Deputy De Rossa has 16 minutes left.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
When I adjourned the debate the other night I was referring to the funding of RTE. I pointed out that in regard to the funding of broadcasting the United Kingdom is the exception in the way it funds its broadcasting services and that nearly all small and medium sized countries finance their national broadcasting by a combination of licence fees and advertising as we do here.
The increased profitability of RTE has not been achieved on the backs of licence payers, RTE has not had to resort to the taxpayers to fund its development. The workforce in RTE have not been paid any productivity increases and wages have been tied to national agreements. Profits have been reinvested to provide a substantial increases in home produced programmes. State of the art production equipment was acquired and the regional network of studios expanded.
That is not to say that there are not shortcomings in the service or that RTE should be exempted from criticism. Industrial relations have often been difficult and the prolonged dispute early last year lost it viewers and listeners. Home produced television drama of any description is missing from RTE services with the exception of soaps such as "Fair City" and "Glenroe". The scrapping of "Today Tonight" was a mistake, and the patchwork quilt range of programmes designed to replace it have not made the same impact.
There are times when RTE's responsibilities as a public service broadcaster seem to take second place to its need to compete with the purely commercial sector. This dual role creates difficulties for RTE. There are demands that it meets the highest standards of public service broadcasting, as is right, yet we also want it to be popular, commercially successful and to make profits. We have rarely debated what we want RTE to be and successive governments, particularly Fianna Fáil Administrations, have been ultra-sensitive about a genuinely independent news and current affairs service.
I suspect that many Fianna Fáil Ministers have never moved beyond the view expressed by the late Seán Lemass in 1966 when he described RTE as "an instrument of public policy and as such responsible to the Government." The 1990 Act was the latest in a series of attempts to brow-beat or intimidate RTE into an acceptable level of subservience. The current Minister is well disposed to RTE and was one of the most vigorous opponents of the ill-conceived 1990 legislation. Nevertheless, I am concerned about some aspects of the Bill he has introduced. The removal of the cap on advertising is welcome and I support, in principle, the fostering of the independent programme-making sector.
A handful of people involved in the production of work for commercial film making have given this country a formidable reputation in regard to contemporary cinema, although it must be said that while the artistic inspiration has been largely Irish, the money to back up productions has come mainly from abroad. Producing for the commercial cinema normally requires multi-million pound budgets, but television productions can be mounted for more modest sums. We have a corps of talented young independent film and programme makers who at present have very restricted outlets for their work. Greater use by RTE of the independent sector will foster that talent and provide revenue which will hopefully contribute towards the development of a wider Irish film industry. I take issue with the Minister's use of the phraseology "exploitation of talent" in the area of film-making.
That is the wrong word.
I appreciate what he is saying but I have grave reservations about the idea that either talent or people should be exploited in the commonly understood meaning of that term. I accept that it was probably a slip of the pen but nevertheless it is important to bear in mind that the language we use in relation to broadcasting and arts and culture generally has tended to become suffused with this idea of exploitation, the idea that the only reason for having it is to create a few low paid jobs. I know the Minister will agree that the role of broadcasting in regard to arts and culture has a much wider implication for the quality of citizens' lives generally. That is one of the reasons the arts squads that have developed around Dublin, in particular, are important because they help people to develop their talents in areas which are normally not considered to play any role in regard to arts and culture.
Clearly there are problems involved for RTE. Twenty per cent of its television programme expenditure, most of which goes on in house productions at present, will now be spent in the private sector. What are the implications of this for jobs in RTE? Will the Minister indicate if that matter has been examined? Will RTE have to make staff redundant? Has the Minister discussed the contents of this Bill with either RTE management or the trade unions? What will be the purpose of the exercise if it simply means that programme makers directly employed by RTE lose their jobs and have to seek employment in the private sector? The staff currently employed in RTE are concerned about those issues. I hope we are not on our way to seeing RTE becoming merely a transmitting and commissioning agency for programmes produced by others — the role Channel 4 fills in the United Kingdom.
The provisions of the Bill place rigid and inflexible obligations on RTE in regard to the amount of money it has to allocate for programmes in the independent sector, although the Minister has indicated that they are not inflexible or absolute because of the use of the words "where practicable" in the legislation. I would like that to be teased out on Committee Stage. RTE is doing well at present and will probably be able to bear the cost. What will happen if RTE hits a difficult patch and there is a collapse in advertising revenue in the next few years? Would it be in a position to come up with, for example, £10 million in 1998? Surely there should be some qualification of this obligation and some provision made in case RTE hits unforeseen difficulties.
In the very week in which the Government published its response to the Cullition report and indicated its acceptance of the recommendation that State enterprises should be able to pursue agreed strategies and business plans without excessive bureaucratic controls or interference, the Minister is taking powers in this Bill which will greatly circumscribe RTE's commercial flexibility and give him considerable powers over the operation of the station. I recognise that, as the Minister stated in his opening speech, he is putting back in place what existed previously, but that is not an argument for doing it. I ask him to indicate his thinking in this regard.
I hope this Bill will not turn out to be a Trojan horse which will create problems for RTE without producing the desired stimulus for the independent production sector. I am on the record of this House as congratulating the Tánaiste for appointing Deputy Higgins as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, which covers broadcasting. I have no doubt he will approach those briefs with the best of intentions and with most enlightened views. However, Ministers come and Ministers go, but legislation tends to stay forever and, although certain constraints would apply, it can be used in whatever way a Minister of the day chooses. We are not passing legislation to fit the Minister. We should be passing legislation to ensure that the area with which we are dealing is properly regulated and that the regulation is as invisible as possible.
While it is not a matter covered by this Bill, it would be dishonest to debate the position of RTE without making some reference to section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, which comes under the responsibility of the current Minister. It is important that we refer to that, especially in the light of the recent Supreme Court judgment regarding the interpretation by RTE of the ministerial directive. I have tabled questions in this regard on a number of occasions and have been told that the Minister does not have responsibility. He has responsibility for making the order but apparently he has no responsibility in regard to how RTE implements that order or the guidelines which it establishes. I have pressed on a number of occasions for a full Dáil debate on section 31, but the ministerial order has been renewed year in and year out without any reference to the Dáil. The issues raised by section 31 are far from straightforward, but it is simply unacceptable that an order which has such sweeping implications for broadcasting should be renewed each year by the stroke of a ministerial pen. There is no provision for debating such regulations unless in Private Members' time. Even then it would be doubtful whether decisions made in Private Members' time could be enforced.
It is now more than 16 years since section 31 of the Broadcasting Act was amended and the order introduced in its present form. It has been renewed in January of each year since then by ministerial order and the Dáil has never been given the opportunity to discuss the matter on any of those 16 occasions when it has been passed by this House. Section 31 deals with an enormously complex area where there are few simple answers. It is not easy to balance the general right of free speech and freedom of information against the need to ensure that the airwaves are not used to promote or incite further sectarian violence or hatred. Section 31, however, provides extraordinary powers for the Minister which have by default become a permanent fixture of broadcasting policy. It would be useful if when replying to this debate the Minister indicated that he was prepared to provide for a debate on section 31. Perhaps this could take place at committee level, now that a number of legislative committees are up and running. It may be possible to debate this matter at committee level prior to the matter coming up for renewal next January. The matter could then be dealt with by the Minister in the light of the debate that takes place.
I have indicated outside this House — I have not had the opportunity inside the House — that the situation today is not the same as that which obtained in 1976. The current amended form of section 31 was introduced shortly after the murder of the British Ambassador in Dublin by a massive bomb detonated by the Provisional IRA. There was a fairly ambiguous attitude among the public generally towards the activities of the Provisional IRA at the time. I can well understand the fears of the Minister of the day in relation to giving their representatives a free run of the airwaves.
However, two matters have come about over the years because of this. First, RTE has tended to engage in self-censorship as a result of the operation of section 31. Second, because the RTE authorities or individual producers felt that certain views should be expressed, rather than getting a spokesperson from Provisional Sinn Féin to express those views they tended to get people who had similar views but who were not publicly or openly associated with Sinn Féin to express those views on the airwaves.
I have allowed the Deputy wide liberty in his references to section 31, but on his own admission it is the responsibility of another Minister. A passing reference, perhaps, might be adequate.
I appreciate the latitude that you, Sir, have given me on the matter. I raise it simply because it is not often that we have an opportunity to discuss this topic.
In general it would be better to have spokespersons who are clearly identifiable as members of Sinn Féin substantiating their position on radio or television rather than allowing people who are at least nominally seen as spokespersons for them express those views. Therefore to some extent the public is being misled by those views and the source of them.
This is not a simple issue to resolve. We must have a debate on the matter among the Deputies of this House. I would appreciate if the Minister could provide an opportunity for such a debate either in this House or at committee level.
I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for affording me the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. It is at least an indication of his consistency in this matter. He has been active in the area of broadcasting dating back to 1978 and 1979 when Labour Party policy on broadcasting was formulated.
During the passage of the 1990 Bill the Minister was one of the more vociferous opponents of the cap on RTE which, in effect, indicated to the RTE authorities that they were allowed only so much funding from advertising. This was a strange decision. If we were to direct any of the other State commercial organisations that they could earn only a certain amount of money we would meet with strong resistance from them. There was resistance from RTE, but unfortunately it was not sufficient.
To put this debate into context it is necessary to refer to the debate on the 1990 Bill. I have in my possession a copy of an amendment tabled by Deputy De Rossa and the former Deputy Pat McCartan regarding the definition of "advertising". Deputies spent three days teasing out the precise definition of "advertising" and what constituted advertising. We debated whether RTE would be in breach of the cap guidelines if, for instance, it were to advertise its own programmes. It was an unusual debate, to say the least. At that time people seemed to be set on the demise of RTE despite the service it had provided down through the years. Regardless of the restrictions of the cap RTE has proved beyond doubt that it can be viable and profitable. However, there is a need for RTE to examine its position. This is not a new idea. I will now quote from a document known as RTE's Free Press Access. There is a quotation in this document from the late Deputy Frank Cluskey to the effect that RTE needs to be shaken up.
Can the Deputy indicate the date of that document?
It is an RTE inhouse document in which the late Frank Cluskey was quoted.
May I have the date please, Deputy?
The date of publication is 21 February 1985. It states:
While it is supportive of the concept of public service broadcasting, there is a feeling within the Labour Party that RTE needs to be shaken up and become an outward-looking and independent-minded broadcasting service.
At that time the late Deputy Cluskey stressed the need for independence within RTE. I do not believe that the Minister in this legislation is trying to interfere with that independence. The fears that have been expressed here are unfounded. If one were to carry out research and refer back to the 1990 debate one would see that some of the amendments tabled in my name were intended to ensure the quality, independence and impartiality of programmes produced and transmitted by the Authority. That still prevails today and I have no doubt that is precisely what the present Minister is trying to achieve.
I now intend to quote from two recent newspaper extracts to obtain a clearer picture in regard to this matter. There is a fear on this occasion that the reports of RTE will have to be debated in this House. That is a legitimate view. Reports should be tabled here and made available to this House. If that had been the practice in other sectors of commercial State enterprises some of the scandals of recent times could have been avoided. If it had been possible for Ministers and Deputies to debate those issues I have no doubt that some of the events of recent times would not have occurred.
On 4 January 1993The Irish Times said that RTE is said to expect a shortfall of £5 million this year if the Government does not lift the limit on advertising revenue imposed about two years ago.
Like the Minister I am somewhat surprised at a recent article attributed to an unidentified special correspondent in that newspaper. The big news in broadcasting is that RTE will witness steady privatisation of the production of television programmes. RTE will increasingly become a transmission and commissioning agency for programmes produced by others. A few years ago concern was expressed by people in the private film producing sector who feared they might lose their jobs. It was thought that the many talented people who were ready to produce programmes on behalf of RTE would no longer be available to the Authority. The Minister is endeavouring to address the problem in this Bill, yet we are being criticised, which is unjustified.
As a result of the cap on RTE's advertising it is broadcasting programmes which are not up to the standard of those produced in the past by Cathal O'Shannon, Muiris MacChongaill and Louis Le Brocquy. Those programmes were produced by RTE and raised the standard of broadcasting. They gave us a place in the world market but they have gone. We now broadcast chat shows and panel games, an easy fix as it were. We should give talented people the scope to contribute to RTE. The threat that existed to RTE in 1990 in regard to the third TV channel no longer exists and RTE receives the full licence fees.
Some of the points made by Opposition Deputies, particularly by Deputy De Rossa, were very constructive. Deputy Quill, expressed concerns in regard to this area but she was a member of the Government in 1990 who introduced this legislation. Our party has been in office a very short time and is now taking corrective measures in regard to this legislation. Deputy Quill stated that there is a need for substantial legislation in this area. The 1990 Bill, instead of setting the foundation for good broadcasting policy, has created a monster. Having been in office for a few months the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is charged with responsibility for correcting that legislation.
Fears have also been expressed by the independent radio stations. I was critical of setting up local commercial stations, I still have some reservations in regard to them but they are a group of stations well organised and produce good programmes. The standard of broadcasting of Radio Kerry and Radio Clare exceeds that of national broadcasting. They produce documentaries and news programmes and so on. They do not broadcast pop music all day like other local stations, though I admit there is an audience for it. However, that is not the type of programme it was envisaged local radios would be licensed to broadcast. We must discourage such broadcasts as we want to improve standards. It is similar to telling people that castor oil is good for them even though they may not like the taste. It is our duty to improve the quality of broadcasting. I hope that measures taken by the Minister will provide for such improvement. The independent broadcasters consider that they should be entitled to a section of the licence fee but I have a difficulty in accepting that. Would it be legitimate for garage proprietors to claim they are entitled to a portion of the road tax to allow them to continue in business? The independent broadcasters make their case based on the fact that RTE enjoy a monopoly because, since the foundation of the State people were reluctant to invest their money in broadcasting; perhaps there was justification for that. RTE filled a void and they have done an excellent job. It is important for RTE to be aggressive in its approach to broadcasting. I learned with dismay that RTE's listenership figures have reduced and that it has come under pressure from private broadcasters. If RTE wishes to remain in the market it will have to compete with others.
Arising from the 1990 Act there is another void, that of democratically controlled local community broadcasting which did not develop. I regret that the Independent Radio and Television Commission did not grant licences to many community stations around the country. Some of them were set up as pirate stations but provided a good service for their community. They broadcasted on a narrow wave band and did not cause interference to existing services. I hope the Minister will address this problem and advise the Commission that it should give favourable consideration to some of the applications. It should grant licences on the basis that local radio stations, are accountable and will be democratically and community controlled. The danger is that we could create a monopoly. People in the newspaper industry who feel under threat by broadcasting stations are endeavouring to control some of the stations and that is another fear I have in regard to broadcasting. If we could distinguish between the community, as distinct from the commercial community we would provide an opportunity for people to participate. We should bear in mind that many of the stations which were granted a licence previously were not successful.
I was one of the first people who made representations to the then Minister, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, who had responsibility for Posts and Telegraphs and the setting up of a Cork local radio station. As a result of my efforts Cork local radio was established but it has not been allowed to develop to its full potential. I agree with Deputy Quill's point on this matter and I hope the Minister will make more time available to Cork local radio. It is a highly professional, proficient organisation, but is hampered by restricted broadcasting hours. Fears have been expressed by the newspaper industry in relation to broadcasting but they are not subject to any form of cap. If they wish to run supplements or advertisements they may do so; there is no limit to the amount of advertising which may be placed in newspapers. I fail to see why they are so apprehensive of the electronic media because an IBEC survey has proved beyond doubt that there has not been a decrease in newspaper advertising in recent times resulting from local radio broadcasts or the cap on television advertising.
Before I hand over to my colleague, Deputy Kemmy, I wish to make one brief point. This Bill will be to the advantage of RTE in that its provisions will be made retrospective to September 1992. This will be of huge financial benefit to RTE to the tune of approximately £8 million. This is to be welcomed.
I belatedly congratulate my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, on his appointment. His promotion was long overdue. I believe Members on all sides of the House were delighted at the announcement of his appointment. The Labour Party rejoiced that the Minister's talents had at last been recognised and that he had been given an appropriate ministry in which to exercise those talents. As chairman of the Labour Party, I was delighted at the Minister's well deserved appointment. I wish him a long and happy tenure of office. He has a long involvement in the areas of arts and culture. The Minister is an artistic person — he is a writer, poet and historian — and he has been given an appropriate ministry. It is a sad reflection on our society that more people like the Minister have not become involved in politics. I hope his appointment will herald a new era when artistic people like him will be given a role in future Cabinets. I salute the work the Minister has done.
Unfortunately in the time available to me I can give only a brief history of broadcasting in this country. By and large RTE, which was previously known as Radio Éireann, has given a good account of its stewardship; it has been a good station. RTE had to deal with difficulties from the very beginning. When the station was set up during the thirties it was inevitably compared with the BBC, a larger station which has more resources, a worldwide network of correspondents, contacts throughout the Commonwealth and a larger audience. RTE had to compete with the BBC from the start, which was a good thing. The BBC is the best broadcasting station in the world; it provides great variety in terms of stations and programmes. When it was set up initially, RTE was far too cautious and conservative. It had a Civil Service mentality and was very much part of the Civil Service. Maurice Golden, an RTE historian, has written about this mentality. Mervyn Wall, the secretary of the Arts Council, also referred to the mentality in the Civil Service in his book No Trophies Raised and many other novels.
We all grew up with Radio Éireann. I have fond memories of documentary makers such as Norris Davidson, Proinsias Ó Conluain and Pat Feeley, who is still making programmes with RTE. We need more documentaries. The local radio stations have made very few documentaries — they have wall to wall music programmes and talk shows but not enough documentaries. Tommy O'Brien, a great broadcaster from Clonmel, John Skehan, Andy O'Mahony and many other broadcasters have given their audiences many years of delight as natural broadcasters.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about film-making. RTE has often been bedevilled by individuals who have tried to use the trade union movement for perverse reasons. They have distorted the performance and image of RTE. I will not go into this point in detail. Deputy De Rossa would know much more about this issue than I do.
The Deputy would be correct to go into it in detail.
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do so. The Ceann Comhairle who is watching me may give me an extra minute or two but I do not want to exceed my time. As Deputy Deasy knows, I am one of the most biddable Deputies in the House.
Irish film-making has been bedevilled by what I call "The Quiet Man" syndrome — long, lingering shots of green fields, cliffs, rocks, etc. There is nothing wrong with this — that film was followed by "Ryan's Daughter". There have been good Irish film-makers such as John Ford, a man who had a conservative outlook but who knew about film-making. He started as a labourer on film sets and eventually became a great film-maker in his own right. He was one of the best film-makers in the history of film-making. John Heuston, who became an Irish citizen, was another great film-maker. He lived near the Minister in County Galway. We can learn from those people.
Reference has been made to films made in Ireland in recent times, for example, "The Field" and "My Left Foot", a very important film. Some of our actors and directors lack experience. If our films cannot be sold throughout the world, then the Irish film industry will not be successful. Film-making is about money. The Minister is being brave in setting-up an Irish language television station. This station will cost money to operate. Television and film-making are about making money and one needs to have the necessary skills, experience and training. We can ensure that young students have these requirements by giving them the proper opportunities to learn their crafts. However, they must also be talented. They must be able to take a gamble and recognise good material. There are good and bad film-makers.
The Deputy's time is exhausted.
I am unhappy about the level of exploitation in local broadcasting. If it were not for the goodwill and enthusiasm of people, many local stations would not be able to continue in operation. I ask the Minister to look at the local broadcasting service and ensure that there is no exploitation, that professional broadcasters are paid for their work. I know people who have been exploited by local broadcasting stations. Perhaps there are too many local radio stations. These stations are doing their best to provide a good service, and it is important that broadcasters and documentary makers are not exploited.
It is a great pity Deputy Kemmy was not allocated more time — he has probably one of the most relevant points of view of any Member in this House. His views on a subject such as this are valued by people like me.
I am somewhat confused as to why the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is dealing with this Bill. I thought the Bill would have come under the ambit of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Having said that, I am delighted that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, is taking this Bill as he is probably the most qualified person in this House to do so. I am sure many Members look forward to his allocating time for himself on television to read some of his poetry. He is not just an accomplished politician, he is also an accomplished artist in his own right. It is fitting that he has been appointed to this ministry. I am sure he will make an enormous success of this task — he will be like a duck in water.
I am critical of some sections of the Bill. I sympathise with the national newspapers in their battle against the television networks in that they do not have access to dual funding, as RTE has. They have a genuine complaint about the difficulties they experience in competing with the national television service which is allowed dual funding. When I say "dual funding" I mean the revenue from licence fees and advertising. In Britain the BBC get their revenue from licence fees and the ITV from advertising, but RTE has the benefit of revenue from both sources. Therefore newspaper proprietors here have a genuine complaint. I suspect that the quality of our newspapers is suffering as a result of their revenue being reduced because of unfair terms of competition with RTE. The result is that what should be quality newspapers here are becoming less so, are tending toward being tabloid. Papers which formerly were very responsible and objective are being reduced to being frivolous resorting to the cheap gibe, particularly at politicians but at members of our society in general. They are also resorting to what they regard as the type of publicity that will sell their papers — for example, the girl on page three — or over reliance on frivolous stories which are not really newsworthy for the people who buy the papers in order to get meaningful information.
In the early stages of the Minister's introductory remarks he refers to "Provision for access to broadcasting for the independent sector ...." I really do not understand what is meant by that reference. Is the Minister referring to a third television channel under the aegis of RTE, or to a third television channel which will be independent along the lines of ITV in Britain? It is strange that in all of the Minister's statement there is not one comment on illegal television broadcasting, which is very prevalent here. When replying perhaps the Minister would clarify the position regarding the proliferation of illegal transmitters here. I should like him to tell us — other Ministers have been evading this question in this House for years past — whether the Government is still committed to licensing the MMDS system, or will it turn the blind eye to the illegal transmitters at present in operation and allow that practice to continue? We should like to know one way or the other what is the Government's attitude to broadcasting, legal and illegal. It does not appear to matter that much in Dublin where all the channels are available, but it is a major issue in rural areas where most people can view foreign channels only by recourse to illegal methods, erecting illegal aerials taking signals which are poached. That is an unsatisfactory position. The overall position should be legitimised.
Deputy De Rossa referred at length in the course of his contribution to section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, amended by section 16 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976. The recent decision of the courts to allow members of Sinn Féin to refer to items which are not contentious, either in regard to violence or the undermining of the authority of the State, was a prudent one. If a member of Sinn Féin is a member of a local authority and has a point to make about a local issue, that type of comment should be permitted. It would appear that over the years a number of people in RTE have been stirring up the pot on that point with a view to getting section 31 in its totality removed from the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. Therefore I am glad to observe a modicum of commonsense enter the overall debate, allowing people to make a contribution which does not reflect on the authority of the State.
I am puzzled by another phrase in the Minister's introductory remarks: "Measures to ensure that commercial local radio broadcasting remains viable ..." This demonstrates that the Minister is anxious that local radio stations remain viable. Can the Minister give us some analysis of the performance of local radio stations? I would have thought that some local radio stations were extremely viable and had proven to be an enormous success. Waterford local radio, WLR, is probably one of the best nationwide. I wonder whether the Minister will give blanket assistance to all local radio stations or merely those that are in dire difficulty. Such is not apparent from the Minister's introductory remarks. For example, are there some local radio stations experiencing difficulty in comparison with others that are not? The advent of local radio stations has been one of the outstanding successes in this country in recent years.
Thank you, Deputy.
Indeed, the former Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, is entitled to engage in some crawthumping, having introduced the appropriate Bill. They have been an enormous success and have proven to be of great assistance to local communities.
Of course, there is a corresponding difficulty in that, with the success of local radio stations, provincial newspapers contend they have suffered enormously because of reduced advertising revenue. I do not know what is the answer to that, but undoubtedly it is a problem. I think it was Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan who said they should engage in more advertising to boost their finances. Obviously, they do not want to engage in greater advertising unless they can be assured of a greater readership. If the listenership of local radio stations is very high then the readership of provincial papers may be reduced correspondingly. The amount of their advertising revenue is correspondingly reduced, because an advertiser believes he will get a better return on his money by advertising on local radio.
Deputy Kemmy made a vague reference to the influence of certain trade unions in RTE. I find it alarming at times to observe the slant put on certain news items in RTE. I strongly suspect that elements which are not representative of the population at large have an undue influence within RTE. I should like some senior politician, preferably a Government Minister in charge of RTE, to take steps to ensure that everything is above board, and that minority groups do not have undue influence. We should ensure total proportionality and impartiality in broadcasting since it is our most important opinion-forming medium. I should hate to see it in the wrong hands. I suspect that to a degree it is at present in the wrong hands.
I will give the House a simple example. Some six or seven weeks ago, in a debate in this House on Northern Ireland, Deputy Michael Bell was speaking about certain activities on the Border and made a reference to Deputy De Rossa. Deputy De Rossa was in the Chamber and refuted the statements made by Deputy Bell. Lo and behold the following morning I heard, in "Today in the Dáil" segment, broadcast at approximately 8.50 a.m., Deputy Bell's comment and Deputy De Rossa in the background denying what Deputy Bell had said. At approximately 9.10 a.m., after "What it says in the papers" a statement was made that because of technical difficulties, it was regretted that Deputy De Rossa's comments were not audible. This was untrue. I am sure that if someone on this side of the House or indeed on the Fianna Fáil side of the House had been involved, such a statement would not have been made. Deputy De Rossa's comments were not supposed to be audible because he was not speaking at the time; Deputy Bell was and his microphone was switched on.
Because Deputy Bell had made some serious allegations about Deputy De Rossa certain people within RTE used their position to falsify the situation. This shows that undue influence was exerted by some people involved in programme management and making. This is undesirable. Such a correction would not have been broadcast if I or any of my colleague had been involved and we would have been told "that is tough". This amounted to a blatant attempt to distort the true position which was quite normal. I ask the Minister to ensure that this imbalance is corrected as it amounts to media manipulation at its worst. If this can be done on a simple item our worst fears about the activities of a minority within RTE, who have considerable power and control are justified. All we want is fair play and for many years I and many others have suspected that there is no such thing when it comes to certain elements in RTE.
I now refer to the question of programme content on RTE. Valid points have been made about RTE moving away from making excellent programmes to programmes which are easy and cheap to produce but which do not make for good television. It is not sufficient to say that there is much imported trash on RTE because the fact is that some of the best programmes of RTE are imported. Some of the worst programmes are also imported. We have to be discerning. "Coronation Street", "Home and Away", a variety of serials and films are among some of the best programmes, according to the TAM ratings. "Glenroe" is probably the best of the home produced programmes; it is outstanding and compares favourably with any of the imported material. Most imported programmes are good but some are terribly bad.
Given that there is a possibility of increased funding we should have more home produced programmes of substance which would have a wide appeal. These would be programmes about our wild life, heritage, history and folklore. The number of such programmes on RTE has decreased dramatically. I suspect this is because of the cost involved but that should not be a factor.
I also advocate that the Minister should encourage RTE to televise the proceedings of the Dáil live. While I do not want to engage in the copy-cat syndrome, I believe Question Time should be broadcast live. One of the best programmes on RTE is "Today in the Dáil" which is excellently produced but it is too short and shown at off peak viewing time, with the result it is not watched by the number of viewers which it could attract if it were shown at a different time. I ask the Minister to discuss with RTE the possibility of broadcasting the Order of Business and Question Time live. If the proceedings of the House were broadcast live the public would have an opportunity to see Members of this House in a better light. Because people are so cynical about politicians and hold such a low opinion of them they should see us in action and not just pictures which make it seem that there are only one or two Deputies in the Chamber. At present there are four Deputies, including the Ceann Comhairle, in the Chamber but this is not indicative of the true position. When there is something meaty, vital and interesting in the Dáil it makes for good television viewing and I ask the Minister to bear this in mind when he discusses his brief with RTE.
Much has been written and said about the 1990 Broadcasting Act. A great deal of it has been mischievous and nearly all of it is misinformed. I do not propose to offer an apology so much as to remind the Members of this House of a set of policy objectives which I still believe are valid and to recall the pitfalls for any legislator who dips his toes in the dangerous political water of broadcasting and publishing.
In order to put in perspective the policy objectives of the 1990 Broadcasting Act, in so far as it related to RTE and the commercial broadcasting sector, one has to turn to the broadcasting environment that the then Fianna Fáil Government inherited on coming into office in the spring of 1987. In that environment between 60 and 70 pirate stations were operating, openly flouting the laws of the land, allowing substandard working conditions, paying slave labour rates, ignoring copyright payments, VAT, PRSI and PAYE obligations, causing serious interference in the radio communications environment and giving listeners little by way of choice and even less by way of quality broadcasting.
The pirate phenomenon did, however, tell us that the people craved for broadcasting choice. They wanted more than monopolistic State-run broadcasting services. In pushing two Bills through the Oireachtas in a little over 12 months after coming into office we tackled the problems head on. We put in place the necessary legal framework to subject the illegal broadcasting environment to the full rigours of the law while at the same time establishing a regulatory machine to give the public the broadcasting choice they desired.
The concepts of a new, independent national radio service, an independent television channel and an independent local radio network became cornerstones of the new broadcasting structure created through the Radio and Television Act, 1988. Sadly, the independent national radio service failed and all the efforts to create an independent television channel ultimately came to nothing, but the independent network of local stations which exists throughout the country is a testament to the wisdom reflected in the 1988 Act and, as Minister responsible, I am very proud to have been involved in creating a sector which today is recognised for the excellence of its quality and the opportunity it provides to new broadcasters. As this debate progresses. I am gratified to hear Members on all sides, some of whom were very critical at the time local radio services were established, praise the independent stations in their local areas for their performance and the quality of their programmes.
Other elements were central to the Government's broadcasting policy. We wanted to ensure that Irish broadcasting becomes a growth industry in line with the growth in broadcasting in other European countries. We wanted to ensure that Irish broadcasting remained the mainstream Irish viewers' and listeners' choice. We wanted to see new investment and higher productivity in Irish broadcasting in order to create additional secure employment in that sector and to provide a seedbed for the growth of an independent audio-visual industrial business.
The 1988 Act paved the way for new entrants into the broadcasting sector. In order to ensure that the listening public would get more than wall to wall music from the new entrants we imposed on them a number of public interest obligations in terms of type, quality and range of programmes as well as being very specific about what was required in terms of news and current affairs. In return we, as legislators, needed to establish a competitive environment that was fair to all in the broadcasting sector and this in effect meant that we had to tackle the factors that enabled RTE to have an excessively dominant competitive position in the market. The major element which created a considerable disadvantage for competing services was identified as RTE's dual funding. While the primary purpose of State subvention through the TV licence was to enable RTE to meet certain public service obligations, it also in effect enabled it to sell its advertising time at rates below cost relative to the levels of service provided and thereby artificially dominate the market. If there are any doubts about this, I will confirm the position by quoting from a submission to the Minister from AIRS, the association representing the independent local radio stations, which most Deputies received this morning. The quotation reads:
While the cap limited RTE's revenue from advertising in any year to the same amount of funds received from the licence fee, it also reduced the advertising minutage available to RTE.
As a result RTE immediately increased its rates because of the reduced minutage available. This meant the "cost per thousand" on a quarter hour basis increased to approx. £2.25, a level which all local stations could compete with. Most stations cost per thousand (CPT) on a quarter hour basis is £2.12 at present...
The removal of the cap provisions have increased RTE's advertising minutage by 45 per cent from five minutes per hour to seven minutes per hour. This means the Minister has created 45 per cent more product for RTE. This will enable RTE to reduce its radio rates by 45 per cent and still maintain its present income.
To remain competitive local radio would also have to reduce its prices by 45 per cent. This is of course impossible from a commercial point of view. When the scenario existed in 1990, RTE used predatory pricing to aid Century's demise, AIRS believes they will do so again, in this case, at the expense of local radio, unless parallel provision is made to compensate this sector, simultanously in the planned legislation.
The independent stations were losing out on two counts: first, they did not have the benefit of a licence fee income to meet their public service obligations, which are relatively as onerous as those on RTE; second, they had to compete with the artificially dominant position of RTE in the advertising marketplace.
There were a number of avenues open to me at the time to address this anomaly. One could have taken the route of making some of the licence fee revenue available to the independent sector. The case for doing so to enable them to meet their public service obligations is every bit as solid as making the funds available to RTE for public service broadcasting purposes. However, few Members will forget the reaction this proposal received when I first broached it in a reply to a debate in the Chamber. There were howls of derision and I was accused of every motive imaginable. There was a hue and cry from the then socialist Members that public money was being given to private businessmen while they were conveniently forgetting that the wholly appropriate 20 per cent public service element required by the 1988 Act placed a very onerous burden on the fledgling industry which had to compete against a well established publicly funded institution which would offer rock bottom advertising rates on both radio and television.
Because of the violent reaction I sought other means to redress the inherent imbalance which existed. Having put forward some proposals and duly gauged the informed and reasoned reaction I decided to take the course of placing some constraints on RTE's role in the advertising market. The constraints to be placed on RTE's role are set out in section 3 of the 1990 Broadcasting Act which came into force on 1 October 1990. There was a statutory limit on advertising on RTE service of 7.5 per cent of total daily programme transmission as against the previous limit of 10 per cent and a maximum of five minutes advertising in any one hour as against the previous seven minutes and 30 seconds. There was a limit on the revenue that the Authority may derive annually from advertising sponsorship or other forms of commercial promotion in broadcasting equal to the amount of the grant paid to it in respect of the licence fee in the preceding financial year, that amount having been adjusted by the increase in the consumer price index in the preceding year as published by the CSO. In the period before the commencement date, 1 October 1990 until 31 December 1990, there was a ceiling equal to 120 per cent of the sum that would be payable to RTE in respect of the grant equivalent to licence fees in the same period.
It was expected that these measures would lead to the diversion of advertising revenue to the benefit of both independent broadcasting and, very importantly, to the print media. It was up to the different media, including the print media, to earn their share of this diverted revenue by proving their worth and relative cost attractiveness.
There was much ado during the passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas about the supposed damage these proposals would inflict on RTE. This talk of doom and gloom was completely without foundation and did not do justice to the spirit of enterprise and initiative in the RTE organisation. Essentially what the Act proposed was that RTE would return to its 1988 level of income, a year in which the Authority turned in a handsome surplus of £5.3 million, in spite of incurring considerable costs in expanded broadcasting hours, hosting the Eurovision Song Contest at that time, providing exhaustive coverage of the European soccer championship in West Germany and, of course, the Olympics in Seoul. That was not to be, simply because the Act was more recognised in its violation rather than in its observance. RTE's reaction was, in my view, to abuse its national role by entering every home in the country during entertainment programmes and whingeing about job losses, which were never called for and which were never to happen. It raised the cost of advertising rates thus enraging the advertising industry and proceeded to place £17 million profits in bank accounts — I am glad to see the Minister for Finance will make excellent use of it this year.
In the meantime RTE proceeded to starve the independent film industry by saying that all its considerable reserves were required to maintain the integrity of its own organisation, in spite of the fact that it had £17 million profit in the period. I remain convinced that the Broadcasting Act, 1990 if it had been observed in the spirit it was intended, should not have lessened RTE's position as the primary broadcaster in the State and its continuing with the tradition of broadcasting of which it can be proud, and we as a nation can be proud of its achievements. Ireland's viewing public would today have the benefit of choice of an independent television station and our local radio network would have a more solid financial base.
Although the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas must have taken almost 100 hours of debate, the then Opposition failed singularly to identify and address the fundamental objective which the legislation intended to achieve, which is of creating conditions of fair competition in the Irish broadcasting domain. Indeed by trying to mount a filibuster they never got beyond considering the early sections on Committee Stage. Instead of dealing constructively with the Bill the then Opposition to my mind were in dereliction of their parliamentary duties when some of them walked out of the Dáil.
My objective was not to attack RTE but to ensure fairness and feasibility right across the whole broadcasting sector. These goals are as valid today as they were in 1990, perhaps even more so. Today many local radio stations are simply making ends meet by winning the loyalty of their regional listeners and all but one of our national newspaper groups are in financial difficulties. These areas demand the Minister's attention. I regret these concerns are not addressed in the legislation before us and I urge the Minister to give them his most urgent and dedicated attention.
The greatest difference between this Bill and the 1990 Act is that the former is less officious and therefore has a greater chance of success. I am often asked what I would do differently if I were able to go back and reintroduce the 1990 Act. I am not closed to the idea that some means other than a revenue cap might achieve the desired objectives. I foresaw from an early stage that this revolution in Irish broadcasting would require a considerable degree of fine tuning and adjustment. This matter was commented on as we debated the 1980 and 1990 legislation in this Chamber. With regard to the cap, I am generally opposed to State interference in a free market but the underlying principles governing our actions in this area were very sound. We cannot allow a publicly funded enterprise to undercut independent private sector activity. We have the potential to provide a global voice in the audio visual field and to enjoy the prosperity and employment it will bring. Private sector involvement is necessary to bring about that position.
The Irish public is entitled to the best quality of broadcasting and widest possible degree of choice that can be offered. This is surely the most important requirement of any legislation on broadcasting and I wish the Minister the best of goodwill in providing for that.
Debate adjourned.