Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. I also welcome the Bill. I wish to declare that I have an interest in that I have an investment in Channel 6. It is not a very successful investment but I feel I should declare it.

I welcome the fact that one authority will assume responsibility for the various areas to which the Bill relates. It deals concisely with that matter but it is, nevertheless, a lengthy item of legislation. I was surprised with regard to the number of areas it covers.

Of the nine members who will sit on the board, five — the majority — will be appointed by the Minister. The latter will also appoint the other four while having regard to the advice of the joint Oireachtas committee. I am delighted that the relevant committee will be involved. Effectively, however, what is proposed will mean that the Minister of the day will exercise proxy control over an important part of what should be an independent, opinion-forming body. Will it be possible to broaden the appointment system? Why not allow the Arts Council, the IFA, the unions or whomever to have a say in who is appointed? I accept that these bodies may be able to have their say through the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. However, I am of the view that what is proposed could be improved. The making of appointments to boards is such a contentious issue and we need to give greater consideration to it.

I welcome the concept of financial sanctions. To date, if a broadcaster was seen to be in the wrong, the only course available was to take the draconian step of suspending its licence to broadcast. What is proposed in the Bill is an excellent innovation. It will allow sanctions of differing degrees of severity — depending on the seriousness of what was done — to be imposed and these will impact upon the financial resources and audience numbers of the transgressor. I am delighted that this measure, which is similar to the sin bin that operates in rugby, is being introduced. In the past, if a player misbehaved on the rugby field he was sent off and the match was thereby probably ruined as a contest. The introduction of the sin bin, whereby players are sent off for ten minutes, improved matters no end because a referee is now able to impose a penalty on the offending team without ending the game as a contest. From that point of view, the introduction of financial sanctions is a good move.

I am somewhat concerned with regard to new technology. We simply do not know what new technology will appear in the broadcasting field in the future. Digital audio broadcasting seems to be the flavour of the moment. However, people who live outside the main population centres can be offered a service via digital radio mondial, DRM. Should we offer coverage only to those who live in larger centres or on the plains? I do not believe so. In addition, I do not know what is coming next. I am not sure the Bill is sufficiently flexible to allow for rapid reaction to changing marketplace realities.

In 1910, Thomas Edison wrote to his son and stated that the latter would not believe how the world had changed in his lifetime. The same words were used by King Frederick in 1640, by which time America had been discovered, the printing press had been invented and the Reformation had taken place. The world changes so quickly. In 1905, the head of the copyright office in America stated that there would be no need for that office to exist after 1910 because he believed that everything which could be invented was probably already in existence. Technology changes rapidly and I am concerned as to whether we are giving ourselves room to adjust. Finland and Sweden both turned down the opportunity to put in place digital audio broadcasting. In that context, I hope we are going in the right direction in respect of this matter.

Senator Walsh and others referred to advertising. The legislation will effectively impose a ban on junk food advertising at times when younger people and children are most likely to comprise the audience. I applaud this move. I was involved, through my company, in introducing a ban on sweets being sold at checkouts. This was hugely applauded by parents because they stated that it freed them from what they termed the "whinge" factor and gave them a greater say in their children's diets. However, I would propose the introduction of a further advertising ban. As with tobacco, why not introduce such a ban in respect of gambling, alcohol and other products?

There is little or no difference as regards the arguments that can be put forward in respect of this matter but I do not know how we could do what I propose in a competitive marketplace. Senator Walsh and others referred to this matter. Broadcasting and media outlets are all in competition with interests we cannot control from outside the State. The ban on tobacco advertising is almost Europe-wide. However, I have seen posters advertising tobacco in certain European countries. There must be a way to solve the problem to which I refer by either imposing a ban at European level or putting in place a tax that would relate to advertisements which come from outside the EU. I accept that this would be a challenge. However, it is too easy to say that we should impose a ban on certain types of advertising when we know full well that broadcasters are in competition with interests from abroad.

The legislation offers a right of reply to those who feel they have been maligned by a broadcaster. I am concerned that this could be used to hobble serious investigative journalism. Our law is based on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. This should surely apply to a broadcasting organisation as much as to an individual. I accept that there is no easy answer in respect of this issue. The Minister will not be aware that in the 1960s I was maligned by the Irish News in Belfast when I attempted to fly across the Irish Sea in a balloon in order to create publicity. The newspaper referred to me as "ex-IRA man Feargal Quinn". I was upset by this and discovered that those at the Irish News had confused me with a distant relative from a previous generation. I contacted the newspaper and asked if it might publish a correction. The story was corrected but almost to the other extreme. It was stated that not only was I not an ex-IRA man but also that I was extremely opposed to what that organisation was then doing. The correction almost described me as a strong and staunch Unionist. I refer to my experience because there is a definite need for a right to reply and I am sure the broadcasting authority of Ireland — even if the position is not strictly the same as that which applies in respect of the press — will find a way to establish it.

Those involved in the area of broadcasting are increasingly in competition with broadcasting interests from outside the State. The latter are not subject to our legislation in any meaningful way. They are subject to European legislation but there is not much of this. We must be careful not to deliver audiences to out-of-State organisations by imposing regulations in respect of minority groups. It may make excellent moral or political sense to impose such regulations but they are not audience-attractive and could lead to viewers being lost. There is a tightrope to be walked between the notions of what is populist and what is ethical. This quandary will be redefined on a day-by-day and issue-by-issue basis. It would be nice to believe that we might be able to legislate for good taste and common decency. However, I would be satisfied to leave responsibility for such matters to the new body.

I have been extremely impressed by the introduction of C-SPAN in the United States. This system appears to work extremely well. I am not sure about the level of audience participation with it but those who have the system pay attention to it.

With regard to the proposed licensing fee, I made a proposal last year on a broadcasting Bill which, as a former chairman of An Post, I say with a little guilt. There must be a better way to collect the licence fee. I made the suggestion last year that it should be considered as part of the ESB bill, as better opportunities exist there. That would present problems for An Post, which does its best in that area, but it should be considered.

Section 177 deals with accounts. Since I came into the House I have argued that every Bill establishing a new body should put forward deadlines for publication of accounts. I do not see a date in that respect outlined in the Bill, although it refers to "as soon as may be expected". We should insert a deadline in that regard.

Some years ago, when I looked for RTE accounts in January I was told they had not yet been published for the year before the previous year, in other words, for a period of 13 months from the time in question. Accounts should be published within three months. I know when I have put down amendments in this regard, Ministers have often accepted them. The period in question does not have to be three months, it could be six months. Every authority should have a report deadline.