Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1990

Vol. 126 No. 4

Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Mooney

Knowing the excellence of our South Korean friends in the area of entrepreneurial skills, perhaps we could have a private conversation with Mr. Young Hoon-Kang as to how to regulate broadcasting here. I am sure he would agree on reading this Bill, that it goes a long way towards doing that. Of course, we welcome our distinguished visitor. There may in the future be Irish emigrants in South Korea who would like to hear Irish programmes and perhaps something might be done to improve reception for Irish emigrants generally.

This is a milestone in broadcasting. It is the second piece of legislation introduced by this Government in a short space and as my colleague. Senator Costello said, it will not be the last broadcasting legislation this country will see. I hope it will create a proper climate for the future development of broadcasting generally. In the long-term, RTE will not be hurt in the manner in which people are saying they will be hurt. In that context, I have no doubt the Minister will monitor developments and the impact of this Bill.

Mr. Ross

We are eager to be brief in order to relieve the Minister's boredom and get on to Committee and Report Stages as soon as possible. The passage of this Bill through both Houses has been close to some sort of farcical circus and we are continuing in that vein today in rushing this Bill through by midnight. Everybody knows what will happen. We know very well that Senator Lydon and his colleagues will troop through the lobbies and will vote as they are told later this evening. The Bill will not be properly discussed in this House. It was not discussed properly in the other House. Amendments will not be properly discussed, none will be accepted and the Bill will become law. It is a circus, it is a farce and I am of two minds as to whether this side of the House should participate in such a complete denial of parliamentary democracy and examination of the legislation.

I congratulate Senator Mooney on being such a prominent participant in that circus by walking a very delicate tightrope between his party and his employers. The Senator did it very adeptly and smoothly, although I do not agree with much of what he had to say.

The main problem with this Bill is not necessarily the detail that has been spelled out in the other House where it was allowed, but it is the public perception of the motivation behind it. From my soundings in RTE there is a view that the motivation of the Government in introducing this Bill and the main pillars of this Bill is revenge. This Government have it in for RTE for reasons which they perceive to be purely political. There is certainly a perception among many in top management and certainly in the news-room in RTE that the Government, through formal and informal statements, blame RTE for the fact that they lost the general election in 1989. They believe that the coverage given to the Government and to special topics, specifically the health services, was disproportionately antagonistic to Fianna Fáil and to the Government and, therefore, prejudiced Fianna Fáil's chances of winning that election. I do not share that view but I understand the Government feeling that way. Nevertheless, that is not a justification for introducing a Bill to clip the wings of the station, to demoralise its staff and to emasculate its potential in the future. It is well known and documented that the Government have long been antagonistic towards RTE. I am not referring to the Minister only but to the Fianna Fáil Party in Government. This antagonism stems from a frustration peculiar to Fianna Fáil who have found it very difficult to take constructive or independent criticism. Fianna Fáil fail to understand that as a concept. They suffer from a frustration that they cannot control the national broadcasting station. We have seen over the years in the news room and in relation to programmes such as "Seven Days", "Today Tonight" and, more recently, "Questions and Answers" that Fianna Fáil were constantly in conflict with RTE. As a result, rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that Fianna Fáil in this Bill are making a straightforward attempt to gain naked vengence on RTE. If that is so, I suppose the Bill is going to be very effective. It will damage the station and destroy RTE as a broadcasting service in the way we know it.

There is also a perception that the Fianna Fáil Party — I will come to the Progressive Democrats later — wish to control RTE. I have little doubt that that is the motive behind the Bill. One will never be able to prove or disprove the motive of vengeance, one has to make a subjective judgment, but this is the view one arrives at from informal conversations and perceptions. There is no doubt, if the motive is not pure vengeance, it is to control RTE and the media. There is also no doubt that following the implementation of this Bill Fianna Fáil's control over RTE will be greatly increased. This will be done by way of reducing their revenue and, as a consequence, their power and by flexing Government muscles and showing what can be done if RTE do not jump into line.

There are three ways by which the Government can control RTE which they are at liberty to use and which they are using in the Bill. The first, and most effective, is to control the revenue granted to them by way of the licence fee. In the Dáil, in reply to a question from Deputy Mitchell, the Minister stated there will be no increase in the licence fee. "For the present is the question", Deputy Mitchell asked to which the Minister responded, "full stop". This means that this source of revenue will be cut off for RTE.

The second way they can control RTE is to curb their commercial activities and advertising, one of the main aims of the Bill.

Mr. Mooney

Not their commercial activities, just advertising.

Mr. Ross

The third way to control RTE is for them to appoint the members of the RTE Authority. By his own declaration, the Minister has done a very effective job on the licence fee. He has curbed their advertising and, as a consequence, the amount they may bring in in advertising revenue and he appointed a new Authority recently which, unashamedly and nakedly, was full of people whose loyalty is not to broadcasting but to Fianna Fáil and the Government in power.

It is dangerous that all Governments abuse right to control the national media by appointing people to the Authority who have little or no interest in broadcasting but have a primary loyalty to those who appoint them. We should not use this as a weapon to beat the Government as all Governments have abused that power extremely openly. Not only have the Government tightened their control over RTE and reduced RTE's standing and power, they also had a major say in activities of and personnel involved in the independent stations.

About a year and a half ago the Government established the Independent Radio and Television Commission but, once again, the appointments to that body were made by the same party, not the same Government who appointed the RTE Authority. The appointments to the commission were considered to be marginally less partisan than the appointments made to the Authority but were still very safe from the point of view of the Government. It was expected they would hand out licences to those sympathetic to the Fianna Fáil Government. It is generally accepted that this is what they did, perhaps in a way that was not as partisan as the Government might have anticipated, but the stations were left in the hands of those with whom the Fianna Fáil Party felt comfortable.

It is to the shame of the Progressive Democrats, who now form part of the Government, that they have not said a word on this Bill in the House. As I scan the empty benches, on the Government side, I do not blame them for not being present all day because——

Acting Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but he may not refer to the absence of Members.

Mr. Ross

I apologise.

Mr. R. Kiely

On a point of information, Senator Dardis made a contribution to the debate.

Mr. Ross

I apologise but I did not hear his speech this morning. Seeing that I missed it, it must have been very brief.

Acting Chairman

Will the Senator get back to the issue at hand? We are not here to discuss the contributions of other Senators.

Mr. Ross

The roll played by the Progressive Democrats on this Bill was not an honourable one. It was a shame that they voted yesterday to guillotine the debate on this Bill. They came into power to oppose such practices and it was a shame to see them promoting a suppression of parliamentary democracy. I suspect——

Mr. Cassidy

On a point of order, following much time wasting yesterday morning not one Independent Senator made a contribution to the debate on the Pensions Bill, which concluded at around 11.15 p.m. last night. I appeal for accuracy.

Mr. Ross

The Senator is perfectly correct. I suspect that this is the last throw of the Progressive Democrats before they finally fall into the arms of Fianna Fáil and all march back into that great party because if they can swallow this Bill they can swallow anything. The Bill is about controlling the national media, about one of the most sensitive areas in public life and is about one party and Government getting control of the media. Surely, one of the reasons the Progressive Democrats came into public life was to ensure integrity when dealing with issues such as this but it is quite obvious they are now prepared to bury this. I apologise to Senator Kiely for saying the Progressive Democrats did not contribute——

Acting Chairman

The Senator should address the Chair.

Mr. Ross

I can say one thing for certain and that is that when Senator Dardis spoke he spoke in favour of the Bill and will vote for it this evening. I would have more respect for them if they got up in this House and said they would like to see RTE privatised, that they did not believe in a licence fee or in public broadcasting but they swallowed the Fianna Fáil line, hook, line and sinker, which is an opportunist line to take control of the media for the Government — which I think, suits them. They have been sold the final part in Coalition which will take them back into the Fianna Fáil Party. There is no ideological barrier between the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil any longer; the personality differences which existed previously have disappeared into the realms of the past.

Mr. Lydon

What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. Ross

It has a lot to do with the Bill because I am commenting on the position of a political party in the context of the Bill. It is fair to point out that the Government want to see public service broadcasters as servants not of the State but of the party and that that is the perception they have always held. They want to see also independent broadcasting stations as servants of the party. That is the lesson to be learned from this Bill. That is the direction in which this Bill will take us. It is not fair simply to blame Fianna Fáil for this because when Fine Gael and Labour were in power their behaviour on this issue was by no means impeccable. They appointed people to the Authority who were well known supporters, directors and handlers in their general election campaigns. They were quite arrogant about the manner in which they tried to take control of the key positions in RTE. Not only did they appoint people to the RTE Authority whose first loyalty was to the Coalition parties rather than to the State but, also in a well known controversy, they obstructed a very able man in his ambitions and the recommendation he should get for the job of Director General because it was thought his loyalty was not to the party in power but to Fianna Fáil the party in Opposition. It is time this messing around, the juxtaposing and swapping of key people in key positions — which depends simply on the party in power — stopped. RTE, despite the appalling way they have been treated by successive Governments and the fact that their independence has been severely compromised and damaged, have done a magnificent job in the circumstances.

It is absurd that the public have to put up with this farcical scenario of seeing Government after Government changing the personnel in RTE as a reward they give after they win an election and when membership of the Authority comes up for grabs. It is time broadcasting was taken out of the political arena and that some independent body — which is not beyond the imagination of Fianna Fáil or of Fine Gael and Labour — was set up not to overlook broadcasting but to make vital appointments to the positions which control the public service broadcasting media. This is not something which applies exclusively to RTE, it applies to nearly all our semi-State bodies.

As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies I have always maintained that there is an appalling abuse of power not ony by this Government but by Fine Gael, Labour and the Progressive Democrats in relation to semi-State bodies where vital appointments are made — to Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and to Irish Life — simply as rewards for services given at election time. The people so appointed have too much power for their expertise — or their lack of it — not to be taken into account by this Government.

The whole area of semi-State bodies, the media and governmental control of the media, is sick, it is a shame, and should be taken out of the political arena. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that issue when he comes to reply. I would like him to consider the idea that this power of patronage, which all Ministers seem to exercise so ruthlessly, should be handed over to someone with a less partisan view and who is less likely to yield to political temptation.

The last Bill which the Minister brought before the Seanad was in many areas a very good Bill and a very effective one. He brought in a Bill to deal with the pirates and rightly said — and successive Fianna Fáil speakers have rightly said — we were the laughing stock of Europe during that time. It is a double disappointment that having done that and having effectively dealt with pirate radios that we should have as a follow up to that Bill, despite what Fianna Fáil speakers have said, a Bill to control the public service media for one party.

It is obvious that any party that can do this could easily follow it through with more ruthless legislation in the future. There are ways and means of controlling the media which do not necessarily need legislation. It is not beyond the imagination of a Minister or someone else with party affiliations to make telephone calls making recommendations about certain jobs in RTE. It would be foolish for anyone on an interview board to ignore that advice when the same Government have the power to clip the organisation's wings if that advice is ignored. Nothing more needs to be said.

What is needed is a total separation of the Government and the national broadcasting station. There should be no contact, official or unofficial, on issues which are sensitive in political terms or which are sensitive, above all things, in news terms. There should be a wall between all Government parties and those areas which are politically sensitive in the news media, otherwise these jobs will be influenced by the Government and those who hold the purse strings because the implicit threat remains following the enactment of this Bill.

Having seen this Bill there is a real threat that the Government will go further if this does not work. If capping advertising is not enough to bring RTE to their knees not only will the licence not be increased — according to the Minister in the other House — but it will be reduced. The real danger is that if RTE do not come to heel, they will be reduced further until they do. This Bill proves that not only were they huffing and puffing about taking on RTE and reducing their power but they are actually prepared to do it.

This Bill is the proof of the pudding in the eating. The Government have done this and, having done it, they will undoubtedly be prepared to go further. The die is cast once this Bill has been passed. Now they can go further. They can reduce further the commercial activities and the advertising revenue of RTE, they can make new appointments to the RTE Authority, if they want, and can interfere with positions subtly or less subtly. That is the real danger; it is a new dimension in political interference in a broadcasting station.

I do not know what will be the immediate effect of capping RTE's advertising revenue. There have been all sorts of predictions on the part of people from all sides of the House. I presume the first effect of the reduction will be a lessening of standards of broadcasting in RTE. I do not know where the advertising will go. I do not necessarily believe those who say that this proposal means the Minister attempting to look after his friends; I do not think that is necessarily true at all. Advertising is likely to go in various different directions — abroad, to newspapers, to some of the other local stations — but it will not go to RTE; that is the whole purpose of this exercise. I do not think that the Fianna Fáil Party or their colleagues, the Progressive Democrats, have actually worked out that advertising will go to a specific place yet. But I suppose if they decide to cap advertising further — which they may well do — if RTE find some ingenious ways of making more money, keeping their heads above water, the Minister will have to come back and cap advertising further. Then I presume the advertising cake will be bigger for the rest and will go to friends of Fianna Fáil.

What is disappointing, and where I agree with Senator Mooney, is that this Bill has failed to provoke any serious discussion on public service broadcasting. It is so provocative, so controversial, ruthless and dishonest in its approach that those who are opposed to it are so united they have not had time to debate the real issue, which is public service broadcasting and its role in this country. It is worth noting — and I am open to correction by Senator Kiely on this — that not a single non-Government Member in either House has supported or voted for this Bill. In this House we have six Independents, all with different approaches to political life, all of different views, all on different wavelengths, all absolutely and totally opposed to this Bill for various reasons. The same applied in the other House. Nobody of an independent frame of mind in either House has supported this Bill.

What we would have liked to have done was to have sought and been granted by the Minister a serious debate on public service broadcasting. Personally I would like to have seen a breakdown of the licence fee revenue, where that goes. It would have been far more helpful if, in debating public service broadcasting — which we have not done because we will not have sufficient time — the Minister had come to us and said: the licence fee goes to this and the commercial and advertising revenue goes to that; in other words, what do RTE need the licence fee revenue for and what is it used for? Then we could have examined the merits of the licence fee and of public service broadcasting pure and simply; we could have examined the commercial advertising activities of RTE as against those of the other stations. There was and is room for compromise and change. Undoubtedly there is confusion about RTE's role in Irish society, whether it is a public or private service broadcasting organisation. But until such time as we get a breakdown of figures, and a determination of what is public service broadcasting, we will not be able to debate that role, where the licence fee goes, where it does not go; where the advertising revenue goes and where it does not go.

What I am convinced of is that the effect of these proposals — apart from seizing the political initiative of Fianna Fáil, increasing their grip and dominance over RTE — will be to reduce the quality of the national service programmes and broadcasting. In this Bill we have the worst of both worlds. The Government are successfully, ruthlessly and dishonestly getting their pound of flesh.

Mr. R. Kiely

I want to make a few brief points on this Bill. I welcome the Bill. Indeed I should like to commend the Minister on having done in 1988 what the previous administration failed to do within the four years and three months of their term of office when, because of differences of opinion on broadcasting among the two parties who formed the then Coalition Government, they could not agree on a proper broadcasting Bill. When the present Minister assumed his Communications portfolio in 1987 he immediately began to remedy the position obtaining when there were at least 60 to 70 pirate radio stations in operation in a chaotic manner flouting all regulatory and moral obligations.

I agree with Fianna Fáil policy on broadcasting. Indeed as a member of that party I suppose I could say I had an input in that policy in an endeavour to divise an alternative to the State broadcasting monopoly particularly with regard to news and current affairs programming. The broadcasting structures created under the provisions of the Radio and Television Act, 1988 were very welcome making provision for local, independent radio broadcasting stations who gave a great service to listeners in their areas, opening up the broadcasting sector to new entrants.

I notice, from a study undertaken by the Research Bureau of Ireland that, on an average weekday, over 1 million or 40 per cent of all listeners tune into one or more of their independent local stations, that these stations command a higher listenership than 2FM. In fact local Clare radio must be complimented on the fact that they have commanded a listenership of 63 per cent. It should be noted also that these local independent broadcasting stations must operate on an income based solely on advertising revenue. As has been pointed out already, they receive no licence fee, a privilege enjoyed by RTE only. To ensure that a fair share of the available advertising revenue would go to the independent broadcasting stations, the provisions of section 3 have been devised, with which I am in full agreement. I am aware that probably it will reduce RTE's advertising revenue. However, other State bodies have had their revenue reduced, have had to accept it, have continued to compete in their respective fields and remain successful. I see no reason whatsoever RTE cannot do likewise.

I listened to the news on my local radio on Saturday last when there was mention of Kerry local radio going on air, contending that that station would have to compete with the local newspaper, The Kerryman for advertising. It is good that these provincial newspapers have to compete with local radio. My own provincial paper in Limerick is disappointing. It is definitely biased and most partial to Fine Gael. I remember them publishing a letter from Senator Neville about something that happened when the Larceny Bill was being discussed in the Seanad. After discussion with members of Fianna Fáil, I decided to answer that letter. Senator Neville's letter appeared on 2 June and I wrote in a letter which was to appear in the issue of 16 June. Unfortunately it did not appear in that issue. Neither did it appear in the issue of 23 June, I telephoned the Limerick Leader and spoke to a reporter that I know there on 25 June and asked why my letter was not published. He told me he would look after it. It did not appear the following week, and I have not heard from that provincial paper or its reporter since.

On another occasion I felt I was discriminated against in a report and I wrote a letter. I got an apology, but when I asked to insert something in the paper the reporter said "you should keep away from the typewriter". This is most unfair and I am delighted that we have independent radio stations to counteract such unfair media reporting.

I listened to Senator Neville today and he praised RTE, but I did not hear one bit of praise for our local radio which is doing great work down in our community. Senator Neville praised the work of Mícheál Ó Hehir. We would all praise Mícheál Ó Hehir. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the Munster Football Final recently and was delighted to see him taking his seat in the McCarthy stand in Páirc Uí Chaoimh and wished him well. I know Mícheál Ó Hehir did great work when he was there but his work has continued now by Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh to whom I would like to give the best of praise. I would like to praise the great work of the local sports programme on Radio Limerick every Saturday from 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock and also the work of other radio stations which is especially appreciated by the listenership there and in other areas.

I welcome the Bill and wish the Minister every success in ensuring that these local radio stations, which are of great benefit to the local community, survive.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the Broadcasting Bill. It has had a chequered history so far and the Minister here has been the victim of quite an amount of attack in regard to it, as he has been entrusted with the responsibility of bringing it in.

It is obviously different in some respects from what we started out with but the intentions are generally the same. Much of what has happened in recent weeks and months could have been avoided if the suggestion put forward by our spokesman in the Dáil, Deputy Jim Mitchell, had been taken up and a review body appointed to look at the whole question of broadcasting and how it has developed. Initially it is important to look at the whole question of broadcasting both in relation to the national service, RTE, and other services, including new ones coming on the market and the many local stations.

Broadcasting is a new phenomenon with tremendous revenue-generating capacities and potential for development. It is important to give full consideration to what we want in the context of a national service and how other services will fit in. We have to live in the real world and, in the context of the problems Century have seen, what has emerged is that there is not a bottomless pit in relation to advertising. There is much merit in the local stations that were set up in the aftermath of the pirates and it was always on the cards that there would be difficulties for another national service coming on stream and trying to compete. This Bill is being rushed through and the chickens are now coming home to roost in the form of the difficulties we have had, and we have fallen back on RTE as the scapegoat.

I would like to address, for a few minutes, the whole question of RTE's position and how tremendously well it has served the country. I will have a few critical words to say about its operation as well. We have been privileged here to have had a television and radio service that has developed in many areas and can compete with any service in any other country. RTE are to be commended for that. As the service has developed and grown, problems have arisen. RTE have had a monopoly in relation to national broadcasting. They have a duty to produce and import programmes and to report news and current affairs. Broadly speaking they have done that job very well.

The emergence of 2FM was a response to the pirates, a response to the needs of the younger generation and an alternative to the current affairs news programmes. It there is a complaint maybe it is that there are too many of these news and current affairs programmes. If RTE has this dominant position it is important that there are safeguards there for the people, particularly in relation to some programmes that have emanated from RTE. Sometimes in programmes involving national, public or local issues, RTE will try to get a certain balance in the context of people appearing on these programmes, but at times the balance is loaded maybe in favour of certain individuals or certain parties. Some people say that if one is in the game that is the way it is played. If RTE are in the game they should not be above criticism either. If there are complaints or questions raised as to how programmes are structured they must answer that. There was a programme some time ago about housing, and one individual was on four or five times and other individuals once or twice, but some major parties did not have one representative on the programme. Some people will obviously get more time than others, but there must be a certain balance and fair play in a major broadcasting authority like RTE. This is important because at times the press have been under pressure as regards libel awards, and so have RTE. If an individual — a private individual or a politician — has a complaint to make — I suppost politicians are more thick skinned and are less likely to end up in court — he should be able to contact a press council or a complaints board. I hope the complaints procedure will be successful — but that is an aspect that has to be looked at.

The difficulties that have arisen with Century Radio should have been addressed without doing a hatchet job on RTE. It is important that RTE have the necessary revenue to fulfil their obligations. It will not be easy for them to fulfil their obligations because of the loss of revenue and jobs. If RTE suddenly find there are job losses and are in the red, will the Minister respond positively to them? The collection of television fees has to be examined because I think a lot more can be done in this area. I do not know the estimated figure for unpaid licences, but I know people who will not buy a television licence until they are caught. They then arrive in court with their licence and tell the justice they have paid it, he tells them not to do it again and off they go. That is a very prevalent attitude. The licence is £62 — not everyone can afford it — but there are many who can afford it and will not pay it. Will the Minister outline the improvements procedures he has in mind for the collection of the television licence fees because that would solve some problems.

The limiting and capping of advertising on RTE has been badly approached. It should be remembered there is not a bottomless pit. We have two main television channels, with perhaps a third on the way, for a population of 3.5 million. They have four television channels in England for a population of 50 million. We have to live in the real world; we are lucky to have six or nine channels at our disposal.

It was unfortunate the way this matter was handled. A lot of the problems and difficulties could have been avoided if the Minister has got the views of the commission, as happened in the case of local radio. A lot of work went into setting up the radio stations. This proved that it was not just a case of getting an arial and starting to broadcast. Century Radio should have been addressed as an individual case. Century Radio and RTE were not competing on a level pitch. However, if the Minister had wanted Century Radio to develop, certain provisions should have been made. At the time things were rushed.

At what stage does the Minister envisage being in a position to draw up a code of practice? This matter too has been handled badly. We have seen the spectacle of the Progressive Democrats, who at times are governed by what the leading article in the papers say, chop and change. We have seen them scurrying and running for cover. The threat to 2FM which has now been averted would have been a despicable act. It is important that we get back on the rails. RTE have done tremendous work at home and abroad, and as recently as the World Cup, their programmes, debate and presentation was unsurpassed. It is important that the prospect to limit advertising be looked at. I appeal to the Minister to review the legislation one year after 1 October 1990 and to listen to those involved in broadcasting.

All that has happened is regrettable. The Bill has been badly handled and RTE have been singled out for victimisation. That is why I and members of this party are opposing the Bill.

Mr. O'Reilly

This is a sad day for Seanad Éireann; because of the way we are dealing with this issue. It is clear that we are effectively only having a Second Stage debate and that Committee Stage can mean nothing as it is obvious the Minister will not accept amendments because the Dáil has adjourned and there is no intention of recalling it to process amendments made in this House. The first thing that is wrong is that we are engaging in a bit of shadow boxing and irrelevant discussion as we are not going to make any fundamental changes in the legislation. We are not going to amend the legislation and we are engaging in a meaningless charade. It would be wrong to address the House and not to make that point.

The broadcasting service is very important. It is one of the finer things of life and a good broadcasting service improves the quality of life, heightens awareness and consciousness and is important for the development of people. For that reason I am concerned about our broadcasting service.

I am privileged to be the deputy spokesperson on broadcasting. I take this responsibility very seriously because it is a very serious business. The past few weeks have seen a terrible debacle in the history of Irish politics. Because of the sensitivity of broadcasting and its importance to the quality of our day-to-day lives, a Bill of this sort should have gone through a much more consultative process. There should have been much more discussion, analysis and consultation. The Bill is haphazard, it was speedily introduced and does not seem to reflect the philosophy of broadcasting. This is very sad. The reason I say the Bill does not reflect the philosophy of broadcasting, a long-term view and a synthesis of the needs of the country in that area, is that it has been changed very quickly under pressure and so often. If the Bill was based on philosophical considerations, a worked out strategy for Irish broadcasting and the Minister's perception of the good of the Irish people in terms of broadcasting, then he would have stood firm instead of caving in on so many occasions and there would not have been so many adjustments to the Bill. I am disappointed about this.

Obviously I accept that there may be need to be amendments to and consultation about legislation but whole chunks of this Bill have disappeared or have been altered willy nilly. The problem with the legislation is that it is not based on sound principles and has been fraught with controversy from the very beginning. I consider today's debate a complete charade and a waste of our time because we will not be able to amend the legislation. The Bill is being rushed through and has not been thought out after the due process of consultation.

I want to refer to RTE. Perhaps I am a traditionalist in this respect, but I make no apology for saying that I genuinely have a tremendous affection for RTE. I am not in any sense impugning other Members of the House — neither am I prepared to comment for them and their perception of RTE — but I am a traditionalist in the sense that I have a tremendous affection for RTE, which I believe is a superb broadcasting system. When I was growing up I was very interested in RTE programmes. In recent years I have been fortunate enough to travel a certain amount and I can genuinely say to this House that I have not found a better broadcasting service than RTE in any other country. When I was in America recently I listened to the broadcasting service there. The quality of the programmes, presenters and material used by American television and radio is a nightmare compared with the service provided by RTE. One would be likely to get a migraine from listening to American television or radio for an hour.

We have a tremendous broadcasting service. I know it may not be the view of all sectors of the community — at times some younger people may feel a certain level of alienation and frustration at the service — but I believe that RTE are a superb broadcasting station. I do not propose to bore the House by giving a detailed analysis of the programmes for a week on RTE, the quality of such programmes, etc., other than to make that essential point. That is another reason I believe the legislation is untimely and unnecessary.

There is a real risk that the Bill will reduce RTE's competence and services. It is worth remembering that over the last five years RTE, through a process initiated by a previous Government of reducing semi-State expenditure, have become a much leaner operation. They have reduced their workforce by 10 per cent, cut their costs tremendously and got themselves out of a loss-making situation. That is a tremendous and necessary achievement by RTE. All of us can be proud of the people who work in RTE. We can be proud of them as an institution, as a broadcasting service, and we can be proud of their professionalism and their excellence. It must be very frustrating for them, having got their housekeeping right, put their house in order, having made themselves leaner and trimmer, reduced their workforce by 10 per cent and reduced costs tremendously, that the Minister is capping their advertising revenue. Jobs will be lost in RTE and the advertising and in film industries after the implementation of this Bill. There will be up to 600 jobs lost in these industries, which is a conservative estimate. This must be a real source of frustration to the people in these industries.

If we could be convinced that the advertising revenue would be diverted into the commercial and private stations and that it would have a good effect we could at least discuss the Bill in a rational way. However, I am not so convinced. I do not believe that the advertising revenue which will be diverted from RTE will make its way to the channels for which it is intended. It is very likely that a considerable slice of this revenue will go to Sky, Super and other channels outside the country. This is one of the fundamental flows in the Bill. I am interested in hearing the Minister's views on this. I hope he can convince me that this revenue will not leave the State. This Chamber has a tradition in not being overly partisan in the analysis of issues and I hope the Minister can convince us that this money will make its way to the local broadcasting stations. I do not believe that there is adequate proof that that will be the case. I am convinced that the money will make its way to Sky, to Super and other channels outside the country and will be used by them to supplement their inferior broadcasting services. By diverting money away from an already trimmed RTE in terms of their workforce and operations they will lose their competitiveness. It is not just a question of this revenue leaving RTE and going abroad, which is bad enough, but there is also the secondary cancer, so to speak, of RTE's capacity to produce a variety of programmes and of creativity being stunted.

Having stunted RTE and diverted the advertising money out of the country the tertiary cancer will be a further influx of external channels. These will pose a threat to Irish culture, Irish values and the very fine programmes on RTE 1 and on RTE 2. It will be a great pity if we lose those quality Irish programmes. I believe this will be the ultimate result of the Bill. That is unfortunate because the ultimate logic is that our commercial independent sector will not be enhanced in any respect. It will not improve the playing pitch, RTE will be weakened, external broadcasting services will gain, so we are on a treble loser in that respect.

I said at the outset that RTE do a superb job, I make no apologies for saying that as I have no particular axe to grind. There is no element of nepotism or anything like that involved. No members of my family work in RTE. I have no self-interest other than that I believe objectively they are an excellent national broadcasting service.

In recent years it is clear that RTE developed a very interesting set of minority programmes for the handicapped, such as "Listen and See", programmes for the deaf and for different minority interest groups, who should not be regarded as a weaker section of our community. In any developing society their position must be strengthened, we must all work towards creating quality for them. There is no doubt that traditionally in our society, as in many other cultures, women have been discriminated against in many areas. One of RTE's greatest contributions to Irish society, in the past few years particularly has been the range of excellent women's programmes. There can be no doubt that programmes like "Women Today" have done tremendous work in improving the consciousness of women, their self image and their positive contribution to society. Women who had previously in every real sense been discriminated against, disenfranchised, who had been remote from the centres of power and weakened by their isolation, have been able to listen to other women in similar circumstances through programmes recently on RTE such as "Women Today". They gained confidence and intellectual development which enabled them to speak out on such programmes, and have made a necessary contribution to Irish life.

Politicians meet people on a regular basis. I have met many many women over the last number of years who have gained new vitality, confidence, and self-assertiveness from programmes like those presented by Marian Finucane. That is why I am angry about the weakening of RTE. I am proud of the station and I believe in it, and its values. It reflects many strands of Irish life. It would be a tragedy if we weakened RTE but it would make it somewhat less objectionable if the House could be convinced that stripping RTE of advertising revenue meant it would go to native broadcasting services. Thank God we have missed out on a lot of the initial assault on RTE because of the good work of the trade union movement. The Members of the Dáil amended the legislation and I am delighted about that but even so I am not convinced — and I do not believe that many Members of this House are convinced — that the diversion of advertising revenue, apart from causing job losses in RTE, the film industry and the advertising sector means that revenue will become available to native broadcasting services. It will undoubtedly go to other interests like Sky which is a very serious matter.

It is unfortunate that this legislation arose from the troubles of Oliver Barry and Century. I do not want to use the privilege of this House to make rash or loose allegations because despite the fact that we are legally immune here, it is not correct to engage in that kind of procedure. There is suspicion and doubt in relation to the real motivation about Century. There is a very wide and general perception that party political considerations were involved. I will not develop that point further but if that is the case it is very unfortunate that the legislation arose as a consequence of that.

There is another problem in the legislation, the question of the price of advertising. The Minister will have to convince us in his reply to Second Stage that there will not be a massive inflationary spiral in advertising costs. I contend the capping of advertising time will result in an inflationary spiral of advertising costs.

This leads to a much more significant matter, the question of the licence fee. I have heard Members of this House — and Members of the other House — argue that the licence fee is not exceptionally costly at the moment. Given the level of personal taxation, the cost of mortgages, the cost of living and the day-to-day pressures that impinge on many of our people, the licence fee is very expensive. There is no capacity for increasing it and the level of default of licence fee payments substantiates that view. We must be concerned about the cost of the licence fee. I am afraid that all this will result over the next few years in a big increase in the cost of the licence fee which will place unacceptable hardship on individual consumers and on our citizens. People do not have the capacity to absorb an increased cost of the licence.

Ultimately, this legislation can only result in annihilation of RTE services, a reduction in the quality of their programmes or spiralling licence fees. They are frightening and unacceptable prospects. I have alluded to job loss. In a situation of chronic unemployment the greatest political challenge facing all Members of this House and the Government which we should be debating in a rational way is the question of how in God's name we go about creating jobs for the unemployed, and not a rushed, ill thought out, non-philosophically based legislative package which had to be changed so often. The big problem confronting this country is unemployment. I do not say that in any cynical or populist fashion. I believe that passionately from dealing, as I am, day to day with totally frustrated constituents who come to all of us with a total sense of hopelessness about getting employment. At this Stage I receive, as do many other people in active politics, representations from the finest of educated, intelligent young-people asking me to get them jobs. That is bizarre. We cannot get them jobs. There is a terrible spirit of hopelessness among them when they come to us in that way, and for that reason unemployment is the real issue at the moment.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cassidy)

Can I bring you back to the Broadcasting Bill?

Mr. O'Reilly

Yes, I am talking about the Broadcasting Bill and about the resultant loss of 500 jobs at a minimum arising from the Bill. That is an important aspect, too.

RTE are a national service, a national institution, owned by the people of this country, and when they got themselves into good condition and were not losing money, the money arising from their success was being used for national considerations and was channelled towards such activities as supporting a symphony orchestra, supporting new drama, supporting creativity, new programme experimentation, women's programmes and programmes for minority interest groups. It is not as if the money belonged to a multi-national or was going out of the country. It was used for indigenous creativity.

Senator Mooney said in relation to emigrants that we should make RTE available in the British Isles. I accept that. That kind of thing could and should be done with RTE's revenue if we were not today ruining their potential for development. Senator Mooney is correct: we should try to have RTE broadcasts available on the British mainland, but we could not possibly do so, and they will not be fit to create a range of programmes suitable, if they are to have their hands tied as is being done here. Through external pressures the Minister has correctly got rid of the bizarre proposals in relation to 2FM most of which would have ruined that station. Despite what many people say, 2FM is not just a non-stop music station. They do a range of programmes like "Beat on the Street" and their very good, comprehensive news programmes are worth while also.

It is unfortunate that we are having this debate in such circumstances. Because this is such a sensitive area and because of the importance of our broadcasting services in terms of quality of life, it is unfortunate that we are in this situation and speaking in this kind of scenario. It is particularly unfortunate since it is clear that the legislation will not be amended at all today. It is unfortunate that when we are going to cripple RTE there will be no positive fall-out for the country. It would be bad enough to knock one institution if there was to be a positive result otherwise, but we are acting like the child who knocks down two sand castles and does not build anything in their place. All we are doing here is diverting advertising revenue out of the country and it will not even advance the cause of the people it is supposedly going to help in the commercial sector.

For all those reasons I appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to reconsider many aspects of the Bill and at the very least think very seriously along the lines proposed by Senator Cosgrave of reviewing this legislation and setting up the mechanism for its regular review in the interests of equity and of developing the broadcasting service. If the Minister could possibly accept now that basic mechanisms must be developed to reverse many of the aspects of this Bill then we would have done a good day's work. My party will be opposing Second Stage of the Bill and also many aspects of it in Committee because we see it as having no thought out basis or no coherent philosophical background. It is not based on any philosophy on broadcasting in the short or long term. It will not work to the good of anyone other than outside interests.

Again I ask the Minister to consider at the very least setting up mechanisms to review this legislation regularly and try to overcome its inherent weaknesses. I ask him to be so courageous as to admit that the whole thing is wrong and should not be put on the Statute Book.

Mr. O'Toole

In many ways what we are doing this afternoon is a total and utter waste of time. If I had had my way we would have collapsed Second Stage this morning and have had the Minister battle his way through every section of this for the whole of the day. Then we would have had a real debate, but apparently a number of people felt they had a great deal to say on this Bill. I certainly will not be speaking at any great length on it. Our strategy has been bad and we might have handled it differently. The Government side were quite cynical in the way they suddenly decided after last week that, having had nobody to fill in the spaces to discuss this, as soon as the time became finite, as soon as the guillotine motion was passed, to start filling in with speakers and wasting time. Of course, the longer Second Stage goes on the more it serves——

Mr. Cassidy

On a point of order——

Mr. O'Toole

I expect that for Senators on the far side——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Cassidy on a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy

I want to inform Senator O'Toole through you, Sir, that every time it was our turn in this House we have spoken on this Second Stage.

Mr. O'Toole

As I was saying, Fianna Fáil could not get this Bill through quickly enough last week and cut down on the number of speakers. Suddenly this week there are people available to make all sorts of long speeches on it. It is a fairly cynical response. It may be quite an acceptable parliamentary process but it does the function of the House no good.

This is most dangerous legislation, as I have said already. It is an absolute abuse of power. It is a dangerous development of a type which we will all regret in future years. I am not in the habit in this House of making personal statements about Ministers or otherwise. The House may not be aware that the Minister and I are neighbours in the sense that we live only a number of miles apart from each other, but I must say for the record that the contemptuous way in which the Minister presented Second Stage of this Bill was utterly unacceptable. I was listening to it in my office and I feel a great surge of anger about it. If the Minister attempts to do the same thing in the wrap up of this debate one of us will be taken from the House. I will not stand for it. I presume it will be me because we lack the voting power on this side. I certainly will not sit here and listen——

An Cathaoirleach

Whatever about who is going to be taken from the House, I want to tell you, Senator, that you will not intimidate the Chair.

Mr. O'Toole

I have not even begun to discuss the Chair at this stage. I do not understand how you could have taken that interpretation of my words. I do not see your own involvement in it at all, so I do not understand the reason for your response. The Minister's presentation was contemptuous and it was a very poor start to the Bill. I do not know the reasons for it and I thought it was unnecessary. One way or another, we can have our arguments, we can put the case, argue the point and be out-voted at the end of the day but it was certainly unacceptable as far as I am concerned. It would certainly not be acceptable in the other House. I am sure the Minister knows that this would be the general view of this side. I have said it outside the House and it is important that I say it inside the House as well.

Were we taking a longer period of time on Second Stage, I had intended to explore in detail the basis of what the Minister had to say in his very optimistic presentation of the Wireless and Telegraphy Bill of last year, when all was going to be well with the world, and when all these newcomers were going to make everything right, the implication being that RTE of course would not be able to survive in the very competitive milieu out there. The attempts to sort out RTE have proved to be sadly ineffective and because of that ineffectiveness, we are now back today to complete the burial process. That is the objective of this Bill and I have not the slightest doubt about it. It is incredible that the personal animosity of members of Cabinet towards the national broadcasting station should now manifest itself in the form of incomplete and defective legislation which reflects badly on all we try to do in the enactment of legislation.

The Minister's attitude towards RTE, was reflected in the contemptuous presentation of the Second Stage speech in this House. It was regrettable and unnecessary; it was a transference of the Minister's contempt for RTE to the processes of this House. It is important that it should be recognised as no more than that. I am prepared to defend my position on that.

There is nothing new about the thrust of this Bill. The thrust of this Bill is a very simple one — that when the public sector becomes over-competitive, vis-á-vis the private sector, we restrain it, block it, impede it or bury it. We do not let it operate.

Plenty of examples have been given here over the last two days as to how RTE go about their business. I am not going into that whole area but we need to look at what the licence fee is for. I hope some of the speakers on the far side of the House who would also present themselves as being the great supporters of all that is Gaelic and all that is Irish, whether it be in games, music or anything else, will also recognise that, when they throw RTE into the milieu of competitiveness without the support which was there before, TAM ratings must be taken into account when people vote according to their preference for a soccer match rather than Irish dancing as they will, we will listen again to the whinging on the far side. We should also recognise that those aspects of Irish culture which were promoted and developed by RTE will suffer in the future, because the hard edge of competitiveness will not allow RTE to promote them.

Certain elements of the funding of RTE might well have been profitably and positively considered by the Minister at this time. I do not have any objection, I have not the slightest difficulty about saying that RTE should not be given a head start on everybody else, except that I would say we should do it on a commercial basis. Let us ask what we require from RTE. What we require of RTE is quite clear and is written into the legislation that established it: to educate, inform and entertain. What aspect of that is public service broadcasting? What part of that is a national resonsibility? What aspects of that are considered to be uncommercial but necessary? We should cost those things and then have a licence fee which will cover that responsibility. Whatever the cost of it, let us have a licensed income in order to cover it. Beyond that, for commercial activities, let them then get into the marketplace and take on all-comers, as they have been so successfully doing in taking on probably the best television service in the world, in the mainland UK, or as some speakers now call it, the British Isles. I would like to have a discussion as to where exactly the British Isles are. There have been some passing references to it in the last while. It is not an area of the map on which I am quite clear.

There is no reason why RTE should not be commercial. I have consistently taken the view here that semi-State industry should be competitive. It should not be a drain on the taxpayer. It should not be there as a cost to everybody else. It should either provide a social service which is necessary and which we pay for out of taxation or, if it is on a competitive basis, should act competitively. I can apply that to any of the semi-State bodies, whether it be in the transport or the broadcasting sector. If we are saying RTE are required to spend X percentage of time in broadcasting as Gaeilge, mar shampla, we should consider how that will reflect itself in loss of income to RTE. If we require them to provide a certain amount of classical music, in terms of their broadcasting hours per year, we should consider the cost in terms of loss of advertising or the cost of setting up an orchestra and so on.

Let us cost those objectives and recognise our commitment to promote Irish culture, an Ghaeilge and Irish games, and to keep an orchestra or a drama section — the RTE Players or whoever they happen to be. Having costed our commitments we should then tailor the licence fee to meet them. Then let RTE go on the marketplace, sell their advertising and win their audiences in the same way as any other commercial activity. That seems to me a very reasonable procedure.

The way section 3 has been phrased is unfortunate. More unfortunate than the capping to the certain number of minutes per hour is the connection with the licence fee income. That is utterly unnecessary. That is an attempt to make RTE uncompetitive. That means, in effect, that they may not be able to charge the market rate if, for some reason, the advertising costs go up to such an extent that selling the five minutes at prime time will bring them over the annual level to which they are restricted by the connection to the licence fee income. That is a nonsense. No commercial undertaking would operate that way.

What sickens me more than anything else about this legislation is that for years we listened to claims that RTE were unprofitable, that we should make them profitable, make them lean, cut back on the fat, make them go out there and work for their audience, make them competitive, and make them pay their own way. It is the same with every semi-State body. I saw the ESB, Aer Lingus and all of them go through this. The Government were happier to be critical of those bodies when they could not make it in the marketplace because then they had a target to have a go at. But as soon as they became competitive, whether it was Aer Lingus vis-á-vis Ryanair or RTE vis-á-vis commercial broadcasting, and could find their own niche or start going ahead, then of course the influence of commercial people who have an input into the Government for whatever reason, suddenly becomes very important and it is the semi-State body that suffers. Whether it is taking routes from Aer Lingus or reducing the income of RTE, as we are doing here today, as soon as they become competitive, they become a threat and the answer is to bury them.

One of the aspects of the last Bill introduced by the Minister, on which I argued long and late into the night with the Minister, was the so-called cultural aspect. I raised with the Minister the prospect of educational broadcasting, which is not available in this country at the moment. It is not available through a lack of coordination by a wholy body of people including RTE. When the Bill came before the House last year I proposed an amendment which would have required each licensee to set aside a number of hours for the broadcasting of educational programmes. This is the only country in Western Europe that does not set aside time for the broadcasting of educational programmes. I put it to the Minister that he should have made this a requirement which could have been done at no cost. Unfortunately, he did not do so.

I also asked the Minister to make it a requirement that each licensee set aside a certain number of hours for the broadcasting of programmes through Irish. The Minister assured me that this matter would be taken into account in the issuing of licences but, again, this was not done. I further asked the Minister to make it a requirement that those stations providing a service in the Gaeltacht areas set aside time, in proportion to the population of the Gaeltacht, for the broadcasting of programmes through Irish but, once more, he did not do so.

It is amazing that RTE are criticised and that people will take a trip out to the station to picket them on the basis they are required to broadcast programmes through Irish but will not picket Century Radio, Capital or any other station. They only picket the national broadcasting station because there is a perception that this is the responsibility of the national broadcasting service. Unfortunately, RTE will be left with all the responsibility but with no money.

RTE are a superb station. That is not a conclusion I have come to within the past week; I express this view consistently. To my mind Radio 1 and BBC Radio 4 are two of the best English language stations in the world. In his famous "talk, talk, talk" speech a few years ago the Minister outlined the problems he had with a radio station whose "Morning Ireland" programme was followed by Gay Byrne, Pat Kenny, "The News at One" and by Marian Finnucane. The Minister argued that there was too much talk on the station and the people of Ireland did not want this. It is easy to see why any member of the Government would be worried about too much talk as talking leads to thinking which, in turn, leads to people becoming critical and very often critical people vote the wrong way.

It is a perfectly logical process but the reality is that the audience listenership surveys issued last week indicate that the stations which have come to the fore are those which broadcast talk shows. I am referring here to stations such as Clare FM, Carlow-Kildare Radio and Louth-Meath Radio. These stations broadcast talk shows and are attracting audiences. RTE have got the mix right. When we discussed the legislation to establish independent radio it was envisaged that Century Radio, when established, would offer an alternative to programmes such as "Morning Ireland" broadcast by RTE but they have failed to deliver. We have placed an onus on RTE to deliver the goods and broadcast programmes which are not popular or wanted by the people in the "licence to print money" business. At the end of the day, RTE are going to suffer.

Will the Minister agree that the most honest presentation made to the Independent Radio and Television Commission, prior to the issuing of licences, was made by the former owner of Radio Nova in which he stated that he would play music and utter one word of Irish each day? In hindsight, was that not the most honest presentation made in contrast to all the drivel we had to listen to? What is also significant — this marked the beginning of the cutting down of RTE — is that the Minister refused to allow them tender for local radio licences. I accept that if one is going to provide an alternative, RTE cannot be allowed provide it. That is fair enough but, in recognising they will not be able to compete at that level, there is one service they could provide to local stations and that is a news service by way of a separate company. They have the necessary technology, capital and personnel to provide such a service and it would allow them to make the maximum use of their resources. Unfortunately, they were not allowed to provide such a service.

When Century Radio were discussed some weeks back, at a time when it was envisaged they would go to the wall, it was pointed out that the one service which might stand on its own was their news service. At present they provide a news service to local stations around the country and are making a profit in the process. RTE identified this as a market for themselves and that showed they were on the ball.

I have no intention of discussing the various provisions of the Bill as I will have an opportunity to do so when we come to deal with Committee Stage but let me repeat I regret the tone of the Minister's presentation. As I said, the Minister was being contemptuous and I appeal to him to avail of the opportunity to argue the toss one way or the other. It seems to be defective legislation which the Minister will live to regret and I have no doubt he will have to come back to the House in a couple of years, as he had to do two years after introducing the previous Bill, to sort out the mess.

Minister for Communications (Mr. Burke)

I should like to thank the House for the way in which it has considered the Bill and the many Senators who contributed to the debate. It was a pleasure to listen to the debate since it recommenced at 10.30 a.m. this morning. Unfortunately, the last day I had to leave the House for about an hour and a half to fulfil an appointment which had been arranged well in advance of the debate. Apart from this, I have listened with great interest to the Second Stage debate.

I acknowledge there are many varied and strongly held views, both for and against this legislation. Those who put forward their views did so by and large in a thoughtful, courteous and non-personal way. The kernel of the Government's and Fianna Fáil's broadcasting policy is to provide multiplicity of choice in the broadcasting domain and in particular to provide an alternative voice or voices in the area of broadcast news and current affairs. It is essential that these alternatives are strong and vibrant so that when taken together with RTE's services they offer a balance both nationally and, in this technological age, to the multiplicity of services coming from abroad.

One of the points I would like to make at this early stage is that the Government and I, as Minister for Communications, recognise that RTE have been the premier broadcaster here and will remain so, even with the advent of the multiplicity of choice I referred to. Senator O'Reilly made reference to his affection for RTE as if in some way the Government, or the Government parties, were making some move to remove this premier role from RTE but nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that RTE will continue to have an income of approximately £100 million to provide a service for 3.5 million people. Most broadcasting organisations worldwide would consider this to be a substantial sum of money. It is my hope that RTE will develop their commercial operations to increase their revenue. Senator O'Reilly and others also talked about the need for consultation. Fine Gael made great play about the need for consultation, and time for reflection with no action. I can understand Fine Gael, they are being consistent. They were in Government for nearly five years and we had reflection and consultation but we also had 70 pirate radio stations and no attempt was made to create a legal regime for alternative radio.

We had consultation between the Minister for Communications at the time, Deputy Mitchell, and the Labour Party. The Bill was introduced. We had a couple of hours debate on Second Stage in 1985 and the Bill never again saw the light of day. There was plenty of consultation but meanwhile the law of the land was being brought into disrepute.

Senator O'Reilly and others made the point that the debate in the Dáil and in this House has been a charade and that I had not been listening or taking note of points and, at the same time, he said the Minister caved in regularly. He cannot have it both ways. I cannot be accused of being rigid and not being prepared to take on board reasonable points in a debating sense and at the same time be accused of caving in.

The Radio and Television Act, 1988, opened up the Irish broadcasting sector to new entrants. There was a welcome on all sides of the House for this development as well as a wish to see them succeed. Indeed, the new entrants have done exceedingly well in the short time they have been on air, as the recent joint national listenership research survey attested. It indicated on an average weekday that over one million people, or 40 per cent of all listeners, are tuning into one or more of the independent stations. They are not my figures, they are not Fianna Fáil figures, they are not Government figures but they are the figures of the Joint National Listnership Research Survey which was carried out by RTE together with the Independent Radio and Television Commission and the advertising sector. Their survey carried out over April and May, at a time when many of the stations were on air only a few months, when Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Kerry and a number of others had not gone on air at the time showed that 40 per cent of the listening audience was, at one time during the day, listening to independent radio as established by the 1988 Act, which has been criticised.

My objective now is to ensure that the growth we have seen in the independent sector and in radio listenership generally, can be strengthened and sustained. Obviously I could not hope to address all the issues that were raised in the course of the debate, but what did strike me — and I say this with the utmost respect to the contributions made — was the almost singular failure of any Senators from the benches opposite to actually address the fundamental objective which this legislation is intended to achieve, which is to create conditions of fair competition in the broadcasting domain.

We had numerous expressions of concern about the possible effects of these proposals on RTE. Equally there was a general consensus that the development of an independent broadcasting sector was a very desirable objective. If we really believe that a competing independent sector is desirable, it is not enough to say that the new services knew the conditions that applied when they entered the fray. We need to take positive action to establish conditions of fairness where we can have a strong, vibrant and lasting alternative broadcasting medium. That conditions are unfair is self-evident and stems fundamentally from the dual funded benefit that RTE has. Apart altogether from the dominant position it has established throughout 60 years in radio and 30 years in television, RTE holds a monopoly privilege. Not alone does this benefit give RTE a very significant quantum of resources which is not available to the independent services, but it has the effect of creating a distortion in the advertising market. This goes without saying.

If I took any consolation from the rather acrimonious debate we had on this legislation in the Dáil it was the fact that ultimately, and somewhat belatedly, there was a recognition at least from the Labour Party of the unfairness of the conditions that apply in the broadcasting sector and that they ultimately produced a proposal which in terms of practice and effect was not significantly different from my original proposals. The Labour Party have put down a similar amendment in this House, amendment No. 6, which suggests that a levy on the gross advertising revenue of the RTE Authority and services licensed by the commission would be paid to the Independent Radio and Television Commission; and that money will be disbursed for the benefit of the public service aspects of the broadcasters. The limit to be raised by the levy is £5 million, and it is not to be taken from companies with a turnover of less than £1 million in effect, that means RTE pay the vast bulk of it — a levy of about £5 million — through the IRTC which was really the bones of what I had proposed.

I was also struck by part of Senator Hederman's contribution when, describing the undoubtedly excellent quality of some of RTE's services, she stressed that RTE's public service obligations must be financed by a combination of licence fee and advertising. If that logic applies to RTE it must equally apply to the independent sector who have a similar public service broadcasting mandate with the extra obligation to provide a specific quota of news and current affairs. That mandate was provided for in section 9 of the 1988 Act and in section 18 (3) which deals with the establishment of television services. This particular point was the basis of my original proposal, which was to make available to the IRTC a modest proportion of licence fee revenue for distribution among the independent services to enable them to meet those obligations. The lion's share would continue to go to RTE.

On the independent side there was no question of an unconditional handout to the independent stations because of the criteria by which moneys could be disbursed. There would have been full accountability to a body set up by the Oireachtas. Such a furore was created about this proposal, and such confusion created in the public mind that it became untenable and RTE have to take a lot of the blame for that because they made no effort to treat the proposal in a rational and objective way. It was a case of put up the barricades, and what we have we hold. This left me with little option but to tackle the issue of creating fairer competition and conditions by approaching it from the advertising revenue side and curtailing RTE's distorting role in that market.

I reject the claim that these proposals are about controlling the media or curbing the independence of comment on RTE. When these comments come from Fine Gael and Labour it is slightly ironic. The Labour Party would be first to admit and I made this point in a debate in the Dáil on 13 June — that the RTE broadcasting monopoly has been open to abuse. I am sorry there is no Labour Party Member present for this——

Mr. B. Ryan

Is it in order for the Minister to refer to a Member?

An Cathaoirleach

It is in order for the Minister to contribute.

Mr. B. Ryan

Is it in order for him to refer to the absence of a Member?

An Cathaoirleach

It is not in order for you to refer to the absence, but it is in order for the Minister to contribute.

Mr. Burke

I said it with regret, not as an accusation. Column 2321 of the Dáil Official Report of 13 June reads:

Specifically, I recall five years ago when Deputy Spring as a Coalition Minister threatened RTE with a withdrawal of support for the principle of public service broadcasting because of alleged political bias against the Labour Party. Deputy Spring wrote a letter to RTE in June 1985 expressing his anger, indeed his sense of betrayal, at the treatment of his party by RTE at that time compared to The Workers' Party. The word "betrayal" is an interesting one as it suggests that RTE public service broadcasters should favour those political parties who support the RTE monopoly and that if they do not, then the monopoly should be reconsidered.

To listen to Fine Gael speakers in relation to the totally unbiased broadcasting of RTE, it is interesting that, of all the political parties in these Houses, it was Fine Gael who felt it incumbent on them — in relation to a "Today Tonight" programme transmitted on 24 January, 1989 when the complainant was Deputy Alan Dukes — to lodge a complaint with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Following the broadcast of that "Today Tonight" programme of 24 January, Deputy Dukes sent a letter to RTE complaining about the lack of political impartiality in the programme, contending that it was not politically evenhanded. He said the thesis put forward on that programme was that the economic difficulties in this country began in 1984 under the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government and that the first real action to correct that financial crisis had been taken after the last general election. That complaint was considered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission but RTE did respond. They denied there was any bias in the content of the programme, that it was not a programme on economic history but one which examined the immediate circumstances of the first budget of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Albert Reynolds, to be announced on the following day and should be evaluated as such. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission examined this complaint and on 21 March 1990 unanimously dismissed it; the secretary of the commission signed the report.

It is interesting that, of the two parties on the other side who accuse this side of interference in RTE or of complaining about RTE, one party while in Government felt obliged to write talking about betrayal and the other lodged complaints with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission about RTE. I am glad that the fairness of RTE's programming was upheld by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

What I am endeavouring to do is to create plurality in the media, particularly in the area of news and current affairs, moving away from the circumstances in which there was one source of information only at domestic level in the broadcasting sector which, for most people, is their main source of information on contemporary affairs.

The question was raised of charities and of RTE's concessionary advertising rate for charities. It is important to emphasise that that charity advertising rate is and never was available on television; it is available on radio only for a maximum of seven minutes per day at the concession rate. In response to the strong views and representations of the charitable organisations I extended the limit on time from 4.5 to five minutes.

We heard a plea also for the independent broadcasting sector. RTE had a total output in 1989-90 of 7,500 hours of which home-produced programmes was about 50 per cent, or 3,750 hours. Of their total output of 7,500 hours RTE give 2.57 per cent to independent producers and broadcasters, that is 180 hours out of 7,500 hours devoted to the independent sector. Listening to the arguments advanced in this House and the other House I was anxious to endeavour to secure the position of the independent broadcasting sector — as had been decided in the EC directive and the Council of Europe Convention on broadcasting — by writing in an amendment to the Bill.

Various speakers asked when the code of practice would come into force. The idea behind the Bill is that there will be discussions between the RTE Authority, the Independent Radio and Television Commission and the Department of Communications with a view to implementing it. I can assure the House that I will be guided very much in that decision by the code of practice already operated within RTE.

Atlantic 252 was mentioned. I should say it is a joint venture between Radio Luxembourg and RTE which has been losing money consistently and has not, in my view, really achieved what RTE themselves had hoped. In the provisions of the Bill I have endeavoured to encourage its development by excluding it from the capping of advertising so that they will be entitled to raise up to 20 per cent in advertising revenue. I have no intention of interfering with that venture other than endeavouring to encourage it to be more successful than it has been to date.

Many other points were raised in regard to the licence fee and its collection. The licence fee collection and sales performance of An Post has been very successful since they assumed responsibility at the beginning of 1984 since when there has been an increase of over 22 per cent in TV licence sales. Each year licence sales targets are set by An Post in consultation with RTE. They have been exceeding these targets and doing very well. For example, in 1988 the target was 827,500 licences whereas they actually sold 840,000, an excess of 12,500. In 1989 the target was 852,000 while their sales amounted to 861,722, an excess of 9,722. A further demanding target of 877,000 sales for 1990 has been agreed between An Post and RTE. An Post are hopeful of meeting that target and perhaps, for the fifth consecutive year, will exceed it which will be another source of income for RTE.

There is one other point I wanted to raise in relation to RTE's source of income. I might add that I have already written to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in regard to this issue. I want 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 limits on advertising revenue set in this Bill. The establishment of that unit was a decision I fully supported. I would be keen to see it develop and expand so as to maximise revenue from existing and new activities. That point was raised by Senator Mooney. I am glad to be able to tell him that that letter to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was sent on 12 July.

I should like to thank Senators who, in the main, contributed in a reasonable, rational manner. I commend the Bill to the House.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Second Stage agreed?

Senators

No.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 16.

Tá

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

Níl

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

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

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

In accordance with the Resolution of the House yesterday Committee Stage is ordered for today. It was also resolved by the House that we would suspend the sitting at 6 o'clock this evening until 6.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.