Vol. 435 No. 5
6 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht if he will amend the Broadcasting Act, 1990, to provide for the establishment of an RTE Users' Council which will provide a representative voice for listeners and viewers and an independent forum which the station could consult about programme changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
9 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht when he will review all the broadcasting structures; and when the outcome of that review will be made known to Dáil Éireann.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 9 together.
My fundamental review of broadcasting structures is ongoing. The Deputy will appreciate that broadcasting is an issue which affects virtually everyone on a daily basis. My review is a major task which must strive to take into account the rapidly changing regulatory environment in Europe and the impact of foreseeable technological developments, including the rapid technological developments in the unregulated sector. My aim is to devise a framework that will take us into the next century. I am not yet in a position to give the Deputy a definite date for its completion.
I have no plans to introduce legislation to establish a statutory RTE Users' Council. The RTE Authority is more than simply the board of a commercial broadcasting company. It has been entrusted under legislation passed by our Legislature with the custody of the service in the national interest. Under the legislation governing RTE, the Authority is required, inter alia, to:
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.
Every person's perception of the quality of broadcasting is subjective. I am not convinced that a Users' Council would assist RTE in its observance of these statutory obligations or could meaningfully represent the wishes and concerns of viewers and listeners. Therefore, I would not be prepared to propose the establishment of any body which would impinge on RTE's autonomy in programming or scheduling matters.
Primarily my question had to do with decisions relating to programming. Does the Minister recall the controversy which arose earlier this year when RTE decided to drop a number of specialist programmes resulting in considerable concern being expressed by members of the public who did not have any vehicle through which to express that concern in a meaningful way?
Frankly, they were ignored by the RTE programme-makers and decision-makers simply because they were deemed to be a minority. Is the Minister satisfied with the tendency that appears to be developing in RTE, that decisions on programming are being taken on a market basis, or on the basis of financial considerations rather than on the basis of public service and on the need to provide a range of programmes to satisfy all tastes irrespective of whether those tastes be general or minority tastes, as was the case in relation to the particular programmes to which I have referred?
I have to bear something in mind in regard to this. I agree with the Deputy that there was much public concern at the change of programming to which he referred. I share with him the need for public service broadcasting, particularly broadcasting to which the national broadcasting good has been entrusted, to be reflective of all the interests to which he and I referred. However, the issue arises as to how one does this. For example, were I to interfere in any way, in my view, that would be improper. I am sure the Deputy is aware that a distinguished former colleague and predecessor of mine with responsibility for broadcasting had the temerity to suggest in print that I had interfered to ensure the existence of my favourite soap which was a soap in Irish of all things. Of course that was an outrageous suggestion which I shall leave aside. The point of the matter is that I do not interfere. The RTE Authority is there to do its business.
From time to time the RTE Authority seek meetings with me to discuss a whole range of options, including job creation in RTE, matters which may challenge it and so forth. On such occasions I have the opportunity of raising such matters as those to which the Deputy referred, but the Deputy would indeed find himself in difficulty attempting to construct a RTE Users' Council, on the basis of a consumers' model, which really speaks about commodity whereas broadcasting is different. What is appropriate for us to do is to place our faith in the RTE Authority. Indeed if there is a widespread opinion expressed in relation to such changes as are not acceptable I am sure the RTE Authority cannot ignore such opinion.
The difficulty arises when the concern may not be so much widespread as confined to a specialist interest, as was the case here. Would the Minister accept that the RTE Authority and its members who, in addition to their responsibilities as members of the RTE Authority in many cases also carry extensive responsibilities outside of RTE, cannot realistically be expected to be experts or critics of every programme broadcast on RTE's airwaves? Would he agree that some method should be found to establish a panel of listeners and viewers who would provide an input in a way which would not necessarily undermine the role of the RTE Authority, but would prevent — as we got this summer — decisions being taken from the top storey in Montrose without, it would appear, any consideration having been given to the people who listen and watch the programmes concerned? Surely it is possible to devise some mechanism whereby this can be done in a way that would not undermine the RTE Authority?
What the Deputy suggests strikes me as being very reasonable. I am sure that, in a very large organisation, worth approximately £110 million, it would not be regarded as inappropriate management activity for people to seek to ascertain what are the reactions to changes. Certainly the panel systems the Deputy suggests are ones which impress me. Of course, the House will realise that I stand at a distance from RTE. In relation to such a panel, it would not be healthy if directors, producers or programme-makers ever imagined that that which they produced did not have to be tested by those who heard it, saw it or whatever; that would be a very authoritarian version of broadcasting. No one would want to go down that road and, whenever they have, it has been to the detriment of broadcasting. These are matters to which the management of RTE may wish to respond and I am sure it will. When I say, "I am sure it will", I say that merely as somebody responding to the Deputy's question. I repeat that I stand at a distance from RTE.
The Minister said he is undertaking a comprehensive review of broadcasting. There is an urgent need for a clear statement to be made on the future of public service broadcasting here, given the increasingly competitive international market within which RTE must operate. In relation to the development of the independent third television channel, will the Minister be considering that matter as part of his review?
The Deputy is raising a very separate and specific matter. This question deals with the establishment of the RTE Users' Council.
You are also taking Question No. 9.
If the Deputy wants to pursue that matter she can put down a separate question.
That matter comes under Question No. 9.
We will get to it later then.
A Cheann Comhairle, did you say you were taking Question No. 9?
We are taking Questions Nos. 6 and 9 together.
In response to Deputy Fitzgerald's first question, the reason the broadcasting review is a major task — and I am sure Members of this House will agree — is that the broadcasting environment has totally changed and is particularly influenced by the developments in cable and satellite. The Deputy asked about the future of public service broadcasting. This is a dilemma posed by those who rejected the values of public service broadcasting and who regarded broadcasting as a commodity and pressed for deregulation. Deregulation has fragmented public service broadcasting in every country in Europe. In North America and elsewhere it has fragmented audiences and has destroyed many fine norms of broadcasting. Those who could not be restrained from the deregulation argument and from the market theories, having destroyed broadcasting, now come back and ask how we can protect public service broadcasting. I go to the Council of Ministers in Europe as a Minister believing in public service broadcasting in the broadest sense. As you will know, a Cheann Comhairle, there was a court decision recently in relation to TV3. I read in the papers that those involved propose to discuss their future with the Independent Radio and Television Commission. It is a matter entirely for them and the Independent Radio and Television Commission in the first instance.
Can we proceed to another question? Progress is extremely sluggish today in dealing with questions. I would ask for the co-operation of Members so that we can make more progress. We have only dealt with a few questions in three quarters of an hour.
Ní hé seo an chéad uair nár glacadh le mo cheist Priority ach oiread. I would like to ask the Minister in relation to his statement on standing apart from RTE if there is a change in his Department's policy. Does he consider it better to be completely independent of RTE or are we following a line similar to that adopted in the past when there was definite Government intervention in the affairs of RTE?
We are having quite an extension of this question.
It is not for me to comment on my predecessors. I cannot accept the latter part of the Deputy's assertion. I am following what I believe to be the spirit of the legislation and the relationship that should exist between a Minister, who is responsible for legislation, and an authority who enjoys autonomy within the legislation. It is no more and no less than that. People regularly write to Deputies who then write to me saying they find something on television or radio very upsetting. The point is that if we establish bodies and give them autonomy under legislation then we must accept and expect that they will exercise that autonomy with responsibility. If it goes beyond that it comes back into the domain of the Legislature.
Questions No. 7, please.
The two questions are being taken together, including Question No. 9.
If the Deputy will be brief he can proceed.
I was waiting orderly for a chance to ask a supplementary. Regarding the review of broadcasting structures, is it the Minister's intention to implement the provisions of the 1988 Act in regard to competition and the provision of television services or are we to take it from his comments that he is opposed to any competition in this area? When is it proposed to appoint the members of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, bearing in mind that he recently appointed a chairman? It is unique to appoint a chairman and not to appoint the members.
This is a complete deviation from the question before us. Question No. 7, please.
The question relates to broadcasting structures.
The question relates to the establishment of an RTE Users' Council.
Question No. 9 relates to structures.
That does not mean we can range broadly over all aspects of RTE.
The Deputy is wrong to impute any narrowness of ideological intent to me in the review. I simply said we have paid the price of those ideologues who wanted to go for deregulation and destroyed public service broadcasting. What the public wants and asks for is a choice. We can have a competition between editorial options without necessarily destroying public service broadcasting, lowering the standard through fragmented responses and then asking how we can protect it. That has been the conservative response to date. Unlike that thinking I have an open mind.
