Broadcasting Bill 2008 - Committee and Final Stages - 18th June 2008

Broadcasting Bill 2008 - Committee and Final Stages - 18th June 2008
Senator David Norris: I am not sure about the amendments under discussion as additional amendments have been tabled. I only have the original printed version on yellow paper and they are not included in that, which is a bit confusing. Will the additional amendments be available? They are not on the table.
Senator Jim Walsh: We got them by e-mail.
Senator David Norris: I did not. They were not there when I looked a minute ago.
Acting Chairman: The list of additional amendments is printed on a white sheet. Someone might be able to get it for Senator Norris.
Senator David Norris: I thank the Acting Chairman for his help.
Acting Chairman: There are two lists.
Senator David Norris: I have the list showing the grouping of the amendments.
Acting Chairman: I refer to the lists of additional amendments.
Senator David Norris: I will do a bit of research when I have had my say. I thank the Acting Chairman.
I am generally in sympathy with the argument made by Senator Mullen but, as he indicated, mine is slightly more radical. In fact it is considerably more radical because it looks for a total ban on alcohol advertising and proposes a substantial fine. The reason for this is that the abuse of alcohol throughout society, not just by young people, is a very costly business to the Exchequer and is very damaging to the health of the nation. We are in the middle of a crisis in this country because of the excessive consumption of drink. We have one of the worst rates of binge drinking in the entire world and that is partly driven by advertising. We know it is an extremely serious health problem and it draws on the resources of the State to deal with the consequences of drink. The situation has a direct parallel in the impact of smoking. The Government took an enormously courageous decision to make an outright ban on the advertising of cigarettes. It moved then to limit the places where one could smoke.
I am not talking about limiting the places where people can drink or even limiting the availability of drink, although I have said many times that one of the factors that has led to this situation is the extraordinary proliferation of licensing of small retail outlets such as corner shops, supermarkets and mini markets. However, I am not dealing with that. I am simply dealing with the advertising of alcohol. What we have done with cigarettes we can do with alcohol. Anything less is a half measure. Television advertising in particular would be affected by such a change as there are not that many drink advertisements on radio. The reason is that companies use the massive visual appeal of television and they have the money so to do. We are dealing with a completely unscrupulous drinks industry that deliberately targets young people. We have seen that with alcopops and the new alcoshots that are highly concentrated.

I am not impressed by the group, MEAS, which is the Irish for respect. I have no respect for it. I know exactly what it is. I have watched its spokespeople on television defending the drinks industry. It is a fig leaf. It is a cosmetic operation by the drinks industry to conceal what it is doing.
My amendment proposes discontinuing the broadcast of advertisements for alcohol. That is a clear, clean, simple and radical step. It will be problematic but if the Minister of State accepted it he would get the kind of kudos that the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, got for introducing the smoking ban.


Senator David Norris: I support Senator O'Reilly. The provision for fast-tracking is welcome and might make the situation more efficient. However, the halving of the period to five years creates difficulties for operators in financial terms. Halving the term of the licence will force them to run their businesses on a short-term business plan, which is not good and effective planning. It also inhibits investment, as Senator O'Reilly mentioned, particularly in machinery. I occasionally participate in radio programmes and one of the stations with which I am involved tends to have dicky microphones. We cannot persuade the owners to invest. The margins are fairly tight and some stations are threatened with running at a loss. There should be a level playing field to foster proper investment in premises, equipment, staff training and so forth.
A radio station should not be punished simply because there is a lack of competition for its licence. There should be a more level playing field in this regard also. In fact, I would prefer to continue with the ten-year licence but, faute de mieux, I support Senator O'Reilly's amendment.


Senator David Norris: I thank Senator O'Reilly for so graciously yielding because we are both on exactly the same wavelength on this issue, so to speak. I am happy to know that had I not been present, the Senator would have been able to move this amendment for me.
Our amendment is similar to Senator O'Toole's amendment, with some additional elements such as the maintenance of the proper equipment and taking on board the fact the Government may be persuaded by argument on all sides of the House to use the maximum transmission power. This is important.
Like many of my colleagues, I have had extensive briefing from a variety of groups on this issue. I wish to put on record the view of a senior engineer with an interest in the area of broadcasting engineering techniques. He states:
What does concern me is the capability of the Government in times of crisis to reach the entire nation in a broadcast. I do not believe that there is national coverage with FM transmitters. Sky's own figures will show that they do not have national coverage and experiments have shown that coverage from the long wave transmitter is not adequate at present. Listening to it with a battery powered radio will verify this. If we were to experience an event similar to the blackouts in north-eastern US or Italy [we remember the electricity blackouts there] in the autumn of 2003, the Government would potentially be without an effective means of communicating with the population.
That happened in the life of the publication of the recent booklet about how to cope with emergencies. The situation at present contradicts this because RTE is operating the long wave transmitter on less than full power. Long wave has been downgraded. It is not being managed or maintained to cover needs in case of emergency. We know the Tullamore transmitter has been closed and, as we have learned, the FM service does not provide seamless coverage.
I recently travelled by train to Limerick and found that on certain parts of the journey there was no signal, although one can get the commercial stations, including those from Dublin. I was able to listen to Newstalk 106 but I could not get RTE Radio 1. Members should try it on the Enterprise to Northern Ireland. Half of the time, the signal is lost. Why is this? Why do we not care about these people?
Senator O'Toole referred to emigrant populations in London whose service is interfered with by Radio Algeria. In Australia where there was a similar problem, they permitted the radio stations to double the strength of their transmissions. While they double it, we are halving it, although we face the same situation. It is idiotic.
There is also the question of weather forecast broadcasts to the fishing fleet at sea. The current level of power is not adequate to reach our fishing fleet in all emergency situations. Our brave fishermen, God knows, have been hammered, clobbered and sold out by successive administrations and are now getting whacked by the European Union, but we are not even providing proper cover for emergency services. This is all in the context of a decision for some reason, presumably economic, to downgrade the power output to approximately half strength. This unquestionably must reduce service.
Let us consider the question of preparing for a nuclear emergency and major emergencies. We know that people will be taking shelter, perhaps in a building that has poor reception. Most modern buildings are insulated due to environmental considerations, heat loss and all the rest, and foil insulation in particular will effectively block out a large part of the signal. The booklet tells people to use battery powered radios, presumably because of possible failures in commercial power output. If one is using a battery powered radio, one is using a weakened receiver and receiving a weakened signal. How can that possibly be satisfactory?
The long wave transmitter is not managed and maintained. In the days of the commercial radio station, Atlantic 252, to which Senator O'Toole referred, it used its full allocation of power.


This transmitter, which is now used to broadcast the national station, is being downgraded to half power. Reducing power reduces the service and it is not in keeping with the needs of an emergency or our emigrants.
Turning to a technical area, electromagnetic pollution has increased in recent years and according to the predicted levels contained in the ITU-R p.372 figures - this is a technical matter which I do not fully understand - these high levels of magnetic pollution have been in existence for 30 years. This is the reason Australia has permitted its stations to double their power output.
A long wave transmitter needs four times the power of its medium wave counterpart to provide a protected service but RTE has made the questionable decision to reduce the power of RTE Radio 1 on long wave 252 KHz. BBC Radio 4 Droitwich, which is only 100 km away, requires a booster from London on medium wave. That offers some idea of the matter. Since the medium wave closure, London, the south east and near Europe suffer interference at night time from a station transmitting a signal which is 30 to 40 times the strength of long wave 252 KHz. At night, medium wave travels further and overleaps long wave into Europe, which is how Radio Luxembourg was once received in Ireland.
This policy is contrary to the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, which pledged to serve the entire island. The Broadcasting (Amendment) Act 2007, to which I contributed, makes provision for Irish communities overseas. Radio services were introduced into that Act by an amendment I made. The original measures in the Act pertained to television services but radio broadcasts were left out until I proposed their inclusion. I have, therefore, a particular interest in this area.
Broadcasting to our own people in emergency situations is a serious matter. I was recently on a television programme with Brian Keenan, who was held hostage in Beirut. He kept himself going partly because he was able to hear RTE broadcasts. The question also arises of our fishing fleet.
The Minister has a menu of amendments from which to chose, including Senator O'Toole's, although he might concede that the amendments proposed by Senator O'Reilly and myself go further in terms of securing the methods and technical aspects of transmission. I urge the Minister to use this legislation to close the gap created by the discontinuation of medium wave and to ensure a proper service is guaranteed throughout the island, to emigrants and, if I can make my own little case, to my house in the mountains of Cyprus. I would dearly love to receive RTE once more.
In regard to the emergency booklet, it was slightly farcical in the first place and was wonderfully mocked in a musical performance on RTE. The intention behind it was serious but one has to question its application in a situation where people who take the Government's advice to listen on battery powered radio would probably hear nothing. Perhaps, if they are lucky, their final moments would be comforted by a broadcast from Radio Algérie.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: For the purpose of clarifying the amendments Senator Norris and I have proposed, "ITU" is the International Telecommunications Union. It is the equivalent to the planning authorities in that it puts order on international frequencies.
Senator David Norris: I do not understand the numbers.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I am not sure about that.
I have been advised by a range of interest groups and technical experts that RTE is operating the long wave transmitter at just above half its power capacity. Reducing power clearly reduces service, so the move has had a detrimental effect on broadcasts to emigrants and Northern Ireland.
The issue is particularly serious for our emigrant communities. One of my greatest privileges in public life, both as chair of my local authority and as a Senator, has been my visits to the Cavan associations of Luton and London, where I met a range of people and saw that our vibrant emigrant community has retained close cultural ties with this country. These emigrants dearly love Ireland and its people and they revel in its success. They have every right to receive clear broadcasts of RTE programmes. That should not be negotiable. Anybody who has met emigrant communities in England could not but be inspired by their kinship with and love of this country and their desire to maintain links. We should not be equivocal about that.
Serious problems could arise in an emergency. Who, for example, can be brave enough to say a nuclear accident will never take place? A nuclear accident would require people to take shelter in buildings with poor receptions, so maximum power would be needed to broadcast instructions. These problems would be exacerbated where shelters are located in mountainous areas. RTE's long wave transmitter is not maintained with this in mind.
Electromagnetic pollution levels have increased and they are causing a buzzing sound on radios in the south east, London and in near Europe. A long wave transmitter needs four times the power of its medium wave counterpart to protect a service from this interference. However, RTE has made the questionable decision to reduce power on RTE Radio 1 long wave 252 KHz by approximately half. Since the discontinuation of medium wave and the reduction of power, RTE broadcasts to the south east, London and near Europe suffer interference at night from a signal 30 to 40 times more powerful than RTE's. At night, medium wave travels further and overleaps long wave in the same way that Radio Luxembourg used to reach Ireland. That brings back memories of my childhood, when I listened to that station in my bedroom with my radio under the bed clothes.
Closing medium wave transmitters and reducing long wave power by half results in a poor service for Northern Ireland and the UK. That is a serious matter in the context of the Good Friday agreement and our kinship with and moral responsibility for our emigrant communities.


Senator David Norris: I am disappointed with the Minister of State's lamentable response but I will put him on probation and will not push this to a vote. I ask him to reconsider, however. He argued that the matter is more appropriate to the Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources but I disagree. RTE is to be urged to provide this signal but we know perfectly well it is not doing so at present. The evidence we are placing before the Minister of State reveals it is not happening. The signal is down to half power, so people in the south east are not receiving the signal, let alone England and elsewhere abroad. We need a requirement because urging RTE is not sufficient.
In light of the Government's planned response to a disaster, I have demonstrated with a fair amount of technical back-up from broadcasting engineers, retired RTE personnel and other knowledgeable people that the system is inadequate. In the event of a national emergency, half the Government's plan would fall to pieces due to the lack of power in transmission.
It is not acceptable to say we will urge or encourage RTE because it should be required to provide an adequate signal. I will not press these amendments and I understand Senator O'Reilly agrees. We will leave them until Report Stage but I would like a commitment from the Minister of State that he will at least re-examine the matter in light of the evidence Senator O'Toole, Senator O'Reilly and I put before him today. Our arguments were strongly supported by the Leader of the House, so even from a political point of view it would not be wise to completely ignore the amendments. I ask the Minister of State to indicate that he will reconsider them on Report Stage. We will play our part in the political dialogue and will not push the amendments to a vote but will resubmit them on Report Stage in the hope that we can make progress. If this matter is not addressed in the Seanad, which is charged with refining legislation and pointing out gaps, it may arise in a more argumentative fashion in the other House. The Government may have voting strength in the Dáil but the debate there will possibly be more awkward.


Senator David Norris: I am struck with admiration for Senator O'Reilly's fluent Irish with its Cavan blas. I did not realise he had it but it is lovely to hear it. I will not hazard it this evening although I have spoken Irish here in the past. It is, in its own way, something dear to my heart.
I rise to formally second the number of amendments in the name of Senator Joe O'Toole. It is notable that a number of them have "including" as the first word. They make the Bill more inclusive of the Irish language and the Irish-speaking community.
I hope the Minister of State will be able to accept amendment No. a83a, which seeks to add "including programmes in the Irish language and programmes pertaining to Irish Culture." I cannot see what could possibly be against including that provision. There may be something technical. The amendments also provide for including the Gaeltacht and the Irish language community.
It may be that the Minister assumes that in the word "public"-----
Deputy Seán Power: Have we discussed these amendments earlier?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The amendments being discussed at the moment are all in the name of Senator Doherty.
Senator David Norris: They are all grouped in the list I have. I must be working from an earlier group.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The grouping is amendments Nos. 85a, 86b, 88a, 90a, 96a and 128a.
Deputy Seán Power: The Senator has mixed them up with his Lotto numbers.
Senator David Norris: In that case, amendments Nos. 90a and 96a are in the name of Senator O'Toole on my list.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: No, they are in the name of Senator Doherty.
Senator Pearse Doherty: The Senator is confusing amendment No. 90a with No. a90a.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: There is also an amendment No. 96a and No. a96a.
Senator David Norris: So they have already been discussed. I wish to make a point on this. The way in which the amendments are issued is rather confusing and I wonder if anything can be done. I do not mean to criticise at all.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The amendments were tabled later.
Senator David Norris: I understand but it is a little confusing when there are amendments Nos. 90a and a90a and so on.


Senator David Norris: On a point of order, sometimes the Leas-Chathaoirleach says the amendment is withdrawn and sometimes that it is not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: If there is a debate on an amendment it is withdrawn.
Senator David Norris: I understand. Senators O'Toole and Mullen both asked me, if I was here, to withdraw or formally move their amendments as necessary so that they could be resubmitted. Does this difference mean they cannot be resubmitted on Report Stage?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: No.
Senator David Norris: That is fine. That is all I wanted to know.
Amendment No. 90a not moved.
Section 101 agreed to.
SECTION 102.
Amendment No. 90b not moved.
Section 102 agreed to.
SECTION 103.
Government amendment No. 91:
In page 103, lines 28 to 41, to delete subsections (11) and (12) and substitute the following:
"(11) In this section "ancillary services" means the provision by a corporation of services, which---
(a) are ancillary to the public service objects of the corporation,
(b) the corporation has not engaged in a significant manner in the previous years,
(c) require expenditure by the corporation in excess of €5 million in each year, and
(d) for which the corporation proposes to use funding received by the corporation under section 123,
but does not include the provision by a corporation of a service in pursuance of paragraphs (d), (f) and (i) of section 114(1) and paragraphs (d) and (f) of section 118(1).".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 103, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 104.
Government amendment No. 92:
In page 104, subsection (5), lines 14 and 15, to delete "subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) such" and substitute "this section".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 104, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 105.
Government amendment No. 93:
In page 104, line 18, to delete "ensure" and substitute "secure".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 105, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 106.
Amendment No. 93a not moved.
Section 106 agreed to.
Sections 107 and 108 agreed to.
SECTION 109.
Government amendment No. 94:
In page 107, subsection (7)(a), line 1, to delete "the" and substitute "its".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 109, as amended, agreed to.
Section 110 agreed to.
SECTION 111.
Government amendment No. 95:
In page 109, subsection (5)(a), line 2, to delete "Irish language programme material" and substitute the following:
"programme material used for the purpose of Irish language broadcasts".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 111, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Senator Jim Walsh: I welcome this section, which deals with access to archives. It is a very good provision in the Bill. In the 46 years since RTE was established it has built up quite an archive, and it is important that this be available to historians and other researchers. It is very much to be welcomed. In addition, in view of the fact that RTE has some new competitors, it is important that these companies are in a position to obtain archival material. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this. For example, TV3 has a contract with the GAA to show national games and it is doing a good job, as RTE has traditionally done and is still doing. However, it is important that it be able to access archival film from some of the older matches, going back 30 or 40 years, which the producers might like to include as part of the build-up to certain games. This is the type of thing I am talking about. I would prefer if no obstacles were placed in the way of access to archival material for reasons commercially advantageous to RTE itself. I welcome the provision in this regard, which is a step in the right direction.
Senator David Norris: I was not going to intervene at this stage but I welcome the fact that Senator Walsh has opened up discussion on this matter. I am chairman of the Friends of the Library association in Trinity College and I take an interest in archives. We have a fine national archive and there are archives in the National Library. In addition, an important social archive was delivered to the National Library on Bloomsday. I did not agree terribly with its name, which is the Irish Queer Archive - I would have preferred the Irish National Gay Archive - but the material is very important historically. RTE - and other stations, but principally RTE because it is our national broadcasting corporation - should be encouraged by all means possible to retain significant items. I think with great grief of some of the things that have been wiped in the past, such as the superb performances by the late Marie Kean, who was one of the finest actresses this country has ever produced. Most of her work is gone, simply because someone wanted to record something else on top of it. That is a shame. I welcome anything that encourages the national broadcaster to retain material for future generations. There is a public interest in this regard. RTE has been broadcasting a series - I am not sure whether it is over now - called "Reeling in the Years", in which it used archival material going back to 1962. We saw what was happening in that year - or at least a selection of what was happening - and fascinating it was.
This is a very good provision and I commend the Minister on its inclusion. I hope it will send out as strong an encouragement as possible that a proper archive be maintained, not just for us but for future generations.


Senator David Norris: I wish to make an additional comment. I sympathise very much with what has been said about GAA matches. I do not watch a great deal of sport, but I fear if it was required that RTE broadcast a match that was nearly a half century old, this kind of material has a tendency to deteriorate fairly badly, particularly having regard to the way in which it was originally held, and the transmission quality may not be of any use except to somebody who is a sports fanatic. I listen to ancient jazz records, with which most people would not bother. They are not broadcastable, but I love them. The same may apply to these recordings. I would careful about requiring RTE or even being strong in demanding that it reshow these recordings. It might do so if the transmission quality is sufficient, but if it is not, it would simply alienate the audience. That is a small caveat I would make.
Deputy Seán Power: Despite all the amendments, it is nice to observe the support all Senators have for this aspect of the Bill and for the Bill in general.
Specifically on Senator O'Reilly's question, I am not sure about that. I will have to follow it up.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: Will the Minister of State come back to me on it?
Deputy Seán Power: I will, even if it is bad news.
On Senator Norris's point, in fairness to the Senator, he has been very generous with his archival material and we will do our best to ensure that the name of David Norris lives on long after he is gone.
Senator David Norris: I could not give a damn about that.
Deputy Seán Power: To follow up on what Senator Walsh said, a scheme shall provide for separate terms and conditions of licensing. There will be two aspects to that, the non-commercial aspect mainly for educational research purposes and the other aspect for commercial purposes.
Section 114(1)(e) provides that an objective for RTE and TG4 is to maintain archives and they can use public funds for this purpose. The older we get the more important these things become. We have placed great importance on it in the Bill. I thank Members for their contributions.
Acting Chairman (Senator Cecilia Keaveney): Contrary to the fact that it might be Senator Norris's birthday very soon, he does not yet need to think about his name living on - he is very much alive.
Section 111, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 112.
Government amendment No. 96:
In page 110, subsection (9), line 10, after "Committee" to insert "shall".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 112, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 113 agreed to.
SECTION 114.
Amendments Nos. a96a, 96a and 96b not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 114 stand part of the Bill."
Senator Jim Walsh: At the risk of setting loose another hare, I wish to comment on the dissemination of information, a matter on which I have a strong view given the events of last week. EU members states are covered under subsection (2), but there is no mention of the EU institutions, namely the European Parliament or the Commission. I have been conscious of this issue for a while but it became more pronounced during the referendum campaign that there is a dearth of information in this regard, which is leading in part to the disconnect between citizens and the EU institutions. It is not good enough for the national broadcaster to broadcast occasionally, perhaps once a month when the European Parliament is sitting, a half hour programme on its proceedings very late at night. That does not convey what is happening in the EU to the public at large. The conveying of such information should be part of the remit of the broadcaster to ensure that people are kept very au fait with what is happening within all the institutions to address this sense of a disconnect. More than that is needed, but this would be an important component of addressing it. If this is not reflected elsewhere in the Bill, this point might be considered between now and Report Stage to ascertain if its the view of the Department and of the Minister that there is some justification in the point I am making. Perhaps it should be reflected somewhere in the legislative framework.
Senator David Norris: I wish to made a brief comment on that. I will not follow all the hares because I have few hairs left.
Senator Jim Walsh: We are talking about hares rather than hairs.
Senator David Norris: I can let the idea go unchallenged that the sense of a disconnection was because of a lack of information and a lack of information and broadcasting, although that may have been an element.


When the most senior politicians in Europe are saying that the Lisbon treaty was deliberately obfuscated so that it could be sold to the Irish people, who could then be relied upon to do what they were told, and that whereas the first treaty was written so as to be readable, the second, on which we have just voted, was made deliberately illegible, it is time to look elsewhere for that disconnect. It is time to look into the heart of Brussels.
I accept that the broadcasting of the proceedings of the European Parliament might be of interest. I have sometimes come across those proceedings when I fiddle around with the monitors in Leinster House. I assume this may be covered as part of the proposed Oireachtas channel.
Deputy Seán Power: The proposed Oireachtas channel will allow for coverage of events in the European Parliament. In addition, section 114 (3)(b) provides that one of the principal objects of RTE is to "provide programmes of news and current affairs in the Irish and English languages, including programmes that provide coverage of proceedings in the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament".
Question put and agreed to.
Section 115 agreed to.


Senator David Norris: I support my colleagues on this issue although I will not choose between the amendments. The Minister has a couple to choose from. I strongly support the objective of the amendments. Statutory provisions were made some years ago in the television sector and they led to an efflorescence of talent in drama and other programmes. One need only look at TG4 and some other stations to see the remarkable dramas, documentaries and so forth that were produced as a result.
It is clear that the funding outlined in the Bill for the radio sector will not be sufficient to have the type of effect the Minister desires. All Members have been lobbied by various sections of the independent radio broadcasting sector seeking the type of changes my colleagues have proposed in the amendments. I strongly support them. It is instructive to discover that, as Senator Alex White pointed out, up to 70% of the moneys could be used internally in RTE for the administration of the unit. That would leave very little; it would be pathetic to let that happen. As I said earlier, to avoid this there should be a type of sifting process which could be related to the committee on broadcasting.
Is it correct that there is no provision for financing recurring strands? If there is a successful programme, it should be encouraged and not ruled out automatically simply because it was an artistic or other success. I might have misunderstood but there appears to be some type of inhibition on the funding of recurring strands, recurring programmes and so forth.


Senator David Norris: May I speak briefly?
Acting Chairman (Senator Cecilia Keaveney): Very briefly.
Senator David Norris: I was going to mention individually some of the radio programmes but I was floored by Senator O'Reilly who not only knew the names but the producers and everything else and was extremely impressive. He was obviously better briefed than me. "Duck Soup" is the name of Marx Brothers film. I did not hear the radio programme but I read the book. I remember very clearly that it is called Bird's Nest Soup.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I used the proper term on Second Stage.
Senator David Norris: I wanted to get in the film by Marx Brothers.


Senator David Norris: I am extraordinarily disappointed in the Minister of State's response. He seems to be having it from both sides. On the one hand he is suggesting that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will provide for some movement in this area in the fines Bill. On the other hand he mouths a defence of this situation, which is indefensible, as everybody knows, including many of the judges. I had dinner this evening with the former Senator, Mary Henry, and two people who were briefing me on an important medical matter in the Third World. The other woman involved was a senior magistrate from Britain who had heard these kinds of cases. She said that she routinely refuses to send people to jail for this type of offence because it is madness. It is madness because it is socially destructive.
It is immediately relevant because within the past sis months I believe a single mother in Cork had her six year old child yanked out of her arms. Luckily some of her neighbours looked after the child while the woman was jailed for approximately a week. It was madness. She did not have the money to pay and she was put into jail. How much did that cost the Exchequer? What kind of economy is that? I have suggested applying an attachment of earnings. It is obscene to send poor people to jail for non-payment of television licence fees. I doubt if people are as mean-minded as the Minister of State says and that they are looking over their shoulders and saying that the single mother did not pay her television licence fee.
I agree that people ought to pay their television licence fees. However, the penalties should be proportionate and should take into account the social circumstances of the person involved. I have included in my amendment a mechanism whereby an attachment could be made of the earnings in cases where there are earnings. I will not press the amendment, partly because there is practically nobody here to vote from either side. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the matter. To refresh his mind, there has been the one case I mentioned and there were several other ones. I believe there was one in Limerick approximately a year ago. It is an obscenity in this day and age that people should be sent to jail for such offences. I will not stand over it. While I will not call a vote tonight, I sure as blazes will on Report Stage. While I know the Minister of State is a decent man, he has tried to defend something that is indefensible. He did not even give an assurance that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would abolish this. It is nonsense. Jails are a mess and should be used for the most dangerous criminals. Stuffing people like these into jails is an obscene farce.
Senator Alex White: I support what Senator Norris has said, which raises a much wider debate about the overuse of jail sentences in respect of non-payment of fines across a range of different breaches. Senator Norris is absolutely right. For someone to be sent to jail for non-payment of a television licence fee offends against all sense of proportion and justice. There is no basis for it. It is the legacy of another era where we were only able to apply two types of sanctions, a fine or imprisonment. There are many more innovative ways now to deal with these sorts of breaches. It is indefensible. I support what Senator Norris has said. I hope either through this Bill or through the mechanism the Minister of State has suggested that his colleague proposes that it can be addressed and for once and for all we do not have an obscene - not too strong a word to describe it - situation where somebody is put into prison for not paying for a television licence.


Senator David Norris: There seemed to be a little movement there, although not much. I will withdraw my amendment, but I still think it is appalling that somebody should be sent to jail for non-payment of a television licence or of a consequent fine. We, luckily, are far removed from the "hot struggles of the poor". I have no sympathy with some middle class person with plenty of money who decides to spend it all on himself or herself. That is where one can attach the earnings. That is why I tabled that amendment. It costs a lot to send somebody to jail, much more than the cost of the licence, so it is an absurdity. The scale of the fines in the Bill specifies a fine not exceeding €1,000 in the case of a first offence. That is enough to frighten the life out of any person who is unable to pay the licence fee in the first place. The fine for a second offence is not to exceed €2,000. We are happy to specify the fines and the consequence.
I am glad the Minister said he felt that 99.999% of the people of this country would agree with this amendment. Is the Minister among the 0.001%? Is he with the rest of us in his heart? I ask him, like the former leader of his party and Taoiseach, Mr. Éamon de Valera, to look into his heart and find therein the capacity to ensure nobody goes to jail. One would need the irony of Jonathan Swift to deal with this. It has happened a couple of times over the last couple of years. Yanking a six year old child from the arms of his or her mother punishes the child as well, and that is not fair. I cited the experience of meeting the senior magistrate, which was unsolicited. I did not know this woman was a magistrate. She is also a doctor. She said this is the worst possible principle. Many people would subscribe to that view. I will not press my amendment tonight but I will leave it on the Order Paper and ask the Minister to look into it again and consult with his colleague and see if he is really going to do something about it. I would be surprised, but maybe he is and maybe we can urge him to. If it did nothing else, maybe this amendment, which I am not pressing, will inspire the Minister's colleague to remove this nonsense, which is a blot on the Irish Statute Book.
Deputy Seán Power: To quote that lovely line from the Bible, "O ye of little faith." I take on board what Senator Norris said. I appreciate and understand the feelings of the Members on this issue. I repeat that the Fines Bill will be the right Bill to deal with the case, as Senator Norris has just outlined. We have been in touch and made our views known and I am happy the matter will be addressed and Senator Norris will be able to sleep easy at night.
Senator David Norris: Will the Minister be able to give assurance on Report Stage, having spoken again to his colleague?
Deputy Seán Power: I advise the people in the Visitors Gallery that this sort of theatre is not available every Wednesday night, only on occasional Wednesday nights.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 140, as amended, agreed to.
Section 141 agreed to.