Like my colleagues, I am pleased that the Minister is here. This is the first time I have spoken here in the presence of the Minister fulfilling his function as Minister. I am delighted that he got this portfolio and I have no doubt that other speakers are right about him. I join in the sentiments expressed in congratulating the Minister and wishing him well. I hope his work as a Minister will not diminish his activities as a poet.
I particularly welcome the removal of the cap from RTE. Its introduction was a disaster and there is little doubt that jobs were lost in RTE as a result of that foolish move. Money which would have been spent on advertising in RTE was spent elsewhere, particularly in advertising on Ulster Television. It was a pity that in 1990 the Government did not listen to the Labour Party. I can still clearly see the expression on the face of the Minister for Communications as he sat in the Seanad, his eyes fixed on the clock over the door, pondering his imprisonment there until the end of the debate, which went on and on. The cap was introduced against the wishes of the people. If the cap had not been removed, about 500 more jobs would have been lost as a consequence of persisting with this policy.
The proposals in this Bill will mean that money spent on independent production by RTE will increase from £2.75 million in 1992 to £5 million in 1994 and will reach a figure of £12.5 million in 1998, or 20 per cent of television expenditure in that year, whichever is the greater. Nobody can have any doubt that this marks a significant change in the way in which resources available to RTE are managed. The foreign companies from which RTE buys programmes are excluded from the definition of independent television production in the Bill. That in effect means that as far as RTE is concerned there is no backdoor way around the provisions of the Bill.
The effects of the proposals on RTE are not at all clear. Last year RTE made a fairly modest profit in the order of £3 million or £4 million. The proposals in the Bill have to be considered in the context of the likely development in Irish television broadcasting in the next few years. There is now a clear commitment to provide a television service for Irish-speaking people at an initial cost of £20 million with a subsequent cost of the order of £15 million a year at present day prices. By any standards this is a large sum of money. The provision of this amount of money will inevitably have consequences for RTE. The source of this money is somewhat unclear. It appears that some of the money will be obtained from the European Community, some from the lottery and some from RTE. The detail of the amounts of money from each of these agencies has not been spelt out. One way or the other, there will be an increased drain on RTE resources for the provision of this service. While it is a worthwhile service, it has implications in relation to how RTE will operate. It will undoubtedly increase the pressure on the capacity of RTE to make programmes within the service. I do not share the views expressed to the effect that RTE will just be a transmitting service, but the provisions of this Bill will create some pressures on RTE's capacity to produce programmes within the organisation. The effect of all this in relation to standards has not been determined. Undoubtedly the provision of Teilifís na Gaeltachta will create an added burden on the station. It is difficult to define standards because in many ways they are in the eye of the beholder.
I welcome the provision in the Bill which provides for an annual review of how it is working. This means that if changes need to be made then the capacity is there to highlight them and set the basis on which they can be made. There is no doubt that this Bill presents significant challenges for RTE and a number of challenges for the local radio stations. These stations say that the effect of the Bill will be to enable RTE to compete more effectively against them and, indeed, many of these stations are struggling to survive. I doubt if anyone would want to make the case that these stations do not provide an excellent service, at least in some aspects of their activities, with limited resources. Obviously much of their activity is made up of the straightforward playing of music, which anyone could do. In relation to their news coverage and some community functions they provide a very useful service. They also provide the type of service which RTE simply cannot hope to provide because of the diversity and the size of the audience which RTE caters for.
Stations such as Clare FM can interrupt music programmes to provide the results of junior football matches in which there is considerable interest. Certainly it would not be possible for RTE to provide that type of service. Similarly, Clare FM can provide detailed coverage of proceedings in the local county council and in the urban district council. RTE would not be able to sustain that type of facility because it would have only a minority interest concentrated in one small part of the country. I am sure the other local stations provide a similar type service. Indeed, some of the Dublin local radio stations provide a very useful forum for debate. Even when debates take place late at night many people ring up these programmes to air their point of view on various controversial topics. Nobody can argue that these stations do not provide a public service broadcasting facility. Some recognition must be given to that fact. It could be argued that if public service broadcasting is provided and if it is worthy of support, then that support should be available regardless of the source from which the broadcasting facility comes.
I am pleased that the Minister is engaged in discussions with the local radio stations and has made some proposals. I understand the stations have made some counter proposals to the Minister. I look forward to a fruitful conclusion to that debate.
The neglect of community radio by the Independent Radio and Television Commission is no longer defensible. There is a case to be made for providing communities with the capacity to go ahead and establish community radio stations. That would be a worthwhile development and I hope some progress will be made in relation to this matter in the near future. Problems will arise for the newspaper industry arising from increased competition for advertising and so on. I am not sure whether there is any easy answer to these difficulties but it is true that some of the provincial newspapers are experiencing much difficulty in trying to survive. In part, those difficulties are related to the fact that the population in many rural areas is diminishing. When that happens the capacity to generate finance from advertising diminishes which in turn creates difficulties.
Many of the local stations experience difficulties because of the size of the audience they serve. I recall a debate on this topic in the Seanad, during the last Government, when Senator Donie Cassidy referred to the minimum audience size of a viable local radio station being of the order of one million people. I have many disagreements with Senator Cassidy but I would defer to his expertise in the area of broadcasting and communications. I sincerely hope he is wrong but I would be cautious about saying that, given the success he has had in that business over many years. If that is true, it raises very serious questions in relation to the viability of many of the stations which are now up and running.
RTE faces very significant competition from Ulster Television. The introduction of the cap diverted something of the order of £2 million to £3 million in advertising revenue away from RTE to Ulster Tele-Television. I understand Ulster Television has in the order of one million viewers in the Republic. That is a very important market and it amounts to about two-thirds of the RTE audience. We need to be very careful in relation to the effect of any changes made in our broadcasting legislation and how they will affect the balance of audience size between Ulster Television and RTE. RTE is obliged to provide programmes for minority interests and so on and in many ways that is a worthwhile and desirable service. At the same time we have to bear in mind that there may well be a side effect which will diminish the total audience available to RTE, diminish the advertising pool and create a number of very serious knock on problems for RTE. One of the great success stories of RTE is the extent to which it has survived competition during the past 15 to 20 years. Since Ulster Television, BBC and so on became available to most people in Ireland RTE has met that challenge very well. Sky Television presents a very significant challenge, even if it is centred on some minority audience.
A few points were raised by other speakers to which I should like to allude. Deputy Deasy referred to the desirability of televising all the proceedings of the Dáil live. In many ways that is a desirable suggestion. I would remind the House that we experienced this phenomenon for three hours in the Seanad when television broadcasting of the Seanad was introduced. It gave rise to a unique change in behaviour of the Senators. Out of the 60 Senators, as many as 47 rose to address the Cathaoirleach and ask whether it would be in order, on the Order of Business, to raise the question of their favourite pothole, housing scheme or whatever else they were involved in locally at the time. I would hope if this House is televised live that we would not go down the road followed in the Seanad on that afternoon.
The whole phenomena of broadcasting and media has very important consequences for the way politicians behave. Politicians now do media courses to improve their presentation. In many of these courses the emphasis is on presentation rather than on content and that is understandable. A considerable amount of what is said by politicians is, to use the cliché, "media driven". Politicians now speak because they sense an opportunity for media coverage. In many ways that gives rise to distortion because what is being said is designed, to some extent, for media coverage rather than because it has an intrinsic merit. That is an unfortunate distortion that we will have to live with.
Deputy Finucane is right when he speaks of the absence of the cut and thrust of politics in the Oireachtas reports. This is not a reflection on the way the Oireachtas report is presented. What we see is very much set piece stuff. Politicians come in and read scripts which have been written by third parties. What we are seeing is the concept of the politician as an actor, and this gives rise to questions about ethics. In many other spheres of life that sort of behaviour might be regarded as something approximating to plagiarism. I do not know that it is correct to go quite that far. However, if somebody is to read a script which has been written for him and which, in some cases, has been handed to him on his way into this House, it might not be out of place to make some acknowledgement of the person who wrote the script. It is only fair that the public be aware of what is happening rather than be given the impression that politicians think these speeches up themselves, when in some cases they are reading what has been scripted for them by somebody else.
The Bill is limited in its scope. I do not mean that as a criticism of it. It sets out to address a certain topic. I welcome the fact that the cap on advertising has been removed from RTE. However, I want to sound a note of caution as to the effect this Bill may have on programme making and jobs in RTE. I am happy there is scope to study how this Bill is affecting these matters and to make changes if necessary.