Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 2000

Vol. 528 No. 3

Broadcasting Bill, 1999: Report Stage.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

"‘community broadcaster' means a broadcaster which is or is owned by a non-for-profit entity, the structure of which provides for membership, management, operation and programming primarily by members of the community in question, the programming of which is based on community access and reflects the interests and needs of the community in question;".

We debated this amendment on Committee Stage. Essentially, I used a formula here used by the Independent Radio and Television Commission as a definition to cover community radio broadcasting. I merely seek to have the same model included in the Bill as it applies to television broadcasting. It is important there is a clear definition of what we are talking about. The amendment is self explanatory and I wish to hear whether the Minister has had a rethink on this issue since we discussed it on Committee Stage.

Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Miss de Valera)

As I indicated on Committee Stage, I see no advantage in inserting the definition of a community broadcaster contained in amendment No. 1 into legislation. In the context of an ever-changing broadcasting environment, there might be a distinct disadvantage in losing the flexibility which has allowed the commission to proactively support the community sector. However, many of the elements highlighted in the proposed definition are already contained in section 38. Rather than impose a definition which would apply in every case, it is sufficient to require the commission to consider these issues on a case by case basis. There is no reason to tie the hands of the broadcasting commission of Ireland to a particular definition and accordingly, I oppose amendment No. 1.

Mr. O'Shea

I will not press the amendment. I still think that the Bill would be the stronger for containing the definition. However, I see merit in the point made by the Minister that broadcasting is in a constant state of flux and situations could change. What is contained in this definition are issues of principle rather than issues that relate to changing technology and so on. I do not intend to pursue it at this stage and I also acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that some of these elements are contained later in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

"‘contemporary cultural expression' means the promulgation of those cultural values which can and do enrich contemporary life and promote citizenship;".

This amendment deals with the definition of an expression which occurs later in the Bill in Part IV, that is, the provisions in relation to the authority and specifically in the subsection that deals with the public service character of the authority's national broadcasting service. The phrase as included there states:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Authority shall ensure that the programme schedules of the broadcasting service referred to in that subsection– . . . facilitate or assist contemporary cultural expression.

"Contemporary cultural expression" is a very wide definition. To an extent it includes the good and not so good types of expression present these days. The term "contemporary" is fine. The best aspects of contemporary life should be expressed. I seek to include the definition that contemporary cultural expression means the promulgation of those cultural values which can and do enrich contemporary life and promote citizenship.

The issue of citizenship is extremely important in the context of the national broadcaster and of the authority. When I had a similar amendment down on Committee Stage, I included at the end of it the phrase "over consumerism", that is to promote citizenship over consumerism. I dropped the phrase "over consumerism" because on reflection it was not appropriate to the definition, not that it invalidated in any way the point I was making. A great deal of the media is targeted at the consumer. We hear all the cliche±s that the consumer is king, is right and so on. Anyone who produces must do so with the consumer in mind but broadcasting is very different from selling shoes, dresses or suits. The broadcasters have a mandate to inform, entertain and educate. My concern is that this phrase could be interpreted, but not in a way conducive to what I am talking about. In terms of the issue of citizenship, many people now are not exercising their franchise, they are not voting. This involves a growing number of people. Members of this House and the media have a responsibility to seek to address the situation and reverse that trend.

I propose in this amendment that in one case there is a very definite emphasis put on citizenship and all that contains and that there is a clear statement that it is not just the commercial aspects of contemporary life that could be in the ascendancy. We had a long discussion on this on Committee Stage. The Minister indicated she would consider it between Committee and Report Stage and I am interested to hear if she has had any further thoughts in the meantime.

Miss de Valera

During Committee Stage, as the Deputy said, I indicated I would consider using the wording proposed by Deputy O'Shea in amendment No. 2. After some deliberation I decided not to proceed with Deputy O'Shea's amendment. The phrase "contemporary cultural expression" was inserted in the Bill in the context of the Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty which recognises that the system of public service broadcasting in the member states is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society. It accepts it is within the competence of the member states to define the public service remit of broadcasters as they see fit and to provide for funding of broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of that remit. Accordingly, section 28 of the Bill is designed to provide greater clarity as to what is expected in fulfilment of its public service remit by RTE. The insertion of the phrase "contemporary cultural expression" is designed to ensure that RTE could continue to support RTE's performing groups, such as the National Symphony Orchestra, the RTE Concert Orchestra and the RTE Vanbrugh String Quartet. While the limits set on contemporary cultural expression by Deputy O'Shea in his proposed definition are desirable and laudable, they could limit the options of the authority in an unhelpful way. The orchestra is a national treasure but I am not sure if it could be said to promote citizenship. I do wish to dilute in any way the intended effect of the provision by defining it in any other context and, accordingly, I oppose the amendment though I regret doing so. However, for the reasons I have given I believe I have no other option.

Mr. O'Shea

I thank the Minister for her thoughtful and comprehensive reply. It is obvious that, in terms of intent, there is nothing between us. The Minister has introduced the Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty which puts the amendment into a different context. That was not available to us during the debate on Committee Stage. As regards the wording "promulgation of those cultural values", culture is a broad brush, embracing everything we do. The functions of the national broadcaster regarding the orchestra and the string quartet are laudable. It is an important part of national life. However, I want a clear statement that it is not the intention to have the unhealthy focus on consumerism that exists in the media worldwide. There is more and more commercialism in the media. Whether that reflects what is happening in society or whether it contributes to or causes it, I do not know. It is of paramount importance to have the emphasis on the promotion of citizenship in this legislation, which is the last on broadcasting we will have during the life of this Dáil and, I suspect, for some time to come.

I accept the Minister will not agree to the amendment and I will not press it. I have made my arguments and believe there is a meeting of minds between me and the Minister. For technical reasons and based on advice she has received, the Minister believes it is inappropriate. I do not share that view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"5.–(1) The Minister shall by regulations prohibit any person from enjoying an excessive concentration of media ownership.

(2) In making such regulations the Minister shall be guided by the principle that a person who owns more than 20 per cent. of enterprises in one medium shall not own more than 20 per cent. of enterprises in another medium.".

This amendment reflects a Private Members' Bill my party introduced some time ago. It reflects a concern of the Labour Party on over-dominant positions developing within the media in the State. The text of the amendment is simple. Where one individual has 20% of the enterprises in one medium he or she should be confined to no more than 20% in another medium.

If there is an over-dominant position and one person owns or controls too large a part of the media – I am talking about cross-media, the print versus electronic – it could be that a particular philosophy could dominate the titles and various radio or television channels owned by that person. It is about freedom for the citizen to receive information, but not in an over-focused way from any one individual. It is unhealthy that this should develop. The Minister, on Committee Stage, was not disposed towards accepting the amendment but my views on the matter have not changed. It is important in a democracy to ensure no person develops an unhealthy level of control. The danger is that public opinion could be manipulated, particularly in the context of elections and so on.

On reflection, and having listened to the arguments on Committee Stage, this is an important aspect of the legislation. It refers to the fundamentals of democracy and is a serious matter which this legislation should address.

Ms Clune

This amendment was tabled on Committee Stage. Fine Gael supported the Private Members' Bill. There is concern to ensure there is not over-dominance and that the public hears all views. It is a useful amendment on which I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I support the principle of trying to control ownership of the various media to ensure a balance and that there is not over-emphasis on one point of view. That is important when dealing with such a powerful medium across all platforms.

Miss de Valera

As I said during the course of the debate on Second and Committee Stages, this matter is more proper to the competition and mergers legislation. It is a matter for the Tanáiste who has announced plans in this regard. Deputy O'Shea will recall that I referred to the report of the Competition and Mergers Review Group which was published by the Tanáiste in May 2000. Arising from that report, the Government decided on 24 October that the existing law on competition and mergers is to be replaced by new consolidated competition and mergers legislation which will address newspaper and media mergers. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for me to address these issues in this Bill. I oppose the amendment.

The views expressed today by Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Clune are important and I concur with them. However, this legislation is not the vehicle in which to express them. It is up to another Department and Minister to review the legislation. This will be done and will address newspaper and media mergers.

Mr. O'Shea

The Minister presented those arguments on Committee Stage.

Obviously, her point is that it is for another Department and for different legislation to address this issue. The Minister said legislation is being consolidated but from what she said, the legislation will go beyond that and this whole area of media ownership will be part of the legislation.

Having said that, is it not appropriate in the context of legislation which deals with the area of television specifically and electronic communication, that there should be some statement in the legislation on ownership? As I said on Committee Stage, there is a concern that outside owners could become large players on the Irish scene and could buy up much of the broadcasting capacity and broadcasting licences which are there already. Obviously, if somebody is operating from outside the State, other problems start to arise.

There is a concern that with excessive cross ownership of media, the balance between the viewer and the providers could become out of synchronisation and there could be over-promulgation of one point of view. The other concern, particularly in the area of television, is that operators outside the State could accumulate a large amount of the capacity within the State and that could cause difficulties in terms of an over dominant position. That aspect needs to be fleshed out a great deal more than we have time for today. As it is not specifically referred to in the amend ment, I do not intend to go any further. However, there should be an upper limitation in terms of the level of ownership of enterprises within the electronic media and in the context of our debate on television.

Miss de Valera

The concerns expressed by Deputy O'Shea are very legitimate ones. I hope we will have an opportunity in another forum to discuss those issues by way of new legislation which is being proposed by the Tánaiste. These issues should be discussed. The competition and mergers legislation is the responsibility of another Department and Minister and, therefore, it would be more appropriate to that legislation. That is not to say I do not share the concerns but I do not believe the inclusion of the Deputy's amendment in this legislation would be appropriate.

Mr. O'Shea

Will the Minister give us an undertaking that when the competition and mergers legislation is being prepared in the other Department, she will have an input into it in the context of our discussions here and will make sure that a formula is arrived at in that legislation which will cover the concerns we all share?

Miss de Valera

I would be very happy to pass on the views expressed by Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Clune. I will contact the Tánaiste directly because these matters will be looked at by her and her officials. I guarantee that I will contact her to express those views and concerns.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Clune arises out of Committee proceedings and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related. Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 8 may be taken together by agreement.

Ms Clune

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, line 45, after "Minister" to insert "acting only upon the advice of the Director following an open, fair and transparent selection procedure".

On Committee Stage we discussed inserting the words that the Minister "acting only upon the advice of the Director following an open, fair and transparent selection procedure" would award very valuable broadcasting licences for a transmission company and a multiplex company. In the interests of openness and fairness, a decision to award such a valuable licence should not be in the power of one individual. I am not taking from the calibre of the present Minister but there have been a great many media reports on events at tribunals. The issue of licences under the original broadcasting Act is certainly up for discussion.

The awarding of such valuable licences should not lie with one individual. This week the Director of Telecommunications Regulation announced the awarding of a 3G mobile phone licence in an open licence round. On Committee Stage the Minister said this amendment would put an onus on the director. The director herself said at a hearing of the committee that she would be willing to give guidance on the award of these licences. It would give the public more confidence. The issue could be dealt with at a distance from the Minister and the ODTR would deal with the issue of awarding these licences as in the case of mobile phone licences.

It is not correct in these times that the Minister would retain such power. These licences will be very valuable. Very valuable frequencies, which are the property of the citizens of State, will be awarded to an individual or company. That decision should not be made by one person and should be made in a more open and fair fashion. That is the reason I tabled these amendments.

Miss de Valera

We dealt at considerable length on Committee Stage with the difference of philosophy between my policy on digital television and that of Deputy Clune. The Government has decided that the DTT platform is the transmission platform best suited to achieving near universal coverage for Irish indigenous broadcasting services. The legislative framework which establishes the DTT platform in Ireland must address issues that go beyond those that simply regard broadcasting services as just another telecommunications service. For this reason, it is appropriate that the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting should, on behalf of the people of the State, have in this instance the primary role in the selection of suitable candidates to act as the transmission company and the multiplex company.

Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 8 are designed to give the Director of Telecommunications Regulation the deciding role in the selection of the transmission and multiplex operators. For the reasons I have already outlined, I cannot accept this position. I, too, am concerned to ensure that the process of selection in both cases is open, fair and transparent. Such a process is subject to national and EU obligations with regard to fairness of the tendering procedures used. In order to provide assurances in this regard for all involved in the process, I have decided to appoint a process auditor who will provide an opinion on the openness, fairness and impartiality of processes as executed. Accordingly, I oppose these amendments.

Mr. D. Carey

I support Deputy Clune's amendments. I am not really happy with the Minister's reply principally because when another broadcasting Bill was being discussed in this House, the then Minister, Ray Burke, came to certain conclusions almost similar to what the Minister has said. We have since learned that his actions were not independent. Fair competition is necessary given that technology has brought a spate of companies interested in providing a broadcasting service. The Minister should have properly considered this matter. The Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, was prepared to give the regulator the sole discretion. In this case Deputy Clune is giving some guidelines to the regulator about the standards that would be acceptable and has emphasised that they should be open and transparent. The Minister is in error. In view of the different matters involved she has an opportunity to set the record straight. There is also the matter of the spectrum. There is a fundamental difference in the thinking of the Minister and the thinking of the Opposition in this case. We see it as a very valuable asset while the Minister does not see it in that way. Deputy Clune's amendment is the best way to meet the challenges for the future. Not reflecting on the Minister, the precedent in the broadcasting area, in this House already, has left huge gaps where there was no transparency and where officials from the same Department admitted in Dublin Castle that the Minister did not consult them but made up his own mind. The precedent is there and it has been a sorry one. This whole business in the broadcasting area has been a sorry business. Rather than prolong the agony the Minister should concede.

Ms Clune

I am disappointed with the Minister's response. It is a mistake as Deputy Carey has said. How can we be assured that there will be an independent assessment and that licences will be awarded independently? The Minister mentioned that she would appoint an auditor but we do not know who that will be. Obviously the auditor will act on the Minister's instructions. We have heard from the tribunal that a previous Minister appointed his own solicitor and his own banker. This raises many questions for us. While the past is the past and there is nothing we can do about what happened in the past this legislation provides an opportunity to introduce an element of transparency and openness so that everybody will be satisfied that such a valuable asset as is the broadcasting spectrum in which there is great interest and for which a great deal of money will be needed, will not be made a gift to any individual or company. I strongly believe, and this principle was raised by Deputy Kenny on Second Stage, the Minister should not retain such powers for herself. It should be awarded by the director, following consultation with the Minister, but in an open and transparent selection procedure. That is a principle about which we feel strongly and I am disappointed with the Minister's response.

Mr. O'Shea

I would have sympathy with the amendment in the context of where Deputy Clune is coming from. Recent events at the tribunals have left a bad taste in relation to this whole area. As Deputy Carey has said, nobody in this House attributes anything but the highest standards to the Minister. That justice is done and is seen to be done is very important. The idea the Minister has put forward of the appointment of a process auditor has merit. In terms of trans parency and everything being seen to be fair and open, who will appoint this auditor? What will be the terms of reference of the auditor? Will the auditor be totally and utterly independent of the Minister of the day and of the Department? Those are important issues.

Under amendments Nos. 7 and 8 the Minister would be obliged to consult the Minister for Public Enterprise. There is a conflict between that amendment and what is in the Bill. However, that is a technical point. Will the Minister outline exactly who the process auditor will be, the qualifications required, the terms of reference and give an assurance that the process auditor will be independent of the Department and of the Minister? In other words, this person will look at all the stages in terms of arriving at the designation and will adjudicate that this was fairly done or not properly done.

We are talking about a transmission company and a multiplex company after that. We are not talking about companies which are broadcasters per se, but rather companies that provide the highway. I do not think the point made about the director is quite valid. The director awards the telephone licences. They are technical in nature. What the multiplex company and the transmission company are involved in is technical by nature. Obviously the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has another function in terms of the broadcast element. I see no validity in saying broadcasting is different in the context of transmission and multiplex companies. I entreat the Minister to respond to these amendments so that we can all be satisfied that there will be an open, fair and transparent process.

Miss de Valera

I want to see a system in place that is open, fair and transparent and that is precisely what I am working towards. There is a fundamental difference in principle with regard to the amendments tabled on Committee Stage and on Report Stage by Deputy Clune on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. I know that Deputy Michael D. Higgins shares my view. No doubt he was expressing the view of the Labour Party when he said both publicly and privately to me that he would join me in believing the whole question of broadcasting should be driven by the Department which has responsibility for arts and culture. If it were left to the technical remit of the ODTR the whole cultural element would be lost. That is precisely the whole philosophy behind the question of the ODTR and the proposals being put forward in these amendments. When we are looking for the establishment of DTT we are not talking about the issuing of mobile telephone licences. The issuing of mobile telephone licences does not require any cultural input whereas broadcasting is at the heart of the cultural philosophy. That is where there is a very deep division between the view expressed in the Fine Gael amendments on Committee Stage and this Stage and the views expressed by myself and the Labour Party on this matter.

Deputy O'Shea spoke earlier about the difference between citizens and consumers. People could be described as consumers in regard to the issuing of mobile telephone licences. However, we talk about citizens in the far wider debate on broadcasting, which is why the whole philosophy of the culturally driven Broadcasting Bill is of major importance.

The kind of process we want to see established here will obviously, as I said in my initial reply, have to be subject to the national and EU regulations on fairness of the tendering processes used. The question of a process auditor was introduced during the Telecom flotation. That is a very good model which ensures fairness and impartiality within the process. While I am not able to name the person I am considering for the position of process auditor, which I hope the House will understand, I can say the person I hope will take the job is a very respected member of the community and a former Secretary General of the utmost integrity with the kind of skills, knowledge and expertise needed in this process.

That is why I believe the amendments tabled by Fine Gael do not deal with the kind of issues I would accept, in terms of the principle of broadcasting being led by the Department with responsibility for culture, as opposed to the Department of Public Enterprise and the ODTR. The kind of process that will be put into action will be open, fair and transparent because I would not stand over anything other than such a system.

Mr. D. Carey

I am amused by the way the Minister is trying to twist this around, as if there were a chasm between all our thinking on public service broadcasting. There is no problem here with public service broadcasting. This is about the issue of giving a transmission company power, which we want to see done fairly.

I fail to understand how the Minister can see a tremendous difference between the views of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party on this matter. At no stage did we differ but the Minister is trying her best to say we did, perhaps with an eye to future possible partnership in Government with the Labour Party, so that she can say they agreed on broadcasting principles and on the next Minister for culture.

Miss de Valera

Does the Deputy not accept we will get an overall majority?

Mr. D. Carey

When the Taoiseach was appointing the Minister, he dropped culture from the title of the Department. Culture was the last thing on Fianna Fáil's mind. When the argument was put to the Taoiseach from this side of the House, particularly by Deputy Higgins, he said that culture was most important. Our record of attendance at the meetings of culture Ministers in Europe indicates the Department's current interest in that area of Irish life. It is ridiculous for the Minister to tell me that her desire to pro tect Irish culture is her reason for not allowing transparency and openness in the awarding of a licence for a transmission company.

Ms Clune

We are talking here, as Deputy Carey said, about the awarding of a licence to a transmission company. This licence will be very valuable. We discussed on Committee Stage the fact that the broadcasting frequencies will be attached to this licence. This is a fundamental principle. Nobody is anti-culture, as the Minister said. We feel very strongly about protecting our public service broadcasters. We are dealing here with a transmission company and a lucrative licence that will be awarded by one individual. The Minister mentioned a process auditor, but that is not enshrined in the Bill and, as she said, we do not know who that person will be.

This is probably the last broadcasting legislation for quite some time and we do not know who will be the future Ministers with responsibility for broadcasting. It is important to ensure at this stage that we have an open and transparent procedure for the awarding of licences to transmission companies. We are talking about a transmission company here and not a broadcaster. I feel very strongly about this. The Minister should consider this important amendment for the Seanad debate. This is a fundamental principle. We are not seeking to in any way interfere with the quality or content of broadcasting. This is simply a question of the awarding of a very lucrative licence.

Mr. O'Shea

While the Minister has not identified the person she has in mind for the position of process auditor, the person is obviously a former civil servant who held high office. We cannot comment beyond that.

I said earlier that the broadcasting commission of Ireland is the body that will deal with content and what is actually broadcast. The other two companies, the transmission company and the multiplex company, will deal with providing the highway. There is a valid comparison to be made between the role of the director and the role of the Minister, as the legislation stands at present. The responsibility for the content of broadcasting aspect lies elsewhere. That point is effectively unanswerable.

While the reputation of politics and politicians is not all that it might be in the public arena, I am still of the view that politicians and Ministers are to be trusted. I would not like to give the impression that I have any other view. However, the electorate demands that we are open, fair in what we do, transparent and answerable. I see merit in the concept of a process auditor. However, the Minister has not answered the questions I put earlier regarding the terms of reference of the auditor. How can it be demonstrated that the auditor has no functions involving the Minister of the day and the Department? If the office of the auditor is completely and demonstrably independent of the Minister and if the person appointed is of such a calibre and reputation to effectively win the confidence of the electorate or the viewership there is merit in that approach.

There is no divergence of views on this issue between us and the Fine Gael Party, nor does there appear to be too much of a gap between the Minister and the Fine Gael Party with regard to the basic problem, which is that procedures are carried out in a fair and proper way that is clear and verifiable. I would like more clarity on the process auditor because it may be a less bureaucratic way of dealing with the very important issue of public confidence in all that is done by politicians, Members of this House and Ministers.

Amendment put.

Tá

Allen, Bernard.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.

Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Neville, Dan.O'Keeffe, Jim.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Shatter, Alan.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Coveney; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 are related and will be discussed together.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 9, to delete lines 6 to 11 and substitute the following:

"(a) any shares in the company are owned by the Minister, who shall not alienate his or her interest therein,”.

The proposal in the original Bill was that one company would take the transmission and multiplex function and RTE could have a holding of up to 40% in that company. When the Minister came back on Committee Stage she had altered that position considerably. There is now to be a transmission company in which RTE can have a stake of up to 28%. There will also be a multiplex company which will enter into direct contracts with the various broadcasters.

From the beginning the Labour Party held the view that the transmission infrastructure of RTE should remain within public control. Our proposal is that a commercial semi-State body should be set up to discharge these functions. Obviously things have changed in that, initially, like the Minister, we were talking about one company. We are now seeking that both companies remain within public control and be operated as commercial semi-State companies. What has perplexed members of the Labour Party is why RTE should have any stake in the new company, as was the original position, or the new companies. Obviously the 28% which RTE can avail of will be in the transmission company only and not in the multiplex company. The amendments propose that the Minister remains the owner of the transmission infrastructure on behalf of the public. We accept the two company model at this stage but we are seeking that both companies would be commercial semi-State companies.

In relation to the up to 40% holding which RTE could have had in the company or the 28% which RTE can now have in the transmission company, the Minister said on Committee Stage that RTE indicated it could make a decent return in terms of its involvement in the transmission company. That may or may not be the case. The logic of the national broadcaster being part of the company is what we are concerned about. We believe this asset should remain within public control. Both the amendments seek that any shares in the company are owned by the Minister, who shall not alienate his or her interest in them. We have been through these arguments at great length on Committee Stage. It is still a matter of concern to the Labour Party because we believe the model we are proposing is the more appropriate one and would be the better model in the public interest. I suspect the Minister has not changed her position from that on Committee Stage. However, I would like to hear her response.

Miss De Valera

As the Deputy said, I dealt with these amendments at some length on Committee Stage. While I do not wish to go over all that ground again, amendments Nos. 5 and 9 represent a fundamental difference of policy in the establishment of DTT platform in Ireland.

The Government has decided that it is in the public interest that the platform be developed as a private commercial enterprise. As I indicated previously, the original idea for the sale of the existing broadcast transmission infrastructure came from the RTE authority as a basis on which to proceed and in recognition of the magnitude of the capital investment necessary to successfully roll out the digital terrestrial platform to viewers. The attendant risks associated with this investment are more appropriate to the private sector than the taxpayer. Accordingly, I oppose the amendments.

Mr. D. Carey

I listened intently to the Minister and Deputy O'Shea on the sale of RTE. The original figure was 40% which was then reduced to 28%. The Minister has not ever explained why the figure of 28% was arrived at. This is an aspect of the behind the door negotiations which took place. The public should be informed why this decision was made. RTE is a public asset and investment has been made by the public in this project for years. I do not understand why the Minister is reluctant to indicate how the figure of 28% was arrived at. Given that the Minister and the RTE authority are anxious for investment, it will not help her vision for the future for RTE if she is not open about this issue. While RTE will seek a serious partner, people will be inhibited if it is not disclosed how these figures were arrived at.

Mr. O'Shea

The question inherent in Deputy Carey's remarks is very important. There are no guarantees at this stage that a private operator will be available to take up the remaining 72% in the transmission company or the totality of the multiplex company. That is something market forces will decide. However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there would be no takers for either the transmission company or the multiplex company. Is there a plan B in that context? What would the Minister propose if that were to happen?

Like Deputy Carey, I represent an urban-rural constituency. A great attraction for me in terms of DTT is that the new platform will reach places in my constituency which are difficult to reach at the moment. The attraction of this is a better quality service with a better quality picture. The question of how the figure of 40% was arrived at and the figure of 28% in relation to a possible RTE equity holding in the transmission company is still baffling. Why does RTE want to be involved? The Minister advanced the explanation that it would provide an income that could help to finance its other activities. That makes sense but I remain to be convinced that that is how it will turn out.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne,

Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy's two minutes are exhausted and he must conclude. However, he has the right to make a third contribution if he so desires.

Ms Clune

The Minister has not indicated clearly how the 28% stake RTE will acquire in this company was arrived at. We are discussing an asset of the State, which is owned by the people, and it is important that we should be told how the figure was arrived at, who made the decision and why the final figure is 28% and not the original 40%.

On Committee Stage we discussed the fact that this company will obtain a very valuable frequency licence, which is, again, the property of the citizens of this State. Is it acceptable that such an important asset should be given to a company, 72% of which will be in private ownership? I was not satisfied with the answer we received to that question on Committee Stage. Under the Bill, the broadcasting frequencies attaching to the licence will be handed over to a private entity. That should not be allowed to happen because there is no reason for frequencies to be attached to this licence. The transmission company is purely a means of delivering programme content and matters should be left as they currently stand.

We debated this issue at length on Committee Stage but, nevertheless, it is important to raise it again because we were not satisfied with the replies we received at that point. With the advent of liberalisation, which will be forthcoming in the next two years when draft directives are accepted, it will be seen that this company has been given a valuable spectrum frequency, which is a State asset, and the reasons for this are not clear.

Miss de Valera

I recognise that Deputy O'Shea would have wished to have had both companies in State control. It was envisaged that 40% of the original company, Digico, would be owned by RTE. However, there are now two companies.

I have no intention of revisiting this matter in detail because we had an extensive debate on it on Committee Stage and, as Deputy O'Shea stated, we each outlined our stances in respect of the issues in question. However, it is important to highlight the reason that RTE wished to be part of this transmission company. There is no doubt that RTE has access to people with the relevant skills and expertise and I was anxious to ensure that we could put in place a platform that could be rolled out. I agree with the Deputy that the DTT platform will ensure the greatest amount of access, that is why it was chosen.

On Committee Stage I stated that I did not think it would be appropriate to have any stake in the multiplex or retail company because it has no particular involvement in that kind of retail business. It would not be appropriate for programme makers to be involved in a company of that nature. With regard to the transmission company, the original idea for the sale of the existing broadcasting transmission infrastructure was put forward by the RTE Authority. I have explained on a number of occasions – whether Deputies accept my explanation is another matter – that the figure of 28% was arrived at as a result of my having to find a balance between the RTE stake in that company and—

Acting Chairman

The time for the Minister's reply is exhausted. I call Deputy O'Shea.

Mr. O'Shea

The essential point made by the Minister is that there will be no meeting of minds on this issue. However, I wish to make a number of points in response to what she said.

The Minister referred to the skills and expertise of RTE employees, which we take as a given. However, the establishment of the company in question would mean that those employees would be transferred from RTE to that company. The fact that those members of staff are employed by RTE does not justify the transfer of a stake in the company to RTE. I am sure the Minister will ensure that the pay and conditions of those transferring out of RTE will not be adversely affected.

I take the Minister's point that she was obliged to reach a balance and that it was this which led her to arrive at figures of 40% and 28%. However, there does not appear to be any strategic reason put forward with regard to why RTE, in the first instance, wanted to obtain a stake of 40% in Digico and, latterly, why it desired a stake of 28% in the transmission company. The only reason being put forward is that the station's stake could act as an income stream.

The roll-out of digital terrestrial television has not been an instant success. I suspect that, in the short to medium term, the substantial returns which are expected to accrue from the operations of the company to RTE via its 28% stake will not materialise. I do not believe any assessment of the position would lead one to adopt an optimistic view of what will happen in this regard.

There will be some other services such as those involving telemarketing, etc., in which the new company will be involved. However, as I understand it, there is quite limited capacity in terms of developing those services at present. We must recognise that the valuation placed on the asset is the best which can be arrived at in respect of it at a particular stage. There is always the possibility that the value of this asset, which came into being as a result of subscriptions made by the general public through the payment of licence fees, could, in the medium to long-term, increase to a level much greater than that at which it currently stands.

It is obvious that the Minister does not intend to agree to my amendments and, given that there are other important issues which require debate on Report Stage, I will withdraw them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

For the purposes of clarification, I wish to point out that on Report Stage a Member may make a second contribution which shall not exceed two minutes. Every Member, including the Minister, can speak twice but their second contribution may last only two minutes. However, the proposer of an amendment may make a third and final contribution. Once a Member has made their second contribution they may not comment further on the matter under discussion.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss de Valera

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:

"(5) The transmission company shall endeavour to ensure, in so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that the services provided by it are made available to the whole community in the State.".

I am introducing these amendments in response to concerns expressed by Deputies O'Shea and Clune on Committee Stage with regard to universal coverage on the DTT platform and in the context of discussions on the issue with the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation.

Amendment No. 6 inserts a subsection into section 5 which will oblige the transmission company to endeavour to ensure, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, that its services are available to the whole community in the State. Amendment No. 11 inserts a similar obligation into section 8 which deals with the multiplex company.

These two amendments will ensure there is no doubt in the minds of the operators or the regulators that the Government sees DTT as a universal access platform, as far as this is practically possible. The DTT platform is the guarantee of universal access to Irish free-to-air services. The amendments proposed recognise the practical difficulties which may be encountered in trying to ensure 100% coverage while, at the same time, placing a specific onus on both companies to do all that is reasonable to ensure maximum coverage.

These amendments, together with the specific coverage obligations which will be imposed by the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation in the DTT licence, will ensure maximum coverage for Irish free-to-air broadcasting services, including TG4.

Mr. O'Shea

I compliment the Minister on bringing these two amendments before the House. She has responded positively to points raised on Committee Stage.

Amendment No. 6 proposes that the transmission company shall endeavour to ensure, in so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that the services provided by it are made available to the whole community in the State. References to the island of Ireland were an element of our discussions on committee stage. Can I take it that it is not possible for the Minister to seek to make programmes available to everyone in the island of Ireland? Why is it not possible to provide services throughout the island of Ireland?

Ms Clune

I welcome these amendments which follow discussions on Committee Stage. It is important to ensure coverage in all areas. This matter was raised on Committee Stage following submissions from TG4. It is accepted that 100% coverage is impossible but we aim to get 97% coverage. In many peripheral areas TG4 has only 60% coverage. Since our discussions on Committee Stage I have been given a document by TG4 which shows that in many Gaeltacht areas the station's signal is below reception level. It is a matter of concern that the Irish language channel cannot be received in many Gaeltacht areas. I do not know if 100% coverage can be achieved but we should aspire to that and such a provision should be included in this legislation.

A later amendment in my name proposes that TG4 be carried on MMDF. This would overcome the station's difficulties in trying to achieve as near universal coverage as possible.

Mr. Barrett

Can the Minister explain how a transmission company in which the State will be a 28% shareholding is obliged to provide a service to the whole community? The Government has taken a decision to own only 28% of this private company. If, in the future, an attempt is made to impose this provision in the courts, the company may say it can fulfil these provision but at a cost of several million pounds. Who will meet that cost?

We are laying up difficulties for ourselves in the future. The transmission company could be faced with a huge outlay in order to comply with this provision. Will RTE, which will own 28% of the company and which depends on licence holders for its revenue, be obliged to comply with this provision while maintaining the licence fee at the current level? How does the Minister envisage this transmission company operating on a day to day basis and facing its various costs?

Deputy O'Shea is quite right. We should be concerned that every corner of the country receives a proper service. It is all very well to say this when one has control of the situation through a public broadcasting company. However, we are selling 72% to private investors who are in the business to make a profit. They may comply with the State's request to do certain things only if their compliance is publicly funded. On the other hand the public service broadcasting company, which depends on licence fees for its income, will own 28% of the transmission company. I support public service broadcasting. Given international developments in the world of television, if we are to keep the public informed of what is happening in our own boundaries it is important that we retain a public service broadcasting servce. That service should be properly funded and should not be expected to operate as commercial broadcasters do. However, the Bill proposes that the public service broadcasting company becomes involved in a transmission company. We also propose that a service be provided to all corners of the State. If a future Minister enforces this section a court will be asked to interpret it. What will interpretation cost the taxpayer and RTE? How does the Minister envisage this provision working on a day to day basis?

Miss de Valera

We talked on Committee Stage about the necessity to ensure the best possible coverage for our indigenous stations and we referred, in particular, to TG4. The DTT service provides the best chance of getting the kind of universal coverage we wish to see. We also accepted that 100% coverage cannot be guaranteed, despite what one might wish.

In reply to Deputy O'Shea, the DTT platform operator in Northern Ireland will get licences from the British authorities. Deputy Barrett raised the question of the legality of these proposals. The proposals have been examined from every point of view, particularly with regard to their legal implications, as must be done with any legislation. The proposals being put through the House have been examined from every point of view, particularly with regard to the legal implications, as is the case with any good legislation. All of these proposals have been examined by the Attorney General's office.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.