The charitable organisations are not in a position to carry out that sort of research and they could not be considered to be in equal competition with industrialists. That is why the Minister should make a concession in relation to charitable organisations. Charitable organisations will be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis industrialists. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this aspect.

Mr. O'Reilly

My party have a fundamental objection to the Bill which I dealt with at great length on Second Stage. I will not go into detail again other than to say that we fundamentally oppose the concept of capping of advertising in this way. We would have been relieved had this amendment been accepted. We have no option but to press this amendment. We cannot accept the Minister's explanation. We are genuinely concerned about charitable organisations.

Dr. Upton

I agree with what Senator Harte said, that charitable organisations will not be competing on an equal basis with commercial groups who have the back-up of comprehensive and elaborate research facilities. Charitable organisations will not have that type of support when they are placing advertisements and, accordingly, will not be able to advertise as wisely or as competitively as commercial bodies. They will not be competing on the level playing pitch about which we have all been hearing. Indeed, we must take a trip to see this level playing pitch some time.

The extra half minute for advertising is equal to about £2 million a year in revenue. It seems to be taken that RTE will use that £2 million of advertising revenue commercially to maximise their income and when they do that, it will mean that the various charitable organisations who might have hoped to get some advertising at reduced rates will not have a chance. For those reasons, I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider his position.

In relation to the definition of advertising in this amendment, what is important is not so much what is in the definition as what is excluded from the definition. That is the whole burden of this amendment and that is primarily where the concern is.

Mr. Cassidy

I welcome the extra half minute in relation to charities. That is roughly an extra 300 hours per year which is an enormous amount of time as can be shown by anyone selling time in the communications business. Taking RTE Radio 1 and 2FM it will be an extra 24 minutes per day for them.

Dr. Upton

We have a new amendment, Senator Cassidy. There is no mention of charities in the Bill, unless I am making a mistake.

Mr. Cassidy

I welcome this change. From my calculations, the reduction is about 35 per cent of the normal advertising time for charitable organisations. I do not agree with Senator Harte who suggested that charitable organisations would not be beaming in at prime time. We should congratulate the charitable organisations we hear every weekend advertising collections after Masses. Those advertisements, as far as I can see, are put out at prime time. The marketing operation of some of the well-organised charities is equal to that of some of the most sophisticated organisations anywhere in Europe. In relation to the gifts or incentives, as they are called in the industry, I saw in a Sunday newspaper that a car was being given away.

Mr. O'Toole

Fianna Fáil will sort out the newspapers next.

Mr. Cassidy

I was pleasantly surprised at that. RTE are in existence for 64 years, an extremely long time. Even though people might try to convince us otherwise, we learn from experience.

Dr. Upton

We have aged a lot since the debate on this Bill commenced.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McKenna)

Senator Cassidy without interruption.

Mr. Cassidy

I welcome the proposals made by the Minister in his address tonight.

Mr. Neville

As a result of the Minister's proposals, RTE's income will be reduced by between £10 and £12 million. This, in turn, will result in each department of RTE being put under pressure. In making readjustments RTE will look at everything. The Irish Cancer Society state that at the moment they spend £26,000 per annum on radio advertisements but that this figure will increase to £132,000 if they are charged commercial rates. RTE will be under so much pressure they will have no choice but to charge commercial rates. In fact the voluntary organisations to whom Senator Mooney referred earlier today will also be put under pressure and will be forced to defend themselves. Because of this, it is clear the Minister's proposals will have a devastating effect on all charitable institutions. It is important that we protect them and the way to do this is for the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. D. Kiely

I do not agree with the Senator who mentioned that RTE will lose between £10 and £12 million.

There are many avenues open to them to make up the shortfall. They should grasp the nettle and stop whinging and crying. As I said, if people on the other side of the House want to stand up and whinge with them, they will have to accept the consequences.

Mr. O'Reilly

On a point of order, would the Senator outline to the House how they could do this?

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. D. Kiely

If a business organisation lose 10 per cent of their business they should seek new markets, rather than take the easy option of making cuts. If they wish to make cuts, they should start at the top and not at the bottom. The Senators seem to be falling into the same trap.

Mr. O'Toole

Given the comments he has just made, it is clear Senator Kiely has not read the Bill.

Mr. D. Kiely

On a point of order, I have read the Bill.

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. D. Kiely

The Senator alleged I had not read the Bill. I am one of the main spokespersons on this side of the House on the Bill which I have read just as closely as the Senator.

Mr. O'Toole

I am of the view the Senator has not read the Bill.

Acting Chairman

Will the Senator return to the matter in hand.

Mr. O'Toole

Yes, indeed. That is my view and it continues to be my view given the comments the Senator has just made. We should be clear on one point. We will discuss that item when we reach sections 2 and 3. Therefore, I will put on hold the comments I wish to make on that aspect until we reach those sections.

In relation to paragraph (i) of the amendment, does the Minister envisage that that aspect will be covered in the code? In other words, will the code of practice make reference to "announcements regarding other programmes or services, provided or to be provided by the Authority"? I am in agreement with the Minister on this aspect. I do not think there is a great need to define every word in the Bill but I need to be clear about it. If this is considered to be a major issue, it might be necessary to include a definition in the Bill. When BBC TV close down each evening they invariably announce that Radio 2 or Radio 4 will continue until 6 a.m. Would the Minister indicate whether announcements like that will be counted?

The Minister has indicated the time limit will apply to all the services provided by RTE, including radio and television services. I am not sure what relevance should be attached to that. Is the Minister saying that, for instance, if RTE broadcast for ten hours on any one day the number of minutes prescribed per hour will be multiplied by ten? It is my understanding RTE may not exceed the maximum figure prescribed during any one hour.

By any definition, advertisements have to be paid for. Is the Minister of the view for instance, that for it to come within the definition of "advertisement", revenue would have to be created? That is an important issue. When watching television programmes I find it offensive that product after product is plugged. I agree with the Minister when he says there is a need to exercise control. There has been abuse and I have no difficulty in saying this. Indeed, I have made this point to people in RTE. I disagree with the view expressed on the other side of the House that RTE are whinging. RTE have been fighting back and will use every means at their disposal. Some people do not like the way they are fighting back, but this may mean they are more effective than they would have been if they had gone about it the nice way.

Passing references have been made to sponsor events, for example, the Whit-bread Gold Cup or the Hennessy Gold Cup. We should be realistic about this matter; such sponsorship cannot be counted, unless somebody is going to use a stop watch. I ask the Minister to clarify the matter because if a definition is not included, the Authority will be able to plug their own services and programmes whenever they want. I would like to hear the Minister's response before deciding to take the matter any further.

Mr. Burke

First, I would like to respond to the point made by Senator Harte on paragraph (i) of his amendment which reads "promotional material for charitable, philanthropic or voluntary bodies charged for at a special rate". Senator Harte made reference to the times people watch television. In relation to television no concession rates are available at the moment. The only concession made is that concession rates are available on radio for seven minutes a day maximum. I want to assure Senator Neville I was very much taken by the argument put forward by the Irish Cancer Society who expressed concern about the future of the seven minute concession rate. It was in response to this concern and the concern expressed by the ICTU that the decision was taken to extend the time from four and a half to five minutes. Given that RTE have a public service mandate and have available to them in toto the moneys raised by way of the licence fee, a strong case can be made for making available free of charge advertising time or space to registered charities. They are given one slot, the traditional slot, on a Sunday evening at about 6.25 p.m. just before the 6.30 news programme to make a weekly appeal.

That slot has always been there and is free. There is a very strong case to be made, even within the seven minutes, for asking the State organisation with access to the licence fee to offer to the registeered charities a concession in relation to announcements rather than paid advertising rates. These societies and charities are doing excellent work and they deserve greater support than this one slot a week. In an emergency appeal for some tragedy, such as an earthquake or famine, RTE give time free of charge. I see no reason they cannot carry notices for registered charities through their public service work. I am not saying they should do it all day every day, I am not even saying they should do it for the seven minutes, but they could provide a certain number of minutes as a public service announcement, rather than as a paid advertisement. Having made that point, I believe it should be done free of charge. The extra minutage I have given them resulting from the debates that have taken place in the Dáil and the response I have given to the Cancer Society and the other societies that have been in touch, is reasonable. The charitable organisations have made a combined single approach for consideration and I have given them a reasonable response on the increased minutage.

Senator Dan Kiely referred to other incomes of RTE. This Bill does present RTE with a challenge but never before have they failed to respond to a challenge.

Mr. B. Ryan

There is no doubt about that.

Acting Chairman

The Minister without interruption, please.

Mr. Burke

If Senators cast their minds back to the mid-seventies, they will recall that the cabling of homes was started. This provided good quality BBC and UTV reception. RTE said that would create major difficulties for them; they would not be able to respond to the challenge presented by BBC because of the amount of funds available to them and UTV through the ITV and ITN networks. It was felt that this would present a major challenge and could wipe out RTE television, but RTE fought back and came forward with good programming the people wanted to watch. During the debate on the 1988 legislation on whether we should have an alternative radio system — local radio or national radio — RTE's response was that they could not tackle it. Through their lobbying and their influence within the Labour Party — quite legitimately and with an ideological point of view — they stopped the 1985 Bill of the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition because it did not leave sufficient space for RTE to get involved in local radio.

Mr. B. Ryan

That is not so.

Mr. Burke

That is what happened. That is the reality. If that is what the Dáil debate was all about, that is quite legitimate. RTE fought against that Bill and said they could not take on the competition. RTE are quite capable of taking on competition.

I wrote to Mr. Peter Cassells, General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, who raised the point that was raised by Senator Kiely, in relation to RTE's commercial enterprise and the potential income from RTE's commercial enterprise. In a letter to him I said:

I wish to stress that it was never intended or proposed that income from RTE's commercial enterprise unit would be taken into account in determining the limit on advertising revenue being set in the Bill. The establishment of this unit was a decision of which I was fully supportive and I would be keen to see it develop and expand so as to maximise revenue from both existing and new activities.

This is an area which has been recognised only recently by RTE. The potential they have for selling their own excellent programmes — as BBC have done through their enterprise unit and as the ITV network do as well — is vast. They should put their resources into that area now.

The question of gifts was raised by Senator Cassidy and referred to by Senator O'Toole. I have no objection whatsoever to the idea of giving away a car, or a holiday — it is good for programming — but what I do object to, and I have said this already, is the presenter standing beside a car as if it was in a showroom with flashing lights and the theme music which goes with its normal advertising, and it is promoted by the presenter in a way that can be misleading by linking his name while agreeing to every word of the promotional blurb of the producing or manufacturing company. That is wrong. RTE in their voluntary code of practice agree that it is wrong, but it happens regularly. It is something that should be looked at in the context of a mandatory code of practice. It is in the voluntary code of practice but it is honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

Senator O'Toole made a passing reference to the Carroll's Irish Open, the Whitbread Around the World race, or other events, but obviously, that does not count as advertising. That is part of the event and will not count as revenue. As far as advertising is concerned it does count because advertising has to create a revenue, otherwise it is not advertising.

As far as the cross advertising of services is concerned it is totally proper and acceptable that a radio or television service should give information on announcements about upcoming programmes and there is no way such announcements would have been perceived as advertisements per se. To the extent that the issue has been raised, it will be a simple matter to make this clear in a code of practice relating to advertising. That is the situation.

Mr. O'Toole

Is that a criss-cross between radio and television?

Mr. Burke

The RTE Guide is a very successful, commercial operation in competition with other publications in the news industry, in the newspaper industry and in other industries and there is no reason they should not pay for and have their time counted as advertising. Cross promotion from radio to television, television to radio, has to be looked at in the context of advertising. There is nothing wrong with RTE 2 or 2FM advertising any of their services. There is nothing on television or Radio 1 for them but when they go from one service to the other, that will be taken as advertising.

Mr. O'Toole

Even though it is not paid for?

Mr. Burke

If it is not paid for in advertising their own services — in relation to the RTE Guide, so that I can be clear on this — they will have to take the RTE Guide into account as if it were being paid for; it should be the appropriate RTE Guide rate for the amount of time used and which will have to be taken into account in their advertising.

That is as far as I can go on the questions raised. I have endeavoured to be as open and frank as possible.

While referring to the RTE Guide I should say that one area of this overall legislation which has not been examined is that of its benefit to the newspaper industry. We have a newspaper industry of which we should be proud — it regularly does not support my point of view on given issues — but it is important that we have a strong newspaper or print media sector here. It has to be said that for a long time that sector has suffered from unfair competition by way of advertising from RTE. This Bill and its provisions — as well as helping the electronics media in the plurality I am seeking in relation to the national, independent local and community radios around the country and the television company — will also be a major help to the print media, one example of that being the RTE Guide.

Mr. O'Reilly

Would the Minister clarify for us what is the rationale for preventing, say, 2FM announcing a television programme of that evening on the other channel — advertising a good television programme? I cannot see the rationale for including that in this Bill. Perhaps the Minister could explain to the House what is involved there.

Can I take it from the Minister's remarks about the newspapers that he will be accepting our amendment later with regard to VAT as it applies to the newspaper industry?

Mr. O'Toole

I asked a specific question. I gave an example of BBC, when finishing their television service at night, regularly promoting radio programmes that will be transmitted later that night. I received a specific answer from the Minister with regard to the RTE Guide. I disagree with him but I am absolutely clear in regard to it. The reason I disagree with it is that the concept of synergy between related companies within a multi-company is a well known one in industry. It is well known that the resources available to the group of companies are deployed or disbursed between each of the companies within the family. I see no reason that could not be done in the case of the RTE Guide. The idea is that it would generate as much revenue as possible. However, that is a point of view on which the Minister and I clearly differ. The amendment does not appear to cover that issue. I do not want to waste the time of the House attempting to deal with it. The Minister has given me a clear answer, which was what I sought.

I am not clear as to whether, if RTE are promoting a radio programme or vice versa— nowadays with simultaneous broadcasting when the criss-cross between them becomes more interlinked; certainly RTE transmit a number of programmes when there is simultaneous transmission on radio and television — such circumstances could well lead to a fudged position. Let us suppose that an RTE announcer says: we are now ceasing our coverage of the Horse Show but it will continue on Network 2; that is a promotion for Network 2. I know I have used an extreme example but that is how outlandish the whole issue could become if that has to be counted as advertising. Another regular occurrence is that there is now, let us say, a documentary presentation and later on in the same evening, on the other channel, there will be a number of experts assessing the merits of that programme, discussing it. They are related programmes on two different channels. I know I have given fudged examples.

I want to revert to the clearer example because that is where the difficulty could arise. Let us suppose a continuity announcer says: from 12 o'clock on there will be, say, programmes, X, Y and Z, when the other stations will have been promoted, either the other television channel or radio as the case may be. My direct question to the Minister is: is that considered to be advertising? There was a slight conflict in the Minister's presentation. The Minister made it clear to me — and I was quite happy — that in order to be regarded as an advertisement it would have to generate revenue for the station. Therefore I thought that such publications as the RTE Guide would not generate revenue for the station and, therefore, could not be deemed to be an advertisement. The Minister has disabused me of that idea by saying that that would not be allowed.

I want to be quite clear in regard to the criss-cross between radio and television.

Mr. Burke

I will endeavour to clarify it for the Senator. This takes me back to the overall objection to the amendment before us, that is the problem of strait-jacketing ourselves into this legislation, that we have not got the flexibility I believe to be essential in relation to the operation of its provisions by way of the code of practice. The Senator gave the example himself of an RTE announcer saying: we are now going off the air on this channel but X, Y or Z programme will be transmitted later. That is a straight informational announcement rather than a big promotion.

A practice that has become a feature of the services, as such, is that, let us say, RTE Radio 1 run an advertisement on television on the basis of their being number one in the country and so on, which may continue for 30 seconds or a minute, not by way of information in relation to programming but rather an advertisement for the concept of Radio 1 as opposed to information about a specific programme or programmes, saying that programme X will be transmitted at such and such a time. There is that major difference between them.

Mr. O'Toole

What about an advertisement for a programme?

Mr. Burke

That is why I am saying: let us not tie ourselves into a straitjacket. Let us remain within the code of practice so that we can make the provisions of this Bill operate effectively. The idea behind it is to ensure that we do not run into the type of promotional criss-crossing to which I referred — the set piece advertisement, as such, which may run for 15 or 30 seconds, or a minute — in direct competition with other services.

Mr. O'Reilly

For the life of me I cannot see the problem with, say RTE 1 television engaging in a promotional piece for RTE Radio 1. That is a most natural exercise and practice. I cannot see the logic of that.

Mr. Cassidy

In the course of my remarks on Second Stage I mentioned the RTE Guide, a weekly magazine sold right across the country, one of the most popular magazines, yielding a fair share of revenue. It is also an extremely good magazine in which to advertise. I do not see any problem in that respect. I had been expecting that that magazine would have been covered by the provisions of this Bill in relation to advertising.

The other example of how extra revenue can be generated was covered by a number of Senators today and would be a tremendous example for, say, BBC enterprises or ITV enterprises. In fairness I should say that RTE have started their enterprises commercial unit in their archives "Treasures of Gold". In the commercial world, which much revenue can be generated, to say the least £10 million could be generated annually by way of promoting this archival material. The video is the fastest growing industry in the area of communications. RTE have, to their credit, preserved an enormous reserve of very high quality product which they can bring on stream. We saw examples of it in the form of a particular "Late Late Show" tribute which had thousands and thousands of sales. That is one way of generating extra income.

Another way of generating extra income is by Atlantic 252. In reply to Second Stage the Minister told us that he is allowing an additional 20 per cent on advertising for that. The amount of good that could be done for this country in the context of tourism, apart from the revenue, is mind boggling. The airwaves going right into England are available with 58 million people out there to be targeted.

What was not touched upon in relation to advertising was the quality of advertising in relation to drink. I believe it is wrong to glorify drink in radio and television advertising as part and parcel of the daily intake of liquid into the human system.

Mr. O'Toole

On a point of order, I have attempted to keep the debate to the amendment. I would not mind discussing section 3 either but, with respect, I do not believe what the Senator is now dealing with has anything to do with the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator keep to the point, please.

Mr. Cassidy

If it is coming up at a later stage I will leave it. In regard to the point I made about advertising, I think it is a good idea, and one we should be supporting in the House.

Mr. D. Kiely

Senator O'Reilly mentioned that RTE1 should be able to announce programmes that are on RTE2. I would like to ask the Senator would RTE1 be likely to recommend, when going off the air, that people should listen to Kerry Radio? Would they do that free of charge for the people of Kerry? We are talking about fair competition and about the magazine and so forth. RTE have plenty of latitude all along the line. Would RTE suggest to their viewers that they should turn on all of the independent stations all over the country which are now licensed?

Mr. O'Reilly

Maybe Senator Kiely would suggest that Kerry Radio should become the national service?

Mr. D. Kiely

We have every intention of making it a national radio station.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not going to have a debate on this.

Mr. O'Toole

I will not try to make a comment on Kerry Radio except that I listen to it at the weekend.

Mr. D. Kiely

We are on the air thanks to Fianna Fáil. We are legally on the air.

Mr. O'Toole

I am sure they will carry that statement as well. I thought it was an independent radio. I would like to ask a specific question. It is important to get these statements from the Minister on the record of the House in terms of other discussions. I accept that the Minister has made every effort to clarify it. He has explained what would be unacceptable and has given me the moving picture side, the corporate image promotion of one service by another. I would accept that is an advertisement by any standards. I disagree that they should not be able to do it, but at least we know where we are going on it. What I was talking about is where there is a still shot with a voice over making a particular announcement. I want to know what the Minister would say about that. I hope what I am talking about is clear. I am talking about a still shot, without moving pictures, with the title of the programme and a voice over from continuity saying this is what will be dealt with. That is something that is done all the time on BBC1 and BBC2. They have their timetables scheduled in such a way that their programmes are coterminous in the sense that they begin programmes at the same time, and invariably one station is promoted by the other at every single change of programme. It goes on all the time and is accepted practice and it is done in most places where they have a double service.

I want to answer Senator Kiely's point about why it would not be appropriate for RTE to finish up the evening by suggesting their viewers should turn over to a competing station. It is for the simple reason that the competing station would be a competitor in the marketplace. Why would RTE be giving a gee-up to a competitor in the marketplace? The point I am making is that they should be allowed, like any group of companies, to support each other.

What I have just referred to is synergy, no more than that. I am not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes here. I am saying that there we have a company, RTE, with a number of different services, who can use the total infrastructure to promote all their services. The Minister has said where he differs from me on those issues and I accept that he has made it quite clear. However I want to pin it down because I am not clear about the difference between what is informational, what is promotional and what is advertisement. I would also, as I said, like the Minister's comments on the example of a still shot with a voice over from continuity promoting, telling us or informing us — I am not sure what word the Minister wants to use — about something that will take place later on on the other channel or on the other service.

Mr. Burke

The more the Senator teases this out the more he makes my case on flexibility in the Bill in relation to what is meant by advertising and why I put more and more emphasis on section 4, the codes of practice relating to advertising and other commercial promotions. Section 4 (1) says:

The Minister shall draw up and may amend, from time to time as he thinks proper, codes governing standards, practice and prohibitions in advertising, sponsorship or other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasting services and the Authority, every sound broadcasting contractor and the television programme service contractor shall comply with every such code in relation to its broadcasting services.

Many of the things the Senator has raised are specific detailed queries that are dealt with in a sensible way by the RTE Authority at the moment under their code of practice. Section 4 (3) says that the Minister shall consult the Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission in drawing up or amending a code under subsection (1). The points being raised by the Senator are classic points to be argued and debated during the consultation process in relation to what is to be included and what is to be excluded, and they will be decided in consultation with the RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission when deciding what is to be the statutory code of practice.

Mr. O'Toole

With respect, the consultation is clear. The IRTC will invariably state that they do not think RTE should be allowed to promote one service via the other and the RTE Authority will say they think they should be allowed. As I said in my first contribution, I would prefer to go along without a definition on advertising if we could do that. The more we hear of it, however, the more worried I become. I would like the Act to be specific and for the Minister to indicate what his view is because the consultation will be quite clear on the matter.

Mr. Burke

I have given my view as far as I possibly can and I have tried to define it and be as precise as I possibly can, much more so in this debate. We did not get into it in as much detail in this form in the lower House. I have defined it as far as I possibly can in relation to the RTE Guide, corporate advertising and the general announcements. I have teased it out as far as I can go at this stage. I do not want to be unhelpful to the House, but I believe that to go further in the definition would subvert the whole intention of the consultation process provided in section 4. I cannot be of any further guidance to Senators in making a decision to vote for or against amendment No. 1.

Mr. B. Ryan

I have listened very carefully to what has been said but there is a fundamental difference which the Minister, with all due respect, has not addressed, that there is only one broadcasting organisation in the country which will have two television channels and two radio stations. The House is entitled to know the Minister's thinking when he comes to adjudicating on the conflicting views of the IRTC, which will be batting for a whole lot of stations, none of which are commercially linked, and RTE who have two television channels and two radio stations, together with Cork Local Radio and Raidió na Gaeltachta. Why should anybody reading this Bill believe anything other than that the Minister is going to load the dice more firmly against RTE when he draws up his code of practice? If an independent person is drawing up this much lauded code of practice, which is an interesting idea, what reason have we or anybody else to believe that it will not be loaded against the one organisation who have an interest in inter-promotion between their various broadcasting groups? That is the issue.

The Minister has talked at great length about the complexities of it and we appreciate them and, perhaps, the amendment has its flaws, but that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is why should we, or the Irish public, believe that the Minister will give a favourable hearing to the view of the one organisation who have good commercial reasons to do inter-promotion; in other words, to maximise the viewing or listening audience of the organisation. That is the crux of the issue, because the Bill is not about advertising, it is about reducing the audience that RTE have and increasing the audience of other stations. All the other things are side issues. What criteria will the Minister use that will not effectively, and invariably, end up with RTE being penalised further because they are the only ones who could be accused of any co-promotion between their various radio and television services? That is the crux of the issue and the Minister has not addressed it.

Mr. Burke

I can do nothing to clarify the situation in relation to the credibility or otherwise of my stance on this issue.

Mr. B. Ryan

The Minister has not addressed the issue which is that one organisation only will have two radio stations and two television channels. All the others have only one, and, bearing in mind his eternally unforgettable phrase about levelling the playing pitch, what is he going to do? Does he mean that the code of practice is going to be one that will restrict RTE's opportunities to promote their own broadcasting services? Is that what this is all about? The Minister can talk forever and shrug his shoulders but the reality is that there is only one organisation who can suffer from his code of practice and they are RTE.

Mr. Burke

In section 4 (4) we purposely stated:

Pending the drawing up of a code under subsection (1) the Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission shall continue to apply their codes for the time being in force governing standards, practice and prohibitions in broadcast advertising.

There has been a code of practice for many years and it is my intention that the principles of that code of practice will be the principles that will be in the statutory code of practice.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Senators

No.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Harte, John.
• Jackman, Mary.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

Níl

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Dardis, John.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mulloly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Senators O'Reilly and McDonald; Níl, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 2 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.

Pól Ó Foighil

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 8, to delete "1990" and substitute "1995".

Agus mé ag caint ar an gceann seo, deir daoine go mbeidh mé tamall fada ag caint. Ní bheidh; ní bheidh mé rófhada ar chor ar bith anocht. Mar a dúirt mé i dtosach nuair a bhí mé ag caint anseo cheana, tá fúm labhairt i nGaeilge mar creidim sa phrionsabal atá ann, agus baineann sé seo le cumarsáid. Baineann an Bille seo uilig le cumarsáid, baineann sé leis an chiall go bhfuil daoine in ann labhairt lena chéile agus go dtuigfeadh daoine a chéile, bíodh sé ar an raidió, ar an teilifís nó rud ar bith eile. Mar sin, tá fúmsa leanúint ar aghaidh ag caint i nGaeilge ach níl mé ag rá ag an am céanna go bhfuil dímheas agam ar dhuine ar bith a fhreagróidh mé i mBéarla ná rud ar bith eile. Le cúnamh Dé, nuair a thiocfaimid ar ais tar éis an tsamhraidh, beidh an córas aistriúcháin comhfhuaimeach insealbhaithe anseo agus beimid in ann caint faoi chúrsaí——

Mr. Lanigan

A Leas-Chathaoirligh, an bhfuil an Seanadóir ag caint i dtaobh an Bhille nó an bhfuil sé ag caint i dtaobh an ghléas cumarsáide?

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag caint faoin mBille, alt a dó. Baineann sé lena chur i bhfeidhm i 1990.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ó Foighil, I will have to ask you to speak to the amendment and to be relevant.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag caint air. Nach diabhalta an rud é nach dtuigeann tú céard atá á rá agam? Tá mé ag caint ar an mBille. Níl tú ag tabhairt aon seans dom labhairt. Má tá orm fanacht anseo go maidin labhróidh mé libh faoi.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ó Foighil, I will have to ask you to speak to the amendment.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag caint air.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Please keep to the amendment.

Pól Ó Foighil

Nach aisteach an scéal é, mar go bhfuil mé ag caint i nGaeilge, go bhfuil chuile dhuine i m'aghaidh? Níl siad in ann mé a thuiscint.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will have to insist that you speak to the amendment or else resume your seat.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag caint air. An rud atá ráite anseo, ní thuigim cén fáth gur gá don Aire an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach chomh práinneach sin. Nuair a thosnaíomar ag caint faoi seo, agus nuair a thosaigh an ruaille-buaille faoi seo uilig bhíodar ag rá gur mar gheall ar Century Radio a tharla sé, go raibh gá le cúnamh a thabhairt do Century, go raibh gá le hairgead a chur ar fáil dóibh, go raibh sé ar tí titim as a chéile. Mar gheall ar sin bhí gá le Bille a chur tríd an Dáil agus an Seanad go sciobtha. Sin an Bille, sin an rud a bhfuil mé ag caint faoi ó thosaigh mé. Ní thuigim cén fáth go gcaithfidh sé teacht anois chomh sciobtha sin. Cá has a dtáinig an dáta seo, an chéad lá de Dheireadh Fómhair seo chugainn? Cén fáth an dáta sin? Cén fáth nár dhúradh an chéad lá de mhí na Nollag, nó an chéad lá de mhí Eanáir '91, nó '92 nó '93 nó '95? Sin an fáth go bhfuil mé ag rá nach bhfuil aon ghá leis anois. Níl aon deifir leis.

(Cur isteach.)

Pól Ó Foighil

Níl tú ag tabhairt seans dom. Dá mhéid a chuireann tú isteach orm is amhlaidh is mó mise ag caint. Má éisteann tú liom b'fhéidir go dtuigfidh tú rud éigin atá mé ag rá. Tá an tAire ag éisteacht liom, agus ag éisteacht go cúramach.

(Cur isteach.)

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag caint leis an Aire. A Chathaoirligh, tá sé ag cur isteach orm. Anois, tabhair seans dom labhairt.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

First of all, the Senator should address his remarks to the Chair, and secondly, you should stay with the amendment.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag déanamh sin tríd an gCathaoir, ach tá siad ag cur isteach orm. Bím an-neirbhíseach nuair a chuireann siad isteach orm mar sin. An rud atá mé ag rá ná nach bhfuil aon fháth ann faoi láthair go mbeadh aon deifir leis an mBille seo. Rud eile faoin dáta seo, táimid ag cur ár gcuid ama amú anseo ag caint faoi, mar tá socruithe á ndéanamh.

(Cur isteach.)

Pól Ó Foighil

Níl mise ag cur mo chuid ama amú, sibhse atá ag déanamh seo, ag iarraidh an dáta seo a chur síos ár scórnach. Is é an socrú a bhí ann, agus a ba chóir a bheith ann, go mbeadh seans againn an Bille seo a chíoradh i gceart agus go mbeadh am againn lena dhéanamh. Anois, dá mbeadh an tAire sásta fiú amháin glacadh le leasú sa Bhille seo — rud nach mbeidh, ar ndóigh, mar chuir siad an guillotine ag obair agus ní bheimid in ann é a phlé go mion ar chor ar bith, a bheag nó a mhór — bheadh air dul ar ais go dtí an Teach eile agus ní bheidh an Teach eile ina shuí ar an chéad lá de Dheireadh Fómhair. Mar sin, cén chaoi a bhféadfaimis athrú a dhéanamh ar an mBille seo anocht nuair nach mbeidh an Teach eile ina shuí roimh an chéad lá de Dheireadh Fómhair?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, I must ask you to speak to the amendment. You are drifting off the amendment.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag caint air. Mura bhfuil sibh in ann éisteacht liom, lig dom labhairt ar an rud atá os mo chomhair amach. Ní fiú dom bheith anseo ar chor ar bith.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, if you do not speak to the amendment I will have to ask you to resume your seat.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé ag caint ar an mBille mar atá sé os mo chomhair amach. Tá mé ag labhairt ar an mBille, agus éinne atá ag cur comhairle ar an Chathaoirleach tá an chomhairle mhícheart á cur air.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ó Foighil, I am ruling you out of order. I have asked you on a number of occasions to speak to the amendment.

Pól Ó Foighil

Sin an fáth go bhfuil mé ag labhairt as Gaeilge, mar níl an cheart le fáil agam sa Teach seo agus ní raibh riamh ó thosaigh mé.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, I have asked you to resume your seat.

Pól Ó Foighil

Mura bhfaighidh mé mo chearta anseo caithfidh mé iad a fháil — bealach ar bith eile.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, I am asking you for the last time to resume your seat.

Pól Ó Foighil

Níl mé réidh leis an ábhar. Níl mé réidh leis an gcaint a bhí agam.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, I am asking you to resume your seat.

Pól Ó Foighil

Níl mé réidh. Tá cead agam labhairt ar an mBille mar atá sé ann.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, you are out of order. I am asking you to resume your seat.

Pól Ó Foighil

In ómós duitse, a Leas-Chathaoirligh——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, would you resume your seat, please.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé á rá leat, in ómós duit, déanfaidh mé amhlaidh, ach níl sibh ag tabhairt cothrom na Féinne dom.

Mr. O'Reilly

I want to make a couple of points in support of our amendment. As I pointed out on Second Stage and on amendment No. 1, the Bill is unacceptable on all the grounds we outlined. We are now seeking, as a last ditch stand to bring some sanity to the whole debate, a delay in its implementation and we appeal to the Minister to be reasonable and to accept it. We are seeking a delay because we want to give RTE some chance to adjust to the outrageous provisions in the Bill. The restrictions on RTE have been decided in a rushed fashion. We appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment and to delay the implementation of the Bill, thus giving RTE an opportunity to adjust to its very restrictive implications. We are asking the Minister to postpone the legislation — we will be reasonable about the dates, there is nothing sacrosanct about 1995 — for a considerable period. During that considerable period the Minister could engage in thorough consultations. This is a reasonable amendment which I commend to the House and I do not see any need to elaborate on the matter further.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Cosúil leis an Seanadóir Ó Foighil, beidh an-áthas orm nuair a bheidh córas aistriúcháin ann. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí an amhlaidh go bhfuil na Seanadóirí thall sásta leis an mBille ach nach bhfuil siad sásta go dtiocfaidh sé i bhfeidhm láithreach? An é sin ciall an leasaithe? An chiall a bhainimse as an leasú atá molta ná go bhfuil Seanadóirí sásta go rithfí an Bille seo agus go ndéanfaí dlí de ach nach bhfuil siad sásta go dtiocfaidh sé i bhfeidhm ag tús mhí Dheireadh Fómhair seo chugainn? De bharr an chur ina aghaidh atá déanta acu tá cineál iontais orm anois go bhfuil siad sásta leis an mBille de réir an leasaithe, ach go dteastaíonn uath lá teacht á bhfeidhm an Bhille a athrú.

Mr. O'Reilly

On a point of information, I made the point very clearly that we were fundamentally opposed to the Bill on Second Stage.

Mr. Lanigan

The Senator did not.

Mr. O'Reilly

I wanted the Bill deferred until 1995.

Mr. Staunton

I support this amendment on section 2, in relation to the substitution of the date. Like Senator O'Reilly I am utterly opposed to this Bill and I should like the Minister to throw it out. If that cannot happen I should like the Minister to accept this amendment for the following reason. Getting away from the issues of capitalism, socialism, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, The Workers' Party and all these other matters, in the most pragmatic sense the single greatest weakness in this Bill is that the Minister plans to implement this legislation on 1 October this year when it is going to affect radically RTE revenue from a television source. All the groups in the television radio advertising and video sectors have informed the Minister and the rest of us that the advertising interest will want to move their funds into advertising, not in the newspapers and not on the radio, but into an alternative television medium.

While it may be a pious hope of the Minister that these funds in time will be invested by advertisers in TV3, on 1 October this year TV3 will not have begun to assume a commercial function in this country. In the light of reasonable submissions made by one of the advertising agencies, even though in theory it might exist in a year's time, it might be two, three, four or five years before there is sufficient flesh in it commercially to give confidence to the advertising interests that putting funds into TV3 is a reasonable answer. It is the single greatest weakness in this Bill and it damns the Bill.

If this pressure is implemented on 1 October this year, the logical conclusion, according to all those people whose views we should respect in this area — they are vocational and objective and in no sense political — is that huge sums of money will leave the country and go to advertising in television companies who are outside the State but who beam into this State such as UTV, Channel 4 and Sky Television.

In summary, this State damns this Bill. I think the Minister would be a very wise man to take the point and substitute a date other than 1 October 1990. I would welcome 1995 as suggested by Senator Manning but it need not be that year. There is clear evidence in the most pragmatic commercial sense of major misjudgment here unless the Minister takes the amendment on that specific issue.

Dr. Upton

Amendment No. 11 proposes that this Bill be the subject of a commencement order which would be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. We are proposing that the commencement order be introduced. That would allow the Minister, in pragmatic terms, to take amendments here this evening because the commencement order could not be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas before the resumption of the Dáil which is going to be in late October. It would also allow some reconsideration of what has been the most contentious Bill to go through the Oireachtas for some time.

Secondly, we are proposing that that commencement order be renewed each year so that we would all have an opportunity to reconsider the effects of the measure. We would be able to see how it was working in practice and we would have an opportunity to get away from the deleterious effects of this Bill which we certainly feel will arise.

Mr. Neville

I support the amendment. It is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to get off the hook on this Bill. It is accepted by everybody except the Minister and some of his most ardent supporters, not everyone in Fianna Fáil, that this is botched legislation. It is bad legislation. It is designed to screw RTE. Many things will happen between now and 1995, and certainly a general election. It is an excellent opportunity for the Minister——

Mr. Burke

It will not be a general election——

Mr. Neville

I did not hear what the Minister said——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Neville without interruption.

Mr. Neville

The Minister made an interjection which I did not hear.

A Senator

He was addressing a colleague.

Mr. Neville

There is another debate going on here. If there are two debates going on I will terminate this discussion.

Mr. O'Toole

The front bench over there have never stopped interrupting since the beginning of this debate. Senator Pól Ó Foighil got a most unfortunate reaction from the other side of the House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Ross

There is nothing but interruptions from the other side of the House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole, on the amendment.

Mr. O'Toole

This is the type of carryon we have seen from the front bench tonight. They have not a speech between them. They have nothing to do except interrupt. The first person who speaks as Gaeilge becomes a ceap magaidh at the other side of the House. This is typical of the sort of behaviour we have come to expect from that side of the House. They have nothing worth while to say and it is typical of the total disregard——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole, kindly resume your seat.

Mr. O'Toole

I am not finished. I am not prepared to see the House abused in the way it is being abused at the moment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am asking the Senator to resume his seat.

Mr. Ross

He is on the amendment. Why should he resume his seat?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is on its feet and I am asking Senator O'Toole to resume his seat for a moment. I am asking Senator O'Toole to confine himself to the amendment. I am asking him to speak to the amendment.

Mr. O'Toole

I am on the amendment but, at the same time, I am certainly not going to sit here and allow this kind of abuse of the work of the House from the front bench of the Government side. It is unacceptable. The speaker deserved support. It is a classic Fianna Fáil operation. They have nothing to say so they continue to interrupt. It shows a lack of imagination.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am asking Senator O'Toole to address the amendment.

Mr. O'Toole

The front bench have become so embarrassed by the legislation——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole, please resume your seat.

Mr. O'Toole

I think I am being unfairly treated. This is the second time you have asked me to resume my seat.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I asked you twice to speak to the amendment and you failed to do so. If you will not speak to the amendment I will ask you to leave the House.

Mr. O'Toole

I am not prepared at this stage to either leave the House or resume my seat.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole, you will leave the House, please.

Mr. O'Toole

I am not prepared to leave the House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am ruling that you leave the House.

Mr. O'Toole

I am not prepared to leave the House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am asking the Leader of the House to name Senator O'Toole.

Mr. B. Ryan

You have no authority to suspend a Member, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

Mr. Ross

You have no such authority.

(Interruptions.)