Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1990

Vol. 400 No. 2

Private Members' Business - Broadcasting Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following definition:

"`advertising' shall mean advertising, other than promotional material broadcast by the Authority within its own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting its own commercial activities—".

—(Deputy De Rossa.)

Mr. M. Higgins

Just before the break for Private Member's Business I had been indicating the reasons the Labour Party should be supporting this amendment in the names of Deputies De Rossa and McCartan. In his very brief reply so far to this Committee Stage debate, the Minister simply said that the meaning of advertising is "well known". By more or less saying it is something for which it would be very difficult to legislate, something to which it would be very difficult to give precision, he was not being entirely consistent with his speech on Second Stage. I had been making a number of points and, in order to be of assistance to you and to the House, I will not be repetitive. Neither shall I encroach on the debate which I anticipate may take place at some time in the future on section 4.

On the Minister's remarks that the meaning of advertising is well known, I want to make a few points. If the meaning of advertising is "well known", advertising is of the nature of the marketplace.Many of us have philosophical, political and ideological reservations on the utility of advertising, whether it makes a contribution to consumers' welfare or whatever, but be that as it may, confining ourselves to the wording here, advertising is of its nature something that is addressed to the marketplace. What is curious in the Minister's Second Stage speech, which has direct relevance to amendment No. 1, is that an elected representative of the people, who is nominated by the Taoiseach and receives his seal of office as Minister, is taking upon himself to say how advertising should be disposed. When one reflects on that extraordinary proposition, one can see immediately how the market idealogues want to talk about the marketplace one week but when the marketplace is not generating revenue from the private and commercial interests they favour, or they feel well disposed towards, they then decide that the market can be distorted.

There is a curious rambling reference in the Second Stage speech to how deregulation must be managed by regulation, a piece of mumbo-jumbo that the old Adam Smith school of economics used throw out every now and again. The Minister for Communications is going to establish the disposal of advertising. The second proposition which flows logically from that is that the Minister is going to curtail the advertising capacity of a company who have a mixed source of income — a licence fee and advertising revenue. The Members of this House are entitled to know why a company such as RTE should be chosen for this treatment.

The Minister is not coming into the House to say, for example: "I and my party, who were for a long time committed to public service broadcasting, have decided that RTE's work is so important it should not have to rely on advertising at all. I am going to give them direct aid as well as the licence fee and I will free them from advertising". The Minister is saying he is in favour of a recipe for death for RTE. He is saying: "I am going to cap your advertising and the mechanism by which I will do so will be the licence fee". Of course, increasing the licence fee is hardly what one might call a move that one would initiate in the week before declaring an election. The Minister who is claiming statutory responsibility for disposing of and capping advertising is the same Minister who assented to the increase in the licence fee. That is a truly extraordinary set of powers.

The amendment raises another interesting issue. Stokes Kennedy Crowley, a very interesting group who are now part of a much larger group who prepared a report on the BBC, prepared a report on the future of RTE. I have been involved in this issue for a long time. When Ireland was allocated in 1977 an orbital position for its communications satellite at 31º west, Stokes Kennedy Crowley — part of the Peat Marwick group that had examined the BBC — were the people who suggested that RTE should not be allowed to proceed with bidding for the telecommunications possibilities of the satellite.

It went to a company with no broadcasting experience that within a very short period had sold on about 80 per cent of their holding to the Hughes Corporation.It so happens that the Hughes Corporation owns 30 per cent of the company which, for example, in Japan is in charge of the Japanese telecommunications capacity. It is interesting also to note that the frequencies applied for by Ireland were not those used for television but were those used for telecommunications.

Why statutorily limit advertising within the entity that is RTE when it is very clear that the competitive environment which we are all in now may be leading to the end of public broadcasting as we know it? Linked through all these different forms of communications, we are seeing the colonisation of the citizen by the new communications media. The interesting lesson was that the people had the right in 1977 to be allocated by the World Administrative Radio Conference — WARC — the new frequency. The people got it as Ireland but it was sold on as a private entity. We are in a very unusual situation in relation to RTE. RTE having got their lecture from Stokes Kennedy Crowley and having shed a number of their staff, encouraged a number of their staff, through redundancy schemes, to set up stand alone companies to sell products and turn to RTE and so forth are not now to be regarded as being commercialised. The amendment states that:

`advertising' shall mean advertising, other than promotional material broadcast by the Authority within its own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting its own commercial activities;.

One of the reasons the advertisers and the advertising agencies have come out so strongly on this point — it is only a minor point — is that RTE was one of those advertisers who paid their bills. The people actually got their money for work done. There are many others who do not pay their bills and who do not have the same record. In this instance the Minister is going much further. This is an entirely different concept of advertising that has never been known before. He is not only saying to the company: "There will be a limit on your advertising", but is also saying to them: "The way you do it will be limited too. We will deal with that in extenso later. They will be required to move on from 10 per cent to 75 per cent of daily programming and from seven minutes 30 seconds to four minutes 30 seconds.” That is another interference by the free marketeers. All my life I have listened to this about the marketplace taking its course and so on.

Mr. Cowen

Pirate radios.

Mr. M. Higgins

I never appeared in a pirate radio station. I am one of the few in this House who never appeared in a pirate radio station.

Mr. Cowen

The free market pirate stations are illegal.

Mr. M. Higgins

What we are seeing is not, of course, any antipathy to State monopoly, what we are talking about is managed monopoly, assisted monopoly. RTE are in the position that if, for example they make a programme on learning the Irish language — they have done so in the past — and they decide to advertise the book for people learning basic Irish, according to ministerial diktat that will have to come out of their advertising allocation. If they manage to get a distinguished guest lead performer for their symphony orchestra and announce that fact that comes out of their advertising allocation.

This is not to say that I expect the alternatives to RTE to publish books on learning Irish or to establish symphony orchestras, quarters, trios or even a single performer.

RTE, however, because they have this long and proud tradition of mixed source of public service broadcasting, with half of their revenues coming from advertising, must be curiously disabled. What the amendment is asking is that when RTE, with their own peculiar mix of the licence fee and advertising, are making their own products they should be permitted to promote them. Let us take another example. I have been involved in the making of a documentary film. If RTE want to advertise one of their own documentaries that will come out of their advertising quotient also. One might say that will apply to the other station in the level playing field. What evidence is there that the station described with such glowing confidence — it is my hope that it will soon be on the air — will ever make a documentary?

The next issue which arises, an important one, is that the company that will bear these crippling intrusions in this curious new concept of advertising, must do other things. Suppose they were over their quota and were reaching the ceiling, what are the advertising executives in RTE to do? Are they to say: "We must keep some of our allocation for the latter half of the year, some of it for the first half of the year or are we to have a lottery to decide who can advertise?" If they have other customers for the stations that people have never seen, that may or may not ever have viewers, for the stations the people could have listened to and did not listen to, are they expected to ring them up and say: "We are over quota; now, they did not chose you but because we are over the quota and we have a ministerial ceiling on what we must do we will try pushing them at you"? Meanwhile, there is the rather naive assumption I mentioned earlier, that visual advertising moves to either aural or print advertising, which anybody in the field for a wet day knows does not happen.

I pointed out before the break that UTV's top seven customers for advertising are equally represented in RTE's top ten. In practice, this means, that in anticipation of something that may or may not work and because of one's attitude towards RTE that revenue is being sent away. Everyone knows what advertising means. Who allocates the money for advertising? Advertisers do and they do so in response to the marketplace. It is very unusual to have this kind of awful interference.

A number of other issues arise directly from this. I repeat that the amendment states that "advertising" shall mean advertising, other than promotional material broadcast by the authority within their own broadcasting service for the purpose of promoting their own commercial activities. RTE have entered into contracts with a number of people who used to work for the station. The Industrial Development Authority have practically assisted these people. I can state as a fact that the Industrial Development Authority were never consulted about the implications of the broadcasting legislation before us for their clients. I can also state that those who work within the commercial services section, set up following the publication of the findings of the review of RTE, were not consulted about its implications for their section. There are about 90 independent film makers, each employing between five and ten people, in the country. If we cap advertising these people will be the first casualties.

I must confess that the people for whom I have the greatest sympathy, whom I have known longer than the time I have been in politics, are those who work within the drama and cultural section of the station, people we all listened to as children. Having been allowed continue on in the station, the ethos of which has changed, which now has to have a commercial ethos, they are to be told that they were too successful and that if RTE were to advertise anything they do, for instance, cassettes productions by the RTE players or a video production of a Brian Friel play, this would have to be counted as advertising revenue. I could cite other examples: Heinz make sauces as well as beans. There would be outrage in the commercial sector in America if someone said they could not talk about sauce and beans at the same time.

The Minister has indicated that anything RTE do inside the company is to be counted as advertising revenue. This begs the question as to why this company do not qualify for the commercial freedoms allowed to every other company in the commercial world. The conclusion that one would have to come to is that their crime was, as Dostoevski might say, that they had a broadcasting ethos to which they accorded first priority. Stokes Kennedy Crowley stated they should also have a money-making ethos while those with a money-making ethos and no broadcasting ethos should be favoured. Therefore the company with both a commercial and a broadcasting ethos had to be crippled so that the new Topsy which has not yet arrived can grow up in chaos with no commitment to culture, language, music, the orchestra, film making and so on. This is the company the young people from Rathmines go to when they want to learn about film making and the making of videos. I met some of these last year, one of whom won an award for a short 15 minute film. These are the people who hope they will have a film career with TV3 which the Minister hopes will be up and running at some stage in the future.

Other areas will also be affected by this proscription on the internal advertising of productions. There is a unique and hypocritical attitude towards the film industry in this country with people from the top down — I am being charitable this evening — beating their way to get into previews and first nights even though they put an end to the film board which paid seed money for films.

RTE are involved in joint productions. How will they be able to advertise these? It might be said that we are levelling the playing field and a new film industry will spring from the alternative to RTE but there are people getting lost, in terms of the way in which advertising will go. There is no doubt that advertising will be lost in the short term. The people who never get a mention are the technicians, those who use mixing equipment and the technology of the technological substratum of the advertising industry.

Mr. Nealon

They make the politicians look good.

Mr. M. Higgins

As the Deputy is aware, they have to work hard with some of them. The point that needs to be made is that their jobs are in danger. Last year in an interview the Director General of RTE indicated that 16,000 cheques had been issued by RTE, exclusive of the cheques issued to the staff of RTE. If it is the case that in the period from 1982 to 1990 all of the advertisers had been won back why give this all away to level the field? How can one argue that the field is level if one day they are told they are old fashioned and the next they must change, satisfy the marketplace and are too successful?

The question of a regulation to establish deregulation has been raised. I heard a similar phrase in 1963 from a very bad economics professor who is no longer with us. What is meant by it is that one is distorting the marketplace and there is no level playing field, that a limit will be put to your success in the name of something that might emerge. There is a deeper script involved and we will come to that later in the Bill. I remember the time when the satellite capacity was sold off to an Irish company which was really a front for the Hughes Corporation so that it could be part of the whole future of telecommunications. Bord Telecom is in the top three. The Hughes Corporation own 80 per cent of the company which got the contract. RTE were precluded from applying for that. That was carried in the Irish Press of 3 March 1986. The Irish Press on 15 December 1986 returned to the subject of how the Government's application for satellite frequencies specified bands in that part of the spectrum reserved for telecommunications and not the DBS frequencies.The lower frequencies can be used for TV via cable from lower part satellite transmissions instead of the more usual 200 watt DBS. The former is more attractive to private investors who believe the more high-powered DBS plants in Britain and France favour cable delivery of programmes to consumers.

Returning to this unique interference in the internal affairs of a company who were commercially successful, there is part of a script that simply states RTE must be knocked off kilter to make room for a much bigger project which involves the privatisation of Bord Telecom. It has been fattened up for privatisation. We must use plain language. I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle loves language. Privatisation is the robbery from the public of something which they built, own and paid for with their taxes. People who were once citizens and believed in social solidarity get greedy and decide they will sell that which they do not own. They rob it from the public and allocate it to private interests. It is sometimes called modernity but I call it moral turpitude.

I had hoped Deputy O'Malley, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, would be here because I wanted to ask him some questions about the people from the IDA who visited Montrose and the people who were told they could be relied on for funding for different projects.What is the message that was given to them? Were film makers, sound mixers, people interested in breaking into the popular Irish music scene and so on, told there would be something marvellous available soon and that they should live horse and sometime the grass would come? It is called TV3. There would be a great future for them then. In anthropology they used to call that the cargo cult, something would come floating in on the tide one day and everyone would be happy and eat again. I have a few more things to say about broadcasting policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All about section 1, not broadcasting policy.

Mr. M. Higgins

I am coming to the end of my remarks, the Chair will be delighted to hear.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is always delighted to listen to the Deputy when he is relevant.

Mr. M. Higgins

It lifts my heart to know that I give the Chair pleasure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is fánach an áit in a bhfaighfeá gliomach.

Mr. M. Higgins

In relation to the inherent commitment of RTE to matters associated with the Irish language and culture, people who attacked RTE and said it would have to be commercial——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot continue on those lines. We are dealing with a specific amendment.

Mr. M. Higgins

People involved in charities and so on are caught also. I am in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleagues. They are saying that commercial activities generated from within the company should be allowed to be promoted by the company's own capacity. They are not purchasing anyone else's advertising space. What is being said is that no matter how innovative or creative the company are in creating new products and new technology, and despite the report of Stokes, Kennedy, Crowley, uniquely in Ireland they will not be allowed to advertise their own new products.

There are some who say that they find the concentration on the question of the definition of advertising tedious. It should have been made clear at the beginning because it is part of the decline of a language in this House that a Minister, moving a Bill of such immense importance, should simply say that the meaning of it is well known. Unless some definition is inserted which will protect the ethos of the company involved the damage to the country, to employment and to the prospects of those who work in the creative area and those who built up and made possible a telecommunications industry, will be immense. It is very interesting to think of the people against whom this is directed, the people who attended the meetings of the European Broadcasting Union and entered into arrangements on our behalf internationally, the people who proudly put up awards they won in different parts of the country and the world. They are the people who are the innocent victims. There are people who no longer work in the company affected because they took early retirement. There are people who are the victims of the thinning down of different departments — it was said that the fat had to be got rid of. There are people who took risks and set up on their own and sold some of their products back to the company.They are the people who now have to stand and wait for something that might never happen. The company with which they had a relationship, with its curious mixture of public service broadcasting, relying for half its revenue on advertising, is to be interfered with.

I do not know what the reaction would have been in 1974 when I was a Member of Seanad Éireann and the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill was going through, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien being the Minister responsible. I can imagine the reaction if he had said he was going first to attempt editorial control and tell them what music they could have on their second channel and if he did not get away with that he would hit them such a blast in relation to their advertising revenue that they would not be seen for dust. People would have been screaming from the other side of the House for years about the incredible interference, yet this is what is happening now. The Minister is capping, allocating proportions and making the whole thing unworkable.

That is why amendment No. 1 will have the support of the Labour Party. It is to allow the internal capacity for innovation and creativity of RTE and the marketing of the products that come from that to be the business of RTE alone rather than to be hammered.

Mr. Burke

I will not attempt to answer all the points raised but I will clarify a few points to be of help to the House. I share the concern expressed by Deputies about any implication this legislation might have for the role of charities. Concern has been expressed that charitable organisations will lose access to the broadcast media as a consequence of the measures I am proposing. I fail to see how or why this should happen. I believe these organisations can actually gain from the new measures. There is no reason RTE cannot and should not continue to carry the appeals of these organisations on a free-of-charge basis — indeed, as a public service. As such these appeals would not constitute advertising and therefore would not fall to be included under the new limits. I have listened to Deputies and I am quite prepared to be flexible in this matter. If there is any question or the least uncertainty about it I am more than amenable to including a provision to deal with it and to clarify it in relation to charities. At this stage I believe that such an amendment would be superfluous. It is incumbent on RTE as part of their public service mandate to carry these advertisements on a free-of-charge basis.

I have listened to other points about self-promotion by RTE. It is suggested that RTE, 2FM and others would have to stop the Beat On The Street and other self-promotions. The issue arises only in relation to broadcast self-promotion. It is not being prohibited but it must henceforth count as advertising for the purpose of broadcast time limits. This has no bearing at all on non-broadcast self-promotion in which RTE engage, for example Roadcaster, Beat On The Street and so on.

A point was made that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission was in some way a Fianna Fáil cumann. The commission in its present form was appointed in March, 1986 by the then Minister for Communications, Deputy Jim Mitchell. One member, John A. Murphy, resigned when he was elected to the Seanad. That one member was replaced but there are seven members in all, six of whom have been there since 1986 when they were appointed by the then Minister.

Deputy Higgins and a number of other Deputies have given the impression that RTE will be stripped of their funds, that we will have an alternative television station established but that really we will be in some sort of cultural desert. I would remind Deputies that section 18 of the Radio and Television Act, 1988, provides as follows in relation to the independent television channel:

(3) The Commission shall ensure that the television programme service provided under this Act shall in its programming—

(a) be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland, ensure that the programmes reflect the varied elements which make up the culture of the people of the whole island of Ireland, and have special regard for the elements which distinguish that culture and in particular for the Irish language;

(b) uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression;

(c) have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of countries other than the State, including in particular those of such countries which are members of the European Community; and

(d) includes a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs programmes;

and the television programme service contractor shall comply with any requirements of the Commission in respect of such matters.

(4) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with subsection (3) the Commission shall ensure that a reasonable proportion of the programme service—

(a) is produced in the State or in another Member State of the European Communities, and

(b) is devoted to original programme material produced therein by persons other than the contractor, his subsidiary, his parent or existing broadcasting organisations.

These are the exact terms of reference under which RTE operate, except that there are two additions. One is the provision that a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs shall be included. This is not in the RTE mandate. The other point is that it is specially aimed at encouraging the independent production sector about which we have heard so much today. It is specifically written into the legislation, which is not the case in regard to RTE. I would say that in recent times RTE have been doing an excellent job in encouraging the independent sector.

As far as the independent television service to be established under the Radio and Television Act, 1988 and set up by this House in concerned, we will have all the mandate of RTE plus a reasonable proportion of news and current affairs plus written in the provision that there has to be independent production for a proportion of their programmes. That is not the cultural desert that has been depicted for us by the Deputies opposite.

Mr. McCartan

Could the Minister refer to his source? It is usual that when a Minister or any Member quotes, he tells us his reference.

Mr. Burke

I quoted from the Act.

Mr. McCartan

Which section?

Mr. Burke

Section 18 (3) and (4). Regarding the point made by Deputy McCartan in relation to the role of the print media and having advertisements cover to cover, I have far more faith in the print media than apparently Deputy McCartan has in relation to their commitment to and history of fair and reasonable journalism. That is not to say I always agree with what is printed; many times I do not, but in the role of the print media there is an honourable tradition of journalism. I, and I am sure the national newspapers, would refute Deputy McCartan's suggestion and innuendo that in some way this extra advertising that will become available as a result of the capping of RTE will somehow bring about advertisements from cover to cover in the print media.

Mr. McCartan

The Minister is misrepresenting this. I was talking about introducing to the print media what he says should apply to the broadcast media, the level playing pitch concept.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McCartan, you are not entitled to interrupt in that fashion. You should know that.

Mr. McCartan

For the record——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not want to interrupt the Minister because he was replying to certain points made. Again I appeal to the House that we organise our debate in the characteristic and traditional fashion that is required on Committee Stage debate.

Mr. McCartan

I take the point. I was afraid the Minister——

Mr. Burke

I am finished anyway. There were other points I was going to make but I will have plenty of time next week to make them.

Mr. McCartan

I thought the Minister misunderstood my point and I was seeking to clarify it.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Will the Minister clarify one point arising out of his response? I will be making my own contribution and I am glad to hear the Minister say there will be plenty of time next week. Regarding various charities who advertise on RTE, is he suggesting this is done free of charge? My information is that it is on a reduced charity rate at the moment, and that is from the Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped.The Minister gives the impression that it is free of charge.

Mr. Burke

That is not so. I am saying that in my view there is no reason RTE cannot and should not carry appeals of organisations on a free of charge basis, indeed as a public service. However, I am aware that RTE have been charging for what has been described as slot advertising in the debate we had here today. Regarding those slots, I am quite amenable as this debate proceeds — I am not convinced at this stage of the need for it — to accept the point and will bring forward my own amendment to ensure that the position of charities is protected irrespective of any other factor.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

The Minister said——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Sullivan, I intended to call Deputy Ted Nealon and I responded to your own request that you ask a question.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Let me make just one point. The Minister also said he would consider an amendment of this nature superfluous. Then he went on to say that later he will be amenable to introducing some amendment. I think that is contradictory. Will he clarify the position?

Mr. Burke

I do not believe it necessary to amend it. The situation can be adequately covered by RTE by covering the charitable announcements in the form of public service announcements rather than the way they are handled at the moment in many cases where they charge for them. We hear a great deal about the public service ethos of RTE, and that type of work could and should be done. Reference was made to the Daffodil Day and the Conquer Cancer campaigns.That does not come under advertising. It is a promotion.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

The Minister is missing the point.

Mr. Burke

Let me finish. I want to assure the Deputy that at the end of the day as this debate proceeds, if it is required, I will introduce an amendment to clarify and protect the position of the charities, which is what I think the Deputy wants me to say.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I want to thank the Minister——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Mitchell

——as the Deputy who raised this question. This is the first chink in the Minister's armour and I am grateful to him for it.

Mr. Burke

On a point of order——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Mitchell

If the Minister wants to talk turkey about advertising——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Mitchell, the Minister has risen on a point of order.

Mr. Burke

If a reasonable point is made in relation to charities and it is then interpreted as a chink in armour that says something about the sincerity with which the point was made in the first place.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is very obvious that this is among the things the Minister did not even consider when he came in with his rushed second set of proposals. When he spoke about charities after I raised the matter he talked about them being free of charge. He knows very well that if RTE were to do advertising free of charge for charities they would have nothing but charity advertisements. Of course they have to charge. Will he now accept that charged advertising for charities will be exempt from the provisions of this Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Nealon on amendment No.1.

Mr. Nealon

I am very glad indeed to get in at this early stage on this amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Tomorrow is the longest day of the year.

Mr. Burke

No, the longest day will be next week.

Mr. Nealon

I propose to be relatively brief but, judging by the previous speeches, I could go on all day tomorrow even though it is the longest day of the year and still be relatively brief. This amendment seeks a redefinition of advertising. Unless this is done or unless the Minister introduces a somewhat similar amendment to redefine advertising, this section, the definition section, usually a formality hardly ever discussed, would cost 100 jobs at least in RTE. On this occasion they can be quantified. As the Minister knows, the use of promotional activities within RTE is their life BLOOD, the essential of all their commercial enterprises. These are the enterprises we and everyone sought to get going and unless they do their promotions on the air for these activities in ex quota, outside quota advertising time then, to use a media term, we would be reaching the wind-up stage or, more accurately, the cut-off stage for all these enterprises with a loss as I have quantified of at least 100 jobs.

The availability of this promotion time within RTE which, if we judge it correctly, seems to be under attack by the Minister, is the reason they have profit-making commercial enterprises which benefit the station and viewers. Whatever our basic philosophy on private enterprise, capitalism or State enterprise may be, I think all of us here would favour this commercial enterprise of RTE which is probably a unique combination of private and State enterprise. However, this enterprise is now under attack and unless we have a redefinition of the word "advertising" by the Minister we will see the end of RTE's commercial enterprises.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am required by order to interrupt the Deputy. I am also required, in the language required by the order, to ask you to report progress.

Mr. Shatter

That is something of an exaggeration.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Did you say progress?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.